alt Hacker NewsA very important statement is in the peer review file that everyone should read:
"The editorial team wishes to point out that the results in this manuscript do not represent evidence for the presence of Majorana zero modes in the reported devices. The work is published for introducing a device architecture that might enable fusion experiments using future Majorana zero modes."
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...
Replies
As the recent results from CS and math on the front pages have shown, one doesn't have to be unknown or underfunded in order to produce verifiable breakthroughs, but it might help..
Seems like John Baez didn't notice those lines in the peer review either
https://mathstodon.xyz/@johncarlosbaez/114031919391285877
TIL: read the peer review first
Wait so this tech just...doesn't work yet? Like at all?
Another recent writeup that adds some nuance to this (and other claims), summarizing the quantum-skeptic positions:
https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2025/02/17/robert-alicki-mich...
Thanks for your interest. I'm part of the Microsoft team. Here are a couple of comments that might be helpful:
1) The Nature paper just released focuses on our technique of qubit readout. We interpret the data in terms of Majorana zero modes, and we also do our best to discuss other possible scenarios. We believe the analysis in the paper and supplemental information significantly constrains alternative explanations but cannot entirely exclude that possibility.
2) We have previously demonstrated strong evidence of Majorana zero modes in our devices, see https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.245423.
3) On top of the Nature paper, we have recently made addition progress which we just shared with various experts in the field at the Station Q conference in Santa Barbara. We will share more broadly at the upcoming APS March meeting. See also https://www.linkedin.com/posts/roman-lutchyn-bb9a382_interfe... for more context.