(Q-1) Old vaccines, fantasy parallel-world 
↓
Almost all the media (= controlled by lucrative fishy quantum technology industries ) are exaggerating the fictional potential of parallel-world quantum computers which are unfortunately the only hope of the current impractical deadend basic science = quantum mechanics into which a lot of research and taxpayers' money is constantly poured like "(fake) science Ponzi scheme."
For example, "Japan's alleged 1st commercial-use quantum computers (by Tokyo university using IBM machine )" is one of a lot of misleaing news intentionally exaggeraing the pie-in-the-sky quantum computers which are still Not computers or calculators at all.
If you carefully read this fishy news, you will notice this kind of "Ponzi scheme" news talks only about "imaginary future" of as-yet-unrealized quantum computers, using the uncertain future words such as "will."
The 8-9th paragraphs of this same news just vaguely says
"It is very significant that a base (for a quantum computer) has been set up in Japan as it will help nurture personnel who will be adept at actually operating it.."
"..He noted many technical challenges remain for the full-fledged operation of quantum computers."
↑ So the careful reading will make you notice this "intentionally-exaggerated" news talks only about imaginary future (= as seen in their frequent use of the dubious future word "will" ), and the alleged 1st "commercial quantum computer" is still useless, can do No meaningful calculations now.
It seems the leading company IBM likes to use the misleading word "commercial (= sounding good )" to desperately try to make the still-useless quantum computer "look" practical or promising.
This latest IBM quantum computer sent into Japan still has an extremely small number of bits or qubits = only 27 qubits (= this small number of bits cannot do any meaningful calculations, this 3rd paragraph ) for its very big and bulky body, like the company's recent machine sent to Germany.
↑ This latest IBM bulky quantum computer containing only 27 quantum bits or qubits in its room-size large space is far more inefficient and inferior to the current widely-used practical classical computer packing more than billions of bits or transistors into a very compact smartphone's space.
Each bit or qubit can take only the simple binary number = 0 or 1 states when each bit or qubit state is measured.
So the 27-qubit quantum computer consists only of the simple 27-bitstring, which cannot do any computations.
The as-yet-unrealized dreamlike practical quantum computers are said to need at least 1 million qubits (= far more than 27 qubits ! this 3rd paragraph, this 3rd paragraph ).
These latest quantum computers (= still Not computers ) with less than 100 qubits are far from dreamlike practical computers or calculators.
The 3rd-4th paragraphs of this news say a little more honestly
"Today, Google, IBM and others have built the first wave of quantum computers, but these systems are still in the early stages and aren’t yet running any useful commercial applications.."
".. the technology faces a number of challenges, and many industry experts believe these systems are still a decade away from being practical."
↑ They admit there are still No commercial (= practical ) quantum computers ( this last paragraph ), hence the sensationally-exaggerated news such as "1st commercial quantum computer comes !" turned out to be a big lie (= or IBM's definition of "commercial" seems to have too broad meaning, they tend to use "commercial" even in still-impractical quantum computers ).
Another recent exaggerated news showed IBM desperately tries to advertise their still-impractical quantum computers with too small a number of qubits to be practical, even by relying on fictional intangible God particles inside colliders, colluding with the infamous taxpayers' money-wasting organization = CERN.
This 7th-last paragraph says even the latest IBM quantum computer (= still Not a computer ) allegedly used for "estimating" imaginary Higgs (= detailed method is unclear ) had only 15 qubits (= too small number to compute any data ), which cannot do any meaningful calculations which need at least millions of qubits.
The practical large quantum computers with millions of qubits are impossible to realize because very fragile and unstable quantum bit or qubit state suffers many errors unlike the present practical classical computer which can manipulate billions of bits with almost No errors.
The 2nd paragraph of this news says
"But building a large quantum computer—one with thousands or millions of qubits is hard because qubits are very fragile. Small interactions with the environment can introduce errors and lead to failures. Detecting these errors is not straightforward.."
The 3rd paragraph of this latest news says
"The results arrived one week after Google published a paper in Nature Communications also showing logical qubits overpowering errors. Google's approach, however, didn't achieve full error correction: its method only could handle one of two error types at a time instead of both simultaneously, and it couldn't fix errors it detected. That's why Honeywell is claiming its full error correction achievement as a first."
↑ The current Google's 54 qubit quantum computer allegedly achieving controversial supremacy, which was denied by IBM, cannot do any precise calculations due to many fatal errors (= frequently occurring even in their very small number of qubits ) which cannot be fixed.
In the latest Nature paper, Google used only an extremely small number of bits = only 21 qubits out of 54 qubits (= because if they try to use all 54 qubits of their machine, much more irreparable errors would occur. this p.2 left ), and they could Not fix all errors occurring even in this very small 21 bitstring.
These frequently-occurring fatal errors are one of many reasons why all the present quantum computers including Google, IBM, China cannot do any practical calculations except for outputting random meaningless numbers.
The 5-7th paragraphs of the same news say
"Honeywell's technique marks a significant step in the development of quantum computers, which have the potential (= this vague future word means they still have Not realized anything ) to leapfrog ordinary computers in areas like materials science ?"
"..The trouble is all qubits can be easily perturbed, and calculations are derailed when they are. That's why quantum computers typically run at extremely low temperatures in vibration-proof housings."
".. Honeywell demonstrated its technique on its 10-qubit (= too small number of bits ! ) H1 quantum computer (= still Not a computer ). Seven of the qubits stored data while the remaining three "ancilla" qubits shepherded the error correction process."
↑ Honeywell's alleged quantum computer is still Not a computer or a calculator at all, because it just used only "10 unstably-floating ions" loosely trapped in artificial external electromagnetic fields as "10 qubits or 10-bitstring" linearly. ← This type using fragile floating ions as qubits can never make the ordinary robust stable 3-dimensional practical computer.
Actually, this 10-qubit Honneywell's dubious quantum computer did Not perform any computation ( this 7th-last paragraph ).
When the media uses the cool-sounding names such as "quantum computer", "quantum processor" or "quantum simulator", they are Not actual computers, processors or simulators at all. ← The intentionally-wrong use of phrases is rampant in the quantum computer news.
All they could do was output random meaningless numbers as bitstrings (= using only less than 100 qubits suffering many irreparable errors ) as seen in the recent Chinese team's allegedly "most powerful quantum computer" ( this 2nd paragraph ), which is useless for any practical purposes, because it cannot calculate anything.
Their world's largest quantum computer with still 62 qubits, which fall far short of the current practical classical computer with billions of bits, could only randomly and aimlessly flip each qubit, which meaningless task is called "random quantum walk."
The recent hot topic = time crystal is also a meaningless useless science which has nothing to do with perpetual machines or fantasy time travel.
(W-1) Unreal mainstream science proposed by 
↓
Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg died last week.
I'd like to express my sympathy on his passing except for his "science."
The problem is his passing was really a "colossal loss" to our "science" ?
His imaginary theories such as Big Bang and multiverse really affected our daily life ? Or is it just religion ?
Strangely, most people do Not know "what science" such a great and famous Weinberg had actually achieved in detail for the extensive media coverage. ← The media and academia are hiding inconvenient truth about "science" advocated by Weinberg ?
Weinberg has passed away, stubbornly keeping shutting his eyes to truth and serious problems underlying the present paradoxical mainstream physics called quantum mechanics.
The 2nd-3rd paragraphs of this news explain the outline of fictitious theory Weinberg proposed half a century ago, and amazingly his nonphysical ancient theory irrelevant to the real physical world is still unchanged and left as a pillar to the present mainstream physics with No progress.
"His work was foundational to the Standard Model, the overarching physics theory that describes how subatomic particles behave. .. he predicted how subatomic particles known as W, Z and the famous Higgs boson (= aka God particle ) should behave."
".. The paper also helped unify the electromagnetic force and the weak force.. ?"
Out of nowhere, Weinberg proposed the unfounded theoretical model allegedly unifying electromagnetic and weak forces using Higgs boson (= these pseudo-particles exist only in their armchair theory or theoretical physicists' heads Not in the real world ) together with Glashow and Salam.
First of all, what exactly is "weak force" suddenly proposed by Weinberg ?
In fact, this elusive esoteric weak force is just an useless unphysical concept Not worth thinking about, because the weak force is said to be involved only in some particle decay (= detailed mechanism of how weak force is involved in particle dacay is unclear ) unlike ordinary forces pushing or pulling particles.
The weak force or weak interaction is said to be extremely short-range force, and so we do Not experience or use it in every-day life. ← Such an intangible weak force Not affecting daily life is a meaningless force.
In beta decay, a neutron is said to split into a proton and an extremely heavy Weak (or W ) boson which further decays into an electron and a (anti-)neutrino. ← This ambiguous whole decay "process" is called "(unseen) weak force" which is directly unmeasurable and intangible unlike ordinary forces.
