SoylentNews

upstart [soylentnews.org] writes:

████ # This file was generated bot-o-matically! Edit at your own risk. ████

Microsoft's quantum breakthrough claim labeled 'unreliable' [theregister.com]:

Updated Microsoft's claim of a quantum computing breakthrough has attracted strong criticism from scientists, though the software giant says its work is sound – and it will soon reveal data that proves it.

Redmond’s quantum claims were made in February when it announced [theregister.com] its in-house boffins had created "the world’s first topoconductor, a breakthrough type of material which can observe and control Majorana particles to produce more reliable and scalable qubits, which are the building blocks for quantum computers."

This is a piece of alleged technology based on basic physics that has not been established

The Windows maker showed off a quantum chip called Majorana 1, based on a Topological Core architecture [nextplatform.com], which it said could power future quantum computers that pack a million qubits. Quantum computers with even a few hundred qubits are promised to be so powerful that the device you’re reading this on might as well be a broken abacus.

Microsoft’s claims were astounding because Majorana particles were first theorized in 1937 but detecting them has proved difficult. Yet Microsoft told the world it not only observed Majorana particles but had learned how to put them to work in a machine packing eight topological qubits.

Unimpressed boffins

The super-corporation has made big claims about Majorana particles before, but it didn’t end well: In 2021 Redmond’s researchers retracted a 2018 paper [theregister.com] in which they claimed to have detected the particles.

Shortly after Microsoft's recent announcement, scientists expressed concern that the claims in the company’s paper, published in Nature [nature.com], lacked important details.

Microsoft researcher Chetan Nayak has reaffirmed Redmond's claims and pointed out [scottaaronson.blog] that the paper was submitted in March 2024 and published in February 2025. In the intervening months he said Microsoft has made even more progress that he will discuss at an American Physical Society (APS) meeting [aps.org] scheduled for next week in California.

While the quantum world waits for that update, critics have voiced their concerns about Microsoft’s paper.

Henry Legg, a lecturer in theoretical physics at the University of St Andrews in the UK, recently published a pre-print critique [arxiv.org] that argues the software giant’s work “is not reliable and must be revisited.”

Vincent Mourik, an experimental physicist at the German national research organization Forschungszentrum Jülich, and Sergey Frolov, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh in the US, took to YouTube [youtube.com] to criticize “distractions caused by unreliable scientific claims from Microsoft Quantum.”

'Essentially fraudulent'

Frolov went even further when discussing the matter with The Register.

"These concerns go back quite a number of years so [the community reaction] hasn't just been triggered by this announcement per se," Frolov told The Register. "It was just made in such a dramatic way that it, I guess, triggered a reaction but [it hasn't altered] the underlying sort of understanding that this is essentially a fraudulent project."

Asked to elaborate on that characterization, Frolov said: "This is a piece of alleged technology that is based on basic physics that has not been established. So this is a pretty big problem."

There is a lot of quantum computing science to and we look forward to sharing our results

Frolov also claimed Microsoft shared data with some select scientists a few weeks ago, ahead of next week’s APS meeting, and that those invited to hear more did not come away more confident about Microsoft’s claims.

"I was not there but I spoke with a few people that were … and people were not impressed and there was a lot of criticism," he said.

He thinks next week’s APS meeting won’t settle the matter, for two reasons. One is that he thinks Microsoft got the science wrong.

"So we kind of know that it's not going to be a concern-killer presentation, based on that [private briefing to select scientists]," Frolov said. "And as a physicist, there's just absolutely no way that qubit that they're claiming can work because a topological qubit requires Majorana and without Majorana you cannot have it.

"If all your Majorana results are scrutinized and criticized, there is just absolutely no way this is going to be a topological qubit. That leaves kind-of one option, that it's … an unreliable presentation. And that's why I say fraud because at this point I'm out of other words to use."

Meeting morass

His other reason is that he thinks the format of next week’s APS meeting won’t allow for scrutiny of Microsoft’s claims. In a letter [linkedin.com] to the APS, he criticizes its organizers for not inviting critics of Microsoft to deliver a talk.

The letter goes on to challenge APS to disclose payments received from Microsoft, and to notify attendees of the APS Global Physics Summit [aps.org] about community concerns regarding the software giant’s claims.

He also wants Microsoft to share comprehensive data about its research, to facilitate corrections if needed.

APS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Unimpressive experiments

Legg’s beef with Microsoft is that the mega-corp relies on tests that don’t work.

"There's many problems with this … so-called Topological Gap Protocol," the St Andrews lecturer explained. "And ultimately it doesn't give any information about the actual physics that's going on in these devices. It ends up that it's sensitive to things like measurement ranges.”

That matters because, in Legg’s telling, Microsoft’s topological claims rest on a 2023 paper [aps.org] [PDF] by the IT giant's researchers published in the journal Physical Review B (PRB).

