Boffin Claims Microsoft's 'Quantum Leap' Is Invalid Due To 'Basic Python Errors' (theregister.com)
- Reference: 0184068768
- News link: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/26/06/24/1644216/boffin-claims-microsofts-quantum-leap-is-invalid-due-to-basic-python-errors
- Source link: https://www.theregister.com/research/2026/06/24/boffin-claims-microsofts-supposed-quantum-leap-does-not-compute-due-to-basic-python-errors/5260489
> "Last year they claimed to be years, not decades from a 'topological quantum supercomputer,'" Legg told The Register in an email. "My feeling is that they are centuries, not decades away. If it works at all -- and, based on what I have seen, the most likely scenario is that it doesn't work." Based on his analysis of the research Microsoft published in 2025, Legg argues that the company's claims about finding and being able to control the elusive Majorana particle to build a topological superconductor do not withstand scrutiny.
>
> "I demonstrate that Microsoft's tune-up software is flawed and that coding errors resulted in incorrect statements to peer reviewers," said Legg. "Raw data, which was omitted from the original paper, also appears to indicate Microsoft's devices contain considerable disorder and are not compatible with the existence of a topological gap. In other words, the prerequisites for Microsoft's claims do not appear to be met, but this was obscured because this data did not appear in the original publication."
>
> Essentially, Microsoft has proposed a [5]Topological Gap Protocol (TGP) that can be used to detect the phase transition deemed to be a prerequisite for conducting quantum calculations using Majorana particles. Legg argues that based on his analysis of underlying transport data (measurements of particle change) -- omitted from the original publication -- Microsoft chose to focus on results that supported its thesis and ignored data that could be interpreted as a negative result. As he notes in his critique: "The TGP plotting code was set to highlight only the largest purportedly topological region."
>
> "The primary consequence was the omission of other regions that passed their tune-up protocol (the TGP)," said Legg. "When peer reviewers asked if other regions existed, Microsoft inaccurately stated that they had investigated the only region passing the protocol within the explored range. This was not correct." Legg also argues that Microsoft mishandled its code. "The code antisymmetrized bias voltage based on array index rather than physical value," his analysis says.
>
> In other words, Microsoft's researchers made a basic programming mistake by evaluating the array index -- the number identifying a value's position in an array -- instead of the value to which the index refers. "There were two pretty basic Python programming errors that hid these alternative regions," Legg explained. "Their plotting software was hardcoded with a filter (zbp_cluster_numbers=[1]) that forced it to display only the single largest region, concealing other successful results from their phase maps. Changing this to zbp_cluster_numbers=[1,2] shows already a second region." Legg added: "The TGP software transformed the data by simply reversing a Python array (x[::-1]) based on its index position, ignoring the actual physical bias voltages."
[1] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10568-7
[2] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/02/19/1651235/microsoft-reveals-its-first-quantum-computing-chip-the-majorana-1
[3] https://www.theregister.com/research/2026/06/24/boffin-claims-microsofts-supposed-quantum-leap-does-not-compute-due-to-basic-python-errors/5260489
[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10568-7
[5] https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.02472
"the most likely scenario is that it doesn't work" (Score:5, Informative)
At this time, this is the only rational stance left. There is no indication that QCs can ever scale to useful size, but a ton of indicators that they likely will not. There is not even solid proof that QCs work at all, because the longest, most complex complex calculation ever done successfully is apparently factoring 29 with a specialized algorithm for 29. That is easily in range for a conventional analog computation by non-quantum mechanisms. Hence while I think it is unlikely, the computation mechanisms that QCs rely on may still turn out to be hallucinations. Also note that even very, very, very minor deviations from the theory (and we _always_ had those in the past as soon as we had equipment to verify theory against reality precisely enough) would completely kill the QC idea. The precision required to do, say, a 128 bit calculation precisely, is unimaginable and a digital computer only reaches it by extreme measures.
Re: (Score:3)
> the longest, most complex complex calculation ever done successfully is apparently factoring 29 with a specialized algorithm for 29.
Shor's algorithm has been used to factor 21, not 29. 29 is prime, and people don't usually talk about factoring primes because the factors are trivial. But otherwise, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, sorry. I get confused about the number, because it does not really matter, only that it is exceptionally small. You are right, it was 21.
