Talk:Quantum computing

A bit is not "physical"

One sentence reads as follows:

"A classical bit, by definition, exists in either of two physical states, which can be denoted 0 and 1."

This is misuse of the word "physical".

A bit is a concept, not a physical entity. 2601:204:F181:9410:2191:ADEC:5EE:A9CD (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The light switch in my room disagrees. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with "physical two states" is incorrect. In a CPU a bit isn't physical, the physical level are transistor based circuits of gates, and the difference between a digital bit ZERO / ONE is a matter of a potential difference of around 1.5 volts DC. The physical level are the (tiny) transistors. EditorÆ (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

The potential difference you are talking about is precisely the two physically distinguishable states of bits inside of a CPU. Information is physical. Electronblues (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello ! I'm impressed by your own page. This is a question, not a statement for you. But there has to be a physical level for everyting existing, doesn't it ? I've read analoguge and digigital theory at university level, but not longer than 6 or 8 weeks.I believed a transistor, gate or CPU etc are physical in the sence they are possible to "touch" ? But a DC potiential difference (mainly defiinating the digital "zeroes" or "ones") cannot be stored or hold in a human hand.

But I may very well be totally wrong in regarding what a Qbit actually is. But I'm under the impression that many "physical Qubits" are requiered in order to create a logical Qubit. (The Quantum Computer wasn't "around" at at all during my edjucation 2000-2003). I'm 61 and am just following the development of the Quantum Computer.

Kind regards EditorÆ (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! It is certainly a subtle topic because there are several layers of abstraction involved.

About transistors and DC potential difference-- Imagine a transistor. The transistor is a physical object. But it also has two physical states, high voltage or low voltage. Those two states are physically distinguishable. they correspond to measurably different configurations of electric charges. It's a bit like the weather. We can all tell if it's cold or hot, and we can measure it too, but we can't 'hold' temperature. Nonetheless, it is a physical property because it corresponds to microscopic motion of particles. If you are further interested I recommend reading the article I linked, "Information is physical", by Rolf Landauer at IBM.

The quantum computing topic you are talking about, where multiple "physical qubits" are required to create one "logical qubit" comes from error correction codes in quantum computing, particularly the surface code. In this case, the two physical states of the 'logical qubit' are global properties of the entire lattice formed by the physical qubits. But I want to stress that this, again, is two physical states corresponding to different configurations of the lattice. They are just not the same two physical states as the two physical states of the physical qubits.

The initial sentence is a bit confusing because 'bits' in mathematics or information theory are abstract concepts. But in order to do computing, bits are always implemented physically, and thus always "exist in either of two physical states". This is why the sentence in this context is technically correct, although confusing. Electronblues (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Well "bit" starts out as a word in the English language and then it needs to get defined. The most technical definitions (i.e. information theory) are a concept rather than a physical device. So I think that 2601 is technically correct. And saying "by definition" IMO makes it more clearly wrong. But by other common meanings/usage it often refers to the physical state, or physical state of a device, or to a device which stores that amount of information. But probably best to tweak the wording a bit, particularly because it claims to be by definition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@North8000 not much information is lost by dropping the word "physical", the concept of two states is what matters in the context of a bit. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed subsection: Modular and distributed architectures

The article currently discusses the scalability challenges of increasing qubit counts in a single device (wiring, cooling, decoherence), but does not cover modular/distributed architectures as an approach to this problem. Distributed quantum computing is only mentioned in passing in the cryptography context, and the 2025 Oxford demonstration (Main et al., Nature 638, 383–388) is not mentioned at all, although it is already covered in detail at Quantum network.

I'd like to add a short sourced subsection under "Engineering", with a

{{See also}}

hatnote and only a one-sentence mention of the Oxford experiment to avoid duplication. Draft below. Sources are the Nature paper, the Oxford press release, a 2025 review (arXiv:2510.15630), and a 2026 Nature Communications paper on teleported gates between solid-state registers.

For transparency: I write publicly about distributed quantum computing, but I have no financial or professional stake in any of the cited work. Feedback welcome — if there are no objections, I'll add the section in a few days.

