Home page
Quantum fake supremacy
Boson sampling
IBM fake quantum advantage
(Fig.1) Fake quantum supremacy generated random useless numbers through 2n fictional quantum superposition or parallel-universe states (= n is qubit's number ) that may be hard for a classical computer to emulate ?
Quantum supremacy is fake, falsely claiming Google Sycamore quantum computer performed some computation in about 200 seconds that would take the state-of-the-art classical supercomputer 10000 years !
Actually, quantum computers are impractical forever, unable to give right answers due to their a lot of errors that cannot be corrected, so they cannot outperform ordinary errorless classical computers.
In these fake quantum supremacy experiments, their useless quantum computers could only output random meaningless numbers in a task called random circuit sampling without performing meaningful computations ( this or this-4th-last-paragraph, this-3rd-paragraph, this or this-19th,21th-paragraphs ).
This or this or this-2nd-paragraph says -- generate useless random numbers
"The calculation has almost No practical use—it spits out a string of random numbers ( This or this-3.~7. )"
This or this or this-site says ↓
5th-paragraph says -- Useless random number generator
"what the RCS (= random circuit sampling ) benchmark does is sample from the random distribution created by a long string of noisy quantum gates. This algorithm is entirely contrived and useless."
7th-paragraph says -- Useless quantum supremacy
"Google themselves note that RCS is fairly useless, and that they have yet to demonstrate a useful algorithm where Willow (= Google's latest quantum computer ) outperforms a classical computer."
This-p.1-introduction says -- No quantum computation
"Google's Sycamore quantum computer performed a sampling task; that is, it generated (with considerable noise) random bitstrings
(vectors of zeroes and ones) of length n.. random circuit sampling (RCS)... These probability
distributions are not computed by the quantum computers"
↑ All quantum computers including Google could only generate useless random bitstring numbers with a lot of errors (= noise ) with No ability to compute those probabilities, so No real quantum computer supremacy ( this or this-3.~ ).
They baselessly claim that each quantum bit or qubit can take 0 and 1 value simultaneously by using (fictional) quantum superposition or multiple parallel universes in each qubit operation ( this or this-p.13 ).
So the Google quantum computer with 53 qubits is said to take 253 multiple qubit states simultaneously using fictional quantum parallel universes while it randomly flipped their 53 qubits, which may be hard for a classical computer using only one single world to emulate ( this or this-5th-paragraph, this or this-4th-paragraph ).
This or this-6th~8th-paragraphs say -- 253 unreal parallel universes
"We performed a fixed set of operations that entangles 53 qubits into a complex superposition state"
"For classical computers, it is much more difficult to compute the outcome of these operations because it requires computing the probability of being in any one of the 2^53 possible states, where the 53 comes from the number of qubits"
2nd-paragraph says -- Output random useless numbers
"sampling the output of a random quantum circuit. In essence, the processor had to generate a set of one million bitstrings (random 53-bit numbers) "
"Google's team estimated such a simulation might require 253
computational states"
3rd-paragraph says -- 253 quantum superposition ?
"chip's quantum state becomes an entangled superposition (= parallel worlds ) of 253
possible outcomes."
middle-Why does it matter ? says -- Useless quantum supremacy
"The immediate achievement of Sycamore’s experiment is somewhat esoteric – random circuit sampling is Not a useful application by itself."
↑ Actually, the quantum computer output only one bitstring instead of the unseen 253 parallel-world bitstrings, when observed, so No evidence of quantum superposition or quantum supremacy based on the parallel-world simultaneous calculations ( this or this-p.2-1.1 ).
↑ The quantum superposition of each qubit means just some transient middle state between 0 and 1 bit states, which is observed to be 0 or 1 bit state with some probability instead of getting 0 and 1 bit states simultaneously.
An ordinary classical computer can output random numbers faster even without the fantasy quantum parallel worlds, so No quantum supremacy or advantage.
Furthermore, today's quantum computers are impractical, too error-prone to give right answers.
This or this-lower-Challenges and future work (2026) say
"The work (= using the latest Google quantum computer ) does not eliminate quantum errors, nor does it demonstrate a fully fault-tolerant quantum computer capable of solving commercially important problems."
This or this-Will quantum computers arrive soon ? says -- Error-prone
"Google concedes that Willow's error rate is still too high for quantum computing to be useful in an applied setting."
