19 ms·
Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor
- unsupp0rted 2y ago> Majoranas hide quantum information, making it more robust, but also harder to measure. The Microsoft team’s new measurement approach is so precise it can detect the difference between one billion and one billion and one electrons in a superconducting wire – which tells the computer what state the qubit is in and forms the basis for quantum computation.
- dudus 2y agoBeing able to detect a single electron among billions sounds more like a good way to get entropy rather than something that can help with quantum measurements. At least that's my initial intuition being completely ignorant in Quantum Computing.
- drpossum 2y agoDo you have other things you want to provide that your self-proclaimed ignorance would be helpful with?
- sieabahlpark 2y ago[dead]
- spuz 2y agoLay people are welcome to read about the latest developments in science. They're also welcome to try to intuit theories related to those latest developments. It's a good way to flex your thinking skills. Experts are then welcome to weigh in on those intuitions and steer them along the right path. Even if you're completely wrong, expressing how you think about things is also helpful to others in case they also have similar intuitions. Your comment could get an award for most toxic HN comment ever and that's saying something.
- drpossum 2y agoI mean, I'll it admit the original post ironically did measurably increase the entropy of the thread.
- drpossum 2y agoI know this is a day later and I don't expect it to be read, but I wanted to come back to this because it ultimately was an unusual experience and I spent some time reflecting on it. It was unusual because both the clear rejection of the original post now in light grey, but also for the significant support via upvotes for my response. I'll admit it was unambiguously into the realm of the unkind (I encourage you not to ignore this admission), but I wanted to pick apart why that response was solicited for social reasons (leaving technical reasons aside) and why your response is unwarranted and harmful. I don't have a fundamental problem with lay people commenting or discussing technical topics and this venue is somewhat built around that. I do have a problem when they go beyond reasonable limits. Those limits include unreasonable, unresearched, poorly thought out, and nonsensical statements. The social problem is that the statement was made in an authoritative way that was derogatory to the fundamental premise of the topic (trying to <perform action> sounds like a good way to <perform something unrelated>). This type of statement can be correct, however it requires a significant amount of weight behind it to be credible given the context and history of this topic. The original poster then follows with an admission of ignorance about what they just posited. Even the ordering of these (rejection then admission) makes it more offensive to a reader who is here for anything more meaningful. This was not a statement that was made for inquisition, clearly not a statement that showed research or thought, it borders into a blind repetition of words that might be used in this context, and shows no toneful humility given their position and context. I don't believe this type of commenting should be encouraged. The positive reinforcement I received, though, comes from an opposing school of thought you can think of as "master has hit me with a stick and I must meditate." Students typically don't like this as it is uncomfortable at best and can easily be carried into abuse. I reject the notion that this means it should never be applied and in a measured and thoughtful way it can be constructive. It unambiguously carried a lesson to be learned and the nature of that lesson makes it memorable. Without endorsement, one can say the world is a harsh place and learning to accept social rejection, humiliation, and mockery as a consequence of failure to put thought into public statements is an important and useful lesson. This place is pretty low stakes to learn such a lesson given the anonymity. I will argue your defense of this and active encouragement of low value comments is what is actually harmful to the community. Blanket labeling of any behavior you find disagreeable as "toxic" (hyberbolically so, if you truly think that is the most toxic comment ever on here, you have not spent any real amount of time in this venue) is a common misunderstanding that all negative behavior is bad. Conflict, while uncomfortable can have positive outcomes. In the case of poor comments, a social way (constrasted with "leaving it to the mods") to deal with this is exactly what happened. And ultimately can improve the community through clear discouragement of unwanted behavior carrying the weight of emotional rejection. If you still disagree with this, consider the community showed me support and I, while this absolutely could have been done differently (again I encourage you not to ignore that statement), think that's generally in the spirit of this forum to discourage inane comments. The success of this community is somewhat based on that and has also infamously earned its reputation for it. "Toxic" if you think about actual meaning of the word, poisoning or against the viability, would hurt the long term nature here. I believe in this case it does the opposite. It raises the average and it is what this place is built on (though usually more in the form of downvotes). I'd say your blind championing here is a case of "toxic positivity" and you can choose to do what you like with that. I would say if you do find this place so "toxic" I'd encourage you to not read the comments here, let alone respond to them, and perhaps go find someplace more agreeable to your particular sensibilities.