=== Modular and distributed architectures ===
{{See also|Quantum network}}

One approach to the scalability problem is to distribute a computation
across multiple smaller quantum processing modules instead of increasing
the number of [[qubit]]s in a single device. In such modular
architectures — also referred to as distributed quantum computing (DQC) —
each module contains a limited number of qubits, and the modules are
interconnected through quantum channels (for example, optical fibres) and
classical communication links, forming a single logical computing
system.<ref name="MainNature2025">{{cite journal |last1=Main |first1=D.
|last2=Drmota |first2=P. |last3=Nadlinger |first3=D. P. |last4=Ainley
|first4=E. M. |last5=Agrawal |first5=A. |last6=Nichol |first6=B. C.
|last7=Srinivas |first7=R. |last8=Araneda |first8=G. |last9=Lucas
|first9=D. M. |title=Distributed quantum computing across an optical
network link |journal=Nature |volume=638 |pages=383–388 |year=2025
|doi=10.1038/s41586-024-08404-x}}</ref> This strategy is intended to
circumvent engineering obstacles that grow with the qubit count of a
single device, such as wiring, cooling and crosstalk between
qubits.<ref name="OxfordPR2025">{{cite web |title=First distributed
quantum algorithm brings quantum supercomputers closer
|publisher=University of Oxford |date=6 February 2025
|url=https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-02-06-first-distributed-quantum-algorithm-brings-quantum-supercomputers-closer
|access-date=2 July 2026}}</ref>

Quantum logic between qubits in different modules is applied using
[[quantum teleportation|quantum gate teleportation]], which requires
remote [[quantum entanglement|entanglement]] between the modules, local
operations and measurements within each module, and classical
communication of measurement outcomes.<ref name="Review2025">{{cite arXiv
|title=Distributed Quantum Information Processing: A Review of Recent
Progress |year=2025 |eprint=2510.15630 |class=quant-ph}}</ref> In 2025,
researchers at the [[University of Oxford]] demonstrated the first
execution of a distributed quantum algorithm across a photonic network
link between two trapped-ion modules,<ref name="MainNature2025" /> and in
2026 a deterministic teleported CNOT gate was demonstrated between remote
solid-state qubit registers based on [[nitrogen-vacancy center]]s in
diamond.<ref name="Iuliano2026">{{cite journal |last1=Iuliano |first1=M.
|display-authors=etal |title=Unconditionally teleported quantum gates
between remote solid-state qubit registers |journal=Nature Communications
|year=2026 |doi=10.1038/s41467-026-72818-6}}</ref>

Open challenges include the rate and fidelity of remote entanglement
generation and the implementation of [[quantum error correction]] across
multiple noisy, networked modules. Distributed architectures are being
investigated as a possible route towards fault-tolerant quantum
computing.<ref name="OxfordPR2025" /><ref name="Review2025" />

Feedback welcome. Ramon Schweiss (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ramon, are you a contributor to any of the citations added in this proposal?

I'm not a fan of the "In 2025 researchers ... and in 2026..." sentence. This is too early to be history and we don't do news. To WP:verify a claim like "first" requires a secondary (review or significant follow on from another group) source. So "Quantum algorithms distributed across a photonic network and ... have been demostrated." Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. To answer your question: no, I am not a contributor to any of the cited works, and I have no connection to any of the research groups. I write publicly about the topic, which is why I disclosed that above.

Your point about "first" claims and WP:NOTNEWS is well taken. I'd suggest replacing the sentence with your wording, roughly: "Quantum algorithms distributed across a photonic network link between trapped-ion modules, as well as teleported two-qubit gates between remote solid-state qubit registers, have been demonstrated." — dropping the "first" claim and the year-by-year framing entirely.

