(Fig.1) Useless science needs overhyped news
The 1st, 3rd, 5-7th, 13th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"in fusion reactors, where scientists attempt to make energy by fusing atoms together, mimicking the sun's power generation process, things can get extremely hot. To overcome this, researchers have been diving deep into the science of heat management, focusing on a special metal called tungsten."
"What excites us is the potential (= just speculation, still useless ) of our findings to influence the design of artificial materials for fusion and other energy applications"
"Understanding how tungsten works with heat offers clues on how to make new materials for fusion reactors that are even better at keeping cool under pressure. In this new research, the scientists developed a new way to closely examine how tungsten manages heat at the atomic level (= actually, this research is Not based on real atoms, but on fictitious quasiparticle model, so No impract on practical fusion research )."
"The research team set out to explore the phenomenon of phonon scattering—a process where lattice vibrations within a solid material interact, playing a critical role in the material's ability to conduct heat (= but phonon is Not an actual particle but just fictitious quasiparticle )."
"At SLAC's high-speed "electron camera" MeV-UED, the researchers probed the material with a technique called ultrafast electron diffuse scattering (UEDS), which allowed the team to observe and measure the interactions between electrons and phonons with unprecedented precision (= false, fictional phonon quasiparticle cannot be measured ). This method involves shooting a laser to excite the electrons in tungsten and then observing how these excited electrons interact with phonons. The UEDS technique captures the scattering of electrons off phonons (= Not off phonons, but off tungsten atoms ), allowing researchers to observe these interactions in real time with incredible precision."
"The next phase of our research will (= still unrealized ) explore how helium and other impurities impact tungsten's ability to conduct heat," Mo said. "This is crucial for improving the lifespan and efficiency of fusion reactor materials (= just measuring the impract of helium on tungsten has nothing to do with quantum mechanical quasiparticle or reinforcing tungsten )."
↑ This research just illuminated a tungsten thin film with laser light, and then applied electron beam to the tungsten. Researchers measured these electrons scattered by the tungsten's vibrating atoms excited by laser light energy (= Not scattered by fictional phonon quasiparticles that are unmeasurable ).
And they tried to explain this heated vibrating tungsten by using quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials (= so No quantum mechanical prediction ) and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on the fictional pseudo-potentials.
↑ Quantum mechanics and its mainstream density functional theory (= DFT ) with one-pseudo-electron model and pseudo-potential lack real atomic picture, so researchers had to rely on fictional quasiparticle models and the extremely-time-consuming MD with artificially-created phonon potentials to simulate the heated tungsten's vibration in vain.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-right-2nd-paragraph says "Laser light initially generates hot electrons hosted in a cool lattice; subsequently, the hot electrons induce phonon (= quasiparticle, just imagination )"
p.2-right-1st-paragraph says " The laser-induced phonon dynamics in W (= tungsten ) was probed with the time- resolved electron diffuse scattering technique using 100-fs 3.7-MeV electron beams" ← so they just detected electrons (= Not fictitious phonons ) scattered by the laser-excited tungsten atoms ( this p.2 )"
p.7-right-MD simulation says "EPH (= electron-phonon ) model based on artificial-chosen pseudo-potential ( this p.5-right-2nd-paragraph ) that lack real particle picture ( this p.3 ) and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) that could simulate only 50ps"
p.8-left-2nd-paragraph says "The interaction between the W atoms was described by the SNAP potential (= based on artificial pseudo-potential, this p.15-5. ) and parameterized.. The phonon-phonon scattering of other potentials was too large to explain the observed data (= results depended on chosen model or potential, No prediction )"
↑ No matter how many times physicsts tried to explain physical phenomena such as heat and conductance by quantum mechanical unphysical models or quasiparticles, it is impossible to make tungsten stronger or realize nuclear fusion reaction.
The 4th, 7th, 10th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Using a novel type of ultrafast microscope, a team from Regensburg has now succeeded in directly observing with atomic resolution on ultrafast timescales how the energy of a single electron is tuned by the vibrations of the surrounding atoms."
