The paper's conclusion [1] does a much better job of summarizing what they did than the posted article. For example, they explicitly note limitations: > Becaus

The paper's conclusion [1] does a much better job of summarizing what they did than the posted article. For example, they explicitly note limitations: > Because the QMT representation uses frequencies to encode the state, the number of qubits would be limited by bandwidth. Using an electronic voltage as a physical representation, we find that frequencies in the practical range of 0.1 Hz to 100 GHz would allow for about n=40 entangled qubits to be realized. [...] Since the quantum state is explicitly encoded in the signal spectrum, security applications such as quantum key distribution would not seem to be amenable to this approach, although they may be emulated. And they even note that their approach has not been demonstrated to be superior: > It remains to be shown that this approach can be realized in a fault-tolerant manner, using existing quantum error correction techniques, and that it ultimately has utility and merit over current approaches to quantum computing—or standard digital computers, for that matter. My takeaway is that the paper's intended goal is to explain a neat, perhaps practical, way to emulate some qubits. It doesn't do anything "magical", it encodes all of the amplitudes into the signal (in a real quantum computer, you'd have no direct access to the amplitudes) and explains how to emulate operations being applied. 1: http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/17/5/053017/article#njp512897s9 http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/17/5/053017/article#njp5...