↑ Such an intangible Weinberg's weak force is a scientifically and practically meaningless concept which cannot be utilized for daily life or useful technology.
This weak force is not only useless but also unrealistic and self-contraditory, which inconvenient fact shows the current particle physics based on standard model is false.
The hypothetical W or weak boson mediating the weak force or neutron beta decay is said to be extremely heavy = more than 80 times heavier than a proton or a neutron (= a neutron's mass is almost the same as a proton's mass ).
This neutron decay allegedly mediated by the speculative weak force is physically impossible, because a very lighter neutron can Not emit a much heavier weak boson (= 80 times heavier than a neutron ) in beta decay.
Weinberg's unrealistic beta decay = A less massive neutron emits a much more massive weak boson which is 80 times heavier than the original neutron.
↑ physically impossible because his theory makes a ridiculous claim that smaller energy (= a lighter neutron ) has to emit much higher energy (= a heavier weak boson ), which violates energy conservation law.
To hide this fatal defect in the current particle physics, physicists make a poor excuse that such an unrealistically heavy weak or W boson is Not a real particle but an unreal virtual particle with imaginary (= not real ) mass, which cannot exist in the real world ( this p.2 last ).
Such a nonphysical virtual W boson particle's mass is called off-mass shell, which means the virtual particle's fictitious mass, which can be imaginary, disobeys famous Einstein mc2 relation ( this p.3, this p.6 ).
The real weak or W boson, which is said to be 80~90 times heavier than a proton or a neutron, is too short-lived (= W boson's life time is only 10-25 s ) to directly observe, and such a ghost-like unstable real W boson is said to appear transiently only inside the virtual circumstances of high-energy colliders which have No connection with the outside real world.
The 5th-last paragraph of this site says
"In typical neutrino interactions, a “virtual (= unreal )” W/Z boson is produced, which means it cannot be detected even in principle. However, in the case of the Glashow resonance, a real W– boson was produced. While charged, it’s lifetime is incredibly short, so we were only able to detect it through its decay products (= detecting an extremely short-lived W boson itself is impossible )."
They claim the real weak boson is unobservable due to its extremely short-lived and unstable property, hence, the dubious existence of such a ghost-like weak boson (= even if it really existed ) has to be speculated only from the irrelevant final-product particles (= electrons or lights ) into which a dubious weak boson is said to decay.
Of course, the unreal virtual weak boson, which is said to be involved in the ordinary neutron decay outside the collider, is also undetectable, ghost-like too.
A very heavy and short-lived real weak (or W ) boson, which allegedly appears for an extremely short time only inside the high-energy colliders has nothing to do with actual neutron beta decay outside the colliders where unreal virtual weak boson is said to appear (= only inside particle physicists' imagination or daydream ).
↑ It's impossible that the ghost-like, unstable real or unreal virtual weak bosons can be useful for our actual technology or innovation, hence, Weinberg's fictional virtual weak boson or force theory made No contribution to the world's practical science in the past and future.
Then, what does the Weinberg's unfounded claim of unifying such an unrealistic electro-weak force mean ?
He tried to theoretically "unify" electric and fictitious weak forces using purely-nonphysical concepts called "gauge or SU(2) symmetry".
The problem is these abstract concepts such as "gauge", "gauge symmetry" and "SU(2) symmetry"are completely unphysical, unobservable ( this p.7 ) with No relation to the real world's objects, hence they are scientifically meaningless concepts.
In 1928, Dirac introduced the completely nonphysical impractical equation and theory called quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) which allegedly combined quantum mechanics and Einstein's special relativity.
In the quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics, each electron is expressed as an abstract, unphysical math symbols called "field (= ψ )" which abstract meaningless symbols give No concrete physical picture of an electron and particles (= quantum field theory tells us nothing about detailed electron's behavior or underlying mechanism of what's going on ).
The 4th-6th paragraphs of this site says
"In modern physics, we no longer describe what is happening merely through the position of objects at a given time,.. we use abstract objects called fields."
".. The fields themselves are abstract mathematical (= unphysical ) entities that are introduced as convenient mathematical tools.. With these new mathematical entities comes a new kind of freedom."
".. The freedom to "shift" or "rotate" our fields is called gauge symmetry. It is important to note that this symmetry is completely independent from the rotational and translational symmetry of our coordinate systems. When we "shift" or "rotate" a field we do not refer to anything in spacetime."
↑ Physicists suddenly introduced unphysical vague concepts such as "phase (= θ )" or "gauge" without specifying what they actually mean, and tried to change or tweak the original nonphysical abstract "Dirac equation combining an electron and photon fields" by such a meaningless phase and gauge which are unmeasurable.
If the whole abstract quantum field theory's equation allegedly defining some unspecified law of physics is unchanged or invariant under this unphysical gauge or phase shift or transformation, this mathematical invariance is called "gauge symmetry", which has nothing to do with the real world's objects.
When this unphysical gauge symmetry was extended to the artificially-introduced math concept of 2 × 2 matrices allegedly incorporating unseen quarks or W bosons as unphysical math operators, it is called "SU(2) symmetry ( this p.3, this p.9-10 )"
According to this Weinberg's ad-hoc desk theory, when the whole abstract quantum field equations are unchaged under unphysical phase or gauge transformation (= called gauge invariance or symmetry ), all gauge bosons including photon and weak bosons must be massless, which disagreed with their massive weak boson model.
So in order to give "fictitious mass" to the heavy weak or W boson, another unphysical armchair theory called "Higgs mechanics" was invented.
This Higgs or Weinberg theory can give No detailed physical mechanism of how Higgs particle interacts with W bosons or other particles, instead, such an impractical theory just presents very abstract meaningless equations or diagrams ( this p.5, this p.4 ) without clarifying what those math symbols or paleography mean.
According to their desk theory, Higgs is said to give mass to weak boson by purely-nonphysical mechanism called "breaking electro-weak or gauge symmetry", which fictional mechanism has No physical meaning ( this p.2 ).
So in the present quantum field theory, all particles such as electrons and photons are expressed just as unphysical field operators with No concrete physical figures.
→ When transforming such an unphysical field (= allegedly representing particles ) by unphysical phase or gauge does not change the abstract quantum field equation, it is called "gauge or SU(2) symmetry" which requires the heavy weak or W boson to be massless.
→ In order for the weak boson to have fictitious mass, the unphysical symmetry must be broken by artificially adding ad-hoc Higgs field or mechanism to the original equation.
↑ All these armchair concepts such as abstract phase, gauge, SU(2) symmetry, Higgs mechanism of breaking symmetry or something have nothing to do with our real world objects, hence, theose symmetries, gauge and phase are completely unnecessary and useless concepts for us.
Actually, though 40 years or 10 years have already passed since Weinberg's elusive W boson or Higgs were said to be discovered (= Correctly, very unstable W and Higgs boson cannot be detected directly ), those unseen ghost-like W and Higgs are still useless except for getting Nobel prize or selling sci-fi books, just wasting taxpayers' money in gigantic colliders
The mathematical empty quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) have been impractical, losing touch with reality, from the beginning.
Actually nobody around you uses this useless quantum field theory or QED in daily life.
There are serious problems in quantum field theory or QED which show the present mainstream theory, which has unreasonably dominated the academic world for a long time, is wrong.
According to the ridiculous QED, any real electrons cannot emit or absorb real photons, instead, electrons must always interact with unreal virtual photons descibed by unphysical abstract Feynman diagram which abstract model tells us nothing about detailed physical mechanism in particle physics.
The fantasy quantum field theory or QED claims the vaccum space must contain infinite numbers of unreal virtual particles with infinite kinds of energy and momentum (= virtual photons with infinite energies must unrealistically exist in the space ).
Due to these infinite unreal virtual particles with infinite fictitious energies, all calculations of quantum field theory or QED always diverge to infinity. ← Infinite values given by QED are physically-meaningless and cannot be used to describe actual finite physical values ( this p.4 ).
Eliminating such a ridiculous infinity by artificially restricting infinite virtual photons or particles allegedly popping up in space to finite energies is impossible. because virtual particles whose energies are restricted to finite values violate Einstein relativistic Lorentz symmetry ( this 14-15th paragraphs ).
According to ridiculous Einstein relativity, there is No absolute space or frames, all things and their motions must be relative ( the velocity or kinetic energy of each particle is Not an absolute value but a fictionally uncertain relative value changing seen by different observers moving at different speeds ).
In such a counter-intuitive Einstein relativistic world, the maximum energy or momentum of virtual particles must be always infinite (= virtual particles' energies must be from -∞ to +∞ ).