Would that address your concerns? Happy to adjust further before adding anything to the article. Ramon Schweiss (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ramon Schweiss (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Go for it. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the review. Ramon Schweiss (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton while I agree on Wikipedia not being a place for news. You're suggestion of not having the "In 2025..." approach can lead to WP:DATED problems. On reading this section it places some of the claims in the present tense, which can cause the article to become stale and inaccurate as the topic develops. Keeping "In 2025.." anchors the particular claim to 2025 and can be built on as time progresses with further validation or contradiction of the claim. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Duncnbiscuit could you give me some specific cases in the inserted content that illustrate your concern. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton The particular sentence that stands out is "Distributed architectures are being investigated as a possible route towards fault-tolerant quantum computing" its not terrible, but its better to use past tense because it's a statement of what was happening doesn't go stale. So "In 2025, distributed architectures were a possible route...", backed by a citation dated in 2025.

The article also has a few instances of the word "current", which need to be reworded because what was current when it was written wont stay current as the topic develops. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! In my opinion, "In 2025, distributed architectures were a possible route...", implies they are now not a possible route, which is incorrect as of 2026. Anyway I removed that claim as I don't believe that is the core message of the review.

I made some changes please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

There is always using the {{As of}} template, which has the advantage that the article is added to Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. That way its clear that its still a possible route but there is a hint for editors to come back later and update the statement. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Article Streamlining

@Sławomir Biały

My recent changes to this page felt like much needed simplifications to needlessly obtuse wording. Wikipedia is intended for a general audience and I feel that in its current state this article is nearly incomprehensible. The changes I made were intended as common-sense simplifications of the existing text.

The only intentional change I have made to the text's meaning regarded Shor's algorithm, which was a factual correction. The algorithm is not "for breaking ... RSA and Diffie-Hellman", it can just be used in other algorithms that do.

As for removed details, I removed details that interrupted the flow of the article and were listed elsewhere or irrelevant.

If you have found errors I have made or feel I was overzealous while removing extraneous details, I would encourage you to correct them yourself, rather than ignoring Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Given that you appear to be violating this policy, I have restored my changes until you can provide specific examples or someone else concurs with your removal. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Please wait for consensus. The edit introduces technical errors, eliminates qualifying terms, and breaks the grammar in some places. The revert was necessary to restore the article to the clean state. You are free to discuss individual changes here, but please do not continue to edit war to insert your poorer version of the article. Your edit summary only said "made a start", suggesting to me that you intend to damage the article further. I suggest that you should propose substantial changes here. The current revision was a collaborative project among dozens of editors, and such large-scale changes that affect technical meaning require consensus. The fact that it was reverted indicates a lack of consensus, and you have WP:BRD exactly backwards. When an edit is reverted, the WP:ONUS is on the editor making the changes to justify them on the discussion page. My edit summaries did indicate brief reasons for the revert. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

A few specific issues are:

• The revised definition no longer distinguishes quantum computers from ordinary computers. "Uses quantum phenomena" is insufficient because ordinary semiconductor computers also depend physically on quantum phenomena. The deleted phrase "in an essential way" conveyed that quantum coherence, superposition, or entanglement participates in the computational model itself. The article goes to some effort to distinguish these.
• The revised lead removes qualifying language about the believed speedup of quantum computers over classical computers. This is still an open problem in complexity theory. It also muddles the nature of the speedup.
• Quantum computers are expected to be able to simulate some physical systems exponentially faster than classical computers, especially those that rely explicitly on quantum behavior, not all physical systems.
• A qubit does not simply "replace" a classical bit. It is the fundamental unit of quantum information.
• The new measurement description is only valid after specifying a particular measurement. "Measuring a qubit collapses the superposition into one of the two states" appears to mean $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$, but that is true only for a projective measurement in the computational basis. Measurements can use other bases or more general measurement formalisms. The outcome is also random according to the Born rule; calling its probability "predictable" is liable to be read as saying that the outcome is predictable.
• The description of a quantum algorithm becomes misleading.
• The examples of superconducting qubits and trapped ions explained what "physically engineering qubits" means. Their deletion makes the introductory hardware discussion less informative rather than merely less verbose.

- Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

My reasoning:

• I would argue "in an essential way" is an inherently unhelpful phrase, particularly to a layperson. All classical computers still use quantum effects "in an essential way" since, as you said, the physical phenomena emerge from quantum effects. I agree that there needs to be clarification here, but I do not feel that the original phrasing is clearer.
• "It is widely believed that" appears to be Wikipedia:WEASEL. It is well established that for certain tasks, quantum computers are exponentially faster than classical computers.
• I can't find an example of where my changes in implied the speed-up applied to all physical simulations.
• Moving from classical to quantum computing, the classical bit is replaced with the quantum qubit as the fundamental unit of information.
• The original article already specified that measurements resulted in one of two states, also appearing to mean projective measurement. "probabilistic rule" seems far less clear to a layperson than "with a predictable probability".
• Misleading how?
• The examples of superconducting and trapped ion qubits immediately following the sentence describing research on improving coherence and error times implied that these were specially developed techniques

Safety In Obscurity (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• As noted in the article, quantum effects are not used in an essential way by a classical computer. Every classical computer can in principle be replaced by a fluid network (or other purely classical system) with only a constant slowdown. "It is widely believed" is not weasel-wording; it accurately expresses the current state of affairs in complexity theory. It is also widely believe that P and NP are different, for example. For important examples such as factoring and discrete logarithms, polynomial-time quantum algorithms are known, but the necessary classical lower bounds are not. "Efficiently perform physical simulations" is unqualified and probably false in general. Also, your discussion of Shor's algorithm contains a straightforward error. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  • No system is "purely classical". If we are trying to convey the nuance that quantum computers rely on entangling their units of information, "essential" cannot distinguish between this and a classical computer that gets a random number seed from an atomic source.
  • Good point, but "it is widely believed" hardly captures that nuance. It would be much clearer to say that they are exponentially faster than the current best classical approaches. "It is widely believed" appears to imply that there is uncertainty that there would be any speedup at all compared to current approaches.
  • Efficiently is relative. Given that this is an example of the previous sentence, I feel it is very clear that this is in comparison to classical approaches.
  • Please clarify the exact error I have made discussing Shor's algorithm rather than pointing vaguely towards one.

  Safety In Obscurity (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I've been clear enough why your edit was unacceptable. I will wait until someone else comments here rather than continue this salami slicing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Salami slicing is the entire point! We're not meant to wait for a committee to convene to decide who's entirely right, we're meant to converge on a better article through constructive criticism. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If there are specific changes you want to make, propose them. As a bulk edit this does not pass, for quite a few reasons. But discussing a dozen points in parallel is not usually how changes are discussed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Propose them? This isn't a protected page. How are we ever meant to do things efficiently if we agonise over one thing at a time? Wikipedia:Be bold is an official policy for a reason, and this page really needs it. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I see you are now reinstating many edits that I already objected to, errors and all. This is one reason I urged you to wait before continuing down this path. After being reverted, you should propose each edit here on the talk page, and get consensus before continuing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The trouble is that you seem resolutely opposed to finding consensus. I have taken your advice onboard where I see it is applicable but you seem totally unwilling to accept any change to the page.

Standard procedure is not to wait for approval by committee, rather it is to take feedback on board and try to make constructive changes per the cycle part of WP:BRD.

You individually do not get final say on the contents of this page, per WP:NVC. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Safety In Obscurity, please read WP:BRD again. Also, compare your approach to that taken in § Proposed subsection: Modular and distributed architectures, above. There is no star chamber but when the accuracy of an edit is being challenged, that is a show-stopper, it must be resolved here first. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I am desperately trying to resolve the accuracy of my edits, but I'm not exactly being provided constructive feedback. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

At the very least it's indisputable that the Shor's algorithm section is incorrect. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear that the original text was incorrect, but your proposed change is even more incorrect. Shor's algorithm is primarily for computing discrete logarithms, with integer factorization built on as an extra layer. These threaten, respectively, Diffie-Hellman/El Gamal-like scheme, and RSA. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I fail to see how my change could be "more incorrect" than stating it is for breaking those encryption protocols. The wiki page for Shor's algorithm literally clarifies that Shor developed multiple algorithms, and that the integer factorisation algorithm is the commonly referred to one.

The base algorithm is actually for solving the period-finding problem, which integer factorisation and discrete log are instances of.

