Dan: All right, second pod drop 2024.

I'm looking forward to this one.

So we've got Tim Spiller who's,
Professor of Quantum Information

Technologies at the University of York.

Tim is also the Director of the York
Centre for Quantum Technologies and

also The director of the UK quantum
communications hub, and he's been

in that role for the last 10 years.

So I'm looking forward to this
discussion We're going to hear

a bit about the UK strategy for
quantum What do you reckon Steve?

Steve: Yeah, it's going to be a good one.

The big announcement from last month
or a couple months ago from UK and

big Investment from the government
so we'll find out from Tim more about

how that money is going to be used
and what's going to be different

from the previous investments

Dan: Okay, let's get into it

hello and welcome Tim.

Thank you very much for joining
us for this conversation today.

Let's start with a bit of background.

Obviously you've got quite an
illustrious career in and out of

academia and the enterprise space.

So if you could walk us through that'd
be a great start for our discussion.

Thank you.

Tim: Yeah, okay, quick potted history.

So, I did an undergraduate degree in
physics, and then I did a PhD actually

in theoretical particle physics.

So, if you like, I'm a
trained theoretical physicist.

But once I'd done particle physics I then
decided it was actually perhaps easier

to interact and find out about quantum
stuff that was being done experimentally,

if you worked more locally with people,
so, so I spent And, Nearly 10 years as an

academic doing theoretical research, but
closely aligned with experimental research

on superconducting quantum devices.

So this was rather before they were
called superconducting qubits, but

anyway I was one of the people who
worked on stuff like that before it

became working quantum technology.

And so I did that for about 10 years,
but following that I, I ended up

Getting a job at Hewlett Packard labs.

So I then spent almost
15 years in, in industry.

So I made the transition from academia
to industry and in HP labs, there was

scope for doing your own stuff at the
time, but also providing consultancy and

support in all manner of other things.

So it was quite an opportune time
because I moved to HP in 1995, which

was exactly the time that Shor's
and Grover's algorithms came out and

people were getting interested in
the potential for quantum computing

and other quantum technologies.

So, so in parallel with being a
kind of consultant within HP Labs.

I also then started building up a
a quantum information and quantum

technology activity within HP Labs.

And so I developed that and we
ended up with quite a significant

group at the end of it.

And in 2009, I moved back to.

So it I didn't have a plan.

It was never a concrete plan to say,
yes, I'm going to go and work in industry

for a time and then go back to academia.

The job at HP looked very
interesting and looked like I could.

I could contribute very well, and I didn't
know how long I was going to stay there.

And in the end, 15 years, I probably
would have guessed it might have

been less than that when I started.

But anyway I moved back
to academia in 2009.

And I actually joined the
University of Leeds to head up the

quantum information group there.

And this was at the time when the
UK was getting more interested in

quantum technologies and their future
potential, so I'm sure we'll come

back to that and talk more about
it in later on in this discussion.

But at the time the UK was starting
their interest in quantum technologies.

And so the next few years, there
were discussions and then in the end.

The UK launched their national program
in 2014, but there was quite a lot going

on before that in, in preparation for it.

And as it happened in 2014, I
also moved, which wasn't great

timing, but we managed it.

And so I moved from the University
of Leeds to the University of

York, and also at that time took
up a significant role in that.

in the UK National Quantum
Technologies Program.

So I, and I've been there since,
so I would have done 10 years

doing that later this year.

So, so that's a quick
overview of my whole career.

It's been a not an equal split,
but it's been a significant time in

industry alongside working in academia.

Dan: Tell me a bit more about
the quantum communications hub.

I guess that's what you mean about
your role, in the UK quantum domain

that you've been focused on it.

Is, has that been the
tenure that you've had?

And how would you summarize what's
been achieved over that time?

Tim: Yeah, well, let me add, add one
or two things in, into the equate.

So the, the UK, I think, careful
note of what was happening worldwide

in in quantum technologies and
the way things were developing.

So in 2013, it was decided that
the UK would have a UK national

quantum technologies program.

At the time, George Osborne was the
Chancellor in a coalition government.

And he managed to find whatever it was,
270 million pounds initially in his back

pocket that was put aside as new money.

So I think it's important to, to
understand that when the UK said

they wanted to start a quantum
technologies program, what they

didn't do was just go to the UK RI or
EPSRC funding at the time and just.

Ring fence part of what was
already there and say, right,

that's gonna be for quantum tech.

There was a genuine injection of
new money to set up a program.

And so what we were told was, this new
program is gonna focus on technology,

quantum technology development.

It's not it's not replacement
money or whatever for the research.

in quantum whatever that you've
been doing over the last 30 years.

That funding will continue through
EPSRC and so on, so you are still

expected to do basic quantum research
funded through the usual channels, but

on top of that the UK wants to set up
a program to turn That basic quantum

science into new quantum technologies.

And so that was the model behind
setting up the UK national program.

And so it was handed over to
EPSRC, certainly to run the.

academic part of the UK national
program, whereas Innovate UK

has run the industry part of it.

But in, in the academic part what it
was decided was to bring together all

the expertise we had in the UK, it
was sensible to establish very large

collaborations that were called hubs.

And so they, there was a, if you
like a competition set up to,

to decide what those would be.

And that was run and through 2014,
it was turned over pretty quickly.

And the national program started
at the end of 2014, with four

large collaborative hubs.

And so the way those
hubs were set up were.

I guess technology focused in
the sense that there was one

that was focused on computing.

There was one that was focused on imaging.

There was one that was focused on
sensing, and there was one that was

focused on communications, which
pretty much covers the whole spectrum

of possible technologies and all
the sectors that they could work in.

I lead the quantum communications
hub, so I ended up as director

of that particular strand.

And the program was initially
set up for five years.

And so all of us were appointed
to our hub director roles

and hub roles for five years.

And there was a I'll call it a renewal
of those hubs in the sense that we can

talk about what happens next later but
there was a relatively light touch renewal

of the hubs for a further five years.

And so towards the end of
this year, the four hubs.

In their specific areas.

So, so we can talk about the
quantum communications hub.

I'll come back to that in just a second.

But just to point out that at the
end of the 10 years later this year,

we'll have done 10 years worth of
R& D and technology development.

won't be a light touch refresh.

There are going to be significant changes.

So the government made, in the budget,
in the early part of 2023, a commitment

was made that there would be a
continuation of the UK national programme.

And just to give you a feel for numbers,
in the first 10 years of the National

Programme 2014 to 2024, the total budget,
which includes external investment,

money from industry, money from investors
into quantum companies in the UK, the

total budget for the National Programme
over 10 years was about 1 billion.

And the number that has been
discussed for the second 10 years

of the national program is 2.

