3 ms·
> but the team ended the experiment at the 5.5-second mark why end it and not see how long it would last? and did they just do this once and call it a success
by legohead 4y ago
> but the team ended the experiment at the 5.5-second mark
why end it and not see how long it would last? and did they just do this once and call it a success? I'm no expert in this field by any means, but I just don't get this methodology. hopefully someone can enlighten me.
- mattkrause 4y agoI took a look at the original paper. I think it follows from the fact that they experiment used 10 qubits, the tenth Fibonacci number is 55 (depending on how you count), and each "tick" in the experiment lasted 100 ms. Put those together and each experiment has to be exactly 5.5 seconds long. (They ran ~100 repeats per condition, plus 10,000 simulations). I'm admittedly not 100% (Nature papers are terse and heard to read even in one's own field and this is far away from mine), but it makes a certain amount of sense.
- legohead 4y agoThanks for looking, that actually makes sense. Wish the article would add those details.