- Mithriil 2y agoIt doesn't detect a single electron, it detects parity of the number of electrons.
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoNYT feature: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/19/technology/microsoft-quantum-computing-topological-qubit.html?unlocked_article_code=1.yE4.2nFS.zYDdtb75cSKT&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/19/technology/microsoft-quan...
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoNature paper: Interferometric single-shot parity measurement in InAs–Al hybrid devices https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08445-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08445-2
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoDiscussion on other official post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43103623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43103623
- kenjackson 2y agoI need HN's classic pessimism to know if this is something to be excited about. Please chime in!
- jassyr 2y agoWhenever I read about a scientific breakthrough I login to HN to see what the smart people think about it, and am disappointed if there isn't a post with hundreds of comments.
- miztrskinnr 2y agoThis isn’t a forum of smart people. It’s a forum of asocial tech workers who write in authoritative prose but are just normal people at home staring blankly at a blue glow of a mental bug zapper Quantum is just the next form of sampling the electromagnetic field. It’ll provide mesmerizing computational properties but not rewrite human DNA or beam our consciousness to another galaxy; it’ll fill up RAM and disk really fast with impenetrable amount of data it will take decades to analyze and build real experiments across contexts to verify. Tomorrow will still come and be a lot like yesterday for us. All in all it’s more of the same Even if it we do beam our minds it’s just a copy. These meat suits still gonna stop experiencing someday. Life for us isn’t going anywhere.
- dcist 2y agoNow THIS is the sort of nihilistic outlook that keeps me coming back for a hit of HN.
- jassyr 2y agoIt's like some sort of Cunningham's Law Inception.
- miztrskinnr 2y agoNot saying wild things aren’t possible; designer drug glands grafted on and such would be banger and would alter human lived experience. Another box measuring oscillations of fundamental forces will not. Religious fear of “corrupting human nature” keeps smart people scaffolding symbolic logic in machines versus experimenting with weird science. Live, eat, mate, help line go up relative to some musty people’s political ledger, and die is all we’re allowed! I want drug glands, regenerative tissue, and mini kaiju monstrosities grown in labs… as pets! What’s actually up in 2025?… “Behold! Nintendo Switch 2!”
- erikig 2y agoFrom a casual observer, it seemed like Microsoft's Majorana approach had hit a wall a few years back when there were retractions by the lead researchers. I wonder what's changed? https://cacm.acm.org/news/majorana-meltdown-jeopardizes-microsofts-quantum-computer/ https://cacm.acm.org/news/majorana-meltdown-jeopardizes-micr...
- crystal_revenge 2y ago> I wonder what's changed? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I suspect pressure from leadership to package whatever they had in vague language and ambiguous terms to create marketing copy that makes it appear the team is doing amazing work even though in two years we'll still be in roughly the same place we are today wrt quantum computing. Reading through the announcement I see lots of interesting sounding ideas and claims that don't matter "designed to scale to a million qubits on a single chip" (why does that matter if we're still far, far away from more than a few thousands qubits?) and zero statements about actual capabilities that are novel or ground breaking.
- RajT88 2y agoThat chip die sure looks cool though!
- radioactivist 2y agoIt's worse than that -- this announcement is about one qubit, so even a few thousand not necessarily close at hand for this platform (let alone millions).
- erikig 2y agoI believe the chip is 8 qubits not just one.
- breckenedge 2y agoThe ArsTechnica article discusses that. > In fact, there was some controversy over the first attempts to do so, with an early paper having been retracted after a reanalysis of its data showed that the evidence was weaker than had initially been presented. A key focus of the new Nature paper is providing more evidence that Majorana zero modes really exist in this system. https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/02/microsoft-builds-its-first-qubits-lays-out-roadmap-for-quantum-computing/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/02/microsoft-builds-its...
- ckbishop 2y agoRSA in trouble when?