5 billion.

So there is a major markup in,
in the investment that will go

into quantum technologies in the
future compared to what we've had.

over the first 10 years.

So there is going to be an expansion and
certainly from the academic led part of

the UK national program, there's going to
be a major refresh on the hub situation.

So there is.

EPSRC are currently running a competition.

We don't know what the outcomes will be
on the next phase of the national program.

So we know there will be new hubs
that will start 1st of December 2024.

We just don't know what they will be yet
because that competition is still ongoing.

But it's not a straightforward
light touch refresh.

It's a whole new competition for new hubs.

And I think that's sensible because
the Technologies are evolving, and

so just hanging on to the same four
technology sectors and keeping going

I think it's time for a refresh, so
it'll look good and I think it will be

very helpful to have to have a whole
new set of hubs that go forward into

phase three of the national program.

So, so that's the kind of whole history.

The quantum communications
hub is obviously something.

That was set up to focus on quantum
communications and because because

we were told you should be developing
technologies within the hub, you

shouldn't be just doing some more of
your basic research to underpin things.

We, we looked at the most
technologically advanced aspects in

quantum communications at that time.

And that was just.

quantum key distribution and
quantum random number generation.

I think those were the two most advanced
aspects with respect to technology

in the quantum communications arena.

So those are the things that we
have basically focused on for for

the first 10 years of the national
program in quantum communications.

I'm sure we're going to talk more about
what's in the future and where it's going.

But if you like, I can give a
bit of an overview of what we've

done in the first 10 years.

And, what we've achieved, what
we've, if you like, passed on.

And what's been challenging,
what's still to be done.

And then we can look, then we
look more towards the future.

Dan: Yeah, definitely.

Yeah, I'm very keen and excited to
go through those topics with you now.

First of all, you mentioned the budget.

Do you know roughly where that
puts us on a global scale?

I know that France is
increasing investment.

Obviously, there's a big
investment in China, the U.

S.

India, perhaps.

We're still in the top five, do you think?

Tim: Oh I'm pretty sure
we're in the top five.

I'm pretty sure the biggest spenders on
the world scale are China and the US and

I don't have the figures and the fig,
it's always hard to get the total figures

anyway, I think, including all aspects,
but I think it's fair to say that the

UK investment has been very good and
in terms of just Total size of spend.

It is up there.

It's not as big as what
has been invested in the U.

S.

or China, but obviously they're bigger
nations with bigger economies anyway.

So, you might expect
some level of proportion.

I think the one thing to say about
the UK program and it's been much

admired for this worldwide is
that it has been very coordinated.

So, the hubs have been big academic
led projects, but have also included

industry partners, and so they've been
coordinated within whichever sector it

is, so for me it's quantum communications.

We've coordinated all of the technology
R& D in quantum communications,

effectively across the UK, and Innovate
UK have been funding a whole sequence

of sets of projects that, if you like,
take the work of the hubs and push

it further towards commercialization.

And they've also coordinated
the way they've done that.

So they funded baskets of projects that
have pursued either quantum computing

or quantum communications or so on.

And so there has been significant
coordination, and I think

that has been much admired.

From elsewhere, and I think it's
also been the stimulus for some other

countries to set up national programs
that have actually followed on from ours.

So I think we've been seen as a, as
quite a role model, which, given some

of the UK history about exploiting.

Basic science we've done the
science and elsewhere in the world

has been the place to exploit it.

I think this time, this is an example
where the UK has actually done

rather well and we've got it right.

And I think we've been admired for that.

So overall, I, we're not the biggest
spenders in the world, but I think

we are, we can claim to be very well
coordinated in the UK national program.

And I think that's been really beneficial.

Dan: Yeah, it's almost as if the,
the number that is touted as the

investment is, if you looked at the
overall investment, including from.

prIvate sector as well, then it
would be perhaps a different story.

And it's the hubs that
enables that, I guess.

Tim: Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, it's always
true, I think, that the U.

S., for example invests more than we do.

So I was actually on a visit to the U.

S.

in November last year, and you go to
some of their national labs, and they

clearly have bigger budgets than we do.

But that doesn't mean that they're Way
ahead in terms of what they're producing

It means they can follow up on things
that we don't have the scope to cover

necessarily but as long as you focus
on the most important things, then

I think you can still compete with
people who've got bigger budgets.

And I do think from the U.

S.

side, they look across at us and wish
they had that level of coordination.

But I think it's, I think it's
much more difficult in a country

that's the size of the U.

S.

with different time zones and so on.

It's not so easy to collaborate
with someone else anywhere in the U.

S.

Whereas in the U.

K., it's pretty straightforward
to collaborate with.

any other group in any other university
or company anywhere in the UK.

So, so I think we, we do have a benefit
from being smaller in that sense.

It's easier to keep a
tighter collaboration when

you are a smaller country.

, so I think, you know, flippantly, the U.

S.

has more money, but we
have more coordination.

Steve: I wanted to ask about the evolution
of the, during those 10 year period

with, for example, the beginning, it
sounds like a lot of academic partners

and probably big industry companies
cooperating, but probably at the

beginning of those 10 years, there's
probably no quantum startups or small

companies That are looking to innovate
in the edge of the technology stack.

So I wonder how it evolved in terms
of like startups popping up and other

collaborators other than big industry
players and big academic institutions.

Was there an evolution at all?

Tim: Yes.

And I think we would
claim within the hub to.

Have contributed to the successes.

So I think it's fair to say that
when the national program started

in 2014, there weren't that
many quantum startups in the uk.

There were one or two, and there
were people also thinking about it.

There are now, pretty much
10 years on very many.

And I think that the UK is now deemed
to be quite a healthy place in which

to invest and to start up companies.

So, I mean, I, it's not the only
place in the world, obviously, I think

California still and Silicon Valley
still ranks very highly, but then.

So does Canada now, and there are
various places in Europe that I think

are also trying to stimulate startups.

But that, that has been a growth, and
I'm sure if you look at the growth

of startups worldwide, then in, in
the quantum area, there's been a

significant, Certainly when we started,
we had the big players in quantum

communications involved in our hub.

And, two of the big ones are clearly
BT, who are a service provider

and Toshiba who build stuff.

And, they've been involved all the
way through and their roles of.

Evolved and we can talk about
that in terms of where it's going

commercialization in a while, but
it's certainly the case that I think

the spectrum of industry partners
has evolved and I think innovate

have been very helpful there because.

The national program over the
10 year period has had a growing

fraction of its budget devoted
towards industry led projects.

So in the very beginning, because the
hubs hadn't done much in the first

year, there wasn't a huge incentive for
innovate to have a massive budget for

industry led projects at that point.