↑ If the maxium energy of virtual particles is a finite value instead of infinity, the particle's finite maximum energy or velocity would change in different frames seen by different observers moving at different speeds (= the particle's kinetic energy or velociy changes seen by different observers moving at different velocities in Einstein relativistic world ).
→ When the maximum energy or velocity of virtual particles is infinite, the maximum energy or velocity of virtual particles looks always infinite seen by any different observers moving at different finite velocities (= Infinite energy or velocity ± finite energy or velocity by observer's motion = Infinite energy or velocity = unchanged, = ∞ ± finite values remains ∞ ), which unchanged infinite property is called "relativistic Lorentz symmetry". ← again, stupid "symmetry" rule.
But infinite virtual particles' energies always give meaningless infinite physical values which are completely useless, so physicists had to eliminate such an annoying infinity even by relying on unrealistic dishonest methods.
To remove this unrealistic infinite energies of virtual particles, the current mainstream physics makes a ridiculous claim that the (unseen) bare charge and mass of an electron must be negatively-infinite so that the (unseen) negatively-infinite bare charge and mass of an electron could absorb infinite virtual particle's energies to give some finite observable values, which ad-hoc trick of artificially cancelling infinity is called "renormalization ( this p.14 )."
↑ There is a serious self-contradiction in this QED unrealistic trick of removing virtual particle's infinite energy by another artificially-introduced infinite bare charge or mass of an electron to obtain finite observed physical values by force. Hence, QED is wrong.
Because even after removing the vaccum infinity allegedly caused by infinite virtual photons by getting the negatively-infinite bare charge or mass of an electron to absorb the vacuum virtual particle's infinity, the vacuum must always contain other infinite virtual photons with infinite energies, which pop up one after another endlessly, as long as the vacuum contains electromagnetic fields or photons.
→ Accroding to QED, all observed values involving electromagnetic fields (= electromagnetic fields are allegedly caused by unreal virtual photons according to the current stupid quantum field theory ) must always be infinite !
This quantum field theory or QED ad-hoc trick of artificially removing and hiding infinite virtual particles under the rug was criticized by many great physicists including QED founders.
The current only unified theory allegedly incorporating general relativity and quantum field theory is the so-called fantasy 10-dimensional string theory.
The string theory or "theory or everything (= sounding good )" evolved from the previous ridiculous 26-dimensional string to the present 10-dimensional superstring (= still ridiculous ) incorporating another unphysical concept called "supersymmetry."
This supersymmetry is also an unrealistic meaningless concept based on unphysical artificial transformation between imaginary particles and supersymmetric particles which math objects have No relation to our real world ( this p.12 ), like Weinberg's meaingless gauge or phase symmetry concepts.
Math equations are invariant under unphysical gauge or phase transformation. ← It is called gauge or SU(2) symmetry ← electroweak force ?
Math equations are invariant under unphysical supersymmetric transformation (= particle ↔ supersymmetric particle or boson ↔ fermion ). ← It is called supersymmetry. ← fantasy 10-dimentional superstring unified theory ?
Why did the current mainstream physics go in such a wrong, unscientific and ridiculous direction ?
All these problems originate in the present unrealistic mainstream theory called quantum mechanics which has been useless in any modern technology, hence, physicsts were forced to make up new imaginary future technology = fantasy parallel world quantum computers.
Such an useless impractical basic physics = quantum mechanics clearly obstructs developing truly effective drugs or treatment in applied science or medicine due to its contradictory atomic model.
As a result, the very old technique = vaccine, which just relies on unpredictable whimsical natural immune system for generating uncertain antibodies, has been the only choice for tackling viruses for an exremely long time = more than 200 years. ← Amazingly, human's medical basic technology stops progressing for a long time due to fantasy quantum mechanics.
The useless basic quantum mechanics prevents developing any effective drugs, so all countries have to rely on such a very ancient uncertain vaccine technique.
↑ The miserable fact that such a very old technique vaccine is the current only choice for tackling viruses and even cancers ( due to the stalled basic physics ) enables vaccine industries to easily gather a tremendous amount of research and "science" money from the world.
And thanks to these enormous amount of taxpayers' "science" money, the lucrative pharmaceutical, healthcare companies tend to have large political power controlling the world's media, social media and even the so-called "scientists" for pushing the world's politicians to impose vaccine mandate despite people's opposition and the dwindling effectiveness of vaccines.
Nobel prize winning Weinberg died without clarifying what the unphysical virtual particle, gauge symmetry mean, and his ad-hoc armchair electroweak unification theory lacking concrete physical picture still dominates the present mainstream science, and clearly obstructing our truly useful technological innovation and medicine.
Weinberg unphysical quantum field theory → Basic physical theory makes No progress stuck in unphysical concepts → Developing effective drugs using practical atomic model is impossible now. → Very old unpredictable vaccine is the only choice, so the pharmaceutical companies tend to spend the most of their money for promoting it and pressure politicians to impose its mandates which caused the fierce opposition and confusion across the world.
If the mask mandate has to be reintroduced to contain the mutant viruses sooner or later, what's the point of rushing to impose vaccine mandates ?
The so-called "science" is just a political tool which is unreliably and conveniently changing, repeating false predictions ? ← "Listen to ( fishy mainstream ) sceince" seems to be no longer valid.
(N-1) Harvard's fake quantum simulator in 
↓
People tend to be misled by "fancy scientific words" such as "computer", "programmable", "simulator" and blindly believe any objects with such fancy names may be the state-of-the-art technology, even when they are just a meaningless crap.
Vaccines are also less effective than general public expectation. ← Academia, the so-called "scientists" colluding with corporations are hiding truth ?
This bad tendency is most often seen in an incredibly number of fake news popping up almost everyday promoting fantasy parallel-world quantum computers as if they represented the (fake) state-of-the-art future technology.
Most people don't know the quantum computer is still Not a computer or calculator at all.
It is impossible for such a fake quantum computer with an extremely small number of bits or qubits to simulate any actual matter's phenomena by calculating complicated atomic interactions using computer programming which will need at least billions of bits or qubits, as seen in the current widely-used practical classical computers.
For example, the recent Chinese team's 62-qubit world's largest "quantum computer" or alleged "programmable processor" can do No meaningful calculations or programming ( only using such a very few 62-bitstring ) except for randomly flipping each bit or qubit, which meaningless chaotic task is called "random quantum walk."
Their 66-qubit allegedly-fastest "quantum processor" also cannot do any practical computations except for outputting random meaningless numbers in a similar way to Google's 53-qubit quantum computer's supremacy ( this 2-3 paragraphs. ), which quantum advantage was denied by IBM.
As you see, even the current largest quantum computers (= still Not a computer, though ) have only 50~60 bits or qubits which are far smaller and inferior to widely-used practical classical computers with more than billions of bits or transistors (= one bit or qubit is in the state 0 or 1 when observed ).
Such a fake computer with the fancy name "quantum computer" with only an impractically small number of quantum bits or qubits can never perform meaningful calculations, programming or simulation.
Despite these miserable facts of the completely useless quantum computers, a lot of misleading news such as scientific american (= one of Nature journal group ) tries to exaggerate the illusory quantum computer's potential to stimulate unnecessary competition among countries so that governments waste more taxpayers' money in fruitless fantasy science which prevents developing truly-effective drugs.
Does it have anything to do with all the current prestigious academic journals Nature and Lancet unreasonably rushing to deny Chinese-lab leak virus idea as 'conspiracy theory', while it still remains uncertain ?
Recently, Harvard and MIT made a dubious claim "Towards quantum computing: Physicists surpass (← ? ) current supercomputers with new programmable simulator ?", which was published in the latest top journal Nature.
↑ This eye-catching misleading title shows a typical example of the current exaggerated news falsely treating an still-impractical quantum computer, which can neither calculate, program nor simulate, as a "(fake) programmable simulator".
If you carefully read these exaggerated dubious news, you will notice their so-called quantum computers are still Not computers or calculators, and their researches still have Not achieved anything meaningful.
The 2nd paragraph of the same news says
"The experts also hope that quantum computers will be applied to material science studies, real-world communication engineering,.. Harvard-MIT experts are confident that the performance of the programmable quantum simulator will surpass the supercomputers present today ?"
↑ So the careful reading will make you notice this sensational-sounding news uses only "uncertain future words" such as "will" and "hope", which means their so-called quantum computers are still useless, achieving No meaningful programming or simulation now except in an imaginary future (= surpassing the present supercomputers is a lie ).
Then, what on earth has this Harvard's seeming quantum computer or simulator done in this Nature paper ?
The 8th-9th paragraphs of this news explains
"The project uses a significantly upgraded version of a platform the researchers developed in 2017, which was capable of reaching a size of 51 qubits (← a very small number of bits ! ). That older system allowed the researchers to capture ultra-cold rubidium atoms and arrange them in a specific order using a one-dimensional array of individually focused laser beams called optical tweezers."
