(Fig.1) Quantum mechanics obstructing science needs fictional targets and hyped news
The 1st, 3rd, 5th, 8th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have fabricated a device no wider than a human hair that will help physicists investigate the fundamental nature of matter and light (= based on fictional model ). Their findings, published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, could (= just speculation ) also support the development of more efficient lasers, which are used in fields ranging from medicine to manufacturing (= actually, this research mentioned nothing about practical use )."
"Because of this property, topological insulators can make many photons coherently act like one photon (= this research photon is a fictional photon with fake effective mass ). The devices can also be used as topological "quantum simulators," miniature laboratories where researchers can study quantum phenomena (= this research's vague quantum phenomena means unrealistic quasiparticle model )."
"It is also a promising step forward in the development of lasers (= still unrealized ) that require less energy to operate, as our room-temperature device (= what this "device" means is unclear ) threshold—the amount of energy needed to make it work—is seven times lower than previously developed low-temperature devices (= this research mentioned No practical device )"
"When the researchers shined a laser light on the device, a glowing triangular pattern appeared at the interfaces designed in the material. This pattern, dictated by the device's design, is the result of topological characteristics of lasers ( "topological" itself is an unphysical useless concept )."
"Being able to study quantum phenomena at room temperature is an exciting prospect (= just "exciting" does not mean a useful research )"
This research just measured laser light's energy absorbed into or emitted from some material (in photoluminescence or PL ), and tried to explain it by completely fictional quantum mechanical concepts such as quasiparticles and effective mass. No practical use.
↑ This research's abstract says ↓
"Exciton-polaritons, that is, the hybrid quasiparticles (= unreal model ) of excitons and photons in semiconductor microcavities, have been proposed as a tunable nonlinear platform for emulating topological phenomena (= vague "topological" again )."
".. The geometric parameters and material composition of our nonlinear many-body photonic system platform can in principle be tailored to study topological phenomena of other interquasiparticle interactions (= No mention of practical use )."
↑ This research supplementary information ↓
p.3 used artificial unrealistic quantum mechanical model consisting of fictional quasiparticle polariton, exciton, and fake effective masses of those quasiparticles and photons.
p.4 used fictitious magnetic field called Berry curvature ( this p.4-1st-paragraph ).
p.5 also used fictional exciton-polariton quasiparticles and fake effective masses that are just artificially-fitting parameters (= p.11 ) based on just measuring light interacting with material in photoluminescence (= PL ).
No quantum mechanical prediction, and No mention of practical application.
This is also a typical example of academic organization's impractical science intended only for publishing papers in journals, which need overhyped news (= topological quantum simulator or something ) to mask their unphysical useless research.
The 3-5th, 11-12th, 18-19th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Now a Caltech team has made a key discovery that helps simplify such calculations, speeding them up by a factor of 50 or more while maintaining accuracy. As a result, it is possible to compute electron interactions in more complex materials and devices (= false, this research is just about fictional quasiparticle, Not real electrons )"
"Their approach simplifies the dense computational matrices used to represent the interactions that take place in a material between electrons and atomic vibrations (or phonons, which can be thought of as individual units of vibrational energy = unreal phonon quasiparticle model )."
"the new method allows them to use only 1 to 2% of the data typically used to solve such problems, greatly accelerating calculations (= just artificially choosing only convenient data parameters is Not quantum mechanical prediction )"
"His group's approach is based on applying a method called singular value decomposition (SVD) to the electron–phonon (= unreal quasiparticle ) interactions in a material"
"These real positive numbers are called singular values and rank the fundamental interactions in order of importance. Then the program can eliminate all but a few percent of the interactions in each matrix, leaving only the leading singular values, a process that makes the determination cheaper (= just artificially picking up some interactions is Not quantum mechanical prediction )"
"the researchers show that the compression of matrices related to electron–phonon interactions using the SVD method provides accurate results for various properties of materials researchers might want to calculate, including charge transport, spin relaxation times, and the transition temperature of superconductors (= based on artificially-created fictitious phonon quasiparticle model )."
" Bernardi says that this will (= just speculation, still useless ) enable users in the scientific community to predict material properties associated with electron–phonon interactions significantly faster (= it is meaningless to try to predict illusory phonon quasiparticle behavior )."
↑ This research tried to explain some material's (useless) parameters such as fictional phonon quasiparticle by quantum mechanical unphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially chosen pseudo-potential.
No quantum mechanical prediction. No practical use.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-right-2nd-paragraph says "Focusing on electron-phonon (e-ph) interactions (= fictional quasiparticle phonon model )"
p.2-left-1st-paragraph says "interactions need specialized treatments to capture
p.2-right-last-paragraph describes fictional photon quasiparticles and electrons only as nonphysical math operators with No concrete shapes.
p.3-left-last-paragraph says "the resulting curve of error versus number of parameters is the Pareto frontier for modeling e-ph (= electron-phonon ) interactions (= artificial parameters for estimating fictional phonon quasiparticle interaction ). "
p.4-left says " The mobility is overestimated for electrons, and underestimated for hole carriers, despite the accuracy of the low-rank e-ph interactions in silicon (= even artificial model failed to explain experimental results )"
p.5-left-D. says "We also leverage the improved Brillouin-zone sampling technique where only electronic states in a small energy window (0.006 Ry) near the Fermi surface are included in the calculation (= artificially choosing the energy of outer electrons in Fermi level related to these phenomena, which is Not prediction )"
p.9-right-lower-appendix F says "The DFT ground state calculation in graphene uses the local density approximation with a norm-conserving pseudopotential from PseudoDojo. We employ a 90 Ry plane wave kinetic energy cutoff, and a 2.46 Å lattice constant"
↑ Using impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT with artificially-chosen exchange functional, pseudo-potential, cut-off. and lattice constant is Not a quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ As a result, the current science stops progressing in fictional quantum mechanical quasiparticle model and one-pseudo-electron DFT's pseudo-potential with No real atomic shape.
This current impractical mainstream science keeps giving pseudo-leading scientific position to old archaic universities by suppressing real scientific development and free technological competition in all industrial fields, using academic journals as (fictitious) scientific bible, which old fictional restrictive science enables universities to skyrocket tuition limitlessly.
The 1st, 4th, 7-9th, 11-12th paragraphs of this overhyped news say
"Researchers from Cleveland Clinic and IBM have recently published findings in the Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation that could (= just speculation ) lay the groundwork for applying quantum computing methods to protein structure prediction (= hype, actually, this research's IBM quantum computer could Not predict proteins at all )."
"In recent years, machine learning techniques have made significant progress in protein structure prediction. These methods are reliant on training data (a database of experimentally determined protein structures) to make predictions. This means that they are constrained by how many proteins they have been taught to recognize. This can lead to lower levels of accuracy when the programs/algorithms encounter a protein that is mutated or very different from those on which they were trained, which is common with genetic disorders (= machine learning, hyped AI failed to predict proteins )"
"To help overcome these limitations, the research team applied a mix of quantum and classical computing methods (= this misleading hybrid computer is substantially a classical computer, Not a quantum computer ). This framework could allow quantum algorithms to address the areas that are challenging for state-of-the-art classical computing,..
".. The framework was validated by accurately predicting the folding of a small fragment (= Not a protein ) of a Zika virus protein on a quantum computer, compared to state-of-the-art classical methods (= false, this research quantum computer used just 7~10 qubits or 7~10 bitstring for a tiny 7 amino acid fragment with errors, which can be easily outperformed even by very old classical computers, this p.14-left-3rd-paragraph says we tested.. on seven amino acid fragment = Not a protein at all )"
"The quantum-classical hybrid framework's initial results outperformed both a classical physics-based method and AlphaFold2 (= false, this research used only 7~10 qubits, which can deal with only 210 = 1024 numbers that can be easily estimated by ordinary classical computer better than the current error-prone quantum computer ). "
"The researchers used a quantum algorithm to first model the lowest energy conformation for the fragment's backbone, which is typically the most computationally demanding step of the calculation (= but only 7 amid acids by 7 impractical qubits, Not a computationally demanding at all ). Classical approaches were then used to convert the results obtained from the quantum computer, reconstruct the protein with its sidechains, and perform final refinement of the structure with classical molecular mechanics force fields"
"Our team's expertise ranges from computational biology and chemistry, structural biology, software and automation engineering, to experimental atomic and nuclear physics, mathematics, and of course, quantum computing and algorithm design. It took the knowledge from each of these areas to create a computational framework that can mimic one of the most important processes for human life (= hype, dealing with just 7 amino acids cannot mimic biology, let alone human life )"
"The team's combination of classical and quantum computing methods is an essential step for advancing our understanding of protein structures, and how they impact our ability to treat and prevent disease. The team plans (= still unrealized ) to continue developing and optimizing quantum algorithms that can predict the structure of larger and more sophisticated proteins."
This research just used only 7~10 impractical qubits of the hyped IBM-cleveland clinic quantum computer (= prepared only for publicity stunt ) to deal with only 7 amino acids with the help of a practical classical computer (= so Not a quantum computer but just a deceptive hybrid computer ), which is useless and far inferior to classical computer simulation, contrary to overhyped news.
