Scientists Question Microsoft's Quantum Computing Claims (msn.com) 19
Microsoft's announcement of a breakthrough in quantum computing faces skepticism from physicists, who say evidence supporting the company's claims remains insufficient.
The tech giant reported creating Majorana particles - a development it says could revolutionize quantum computing - but the accompanying peer-reviewed paper in Nature does not conclusively demonstrate this achievement, according to multiple quantum physics experts who reviewed the research.
Microsoft's corporate vice president for quantum hardware, Chetan Nayak, acknowledged the Nature paper wasn't meant to prove the particles' existence, though he claimed measurements suggested "95% likelihood" of topological activity. The company plans to publish additional findings.
The announcement has drawn particular scrutiny given the field's history of retracted claims. Two previous Nature papers on similar discoveries were withdrawn in 2017 and 2018, while a 2020 paper in Science involving Microsoft researchers remains under review. "This is where you cross over from the realm of science to advertising," said Jay Sau, a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland who sometimes consults for Microsoft but wasn't involved in the current research.
The tech giant reported creating Majorana particles - a development it says could revolutionize quantum computing - but the accompanying peer-reviewed paper in Nature does not conclusively demonstrate this achievement, according to multiple quantum physics experts who reviewed the research.
Microsoft's corporate vice president for quantum hardware, Chetan Nayak, acknowledged the Nature paper wasn't meant to prove the particles' existence, though he claimed measurements suggested "95% likelihood" of topological activity. The company plans to publish additional findings.
The announcement has drawn particular scrutiny given the field's history of retracted claims. Two previous Nature papers on similar discoveries were withdrawn in 2017 and 2018, while a 2020 paper in Science involving Microsoft researchers remains under review. "This is where you cross over from the realm of science to advertising," said Jay Sau, a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland who sometimes consults for Microsoft but wasn't involved in the current research.
Well, its better than start button redesigns (Score:1)
Even though it does have marketing / corporate spin, it still sounds significant and definitely better than any other thing from Microsoft in decades.
Re: (Score:2)
While it does, it is likely that it just "sounds" better. Nothing MS has done in a long time was actually good.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't inderstand the motivation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Academic fraud, paper retractions, and such have become almost everyday news. So, hearing that a researcher on the bleeding edge of new studies, MS or otherwise, was guilty of publishing too soon, or with bad data, or poor study, or whatever - I am not surprised these days.
Sad, that's not how it was, but I guess that's the world we live in.
And - the idea that fraud, retraction, or even honest-but-shoddy or incomplete work would come out of MS - - - well, last time I checked, MS wasn't top of people's list for moral, ethics, integrity - so no surprise there either.
But here is what I don't get.
A lot of academic fraud, at least irregularities, are driven by the "publish or perish" mentality, or the need to get and keep funding, or the egos of some scientists to be right or first regardless of quality or facts. It's all wrong, not justifiable, but somehow understandable for an assistant professor under duress, or a small start-up.
But that's not Microsoft. They don't need funds. They waste funds in amounts to feed the whole world's starving post docs. They have enough notoriety or high profile that they don't need a tad more. Their scientists, right or wrong, in principle need to maintain some propriety with the public, even if just in professional circles (am I too idealistic?). I would think they would gain a lot more in the long run by waiting to be thorough and correct, thereby earning just accolades.
Furthermore, although they can claim a "competitive environment", nothing seems imminent on the horizon of some other company beating them to the punch of a commercially salable quantum computer. So what's the rush to publish half-baked uncertain unverified results? I would think there is strategic business value in keeping their work mum, not publicizing where they are until they can spring a real product on the world.
Ego, greed, hubris, vanity, stupidity, lack of oversight or adult leadership? Somebody who understands better than me, please explain their motivation to turn out schlock at all costs.
I think back on great or once great companies like IBM, GE, Bell / Bell Labs, Xerox. They conducted all kinds of hard core basic research, won Nobel prizes, revolutionized the world with resulting commercial products, but never had to publish fraud. WTF happened to the world?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't inderstand the motivation
The current trend is to claim spectacular progress "very soon" to inflate stock prices (cf IBM, Google, OpenAI, Grok...).
Re: I don't inderstand the motivation. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I interpreted their announcement as more of an internal thing and as a narrow external thing. Sure the researchers had to get it by the corporate censors, but I can imagine the quantum group at MS is under pressure to produce something they can monetize. The censors, you know them as marketeers, probably saw it as a way to keep their quantum brand alive, "see, look at us, don't look at those OTHER guys, we have the real stuff."
Re:I don't inderstand the motivation. (Score:4, Funny)
Insufficient evidence (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft's announcement of a breakthrough in quantum computing faces skepticism from physicists,
Sounds like Microsoft's claims here are both true and false until observed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
LOL, that's like cat-nip to MAGAs
Not Majorana Particles (Score:5, Informative)
The tech giant reported creating Majorana particles
They claimed nothing of the sort because, as far as we know there are no Majorana particles in nature - the only candidate so far is the neutrino and double beta decay experiments have still not shown whether it is majorana in nature.
What MS is claiming to have done is create a system that has quantum excitations that behave as we think a Majorana particle should behave i.e. they claim to have created a physical simulation of Majorana particles. That's interesting and potentially very useful but it is not at all the same thing as creating real Majorana particles.
Re: (Score:2)
Elon's net worth proves most investors don't care about fundamentals - only whether or not they think number will go up. They dress it up better but in the end MS and Google are playing the same game. Elon's not the only one constantly lying through hype. They just figure if they can get a massive amount of capital that they can come up with something that will keep the hype going long enough for all involved to cash out.
Microsoft... (Score:1)
Microsoft...and its "world changing" products like Microsoft Bob or Microsoft Blackbird all the hyper in hyperbole.
Now from qubit to Q-bert...and we'll see this quantum computing in the next Surface tablet...
JoshK.
Sci-fi design choices (Score:2)
make it look like its a made-for-movie prop.
Computers are famously prone to “bugs” and the exposed nature of the hardware invites all kinds of uncontrollable ambients usually engineered out.