Will Quantum Computing Scale to Next-Gen CPUs?

1. The Critical Barrier: Why Performance Without Auditability is Not Enough

"Can quantum computers truly serve as the general-purpose CPUs for our future social infrastructure?"

While the world remains fixated on the promise of exponential speed, a fundamental question is often marginalized: Can these systems satisfy the rigorous audit requirements necessary for critical infrastructure?

The debate is not merely about "speed" or "qubits." It is about Operational Accountability.

From autonomous mobility and algorithmic finance to military AI, the computational foundations of tomorrow manage "lives" and "assets." These domains demand Auditability—the capacity to mathematically reconstruct "what happened" in the aftermath of a failure. GhostDrift Research Institute’s latest paper (v3) demonstrates that the requirements for high-stakes social implementation and the inherent physical properties of quantum mechanics represent parallel trajectories that, by definition, do not converge.

【The Structural Imperative: Why Accountability is a Non-Negotiable Condition】

The demand for accountability in next-generation CPUs is not an ethical preference; it is a structural prerequisite for operational continuity. "A computational foundation that lacks deterministic accountability will inevitably face systemic paralysis as social infrastructure."

For any platform to function as infrastructure, it must be "re-verifiable" post-accident. If a third party cannot isolate the cause of failure or the boundary of responsibility, the resulting legal and organizational deadlock forces a shutdown. This re-verifiability cannot be deferred to the ever-shifting application layer; it must be anchored in the hardware—the CPU itself.

This structural reality is carved into the history of high-stakes computing:

• Therac-25 (1985–1987): The "black box" nature of its software made it nearly impossible to externally verify the exact sequence of internal states leading to fatal overdoses. Without post-hoc-free responsibility decomposition, cause identification stalled, leading to total operational suspension and severe legal repercussions. [web: Columbia University CS]

• Boeing 737 MAX (2018–2019): The collision of design, certification, and automated control logic created a responsibility boundary that was nearly impossible to untangle post-crash. This verification uncertainty led to a global grounding—an "operational sudden death"—necessitating a complete re-evaluation of the systems' integrity. [web: Wikipedia][web: bea.aero]

• Tesla Autopilot (2016–2025): Modern investigative bodies emphasize that telemetry precision is the single most important factor in post-accident evaluation. [web: static.nhtsa.gov] It serves as a stark reminder that "computational output" is irrelevant if the "decision process" remains unverifiable.

For a next-gen CPU, the ability to survive an accident through post-hoc-free re-verifiability is as critical a metric as clock speed. Without it, the system cannot be deployed at scale.

2. The "CPU Mandate": Why Quantum Faces a Fundamental Challenge

We have introduced the ARCPU (Audit-Ready CPU) standard. This framework formalizes the minimum requirements for a processor to support the weight of critical social responsibility.

In an advanced audit scenario, the system is interrogated: "At the moment of failure, given these internal states and I/O, what exactly occurred? Can you present objective, immutable evidence?" A system failing to meet this standard may still function as an exceptional "accelerator" for specific tasks, but it remains ill-suited for the role of a "CPU" that anchors the trust of a society.

The ARCPU standard rests on three pillars:

1. Non-invasiveness: Capturing audit logs must not alter the computational trajectory of the system.

2. Minimax Boundary Determination: The ability to uniquely and accurately isolate responsibility boundaries under worst-case scenarios.

3. Strong Replayability: The capacity to preserve and reproduce internal states for third-party verification.

While these are standard expectations for classical architectures, applying them to quantum systems triggers a fundamental collision with the laws of physics.

3. Physical Constraints: The Inevitable Tradeoff

In our paper, utilizing the Diamond Norm ($\|\cdot\|_\diamond$), the Helstrom Bound, and the No-Broadcasting Theorem, we establish a critical boundary condition:

"It is information-theoretically impossible to construct a quantum system that strictly and simultaneously satisfies the three pillars of ARCPU."

Quantum mechanics dictates that "observation alters the observed." Capturing logs non-invasively limits the information gain, while attempting to perfectly clone and preserve states is forbidden by the No-Cloning Theorem.