But, yes, the basic variant of Diffie-Hellman actually requires solving discrete log. That's all you had to correct.

My entire point is that a reader is not served by explaining the full nuances of the variants of Shor's algorithm and which cryptography suite is vulnerable to each. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed Change: Reword initial sentence

The first sentence of the article can be much more concise and understandable. In order:

• Real or theoretical is redundant, and can be replaced with "a"
• Replace "exploits" with the simpler "uses"
• Calling the effects "quantum superposition and entanglement" skips the need to specify they are quantum phenomena.
• "in an essential way" is unhelpful. A classical computer that gets randomness seeded from an atomic source would be a quantum computer by this standard. We need to make it clear that the quantum effects are inherently part of the operations on the data.

A '''quantum computer''' is a [[computer]] that uses quantum [[Quantum superposition|superposition]] and [[Quantum entanglement|entanglement]] effects between its units of information to compute.

Safety In Obscurity (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is technically less accurate, and removing “real or theoretical” obscures that the article covers abstract computational models and hypothetical machines as well as existing hardware. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  A hypothetical lawnmower is still a lawnmower.

  The fact that the article covers abstract models goes without saying, due to the title being "Quantum Computation".

  Less accurate how? Safety In Obscurity (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  For that matter, there is a reason the article for Computer doesn't start with "real or hypothetical".

  Because it's inane. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  I concur with SiO here. It adds verbiage without adding value and removing it does not subtract value at this stage. Yes, it needs to be said but the first three words are not the place to say it.

  I can see the dilemma: if the article were the equivalent of Turing machine, that is exactly how it might start. But QC is now real, even if not yet commercial or large scale. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

To my mind, removing "real or theoretical" is not obviously an improvement. Quantum computers capable of performing generally useful, non-trivial computations remain theoretical. That distinction seems especially relevant to a typical reader of the opening paragraph, even if it could be expressed more elegantly. More importantly, the proposed sentence is physically incorrect. Superposition is not an effect "between" units of information: a single qubit may be in a superposition. Entanglement is a relation between quantum subsystems. The phrase "superposition and entanglement effects between its units of information" is, at best, seriously misleading. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah the phrasing of that last bit is clunky. "on and between" would be more correct but I wouldn't call it an improvement.

It might be best to use something like the Merriam-Webster definition "a computer that takes advantage of the quantum properties of qubits to perform certain types of calculation extremely quickly compared to conventional computers", at least by making qubits the focus.

Means we don't need to frontload all the nuance, instead we make it completely clear that qubits are needed to be a quantum computer. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The proposed sentence has some advantages because it is more concise. However it is also misleading. Not all quantum computations require entanglement and the "between units of information" is unclear. Are these "units of information" classical or quantum?

• A quantum computer is a computer that uses quantum mechanical effects.

is all that is needed to start. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I would add the existing "in an essential way", since classical computer hardware uses quantum mechanical effects. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Although true, surely that not a key difference that must be mentioned in the lead sentence? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Classical computation does not use quantum effects, so I don't think "in an essential way" helps. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Semiconductor band structures are definitely quantum mechanical, so without quantum mechanics the computer you are reading this on would literally not work at all. The key physical point is that a classical computer can be replicated using classical physics only (e.g., a fluid gate network). The current sentence makes clear that the superposition and entanglement (although I might swap that for interference) are used essentially (and that quantum computers are still, by and large, theoretical machines rather than realized machines). Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

A fluid gate network exploits quantum effects necessary to have a fluid or matter of any kind. But neither semiconductor nor fluid gate networks rely on quantum effects for the logic of their operation. Quantum computers are distinguished by their use of quantum logic, not QM in the parts. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

The point is that a fluid network is entirely "classical physics", not that quantum mechanics is needed at the fundamental level to describe all matter. Be serious. By contrast, semiconductor bands, which control the switches in every transitor, are entirely non-classical. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

My understanding was that the necessary superposition effects required entanglement.

