3 ms·

> won't be the last time we hear about quantum research that has been foundational to a lot of work This research wasn't foundational to a lot of work. Most of

> won't be the last time we hear about quantum research that has been foundational to a lot of work This research wasn't foundational to a lot of work. Most of important/foundational works in quantum (doesn't matter if computing or general, I'm not sure which one you meant) are verified. How can you possibly base your experimental work on someone else's work if you can't replicate it?

_heimdall 1y ago
Scientific research today is largely about publishing positive results, we rarely see negative results published and most people focus on publish novel work rather than attempting to validate someone else's work. I agree with you, its a terrible idea to base your work on someone else's when it hasn't been well confirmed in independent research. I consider the source work in the OP as foundational because Microsoft built so much work and spent so many resources building on top of it. It's not foundational to the entire field but it is foundational to a lot of follow-up research.
- EvgeniyZh 1y ago
  > I agree with you, its a terrible idea to base your work on someone else's when it hasn't been well confirmed in independent research. It's not about whether it's good or bad idea. To make follow-up experiments you need to first reproduce the original experiment. That's why faking "big" experiments like Schön could never work. > Microsoft built so much work and spent so many resources building on top of it. It's not foundational to the entire field but it is foundational to a lot of follow-up research. Will all due respect, a single group (even large one) doing a single type of experiments (even important and complicated one) is not a lot of research. Also, Microsoft knew about data manipulation, that why they moved the experiments in house. They didn't do experiments under assumption that the early Majorana papers are correct, then they wouldn't need to develop their own complicated (and somewhat controversial) protocol to detect Majoranas. It was quite clear for everyone that regardless of data manipulation people were too optimistic interpreting Majorana signatures in these early papers.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    We can debate what merits consideration as a large body of research, but it seems unhelpful as its entirely subjective.
    - EvgeniyZh 1y ago
      The point still stands, Microsoft didn't build their research on top of that, but started their research because of these problems.

_heimdall 1y ago

Scientific research today is largely about publishing positive results, we rarely see negative results published and most people focus on publish novel work rather than attempting to validate someone else's work. I agree with you, its a terrible idea to base your work on someone else's when it hasn't been well confirmed in independent research. I consider the source work in the OP as foundational because Microsoft built so much work and spent so many resources building on top of it. It's not foundational to the entire field but it is foundational to a lot of follow-up research.

EvgeniyZh 1y ago
> I agree with you, its a terrible idea to base your work on someone else's when it hasn't been well confirmed in independent research. It's not about whether it's good or bad idea. To make follow-up experiments you need to first reproduce the original experiment. That's why faking "big" experiments like Schön could never work. > Microsoft built so much work and spent so many resources building on top of it. It's not foundational to the entire field but it is foundational to a lot of follow-up research. Will all due respect, a single group (even large one) doing a single type of experiments (even important and complicated one) is not a lot of research. Also, Microsoft knew about data manipulation, that why they moved the experiments in house. They didn't do experiments under assumption that the early Majorana papers are correct, then they wouldn't need to develop their own complicated (and somewhat controversial) protocol to detect Majoranas. It was quite clear for everyone that regardless of data manipulation people were too optimistic interpreting Majorana signatures in these early papers.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  We can debate what merits consideration as a large body of research, but it seems unhelpful as its entirely subjective.
  - EvgeniyZh 1y ago
    The point still stands, Microsoft didn't build their research on top of that, but started their research because of these problems.