"The researchers found that they can change a discrete energy level of the defect by triggering a drum-like vibration of the atomically thin membrane:"
"method that exploits the energy and spatial resolution of a scanning tunneling microscope (= STM ). At the same time, the use of custom-tailored ultrashort laser pulses makes it possible to record the extremely fast dynamics in slow motion"
"this approach could (= just speculation, still useless ) help to unravel the secrets of key processes behind phase transitions like high-temperature superconductivity"
↑ This experimnet just measured the electric current (= I ) change of a vibrating molecule of a thin material excited by laser light pulse using scanning tunneling microscope (= STM ), and tried to explain it by fictional phonon quasiparticle and one-pseudo-electron DFT model with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-Fig.1b says "Steady-state scanning tunnelling spectrum on the Se (= selenium ) vacancy.. exhibits two spin–orbit-split defect states at 270 and 500 mV" ← only from applied voltage, they guessed the energy level splitting by imaginary spin-orbit that has No direct evidence.
p.5-left-last-paragraph says "we attribute the oscillations
of the current at large VLW to predominantly originate from a modulation of the tip–sample distance (= just measured oscillation of sample and electric current )".
p.6-right-1st-paragraph says "However, the nonlinear effect seen in the experiment is not fully reproduced by theory, which has to rely on model assumptions since a full time-dependent atomistic treatment covering the different length scales of the experiment is currently out of reach computationally" ← Quantum mechanics was useless, unable to explain this phenomenon.
This p.10-right-lower tried to use fictional phonon quasiparticle, one-pseudo-electron DFT model with empirical DFT+D3 functional and artificially-chosen pseudo-potential. ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ Just measuring tiny vibration (= phonon ? ) of a single molecule through electric current change in scanning tunneling microscope and modeling it by fictional quasipartice and one-pseudo-electron DFT lacking real atomic picture are meaningless leading to No practical use.
Scanning tunneling microscope can only flow real electric current consisting of real electrons with positive kinetic energies only over extremely-short distance, which has nothing to do with quantum mechanical unobservable ridiculous claim of negative kinetic energy.
This latest research also tried to measure a chemical reaction of a hydrogen atomic translocation called tautomerization inside a single molecule excited by light using scanning tunneling microscope.
But observing and manipulating a single atom or a single molecule have been possible for more than 30 years, and human technology has Not progressed from a "single" molecule toward manipulating multiple molecules (= under condition of clarified atomic interactions ) due to the impractical quantum mechanical model.
Artificially-generating chemical reactions in a single molecule is Not new at all, either.
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.9(or p.8)-middle, p.13(or p.12) relied on fictional quasiparticle model of exciton and plasmon lacking real particle figure.
p.18(or p.17)-values of parameters say "To reproduce the experimental photon maps we fix the parameters of the model.
The choice of particular model parameters is largely guided by previous experimental observations" ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
p.21(or p.20)-1st-paragraph says "we do not
use the TDDFT energies of Qx and Qy excitations and instead use the experimentally observed
positions of the respective exciton peaks" ← relying on experimental parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction.
p.21-2nd-paragraph says "We (artificially) scale the vibrational energies
by a multiplicative factor of 0.95 as the (TD)DFT energies are usually slightly overestimated
compared to experimental values"
↑ As seen here, physicists always tried to rely on impractical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT and fictional quasiparticle models giving up real atomic picture, which quantum mechanical "shapeless" pseudo-models clearly prevent researchers from utilizing atoms as real tools with shapes to build "multiple"-molecular nano-devices and cure diseases.
↑ They are always stuck in a single molecule ( in atomic level manipulation ) for a long time with No progress.
The 1st, 5th, 10th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Now, researchers.. have succeeded in demonstrating for the very first time how laser light can induce quantum behavior (= ambiguous "quantum something", again ) at room temperature—and make non-magnetic materials magnetic (= false, this research just temporarily fluctuated material's magnetic field by laser for only very short time or picoseconds, impractical ). The breakthrough is expected to pave the way for faster and more energy-efficient computers, information transfer and data storage (= hype and fake news, this magnetic state was too short to use for data storage )."