↑ This research paper this ( or its PDF version ) ↓
3.1-2nd-paragraph (or PDF-p.5-left-2st-paragraph ) says " That is almost 10 months just to fold a small 20 amino acid protein using conventional MD simulations (= the current mainstream protein simulation method or molecular dynamics is too time-consuming to be practical )"
4.-3rd-paragraph (or PDF p.14--left-last-paragraph~p.14-right ) says "We tested steps 1–3 of this workflow on a small, but highly relevant (only) seven amino acid fragment (LHPGAGK)─the P-loop of the Zika virus NS3 helicase protein (= For only seven amino acids that are Not a protein, this impractical IBM quantum computer in cleveland clinic was used with the help of classical computer )"
".. We chose the P-loop as the “toy model” for this workflow and present our results as an initial proof of concept."
".. The Hamiltonian term corresponding to the optimal solution, as determined by both Gurobi and the (classical) brute force search, yielded an RMSD (= backbone root mean squared deviation ) of 1.88 Å, slightly higher than VQE's (= quantum-classical hybrid computer's algorithm ) solution from the execution on quantum hardware (Figure 10c). AlphaFold2 produced the least accurate model (= Alphafold2 prediction was worst )"
4.4th-paragraph (or PDF p.15-left-last-paragraph ) says " Even though VQE (= quantum-classical hybrid ) may not always find the absolute lower bound in the energy (= the error-prone quantum computer cannot find the answer or the lowest-energy value even in optimization problem of only 7 amino acids )"
5.8th-paragraph or Fig.11 (or PDF p.16-left-8th-paragraph ) says "Our estimates show that for a protein sequence with 22 amino acids, the number of qubits needed is 118 (see Figure 11a). Extrapolated according to these estimates, we expect that we can go up to 41 amino acids with the release of IBM’s Osprey, a 433 qubit quantum computer, (= which means IBM already had 127-qubit and 433-qubit quantum computers, but this research did Not use them due to their errors )"
↑ This research's Fig.11-a (or this PDF's p.15-Figure.11-a ) shows this research's only 7 amino acids used only 7~10 qubits or 7~10 bitstring, which is Not a computer at all.
↑ These 10 qubits can express only 210 = 1024 different numbers (= each qubit can take 2 values of 0 or 1 ).
↑ Finding the answer or the lowest (energy) number out of only 1024 numbers by classical computer is far easier and more accurate than the current error-prone quantum computer.
So this research's classical method that gave slightly-more deviation than the quantum-classical hybrid method is a bad classical method (= brute force ), Not a best classical method, as shown in the fact that classical best algorithm was far superior to D-Wave 2000 qubits in optimization problem.
Other latest researches showed IBM's 127-qubit quantum computer was outperformed by ordinary classical (laptop) computers.
In this hyped research, IBM and Cleveland
clinic used only 7~10 impractical qubits, though they already had 127~433 qubit (impractical) quantum computers.
Because they knew their error-prone quantum computers can Not give right answers in larger calculations or larger numbers of qubits.
As a result, "IBM-Cleveland quantum computer will (= still unrealized ) revolutionize health care or discover drugs" is an overhyped fake news to make the current already-deadend quantum mechanics look promising.
The 1-3rd, 6th, 9th, 11th, 17th, 26th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Quantum computers hold the promise of being able to quickly solve extremely complex problems that might (= just speculation ) take the world's most powerful supercomputer decades to crack (= hype )."
"But achieving that performance involves building a system with millions of interconnected building blocks called qubits. Making and controlling so many qubits in a hardware architecture is an enormous challenge (= millions of qubits are needed to build practical quantum computers, which is impossible forever, this 4th-paragraph ) "
"Toward this goal, researchers at MIT and MITRE have demonstrated a scalable, modular hardware platform that integrates thousands of interconnected qubits onto a customized integrated circuit (= this research was just about a vague platform, and they did Not perform any calculations using qubits because of their extremely high error rate )."
"We will (= still unrealized ) need a large number of qubits, and great control over them, to really leverage the power of a quantum system and make it useful. We are proposing a brand new architecture and a fabrication technology that can support the scalability requirements of a hardware system for a quantum computer,"
"Qubits made from diamond color centers are "artificial atoms" that carry quantum information (= just energy levels ). Because diamond color centers are solid-state systems, the qubit manufacturing is compatible with modern semiconductor fabrication processes (= this hackneyed analogy is false ). They are also compact and have relatively long coherence times, which refers to the amount of time a qubit's state remains stable (= actually this research qubit's lifetime in SnV- in diamond was extremely short, only 5ns, which cannot be used as practical bit memory, this p.15-right-1st-paragraph )"
"The conventional assumption in the field is that the inhomogeneity of the diamond color center is a drawback (= even positions of qubits could Not be controlled in this research ) compared to identical quantum memory like ions and neutral atoms. However, we turn this challenge into an advantage by embracing the diversity of the artificial atoms: Each atom has its own spectral frequency (= energy levels ). This allows us to communicate with individual atoms by voltage tuning them into resonance with a laser.. "
"They started by fabricating an array of diamond color center microchiplets from a solid block of diamond. They also designed and fabricated nanoscale optical antennas that enable more efficient collection of the photons emitted by these color center qubits in free space."
"Using this technique, they demonstrated an entire chip with over 4,000 qubits that could be tuned to the same frequency while maintaining their spin and optical properties. They also built a digital twin simulation that connects the experiment with digitized modeling, which helps them understand the root causes of the observed phenomenon and determine how to efficiently implement the architecture (= No mention of what calculation was done in this research which was useless, because this research is about the mere platform, Not about quantum computation )."
"In the future (= still unrealized ), the researchers could boost the performance of their system by refining the materials they used to make qubits or developing more precise control processes"
This research just randomly created SnV- (= tin vacancy ) qubits whose two atomic energy levels were used as a qubit's 0 or 1 state in diamond. Just controlling and preparing each one qubit's state (= some energy level ) caused 10.24% high error rate ( this p.22 ), which was too bad to calculate anything (= so No calculation was done in this research ).
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ ).
p.2-Fig.1c and p.5-Fig.3d show each atomic qubit's two energy levels = ground state (= g ) and excited state (= e ) were used as a qubit's state, and their energy levels (= f or frequency ) could be artificially varied by applied voltage V (= unphysical spin itself was unobservable, only light interacting with atomic energy levels was detectable ).
p.6-Fig.4a shows randomly-distributed atomic qubits interacting with lights (= positions, energies and brightness of individual qubits were random and disorderly, which architecture is useless ).
p.7-right-2nd-paragraph says "The inset reveals the pulse time sequence used for state preparation and measurement. Initially, a green laser resets the SnV− to the negative charge state. Then, we herald the correct spin state of SnV− using a laser pulse resonant with the R↓ transition (= only laser light interacting with energy levels instead of spin was detectable ). We set a signal threshold count Cth, and when the APD (= avalanche photo diode ) time-bin 1 counts exceed Cth, we consider the SnV− spin state to be successfully prepared."
".. we can calculate the spin state preparation and measurement error espam... we can reduce espam (= error rate ) to 3% (= still high ) after post-selection. Although the probability of successful initialization is about 3% (= too low success probability ) in this case, initialization can be attempted multiple times until it is successful"
↑ This means they artificially post-selected (= after repeating ) only correct results (= only 3% showed right results. the remaining 97% qubit results were erroneous and discarded, which method cannot be used for practical calculations, because almost all qubits must be discarded ).
Even after this artificial postselection, the single qubit's state preparation error was 3%, which was still high.
This p.22 showed each single qubit's state preparation error rate (= without artificial postselection ) was as high as 10.24%, which error rate was far worse than the older qubits (= 0.1 % ) and practical computers (= 10-15, this 5th-paragraph ). ← quantum computer research is regressing.
↑ As a result, this research tried to increase the number of qubits disorderly by creating Tin vacancies inside diamond randomly, but each qubit error rate (= 10.24% ) turned out to be far worse than other older qubits, so they could Not perform any quantum computation (= No one-qubit or two-qubit gate operations were done in this research ).
↑ This current impractical mainstream science intended only for publishing papers in journals can give (pseudo-)scientific leading position to old archaic universities by suppressing really-useful science or free technological competition in all industrial fields, and enables universities to skyrocket tuition unlimitedly.
The 1-4th, 6-7th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"In a new paper in Science Advances, researchers at JPMorgan Chase, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory and Quantinuum have demonstrated clear evidence of a quantum algorithmic speedup for the quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA)." ← false, this research showed No quantum computer's speed-up.
"This algorithm has been studied extensively and has been implemented on many quantum computers. It has potential (= just speculation ) applications in fields such as logistics, telecommunications, financial modeling and materials science."
"This work is a significant step towards (= meaning "still unrealized" ) reaching quantum advantage, laying the foundation for future impact in production."
"The team examined whether a quantum algorithm with low implementation costs could provide a quantum speedup over the best-known classical methods. QAOA was applied to the Low Autocorrelation Binary Sequences problem or LABS (= this QAQA is Not genuine quantum but hybrid optimization method using also classical computers, this a rough overview ). The study showed that if the algorithm was asked to tackle increasingly larger problems, the time it would take to solve them would grow at a slower rate than that of a classical solver."