- m3kw9 2y ago1 qubit prototype can crack RSA? 1million scaled out qubits is still talk
- AlanYx 2y agoNot even 1 qubit, just "substantial progress towards the realization of a topological qubit" (from the accompanying Nature paper).
- r33b33 2y agoPlease someone give input on this. It's extremely important and worrying.
- halosghost 2y agoIf this is genuinely worrying to you, take some solace in that post-quantum alternatives are undergoing standardization and implementation right now (Signal and iMessage, for example, have already deployed some PQC, as have others). However, this announcement is a nothing-burger. As I mentioned down-thread, you should view any QC announcement/press-release with extreme skepticism unless it includes replicable (read: open-source targeting hardware other researchers can test on) benchmarks for progress on real-world use-cases (e.g., Shor, Grover, or a newly-identified actually-interesting use-case). OP does not. Nothing to see here. Worth saying, I am not a cryptographer—I do cryptography-adjacent research engineering. However, given the level of hype going around this industry, I think it's fair to at least expect to see the spec-sheet as it were. All the best,
- r33b33 2y agoWould it be smartest for one to sell crypto right now while normies are still oblivious of what's about to happen?
- eamag 2y agoWhat do they mean by >can create an entirely new state of matter – not a solid, liquid or gas but a topological state
- sukhavati 2y agothrough geometry and configuration of materials, you can create quantum effects on a macroscopic scale
- abdullahkhalids 2y agoMatter refers to particles or collection of particles that have mass+volume. These particles can be arranged or behave in different ways, and that is roughly what a "state of matter" is. You know how in solid all the atoms are fixed, but in a gas atoms/molecules are flying about. There are in fact other forms of matter. In plasma you just have ions (instead of atoms/molecules) just zipping about. In neutron stars, you have pretty much only neutrons collapsed into a packed ball. You can also make systems at higher levels of abstraction that have some of this matter or particle like behavior. A simple example is "phonons", which are a small packet of vibration (of atoms) that travels inside a solid much like a photon travels through space. I think phonons don't have a "mass", so they are not matter. Here, they construct a quantum system, some of whose degrees of freedom behave like a matter particle. Qubits are then made from the states of this particle.
- layer8 2y agoSee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_order.
- mdaniel 2y agoAnd, as always(?), 3Blue1Brown also contributes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQqtsm-bBRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQqtsm-bBRU "This open problem taught me what topology is" I'll warn that while it is illustrative, and only 28 minutes, it's some heady stuff
- radioactivist 2y ago
- paulirwin 2y agoCan someone check my understanding: does this mean they have eight logical qubits on the chip? It appears that way from the graphic where it zooms into each logical qubit, although it only shows two there. If that is true, it sounds like having a plan to scale to millions of logical qubits on a chip is even more impressive.
- fsh 2y agoThey have never demonstrated even a single physical qubit. Microsoft has claimed for a while to have observed some signatures of quantized Majorana conductance which might potentially allow building a qubit in the future. However, other researches in the field have strongly criticized their analysis, and the field is full of retracted papers and allegations of scientific misconduct.
- ABS 2y agothis is from 2 days ago: Roadmap to fault tolerant quantum computation using topological qubit arrays https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12252 https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12252
- tmvphil 2y agoThey have no qubits at all, "logical" or not. yet. They plan to make millions. It is substantially easier to release a plan for millions of qubits than it is to make even one.
- DarmokJalad1701 2y agoMy first scan parsed that as "Marijuana 1 quantum processor". Very high performance ...
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago> Very high performance ... From the user's perspective, of course.
- jonbell 2y agoFor me it was more than my first scan. I understand the word is Majorana, but when I go to pronounce it or read it, my brain reports back "Major-auwana." The people who signed off on this name a) do a lot of drugs or b) didn't notice because they have never come anywhere near weed
- oynqr 2y agoI read "Majorana 1 aquarium processor". I am not high.
- outside2344 2y agoMight be a more truthful name honestly too
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2dvisio 2y agoThis is the reason why is called like that. Is pronounced Ma-y-orana https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana
- rdtsc 2y ago> Microsoft’s topological qubit architecture has aluminum nanowires joined together to form an H. Each H has four controllable Majoranas and makes one qubit. These Hs can be connected, too, and laid out across the chip like so many tiles. So they are not all in a superposition with each other? They talk about a million of these nanowires but that looks a bit like quantum dots?
