Home page
Quantum supremacy is fake
Quantum computer is useless.
(Fig.1) All the quantum supremacy is illusion, giving only wrong answers based on unfounded parallel universes.
A large amount of investment and taxpayers money is constantly flowing into stocks of fictional quantum computers that are hopeless, useless forever and unable to factor even 21 despite long years of fruitless researches, worsening inflation.
↑ The only reason why even these hopeless quantum computer companies' stock prices can keep rising despite increasing net losses is that quantum mechanics with fictional parallel universes has been accepted as the current only mainstream physics.
Under this fictional impractical mainstream basic physics or quantum mechanics, real useful scientific progress is stalled, it means victims of the current fake mainstream science are increasing in researchers, students wasting their time and money in useless researches, education, universities' rising tuition. ← People in almost all industries are badly affected by the current deadend mainstream science.
So the fraudulent quantum computer companies constantly getting investment and taxpayers' money rely on sacrificing real scientific development curing diseases and increasing victims of today's fake useless science, which must be stopped immediately.
All the alleged quantum supremacy claiming quantum computers could complete some ( useless) tasks that would take classical computers million or septillion years ! is a blatant fake news, because today's quantum computer cannot factor even the simplest 21.
Today's quantum computers are too error-prone to give right answers ( this-middle-Will quantum computers arrive soon ?- No, this-middle-Why did Google fucus on a small problem rather than unlocking a really useful problem? ) lacking useful quantum error correction ( this-2nd~3rd-paragraph ).
↑ No right answers obtained by today's error-prone quantum computers including Google willow mean there is No proof of quantum supremacy nor speed-up.
This-the Reality in 2026 says -- Error-prone quantum supremacy
"quantum devices are too limited in size and too error-prone to outperform classical systems on most practical tasks."
So all these fake quantum supremacy or speed up claims are based on the unfounded idea that quantum computers could give wrong erroneous answers (= random meaningless numbers with a lot of errors, this or this or this-2nd-paragraph ) faster than classical computers through illusory quantum parallel universes or superposition states that may be hard for classical computers' single real world to mimic.
↑ Today's quantum computers giving only Wrong erroneous answers mean No evidence of quantum computer speed-up.
Actually ordinary classical computers can get random numbers much more quickly if they are not unfairly forced to mimic the illusory quantum parallel universes.
Contrary to a lot of overhyped fake news, even the latest Google Willow 105-qubit quantum computer could give only wrong erroneous answers (= so useless, No real quantum computer's advantage nor speed-up ).
This-Insider Brief and lower-6.Demonstraging.. say (2026) -- Useless Google
"Google... but scaling to the millions of physical qubits needed for useful applications remains years away ( this-last )." ← still useless Google quantum computers.
"The ultimate milestone is running a complete, useful quantum algorithm on error-corrected logical qubits from start to finish...
No one has achieved this yet." ← Google quantum computer cannot correct errors.
Even the overhyped news ( this-lower still a long road ahead ) admits
"Google's new result still uses only one logical qubit (= one qubit 0 or 1 alone cannot calculate anything ), so it remains a proof of concept rather than a practical machine (= No practical use ). To run meaningful chemistry, climate, or grid simulations, researchers will need many interacting logical qubits and error rates that keep dropping as systems grow (= so Google's quantum computer is still impractically error-prone )."
↑ The latest Google 65-qubit willow quantum computer could get only almost random useless numbers called echoes ( this-2nd-paragraph ) whose total error rate was too bad = 99.9% (= estimated fidelity is 0.001, this-2nd-last-paragraph, this-p.59 ). ← Today's quantum computers giving only wrong answers could Not outperform errorless classical computers, so No quantum advantage.
In the China's or Xanadu's fake quantum advantage or speed-up, their hopeless photon quantum computers could only randomly detect photons ( this-p.2-right-middle ) with a lot of errors and massive loss of photons (= just weak classical light ) with No quantum computation nor quantum error correction nor quantum utility in useless tasks called gaussian boson sampling (= GBS, this-p.6-Cons, this-last-paragraph, this-3rd-last-paragraph ).
The recent D-Wave bold claim that their quantum annealing machines could outperform classical supercomputers in practical problems was officially overturned and proven untrue.
Only to get investment money and raise stock prices, D-Wave still stubbornly refused to accept this obvious fact of their refuted quantum supremacy (= A little change is D-Wave No longer repeats the previous overblown useful quantum supremacy claim ). ← Unfortunately, D-Wave's statements already lost credibility.
