🥲

can't wait to plough thru the sea of submissions 😀

They have a proposal for a 'non-protected' qubit rotation (non-Clifford T gate), but that does not feature in their roadmap, arxiv.org/pdf/2502.12252 (likely to be hard to experimentally).

I am pretty ignorant about actual results, so looking for the bottom line. And when you calibrate a 'normal qubit', you find its resonant frequency and 'Rabi drive' it, i.e. you get a lot more info about the object than on a qubit on which you can only do a supposed X and Z meas...

thx! But "in principle" for a qubit one should be able to do repeated measurements in "X" and "Z" bases, with delay times in between and look at statistics, without ever mentioning the word Majorana, no? Question is what this tests. A qubit seems a more demonstrable object than a MZM though.

also, a similar thing about across-community-reproducibility can be said about Google QEC experiments: we also want to see many teams do this "stabilising a logical bit by QEC in 2 different bases thing", but it ain't that easy/may take time.

:-) The problem is of course that we don't have 100% foolproof "is it a qubit" tests or "is it a good qubit that will scale" tests. But science proceeds by results being reproducible by a community of players, not owned by one company.

ik email je het stuk..

nee, btw, het zou wel aardig zijn als je verschillende reactie buttons zijn hier (like, medeleven, boos enz) net als fb