Working with real numbers, doesn't mean requiring infinite computational power. Numerical integration can make the integration error arbitrary small, even witho

Working with real numbers, doesn't mean requiring infinite computational power. Numerical integration can make the integration error arbitrary small, even without symplectic integrators, this mean you can work with finite-precision number instead. The thing with building a quantum computer is that the original hard test (breaking RSA) is being watered down. Until you prove that you've done it you only get non-results telling you that you are not there yet but you don't know why and require ever more funds. So the incentives are badly aligned and you prove a softer test that you try to sell as something as good as the hard test. If you are not familiar with bias you might even fool yourself into thinking you are making progress because you managed to reach the softer goal you have set for yourself while you are adding complexity to obscure your theoretical shortcomings. >Building quantum computers is the first experiment that has a chance to show what exactly is wrong with QM. Don't blindly trust experiments : Bell officially proved that what's very probably wrong is right. Especially when they require expensive equipment or specialized knowledge to reproduce. If there is something wrong with the protocol you can easily falsely convince yourself. Putting a non-zero prior on unknowns unknowns should be a must. If you ever try to question the Gospel of Non-Locality, you will find yourself cast aside like many before as the vast literature show.