"The large-scale quantum circuit simulations efficiently utilized the DOE petascale supercomputer Polaris located at the ALCF (= so this research used "classical supercomputer" to simulate quantum computer, it is Not a quantum computer itself, so No quantum computer speed-up was proved in this research )."
"To take the first step toward (= meaning still unrealized ) practical realization of the speedup in the algorithm, the researchers demonstrated a small-scale implementation on Quantinuum's System Model H1 and H2 trapped-ion quantum computers. Using algorithm-specific error detection (= Not error-correction, but just illegitimate post-selection ), the team reduced the impact of errors on algorithmic performance by up to 65% (= still error-prone )."
This research's illusory quantum speed-up estimation was based on classical supercomputer simulation of an ideal imaginary quantum computer (= instead of using the present error-prone quantum computers, so No proof of quantum-speed-up, this 5-6th-paragraphs ).
They used only a very small number of unstable qubits (= only 18 ion qubits or just 18 bitstring; each ion's two energy levels were used as a qubit's 0 or 1 state ) that could Not give right answers at all due to their large numbers of errors, which was completely useless, No quantum speed-up.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.3-right-3rd-paragraph says "We will refer to CMF (= merit factor ) as the "QAOA energy" as a shorthand. The second figure of merit is the probability of sampling the exact optimal solution, denoted by popt (= both these merit factor CMF and popt are related to probabilities of successfully obtaining exact optimal solution )"
p.5-right says "We note that the merit factor (= success rate ) drops quickly for larger N (= number of qubits ) and is approaching random guess (= random guess is a wrong disorderly answer ) because of experimental imperfections (= errors, noise ) "
p.5-Fig.4-(C) says " Experimental results up to 18 qubits (= N = 18 ) on a trapped-ion quantum device (H1-1) with QAOA. ← C-graph shows this H1-1 with only N = 18 ion qubits approached the mere random guess or wrong answers (= low CMF ) due to their high error or noise rate compared to the noiseless classical computer's simulator ( this 5th-paragraph )"
p.5-right-last~p.6-left says ".. We also note that at this scale LABS is easy for classical heuristics, which obtain optimal merit factors in < 1s (= only N = 18-ion-qubits in this experiment can take only 218 = 262144 numbers, out of which the ordinary classical computer can find the right optimal solution with the lowest energy more easily and accurately than the current error-prone quantum computers )"
p.6-left-2nd-paragraph says "To improve the performance in the presence of noise, we implement an algorithm-specific error detection scheme (= Not error-correction ).. in Fig.4E, we use up to three parity checks and observe consistent improvements in QAOA performance after postselecting on their outcomes. After postselection, the difference of merit factor between experimental results (= 18-ion-qubits with a lot of errors ) and noiseless simulation (= classical errorless simulation ) is reduced by 54% on average"
↑ p.5-Fig.4-(E) shows the original error-prone results (= circles on the light gray line ) was almost the same as the disorderly random guess (= lowest dotted line ) in N = 18 qubits, and after artificial postselection (= discarding all qubits whose errors were detected ), the results (= diamonds ) were slightly closer to the ideal noiseless classical computer's simulator (= top line ).
↑ They artificially chose or postselected only less than 10% of all the results (= discarding more than 90% of qubits due to errors ) after error detection ( this p.18-Fig S17-B ), which illegitimate post-selection method without error correction cannot be used for larger calculations where almost all qubits which showed errors must be discarded.
p.6-left-Discussion says "This provides evidence for the potential (= just speculation, still unrealized ) of QAOA to act as a building block that provides algorithmic speedups on an idealized fault-tolerant quantum computer (= this idealized error-less quantum computer is impossible )."
As a result, even this latest quantum computer with only less than 18 qubits could Not give right answers nor correct errors, which had to rely on ordinary classical computer simulation (= which classical simulation was treated as (pseudo-)quantum speed-up ) for fabricating overhyped news.
The 1-2nd, 5th, 9th, 12th, 14th, last paragraphs of this overhyped news say
"Researchers from Lancaster University and Radboud University Nijmegen have managed to generate propagating spin waves (= false, electron spin is unreal ) at the nanoscale and discovered a novel pathway to modulate and amplify them."
"Their discovery, published in Nature, could (= just speculation ) pave the way for the development of dissipation free quantum information technologies. As the spin waves do not involve electric currents, these chips will (= still unrealized ) be free from associated losses of energy (= wrong, spin wave energy dissipates and disappears in very short time, this-2nd-paragraph, which is why spin wave is still useless )."
"Our discovery will be essential for future spin-wave based computing. Spin waves are an appealing information carrier.. do not suffer from resistive losses (= false, again. Fictional spin wave or magnon quasiparticle (= unstable magnetic fluctuation ) gets easily lost, so can propagate only micrometers with extremely short-lifetime of only picoseconds, which can Not be used for stable information carriers, contrary to hypes )."
"To excite such fast spin dynamics, they used a very short pulse of light, the duration of which is shorter than the period of the spin wave (= applying short-time light wave caused tiny magnetic fluctuation or fictitious spin wave in material )."
"The researchers have now for the first time realized this possibility in practice. They achieved this by exciting the system not with only one, but with two intense laser pulses, separated by a short time delay (= so this research just shone several laser lights on material with No quantum computing )."
"The team explained the observations by considering the coupling of the already excited (imaginary) spin wave with the second light pulse. The result of this coupling is that when the spins are already rotating, the second light pulse gives an additional kick to the spins."
"This mechanism allows for control over the properties of the spin waves such as their amplitude and phase, simply by choosing the appropriate time delay between the excitations (= No mention of practical use nor quantum computing )."
↑ This research just shone several light wave on some material to cause very short-lived magnetic fluctuation with lifetime of only ps, which was measured by seeing the changed polarization of light reflected by the material (= Kerr rotation ).
The electron spin was unobservable. No practical use. The (deadend) quantum computer has nothing to do with this research.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-abstract-lower says "using nonlinear magnon–magnon (= fictional quasiparticle for spin wave ) interactions activated by an ultrafast laser pulse. Our experimental findings supported by theoretical analysis show that the mechanism is enabled by the spin canting (← This abstract made No mention of quantum computing, different from the overhyped headline )"
p.2-right-1st-paragraph says "To selectively detect individual spectral components of the wave packet, we tracked time-resolved dynamics of the magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE) varying the wavelength of the probe (light) pulse in the visible spectral range (= fictitious spin itself is unobservable. All they could measure was the change of polarization of light reflected from magnetic material called Kerr effect )."
p.3-Fig.2-a shows this fictitious spin wave (= magnon quasiparticle) or magnetic fluctuation observed as probe light's polarization change (= Kerr rotation ) lasted for only less then 100 ps. ← Spin wave was too short-lived (= spin wave's lifetime < 100 ps ) to use as data transfer or storage.
p.12 shows this experiment was conducted at extremely low temperature (= T = 29K ), which is impractical.
p.18-used artificially-chosen parameters for (fictional) spin wave. No quantum mechanical prediction, so No evidence of spin.
As a result, quantum mechanical fictional electron spin forced physicists to do only useless researches intended only for publishing papers in journals that need the deadend quantum computer as a fake scientific target.
The 1-2nd, 4-5th, 7th, 9th, last paragraphs of this overhyped news say
"A team of Chinese scientists has achieved a breakthrough in quantum simulation (= there is No such thing as quantum simulation ), building the world's largest ion trap system with single-qubit resolution. The milestone achievement marks a significant leap towards (= still unrealized ) large-scale quantum computing."
"This work is the largest quantum simulation or computation performed to date in a trapped ion system (= false, this research's so-called "(pseudo-)quantum simulator" is Not a quantum computer )."
"This innovation has the potential (= just speculation ) to be applied to realms like materials and pharmaceutical development, engineering, and artificial intelligence (= this research's just unstably trapped 300~500 ions with high error rates, and No quantum computation was made, so it has nothing to do with pharmaceutical, AI or anything )"
"Like bits in classical computers, qubits are the building blocks of quantum computers. However, controlling and manipulating qubits consistently is a major challenge due to their delicate quantum nature"
"Ion traps, a leading platform for quantum information processing, have achieved simulations with tens of ions by confining them with electromagnetic fields. This makes them highly promising for future large-scale applications. However, a major challenge remains of balancing stable trapping of a large number of ions with the precise control needed for individual manipulation."
"Using cryogenic monolithic ion trap technology and a two-dimensional scheme, researchers from Tsinghua University realized a stable trapping of 512 ions for the first time (= just trapping 512 ions by external electromagnetic field with No quantum computation )"
"Additionally, the team has also successfully conducted quantum state measurements (= vague "quantum" something ) with "single-qubit resolution" across an unprecedented 300 ions, according to the study (= No mention of quantum computation nor practical use )"
↑ This research just trapped 300 ions in external electromagnetic field for a short time, and illuminated them with the global laser light without quantum computation nor manipulating individual ions.
These useless trapped ions could Not simulate anything.
And they did Not disclose the final error rate of these 300-ion-simulation results, because of their extremely high error rate.