This or this-11th, 15th-paragraphs say -- Useless fake D-Wave supremacy
"The core problem is that their (= D-Wave ) claim not only isn't true"
"media coverage suggesting the results could have practical applications is misleading... for commercially relevant problems I think this is still far away."
Quantum annealing or D-Wave, which is Not a real quantum computer, tries to find the solution (= lowest-energy ground state ) from input values, which always gives wrong erroneous answers stuck in one of a lot of local energy minima.
Also in the recent officially-refuted D-Wave's quantum supremacy experiment published in Science, D-Wave annealing machines could give only wrong erroneous answers, so there is No real quantum supremacy nor speed-up from the beginning.
This or this (or this )-1st and 3rd-last-paragraphs say -- Error-prone D-Wave
"There's No clear quantum advantage yet in tests of real-world problems"
"we (= classical laptop computer ) are also able to reach errors noticeably lower than the quantum annealing approach employed by the D-Wave Advantage2 system ( this Science paper's-p.2-left-1st-paragraph )"
This-p.10-2nd-last-paragraph says -- Error-prone quantum annealing
"we can conclude that quantum annealers are too small and too prone to errors"
↑ D-Wave gave only wrong erroneous answers like Google and China fake quantum supremacy.
↑ D-Wave had to rely on some classical computing methods to get exact answers to estimate how badly the quantum annealing's answers were deviated from the classical computer's right answers, so No quantum supremacy over classical computers from the beginning.
This-D-Wave dubious quantum supremacy paper ↓
p.3-right-4th-paragraph says -- Exact classical computer
"For evaluating the estimated samples in comparison to
ground-truth MPS results (= classical computer methods ),... Agreement
can be summarized as a correlation error
" ← MPS tensor network run on an errorless classical computers ( this-p.1-left-2nd-paragraph ) was used as the exact answers or ground-truth.
p.5-left-5~6th-paragraphs say -- Error-prone D-Wave
"QPU (= quantum annealing, this-p.4-1st-paragraph ) error appears
nearly constant for cubic and diamond lattices,.. For biclique problems, εc (= quantum annealing errors = p.3-(4) ) increases with system
size," ← So D-Wave gave only wrong erroneous answers.
As a result, their error-prone quantum annealing and quantum computers can never outperform today's ordinary errorless classical computers, which is the fact, like Google and China's error-prone fake quantum supremacy.
Furthermore, D-Wave's fake quantum advantage is often based on unfair comparison with deliberately-chosen time-consuming classical computing methods.
This or this (or this )-2nd-last-paragraph says -- Better classical methods
"Rather the problem is the clamor to prematurely declare quantum advantage. Claims of beating ‘all classical methods’ are very hard to justify scientifically"
The classical tensor network method disproving this recent D-Wave quantum supremacy is a very time-consuming classical computing method (= even this very time-consuming tensor network run on a classical laptop computer could outperform D-Wave ).
The D-Wave's fake quantum supremacy experiments intentionally avoided comparison with the better faster (= inexpensive ) classical computing methods such as Selby and Gurobi outperforming the latest D-Wave ( this-D-Wave paper-p.54-X says there are many classical methods such as SA that are much more inexpensive and less time-consuming than the classical tensor network, and D-Wave intentionally avoided using the better Selby and Gurobi classical methods outperforming D-Wave. this-p.1-abstract ).
So D-Wave claim of outperforming classical computers is baseless from the beginning.
Quantum annealing machines are too error-prone and impractical, so D-Wave started to use ordinary classical computers disguised as hybrid computers ( this-p.1.p.3 ), which also cannot outperform good classical computing methods ( this-p.1-abstract-last, p.5-2nd-paragraph ).
Actually multiple other latest researches also disproved D-Wave quantum advantage (= using the latest Advantage-2 machines ).
This-2nd~3rd-paragraphs say -- No quantum advantage
" VeloxQ 1 runs on standard (= classical ) computers (!), without the need for expensive and unstable quantum hardware."
"VeloxQ 1 was evaluated against quantum hardware platforms, including D-Wave Advantage and Advantage2,.. hybrid quantum-classical systems, like D-Wave’s Kerberos. In all scenarios, particularly those involving large-scale, real-world problem sets, VeloxQ 1 (= classical computer ) consistently outperformed its competitors in both accuracy and computational speed."