"Now, a research team.. is the first in the world to demonstrate in an experiment how laser light can induce magnetism (= very unstable, lasted only for extremely short time, picoseconds, useless ) in a non-magnetic material at room temperature."
"This opens up for ultra-fast magnetic switches that can be used for faster information transfer and considerably better data storage (= fake news, this research could Not make any data storage, let alone 'better' )"
↑ This research just applied laser light to some material, and measured its temporary magnetization (= lasted for only extremely short time = picoseconds ) by seeing the polarization change of classical light wave reflected from the material (= Kerr effect ), and tried to explain it using fictional phonon ( this Fig.4d ) quasiparticle model with No quantum mechanical prediction and No practical use.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-Fig.1 shows laser's circularly-polarized light created circular atomic motion causing magnetization temporarily.
p.2-left-1st-paragraph says "To probe possible magnetic signals, we used the time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect, which measured the rotation of the polarization of a probe pulse reflected by a magnetized material (= so they just measured classical light wave's polarization reflected from the temporarily-magnetized material based on classical Kerr rotation effect that was discovered in 1876 long before quantum mechanics was created, this-introduction )"
p.3-Fig.2a shows this Kerr rotation of probe light's polarization change was observed only for extremely short time = several picoseconds = only 1~3 ps after the pump laser light was applied for the material to become magnetized temporarily. ← Very unstable short-lived magnetization (= lasted for only several picoseconds ) can Not be used as practical data storage, contrary to the hypes.
p.3-left says "We used the computed parameters for all quantities, except for the soft phonon (= unreal quasiparticle ) eigen-frequency and its linewidth, for which experimental data are available (= relying on experimental values means Not theoretical prediction )"
p.4-left-1st-paragraph says "Remarkably, the estimated experimental magnetic moment— calculated using the measured Verdet constant for STO.. is approximately four orders of magnitude larger than the theoretical one (= quantum mechanical theoretical prediction was false )"
p.4-right-1st-paragraph says "In another work, the measured g factor in PbTe related to a soft phonon at terahertz frequencies was found to be three orders of magnitude larger than predicted by theory (= quantum mechanical theoretical prediction was false, again, though there is No such thing as quantum mechanical prediction from the beginning )"
p.9-left-1st-paragraph says "we use the linearly polarized pump data to match the experimental and calculated amplitudes. With the same scaling factor applied to all the data (= using experimentally-fitting parameters, No prediction, p.17-Fig.7b )"
p.9-Ab-initio calculations used the impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT with VASP, projector-augmented wave based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials. ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
As a result, this research just tried to generate very unstable, short-lived magnetization (= lasted for only picoseconds ) by applying laser light to some material, which is useless, can Not be used for practical data storage, quantum information, contrary to the (fictional energy-efficient, ultrafast quantum device) hyped news.
Actually, this research paper p.5-left-conclusion-last just says
"Finally, we anticipate that our results will (= just speculation ) stimulate further research on the microscopic understanding.. (= No mention of practical use of data storage )"
The 7th and last paragraphs of this hyped news says
"Researchers.. report on four novel scandium nitrides, Sc2N6, Sc2N8, ScN5, and Sc4N3, in the journal Nature Communications."
"Synthesized Sc2N6, Sc2N8, and ScN5 solids are promising (= still speculation ) high-energy-density materials with calculated volumetric energy density, detonation velocity, and detonation pressure up to three times higher than those of common explosives trinitrotoluene (TNT). High-pressure chemistry demonstrates the existence and diversity of polynitrides, opening perspectives for their applications in science and technology"
↑ This experiment made some novel scandium nitrides, which are stable only under unrealistically- high pressure (> 50GPa = 500000 atmospheric pressure ), which materials are useless in normal circumstances (= so, "high-performance" is an usual hype ), and No quantum mechanical prediction in this research.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-left-2~3rd-paragraphs says "nitrogen-rich phases with ScN3,
ScN5, ScN6, and ScN7 compositions have been predicted to be stable
under 30–110 GPa
In this study, we experimentally investigated the behavior of the
Sc-N system at pressures between 50 to 125 GPa and high temperatures." ← materials only stable under more than 300000 atmospheric pressure (= 30GPa ) are useless for energy storage.