And so it was relatively small.

They did start competitions
fairly early on, but they,

the budgets were quite small.

Now the innovate budget I
think is comparable in spend

to that on the hubs and so on.

So it's grown significantly and innovate
have been good in the sense that some of

the industry led projects have effectively
been led by a startup that was really

just starting up, and so they've been
able to get going through Innovate UK

funded projects and kickstart if you like.

Their technology, whatever
technology it's been.

So I think, and that I think is part
of the coordination that, that has

been part of the UK national program.

So it's that kind of thing
that has been much admired from

from elsewhere in the world.

Because Innovate have in effect
been a tech transfer route for

stuff that's come out of the hub.

And at the same time,
they've facilitated startups.

Starting up from, close to zero to
actually ending up then pulling in major

investment from external investors.

So, so it's all worked rather well, and
a lot of it, I think, was by design.

So, so that's good to see when you.

You have a plan and 10 years on,
it's all progressing very well.

So, so if I go back to the quantum
communications hub, so as I say,

in the very beginning, the most
technologically advanced things

were quantum key distribution and
quantum random number generation.

And so, although we did some work.

And we're still doing some work on
what I would call next generations

of quantum communication.

So things that go beyond just basic QKD,
and we'll come back to that in due course.

Most of what we've done in the first
10 years has focused on QKD and QRNGs.

Now in the QKD well, now, ten years
on, what we're telling you is that

we are addressing all length scales.

So we're looking at QKD on short,
intermediate, and the longer term.

distances.

So I'll talk about the first two first.

So in, in the first five years
of the hub, our QKD focus

was on, on two things really.

It was very short range, free space QKD.

So, in the future you may
have a quantum transmitter.

in your phone and there may be a
quantum receiver in the wall and you may

exchange key over a short distance with
your employer or the government or the

health service or your bank or whatever.

So there's the potential for
You know, we've called it

consumer QKD in, in, in the past.

There's the potential for that very
short range, free space for individuals.

If you move up in distance, then the
obvious thing to do is to piggyback off

the fiber network that we already have.

And you can certainly do that.

You can send, even though the
quantum signals are obviously.

level in terms of
electromagnetic intensity.

You can send quantum electromagnetic
signals down ordinary optical

fibers and receive them 50
or even 100 kilometers away.

So you can run QKD over
conventional fiber networks.

And so in the first five years, we focused
on, on these two things, short range free

space and Intermediate around city and
between city distances using fiber and we

developed technologies in both of those
areas and pushed push things forward.

And, we can come back to, where
that's going commercialization wise.

But in addition to.

Those length scales, obviously, if
you want to go worldwide and you want

to get across large areas of ocean,
which, you can do conventional undersea

communications through fiber, but
undersea cables, apart from the short

ones, all have built in amplification.

I mean, that's the way they work.

You send optical comms signals
and they get amplified every

Uh, and that's how they can get
across the Atlantic or whatever.

You cannot send quantum signals
through those optical amplifiers.

They simply don't work.

If you amplify a quantum
signal, you basically trash it.

So, you can't use any runs of optical
fiber that have built in amplification

and you do need some sort of amplification
to get across large distances of fiber.

And so if you want to do, if you
want to do the very largest worldwide

distances, then the way to go.

Certainly for some forms of quantum
communication seems to be via satellites.

And so in the second five years of
the hub, we have been developing

technology that will go on a small
CubeSat that will hopefully be

launched, I think it, it's going to
end up being the beginning of 2025 now.

So, we've got an extension.

We've got a one year extension
on that bit of the current hub.

So we can run beyond the end
of this year for one more year.

And so we're hoping to launch a
small cubesat, which will have a.

Well, it'll have two quantum transmitters
on it, and we will be looking to

receive those quantum signals and
demonstrate QKD from a small satellite.

Which is like the size of a large shoebox
or a couple of shoeboxes stuck together.

We will be doing QKD from there to
a ground based quantum receiver.

And so that if you like, means we
will have covered QKD technologies

at all distance scales from the very
shortest ones to the very longest ones.

And clearly, Fiber sits in the middle.

Everything you want to do around a
country, you probably do in fiber,

but if you want very short range stuff
for consumers, they want the freedom

I think of having free space stuff
connecting to their handheld devices.

And if you want the very
longest distances, you've

got free space to and from.

satellites.

Let me just say one bit about QRNGs and
then I can mention some notable successes.

So with quantum random numbers are very
appealing because they give you the

promise that if they are genuinely quantum
random numbers, that obviously they will

be random, but also they will be unique.

in that if you have two separate quantum
random number generators, you can

prepare them identically, build them
as identically as you possibly can.

They will never produce the
same quantum random sequence.

And so you have a promise that your random
sequence is not only random, it's unique.

And for many applications you
want that uniqueness guaranteed

as well as just the randomness.

And so that appeal has always
been there because of the,

and this is built into nature.

This randomness and the uniqueness comes
from the very nature of quantum physics.

So it's not something you can get
around by any kind of hacking.

It's the way nature works.

So that's very nice.

In the first phase of the hub,
so that's 2014 to 19, we did

some work further developing
quantum random number generators.

And we kind of tech transferred
that, if you like, at that point.

So, This is where Innovate UK comes
in and if, as I mentioned, they're

a kind of tech transfer route.

So, Innovate UK then funded a very
substantial further developmental

project, which was led by the National
Physical Laboratory and contained

still expertise from our hub in
terms of academic expertise, but it

contained essentially every company
in the UK that is producing QRNGs.

And so NPL have led this project on
assuring quantum randomness, which

has run for the last few years.

So that's one example of, I would say,
a success of our phase one hub in that

we tech transferred quantum randomness,
and that's now at the assurance stage.

There will be more
interesting stuff to come.

On quantum randomness in the future, for
sure, because there will be nicer ways

of generating quantum randomness based
on entanglement and so on, which will

give you even better ways of giving the
assurance that it genuinely is quantum

randomness that you're providing.

So, so, you know, that is
all progressing very nicely.

If I go back to other successes that
I'd like to highlight that, that

the hub has achieved so far, then I
think I would point to the handheld

stuff has been developed to the point
now where we're putting that forward

for tech transfer, if you like.

So I think we've shown that in principle,
you can do QKD from something, which is

about the size of a credit card that could
clearly go in the form factor of a phone

as a transmitter, and it would use the
phone's computing power to do all of the

supporting control and data, whatever.

So, we've shown that works, and
that is now up for tech transfer.