".. This new system allows the atoms to be assembled in two-dimensional arrays of optical tweezers. This increases the achievable system size from 51 to 256 qubits (= still too small number to calculate anything ! ). Using the tweezers, researchers can arrange the atoms in defect-free patterns and create programmable shapes like square, honeycomb, or triangular lattices to engineer different interactions between the qubits." ← No mention of calculating any values.
↑ All they did was arrange only 256 cold neutral rubidium atoms using laser beams called optical tweezers which can push each atom by the pressure of laser light. ← No meaningful programming or computation contrary to their misleading narrative.
Arranging atoms in a certain pattern using laser light corresponds to their "(fake) programming" which have nothing to do with the ordinary computer programming for calculating something. ← This so-called 256-atomic qubit quantum computer has done No calculations or real programming, hence, completely useless.
Why did physicists falsely try to consider this arrangement of 256 atoms in a certain meaningless shape, which has nothing to do with actual computation or programming, as a (fake) quantum computer ?
Quantum mechanics tries to use each atom or ion as a quantum bit or qubit where the lowest-energy ground state is treated as "0" bit state and the excited state is treated as "1" state.
↑ But such very fragile atomic energy levels or states are too unstable and uncontrollable to use for actual practical computer's stable bits which require the precision with No errors.
This incredibly fragile property is one of many reasons why (fantasy) quantum computers will be impractical forever.
A rubidium atom is called "Rydberg atom" whose highly excited energy-state (= such a highly-excited electron's orbital radius can be very long ) is said to be used as one of (future) quantum bit or qubit states.
But such an excited atomic energy state is extremely short-lived, fragile and unstable (= the lifetime of this type of quantum computer or qubit is only 600 microseconds, easily broken and impractical ).
So this kind of quantum computer using fragile atomic energy excited states as a bit or qubit state will never be a practical stable computer, much less outperform the current widely-used practical classical computers which use stored electric charges as a stable bit state with almost-infinite lifetime.
This Harvard's alleged 256-qubit quantum computer is Not a robust ordinary solid computer but an intangible gas-like fake computer consisting of 256 fragile cold atoms loosely trapped in (fictitious) optical lattice made of unstable laser light (= unlike ordinary robust solid crystals ), which frail structure can never make a stable or practical computer.
Unlike robust solid materials, this fragile optical lattice made just by intangible laser light is too unstable to keep each atom as a quantum bit or qubit in the fixed position for a long time, hence their quantum computer consisting of fragile floating atoms unstably trapped in light is far more easily broken than the ordinary stable solid-type classical computer. ← Practical calculation is impossible to perform in such a fragile, easily-broken quantum computer.
The 2nd paragraph of this news says
"In order for Rydberg atoms to be effectively used in quantum technology, however, researchers first need to be able to trap them. While a number of studies have demonstrated the trapping of Rydberg atoms using magnetic, electric, or laser technology, the trapping times achieved so far have been relatively short, typically around 100μs."
↑ Unlike the ordinary stable solid computer, it is impossible for the very fragile laser light to trap or hold multiple atoms for more than 100 microseconds, because atoms easily slip out of the fragile optical lattice and fly away somewhere else ( this 4th paragraph, this 2nd paragraph ).
The very unstable property of this type of quantum computer which just loosely traps 256 atoms in weak laser light, is the reason why many major companies such as IBM, Google and Intel aiming at robust solid-type quantum computers tend to avoid this fragile gas-like floating Rydberg atomic quantum computers which will never be put to practical use ( like other quantum computers ).
Using this very fragile impractical quantum computer (= still Not a computer, though ), what did Harvard's physicists claim to have performed ?
The 4th-last and 3rd-last paragraphs of this news avoid showing the detailed task of what this fishy quantum computer has actually done. ↓
".. The researchers are currently working to improve the system by improving laser control over qubits and making the system more programmable (← ? ). They are also actively exploring (= progressive form, so has Not acheived anything ) how the system can be used for new applications, ranging from probing exotic forms of quantum matter (= vague expression ! ) to solving challenging real-world problems that can be naturally encoded on the qubits ?"
".. This work enables a vast number of new scientific directions, Ebadi said. We are nowhere near the limits of what can be done with these systems."
↑ As you see, this research allegedly using 256-qubit quantum computer has just moved and arranged atoms in a certain meaningless pattern using laser light.
No mention of what their computation or programming means in detail.
In this still-useless research of fake quantum computer, what does their "vague simulation" or "probing quantum matter" mean ?
They try to rely on a meaningless analogy and falsely associate the real solid materials where many atoms and electrons tightly bound by Coulomb electric force with this fictitious optical lattice or artificial fake crystal which just unstably traps separate neutral atoms using intangible laser lights.
↑ Though these two things of actual robust solid materials and fragile separate atoms loosely trapped in laser light are completely different and irrelevant things using completely different mechanisms of binding atoms (= actual solid material uses strong Coulomb force for tightly binding atoms, while this fake quantum computer uses weak laser light for loosely trapping floating neutral atoms ).
Separate floating atoms unstably arranged and trapped in laser lights = a fake solid material consisting of atoms and electrons strongly bound by Coulomb electric forces ?
↑ This meaningless analogy is what they call "(fake) quantum simulation of imaginary (solid) quantum matter", though these two things are completely different and irrelevant things based on different mechanisms.
So their "quantum simulation or simulator" is just a meaningless concept unrealistically equating 256-neutral atoms loosely trapped in laser lights with completely different irrelevant robust solid materials or crystals where all atoms are tightly bound to each other.
This means their claim of "programmable quantum processor" based on fake simulation also has nothing to do with the actual programmable processor or computer as you imagine in the current practical classical computer.
The 2nd paragraph of this site says
"The team performed quantum logic operations on clusters of two or three closely spaced rubidium atoms held individually in optical tweezers. The atoms became entangled when one of them was excited by a laser into a Rydberg state—a state where the outermost electron is highly energized."
"..This transition also prevented the atom’s neighbors from being excited at the same time, a situation that is essential for creating logic gates (← ? ) comprising two and even three quantum bits (qubits)."
↑ When one rubidium atom is excited to higher-energy Rydberg state (= supposed to be 1-bit state ), this excited electron's Coulomb repulsion prevents the neighboring atoms from being excited to the same higher-energy state ( this 2nd paragraph ), instead, this neighboring atoms are forced to remain in the original lowest-energy ground state (= supposed to be 0-bit state ).
This simple electron-electron Coulomb repulsion blocking their neighboring atoms from being excited (= called Rydberg blockade ) is what they call "(fake) quantum computer", "processor" or "logic gate", which can do No meaningful calculations except for simply blocking neighboring atoms from being excited.
The 5th paragraph of this site explain why this meaningless fragile system can be used as a (fake) simulator of other irrelevant solid material.
"A recent development is the use of Rydberg atoms to realize and explore the physics of strongly correlated spin systems.. the electronic ground state (= 0 ) can be regarded as the down state and the Rydberg level (= excited state, 1 ) as the up state of a pseudospin.."
So they falsely try to consider the lowest-energy ground state of the rubidium atom as pseudo-spin-down state (= 0 ↔ ↓ ) and the excited Rydberg state as pseudo-spin-up state (= 1 ↔ ↑ ) of other irrelevant imaginary magnetic materials such as anti-ferromagnets ( this 4th paragraph ).
Due to Rydberg blockage or Coulomb repulsion between excited electrons, neighboring atoms close to the excited atoms (= 1 or ↑ ) remain in the ground state (= 0 or ↓ ), which can be associated with a fake anti-ferromagnetic material where (imaginary) spin-up and down atoms alternate like checkerboad ( this middle, this p.2 right, Fig.2, this Figure 1 ).
↑ This meaningless attempt to falsely treat the alternately-excited floating atoms loosely trapped in laser lights as irrelevant antiferromagnetic solid crystals consisting of pseudo-spins is what they call "(fake) quantum computer's simulation" which actually neither calculated nor simulated actual materials.
The point is all these Harvard paper's seeming computer-related words such as "quantum computer" and "programmable quantum sumulator" have nothing to do with actual practical computer's programming or simulation. ↓
256-qubit quantum computer ? = 256 floating atoms loosely trapped in laser light.
Programmable ? = Unstably-floating 256 atoms are movable by laser light.
Simulation ? = false interpretation of 256 atoms loosely trapped in light as a fictitious solid crystal such as anti-ferromagnet with pseudo-spins.
As I said, their "programmable" does Not mean typing some program language and executing its calculations in real computers, but their fake programming just means "moving and arranging 256 atoms pushed by laser light" without any computation.