p.4-left-last says "the crystal structures of Sc2N8 and ScN5 we observed have Not been predicted" ← Theoretical prediction was wrong.
p.6-Theoretical calculations used one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ) model in VASP and PAW methods that are based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potential ( this p.25 ), hence No quantum mechanical prediction.
p.6-right-1st-paragraph used fictional phonon quasiparticle model.
↑ Physicists always try to use impractical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT with artificial pseudo-potential ( this p.23(or p.11)-2nd-paragraph ) and unphysical quasiparticle model lacking real particle picture, which cannot be applied to designing and building useful multi-molecular devices or practical energy-storage materials.
The 1-4th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The optical frequency comb, a spectrum of optical radiation composed of evenly spaced and phase-coherent narrow spectral lines, was initially developed for precise time and frequency measurements. Over the past two decades, it has shown broad application prospects in fields such as astronomy, cosmology, optical atomic clocks and quantum key distribution (= false, quantum key distribution is still impractical )."
"A team.. has generated a new magnonic frequency comb (= unreal quasiparticle ) in a resonator through magnomechanical interaction."
"To realize the ( fictional ) magnonic frequency comb in a resonator, the team first used an external strong pump to enhance the nonlinear magnomechanical interaction induced by magnetostrictive effect"
"This work not only propels the research on the nonlinearity of magnon systems, but also reveals the application potential (= just speculation still useless ) of magnon frequency combs for sensing and metrology."
↑ This research just measured the electric wave pulse generated by antenna under magnetic field in some material (= whose magnetization fluctuation is treated as fictional magnon quasiparticle ) and microwave that is said to raise temperature and cause mechanical vibration misinterpreted as fictional phonon quasiparticles.
No quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction.
No practical application.
This so-called (fictional quasiparticle) magnonic frequency comb must also be generated by ordinary light wave (= microwave, antenna, this p.2-Fig.1 ), hence, this is almost the same as the ordinary old optical frequency comb generated by laser light.
But this magnonic frequency comb can be applied only to the inside of special magnetic material (= YIG = yttrium iron garnet ), while the ordinary optical comb can be applied to any materials.
So this magnonic comb is more useless and inconvenient than the already-existing optical comb, which means frequency comb technology has stalled for 20 years, rather, regressing due to quantum mechanical unphysical quasipartice model, as seen in this useless inconvenient magnonic comb.
↑ This research paper ( this ) ↓
p.1-left-2nd-paragraph says "Magnons are the quantum of collective spin excitation of magnetization (= fictional quasiparticle ) in ferromagnetic insulators such as yttrium iron garnet (YIG)."
p.2-Fig.1 shows fictional magnon quasiparticle (= just magnetization's fluctuation ) was generated by antenna in YIG, and phonon quasiparticle (= just mechanical vibration ) was generated by microwave (= SRC ). ESA (= electrical spectrum analyzer ) detected the pulses combining them as electric signal ( this p.3 ). ← No quasiparticles themselves were directly detectable.
Fig.1(e) artificially chose parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction.
p.2-right-upper shows unphysical abstract equation expressing fictitious interaction between quasiparticles magnon and phonon as math symbols with No shapes.
p.2-right-last paragraph says "In order to excite the
magnon mode, we employ an antenna located close to
the YIG microsphere (= antenna could generate fictional magnon ? )"
As a result, quantum mechanical fictional quasiparticle model lacking real physical shapes prevents technological advancement forever.
The 1st, 5th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"An international team.. have developed a new single-molecule transistor (= still Not a transistor at all, though ) that uses quantum interference to control the flow of electrons. The transistor, which is described in a paper published in the Nature Nanotechnology, opens new possibilities (= just speculation, still useless ) for using quantum effects in electronic devices."