In terms of what really has tech
transferred, I mentioned the QRNG stuff,

but I think in particular, now, it I
would say fiber based trusted node,

QKD, is now tech transferred, and it is
up to companies, and I've mentioned BT

and Toshiba already, and I'll mention a
couple of others shortly, but so after

we'd done our work, so we built a quantum
network, both within Bristol and within

Cambridge in phase one of the hub, and
we have connected those two together

by borrowing bits of the National
Dark Fibre Facility, which is an EPSRC

funded we've fiber network that runs.

Well, I mean, it's called
a national facility.

It's actually only really in the south
of England but, that's a national

facility in some people's eyes.

So, so we've utilized fiber
where we can get our hands on it.

And so we've had a A network
running in Bristol in Cambridge.

We've connected the two
together via London.

We've also established a link from
from the Cambridge network that

we established to British Telecom.

Their HQ industrial
park, R&D near Ipswich.

So we set all of that up and we've
shown that can work in collaboration,

obviously with our industry partners.

And now this has progressed
further to innovate, led, sorry,

innovate, industry led projects that
further develop that technology.

And now BT and Toshiba have.

A small trial commercial QKD network
that's operating in, in and around

London and they have trial customers.

Certainly EY was the starting
customer, but I think HSBC and

Amazon are involved as well now.

Dan: In fact, episode before this
one was a conversation with Andrew

Lord, so if anybody's listening to
this and hasn't listened to that as

well, then please go and do so to get
the perspective from BT on that trial.

Tim: Yeah.

I mean, so we were really
pleased when that happened.

A, because it shows that
progress has been made but it's,

it's a success story for us.

In the hub in that we can now say,
well, it's over to the industry

partners to fully commercialize that.

So in that sense, we regard fiber based
trusted node QKD both as a success

story for the hub, but also it's now
something that's tech transferred out.

The other thing I would say which I
feel is a significant success story for

our hub is is the support of startups.

So KETS is a startup that came
out of the University of Bristol

during phase one of the hub.

And in fact, some of the folk
who the lead people within

KETS were originally funded.

By the hub at the University of Bristol,
and they've now joined the company or in

fact are leaders in the company full time.

So, so KETS does chip based stuff that
can support QKD and QRNGs and other

forms of quantum communications stuff.

So basically they put optical stuff
down on chip, which is clearly the

way you've got to go if you want to
mass manufacture and bring costs down.

So, so that's one success story.

And we also had significant interaction
with Nu Quantum in Cambridge.

In the early days and we supported
people that then joined Nu Quantum and

so we've had a good working relationship
with them and I'm sure each of the

hubs will give you the same kind of
story that they will point to startups

that they've effectively nurtured.

all the way from the beginning through
to them being now genuine companies and

probably pulling in major investment
from outside as well as from innovate UK.

Dan: It's the next step in
the value chain, isn't it?

Like you said, it's by
design almost, right?

The hubs have been designed in that
way with the right links to industry.

Tim: Yeah.

that's right.

Steve: So in 2014 when you started, I
guess QKD was just getting into field

testing ability Probably with BB84
with like dampened signals using, yeah,

basic, basically the protocol that
was proposed in the original state.

I'm not sure if that's already a
fact, but what the question is, how

did you have to change the protocol
during the 10 years to make it work

over a hundred kilometers of fiber?

And was it still BB84?

Or did you go to a different
protocol to to make it, take

it from theory to engineer?

Tim: At the minute it, well, I
mean, there are many variants

and things that relate to.

To BB 84, but I for me, there are
three basic approaches to to QKD

and the two that are being used.

I would say now just about commercially
the main one is I'll call it single

photon, but then I'll immediately
contradict myself and say it's not.

really single photons.

So if people do BB84 from Alice to Bob,
in general what they send are very weak

coherent pulses that have on average
about one tenth of a photon in them.

So about every tenth pulse
you've got a single photon.

Very occasionally you might
have a couple and a lot of

the time the pulses are empty.

But people use those kinds of light,
quantum light signals are very Well,

relatively easy to produce, much
easier than genuine single photons.

So in the end, we'd like to think we'll
replace these weak pulses by single

photons from quantum dots or from
wherever, and we'll use those instead.

But at the minute, people use
weak pulses because you basically

just take a little laser diode
and filter it right, right down.

And in the end, you get single photon
or less pulses so, so that's what people

have been using in, in almost all, and
I think almost all of the commercial

QKD technology you can buy at the minute
is based on those weak pulses, and

then you have corresponding detectors
that can detect those, and people do

BB84 with other pulses thrown in to
confuse eavesdroppers Or whatever,

but basically the concept is still
what Ben and Broussard came up with.

Another approach is so called
continuous variable QKD, where you

send, again, weak coherent states,
but this time you deliberately use the

amplitude and phase of the coherent
state as your quantum variables.

And so you can send a selection of
coherent states encoding information

into the amplitude and phase.

And there are different ways to do
that, but then you can extract the

information at the other end with actually
different forms of detectors from those

that you use in the single photon.

CVQKD is still being developed.

We're hoping, I mean, it
certainly works through fiber.

Um, um, we've done demonstrations
of that and as have others in

many places around the world.

We're hoping to put a CV source as
well as a single photon type source

on our satellite so that we can
demonstrate both of these work through.

Free space.

So that's something for the future
that, I won't claim it's a success yet.

I will when the satellite
launches and it worked.

But that, so that's in, in the pipeline.

So at the minute, I would say most
things single photon or weak pulse QKD.

There's a bit of CV QKD going on.

In the end, people would like to
use entanglement in the future

and that is progressing and we've
certainly done some demonstrations

of that, as have other people.

But at the minute, the commercial
stuff you buy from Toshiba or Ketz

or ID Quantique or wherever is
genuine, generally just weak pulse.

QKD.

So you send weak pulses from one
end, let's say Alice, and Bob

receives them and measures, and then
they can distill a key from that.

So over the 10 years, we haven't
really changed those protocols.

We've put a bit more emphasis on
CV QKD as things have gone along,

But I think in terms of making the
technology work better, it's been about

in improving the clock rate, if you
like, at which you send the signals,

improving the detectors and so on.

So you can simply up the key rate.

Because there will always be loss in
fibers and you can't get over that if

you're going to use fiber that's already
in the ground, you know what the loss

is pretty much, so you have to suffer
that in which case, the faster you

can send things, the greater data rate
you get, so the higher the key rate.

You will have in the end and I mean
the thing is you suffer loss because

that simply hits your key, rate.

That's why rather than encoding your
information into the quantum signals

You use the quantum signals to establish
a key and then you can encrypt the

data That's really important with
those keys but you're not sending that

important data in quantum level signals
that you may then lose in the fiber

Dan: Tim, I was astounded to hear you
talk about consumer QKD and it sounds

like this is something which is coming
out of the second five year stint as the

director of the communications hub is.