This is why the 2nd paragraph of this news just vaguely says
"The system marks a major step toward building large-scale quantum machines that could be used to shed light on a host of complex quantum processes and eventually help bring about real-world breakthroughs in (fake) material science."
↑ They just used "uncertain future phrases" such as "could" and "a step toward (imaginary) large-scale quantum computers" without mentioning what this fake 256-qubit quantum computer has achieved in detail.
Because their impractical quantum computer (= still Not a computer ) with a very small number of fragile qubits has done No useful calculation, programming or simulation.
Infinite "steps" seem to be needed to realize their so-called (imaginary) large-scale quantum computers which require at least millions of qubits from the present miserably small number of qubits (= only 50 ~ 100 qubits ), which can actually do No practical computation.
The media and journals should Not use misleading phrases such as "scalable or large-scale quantum computers !" so easily, while the present useless quantum computers are still far from it (= or realization of practical large-scale quantum computers will be impossible forever ).
(P-1) Quantum mechanics is useless as 
↓
Quantum mechanical molecular orbital theory has fatal flaws, cannot explain intermolecular interactions such as Pauli repulsion and van der Waals attraction.
(S-1) Unfair conditions cause fake quantum 
↓
IBM's quantum computer's alleged first advantage was published in the latest Nature physics.
↑ Unfortunately, this fishy quantum advantage has nothing to do with a faster quantum computer than a classical computer, so a meaningless quantum advantage claim.
The trick is they compared their alleged quantum computer (= still Not a computer, though ) with "restricted (or limited ) classical computer", Not with normal classical computers.
Contrary to the eye-catching (fake) news, this latest IBM quantum computer used too small a number of qubits (= only 3~6 qubits, this 9th paragraph ) to execute calculations, making the company's bold plans of 1000 qubits by 2023 unrealistic.
What on earth has this latest IBM's quantum computer with only 3~6 quantum bits or qubits done as an evidence for dubious quantum advantage ?
The 4th paragraph of this news says
"Two limited-space circuits were built, one quantum and one classical, with only one bit or qubit available for computation and result storage. The task programmed into the circuits consisted of finding the majority out of three input bits, returning zero if more than half of the bits are zero, and one if more than half of the bits are one."
↑ In this very simple operation, IBM tried to find the majority within three input bits (= A, B, C ).
When more than one (or half ) bits of these three input bits are "1", it outputs "1", and when more than one bits of the three input bits is "0", it outputs "0".
( When two A,B input bits are "1", and the remaining C bit is "0", the output is "1" )
When there is only one output bit, the classical computer's bit cannot judge this majority.
Because in order to judge which bit state "1" or "0" holds the majority within three A,B,C bits, the output bit needs to distinguish three different states or numbers (= 0, 1, 2 ) which is impossible in the ordinary classical bit that can distinguish only two bit states (= 0 or 1 ).
When all three input A,B,C bits are "0", the output bit is supposed to be "0".
When one of three input bits is "1", the output bit is supposed to be "1".
When two (or three ) of three input bits are "1", the output bit is supposed to be "2"
Judging the majority out of three input bits needs at least three output classical computer's bits, as shown in this figure lower ( this p.13 ).
On the other hand, the current superconducting quantum computer's bulky and very big qubit can distinguish more than two different states not only 0 or 1 bit states.
Each superconducting qubit consists of a big (classical) circuit of ordinary capacitors and inductors where many electrons are flowing and unstably oscillating inside the circuit.
Microwave pulse is designed to distinguish not only the ordinary 0 or 1 qubit state but also its unstably-oscillating "phase" such as negative 1 (= -1 ).
It means one output qubit, which can distinguish more than two different bit states (= 0, 1, -1 ) including the unstably-oscillating "phase or electron's motions", is said to be able to judge which bit state 0 or 1 holds the majority within three input A,B,C qubits.
↑ This shows quantum computer's advantage or speed-up ? No.
Contrary to the IBM's claim, this comparison between quantum and classical computers is Not fair at all.
Because the size of one bulky superconducting qubit or artificial atom (= ~ 1 mm big ! ) is far bigger than one extremely-tiny and compact classical computer's bit (= only less than 50 nm ).
So the space of one big superconducting quantum bit or qubit can contain more than 1000000 tiny classical computer's bits.
Even IBM's latest 27-qubit quantum computer sent to Germany is as big as this, despite its very small number of qubits.
Even if each bulky IBM's quantum computer's bit can distinguish 3~4 different bit states including its subtle phase difference, more than 1000000 classical compact bits contained in the same space as one big qubit can distinguish more than 1000000 different states !
Distinguishing only 3~4 bit states of bulky quantum computers vs. distinguishing more than 1000000-bit states of compact classical computers.
↑ The current widely-used classical computer is far better, faster, more energy-efficient and stable than the unstable bulky slower quantum computer.
A lot of compact, tiny classical (output) bits contained in one bulky qubit's space can judge which number 0 or 1 state holds the majority within more than 1000000 input bits, Not only three A,B,C input bits. ← No quantum computer's advantage.
If we add some expensive special devices to the classical computer in order to distinguish the subtle difference in stored charges in each classical bit or capacitor, even the present tiny classical bit can distinguish more than two different states depending on the amount of stored charges, and judge the majority out of three input bits without problems.
But we do Not need to add such an expensive unnecessary equipment or devices to the current efficient, compact and stable classical computer's bit.
For the awkwardly big quantum computer's bit to distinguish the subtle phase difference of each qubit's state, the qubit becomes very unstable, fragile, and needs very large expensive equipments to distinguish such a fragile qubit's state.
As a result, the space occupied by one bulky quantum computer's bit needs to be far larger than that of a tiny compact classical computer's bit. ← This is the trick.
The latest IBM doubtful quantum computer's advantage unfaily restricts the output bit to only "one bit" both in a very big quantum bit and a very tiny classical bit. ← Unfair comparison, hence No quantum computer's speed-up or advantage. → No practical application.
IBM claims they have already realized 65-qubit quantum computer (= which bit number is still far smaller than the current practical classical computer with billions of bits ) a year ago.
But this latest (fake) quantum advantage research used only less than seven qubits (= when 2 or 3 qubits out of 3~6 input qubits were in the "1" state, IBM quantum computer output "1", as shown in this p.5 ).
↑ The fact that IBM stubbornly avoids using its allegedly-existing largest 65-qubit quantum computer even in the latest research makes us suspect their largest quantum computer is still useless, and its bold roadmap of increasing the number of qubit to 1000 by 2023 was just a lie or an impossible dream.
As shown here, all dubious quantum computer's supermacy or advantage is just a meaningless illusion caused by "unfair comparisons" assigning very easy tasks to quantum computers (= still Not computers, because they cannot do any meaningful calculations ), and forcing only classical computers to perform very time-consuming calculations.
Fake science such as fantasy parallel-world quantum computers ( which will help discover vaccines ?) and global warming is not only wasting taxpayers' money by preventing effective drug development, but also harmful as seen in the current landslide in Japan caused not by climate change itself but by "solar panels" which seemed to concentrate the rain flows onto one point and generate the mudslide.
(Q-1) Electrons can't flow in quantum mechanical 
↓
In fact, "Quantum mechanics is a successful theory !" is a big lie, as seen in quantum mechanical claim of fantasy parallel worlds and a dead-and-alive unrealistic cat, contrary to the media's baseless praise of it.
Quantum mechanics has never been useful for any practical technologies such as computer transistors and smartphones, all of which technologies were invented by conventional "trial-and error approaches" with purely serendipitous, inadvertent discovery, Not helped by fantasy quantum mechanical theory.
The modern transistor's founders = Shockley did Not mention the (illusory) quantum mechanical contribution to the transistor's invention, instead, just saying
"A basic truth that the history of the creation of the transistor reveals is that the foundations of transistor electronics were created by making errors and following hunches that failed to give what was expected ( this 10th paragraph )"
It's basically impossible to apply unphysical, uncertain and unpredictable quantum mechanics to the modern computer technologies working by perfectly-physically-controllable realistic objects and transistors.
Quantum mechanics baselessly claims each electron exists in many different places simultaneously like a single cat can be dead and alive using fantasy parallel worlds or absurd superposition.
Of course, we cannot see this unrealistic quantum mechanical superposition or cat, hence each single particle can be observed to exist in only one place or state (= so, quantum superposition or parallel worlds have No evidences, contrary to the mainstream science interpretation ).
↑ These quantum mechanical unseen uncertain states or positions (= a particle being in multiple different places or states ot once !? ) of each electron or cat until we try to measure them shows such an uncertain and unpredictable quantum mechanical states can Not be used to build practical computers which need precise, deterministic (= Not uncertain ) controllable electrons and particles in each transistor switch 0 ↔ 1
Then, why are the media and academia trying to make us falsely believe that all modern computer transistors and smartphones may rely on (unphysical) quantum mechanics ? ← It's impossible.