"The transistor's conductive channel is a single zinc porphyrin, a molecule that can conduct electricity. The porphyrin is sandwiched between two graphene electrodes, and when a voltage is applied to the electrodes, electron flow through the molecule can be controlled using quantum interference (= actually, quantum interference itself was unobservable )"
"The research is still in its initial stages (= No progress ), but the researchers are optimistic that the new transistor could (= just speculation, still useless ) be used to create a new generation of electronic devices."
↑ This research put a molecule between graphene electrodes, and changed its electric conductance (= G ) by changing applied gate voltage (= Vg influencing unseen quantum interference ? this p.3 ) which they called "transistor switch" ← No quantum mechanical prediction nor practical application.
First of all, this so-called molecular transistor must be operated at very low temperature (= 80K = Not room temperature, this p.4-right-2nd-paragraph ), which is impractical and energy-inefficient.
Furthermore, this molecular-graphene-transistor size is very big (= slow & energy-inefficient ), about 100μm ( this p.8-substrate fabrication says 10×10 mm chip contains 874 device = 1 transistor is more than 100μm ), which is far bigger and bulkier than the current ordinary (classical) computer's transistor with only 50nm.
So "smaller, faster, more energy-efficient transistors" is a big lie, fake news (= if this new transistor was really smaller, faster, energy-efficient, it should have already been widely-used, but it hasn't ).
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-right-1st-paragraph says "The molecules (= porphyrin ) were integrated into three-terminal molecular transistor devices by direct covalent coupling.. of graphene electrodes.. The current Isd is measured on applying Vsd, and the device behaviour can be switched using Vg" ← so they just measured electric current I under applied changeable voltage V, Not seeing "interference".
p.3-left-2nd-paragraph says " For a large
region around Vg = 0.78 V (= gate voltage ), the conductance at the dip reaches down to
below the lowest detection level (= this electric conductance drop was due to interference, they claimed )"
p.4-right-2nd-paragraph says ". We limit our analysis to temperatures in the range of
10–100 K (= impractical transistor operated only at very low temperature )"
p.8-right-Theoretical calculations used one-pseudo-electron DFT with SIESTA which is based on multiple artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials ( this p.20-middle ) and pseudo-atomic orbitals ( this p.2,p.5-right-pseudo-potentials. p.3-right-energy chosen, p.4-left-pseudo-atomic orbital ).
↑ No quantum mechanical prediction, and "quantum mechanics might have been used for inventing transistors" is also a total lie.
↑ This research just measured electric current or conductance change by tweaking applied voltage V, Not observing fictional quantum wavefuntion's interference itself (= caused by unreal parallel worlds ? ) nor negative kinetic energy of tunneling, which can be explained by realistic de Broglie wave of electrons with positive kinetic energy of the realistic atomic model.
The 2nd, 5th, 14th, 20-21th, 27th, 30-32th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"For half a century, scientists have delved into the mysteries of 1T phase tantalum disulfide (1T-TaS2), an inorganic layered material with some intriguing quantum properties, like superconductivity and charge density waves (CDW = unphysical concept created in 1930s, this p.4 )"
"The results.. revealed a hidden electronic state that could only be seen by a local structure probe like the pair distribution function technique (= PDF just used X-ray scattering for investigating material's structure ). With a more complete understanding of 1T-TaS2's electronic states, this material may one day (= just speculation, still useless ) play a role in data storage, quantum computing, and superconductivity."
"TMDs (= Transition metal dichalcogenides ) have been studied for many decades (= still No practical use, this p.8-4.0-outlook ) as they display fascinating yet complex CDWs (= charge density wave ) as they are cooled. CDWs are a particular long-range ordered alignment of charges that could be driven by different factors;"
"These (light) pulses can cause a change of the charge configuration within the CDW, which in turn leads to a large drop in electrical resistance."
"At low temperatures, these changes can enter a 'metastable' conducting state, which can be controllably switched back to the insulating state at will. This has practical applications.. ? (← false, this electric resistance change happens only at impractically-low tenperature of 20 K, so useless, this p.4-Figure.3, p.6-1st-paragraph )"
"These high-temperature distortions originate from (unreal) polarons, quasiparticles created by electrons as they move through the lattice structure of a material and interact with it locally."
