Comment on A new paper argues Microsoft exaggerated its quantum claims a year ago
SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 2 days ago
The paper in question:
On the robustness of topological gap detection via transport
I’ve spoken to some folks at Microsoft about this, and I think the deeper issue here is the different standards of science and industry. If you’re demonstrating a fundamentally new physical phenomenon, in science you need to be 99.9999% sure, in industry they are okay with 80% sure.
davetortoise@reddthat.com 2 days ago
Eh. In this case I think scientific standards are objectively correct.
A key figure-of-merit for quantum computing is ‘fidelity’, which you can basically think of as the probability that a given operation will produce the intended outcome. If you have a fidelity of 80%, you might be able to do some extremely simple calculations and run them several times to make sure they’re right. But any serious multi-stage calculation quickly becomes impossible as the probability of something going wrong quickly adds up. For quantum computing to actually do anything useful, fidelity in the region of 99.9999% is basically non-negotiable, because this is what semiconductor gates in regular computers can achieve.
SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Absolutely agree, but its important to distinguish between the actual quantum computing on one hand, and the materials development and Majorana particle discovery on the other hand.
What I was discussing was the latter. I.e. before you can get anywhere near computing and fidelities, you first need a qubit. The issue here is that Microsoft are like 80% sure they have the qubit they think they have. That doesn’t mean they have a qubit with 80% fidelity.
davetortoise@reddthat.com 2 days ago
Ah okay - I think I misread your original comment. Agreed.