Quantum mechanics and its only calculation tool called Schrodinger equation themselves were completely impractical (= it's impossible to solve any multi-electron Schrodinger equations ) and useless for inventing modern computers, transistors and smartphones made of many atoms, which means the useless quantum mechanics had to rely on some artificially-created fictional models or pseudo-potential to explain physical phenomena (= adjusting many empirical parameters ), because the original quantum mechanics is unable to predict any physical phenomena ( this p.2-second-paragraph, this p.3-second-paragraph ).
But we are forced to accept such a fantasy impractical quantum mechanics as the only mainstream atomic theory explaining electrons and photons based on imaginary concepts, so the media and academia have no choice but to repeat false claims that modern computer transistors are (vaguely) based on (fantasy) quantum mechanics (= because other realistic atomic theories are not allowed ).
Physicists blindly insist computer semiconductors and transistors could be explained by the quantum mechanical (illusory) model called band theory ( this p.2 ).
The problem is this quantum mechanical band pseudo-theory can Not treat real electrons inside semiconductors or transistors. ← Realistic explanation of computer transistors by quantum mechanics is impossible.
Quantum mechanical band theory ridiculously and forcibly replaces the whole many-electron materials by "one single fictitious quasi-electron (= each band ) or unreal quasi-particles with fake artificially-changeable effective masses" (= which can even be unreal negative masses ), pseudo-quasi-momentum ( this p.2-upper, this p.12-lower ) and pseudo-effective potential ( this p.2 ).
Physicists have used this very old fictitious quantum mechanical band model (= which pseudo-model can never describe or clarify real physical mechanisms inside materials ) with fake electron with fake effective masses for 100 years with No progress, in vain ( this p.2-4 ).
These unreal effective masses of the unphysical band model's quasi-electrons of semiconductor transistors are just "freely-adjustable parameters" in different materials ( this p.2, this p.5-right ), hence, quantum mechanics and its band model have No ability to predict any physical phenomena based on real electrons with real fixed masses.
Physicists including founders of transistors = Bardeen and Shockley tried to use these fictitiously-changeable effective electron masses artificially adjusted based on experimental results or the ad-hoc artificial quasi-particle model for only desk theory (= after all, they had to repeat trial-and-error (= failure ) approach irrelevant to useless quantum mechanics with fictitious quasi-electron model to invent transistors ).
As a result, the familiar false narrative which makes useless quantum mechanics look very "successful" with the magical power to predict any physical values was fabricated by the academia living on quantum mechanical pseudo-theory to protect their old vested interests ( such as selling seeming science books ) related to this dead-end mainstream science.
Actually, the quantum mechanical only calculation tool = Schrödinger equations are known to be unsolvable with No solutions except for the simplest one-electron hydrogen atom whose energy values just agreed with Bohr's realistic atomic model.
Quantum mechanics is completely useless in any multi-electron atoms and molecules, because physicists cannot solve Schrödinger equations, instead, they have to artificially choose fake complicated approximate pseudo-solutions called trial wavefunctions or basis sets ( this 3rd-paragraph ), and manipulating freely-adjustable parameters, which quantum mechanical artificial methods are just "art" with No prediction of practical values, so Not science.
Even these quantum mechanical fake approximate methods of just choosing (complicated) fake wavefunctions and adjusting many free parameters for multi-electron Schrödinger equations are impractical, time-consuming and unusable in almost all molecules and materials ( this p.4 ).
So all quantum mechanical methods including original unsolvable Schrödinger equations, paradoxical molecular orbital (= MO ) theory, and all quantum mechanical approximations are unable to calculate or predict values of molecules and materials such as semiconductors ( this p.1-2nd paragraph, this p.3, this p.11 ).
↑ Physicists gave up solving unsolvable Schrodinger equations of impractical quantum mechanics, and instead, relied on artificial ad-hoc pseudo-model by manipulating freely-adjustable parameters where quantum mechanics is completely useless, unable to predict any useful physical values including transistors.
This p.3-second-paragraph says
"the resulting full scale
quantum system is intractable. Appropriate approximations are required. At the lowest level
of approach, a single electron (= fictitious quasi-electron ) dynamics in a band structure of the solid is governed by the
Schrödinger equation.. The solution of the many-electron Schrödinger equation, including
atomic information, is extremely expensive. Semi-empirical approaches which make use of
parameters from experimental data are often used... The size of the system is limited when ab-initio methods are used.
To increase the computational capability, pseudopotential methods can be used to remove
core electrons and singularities in calculations"
Of course, there were No such things as convenient modern computers or calculators to conduct any complicated calculations for multi-electron atoms or materials before the first transistors (= necessary for building modern computers ) were discovered, hence, it is impossible to use such an impractical and time-consuming Schrödinger equations for discovery of practical computer transistors ( this introduction, this p.7 ).
Actually, a transistor inventor Shockley and other physicists repeatedly failed, because existing quantum mechanical theory was useless and unable to predict anything ( this 1st-paragraph, this 4th~paragraphs, this p.1-right ).
Shockley did Not mention "quantum mechanics was useful for transistors" (= if the existing quantum mechanical theories really could give him useful advice, he would have Not taken so much time by repeating many failures due to disagreement between the theories and experimental results ).
Instead, he just mentioned "quantum mechanical (unreal) effective mass model disagreed with experimental results in semiconductors ( this p.14 )" ← That's all. No contribution of quantum mechanics to their invention of computer transistors !
Basically, if scientists could ( even luckily or accidentally ) find "good semiconductos" suitable for the transistor = the basic component of any computers by trial-and-error approaches, they could put together those transistors and make modern computers without relying on any theories such as useless quantum mechanics.
Modern computer CPU and memories are made of simple components called "transistors", and working based on the practical classical Maxwell's electromagnetism, Not a fantasy quantum mechanics.
Each transistor acts as a switch changing between 0 and 1 depending on the voltage applied on the base which triggers electric current flow and lets each transistor's capacitor store electric charges ( this middle ).
So in order to construct modern computers or smartphones, all scientists had to do was "try many candidate materials and find the good semiconductor materials (= relying on researchers' long experiences by trial and error approach or accidental discovery, Not relying on fantasy useless quantum mechanical theory )" usable for a transistor whose electric conductance or currents could be controlled by applied voltage (= changeable electric conductance of a semiconductor transistor acts as a switch 0 ↔ 1 of an ordinary computer bit ).
↑ Unphysical quantum mechanics really contributed to discovering these semiconductor materials usable for modern transistors ? ← No.
Scientists managed to discover these semiconductor materials suitable for transistors just by "old classical trial and error approaches ( this middle~lower, this 7th-paragraph )"
← It's like great inventors Edison and Wright brothers who did Not use fantasy quantum mechanical theory for inventing any useful devices (= ex. Edison's light bulb was invented long before quantum mechanics was born ).
The existence of semiconductors had been alreadly known long before quantum mechanics was born.
So quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the discovery of semiconductors and transistos.
↑ The classic "trial and error" approach is Not bad, rather, it is indispensable for all great inventions, regardless of the past or future.
Even all physical theories of Newton, Maxwell, Galileo, .. Einstein and quantum mechanics (= the last two theories include serious self-contradictions which obstruct the present scientific progress, though ) are based on actual obervation and experiments repeating "trials and errors."
All our scientific progress should be made by actual experiments, observations, trials and errors, Not obstructed by fictional, harmful theories.
The most serious problem of the present unrealistic quantum mechanics and Einstein is these fictional mainstream science prohibits us from seeking real deeper physical mechanisms or treating atomic behavior realistically by using the unfounded cliche "(wrongly) successful quantum mechanics !"
↑ Quantum mechanics is Not successful but harmful for our "science" by desperately preventing us from proceeding with useful experiments accompanied by trials and errors which are necessary for exploring deeper real atomic physical mechanisms.Historically, there were No such things as "successful theories" predicting any physical values or phenomena before conducting experiments.
As seen in all useful physical theories such as Newton, Maxwell, Kepler.., physicists first conducted "experiments" and later introduced "theories" based on the experimental observations to decide the future direction ( of new experiemnts ), and then continuing experiments to clarify deeper mechanism (← contradictory quantum mechanics blocks this normal scientific process or progress using the unscientific excuse "Nobody would understand physics" and unrealistic atoms with No concrete shapes )
So the misleading phrase "quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity are the most successful ! They can magically predict any physical values !?" is just a total lie (= The only alleged-practical application of Einstein relativity = GPS needs almost real-time clock error correction due to frequent discrepancy between the theory and actual GPS time ).
The evidence that quantum mechanics is Not used in computer transistors is seen in the fact that all the present textbook explanations of atomic structures behind semiconductors or transistors use classical ( successful ) Bohr's atomic model with realistically moving electrons instead of unphysical quantum mechanical electron cloud or uncertainly spreading wave functions.
