> Unfortunately, I have to inform you that Moore’s law isn’t a law of nature. It worked for conventional computers because those could be miniaturized. However,

> Unfortunately, I have to inform you that Moore’s law isn’t a law of nature. It worked for conventional computers because those could be miniaturized. However, you can’t miniaturize ions or the Compton wavelength of electrons. They’re already as small as it gets. I think this is a mischaracterization. Moore's law is the result of many individual multiplicative advances that stack in each other (many of them allowing further miniaturization, but alternatively can also go into the direction of larger chips: chiplets, 450mm wafers, wafer-scale chips). There isn't a reason this stacking couldn't also be possible for Quantum Computers. Indeed, the number of qubits seems to grow exponentially [1]: 1 -> 2 -> 5 -> 17 -> 49 -> 76 -> 127 -> 216 -> thousands. If anything, the iterative miniaturization of classic circuits made the first steps more approachable compared to quantum computers that had to start on the atomic level. However, the existence of more and more stackable advances is indeed no law of nature that some authors seem to assume [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quantum_processors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quantum_processors [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change#Kurzweil.27s_The_Law_of_Accelerating_Returns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change#Kurzweil.2...