Talk:Topological quantum computer
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Topological quantum computer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
I don't think anyone believes Goldman's experiment showing anyons. Should we remove the reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.91.126 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Clear as mud
[edit]Sorry, but I find the following passage overwhelmingly unclear:
" While small but cumulative perturbations can cause quantum states to decohere and introduce errors in traditional quantum computations, such perturbations do not alter the topological properties of the braids. This stability is akin to the difference between cutting and reattaching a string to form a different braid versus a ball (representing an ordinary quantum particle in four-dimensional spacetime) colliding with a wall."
Wait — readers are expected to know what
"the difference between cutting and reattaching a string to form a different braid versus a ball (representing an ordinary quantum particle in four-dimensional spacetime) colliding with a wall"
means??????????
I profoundly doubt that any reader who is not a physicist would have the vaguest idea of what this passage is hinting at. (And I'm very unsure about most physicists as well.)
I hope that someone knowledgeable about this subject and talented in the art of communicating about physics can improve this passage so that it makes sense to most readers.
In Feb 2025 Microsoft claimed to have built... - too early to add to article
[edit]I think it's inappropriate to include a claim based on no more than a press release. They haven't even published a preprint, much less a peer-reviewed article. The paper that is out does not claim to prove the the presence of Majoranas and as confirmed here there is no publication out that does. WP should not make itself part of a company's PR machine. Let's wait for the publication. --Qcomp (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)