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.2-Fig.1b says "Relevant energy levels of the 171Yb+ ion. The qubit is encoded in the S1/2 hyperfine levels |0⟩ ≡ |F = 0, mF = 0⟩ and |1⟩ ≡ |F = 1, mF = 0⟩, and can be rotated by a resonant global microwave ( each ion's two energy levels related to the nuclear magnetic moment's direction are used as a qubit's 0 or 1 state. This research shone a global light on all the 300 ions to vaguely change their energy levels instead of precise manipulation of individual ions for quantum computing )."
p.2-Fig.1-f says "The experimental sequence to quasi-adiabatically prepare the ground state of an Ising model Hamiltonian (= adiabatically finding the lowest-energy ground state in annealing or optimization problem was already done by D-Wave's 2000 qubits that are larger than this research's only 300 ion qubits, and this adiabatic simulation is irrelevant to quantum computers )
".. Then we turn on the Ising model Hamiltonian H0 via the global 411 nm laser (= Not manipulating individual ions by different laser lights, so this 300-ion adiabatic quantum simulator was inferior to D-Wave annealing machine. Quantum research is regressing )"
p.4-Fig.2-a shows the average correlation between different ion pairs, which deviated from the ideal C = 1 (= darkest red ), as shown in Fig.2b = a single shot includes errors of blue ions (= wrong energy state ).
Other patterns are 300 ions' energy states when different light frequencies (= detuned ) were used.
p.6-right-2nd-paragaph says ". Furthermore, in the future (= still unrealized ) by integrating the 2D laser addressing into the system, our 2D ion crystal may (= just speculation ) also support high fidelity two-qubit entangling gates (= which means this research did Not perform two-qubit gate operation, so Not a quantum computer ) mediated by the transverse phonon modes"
p.16-C Error analysis-1st-paragraph says "In particular, when coupled dominantly to the COM mode, the ideal final state should be a GHZ state (= all qubits are 0 or 1 states ) for N = 300 qubits. However, in practice various error sources can degrade the fidelity for this macroscopic entangled state. Therefore we do not expect to observe this multipartite entanglement in the current experiment, and leave it as future (= still unrealized ) research directions."
↑ So this experiment could Not even give the final error rate of the final simulated answers due to their extremely error-prone 300 ion qubits."
As a result, this experiment just trapping 300 impractical ions in external electromagnetic field with a lot of errors was completely useless for any (hyped) technologies such as quantum computer, drug discovery and AI.
The 1-3rd, 5th, 8th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"There's a hot new BEC in town that has nothing to do with bacon, egg, and cheese. You won't find it at your local bodega, but in the coldest place in New York: the lab of Columbia physicist,.. whose experimental group specializes in pushing atoms and molecules to temperatures just fractions of a degree above absolute zero (= too low temperature to be useful )."
"Writing in Nature,.. supported by theoretical collaborator at Radboud University in the Netherlands, has successfully created a unique quantum state of matter called a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) out of molecules."
"Their BEC, cooled to just five nanoKelvin, or about -459.66°F, and stable for a strikingly long two seconds (= unstable, easily broken, useless ), is made from sodium-cesium molecules. Like water molecules, these molecules are polar, meaning they carry both a positive and a negative charge. The imbalanced distribution of electric charge facilitates the long-range interactions "
"Molecular Bose-Einstein condensates open up whole new areas of research, from understanding truly fundamental physics to advancing powerful quantum simulations (= hype, there is No such thing as a quantum simulation )"
"Rabi was one of the first to control the quantum states of molecules and was a pioneer of microwave research,.. Our work follows in that 90-year-long tradition (= science and technology should keep progressing instead of stuck in the 90-year-old archaic tradition )"
"By controlling these dipolar interactions, we hope (= just wishful thinking ) to create new quantum states and phases of matter (= Not specifying any practical use )"
↑ This research just cooled molecules to almost absolute zero, and made them condense for only a short time (= several seconds ).
No practical use. No quantum mechanical prediction.
In Bose Einstein condensate (= BEC ), only at extremely cold temperature (= almost absolute zero, so impractical), atoms or molecules are said to condense temporarily by weak (electric) attraction and interfering de Broglie wave ( this p.15 ), which do Not need quantum mechanics.
↑ This BEC state existing only at almost absolute zero is easily broken even by a small stimulus or energy, so using this very fragile BEC for simulating or computing something is impossible.
Deadend quantum computer is often used as a fake scientific target for this kind of impractical quantum mechanical research that is going nowhere.
This research paper ( this ↓ ).
p.1-right-2nd-paragraph says "Here, we demonstrate the realization of a Bose-Einstein
condensate of dipolar molecules... we evaporatively cool ensembles
of NaCs molecules from 700 nK to 6 nK (= impractically low temperature ) within 3 seconds..
The BECs are found to be stable, with a 1/e-lifetime of 1.8 s (= molecular condensate lasting for only 2 seconds is useless )."
p.8-left-3rd-paragraph says "limited resolution of 3 µm and momentum diffusion of about 3.5 µm of Cs atoms during the 100 µs imaging light pulse (= light wave was used for imaging molecular BEC )."
p.9-right used artificial BEC molecular cloud model based on observed data without quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction.
↑ This current useless mainstream science intended only for publishing papers in journals allows the old "traditional" universities to skyrocket tuition limitlessly.
The 1-2nd, 4th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"In support of the development of large-scale superconducting quantum computers, researchers with .. AIST,..in collaboration with Yokohama National University, Tohoku University, and NEC Corporation, proposed and successfully demonstrated a superconducting circuit that can control many qubits (= false. In this research, No qubits were used, so No quantum computer was built ) at low temperature."
"To realize a practical quantum computer, it is necessary to control the state of a huge number of qubits (as many as 1 million = the present impractical quantum computers are far from a million qubits ) operating at low temperature. In conventional quantum computers, microwave signals for controlling qubits are generated at room temperature and are individually transmitted to qubits at low temperature via different cables"
"In the new study, published in npj Quantum Information, a superconducting circuit that can control multiple qubits via a single cable using microwave multiplexing was successfully demonstrated in proof-of-concept experiments at 4.2 K (= impractically-low temperature ) in liquid helium (= this "circuit" does Not mean this research used actual qubits )."
"This circuit has the potential (= still unrealized ) of increasing the density of microwave signals per cable by approximately 1,000 times, thereby increasing the number of controllable qubits significantly and contributing to the development of large-scale quantum computers."
↑ This research built only small circuits that could be theoretically connected to several (imaginary) qubits (= but this research did Not build qubits themselves ), so No quantum computer was built.
Large scale quantum computer remains an impossible overhyped dream.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-right-2nd-paragraph says "Figure 1e (and Figure 1c ) shows the numerical simulation of the AQFP-mux QC by JoSIM (= which is a classical computer simulator of superconducting circuits, Not a quantum computer bit or qubit )"
p.3-right says ". The above comparison indicates that the AQFP-mux QC has the potential to control the qubits (= which means "still has Not controlled qubits" )"
p.4-Fig.2a says "The mixers were excited by a single LO current Ilo including f1 and f2 tones. The output voltages from the mixers (Vout1 and Vout2) were observed by a signal analyzer" ← Just voltage of only two output V1 and V2 (= to which, two imaginary qubits could be connected, but this research did Not use any qubits = just simulation or estimation ).
p.7-Measurement says "The outputs of the AQFP-mux QC chip (Vout1 and Vout2 = voltage ) were directly observed (= No mention of measuring qubits )"
Even this latest research could Not build even a single qubit, much less scalable quantum computers, which shows the quantum computer research has been already deadend, No progress, which needed "hyped (imaginary) large-scale quantum computer system news".
The 2-5th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"In collaboration with JPMorgan Chase, Quantinuum ran a Random Circuit Sampling (RCS) algorithm (= just outputting random meaningless numbers ), achieving a significant 100-fold improvement over previous industry results from Google in 2019 and setting a new benchmark for the cross entropy metric.
"..H2-1’s combination of scale and hardware fidelity presents a challenge for today's most powerful supercomputers and other quantum computing architectures to match this achievement (= hype, quantum computers are far inferior to classical computers )."
"We're extending our lead in the race towards fault tolerant quantum computing,.., and bringing us closer to the long-awaited commercialization of quantum's applications across industries like finance, logistics, transportation and chemistry (= overhype, just outputting random meaningless numbers by their error-prone impractical quantum computers has No application )."
"Quantinuum’s analysis also indicates (= just unfounded guess ) that the H2-1 executes RCS at 56 qubits with an estimated 30,000x reduction in power consumption compared to classical supercomputers,"
"The fidelity achieved in our random circuit sampling experiment shows unprecedented system-level performance of the Quantinuum quantum computer (= baseless hype )."
↑ This research ( or this ) used just 56 ions trapped in electromagnetic field as only 56 qubits (= each ion's two energy levels were used as a bit's 0 or 1 states ), which falls far short of millions of qubits required for quantum computer's advantage or correcting errors ( this 4th-paragraph, this 2~6th-paragraphs ).
This Quantinuum ion quantum computer (= still Not a computer ) just randomly changed the ( energy or bit's ) states of 56 ions with a lot of errors, and conducted No useful calculations.
First of all, there has been No quantum supremacy, advantage nor speed-up from the beginning, contrary to the overhyped fake news.
Because all the current quantum computers are too error-prone to give right answers, and they cannot correct errors.