Furthermore, Theorem 3.4 establishes a decisive tradeoff regarding responsibility boundaries:

$$\Delta(\rho,\sigma) + 2\varepsilon \ge 1-2\delta$$

• $\varepsilon$ (Epsilon): The allowable "invasion" (disturbance) caused by audit logging.

• $\delta$ (Delta): The allowable "error rate" in responsibility determination.

• $\Delta(\rho,\sigma)$: The degree of "distinguishability" between conflicting states of responsibility.

This inequality reveals that "increasing the rigor of accountability inherently disturbs the system's stability, while prioritizing stability leaves an unavoidable residue of uncertainty." This tradeoff is not a temporary technical hurdle; it is a physical boundary that challenges the deployment of quantum systems in fields requiring post-hoc-free auditing.

4. Redefining Territory: Moving Beyond the "CPU" Paradigm

This conclusion is not a dismissal of quantum potential. Rather, it serves as a validation of its true purpose. The staggering power of quantum computation is best utilized in domains where overwhelming performance takes precedence over perfect post-hoc accountability.

We must move beyond the narrow expectation that quantum is simply a "faster version of a classical CPU." To integrate quantum systems into society, we must formalize new operational strategies:

• Redefining Non-invasiveness: Developing algorithms that are robust to the microscopic disturbances of continuous auditing.

• Statistical Verification: Shifting from deterministic replayability to verification models based on statistical consistency.

• Accepting the "Ghost Drift": Proactively incorporating the existence of mathematically indeterminate responsibility regions into risk management models.

This is not "settling" for less; it is the first step toward designing the next generation of infrastructure specifically for quantum characteristics.

5. Conclusion: Quantum Transcending the Classical CPU

Quantum computing should not be forced into the legacy role of a "next-gen CPU." It is something far more disruptive. It is not a replacement for classical foundations that rely on post-hoc auditing; it is an entirely new class of "Ultra-High-Speed Computational Accelerators."

The "void in determination" that inevitably arises when audit specifications are fixed within a quantum system is what we term "Ghost Drift."

This is an essential property rooted in the nature of reality. As we embrace the speed of quantum, we must also embrace the re-design of "Accountability." This paper is a Boundary Declaration Document—a call to re-architect the relationship between computation and responsibility for a new era.

▶Access the Full Mathematical Proof Here: Mathematical Proof of Quantum Impossibility in Conditionally Auditable CPUs Note: This research does not suggest that quantum is without merit. It establishes that quantum is physically ill-suited for the legacy CPU paradigm that demands strict "post-hoc-free auditing." By recognizing these constraints, we can finally begin to define the true territories where quantum will flourish.

What Is the Quantum Practicality Verification Lab?

The Quantum Practicality Verification Lab is an independent verification project that evaluates quantum technologies not as research achievements, but through the lens of operational requirements.

We provide a rigorous framework that pulls quantum-related claims away from hopeful speculation and grounds them in explicit, testable requirements.Our role is neither to glorify quantum technology nor to dismiss it reflexively. Instead, we assess the presented evidence and draw a clear, disciplined line between what can be responsibly discussed as practical (PASS) and what fails to meet the required conditions (FAIL).

All evaluations are based strictly on disclosed data, reproducibility, and integration constraints—never on future expectations or narratives.

For an overview of our mission, methodology, and verification philosophy, please refer to the official project page below:

Quantum Practicality Verification Lab — Official Project Page

Representative Articles

• Why Does Quantum Computing Face an Ongoing Dispute Over “Utility”? — A Mathematical Audit Beyond Demo-Centric Hype

• Does Quantum Computing Increase Success Rates in Drug Discovery? — A Mathematical Audit of the “Score Improvement = Success” Assumption

• What Can Quantum Computers Truly Do? — Determining Practicality via Probability Distribution Generation

• Will Quantum Computing Scale to Next-Generation CPUs? — Rethinking Infrastructure Through Audit Specifications