"The ordering involves the crystallization of polarons into their own ordered state. This is similar to something known as a "Wigner Crystal (= abstract useless concept )," which describes electrons arranged in a solid, crystalline state."
"Understanding the complex electronic properties of this material and how to control them opens up a host of potential applications in electronics, sensing, and computing, but there is still so much more to learn (= still impractical )"
"The temperature-dependent nature of the metastable state is still Not fully understood. (← even after decades of researches, still the physical mechanism of fictional quasiparticles is Not understood, science stops progressing ) "
↑ This research tried to investigate the structure of some material by X ray scattering, and explain the material's distortion at different temperatures by using fictional quasiparticle model polarion with No quantum mechanical prediction and No practical use.
↑ This research paper says ↓
p.1-left says ". Increasing the EPI (= electron-phonon interaction ) leads to bandwidth narrowing, and lattice
dressed electron quasiparticles - as originally introduced by Landau in
1933" ← ancient fictional quasiparticle model introduced in 1933 is still used now.
p.1-right mentions fictional quasiparticles such as exciton and polarons.
p.2-right-1st-paragraphs says "effective (= fictitious ) electron mass.. 1T-TaS2 is comfortably in the Wigner crystal regime, which means that
electronic superlattice ordering on the basis of dominant Coulomb
interactions (= No more detailed explanation )"
p.2-right-2nd-paragraph says "Here we present the first systematic measurements of the local
lattice structure that covers temperatures from 15 to 915 K.. unambiguous evidence
for individual polarons (= No evidence of fictional quasiparticles ).
p.2-right-3rd-paragraph used X-ray pair distribution function (PDF) analysis to investigate structure of 1T-TaS2.
p.3-right-2nd-paragraph says "local lattice distortions ( polarons ) is observable" ← They treated the local distortion as fictional polaron quasiparticle, giving up real partricle description.
↑ This research made No quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction.
The recent similar research (= polalon + charge density wave ) tried to use one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT, this p.5-method ) with VASP (= pseudo-potential) and artificially-chosen U energy parameter (= this p.12-Fig.12a showed their theoretical value = HSE in DFT still disagreed with the experimental values ).
Quantum mechanics always relies on fictional quasiparticle (= very old polaron model introduced in 1933 lacking real particle picture, this p.3 ) and one-pseudo-electron DFT model, which can never describe physical phenomena using real atomic model (= even if they measure actual material's distortion by X rays, only nonphysical quasiparticle model with No concrete shape can be used to describe it ), so hopeless for practical use.
The 1-6th, 8-9th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Quantum spin liquids.. are characterized by a strong competition between interactions, which prevents the establishment of a long-range magnetic order,""Their paper, published in Physical Review Letters, predicts the distinctive spectroscopic signatures of this system, which could be measured in future experiments. (← this research is just a "theoretical prediction" based on fictional quasiparticle model, Not experimental results )"
"the electrons in these materials appear to dissociate into multiple components (= it's impossible for an indivisible electron to dissociate ). For instance, while electrons carry both spin and charge, the emergent quasiparticle can carry spin but no charge"
"These excitations do not arise from the fragmentation of the electrons into several pieces (= which means "an electron splits" is a false description ) but are instead the result of a highly nontrivial form of collective motion induced by their strong interactions (← then, quasiparticle concept should be unnecessary )"
"Physicists have been searching for clear examples of the quantum spin liquid state for decades (= trying to find such a vague imaginary disordered magnetic material is useless ). Nonetheless, progress in this field of research has been slow (= deadend research ) so far, due to two primary factors."
"First, devising theoretical models that realistically describe spin liquid ground states and that can be used to derive accurate predictions has proved challenging (= still Nobody understands what the vague quantum spin liquid or QSL really means, this p.4(or p.3)-left-2nd-paragraph ).