And you said that it's almost
really for tech transfer.

Maybe if you could just give a
couple of minutes on what that

is and the challenges of that.

Because I imagine.

Obviously, optical alignment
is probably the biggest one, I

would think, and miniaturization.

Tim: Yeah, well, I think
those problems can be over.

I mean, for me now, we've pushed it
far enough that, that in principle

we've shown it can be done.

And actually the biggest
problem now is market pull.

Do people actually want this?

I mean, I, you can always plug a fiber
into your phone and download some key

that way but the idea really is that
you'd like to do it more efficiently

and without That potential intrusion
of plugging something into your device.

It's perfectly possible to do
pointing and tracking and coordination

between a small transmitter and a
receiver in the wall over a meter.

Because you've got the same problem
when you think about a satellite.

And a telescope over a
much greater distance.

So, the pointing and tracking
and synchronization can be done.

And you can exchange a modest amount
of key in a matter of seconds.

So, so that's okay.

But then the open question for me at
the minute is there a market for that?

Do people really want it or
does it need to sit around?

for a year or two until the
market decides what it wants.

I mean, at the minute, I think for a
couple of years now, you've been able

to buy a Samsung phone that contains
a quantum random number generator.

Has that sold like hotcakes?

Well, I think it's sold to some extent,
but again it's perhaps a bit of a gimmick

at the moment and the market pool is
not there to really commercialize that

but certainly Samsung have been offering
a QRNG built into one of their phones.

So at the minute, I don't
think there is the pull.

To say yes, we're going to take
the next step and do QKD from phone

to receiver in the wall, but the
technology is just about there.

I think it's going to need an innovate
UK industry led project or two.

To show that it's really commercializable
to move it up in technology readiness

level of a few more levels and turn
it into a proper working demonstrator.

But I think the capability is
there to do that, but I think

people need to know that there is.

market pull at the end of it in
order to take the plunge and do it.

So, so that's where
we've got to with that.

I think our work is done.

I don't think there's much more we can
do in terms of innovation at this point.

In the future, maybe you would use
entanglement or a genuine single

photon quantum dot source or
something in the handheld device.

But there's seem, you know,
I think there's got to be

enough of a pull to make that.

a viable R& D project in the first place.

So I think we're waiting now for the
market to show more interest in that.

Is there a real demand for quantum
security in terms of QKD built

into future handheld devices?

And if so, I think the technology will.

Will be there and it will be able to work.

Dan: Yeah, it'll be fascinating to
see what the market dynamics are for

that and the adoption likelihood.

Definitely interested to
see what happens in the UK.

We were going to fast forward a bit, but
I thought actually, There was a few papers

that I wanted to ask you about and rather
than going through them all, there's

one which was particularly interesting
for me around controlled swap tests

for determining quantum entanglement.

I wondered if you could uh, just give
us a, like the abstract for that.

Tim: Yeah, I mean, I mean, this is
interesting because it actually goes all

the way back to when I was at HP Labs.

In when I was at HP Labs.

There were three of us inside HP, myself
and Bill Monroe and Ray Beausoleil, and

an external collaborator Vim Van Dam,
who was a research fellow, and so we,

it was already known that If you've
got two copies of a quantum state and

you do this controlled swap test on
those two copies, you could work out

if those copies were identical or not.

So you can do a test to find out whether
the two quantum states are the same.

And that involved one control,
one extra control quantum bit.

that you use and in the end you
measure that control quantum bit

and that tells you stuff about the
two quantum states that you've got.

If those quantum states are multi
component, so they're multiple photons

or multiple qubits of some sort, then
if you do a different sort of control

swap test where you actually have one
control per component, in the states.

So if you've got, if you've got just
a bipartite state with two photons or

two qubits, you just need two controls.

But if it's three, you need three.

If you use that many controls, then
instead of finding out whether the

states are identical, you can find
out whether those two states have

any entanglement in them or not.

So you can develop a protocol where you
interact with your external control qubits

and you do some quantum gates and in the
end you measure your external control

bits and the information you get out of
those external things tells you whether

there's any entanglement in the situation.

So that is interesting because
entanglement is a resource, and I'm sure

we'll talk a bit about this in a minute.

And so it's nice to have a
quick test as to whether stuff

really is entangled or not.

So if it's just two, if it's just
two photons or whatever, you can

do a bell test and that'll tell you
whether you've got entanglement or not.

But if it's more than two, then the
tests for entanglement get more and more.

complicated and possibly
less efficient to do.

So anything you can do, which gives you
a test that might give a signature of

entanglement certainly when you go to
multiple qubits is rather interesting.

So inside HP, we came up with this idea,
but what we did was patented at the time.

And so it, patents go on public
record once they're granted.

So it was out there as information
but in fact, no one had really

published very much on it.

So, so much more recently, I had a project
student to begin with work on that.

And she came up with some nice results
and then actually she went off to do

a PhD with a collaborator of mine.

And so this paper on the controlled
swap test emerged from that

work and we published that.

But now there are quite a few papers
out there on the controlled swap test

for entanglement of related things.

So it's actually, it's a potentially
interesting way forward that

may even be, a useful test.

Because if you've got a big quantum state
You can always do tomography on it to

find out exactly what that state is, but
tomography is very inefficient in that

if you've got many quantum bits in your,
so if you've got a large quantum computer

state and you want to check, has it got
all the entanglements in that I think it

has, checking that it's got all of that
by tomography is incredibly inefficient.

So any useful information you can get.

from more efficient ways of looking
at quantum states is really very handy

because in the end you don't want to
do full tomography unless you have to.

So, the control swap test is interesting
from a kind of fundamental view

but it also actually might be quite
interesting in the end as a practical

test in certain quantum situations.

Steve: I know that the control swap
test is important, especially in

quantum machine learning, where they
use it as a way to devise a distance

metric so you can load classical data
and you can compute a distance between

the two vectors and you can use it for
distinguishability and things like that.

Tim: That's right, I mean it's kind of
a little primitive in the same way that

I suppose teleportation or something is
in that it's a little tool that I think

has applications in various places.

And so I think it's quite cute that
it can be in, in this guise used as

an entanglement test, but I agree
it can be used in other places

in quantum information as well

Dan: Question about, the quality
of the entanglement, is it affected

by performing these control swap?

Gates, is it likely that you
could lose some of the fidelity or

the quality of the entanglement?

Tim: No I, well, in the ideal case I
think it's fine because you don't measure

your, the thing is you don't tinker with
your entangled states other than getting

them to interact with the control.

You end up measuring the control
qubits and so they will tell

you about about the rest of it.