This fake quantum supremacy is based on unfounded assumption that a quantum computer with N qubits can perform multiple calculations of 2N different values simultaneously using (unseen) quantum superposition or parallel worlds ( this middle ).
But we cannot observe such quantum superposition or parallel worlds.
All we can observe is one single world when measuring the qubits.
So there is No evidence of quantum supremacy based on (unobservable) quantum superposition or parallel worlds.
To prove the real quantum supremacy, physicists have to calculate some meaningful values such as factorizing large numbers accurately (= by correcting errors ) and more quickly (= by using unseen parallel-world simultaneous calculations ) than ordinary classical computers.
But the current error-prone quantum computers can never give right answers, which means there is No evidence of quantum supremacy or advantage.
This error-prone quantum computer is why they tended to rely on the useless tasks of outputting random meaningless numbers into which errors could be hidden illegitimately ( this 5~6th-paragraphs ).
↑ Random meaningless numbers remain random, whether they include errors or not, and the precise estimation of error rates or fidelity of random numbers is impossible, which is the trick of fake quantum supremacy.
And they baselessly claim that their quantum computers could output random meaningless numbers by utilizing multiple (unseen, unfounded) parallel worlds that can never be emulated by ordinary classical computers which can use only one single realistic world. ← nonsense comparison.
But even in this unfair comparison where classical computers were forced to emulate the unfounded 2N parallel worlds, the classical computer outperformed the quantum computers after all.
So there is No quantum supremacy, even if the fictional quantum superposition or parallel worlds were true.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-right-2nd-paragraph says "As quantum computing technologies mature, many researchers have begun to explore whether quantum computational advantage might (= just speculation ) be obtainable without quantum error correction (= correcting errors is impossible )... random circuit sampling (RCS),"
p.2-rigtht-II says "each qubit is encoded in the 2S1/2.. hyperfine states of a 171Yb+ ion (= each ion's two energy levels related to nuclear magnetic moment were used as a bit's 0 or 1 states "
p.4-left-2~3rd-paragraphs say "noiseless (= errors are corrected ) sampling can readily be shown to
result in FXEB = 1 (= error-less case ). On the other hand, if the circuit
is so noisy that it outputs the completely mixed state,
then the bitstrings are sampled uniformly at random, and Eq. (1) yields FXEB = 0 (= error-prone case ).
..FXEB might (= just speculation ) be a reasonable estimator of the
fidelity F (= fidelity = 1 - error rate )"
p.13-Fig.9-(a) shows this Fidelity estimate (= precise fidelity or error rate was impossible to know from random meaningless numbers ) was only 0.35 (= 65% error rate ) in depth d = 12 (= depth is the number of qubit gate operation ) in N = 56 ion qubits.
↑ This shows even this Quantinuum's latest 56-ion qubits could give only wrong erroneous answers with high error rate of 65% (= fidelity was only 0.35, which was slightly better than Google's more error-prone quantum computer's fidelity of 0.002, this 9th-paragraph ) ~ 80% error rate in depth = 20.
↑ These wrong erroneous answers given by Quantinuum quantum computer cannot prove quantum supremacy over the (error-less) classical computer.
p.13-right-2nd-paragraph of this same paper says "In the absence of quantum error correction (= unlike classical computers, quantum computer cannot correct errors ), the asymptotics of noisy RCS (= random circuit sampling ) are relevant but remain comparatively less well understood"
"..Notable recent developments include a proof that under certain assumptions about the noise structure and circuit depth, RCS is asymptotically easy for classical computers (= classical computers outperformed quantum computers, after all )... We emphasize that none of these results (hardness in the absence of noise or easiness at fixed noise rate) is conclusive (= quantum supremacy had No evidence )"
↑ As a result, there is No evidence of quantum supremacy by the current error-prone useless quantum computers in random meaningless numbers. ← Classical computers can always give right error-less answers and even random numbers much more quickly than quantum computers.
The 1-5th, 9th, 17th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Quantum computers have the potential (= speculation ) to solve complex problems in human health, drug discovery, and artificial intelligence millions of times faster than some of the world's fastest supercomputers (= overhype )... But before that can happen, the computer industry will need a reliable way to string together billions of qubits—or quantum bits—with atomic precision ( = the present pseudo-quantum computers have far less qubits than a billion )."
"Connecting qubits, however, has been challenging for the research community. Some methods form qubits by placing an entire silicon wafer in a rapid annealing oven at very high temperatures."
"With these methods, qubits randomly form from defects (also known as color centers or quantum emitters) in silicon's crystal lattice. And without knowing exactly where qubits are located in a material, a quantum computer of connected qubits will be difficult to realize."
"But now, getting qubits to connect may (= just speculation ) soon be possible. A research team led by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) says that they are the first to use a femtosecond laser to create and "annihilate" qubits on demand, and with precision, by doping silicon with hydrogen (= hype, this research just created almost randomly and disorderly defects in silicon, this p.12-Fig.12-a,b,c, and still they were Not used as qubits )."
"The advance could (= just speculation ) enable quantum computers that use programmable optical qubits or "spin-photon qubits" to connect quantum nodes across a remote network. It could also advance a quantum internet that is not only more secure but could also transmit more data than current optical-fiber information technologies (= false, the impractical quantum internet with massive loss of fragile photons cannot send much data )."
"The new method uses a gas environment to form programmable defects called "color centers" in silicon. These color centers are candidates for special telecommunications qubits or "spin photon qubits." The method also uses an ultrafast femtosecond laser to anneal silicon with pinpoint precision where those qubits should precisely form (= None of this hyped concepts were achieved in this research )"
"Now that we can reliably make color centers, we want to get different qubits to talk to each other—which is an embodiment of quantum entanglement—and see which ones perform the best. This is just the beginning (= still unrealized )"
↑ This research just measured light interacting with carbon-atomic-center defects created in random locations in silicon.
No quantum computation nor qubit operation was made.
↑ This peer review file says ↓
p.2-1. says "Though the authors propose to use their approach for scalable quantum networks, single photon emission is Not demonstrated in the manuscript (= irrelevant to the hyped quantum network )"
p.2-4. says "The use of words "quantum emitter" in the title and in the main text regarding the experimental results is misleading (= quantum emitter was untrue )"
p.3-1st-paragraph says "Otherwise, the use of word "programmable" in the title is also misleading (= the word "programmable" is just hype )"
p.4-1. of this same peer review file says "The title of the manuscript is "Programmable quantum emitter formation in silicon". However, there is No evidence that the defects induced by fs pulse have quantum nature"
".. the author's discussion in terms of quantum emitters is inappropriate. In addition, the authors do Not fully demonstrate the programmable features"
"... The authors need to explicitly give the repeatability, spatial positioning accuracy,"
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-right-1st-paragraph says "We demonstrate this approach with G centers (a pair of two C atoms at substitutional sites paired with the same Si self-interstitial) along with Ci centers (a single C atom at an interstitial site in the silicon lattice)."
p.2-Fig.1, p.3-Fig.2 shows this research just measured light with some wavelength (= by photoluminescence or PL ) interacting with carbon-C-centers created by laser light in silicon.
p.3-right-1st-paragraph says "The lifetime of Ci centers was found to be ~3 ns before the fs laser irradiation and changed between 3 and 8 ns for different laser fluences (= this C-center's energy state's lifetime was very short only 3~8 ns, which was too short-lived to use as computer's bit or memory )."
p.7-First-principle (one-pseudo-electron) DFT calculations used VASP (= which is based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potential ). ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
Another recent research by Harvard university about (fictional) quantum supremacy was just pie-in-the-sky theory with No experimental verification, as this hyped news (= 2nd-last-paragraph ) says
"The researchers wish to explore the relationship between pseudomagic states and concepts in quantum information theory in the future. Additionally, they want (= still unrealized ) to explore the experimental realization of pseudomagic states (= magic state is just an imaginary quantum superposition or parallel world state of a qubit ) with existing and near-term quantum devices."
↑ As seen here, these researches on impractical imaginary quantum computers intended only for publishing papers in journals enable old archaic universities to skyrocket tuition limitlessly, by suppressing free scientific idea or competition in all industries.
The 1st, 4th, 6th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Researchers at QuTech have found a way to make Majorana particles (= fictional quasiparticle ) in a two-dimensional plane. This was achieved by creating devices that exploit the combined material properties of superconductors and semiconductors"
"Majorana qubits are based on states of matter that are topologically protected (= No evidence of "protected" ). This means that small local disturbances cannot destroy the state of the qubit. This robustness to external influences makes Majorana qubits highly desirable for quantum computing (= hype and false, even single Majorana quasiparticle qubit has Not been realized, so No evidence of robustness )"
"Previously, researchers at QuTech—a collaboration between the TU Delft and TNO—have used a one-dimensional nanowire to demonstrate a new approach to studying Majoranas by creating a Kitaev chain (= lack reality ). In this approach, a chain of semiconductor quantum dots are connected via superconductors to produce Majoranas (= false, fictional Majorana quasiparticle itself can Not be found )"
"In the longer term, the flexibility and scalability of the 2D platform should (= just speculation, still useless ) allow us to think about concrete strategies to create networks of Majoranas and integrate them with auxiliary elements needed for control and readout of a Majorana qubit"
First of all, Majorana quasiparticle is a fictional particle that does Not exist.