Re: (Score:2)
So then it couldn't even factor the [1]Grothendieck prime [mathoverflow.net]?
[1] https://mathoverflow.net/questions/326912/story-of-grothendiecks-prime-number-57
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite sure quantum computers are valid. Whether they're useful is another question. I'll agree that it's not clear that general purpose quantum computers will ever be useful. (I won't agree that it's clear they never will be useful.)
OTOH, specialized quantum computers are already useful. DWave sells one design.
Re: (Score:3)
> I'm quite sure quantum computers are valid.
That just means you have no clue what you are talking about...
Re: (Score:2)
Please, *please* do not use words like "hallucination" here. It's already a somewhat ill-defined term, but it does have a generally understood context that absolutely does not apply in this space. There's already a bizarre conflation of AI and quantum computing that makes no damn sense, and I'd really like it to stop getting worse.
As for the rest of your post, topological or Majorana qubits that Microsoft favors have never been reliably proven to exist at all, much less be useful for quantum computing. B
Typical. (Score:3)
Microsoft doesn't have a Legg to stand on.
Boffin (Score:5, Insightful)
A quick perusal of [1]his published papers [google.com] seems that boffin would even be understatement, but a well published researcher who is wholly dedicated to this field of research. And whose papers are appear to be written with well respected researchers in the field like [2]this one [google.com] and several others written with [3]Daniel Loss [wikipedia.org].
From the Daniel Loss article:
> His 1998 paper (jointly with David DiVincenzo) proposing the use of spin qubits in semiconductor quantum dots is the foundation of one of the main approaches towards the realization of a quantum computer and (as of 2025) has been cited more than 9000 times.
This doesn't appear to be a critique that should be easily dismissed, guy clearly knows his stuff.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=p5x5ygYAAAAJ&hl=en
[2] https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=p5x5ygYAAAAJ&citation_for_view=p5x5ygYAAAAJ:hC7cP41nSMkC
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Loss
Python ? (Score:3)
Quantum computing uses Python ?
You would think the most advanced CPU would use a compiled language....
C, assembly, Fortran, etc
not Basic, Perl or Lisp
Re: Python ? (Score:3)
Fucking python people love fucking python.
Re:Python ? (Score:4, Informative)
What you don't understand is the Python is often used as a method of invoking libraries that are written in more efficient languages. And for the layer that it handles it doesn't introduce unacceptable inefficiencies. E.g., you wouldn't want to do ray tracing in Python, but it's fine for calling a library that does that.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be worse. They could be using Excel with VBA macros.
But what if? (Score:3)
I'm just waiting for the day when I can have a Beowulf cluster of Majorna chips to simulate Natalie Portman and some hot grits.
Re: (Score:2)
But by the time you get that, she'll be over 50, and not at all as appealing.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the simulation will be enough for some...
Re: (Score:2)
a LOT of celebs at 50 are as hot as ever
Re: (Score:2)
With my four-digit ID, I'm sure she'll be age-appropriate for me no matter what.
Re: (Score:1)
From the summary:
> Microsoft, for its part, says the bugs were minor and stands by its findings and roadmap.
IOW, they're sticking with their marketing pitch.
# The "If It Doesn't Fit, Just Slicing-and-Dice It (Score:2)
def microsoft_quantum_breakthrough(raw_data):
# Step 1: Invert reality using standard index slicing
physics_defying_data = raw_data[::-1]
# Step 2: Filter out all the inconvenient physics
return max(physics_defying_data) # Centuries of progress achieved!
British slang (Score:3)
Apparently "boffin" is a British slang term for a scientist/engineer. I had never heard the term, and with the word being at the beginning of the headline I thought it was a person's name. Then was confused when TFS and the Register article failed to tell me who they were.
Re: British slang (Score:1)
Yes it is indeed a shame that [1]the English no longer teach their children how to speak [duckduckgo.com] and we Americans must pick up the slack.
[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=why+can't+the+english+learn+to+speak+lyrics&ia=web&iax=lyrics
They made a leap... (Score:1)
... a quantum leap. ::removes sunglasses::
Quantum Leap is invalid? (Score:4, Funny)
Quick! Somebody call Scott Bakula!
Re: (Score:2)
> Quick! Somebody call Scott Bakula!
Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home.