The 1st paragraph of this site explains "lucky accidental discovery" of transistors instead of relying on useless quantum mechanical prediction,
"The transistor was invented at Bell Laboratories in December 1947 by John Bardeen and Walter Brattain. 'Discovered' would be a better word, for although they were seeking a solid-state equivalent to the vacuum tube, it was found accidentally during the investigation of the surface states around a diode point-contact."
The 4th paragraph of this site also mentions the classic trial-and-error approaches leading to the accidental discovery of transistors,
" Using different materials and different setups and different electrolytes in place of the water, the two men tried to get an even bigger increase in current.. Bardeen suggested they replace the silicon with germanium. They got a current jump, all right -- an amplification of some 330 times -- but in the exact opposite direction they'd expected !"
↑ Bardeen accidentally discovered the point-contact transistor without understanding how it functions, because there still is No really adequate quantitative theory explaining the working of the point contact transistor.
This site ( p.16 upper ) says "Indeed, there still is No really adequate quantitative theory explaining the working of the point contact transistor. But what is important for us is that the experiments were conducted by men who had amplification as their goal, who observed something that they were Not looking for or expecting which indicated the possibility of building an amplifier of a design very different from the one they had in mind.."
Transistors accidentally discovered by researchers showed the completely opposite phenomena from what they expected ( this p.2 middle-upper ). ← The existing atomic theory = quantum mechanics was completely useless and contributing nothing to discovering transistors, computers, smartphones..
Other important inventors of transistors, Shockley also repeated many failures, because the useless existing quantum mechanical theory could Not give them the right instructions of what to do next before researchers repeated many failures ( this 4-6th paragraphs ).
In fact, such an unrealistic quantum mechanics intrinsically cannot even separate different electrons or atoms, much less describe multi-electron atomic behaviors of semiconductors, hence, it is impossible for the quantum mechanics to explain the actual transistor's electric current involving many electrons and atoms.
Semiconductors are mainly made of silicon atoms (= Si ) doped with a small number of impurity atoms.
Outer electrons (= ex. 3p orbital of Si ) of the semiconductor's atoms can flow as electric currents under applied voltage in transistors.
For electrons to keep moving as electric current between different atoms, repulsive forces of Pauli exclusion principle have to constantly keep such a flowing outer electron from being stuck or attracted by strong Coulomb attractive forces toward the inner lower-energy orbitals (= 1s, 2s, 2p ).
Without Pauli repulsive forces, any outer electrons of conducting atoms or silicons easily fall into the inner orbitals with far lower potential energies, and soon electric currents stop flowing with outer conducting electrons stuck in inner orbitals with much lower-energy levels.
Regardless of materials, all electrons have to always interact with each other by two major atomic forces of Pauli repulsion and Coulomb electric forces.
The serious problem is the contradictory quantum mechanics can Not treat this important Pauli repulsion as a real force ( this p.6 ) nor describe any atoms or molecules with more than two electrons.
Furthermore, the quantum mechanical electron cloud cannot generate even enough Coulomb forces between different atoms.
Quantum mechanics, which is unable to clarify true mechanism of Pauli repulsion, has to rely on unrealistic abstract concepts called "exchange energy" which pseudo-interaction magically lacks exchange force or force carriers, hence the exchange energy has No physical reality ( this p.11, this p.2-3rd paragraph = pseudo-force = Pauli ? ).
This Pauli exchange energy must be expressed as "antisymmetric wavefunctions" where all electrons must be unrealistically indistinguishable and inseparable, hence, every single electron must exist in all different atoms simultaneously inside any materials and molecules due to quantum mechanical stupid rule.
For example, three-electron atoms or materials (= which cannot be explained by the original quantum mechanical Pauli principle ), each electron must always exist and be trapped in all different atomic orbitals simultaneously and unrealistically (= each electron cannot move from one orbital to another orbit as electric current according to this quantum mechanical stupid antisymmetric wavefunction or exchange energy rule ! )
Exchanging any two electrons must flip the sign of the entire wavefunctions (including spin and spatial parts, this-8.6.6-8.6.11, this p.16-18 ) of atoms or molecules, which means any two electrons must be antisymmetric and indistinguishable with respect to their positions and states.
Any different electrons must be identical by belonging to any different atoms inside any molecules and materials simultaneously ( this p.11-12 ).
In this unrealistic antisymmetric wavefunctions, if two electrons occupy the same state with respect to the spin and orbital, the total wavefunction becomes zero. ← This too unphysical abstract concept called "antisymmetric wavefunction" is the only quantum mechanical explanation of mysterious Pauli exclusion repulsive energy without giving any more detailed physical mechanism. ← Science stops progressing now, because physicists give up exploring deeper truth.
For outer electrons to keep flowing as electric current in semiconductors or transistors without falling or being trapped into lower-energy inner orbitals, outer electrons must keep being repelled by inner electrons of all different atoms by Pauli repulsive force.
→ To generate Pauli repulsive energies, all electrons of all different atoms inside semiconductors must be unrealistically indistinguishable ( in their positions ) and inseparable to make antisymmetric wavefunctions required by quantum mechanics.
→ Every single electron must always exist in all different (silicon) atoms inside semiconductors or transistors simultaneously from the beginning.
↑ It is impossible for such an unrealistic quantum mechanical electron, which exists in all different atoms from the beginning, to move from one atom to another atom as electric current, because each electron must always exist in all different atoms simultaneously without moving.
As a result, "quantum mechanics contributed to invention of modern computer transistor" is physically impossible, hence a total lie created later to make useless quantum mechanics "look" useful only for getting research funds using such a pseudo-science as the fishy quantum technology.
If quantum mechanics was right, any electrons inside transistors can Not move from one atom to other atoms as electric currents even when applying voltage. ← Modern transistors could Not be invented !
For example, outer 3p electrons of silicon atoms must be constantly repelled by Pauli repulsive energy from inner-orbital 2s ( or 1s or 2p ) electrons to keep flowing and moving to other atoms as electric current without falling or being trapped into much lower energy levels of inner 1s or 2s orbitals.
In order to make quantum mechanical anti-symmetric wave functions whose abstract forms are allegedly necessary for causing Pauli repulsive energies between electrons, the same single electron-1 must always exist both in outer 3p orbital and inner orbitals such as 2s, 2p, 1s.. simultaneously from the beginning, which resultantly causes "strange exchange integral" as the origin of Pauli repulsive energies.
↑ So if such a strange quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy is right, a physically-impossible and contradictory thing would happen.
Before an electron-1 has moved from a silicon atom-1 to a silicon atom-2 (then, moves to atom-3, atom-4 .. ) in the electric current, the same single electron-1 must already exist in all different atoms including atom-1, atom-2, atom-3, atom-4 .. or all their inner or outer electrons's orbitals.
→ Every single electron must exist in all different silicon or doped atoms from the beginning simultaneously to use Pauli principle. ← It is impossible for such an unrealistic electron always existing in all atoms to move from one atom to another atom as a real electric current. = Modern transistor's electric current can Not be described by fantasy quantum mechanics !
This is why all the current textbooks explaining the modern computer's transistors use realistic successful Bohr's atomic model with real separable and movable electrons instead of unrealistic inseperable unmovable electron clouds of quantum mechanics.
Another myth = Modern computers are said to use one of mysterious quantum mechanical effects called quantum tunneling.
The point is quantum tunneling is Not a ghost-like phenomenon but a natural classically-possible (= realistic ) phenomenon where electrons can naturally jump between two atoms, only when those two atoms are separated by a very short distance less than a few nm under applied voltage through the air or vacuum with empty space (= No real barriers or walls in tunneling, this 2nd-paragraph this 2~3rd paragraphs ).
Those empty spaces such as vacuum and air (= through which electrons can tunnel and pass, only when the distance is extremely short = ~nm ) are wrongly treated like "rigid imaginary walls" or insulator (= such imaginary potential walls are often given to the tunnel explanation, though the precise potential energies between atoms separated by extremely short distance is unknown ) by irrational quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics just imagines "illusory potential energy wall", and makes an unscientific claim that each electron can penetrate such an invisible potential barrier by having unrealistic negative kinetic energies (= kinetic energy = 1/2mv2 = negative !? ← impossible ! ) without deeper explanations ( this p.7, this p.3-fourth-paragraph ).
↑ Delving into deeper true physical mechanism is forbidden by the unrealistic quantum mechanical model such as "negative-kinetic-energy tunneling", it just reluctantly says Nobody understands mysterious (= unreal ) quantum mechanics including parallel-world superposition and negative-kinetic-energy tunnel ( this 3rd-paragraph ) !
