←back to thread

320 points ingve | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
ABS ◴[] No.43112124[source]
money quote:

  "if Microsoft’s claim stands, then topological qubits have finally reached some sort of parity with where more traditional qubits were 20-30 years ago. I.e., the non-topological approaches like superconducting, trapped-ion, and neutral-atom have an absolutely massive head start: there, Google, IBM, Quantinuum, QuEra, and other companies now routinely do experiments with dozens or even hundreds of entangled qubits, and thousands of two-qubit gates. Topological qubits can win if, and only if, they turn out to be so much more reliable that they leapfrog the earlier approaches—sort of like the transistor did to the vacuum tube and electromechanical relay. Whether that will happen is still an open question, to put it extremely mildly."
replies(3): >>43112572 #>>43113006 #>>43113014 #
nprateem ◴[] No.43113014[source]
Yeah I mean that's exactly what MS are talking about, only requiring 1/20 of the checksum qubits or something.

https://www.ft.com/content/a60f44f5-81ca-4e66-8193-64c956b09...

replies(1): >>43113092 #
ABS ◴[] No.43113092[source]
what Microsoft claim in their marketing copy reported by the FT - for the average reader - and what a third-party, well-known expert in the field thinks... are on very different levels AFAIC

Microsoft is saying: we did it!

Everyone else is saying: prove it!

replies(1): >>43116842 #
nprateem ◴[] No.43116842[source]
Yes, that's why we read decent journalism that includes the opinions of experts. MS are still saying production use is pretty far off.
replies(1): >>43117214 #
1. ABS ◴[] No.43117214[source]
except we don't need opinions, we need proof and that is what we are lacking.

The only expert in the FT article is Dr. Sankar Das Sarma who (from Wikipedia)

  "In collaboration with Chetan Nayak and Michael Freedman of Microsoft Research, Das Sarma introduced the ν = 5 / 2 topological qubit in 2005"
So you might understand why this FT article is not adding anything to the discussion, which does not discuss the theory but rather MS's claim of an actual breakthrough.

They show a chip, we'd like proof of what the chip actually does