Legg thinks that older paper is “the basis for all of these [new] claims” but that the two pieces of research use different measurement ranges for reasons that aren't explained in Microsoft’s latest research.

• Worry not. China's on the line saying AGI still a long way off [theregister.com]
• AWS unboxes quantum cat qubit kit called Ocelot [theregister.com]
• Google exec sees enterprise quantum app on closer horizon [theregister.com]
• Nvidia plots Quantum Day at GTC 2025 – for tech it called a distant dream [theregister.com]

Legg is also concerned that code used for the protocol described in the older PRB paper differs from code in Microsoft’s latest research. The software giant’s changing definition of “topological” also worries him.

"They had the definition of topological and then they adjusted it," he said. "They diluted it basically to something which is almost meaningless and certainly meaningless when it comes to constructing a topological qubit."

The issue Microsoft faces, Legg explained, is similar to the issue that caused the biz's researchers to retract their 2018 paper – which he claims became necessary because the behavior it described wasn’t evidence of Majorana particles, just a description of disorder.

"So the point is that the systems that they're looking at are still just as disordered, there's no obvious improvement in the quality of the devices.

"The only improvement there has been is in the quality of the PR campaign, or certainly the level of the claims that they're making. And I would say almost everyone in the field agrees with that."

The Empire Strikes Back

Except Microsoft. Asked to respond to Legg's paper, a Microsoft spokesperson provided this comment from Nayak: "There is a century-old scientific process established by the American Physical Society for resolving disputes. Comments and author responses are reviewed by referees in the journal and eventually published for the benefit of readers. We have not been contacted by the PRB [Physical Review B] editors to respond to Legg's comment. When we are, we will provide an official response."

Nayak challenged Legg's argument as an attack on a false straw man and summarized his responses thus.

1. Protocol vs. Code: Legg claims there's a difference between our described protocol and the implemented code. This is incorrect, so this is a non-issue.
2. Measurement Ranges: He accuses us of manipulating measurement ranges to get desired outcomes. This is false. The ranges come from an initial scan we describe, and we always analyze the full data.
3. Experimental vs. Simulated Data: He points out a minor difference in how we analyze experimental and simulated data. This does not affect our results.
4. Topological Regime Requirement: He complains that we relaxed the requirement for how deep into the topological regime the system needs to be. The original requirement was stated in an unpublished manuscript. In our published paper "InAs-Al Hybrid....", we clearly stated that we instead adopted a widely accepted minimal definition of topological which has appeared in multiple published works by a number of independent academic groups.

A Microsoft spokesperson offered a lengthier comment:

This is a very exciting time for quantum computing. Utility-scale quantum computers are just years away, not decades. To enable this future, Microsoft is building an error-corrected, utility-scale quantum computer based on a compact superconducting topological qubit architecture. For the last 20 plus years we have been collaborating with leading researchers and scientists worldwide to bring this vision to life. We recently achieved two very important milestones.

The first was validation of our approach from DARPA, and the second was our unveiling of the Majorana 1 chip, a significant breakthrough for us and the industry.

Others are working to bring this same vision to life, but with different approaches. This is what makes science fun.

Some in the field believe an alternative approach is the right one to take and have invested significant time and resources into their methods. We understand why they would want to advocate for their approach.

Discourse and skepticism are all part of the scientific process. That is why we are dedicated to the continued open publication of our research, so that everyone can build on what others have discovered and learned. In fact, we brought over 100 scientists and physicists together recently to spend the day with us going over our research.

Following our announcement, we have received some general questions about our methodology. While the Nature paper outlined our approach, it does not speak to our progress. The Nature paper was submitted on March 5, 2024, and published on February 19, 2025.

Almost an entire year has passed, and during that time tremendous progress has occurred. For example, since our submission on March 5, 2024, we have fabricated a two-sided tetron and both nanowires were tuned into the topological phase via the topological gap protocol. This is the topological qubit configuration: there are 4 Majorana zero modes (MZMs), one at each end of each topological nanowire. We have performed both Z and X measurements. These are the basic native operations in a measurement-based topological qubit.

There is a lot of science to explain when it comes to quantum computing, and in the coming weeks and months, we look forward to sharing our results along with additional data behind the science that is turning our 20 plus year vision for quantum computing into a tangible reality.

The APS Global Physics Summit begins Sunday, March 16. Attendees may want to bring popcorn. ®

Updated to add

After this story was filed, an APS spokesperson offered the following response to Frolov’s letter.

“Regarding the recent sponsored email from Microsoft Research to attendees of the Global Physics Summit, all sponsors are offered the same package opportunities to promote their participation and research. APS clearly identified this email as sponsored content with a large banner at the top of the message,” the spokesperson said.