Second, detecting and characterizing the physical properties of these systems in real materials also proved difficult."
"particles analogous to electrostatic charges with mutual Coulomb interaction known as spinons and even magnetic monopoles (= both spinons and monopoles are unreal quasiparticles )."
"the quantum electrodynamics emerging in QSI (= quantum spin ice representing just disordered magnetic material ) differ significantly from conventional electrodynamics. For example, the speed of the so-called "emergent light" should be in the order of 1 m/s, as opposed to the 3x108 m/s of light we encounter in everyday life (← far slower fake light speed )"
↑ This research tried to explain some magnetic material by using fictional pseudo-spin, quasiparticles such as spinons and monopoles (= which do Not exist ), with No quantum mechanical prediction and No experimental verification.
p.1-right used unreal pseudo-spin and nonphysical math model lacking real particle picture.
p.3-right-1st-paragraph says "neutron scattering probes correlations between the local z-components of the (unreal) pseudospins
associated with the (unreal) spinon (= quasiparticle ) excitations (= neutrons cannot scatter unreal quasiparticles ! )"
p.29-IX. their so-called prediction was based on experimentally-fitting parameters J, Not on quantum mechanical prediction ( this-p.10-VII, this p.1-right-4th-paragraph ).
Quantum mechanics has to rely on non-existent pseudo-spin, quasiparticle model (= spinon, monopole.. ) to explain some meaningless material (= quantum spin liquid ? = not real liquid ), this research such as spin liquid, pseudo-spin.. is useless except for publishing papers in journals.
The 1st, 2nd, 4th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Dirac electrons behave like photons rather than electrons, for they are considered to have no mass (= an electron with No mass !? impossible ), and in materials they move with light velocity (= actually, this massless Dirac pseudo-particle is said to be slower than light speed, contrary to Einstein relativity, this p.3-left-fundamentally weird )"
"Because of their differences from standard electrons, Dirac electrons (= pseudo-electrons ) are expected to add unprecedented electronic properties to materials. For example, they could (= just baseless speculation ) be applied to electronic devices.." ← wrong, Dirac fermion is just a fictional quasiparticle that is useless and unable to exert magical power which normal electrons cannot do.
"Using electron spin resonance (= ESR ), to directly observe unpaired electrons in materials" ← it's impossible to observe "unseen" Dirac pseudo-electrons just by measuring light in ESR
"The research has taken our understanding Dirac electrons a step forward (= meaning still useless Dirac fermion quasiparticle )."
↑ This research just measured the energy levels' splitting of some material under magnetic field using electron spin resonance which cannot directly detect fictitious spin nor Dirac fermion quasiparticles.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.3-right-(1) says " effective (= unreal ) mass of fermion.. Electron spin resonance (ESR) enables us direct observation of such DFs (= Dirac fermions )" ← ESR just measures light with some wavelength interacting with material under magnetic field, which cannot detect fictional Dirac fermion quasiparticles.
p.7-(2) used artificially-fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.8-9 ).
p.10-left used one-pseudo-electron DFT in VASP that is based on fictitious pseudo-potential.
Fictional quasiparticles are useless and physically meaningless.
↑ This research paper (p.10-conlusion-last) just vaguely says
"The
findings here will (= just speculation ) accelerate both theoretical and experimental
studies on the DFs (= Dirac fermions ) and their characteristic electronic properties (= No mention of detailed practical use )."
The 1st, 10-11th, 21th, 32th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Physicists have observed a novel quantum effect termed "hybrid topology (← false, topology itself is an unphysical unobservable concept )" in a crystalline material. This finding opens up a new range of possibilities (= just speculation ) for the development of efficient materials and technologies for next-generation quantum science and engineering (← just hyping many fictional targets, this research has nothing to do with practical devices )."
"A topological material is the main component used to investigate the mysteries of quantum topology. This device acts as an insulator in its interior, which means that the electrons inside are not free to move around and, therefore, do not conduct electricity."
"However, the electrons on the device's edges are free to move around, meaning they are conductive (= electrons on the edge region are less restricted by other atoms, so tend to be conductive, which has nothing to do with unphysical useless quantum topology or fictional quasiparticle ).