So even one single Majorana qubit has Not been realized.
It is far from millions of qubits required for practical quantum computer.
Furthermore, the alleged mechanism of this topologically-protected robust quantum computer is so unrealistic that it will never be realized.
They baselessly claim that the (fictional) Majorana quasiparticles can twist around each other by the unseen (illusory) braids, which would be hard to untie, so "robust" without showing what this 'magical braid' is made of. ← nonsense.
This 10~11th paragraphs insist
"The researchers (unscientifically) liken these qubits to a knot on a shoestring, so that how the knot is tied indicates the information stored"
".. To be clear, No one is tying physical knots in a nanowire — but you can mathematically visualize the timeline of these quasiparticles as you swap their positions as knots or braids. These knots are known as topologically protected states;"
↑ So neither Majorana quasiparticle nor braid is real ( this p.3-middle-lower ). ← No topolocal robust quantum computer.
The fictional Majorana quasiparticle itself is impossible to detect or see.
So physicists just measured some electric conductance (= slight electric conductance peak at zero bias voltage ) in some complicated materials to claim (fictional) Majorana quasiparticle (= at zero energy ) might be found ( this middle-Looking for Majoranas in nanowires ).
↑ It is impossible to prove the existence of (imaginary) Majorana quasiparticle just by measuring vague electric conductance.
This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.2-Fig.1 and p.2-right; GLL, GRR.. are electric conductance.
p.3-Fig.2e, p.4-Fig.3-d,e,f show the electric conductance G peak in the voltage VL = 0, which is the only basis of the (fictional) Majorana quasiparticle.
p.6-conclusion made No mention of qubit nor quantum computer (= even single Majorana qubit could Not be realized ).
p.11-last-paragraph~p.12-1st-paragraph just artificially chose parameters of unphysical Majorana quasiparticle model to fit experimental results with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ As a result, this research just measured some electric conductance, and did Not build even one qubit, much less quantum computers. No practical use.
This research about fictional Majorana quasiparticle is a typical example which is useless except for publishing papers in journals.
The 1-2nd, 5-6th, 10-11th, 14th, 19th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The quantum internet would be a lot easier to build if we could use existing telecommunications technologies and infrastructure. Over the past few years, researchers have discovered defects in silicon—a ubiquitous semiconductor material—that could be used to send and store quantum information over widely used telecommunications wavelengths (= there is No such thing as quantum internet, which is just hyped pseudo-science )"
"It's still a Wild West out there, said Professor of Applied Physics and of Electrical Engineering at the Harvard."
"Now, Hu and a team of researchers have developed a platform to probe, interact with and control these potentially (= still unrealized ) powerful quantum systems (= vague quantum something ). The device uses a simple electric diode, one of the most common components in semiconductor chips, to manipulate qubits (= this research has Not built a qubit at all ) inside a commercial silicon wafer."
"Using this device, the researchers were able to explore how the defect responds to changes in the electric field, tune its wavelength within the telecommunications band and even turn it on and off (= hype, this research could Not control the light wavelength )."
"Quantum defects, also known as color centers or quantum emitters, are imperfections in otherwise perfect crystal lattices that can trap single electrons. When those electrons are hit with a laser, they emit photons in specific wavelengths"
"The defects in silicon that researchers are most interested in for quantum communications are known as G-centers and T-centers. When these defects trap electrons, the electrons emit photons in a wavelength called the O-band, which is widely used in telecommunications."
"the team found that when a negative voltage was applied across the device, the defects turned off and went dark (= which means the applied voltage weakened interaction between light and silicon )"
"We can use that information to inform how to build the best environments for these defects in future devices (= No mention of practical use, and No qubits nor quantum internet was built in this research )."
↑ This research just measured how the intensity of light with some wavelength changed by applied voltage, and did Not build a quantum computer's bit (= qubit ) nor quantum internet.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-Abstract made No mention of qubits nor quantum internet, contrary to the hyped news headline.
↑ The same research paper ↓
p.2-Fig.1 says "Carbon-related silicon color centers are integrated into lateral p+ -p-n+ junctions (diodes) fabricated in silicon.. The color centers are optically excited by a 532 nm laser and fluoresce at 1278 nm in the telecommunication O-Band."
p.2-right-1st-paragraph says ". Above a spatially dependent threshold voltage, the ensemble zero phonon line (ZPL) wavelength (= light wavelength not affected by thermal phonons ) experiences a redshift up to 100 GHz at a rate of approximately 1.24 ± 0.08 GHz/V. Additionally, we observed the continuous reduction of the G center optical fluorescence with increasing reversed bias voltage, and at -210V the fluorescence was fully suppressed"
↑ This research just measured the intensity of light with wavelength 1278nm interacting with the silicon defect decreasing (+ its wavelength was slightly redshifted ) by the applied voltage (= p.4-Fig.3a, b shows the light intensity became almost zero in the applied voltage of -200 V ).
Furthermore, this light intensity drastically decreased in the temperature of just 80K ( this p.7-Figure 7 shows the darker blue light of 80 K decreased its intensity ).
So this silicon defect interacting with light that must be operated at extremely low temperature (< 50K ) is impractical, and this research has nothing to do with qubits or quantum networks, contrary to this hyped headline.
This p.4-1st-paragraph of reviewers says
"1. Although the wavelength tuning is demonstrated, the intensity simultaneously decreases. This fact
means that the formation of the depletion layer under voltage application makes the G centers
unstable. Therefore, this technique is hard to directly use for the control of the G centers for
quantum applications"
↑ The decreased light (= messenger ) by voltage in this research can Not be used for any quantum application such as (imaginary) quantum network.
Another recent research also mentions the (hyped) quantum computer qubits in the useless topological insulator.
But this research's abstract mentioned No qubits, contrary to the news headline (= quantum computer or qubits have nothing to do with this research ).
This p.1-Refree #1 says "Te were proposed to be an SSH (= unphysical math model ), and in this work by means of spin resolved ARPES they measured the bound states, which are in good agreement with DFT..."
".. While we could observe bound states, they lack topological protections (= No such thing as topological protection ). None of the exotic phenomenon enumerated by the authors (charge fractionalization or Majorana BS = unreal quasiparticle ) can be found in Te helix chains of the current manuscript. "
The 2nd, 4-6th, 11th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A team ..from the Institute of Solid State Physics at Graz University of Technology (TU Graz) has now significantly improved these simulations using machine learning, which greatly accelerates the development and application of novel MOF (= metal-organic framework )"
"The simulated supercells often contain tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of atoms. For these huge systems, it is then necessary to solve the equations of motion five to 10 million times. This is far beyond present day computational possibilities using reliable quantum mechanical methods (= quantum mechanics has been unable to explain metals and semiconductors )"
"Thus, until now, transferrable force fields (= pseudo-potential for impractically-time-consuming molecular dynamics ) often parametrized on the basis of experiments (= Not quantum mechanical prediction ) were often used for such calculations. However, the results obtained with such force fields turned out to be generally not sufficiently reliable"
"This is now fundamentally changed by the use of machine-learned potentials... For the necessary material-specific machine learning of the potentials (= unreal pseudo-potentials ), the quantum mechanical simulations need to be carried out only for comparatively few and significantly smaller structures (= because useless quantum mechanical calculations took much more time )."
"In addition to simulating thermal conductivity, the new machine-learned potentials are also ideal for calculating other dynamic and structural properties of MOFs. These include crystallographic structures, elastic constants, as well as vibrational spectra and phonons (= simulating fictional phonon quasiparticles is meaningless ),"
"This enables us to systematically change the structures of the MOFs in the simulations, while at the same time knowing that the simulated properties will be accurate. This will (= just speculation, still useless ) allow us, based on causality, to understand which changes "
↑ This experiment tried to use quantum mechanical impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials and parameters, which pseudo-models clearly prevent developing nano-technology.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-left-1st-paragraph says "ab-initio methods like density-functional theory (DFT) are frequently too computationally expensive for that task (= the current mainstream one-pseudo-electron DFT is impractical)."
p.1-left-last-paragraph~p.2-right-1st-paragraph says "The most commonly applied and most easy to use force field potentials are transferable force-fields.... Such highly transferable potentials are, however, not designed for an accurate description of dynamical properties and usually result in sizable errors (= molecular dynamics based on pseudo-potential or force fields failed )."
p.8-Fig.4 and p.9-Fig.5 show this research tried to simulate the illusory phonon quasiparticles, which is meaningless.
p.10-left-Future challenges says " In the case of thermal expansion, one again needs to compare the calculated thermal expansion coefficients to experimental data, as simulating the thermal expansion of MOFs with DFT is extremely challenging and prone to errors (= DFT failed )"
p.13-right-"DFT approach" used "Grimme's D3 correction with Becke-Johnson damping (= this is empirical intermolecular pseudo-potential functional with No quantum mechanical prediction )"
↑ This supplementary information ↓
p.4-Table 2 shows various artificial-chosen pseudo-potentials for one-pseudo-electron DFT that could Not predict any physical values.
p.23-middle~lower says "The thermal stability was evaluated by performing molecular dynamics simulations up to a temperature of 700 K in 100 K steps for 100 ps (= extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics could simulate only 100ps thermal fluctuation, which is useless for simulating much longer important phenomena )"
p.68-upper used fitting parameters.