- hulitu 2y ago> Microsoft unveils Majorana 1 quantum processor What is Win 11 boot time on this processor ? Will it be supported in the next version of Windows ? /s
- cgcrob 2y agoAre these actually even useful yet? Genuine question. I never managed to solicit and answer, only long explanations which seemed to have an answer of yes and no at the same time depending on who you observe.
- fooker 2y agoNo. The long explanations boil down to this: quantum computers (so far) are better (given a million qubits) than classical computers at (problems that are in disguise) simulating quantum computers.
- singularity2001 2y agogiven a million qubits ... also last time I checked the record was 80 qubits and with every doubling of the cubits the complexity of the system and the impurities and the noise are increasing. so it's even questionable whether there will ever be useful quantum computers
- Agentus 2y agoi vaguely remember reading an article about solving the correlation between quantum decoherence and scaling of qubit numbers. i dont understand quantum computers so take it with a grain of salt. but here’s what perplexity says: “Exponential Error Reduction: Willow demonstrates a scalable quantum error correction method, achieving an exponential reduction in error rates as the number of qubits increases125. This is crucial because qubits are prone to errors due to their sensitivity to environmental factors25. ”
- ABS 2y agoMicrosoft Research entire point is that their approach will allow "fault-tolerant quantum computing architecture based on noise-resilient, topologically protected Majorana-based qubits." Roadmap to fault tolerant quantum computation using topological qubit arrays https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12252 https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12252
- Mithriil 2y agoHow the H devices (which they call tetrons) form a qubit is explained more thoroughly in their ArXiv article: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12252 https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12252
- perching_aix 2y agoSounds exciting, even though I'm skeptical how far off into the future that supposed 1 million qubit chip is.
- light_triad 2y agoBeyond the marketing value of these types of announcements, how much time until consumer grade quantum cloud computing? Years, decades?
- layer8 2y agoMy hunch is somewhere between “decades” and “never”.
- layer8 2y agoNature article: https://archive.ph/SM8NQ https://archive.ph/SM8NQ
- amelius 2y agoThis is why I'm more excited about Microsoft than Apple.
- geodel 2y agoAgree. Why would I buy Apple M4 macbook when I can have Majorana 1 running Windows 11 and install MS Teams to be extra productive.
- modeless 2y agoHow many qubits on this? One?
- adultSwim 2y agoBest I can tell is the chip has 8
- radioactivist 2y agoWhoever decided to make up the non-existent term "topoconductor" for the purposes of this article deserves to feel shame and embarassment (I say this as a condensed matter physicist).
- 12_throw_away 2y agoCome for the made-up jargon, stay for the horrific PR abuse of the English language like "Unlocking quantum’s promise"
- stubybubs 2y agoDo you think this is partly every company now trying to get in on grifting? Just pumping stock with "we're going to mars, we'll have AGI, cold fusion is almost here" kind of stuff?
- pm90 2y agoGenuinely curious: in what ways is that not a good term? Is it because its not a new thing, just marketing? Or is it conflating with some other physics things?
- radioactivist 2y agoThe ideas that underpin their device have been around for some time and aren't called by that name in the literature -- it appears to be entirely a branding exercise. A clear signal to me they don't seriously think it is a good name is that don't use the name outside this article (it appears nowhere in their Nature paper or anywhere else for that matter).
- pinoy420 2y agoSo what is it called then
- radioactivist 2y ago
- xxs 2y agoI'd believe a word they say if it can factor 33.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- alliao 2y agoI just want to acknowledge the general lucidity of this community, also finding out I am not insane is bit of a bonus. love this community, please don't change
- radioactivist 2y agoA few things to keep in mind, given how hard of a media push this is being given (which should immediately set off alarm bells in your head that this might be bullshit) - Topological phases of matter (similar, but not identical to the one discussed here) have been known for decades and were first observed experimentally in the 1980s. - Creating Majorana quasiparticles has a long history of false starts and retracted claims (discovery of Majoranas in related systems was announced in 2012 and 2018 and both were since retracted). - The quoted Nature paper is about measurements on one qubit. One. Not 100, not 1000, a single qubit. - Unless they think they can scale this up really quickly it seems like its a very long (or perhaps non-existent) road to 10^6 qubits. - If they could scale it up so quickly, it would have been way more convincing to wait a bit (0-2 years) and show a 100 or 1000 qubit machine that would be comparable to efforts from Google, IBM, etc (which have their own problems).