If things are not perfect and you end
up with a bit of residual entanglement

between your control stuff and the
states of interest, then when you

measure the control qubits, you
will damage the the entangled state.

So you won't be able to then
pass it on in the same way.

But you can also, I mean, it's, but
when you do a bell test you basically

completely trash that entangled pair.

So when you do a Bell test, you take
what you assume is a nice random sample

of many entangled pairs that are coming
along, and maybe you want to choose

your random sample with a QRNG to make
sure you pick a genuinely random sample.

But you take that random
sample, , and you analyze that.

And, those samples will have been
destroyed in the analysis process,

but you assume that the ones that you
didn't select for analysis are, if it's

a faithful sample, will be going along
as perfectly entangled pairs to be used.

So, normally, It's this
kind of sampling thing.

Now, in principle, with the controlled
swap test, if you've got ideal states

and so on, you can maybe get away
with actually using the stuff that

you've tested which is even better.

But in reality, there will always be
some level of decoherence, so I think

you have to do proper analysis to see
whether you should be using the damaged

ones, or just using the ones that you
haven't selected as your test sample.

Dan: Yeah, got it, okay.

Steve: So we were talking
about future directions for the

quantum initiatives in the UK.

I'd like to hear your perspectives
of what technologies could emerge.

And specifically one that I'm
interested in is in distributed quantum

computing and maybe some thoughts
you have about, is that possible?

Is that the future of quantum computing?

hoW is, how far away are we?

Tim: Ah!

Well, quite a lot of questions there,
so Let me say the last one first.

I still think we're quite a way
away from proper substantial

distributed quantum computing.

I think, I mean, as I said, there is a
competition open for the next phase hubs

that will start at the end of this year.

I think EPSRC have already indicated
the areas that they expect to be funding

hubs in and I think it's pretty clear
that they will be funding hubs that will

support various forms of sensing and
imaging and continuing in that direction.

But with relation to your question, I
think they're going to be supporting

hubs that continue to work on quantum
computing and continue to work

on the next generation of quantum
communications, which I think is

probably better called quantum
networking, entanglement distribution.

So I think within the national
program, there's an expectation

that they will be funding.

Things in those areas, and I think
that's Probably clear because

they also are establishing, well,
I mean, it exists as an entity.

I don't think the building is open yet,
but we have a National Quantum Computing

Centre that's going to live on the
Harwell campus just south of Oxford.

And so there, there will actually
be a building that includes.

Various forms of quantum computing
technology, but also I clearly is

going to interact with other things
that are going on elsewhere in the

UK and in the national program.

So I think it's I can't imagine that
the next phase, so, we don't know

what hubs are going to be funded yet
exactly, but I'm pretty sure there

are going to be hubs funded that
will be pursuing further aspects of

quantum computing and also entanglement
distribution and quantum networking.

And if you take those two things and
put them together, then clearly you have

the capability of connecting quantum
computers that are physically separate

from each other, but also you have the
ability to enable remote access via an

entanglement channel or teleportation
channel, whatever you want to call

it to a large quantum computer that's
located somewhere else in the country.

So I think those two things, Will be
enabled, but I don't think they're going

to happen within the first couple of years
of the next phase of the national program.

I think that's more a target goal for we
will have demonstrated the next aspects of

towards this by the end of the five years.

I think that's a more realistic target.

So I don't think, I mean, it's known
already which hubs are under evaluation.

So that's on the EPSRC website.

And I don't think anyone has claimed that
they're going to connect together two

large quantum computers over distance
within the UK in the next five years.

I think that would be too ambitious.

I think we've got to demonstrate the
entanglement distribution can be done

robustly and stored for some long enough
period of time that you can utilize it

or you can error correct it or whatever.

So I think those are the kind of goals
That are going to be addressed in the

next five years and given that the
program is looking like it's going to

be invested in for longer than five
years, I think people are already

talking about goals in 10 years time.

And I think you're looking more 10
years timescale for the genuine blind

quantum computing or distributed
quantum computing or whatever.

But I think there's going to be a
strong expectation of entanglement

distribution and utilization in
some way in the next five years.

Dan: And that's a really good segue
onto that because it's, as you just

described there, like a building
block of distributed computing,

but also remote sensing, I believe.

So maybe let's focus a bit on
entanglement distribution and in

the reading I've done, it feels
like they're, it's about sending the

entangled photons over the network and
then ultimately storing them somehow.

And there are many different techniques
in there, both in the storage and

also the distribution of them.

Of course, using a point to point
link is a very basic approach.

Just like you would in a
point to point QKD connection.

You're exchanging the photons
using pulses of light.

But when you come to a network
which isn't point to point, all of

a sudden you open a can of worms.

In traditional networking, you need
to start thinking about protocols.

You need to think about maybe an
additional layer of addressing.

Let's dive into that for a little bit.

Where are we with
entanglement distribution?

What's your viewpoint on I guess the
top use cases that will be tested in

the next five years or focused on,
and what other building blocks are

there within, it's a system, isn't it?

Entanglement distribution is a system
of things happening across a network.

It's the way I understand it.

Tim: Yeah, I mean, at the moment,
I think what's been done is

really just point to point.

I mean, you can do it in, you can do
it involving multiple points though.

So certainly within the
hub, even in phase two in.

in our hub partner, the
University of Bristol.

They have used a very bright entangled
pair source, which actually produces

pairs At different frequencies or
wavelengths and you can split those off

and so rather than just Alice and Bob,
you can send certain pairs between Alice

and Bob and others between Charlie and
Dave and so on and so I think they've

got up to distributing entanglement
between 16 different users now so you

can distribute it in a point to point
way, using multiple points, not just two.

So that's quite nice, which means you've
got the facility for networking together

more than just two people that way.

I should also mention that you can
do more than bipartite entanglement.

So you can have, you can entangle
together more than just two photons.

And you can distribute that
entanglement to multiple users as well.

And that's also been demonstrated
at Heriot Watt University.

So, so the building blocks of
distributing pairwise entanglement

to multiple users or multiparty
entanglement are just about there.

But at the minute, there's not been
really any significant storage involved

in those experiments and I agree with
you there are different ways if you're

going to distribute entanglement over
longer distances then there are protocols

where you store it and purify it or
there are protocols where you if you

like use an error correcting code and
instead qubit The one entangled qubit

is encoded into multiple qubits, and
then it's error protected in some way.

So, you can either send things using
error correction codes, or you can

store them and then purify them.

Either way, you need some modest
quantum processing to do that.

And I would say, at the minute,
we're not really there with that.

People have done some basic
experiments in various places in

the world that show some of that.

in principle will work, but I
don't think, I don't think you can

identify yet and say that this is
the technology that you're going to

use for the memory or the processing.

