Microsoft Quantum Computing 'Breakthrough' Faces Fresh Challenge 20
An anonymous reader shares a report: A physicist has cast doubt on a test that underlies a high-profile claim by Microsoft to have created the first 'topological qubits', a long-sought goal of the company's quantum computing effort. The critique comes amid mounting speculation about the validity of Microsoft's claim.
Microsoft announced the breakthrough, which could lead to a quantum computer more resistant to information loss than with other approaches, on 19 February. Without a peer-reviewed paper backing up the claim, some researchers were sceptical. An accompanying paper in Nature described a method to measure the read-out from future topological qubits, but did not offer proof of their existence.
In the latest critique, posted as a preprint, Henry Legg, a theoretical physicist at the University of St Andrews, UK, raises concerns about a test that Microsoft uses to look for Majoranas, so-far undiscovered quasiparticles arising from the collective behaviour of electrons that are needed for the topological qubits to work.
Known as the topological gap protocol (TGP), the test is not mentioned in the 19 February Microsoft announcement. But the company has subsequently indicated to Nature's news team, and in a comment online, that it created the topological qubits using the TGP. "Since the TGP is flawed, the very foundations of the qubit are not there," says Legg. Business Insider, separately reports: On February 19, Microsoft unveiled a new quantum processor called Majorana 1. [...] On the same day, Simone Severini, Amazon's head of quantum technologies, emailed CEO Andy Jassy casting doubt on Microsoft's claims, according to a copy of the email obtained by Business Insider.
Severini wrote that Microsoft's underlying scientific paper, released in Nature, "doesn't actually demonstrate" the claimed achievement and only showed that the new chip "could potentially enable future experiments."
[...] Oskar Painter, Amazon's head of quantum hardware, stressed the need to "push back on BS statements like S. Nadella's," likely in reference to the Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's social media post proclaiming major advancements with the Majorana chip. Further reading:
Scientists Question Microsoft's Quantum Computing Claims.
Microsoft announced the breakthrough, which could lead to a quantum computer more resistant to information loss than with other approaches, on 19 February. Without a peer-reviewed paper backing up the claim, some researchers were sceptical. An accompanying paper in Nature described a method to measure the read-out from future topological qubits, but did not offer proof of their existence.
In the latest critique, posted as a preprint, Henry Legg, a theoretical physicist at the University of St Andrews, UK, raises concerns about a test that Microsoft uses to look for Majoranas, so-far undiscovered quasiparticles arising from the collective behaviour of electrons that are needed for the topological qubits to work.
Known as the topological gap protocol (TGP), the test is not mentioned in the 19 February Microsoft announcement. But the company has subsequently indicated to Nature's news team, and in a comment online, that it created the topological qubits using the TGP. "Since the TGP is flawed, the very foundations of the qubit are not there," says Legg. Business Insider, separately reports: On February 19, Microsoft unveiled a new quantum processor called Majorana 1. [...] On the same day, Simone Severini, Amazon's head of quantum technologies, emailed CEO Andy Jassy casting doubt on Microsoft's claims, according to a copy of the email obtained by Business Insider.
Severini wrote that Microsoft's underlying scientific paper, released in Nature, "doesn't actually demonstrate" the claimed achievement and only showed that the new chip "could potentially enable future experiments."
[...] Oskar Painter, Amazon's head of quantum hardware, stressed the need to "push back on BS statements like S. Nadella's," likely in reference to the Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's social media post proclaiming major advancements with the Majorana chip. Further reading:
Scientists Question Microsoft's Quantum Computing Claims.
Microsoft refutes the refutation. (Score:3)
They'll redefine what 'topological qubits' actually means, just like they redefined what AGI means and played a hand in changing what AI means. Words mean what Microsoft's marketing team says they mean. Disagreement will not be tolerated!
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft’s Topological Qubits Probably Don’t Exist, Researchers Warn ~ Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They'll redefine what 'topological qubits' actually means
Perhaps, but that will not bring quantum computing any closer to reality.