This-3rd-last and last-paragraphs (5/2026) say -- Classical better
"The core issue is that true quantum supremacy for practical problems remains elusive"
"Last month, a team.. published a paper showing that the best known quantum algorithms for optimization (= such as quantum annealing ) still cannot outperform classical heuristics"
This-p.1-abstract & p.14-2nd-last-paragraph says (5/2026) -- Quantum advantage dead
"Direct D-Wave QPU execution (= D-Wave's latest Advantage 2, p.8-Table 1 )... The results do Not indicate
quantum advantage"
"the QPU (= D-Wave Advantage 2 ) No longer recovers the exact optimum in the tested repetitions,.. its mean decoded performance remained weaker than the classical annealing baselines. The tested instances therefore do Not support a claim of quantum advantage"
All the current fake quantum supremacy, advantage and speed-up in Google, China, Xanadu.. are based on useless tasks of giving almost random meaningless numbers (= random circuit sampling, echoes, random photon detection.. this-3rd-paragraph, this-8th-last-paragraph ) containing a lot of errors (= noise, this-p.3(or p.2)-upper ), which unfairly made classical computers choose very time-consuming methods such as tensor network to mimic illusory 2^n parallel-universe or superposition states (= n is the number of qubits, this-8th-paragraph, this-6~7th-paragraphs ).
↑ Actually, classical computers can get those random numbers more quickly, if they are not forced to emulate illusory quantum parallel universes, so No quantum supremacy.
D-Wave tried to mimic those Google and China's fake error-prone supremacy based on fantasy parallel universes by forcing classical computers to choose the very time-consuming tensor network (= which beat D-Wave after all ).
There are many faster and better classical computer methods such as Selby and Gurobi without considering the fantasy quantum parallel universes, which can easily outperform the error-prone D-Wave quantum annealing in optimization problems.
This is why all the alleged quantum supremacy and speed-up are useless (= as shown in D-Wave just increasing its net-loss with No profit ) and fake.
Traveling salesman problem (= TSP ) is a representative optimization problem finding the shortest route linking multiple places (= nodes ).
Quantum annealing or D-Wave has been useless and unable to outperform classical computing methods even in this typical optimization problem ( this-abstract, this-p.1-right-1st-paragraph ). So No quantum computer advantage nor speed-up.
Even the latest D-Wave annealing machine (= Advantage-2 ) used in the above duibous supremacy research is impractical, cannot find the shortest fastest path (= right solution ) nor outperform a good classical computing method (= Gurobi ) ↓
This paper disproving D-Wave quantum supremacy (4/2026) ↓
p.5-left-A,B says -- D-Wave quantum annealing
Quantun annealing approach (= Q-GTSP = generalized traveling salesman problem )
The quantum annealing runs were executed on D-Wave
Systems' Advantage2 QPU (= D-Wave's latest quantum annealing machine used in the above dubious supremacy experiment, this-5th-paragraph )
p.6-left-E says -- Classical computing method
"we utilize the classical state-of the-art algorithm for the GTSP: GLNS (= CGLNS.. is a classical method )... always found the global optimum using the industrial standard
optimization software Gurobi" ← This classical method could always find right optimal solutions.
p.6-left-last~p.7 says
"an approximation ratio (= AR ) of 1 marks a perfect result, while worse solutions rank at
lower approximation ratios"
p.8-Fig.7-(c)(d) shows -- No quantum supremacy
D-Wave quantum annealing (= Q-GTSP ) can Not get optimal right values (= approximation ratio = 1 ) in nodes > 13, while the classical method (= CGLNS ) could perfectly get the right solutions in all-nodes (= n = 100 ) in this traveling salesman problem.
p.10-left says -- Error-prone D-Wave
"For small instances (3 to 5 nodes),
the quantum solvers (= D-Wave ) frequently produced solution sets that
include the optimal solution or solutions very close to it (= still Not right answers ),
indicating performance comparable to classical state-of-the-art solvers. However, as instance size increases, both solution
quality and feasibility decrease, and beyond a certain problem
size (around 15 nodes and 4 clusters), valid solutions are No
longer found reliably"
↑ So even the D-Wave lastest quantum annealing machine cannot get the right optimal values even in small optimization problems (= nodes > 13 ), while the good classical computing methods always get perfectly exact answers also in large problems (= nodes > 100 ).
As a result, the error-prone quantum annealing or D-Wave unable to give right answers can never outperform the errorless classical computers, hence, No quantum suprepmacy from the beginning.
Feel free to link to this site.