“The scientific program for APS meetings consists of both invited and contributed sessions. Any member is welcome to submit an abstract and present at a contributed session. Invited sessions, which are limited in number, are curated by program committees composed of volunteer scientists drawn from the APS community, a practice that is typical for scientific conferences. APS staff only look for organizational conflicts (e.g., speakers receiving multiple invites); they do not decide who is invited to speak at these sessions.

“Nobody can pay for preferential treatment from APS journals, and nobody can pay to influence the selection of a talk as invited at APS meetings.

Regarding the original Microsoft paper, one of the challenges all scientific publications face is balancing the role of sharing potentially significant breakthroughs with the need to protect legitimate intellectual property. Microsoft agreed to a limited-term embargo on device fabrication details. Since the embargo was lifted, the Microsoft team has followed through on their promise to share those details on request; they are now available for any scientist to study.

“APS is committed to maintaining an accurate scientific record, and we welcome comments [aps.org] or concerns about papers published in our journals. Such comments are vetted through peer review before they are published. In addition, APS has a well-defined process for retracting or correcting papers after publication.”

Get ourTech Resources [theregister.com]ShareMore about

• Hardware
• Microsoft
• Quantum Computing

More like these×More about

• Hardware
• Microsoft
• Quantum Computing
• Software

Narrower topics

• Active Directory
• AdBlock Plus
• App
• Application Delivery Controller
• Audacity
• Azure
• Bing
• BSoD
• Cisco ACE
• Confluence
• Database
• Digital advertising displays
• Excel
• Exchange Server
• FOSDEM
• FOSS
• GPU
• Grab
• Graphics Interchange Format
• HoloLens
• IDE
• Integrated Circuit
• Internet Explorer
• Jenkins
• Keyboard
• Legacy Technology
• LibreOffice
• LinkedIn
• Map
• Microsoft 365
• Microsoft Build
• Microsoft Edge
• Microsoft Fabric
• Microsoft Ignite
• Microsoft Office
• Microsoft Surface
• Microsoft Teams
• Mobile Device Management
• Monitor
• .NET
• Office 365
• OpenOffice
• OS/2
• Outlook
• Patch Tuesday
• PCIe
• Pluton
• Printer
• Programming Language
• QR code
• Quantum key distribution
• Retro computing
• Search Engine
• SharePoint
• Skype
• Software bug
• Software License
• SQL Server
• Text Editor
• Trusted Platform Module
• USB
• User interface
• Visual Studio
• Visual Studio Code
• WebAssembly
• Web Browser
• Windows
• Windows 10
• Windows 11
• Windows 7
• Windows 8
• Windows Server
• Windows Server 2003
• Windows Server 2008
• Windows Server 2012
• Windows Server 2013
• Windows Server 2016
• Windows Subsystem for Linux
• Windows XP
• WordPress
• Xbox
• Xbox 360

Broader topics

• Bill Gates
• Computer

More about ShareMore about

• Hardware
• Microsoft
• Quantum Computing

More like these×More about

• Hardware
• Microsoft
• Quantum Computing
• Software

Narrower topics

• Active Directory
• AdBlock Plus
• App
• Application Delivery Controller
• Audacity
• Azure
• Bing
• BSoD
• Cisco ACE
• Confluence
• Database
• Digital advertising displays
• Excel
• Exchange Server
• FOSDEM
• FOSS
• GPU
• Grab
• Graphics Interchange Format
• HoloLens
• IDE
• Integrated Circuit
• Internet Explorer
• Jenkins
• Keyboard
• Legacy Technology
• LibreOffice
• LinkedIn
• Map
• Microsoft 365
• Microsoft Build
• Microsoft Edge
• Microsoft Fabric
• Microsoft Ignite
• Microsoft Office
• Microsoft Surface
• Microsoft Teams
• Mobile Device Management
• Monitor
• .NET
• Office 365
• OpenOffice
• OS/2
• Outlook
• Patch Tuesday
• PCIe
• Pluton
• Printer
• Programming Language
• QR code
• Quantum key distribution
• Retro computing
• Search Engine
• SharePoint
• Skype
• Software bug
• Software License
• SQL Server
• Text Editor
• Trusted Platform Module
• USB
• User interface
• Visual Studio
• Visual Studio Code
• WebAssembly
• Web Browser
• Windows
• Windows 10
• Windows 11
• Windows 7
• Windows 8
• Windows Server
• Windows Server 2003
• Windows Server 2008
• Windows Server 2012
• Windows Server 2013
• Windows Server 2016
• Windows Subsystem for Linux
• Windows XP
• WordPress
• Xbox
• Xbox 360

Broader topics

• Bill Gates
• Computer

TIP US OFF

Send us news [theregister.com]

Original Submission