I think there are various kinds.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that if
you're going to send entanglement over

distance, you're going to be using light.

You're going to be using photons.

It's hard to see what else you can
use over significant distances.

But so, so I think that's the one thing
people agree on that you'll use light,

and it might be free space to satellites
or from satellites, and it might be

through fiber on terrestrial based stuff.

But what will be used for the memory and
what will be used for the processing, I

think, is still very much up for grabs.

And in the end, it may well be.

I mean, if you're free space, you can
use frequencies other than telecom.

wavelengths.

If you're going to be sending down
fiber, you almost certainly want to use

telecom wavelengths in which, if you
want to go over long distance, in which

case the telecom wavelength may force on
you whatever you need to use for memory

and processing, or else you have to
do frequency conversion to some other.

Frequency and then process and store at
that and then convert back So there are

options and people have shown frequency
conversion can work, but I don't think

yet at the fidelities and Efficiencies
they would really like so it you know

what you use for the processing and
memory depends on The frequency of

light that's got to come in and come
out again, and, that may be telecom, it

may be other wavelengths, and, we talked
about distributed quantum computing.

If it's two quantum computers in
different fridges in the same lab.

You can probably get away without
having to convert to telecom wavelengths

to communicate over that distance.

So you can send whatever frequency
photons interact with these qubits

that are in the quantum processors.

If you want to go over a longer distance,
you've probably got a frequency convert.

So distributed quantum computing,
I think, means different

things to different people.

It's whether it's distributed
over something the size of a data

center somewhere, or whether it's
distributed on a country scale.

And if it's the latter, almost
certainly you're going to have to

use telecom wavelength entanglement
to get from one to the other.

If it's just across a room or a
data center, then probably you can

get away without having to convert.

So I think at the minute, there are
all sorts of open questions about what

memories and what processes to use.

And I think the phase three
investigations in whatever hubs are

going to be funded in the UK will
investigate that and tell us a lot.

About what are the best candidates and,
where that should be going, but but I

don't think we have the answers already
and we just know which ones to develop.

So I think there has to be a
level of investigation in the next

phase hubs, which is probably why
they, I think they may be called

research hubs for that very reason.

I think they've got to, they've got
to stay relatively low TRL because

I think they're open questions down
there that need to be answered.

Okay.

before you can decide what it is you
want to push towards commercialization.

Dan: can I just check TRL?

It sounds like an acronym.

I haven't heard.

Tim: Technology readiness level, sorry.

Dan: Ah, it sounds like there's a
framework for that of some kind.

Tim: Yeah, Yeah, you can google
it and there's a whole set.

It basically runs from 1 up to 8,
9 but 0 is basically fundamental

research and anything above that
is going towards technology that's

ready for commercialization.

Dan: So one thing that came to mind
in hearing you talk through that was,

of course, in my research, it seems
that memory is like maybe one of the

furthest away kind of technologies, and
needs a lot of research for any kind of

memories, which are going to be usable
in, in the real world, in which case

are there use cases, which can leverage.

Distributed entanglement in real
time without the need for Memories.

And in that case, what's the, what
complexities are there at play?

I guess timing is the biggest one, but

Tim: yeah, I mean you're going to need
Accurate timing over, if you're doing

stuff over distance, you've always got
to have accurate timing supporting it

because if entanglement is being shared
over distance, you've got to identify

the right bits of each entangled pair.

So normally you can do that
through timing information.

So, so I think undoubtedly you're
going to need you're going to

need very good distributed timing.

And I think.

There are activities in the UK
to push that Not just for the

purposes of wanting GPS resilience.

I think it's very good to
have accurate time distributed

in other ways besides GPS.

So certainly there's
activity to support that.

So if we take that as red, if we assume
there is accurate timing information,

then I think that the things that
spring to mind that you could do

without necessarily having to store
entanglement for a significant period.

I think, well, certainly QKD,
if you're going to distribute

entanglement over distance, you
can do, if I say it flippantly,

nicer QKD based on entanglement.

So you can, if you can certify
you've got entanglement over distance

with a Bell test, you can then use.

That entanglement to establish shared
keys over distance and essentially

you measure the entangled photons
immediately when they arrive so you

don't necessarily need to store them
unless you want to go multiple hops.

If you want to go multiple hops,
then you need something which

involves storage or repeater type.

Technology in the middle in order
to be able to enable multiple hops.

But if you're only going to
go over one hop, you can use

that entanglement essentially
instantly to establish shared keys.

The other thing you might be able to do, I
mean, you mentioned sensors over distance.

So I think there are certain.

quantum advantages that can be achieved.

If you have two separate quantum sensors
separated over a significant distance,

you can get a quantum advantage by
connecting those two sensors together in a

quantum way, rather than just having them
communicate with each other classically,

so they measure their information.

So if it's light coming from a star or
you're trying to sense gravitational

waves or some other field or something,
if you measure locally and then just

compare your results with classical
communication, you can get an

advantage over that, I think if you can
communicate from one sensor to the other

effectively with an entangled channel.

So.

You may be able to utilize entanglement
in those kinds of situations by also

making your measurements over distance
and effectively teleporting one thing

to the other place without having
to store for significant periods.

It may be also remote access to a
quantum computer where someone is

inputting whatever it is they want
to solve over a a quantum channel

rather than a classical channel.

Maybe you can essentially use the
entanglement To input your stuff

and perhaps get your results back
without having to store for a long

period of time, but within if you've
got two large quantum computers and

you want them to talk to each other
over distance, I would expect you've

probably got to involve some kind of
memory and buffering and things there.

It would be hard to see how
you could do everything.

instantly for that, because running
a quantum algorithm in a distributed

way, I mean, the algorithm usually
has things that have to be done in

some kind of ordering, in which case
you can't necessarily do some bits

in advance, or even if you do, you've
still got to store the results.

So I think memory would be more
important in that distributed quantum

computing sense but certainly just.

Key distribution or remote or enhanced
sensing, I think you would be able

to get away with without memory.

Because I would agree with you at
the minute, I think memory is in need

of significant further development.

And I would certainly expect that
phase three of the UK national

program will have some focus on the
next stages of memory development at

various frequencies or wavelengths.

Steve: thing that comes to
mind is we've already mentioned

that is the protocol stack.

So even if we have the capability
of storing entanglement for long

periods of time, there's a whole.

missing component, I think the
software what do you think about that?

Is that easier to do than the hardware?

The hardware is easier than the software
because of course the software is

probably easier because it's classical,
but it takes coordination and standards

and that's also time consuming.

Maybe the hardware takes 10 years,
but standardizing takes 10 years too.

Tim: Yeah I mean, I think at the
minute, standardization, I mean, there

has been a lot of work just in the QKD
arena on standards over many years.