Google Sycamore quantum computer was said to output those random meaningless numbers with very high error rate of 99.8% (= 0.2% fidelity ) that cannot be corrected ( this or this-p.16 ).
This-p.3(or p.2)-1st-paragraph says -- Google with 99.8% errors
"For example, Google’s recent quantum supremacy experiment estimated that their fidelity
was merely ∼ 0.2% (i.e., the experiment was ∼ 99.8% noise = 99.8% error rate, this or this-p.59 ) and that their fidelity will
further decrease as they scale their system"
This or this-8th~10th-paragraphs say -- Google with 99.8% errors
"The team tested the fidelity... using linear cross entropy benchmark (XEB). XEB spits out results between 0 (none of the output is error-free) and 1 (completely error-free)"
"They registered an XEB result of approximately 0.002 (= fidelity, so its error-rate = 99.8% ) with the 53 superconducting qubits built into (Google) Sycamore."
"achieved an XEB score of approximately 0.35. This means the H2 quantum computer can produce results without producing an error 35% of the time."
↑ So today's quantum computers, which can only output random meaningless numbers with a lot of errors, are useless, can never outperform ordinary classical computers, contrary to a lot of overhyped fake news.
Not only Google but also IBM, Quantinuum, China claimed this fake quantum supremacy or advantage just by outputting random meaningless numbers (= random circuit sampling ) with a lot of errors.
This or this or this-site on this IBM's fake quantum supremacy (9/2026) ↓
10th-paragraph says -- Random useless numbers
"In random circuit sampling, random operations are repeatedly applied to the qubits, after which all qubits are measured."
11th-paragraph says
"In this experiment, each measurement yields a single bit string consisting of 61 digits of 0s and 1s."
15th-paragraph says -- Impractical quantum computers
"That said, this was not an experiment that completed a practical task"
This or this other site on IBM fake quantum supremacy ↓
3rd-paragraph says -- Impractical quantum supremacy
"The experiment is called random-circuit sampling (= just output random useless numbers ), and it is not meant to solve anything genuinely practical in the real world"
15th-paragraph says -- IBM with 99.8% error rate
"At 36 cycles, the surviving quantum signal had a fidelity of about 0.23 percent (= IBM's quantum computer error rate was bad = 99.73% ). That number sounds terrible if you think of it as ordinary accuracy, "
In fact, actual error rates of today's error-prone quantum computers are much worse than reported. ↓
We cannot know actual error rates of those random meaningless numbers, so they use artificial concepts called XEB fidelity to falsely estimate their quantum computers' error rates.
According to this artificial XEB fidelity (= FXEB ), when the Google quantum computer with 53 qubits outputs uniform random numbers (= each bitstring is output with a probability of just 1/253 ), the XEB fidelity becomes 0 (= the error rate is 100% ).
When the quantum computers give non-uniform random meaningless numbers, their XEB fidelity becomes higher than 0 (= the error rates are lower than 100% ) even if their actual error rate is 100%.
↑ This artificial XEB fidelity becomes 1 (= error rate is wrongly treated as 0% ), when one qubit out of 53 qubits always becomes 0 or 1 value, which gives a probability of 1/252 (= 2 × 1/253 or 2 × 2n ) in giving each random bitstring ( this or this-p.2-(1), this or this-7th-paragraph ).
↑ They baselessly consider non-uniform random numbers (= even if including a lot of errors ) as results of (unseen) quantum interference between (fictional) 253 parallel-world superposition bitstrings ( this or this-p.19, this or this-p.1-Quantum speckle pattern ) or quantum supremacy instead of just non-random errors.
This or this-middle-Google's quantum supremacy says
"a task called random circuit sampling.
This entails performing random operations on the qubits, “literally as if the code of their program was chosen randomly"
"The resulting distribution is nonrandom due to quantum effects"
This or this-8th-paragraph says -- Non-uniform = quantum ?
"(Google's quantum computer) Sycamore's aim was to randomly produce strings of 1's and 0's, one digit for each qubit, producing 253 bit strings... Because of the way the qubits interact with one another, some strings are more likely to emerge than others. "
↑ This fake quantum supremacy can falsely treat just non-uniform random useless numbers with 100% error rate as (unseen) quantum parallel-universe interference with right answers or quantum supremacy.
So the actual error rate of Google quantum computer was much worse than 99.8% (= this-p.12-right-lower says XEB overestimates fidelity ), which is useless, can never give right answers, much less outperform the ordinary errorless classical computer.
Feel free to link to this site.