↑ All the atomic and nano-technology stop progressing due to this impractical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics that cannot predict any physical values until physicists compare the calculated results with experimental values.
Then, it is far better to use the experimental values (= real atomic or molecular shapes, properties ) from the beginning than wasting too much time in this useless quantum mechanical pseudo-model, pseudo-potential calculations that just hinder the technological development.
The 1st, 5th, 8th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
" However, aspects of the element's exact chemical nature have remained a mystery until last year, when a team of scientists from ORNL and the National Institute of Standards and Technology used a combination of experimentation and computer simulation to purify the promethium radionuclide and synthesize a coordination complex that was characterized for the first time. The results of their work were recently published in Nature"
"The experimental investigation of promethium included developing a novel, water-soluble complexing agent and using X-ray absorption spectroscopy to determine the electronic structure of the element. However, there are pieces of the picture that experimentation can't easily show, so it was combined with theoretical and computational chemistry to paint a fuller image of promethium."
"The key to simulating promethium's structure was solving the Schrödinger equation (= false, No Schrödinger equations for any multi-electron atoms are solvable )."
"And it all came together to characterize and fully understand this remarkable compound of this very rare element for the first time (= No mention of practical use, because real mechanism cannot be understood by these unphysical quantum mechanical models )."
↑ This experiment tried to simulate promethium compound in solution probed by X rays by using unphysical quantum mechanical DFT's pseudo-potential, and extremely time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ).
↑ These unphysical quantum mechanical models were not only unable to know physical properties (until compared to experimental results ) but also obstructing practical use of atoms due to lack of reality.
So it is far better to use experimental results (= such as real atomic shapes and properties ) from the beginning instead of wasting much time in the meaningless, time-consuming quantum mechanical models.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.3-Fig.2 shows "The spectroscopic, structural and electronic characteristics of the observed [Pm(PyDGA)3] 3+ coordination complex in aqueous environment revealed by synchrotron XAS (= X ray absorption spectroscopy ) and quantum chemical studies"
p.7-Computational details used one-pseudo-electron-DFT with empirical intermolecular potential functional DFT-D3 + artificially-chosen pseudo-potential (= VASP, quasi-relativistic effective-core-potential/basis-set ).
p.7-left-Computational details also used extremely-time-consuming AIMD (= ab-initio-molecular dynamics ) for only 50ps atomic simulation, which is too short to explain various longer important molecular simulation.
↑ All these mainstream quantum mechanical methods based on artificially-chosen exchange energy functional and pseudo-potentials are unable to know actual atomic energies or properties until compared with experimental results.
So we should use experimental observation (= real atomic shapes, properties ) from the beginning instead of wasting too much time in the meaningless useless quantum mechanical model equations.
The 1st, 3-4th, 10-11th, 14th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A team led by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) has invented a technique to study electrochemical processes at the atomic level with unprecedented resolution and used it to gain new insights into a popular catalyst material (= just "gaining insights" without leading to practical application in this research )."
"The scientists have developed a cell—a small enclosed chamber that can hold all the components of an electrochemical reaction—that can be paired with transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to generate precise views of a reaction at an atomic scale. Better yet, their device, which they call a polymer liquid cell (PLC),"
"In a paper appearing in Nature, the team describes their cell and a proof of principle investigation using it to study a copper catalyst that reduces carbon dioxide to generate fuels."
"Using electron microscopy, electron energy loss spectroscopy, and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, the researchers captured unprecedented images and data that revealed unexpected transformations at the solid-liquid interface during the reaction (= capture images → quantum mechanical unphysical model → hamper science )."
"The team observed copper (= Cu ) atoms leaving the solid, crystalline metal phase and mingling with carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms from the electrolyte and CO2 to form a fluctuating, amorphous state between the surface and the electrolyte"
"Studying the dynamics of the solid-liquid interface can aid in understanding these changes, allowing for the development of suitable strategies to enhance catalyst performance (= No mention of specific practical use )"
↑ This research just observed the change in the copper (= Cu ) solid-liquid interface by electron microscopy and X rays, and tried to explain it by unphysical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ) that could Not clarify true mechanism nor lead to practical use.
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.5-Fig.1~p.8-Fig.3 observed how amorphous interphase changed in the Cu solid and liquid interface by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), energy and dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS).
p.14-Details of density functional theory (DFT) calculations used artificially-chosen exchange energy (= DFT-D2 is empirical intermolecular exchange energy ) and (fictitious) pseudopotential, which is Not a quantum mechanical prediction.
This research also used unreal phonon quasiparticle model.
This research also used the impractical extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulation of only 800fs atomic change, which time scale can Not simulate much longer (= min~hours ) important molecular and protein's motion.
This research just observed some atomic behavior by the microscope and did Not proceed to designing and building some useful molecular devices based on the observed data.
Because the current impractical quantum mechanical quasiparticle, one-pseudo-electron-DFT, extremely-time-consuming MD model based on artificially-chosen pseudopotential lacking real atomic shapes hampers designing and building useful molecular devices.
↑ These unphysical artificially-chosen quantum mechanical pseudo-potential, empirical exchange energy and basis sets can Not know any physical values, until physicists compare the extremely-time-consuming calculated results with experimental values.
Then, it is far better to use the experimental values (= such as real atomic shapes ) from the beginning instead of wasting too much time in these meaningless time-consuming unphysical quantum mechanical models and equations.
The 1st, 3-4th, 7-9th, 11th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS) has developed a novel quantum sensor technology that allows the measurement of perturbations in the infrared region with visible light by leveraging the phenomenon of quantum entanglement (= false, entanglement is a meaningless concept doing nothing ). This will (= just speculation ) enable low-cost, high-performance IR optical measurement.."
"When a pair of photons, the smallest unit of light particles, are linked by quantum entanglement, they share an associated quantum state regardless of their respective distance. The recently developed undetected photon quantum sensor is a remote sensor that utilizes two light sources that recreate such quantum entanglement (= as I said, the fictional superluminal entanglement itself sends or does nothing )."
"An undetected photon (idler) refers to a photon that travels to the target of measurement and bounces back. Instead of directly measuring this photon, the undetected photon sensor measures the other photon of the pair that is linked by quantum entanglement to obtain information about the target (= false, in this experiment, two alleged entangled photons = idler and signal lights directly overlap and interfere with each other at a beamsplitter BS4, instead of utilizing the fictional spooky remote entanglement )."
"This latest KRISS research has allowed the use of visible light detectors to measure the light states in the infrared band, enabling efficient measurement without requiring costly and power-consuming equipment."
"Another critical element in precision optical measurement is the interferometer, a device that obtains signals by integrating multiple rays of light that travel through separated paths. Conventional undetected photon quantum sensors mainly use simple Michelson interferometers"
"The sensor developed by KRISS implements a hybrid interferometer that can flexibly change the light paths depending on the target object, greatly improving scalability."
"The research team reflected light in the infrared band onto a three-dimensional sample to be measured and measured the entangled photons in the visible bandwidth to obtain the sample image, including its depth and width. The team has successfully reconstructed a three-dimensional infrared image from measurements made in the visible range."
"will (= still unrealized ) continue with follow-up research for the practical application of the technology.. "
↑ This research just split light (or fictional photon ) into two ( allegedly-entangled ) weaker lights, one of which is the idler infrared light that passed through a sample, and the other is the signal visible light, and let these lights get together and interfere with each other.
↑ That's all. No spooky superluminal remote entanglement link was relevant.
Quantum entanglement is a completely-meaningless, useless concept that sends No information, or does No work.
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.2-Abstract made No mention of quantum entanglement (= spooky entanglement had nothing to do with this research ).
p.3-2.Principle says "Two SPDC crystals (DC1 and DC2) produce a major part of the signal and idler photons (= just two lights ) along the spatial modes denoted by sn and in (n = 1,2)"
p.4-2nd-last and last paragraphs (+ Fig.1 ) says "When the idler photon path through the sample is fixed and the signal path length is
varied.. "
"ωi
is the angular frequency of idler photons"
p.5-1st-paragraph-(6) says " the magnitude of interference fringe can be expressed as γsin(ωs + ωi)" ← The final interference at a beamsplitter of BS4 was influenced by the idler infrared light with frequency ωi and the signal light due to two lights directly overlapping each other ( this red and purple lines or lights overlap ) instead of fictional remote entanglement.
p.5-3.Experimental setup says "A periodically poled lithium niobate (PPLN) crystal (length 5 mm) is pumped by a continuous-wave laser (wavelength 532 nm)... Photon pairs with signal and idler wavelengths at ∼810 nm (= signal visible light ) and ∼1550 nm (= idler infrared light ), respectively, are generated along both the forward and backward directions by a pump beam"
p.6-Figure 2 shows the idler infrared light (= red ) reflected by a sample overlapped with the signal visible light (= purple ) at NPBP beam splitter, and their interference was observed at SPAD photodetector (= No remote spooky entanglement ).
p.7-Fig.4-(a) shows the interference patterns of signal light or photons overlapping with the idler infrared light (= red ).
p.9-Fig.7 shows the interference patterns changed depending on the sample's depth reflecting the idler infrared light.