I mean, it was kind of
started by ETSI, I would say.

Over 10 years ago now and certainly other
standards bodies worldwide have now picked

up and there are multiple standards bodies
almost competing with each other in the

QKD arena for putting in place standards.

I think other quantum technologies
are behind on that and fair enough

because the technologies of are less
developed commercially and so on.

But I think there is now competition,
which I hope doesn't end up

turning into unhealthy competition
in various standards bodies to

consider standards now for other.

technologies like computing and so on.

I think there are arguments that some
of that may be a bit premature, but

people always like to get their oar in
first with standards if they can, so

that those standards are adopted and it
might give them commercial advantage.

I agree.

Standards are a lot of
work and I think there are.

There are some countries that are
more coordinated than the UK in

their attendance of standards bodies.

So we might send along one
person and they send along 10.

And so I think, I mean, it's a difficult
one because in the UK, academics don't

really do much standards work because
so we'll have I give advice to, to to

various standards, body discussions when
I'm asked to, but I don't do any work

writing standards because as an academic,
I don't think that is something that's

regarded as part of your job description.

And we've got 10 other things to do.

So there's always a question
of who's gonna make the effort.

So in the uk.

We have people at the National Physical
Laboratory who do an awful lot of hard

work on standards, and that's good.

And you get people in industry
who will work on standards if they

think that's relevant to their
company progressing commercially.

So, whereas I think elsewhere in the
world, there's perhaps more investment

of government effort actually funding
people specifically to do standards work.

So that's probably something
we need to look at.

in the UK.

I think we do attend and contribute
to standards discussions but

maybe we need to do that with a
bit more weight in the future.

If it looks like quantum standards are
going to get driven from elsewhere, then

we may well have we may well have to
make more effort to make sure that, UK

technology and industry contributions
get the appropriate representation that,

that they need on standards bodies.

Steve: Yeah, it makes sense.

Dan: Thanks, Tim.

This is fascinating.

Thank you for sharing all of this with us.

I'd like to ask you about next steps.

Next steps for you and next
steps for the communications hub.

I mean you've already mentioned that
there's research centres as perhaps

the phase three, next phase anything
else you'd like to add to that?

And yeah, a bit about your next
steps and perhaps the University of

York as well, if there's anything
you want to comment on there.

Tim: Yeah no, I'm happy to.

To comment.

So, I mean, it's it's clear
that there will be new hubs that

start at the end of this year.

I think it will be well, both very
surprising to me, but also very

disappointing if there isn't one
that is going to do a significant

amount of work on quantum networking.

So I fully expect that to that to carry
forward I mentioned EPSRC have indicated

they expect quantum computing networking
and so on to carry on in phase three.

So I think there's a strong expectation
that will happen and I certainly

expect the University of York to be
Significantly involved in next phase

hub or hubs that are working in that
area I'm not going to be leading a

hub You know, that's my decision.

I think ten years is It's a good,
very good innings and stint.

And I think it's good to have a
turnover of people after a while.

And in any case, I'm effectively
getting to retirement age now.

So it's my intention in phase three
to be more involved in advisory.

roles.

So I still intend to do some research
but I am not going to be leading a

hub because I think we need people
we need people with new ideas and,

who can pick up leadership challenge.

I don't think people should be
leading things into their seventies.

So, so it's not my intention to
lead a hub for another five years.

And I've already made that.

But I fully expect the work that's
been done for the last 10 years in

the quantum communications hub to,
to be transferring significantly

into phase three and continuing.

So, so it won't be me that's leading
it, but I expect most of the most of

the activities will continue through.

Aside from those that are tech
transferring out, I think the

other ones will be picked up
and transfer into phase three.

And I certainly intend to be
giving, advisory input and so on,

but I'm not going to be leading it.

Dan: Yes.

Well done.

You're right.

A good innings.

sErious impact to UK academia around
quantum communications and also a

key part of the value chain down to
commercialization, as you mentioned.

Props for that.

Yeah, any further comments?

I guess I'd like to try and wrap up now.

We're at a good stage to do that.

Tim: Yeah, no, the time went
surprisingly quickly, so, so, no I

mean, I think in conclusion I'd just
like to see that the UK National

Programme continues to prosper.

I mean, I think it, it, as I said, it
has been much admired worldwide, I think,

in the first 10 years, and rightly so.

Because I think we've done a lot of
things right, and I hope we learn

from the things that we haven't
done right or could do better.

And so I do hope that the UK National
Programme goes from strength to strength.

The only other thing I'd mention,
which I think is a worldwide

problem in it, that we all need
to address is skills and training.

If we're going to have an expanding
new industry, and this is just true

for [AI-based] Things as it is for
quantum as it is for whatever you've

got to put in place sufficient
skills and training and bring through

people who will be able to support an
expanded in our case, quantum industry.

And that is something that I know.

UK government is conscious of as well.

And so at the same time as doing
the new R& D and developing the

technologies and services and so on,
we've got to skill and train sufficient

people that they will be able to
fill all the jobs that get created.

So, so that's one thing to watch, I
think, and it's certainly written into

the national program, but the intent
to solve that problem and actually

solving it are two different things,
and it's not just a matter of throwing

money at it, because you have to
find the people, which probably means

bringing them through from schools into
universities and changing all of that.

I think in a lot of high tech areas,
if we want to, if we want to be a high

tech nation in many years time, then
I think we've got to make sure that

we get all of the education in place
so that we pull people through and

train them right the way through so
they can then fill these positions.

So, that's something to watch, I think,

Dan: Yeah it's a cultural
shift as well, right?

When it comes to STEM
through all ages, as you say.

Because you need to spark the
interest early on for sure.

Tim: yeah.

agreed.

And so, you know, we try to do that.

We do have outreach.

We try to enthuse people
when they're young.

And I very much admire the people who
go out into the media and do this on a

regular basis, because I think that's
essential because we do have to do that.

Otherwise we'll have the technology,
but then I still think it'll get

exploited more elsewhere in the world.

Dan: Let me wrap up then.

Thank you very much, Tim.

Appreciate it.

Very nice speaking to you.

Goodbye for now.

Tim: Great.

Thanks very much.

Steve: Thanks

Dan: I'd like to take this moment to
thank you for listening to the podcast.

Quantum networking is such a broad domain
especially considering the breadth of

quantum physics and quantum computing all
as an undercurrent easily to get sucked

into So much is still in the research
realm which can make it really tough for

a curious IT guy to know where to start.

So hit subscribe or follow me on your
podcast platform and I'll do my best

to bring you more prevalent topics
in the world of quantum networking.

Spread the word.

It would really help us out.