pull down to refresh
110 sats \ 11 replies \ @SimpleStacker 17h \ on: Microsoft Claims Quantum-Computing Breakthrough—Some Physicists Are Skeptical science
I guess you are skeptical as well?
I wonder what is the incentive that would drive companies to make premature scientific announcements. Just a temporary stock boost? Some kind of internal political dynamic?
Yeah, pretty skeptical. The fact they had a paper retracted from Nature on the same topic (alleged observation of Majorana fermions, see #891138) warrants extra scrutiny into today's claims.
There is an arms race going on between the big tech companies (IBM, Google, etc) to claim quantum supremacy, so there is a lot of money at stake. Politics play a role too, for sure, as illustrated by @Cje95 eagerness to support these claims (I don't say that in a disparaging way, just an interesting observation to realize that the state also has many reasons to get your country to be the first to win the quantum-race).
To be clear, I am not saying that they have for sure not observed Majorana fermions. Just want to shed additional light from the perspective of someone who talks to people working on this kind of physics daily (a former advisor was involved in the 2018 Nature retraction), there are still many caveats to address before being fully confident about the results.
reply
I wouldnt say I am supporting the claims yet I am saying though that by partnering with the US National Labs give it more credence. Given that the National Labs are huge basic science centers and they publish the majority of their work publicly its why I just dont see Microsoft being stupid enough to announce they are partnering with the National Labs knowing the results will be public.
That is actually a huge thing my Committee is having to tackle right now... Given the tech arms race and how the US has historically been super transparent with their research results we are having to readjust to the real world know if that makes sense.
reply
It's really interesting to see how you guys are on top of this. It must be very exciting to work on this with your committee now.
US has historically been super transparent with their research
That's a good ideal to work towards. However, my colleague's experience working for a Los Alamos National Lab has been one of having to sign plenty of confidentiality papers keeping him from sharing his results publicly in the way he was used to while working in Europe. But again, I understand the incentives at play, so maybe Europe should also work towards acquiring more IP while working on these topics.
reply
Working on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee is amazing for me. A ton of the research is basic research and so it isnt the prettiest or news worthy but it is amazing to see how it has led to what it has.
Los Alamos (LANL) is a DOE Nat Lab and a huge NNSA (National Nuclear Security Admin) location as well. Thats going to cause that paperwork but its also one of the reasons why LANL doesnt have the top tier super computers because access is so heavily restricted same as Savannah River.
Really if I went to LANL I dont have to clearance to do much if anything. That is a huge years long effort that I am going to try and start soon.
reply
Thanks for clarifying about the specifics of LANL. Didn't know if/how they differed from other National Labs.
Let me know if you ever need some opinion on some fundamental condensed matter questions. I probably won't be of much help, but I can assure you I have no incentives to overhype any of the topics (other than the one I am trying to get accepted by the Nature editor this week~~).
reply
I was a little wrong on the exact nature of which one was which turns out Savannah River isnt.... Pretty sure though it has some next level security though because of the plutonium pit production getting ready to start there...
NNSA maintains the existing nuclear deterrent through the use of science experiments, engineering audits and high-tech simulations at its three national laboratories: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories.
That you for the offer that is great to know! Right now I am currently handling the AI development/deployment at the National Labs which opens up this wild can of worms because they have done machine learning for 40 years so its one of those at what point does it become AI and no one can decide what that is!
I know our R&T team who handle NSF (national science foundation) and a few other things is focused a lot on research security and quantum. Not sure what the Space people or Environment people are really up to at the moment.... they are in a different building then me and our I&O team is having to retool after 2 of the three staffers have/are leaving.
I couldn't imagine working in DC and staying sane, but working in the Science, Space, and Technology Committees is probably one of the ways to do so. Sounds super cool and interesting!
reply
One of the really really great things has been the bipartisanship that the Committee operates under. Now for the first time in 6 years we have a new chairman and a ton of new Members on both sides but the Chair and Ranking Member have both stated that they want to maintain the bipartisanship we have created over the last half decade and actually get stuff done.