↑ As a result, this research just made two idler and signal lights (= idler light was influenced by the sample ) directly interfere with each other, Not by the illusory quantum superluminal remote entanglement link.
The 1st, 3rd, 5th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A research team has utilized solid-state spin quantum sensors to scrutinize ( fictional ) exotic spin-spin-velocity-dependent interactions (SSIVDs) at short force ranges, reporting new experimental results between electron spins (= false, electron is Not spinning ). "
"Some theories suggest that new (fictional) particles can act as propagators, transmitting new interactions between Standard Model particles. At present, there is a lack of experimental research on new interactions related to velocity between spins,"
"The researchers searched for new interaction effects between the velocity-dependent spin of electrons on a micrometer scale by coherently manipulating the spin quantum states and relative velocities of two diamond NV ensembles. First, they used a spin sensor to characterize the magnetic dipole interaction with the spin source as a reference. Then, by modulating the vibration of the spin source ( unrealistic spin itself is undetectable. All they can measure is magnetic field caused by electron's orbit instead of spin )."
"The team was led by academician from University of Science and Technology of China ( USTC) of Chinese Academy of Science (CAS), in collaboration with Professor from Zhejiang University."
↑ This research tried to detect a fictional new force particle called "virtual massless paraphoton" allegedly mediating (fictional) spins moving in nitrogen-vacancy (= NV ) center in diamond.
First of all, the electron spin is unrealistic.
Nitrogen-vacancy (= NV ) center has energy levels split under magnetic field, whose energy interval was an integer times Bohr magneton (= μB, this p.1-right-last-paragraph ) that can be explained by electron's orbit instead of spin.
↑ Both of the electron spin and electron's orbit have the same magnetic moment of Bohr magneton, which is why they tend to use "spin ( this p.2 )" that can be replaced by electron's orbit.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-left-last~right-upper says "Exotic spin-spin-velocity-dependent interactions (SSVDIs) can be mediated by spin-1 bosons including the new massless paraphotons and light Z0 bosons (= the present quantum theory only aims to fabricate new fictional useless particles limitlessly, this p.3(or p.2)-3rd-paragraph )"
p.2-left-1st-paragraph says "The SSVDI can be induced by the exchange of virtual Z0 bosons (= new unreal virtual particles ), which are motivated by various theoretical scenarios of beyond the-standard-model physics"
p.2-left-last-paragraph says "The spin sensor was illuminated by a 532-nm laser with a beam diameter of about 40 μm via the flank of the diamond. The red fluorescence emitted from the spin sensor was collected via a compound parabolic concentrator below (= this research just detected red light interacting with the material, Not spin )"
p.2-Fig.1 shows all they could detect was just light wave interacting with NV center's energy levels. The fictional spin itself was undetectable.
p.2-right-1st-paragraph says "To investigate SSVDIs, the spin source was modulated by a piezoelectric bender to vibrate at v with frequency"
Fig.3c and p.4-right-1st-paragraph says "The mean value of the measured effective field is smaller than its standard deviation, indicating no evidence of exotic SSVDIs in this experiment (= fictional virtual paraphotons were not detected after all )"
↑ Quantum mechanics tries to (mis)interpret the observed magnetic field as fictional spin, which needs fictional exchange energy lacking exchange force in Pauli repulsion and one-pseudo-electron DFT model lacking real atomic shape, which unphysical model hampers scientific progress, forever.
The 1st, 3rd, 7-10th, 12th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Researchers at ETH Zurich have shown that quantum states of single electron spins (= false, an electron is Not spinning ) can be controlled by currents of electrons whose spins are evenly aligned. In the future, this method could (= just speculation, still useless ) be used in electronic circuit elements."
"Already, one can buy MRAM memory elements (magnetic random access memories), in which information is stored in very small but still classical
"To study the quantum mechanical processes behind this mechanism more closely, the researchers prepared molecules of pentacene (an aromatic hydrocarbon) on a silver substrate. A thin insulating layer of magnesium oxide had previously been deposited on the substrate"
"Using a scanning tunneling microscope, the researchers first characterized the electron clouds in the molecule. This involves measuring the current that is created when the electrons tunnel quantum mechanically from the tip of a tungsten needle to the molecule (= tunnel current is just a real electric current Not by an occult quantum mechanical negative kinetic energy ). "
"This tunnel current can be spin-polarized (= which means just magnetized ) by first using the tungsten tip to pick up a few iron atoms, which are also on the insulating layer. On the tip, the iron atoms create a kind of miniature magnet. When a tunnel current flows through this magnet, the spins of the electrons in the current all align parallel to its magnetization (= only magnetization is measurable, Not spin )."
"The researchers applied a constant voltage as well as a fast-oscillating voltage to the magnetized tungsten tip, and they measured the resulting tunnel current. By varying the strength of both voltages and the frequency of the oscillating voltage, they were able to observe characteristic resonances in the tunnel current (= this research measured just electric current, Not spin ). The exact shape of these resonances allowed them to draw conclusions about the processes that occurred between the tunneling electrons and those of the molecule (← ? )."
"That process is the so-called spin transfer torque, for which the pentacene molecule is an ideal model system,.. Spin transfer torque is an effect in which the spin of the molecule is changed under the influence of a spin-polarized current (= the fact that electric current changed magnetization means this magnetization was electron's orbit instead of spin ) without the direct action of an electromagnetic field"
↑ This research just measured the (magnetized) electric current (= not spin ) between molecules and the tip of scanning tunneling microscope with No practical use nor quantum mechanical prediction (= so No evidence of spin ).
↑ This research supplementary material ↓
p.2 says "The scanning tunneling microscopy experiments were carried out at a temperature of 4.5 K (= too low temperature to be practical )"
p.4-last used artificial fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction.
p.7-1st-paragraph says "These data corroborate a magnetic moment of 1 μB (= one Bohr magneton which magnetization can be explained by electron's orbit instead of unphysical spin ) for pentacene adsorbed on MgO"
p.12-last chose a parameter m = 8 μB.
p.30 shows artificial spin-torque model called Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation whose parameters such as damping parameter must be artificially fit to experimental results instead of quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2-right-last ).
p.39-artificially chose parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This research just artificially chose fitting parameters of unphysical spin model lacking real atomic picture without quantum mechanical prediction.
So there is No evidence of spin.
The 1st, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 12th, 14th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"In a study published in Nature Communications, a team of scientists led by Rice University predicts the existence of flat electronic bands at the Fermi level, a finding that could (= just speculation ) enable new forms of quantum computing and electronic devices (= actually, this research has nothing to do with (hyped) quantum computing or new electronic devices )."
"Electrons, being charged, repel each other and move in correlated ways. Si's team found that electron interactions can create new flat bands (= flat band means the unrealistic infinite effective mass of a pseudo-electron ) at the Fermi level, enhancing their importance."
"Typically, a particle's energy changes with its momentum. But in quantum mechanics, electrons can exhibit quantum interference, where their energy remains flat even when their momentum changes. These are known as flat bands (= due to the unrealistic infinite effective mass, this 2nd-paragraph )"
"The team's findings suggest new ways to design these, which could (= just speculation ) inspire new applications for these materials in quantum bits, qubits and spintronics (= overhype, this research is completely irrelevant to the deadend quantum computer's qubits and spintronics ). "
"The team's research reveals that this includes anyons and Weyl fermions, or massless quasiparticles (= fictional quasiparticle model ) and fermions that carry an electric charge. The researchers found that anyons are promising agents for qubits (= lie, the unreal fractional-charge anyon quasiparticle cannot make qubits ), and materials that host Weyl fermions may (= just speculation ) find applications in spin-based electronics (= false, too )."
"Our work provides the theoretical foundation for utilizing flat bands in strongly interacting settings (= this research is just about the imaginary theory with No experimental realization )"
↑ This research just provided a useless theory of imaginary flat bands with unreal infinite effective mass and quasiparticle models with No experiment, No quantum mechanical prediction nor application.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-abstract made No mention of quantum computing nor detailed application (= this research is irrelevant to any practical use ).
p.3-left-(1) shows the abstract unphysical Hubbard model with artificially-adjustable interaction parameters and No real particle picture.
p.3-right-2nd-paragraph says "Varying the interaction (= just varying free interaction parameters ) strongly influences the spectral weight of the emergent flat band (= infinite effective mass )"
p.3-right-3rd-paragraph says "so that the quasiparticle (= fictional particle ) weight of the c-electrons remains to be 1"
p.5-right~p.6 shows unphysical (meaningless) quantum mechanical model or equation where each electron and fictional quasiparticle was denoted as nonphysical math operators with No concrete shapes.
This p.5 shows freely-chosen parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation.
This p.2-1. of reviewer says "since the appearance of the flat band at the Fermi level would be highly model-dependent, one cannot say that the results in the manuscript can be generally applied to other systems (= this research is based on artificially-created model instead of quantum mechanical theory )"
↑ This research is also a typical example intended only for publishing papers in journals whose impractical pseudo-science (= obstructing science development in all industries ) allows the old-fashioned archaic universities to skyrocket tuition limitlessly.
Feel free to link to this site.