Who knows? Maybe there's some real value in this new research. It just doesn't look like that value matches Microsoft's hype.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll redefine what 'topological qubits' actually means
Perhaps, but that will not bring quantum computing any closer to reality.
Who knows? Maybe there's some real value in this new research. It just doesn't look like that value matches Microsoft's hype.
I guess the question will be, does it matter in the post-truth, post-facts era? Or is marketing hype just as valid as well reasoned research based on true facts?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the question will be, does it matter in the post-truth, post-facts era? Or is marketing hype just as valid as well reasoned research based on true facts?
I think the answer is yes, it does matter. At the end of the day, you still need to build stuff that works. Politicians and others can try to co-opt science for their message, but it can only take them so far. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Disagreement will now be definitely tolerated!
Well....probably (Score:2)
The test being flawed doesn't mean that the "topological qubits" don't exist. Merely that they haven't been proven to exist.
OTOH, if they *do* exist, how stable are they? The real problem that all quantum computers have to deal with is errors. If you can't really show that they exist, then I've got to suspect that the error rate is quite high.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason topological qubits are interesting is that they should be much more stable than the regular kind. They're sort of inherently stable due to conservation laws.
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't hang around long enough for a good test, that's not an indication of stability.
Yes, they are predicted to be more stable. So are various other things, like nitrogen polarization in diamond crystals. Also just the other day I read someone was predicting that photon based qubits would be more stable (I don't remember the details).
A quasi-particle is not inherently more stable, and theories often simplify avoiding edge cases that turn out to be important. We don't *know* that's what's going on
Re: (Score:2)
Topological qubits aren't just quasiparticles, they're essentially defined as composite systems that use their arrangement to produce more stable quantum states. If it isn't doing that the most likely conclusion is that you haven't made a topological qubit.
Lots of red flags (Score:3)
Sabrina has a decent video [youtube.com] outlining some of the problems:
* Microsoft's own press release, Microsoft's Majorana 1 chip carves new path for quantum computing [microsoft.com], used the words Topological Core architecture
* New York Times seemed to be the first to lie with "topological qubit"
* In the Interferometric single-shot parity measurement in InAs-Al hybrid devices [doi.org] whitepaper they say they measure the parity:
* Back in 2017 the article Epitaxy of advanced nanowire quantum devices [nature.com] was retracted [nature.com] in 2022. (Sorry paywalled.)
* Back in 2018 the article Quantized Majorana conductance [nature.com] was retracted [nature.com] in 2021. (Sorry paywalled.)
* In 2021 Microsoft published Protocol to identify a topological superconduciting phase in a three-terminal device [arxiv.org]
* In 2023 Microsoft published another InAs-Al hybrid devices passing the topological gap protocol [aps.org] whitepaper about the the TGP.
* Henry Legg points out [arxiv.org] the protocol is flawed due to arbitrary cut-offs on the data range.
* Vincent Muric said Microsoft's 2023's Passing the Topological Gap Protocol article should have never been publish.
* Sergey Frolov mentioned Microsoft "doesn't show proof that it is coming from a super conductor."
* Microsoft: Here is 96 GB of data. Trust us bro.
Whew!
TL:DR; Wait and see.
--
If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, that should be Sabine Hossenfelder. Mea culpa.
--
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment.
Oh no! No one gives fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Sabrina has a decent video [youtube.com] outlining some of the problems:
[Psst: it's Sabine, not Sabrina.]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks but was already [slashdot.org] corrected 1 minute before.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I posted before refreshing and seeing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why dont they just turn on the Marijuana chip and show what it can do? To much back and forth on a press release. Turn it on, do something with it.
I think they tried that, but everyone just looked at each other, wondered why they were there, and then agreed to go to Jack-in-the-Box.
Asking for Peter Shor... (Score:2)
Can device using these so-called topological qubits factor the number 15 yet?
Re: (Score:2)
I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person but even that seems a (pardon the pun) BIT MUCH of stretch.