- EvgeniyZh 2y agoThe claim/hope is that topological qubits are fault tolerant or at least suffer from much lower errors (very roughly you can think of topological qubits as an error correction code built of the atoms, ie on scale of Avogadro's number). If, for example they could build a single qubit even with 10^-6 error rates that would in fact put them __ahead__ of all other attempts at the path to fault tolerance (but no NISQ). It is unfortunately unclear how good the topological qubits practically are.
- radioactivist 2y agoI understand the claim and what they are trying to do (and they've been trying to do it for 20 years now). It's an interesting approach and it is orthogonal enough from other efforts that it is absolutely worthwhile to pursue scientifically (I'm in an adjacent field in condensed matter physics). But they are doing a full court press in the media (professionally produced talking head videos, NYT articles/other media, etc, etc) claiming all of those things you've just said are right around the corner. And that's going to confuse and mislead the public. So there needs to push back on what I think is clear bullshit/spin by a company trying to sell itself using this development.
- cab404 2y agono shor no upvote
- halosghost 2y agoAgreed wholesale. Any QC announcement that does not include replicable benchmarks for progress executing Shor or Grover (or demonstration of another real-world use-case that they actually address) should be dismissed out-of-hand by everyone except other researchers in QC. All the best,
- dev1ycan 2y agoMicrosoft really is a pathetic company rnd wise compared to what companies of similar size like Bell Labs were at their prime
- cbracketdash 2y agoTo be fair, MSFT was not started as a research company and is more of a mass market commercializer of existing technology. Bell Labs' primary goal was to discover new science and invent practical applications. (Reminds me I should go read "The Idea Factory"! (story of bell labs)) IMO new breakthroughs in our understanding of physics would be needed first to make substantial progress in QC. As long as MSFT isn't investing in attosecond lasers or low temperature experiments, RSA will remain secure.
- t-3 2y agoCan any modern company be said to be of similar size to Bell Labs in it's prime? Bell Labs were only possible due to a monopoly supplying massive amounts of funding for about a century. MS had a few decades of domination in the consumer desktop OS space, but they always had competition and I would be very surprised if they had the kind of revenue streams that make this type of long-term investment possible - regular payments from nearly every household and business in the country, with easy ability to make predictions about current and future proceeds just by counting heads.
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoShort Term - This might be hype. Sure. Getting some Buzz. Long Term - MS seems pretty committed and serious. Putting in the time/money for a long term vision. Maybe a decade from now, we'll be bowing down to an all powerful MS God/Oracle/AI.
- ein0p 2y agoNadella is currently claiming on X that this opens up a "direct path to 1 million qubits". Based on my priors, I put the probability of this statement being horseshit at 99.9%. Could someone knowledgeable make it 100%?
- kjellsbells 2y agoThat word "direct" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It makes the statement unfalsifiable: no matter how long it takes, how twisty the path turns out to be, it will always be a direct path, because what is a path after all if not direct? He didnt say shortest path, quickest path, or any other qualifier that would set visions of nodes and edges and Graph 101 dancing in our nerdy little heads. It's marketing. Good marketing. I hope they can deliver on it.