↑ Our science stops progressing, because physicists don't want to expose quantum mechanical self-contradictions.
In the normal scientific process and progress, if we have to rely on unreal negative kinetic energy of electrons to explain quantum tunnel, we have to replace such a contradictory quantum mechanics by other realistic atomic theories (= ex. just classical thermal fluctuaion or real electron's de Broglie wave pressure can cause electron's tunnel effect over the extremely short distance ) without relying on negative kinetic energies.
Quantum mechanics outrageously allows even unreal quasiparticles with fake effective masses to cause tunnel and negative kinetic energies, and stops exploring deeper mechanisms of such a contradictory tunnel. ← nonsense.
You can understand the quantum mechanics has never been useful for any applied science such as computer transistors and smartphones, when you see the most widely used quantum mechanical approximate calculation method called density functional theory (= DFT or Kohn-Sham equation ) which illogically replaces the whole many-electron material or transistor by only one-single-pseudo-electron model, because the original many-electron Schrödinger equations are completely impractical and meaningless (= due to indistinguishable and exchangeable electrons ) in large molecules and materials ( this p.3, this p.2 ).
Almost all quantum mechanical calculations in condensed matter, semiconductors, band theoy and computer transistors rely on this unphysical one-pseudo-electron approximation DFT ( this p.6, this Fig.2 ), though this one-pseudo-electron model is inherently unable to explain actual separable multi-electron or multi-atomic materials.
This one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation has to artificially choose fake effective potential energies called exchange-correlation functionals which exact form is unknown.
Choosing arbitrary pseudo-potential-energy functionals and adjusting free parameters for its caclulation means all these quantum mechanical methods are unable to predict any physical values, hence, completely useless.
Furthermore, no matter what pseudo-potential energies or functionals physicists choose, they always encounter cases where those chosen functionals miserably fail to explain experimental values such as semiconductor's band gaps ( this p.17 ).
In conclusion, the hackneyed phrases "quantum mechanics contributed to discovery of computer transistors and smartphones" or "quantum mechanics is a successful theory magically predicting all experimental results" are completely false and fake.
We have to discard such an unrealistic and contradictory quantum mechanics which forbids us from delving into deeper true physical mechanisms, and replace it by more realistic atomic models with No contradictions for applying basic atomic interactions to practical science.
(Q-1) ↓ Useless and impossible dream
See this.
See this.
See this.
See this.
See this.
See this.
See this.
See this.
See this.
See this.
Time crystal is also a meaningless concept = just randomly-oscillating atoms with No practical application.
(B-1) ↓ Real force, force carriers are necessary in 
Unrealistic quantum mechanics can never treat actual molecular or chemical bonds in the realistic way.
Hence, quantum mechanics has never been useful in any applied science such as computer transistors, smartphones, biology, medicine and still-impractical parallel-world quantum computers, contrary to the media-hype.
Why is the quantum mechanical atomic world useless forever in actual science and technology ?
Quantum mechanics intrinsically can neither treat actual multiple electrons (or atoms ) as they are, nor distinguish (= separate ) different electrons (or different atoms ). Why ?
In quantum mechanical rules, any atomic or electronic wavefunctions must take the nonphysical antisymmetric form generating fictional exchange energies to describe Pauli exclusion principle and (pseudo-)molecular bond energies.
In this nonphysical quantum mechanical antisymmetric wavefunctions, even when we exchange any two electrons' positions or wavefunctions belonging to different atoms and orbitals (= 1 ↔ 2 ), the entire wavefunction's forms remain unchanged except the opposite sign is added to it ( this p.8-9, this 5-6th paragraphs ).
↑ It means each single electron must unrealistically exist in any different positions, atoms, wavefunctions simultaneously.
If an electron-1 exists only in the atom-A's wavefunction and an electron-2 exists only in the atom-B's wavefunction like the entire wavefunction = [ φA (e1) φB (e2) ], this is Not a quantum mechanical antisymmetric wavefunction, hence, its entire wavefunction changes like [ φA (e1) φB (e2) ] → [ φA (e2) φB (e1) ] under the exchange of two electrons e1 ↔ e2.
If each single electrons-1 (or 2 ) unrealistically exists in both different atoms-A and B simultaneously, the entire antisymmetric wavefunction is unchanged except for the sign like [ φA (e1) φB (e2) - φA (e2) φB (e1) ] → - [ φA (e1) φB (e2) - φA (e2) φB (e1) ] under the exchange of two electrons e1 ↔ e2. ← Pauli principle ( this p.7-8 ) ?
So in this antisymmetric wavefunctions, if two electrons share the same state (= same orbital, wavefunction and spin ), the entire wavefunctions become zero. ← Pauli principle mechanism ? ← quantum mechanics gives No more detailed mechanism of Pauli principle than this nonphysical abstract antisymmetric wavefunctions ( this p.7-8 ) ! ← No scientific progress in the current atomic physics !
Due to this unrealistic quantum mechanical interpretation of Pauli principle using unphysical exchange energies caused by antisymmetric wavefunctions, any different electrons allegedly existing in all different atoms simultaneously in molecules and materials become indistinguishable and inseparable from other electrons or atoms, as if all different electrons form a single giant pseudo-electron.
Because this quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction rule requires every single electron to exist everywhere in any different orbitals and atoms simultaneously, as if each electron exists in any different places using fantasy quantum mechanical parallel worlds or superposition.
In the fictitious quantum mechanical molecular bonds between two atoms, a single electron-1 must exist in two different atoms (or nuclei, protons ) A and B simultaneously (= φA (e1) + φB (e1) ) from the beginning ( this p.15-upper, this p.4-5 ).
So each single electron must exist in any different atoms and molecules simultaneously from the beginning to cause fictitious exchange energies which are thought to generate quantum mechanical fictitious molecular bonds ( this p.11 ) and Pauli repulsions between different atoms.
↑ The problem is when we consider forces between two separate atoms A and B, every single electron must exist in (= bridge ) both separate atoms A and B from the beginning. → Atoms A and B are inseparable from each other by sharing the same single unbreakable electron obeying this stupid quantum mechanical exchange rule !
As a result, we cannot consider real forces between quantum mechanical magical atoms which are unrealistically inseparable from other different atoms due to sharing the same single electron under the nonphysical antisymmetric wavefunction rule allegedly causing nonphysical exchange energies.
So the exchange energies between quantum mechanical atoms lack real ( exchange ) forces ( this p.5 ), hence, the quantum mechanical molecular bond and Pauli repulsive exchange energies cannot be explained by real things or forces ( this p.8-lower, this p.6, this p.11 ).
Unphysical quantum mechanical wavefunctions or electron clouds where each single electron must thinly spread all over the place cannot generate strong Coulomb attractive energies or Coulomb forces between neutral atoms to form real molecular bonds ( → instead, rely on unphysical exchange energy, this p.4-5, this p.3-4 ), unlike realistic atomic models separating de Broglie wave from a real movable electron which can naturally cause real Coulomb forces and energies in molecular bonds.
In this paradoxical quantum mechanical world, though physicists can actually measure real attractions and Pauli repulsive forces between separate atoms, they cannot use the concepts of real forces to explain it ! ← Quantum mechanical molecular model is useless due to its inability to use real forces.
Quantum mechanics makes a paradoxical claim that any fictitious exchange energues such as molecular bond attractions and Pauli repulsions between atoms are caused by the decrease and increase in the (pseudo-)electron's kinetic energy ( this p.9-10 ) without using real forces or the change of any potential energies such as Coulomb electric or magnetic energies.
↑ This quantum mechanical pseudo-mechanism causing strange exchange energies is impossible. Kinetic energies (of electrons ) themselves can Not be the source of forces. Only potential energies such as electromagnetic and gravitational energies can be the source of real forces such as electromagnetic force and gravity.
Actually, these unrealistic quantum mechanical molecular bonds based on Pauli antisymmetric exchange wavefunctions violate total energy conservation law, so false (= a single quantum mechanical molecule contains many different total energies in different electrons' positions, unlike the only solvable one-electron hydrogen atom which can conserve the constant total energy in any electron's position )
As a result, quantum mechanics started to say more ridiculous things "we can Not touch objects or feel real forces, even when we can actually touch them and feel real contact forces (= caused by Pauli repulsion )."
In fact, quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric exchange wavefunctions (= such as molecular orbital MO theory ) cannot apply to the system containing more than two electrons, which paradoxical quantum mechanical wavefunctions forced physicists to use the unphysical one-pseudo-electron approximation called DFT, which also failed.
This is why quantum mechanics can never be useful in any applied science. Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations are unable to give true solutions or wavefunctions of any multi-electron atoms and molecules ( this p.5 ).
See previous version of criticizing top journals.
2021/6/18 updated. Feel free to link to this site.
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