By units of information I mean qubits. It probably makes more sense to just say qubits. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think every aspect of quantum computing should to be enumerated in the first sentence. But if one wants to do so, interference would need to be on the list. Entanglement is like wiring, essential but not helpful in understanding basics. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a better alternative is something like "A quantum computer is a computer that represents and processes information using quantum states. Quantum computations may exploit phenomena such as superposition, interference, and entanglement." Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That reads well to me. It seems to capture the essence of the proposal and is a significant improvement on the current A quantum computer is a real or theoretical computer that exploits quantum phenomena like superposition and entanglement in an essential way. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's just put that in and consider this to be open to further tweaking. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały support - it's clear, concise and in the spirit of WP:ONEDOWN. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement, but I'd rather the second sentence be "Quantum computation exploits quantum superposition, interference and entanglement."

"May" is misleading since all three phenomena are needed in quantum computers. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Too technical? Prove it

@Safety In Obscurity has added a tag marking the article too technical. If this is the case then one or more reliable source should be available which we can use to make the article less technical. I've not seen these so I would ask that they be listed or added to the article to show a path to make the article less technical. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

My personal opinion is not that it's too technical, rather that it's poorly worded. @JMF replaced my Copy Edit tag with the Too Technical. I just deferred to his judgement when restoring the tag. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The scope of Copy editing varies from correcting errors of grammar and spelling to improving phrasing, paragraphing, adjusting vocabulary for the target age range, replacing local figures of speech, or tailoring variety of English used if the book is consciously destined to have different territory editions. So to me it is not useful simply to say that this article needs copy editing, because the issue is not grammar. It is more useful to say what kind of (copy) editing is needed, what the issues are. So yes, it needs copy editing but the reason is that it is not sufficiently accessible to a general audience.

It may be that we end up like the articles about viruses, where the virus article seems to assume the the readers has at least a first degree in a science subject. So we also have introduction to viruses for the general audience. But that would be a last resort here and was only needed there due to the amount of COVID disinformation. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

In real life I do well at informing on technically complex topics that enables people to actually learn the subject. I applaud the work that everyone has done here, but the portion of the article which attempts to explain how it works is really terrible in this respect. My two general vague complaints are that it talks about the topic rather than teaching/explaining it. Also it uses external links/jargon to replace what should be basic explanations in the text. As Einstein said (paraphrasing) "if you can't explain it simply, you don't know it well enough". I don't have that level of expertise to try to do that here, but those are the opinions of someone who does do that in other technical fields. The best I could offer to do here is, as a dummy in this field, give any attempts the dummy test.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, we don't know it well enough. So all that remains is to find a source which does know it well enough and summarize that source.

Then again it might just be that this topic is complex, existing at the intersection of advance computer science and quantum mechanics, two topics for which you will not find many non-technical accurate descriptions. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

IMO doesn't need to be non-technical. IMO the ideal would be technical but more descriptive. A good realistic target audience is someone who is technical but is unfamiliar with this topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Copy Editing

This article covers a lot of technical ground well but has a way to go to meet the goals of WP:PLAINENGLISH. Many sections should be more concise and many sentences could be better structured.

It also seems that the lead may go into too much detail explaining things that would be better left to the dedicated section. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the third paragraph of the lead strikes me as too detailed and specific. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Please let me know if I break something and feel free to offer other suggestions. Thanks! Lfstevens (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I think many of the parentheticals in the third paragraph could safely be deleted (but may hold off to see if there are objections). Likewise, the two sentences at the end seem too specific (especially the 2024 milestone, which might be contentious). As for the rest of the article, most of the issues to my mind aren't with PLAINENGLISH but with weight and tone in a few places, often language like that of hype-mill sources. The quantum programming subsection could use some culling, which is not really a copyediting issue but a weight/WP:V issue. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Kill the parentheticals. Readers either already know what they are or will read the linked article. The explanations just clarify what they are, not how they relate to quantum computing. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

For when it is too painful to outright delete a parenthical, {{efn}} is your friend. Make it a footnote. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Sweet baby Jesus, look at See also. Safety In Obscurity (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see my thoughts in my comment in the previous section. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2026 (UTC)