- EvgeniyZh 2y agoI'm doing theorical research in the topological quantum computing. The idea behind topological quantum computing is to utilize quantum materials whose low-energy physics looks like an error correcting code. Since these systems are very large (macroscopic number of atoms), the error rates are (theoretically) very low, ie the qubit is fault tolerant by construction, without any additional error correction. In reality, we do not know how good these qubits will be at finite temperature, with real life noise, etc. Moreover, these states do not just occur in nature by themselves, so their construction requires engineering, and this is what Microsoft tries to do. Unfortunately, Majoranas in nanowires have some history of exaggerated claims and data manipulation. Sergey Frolov's [1] twitter, one of the people behind original Majorana zero bias peaks paper, was my go-to source for that, but it looks like he deleted it. There were also some concerns about previous Microsoft paper [2,3] as well as the unusual decision to publish it without the details to reproduce it [4]. In my opinion, Microsoft does solid science, it's just the problem they're trying to solve is very hard and there are many ways in which the results can be misleading. I also think it is likely that they are making progress on Majoranas, but I would be surprised if they will be able to show quantum memory/single qubit gates soon. [1] https://spinespresso.substack.com/p/has-there-been-enough-retractions https://spinespresso.substack.com/p/has-there-been-enough-re... [2] https://x.com/PhysicsHenry/status/1670184166674112514 https://x.com/PhysicsHenry/status/1670184166674112514 [3] https://x.com/PhysicsHenry/status/1892268229139042336 https://x.com/PhysicsHenry/status/1892268229139042336 [4] https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.210001 https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.2...
- klysm 2y agoI know nothing about quantum computing, but constructing a physical system that resembles error correcting codes sounds absolutely fascinating.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jwatson5 2y agoI’m an experimentalist at Microsoft Quantum who was involved in the work presented in our recent Nature publication. As an experimentalist, I can say these results are very exciting and would emphasize that the data are coming from real devices in the lab, not just theories. In the Nature paper, we present data from two different devices to demonstrate that the results are reproducible, and we performed additional measurements and modeling described in the supplemental material to rule out potential false positive scenarios. In my opinion, the citations above do not represent a balanced view of the Majorana field status but are rather negative. We published two experimental papers recently that went through a rigorous peer review process. Additionally, we have engaged with the DARPA team to validate our results, and we actually have them measuring our devices in our Redmond lab. Finally, we have exciting new results that we just shared with many experts in the field at the Station Q conference in Santa Barbara. These new experiments further probe our qubits and give us additional confidence that we are indeed operating topological qubits. We will share more broadly at the upcoming APS March meeting. For more information, please see the following post by my colleague Roman Lutchyn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/roman-lutchyn-bb9a382_interferometric-single-shot-parity-measurement-activity-7298475476010811392-jfIE/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/roman-lutchyn-bb9a382_interfe... ."
- r33b33 2y agoSo when does this break crypto and Bitcoin and how to best prepare for this? Is there any way to secure at all?
- atlanta90210 2y agoGreat question are people predicting we will have enough computing power to "break" bitcoin? How much is needed?
- einpoklum 2y agoThey can break 1-bit-coin. How's that for ya?
- LarsDu88 2y agoIf you can break bitcoin, you can also break all the encryption we use for banking and other transactions, so might as well stock up on SPAM and ammo.
- r33b33 2y agoIt's an on issue, since bank can always switch to face-in-face verification. This is not an argument. Crypto is the problem here.
- r33b33 2y agoWhy isn't crypto crashing?
- gloosx 2y agoBecause I decrypted the whole blockchain using my free Azure subscription and started pumping it.
- Crontab 2y agoAny word if it works without a Microsoft account?
- uncharted9 2y agoCan we please have a discussion based solely on the content of the article? I know we all hate Microsoft's business practices, but let's try to limit our tendency to turn the discussion into a typical Reddit-esque thread.
- hulitu 2y ago> Any word if it works without a Microsoft account? No. And it needs telemetry too. Scrollbars are optional. Abusing transient windows, are not.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- LarsDu88 2y agoIf it's going to take another 10 years to turn this into a usable product... Better spew out some marketing BS to move the needle on MSFT stock price...
- dr_dshiv 2y agoI want a children’s picture book of majorana topologies, they are so beautiful! https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2590238522001734-gr13.jpg https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S25902385220017... https://qdev.nbi.ku.dk/research/topological_quantum_systems/Topological_quantum_systems_pic_1.png https://qdev.nbi.ku.dk/research/topological_quantum_systems/...
- ABS 2y agoScott Aaronson's FAQ on Microsoft’s topological qubit thing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112021
- robbale 2y ago[dead]
- Swoerds 2y ago[dead]