"We were surprised (= due to disagreeing with theoretical prediction ). Gray arsenic was supposed to have only surface states. But when we examined the atomic step edges, we also found beautiful conducting edge modes (= this experiment just measured electric conductance, No useful device was made )"
"This may (= just speculation, still useless ) enable the designing of new quantum information science or quantum computing devices (←, actually, this research has nothing to do with quantum information, quantum computing nor energy-efficient device )."
"Our research is a step forward in demonstrating the potential (= just speculation ) of topological materials for quantum electronics with energy-saving applications (← this research just measured some electric conductance by scanning tunneling microscope at extremely-low temperature 4~10K, which is impractical and completely energy-inefficient, this p.16-II, III )"
↑ This experiment just measured electric current or conductance (= dI/dV ) of the step-edge region of some material called (impractical) topological insulator by scanning tunneling microscope (= STM ) at extremely-low temperature (= 4~10K ), which is useless for any (hyped) technologies, and No quantum mechanical prediction.
p.7-2nd-paragraph says "This soft gap – while not of topological origin – appears to be an important feature of the α-As band structure that our current theory cannot predict" ← Quantum mechanical theory failed.
p.11-Fig.2a shows the electric conductance (= dI/dV unit nS ) became higher or lower in the step-edge region (= slightly-different heights ) of the material depending on the applied voltage V. ← No practical use, No quantum computer is related.
p.13-Fig.3 also shows the electric conductance (= dI/dV ) change in some triangular step edge region was measured. ← still No useful device was made.
p.16-II used scanning tunneling microscope (= STM ) to measure the electric conductance at extremely-low temperature = only 4.2 K. ← Impractical device.
p.16-IV used impractical one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ) with VASP (= artificially-created pseudo-potential ), saying "The structural parameters have been taken from experimental data" ← No quantum mechanical prediction due to artificially choosing parameters of unphysical Hamiltonian energy ( this p.7C, p.9-last-paragraph ).
p.18-VII. p.20 used fictional quasiparticle model with fake effective mass.
This research just measuring the electric conductance in the edge region of some material at impractically-low temperature, No useful device nor (fictional) quantum computer was relevant, contrary to the hypes.
This research is also a typical example of researchers only aiming to publish papers in (top) journals instead of aiming to make really useful device, and using a lot of hyped fictional targets to hide their useless quantum mechanical research based on nonphysical "topological".
The 1st, 3rd, 8-10, 12-13th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Dual topological phases (= unphysical concept ) have been discovered in an intrinsic monolayer crystal"
"What's particularly intriguing is our discovery of not just one, but two topological insulating states, beyond the predictions of theory (← quantum mechanical theory failed )"
"the project's primary objective was to test the theoretical prediction that suggests the thinnest TaIrTe4 layer acts as a two-dimensional topological insulator—also known as a quantum spin Hall insulator—a novel material where its interior is insulating and electricity flows along its boundaries without any energy loss (= false ). This unique combination makes these materials a focus of researchers trying to develop future generations of energy-efficient electronic devices (= hype, No evidence of electric flow without energy loss )"
"Through manipulation of specific parameters—referred to as gate voltages—the team found TaIrTe4's transition between the two distinct topological states, Ma said. In both instances, the material exhibits zero electrical conductivity within its interior, while its boundaries remain conductive. Through systematic experimental and theoretical investigation, we have determined that these two topological states stem from disparate origins" ← This experiment just measured macroscopic electric conductance, the unphysical "topological" did Not appear.
"The findings, which exceeded the theoretical predictions, surprised the scientists. (← It means quantum mechanical theoretical prediction failed )"
"However, beyond a certain point, adding more electrons unexpectedly turned the interior insulating again... which is exactly again a topological insulating phase just like at the starting point when the interior has no electrons. This transition to a second topological insulating phase is entirely unexpected. (= insulator itself has nothing to do with topological something )"
"Ma said future (= just speculation, still useless ) work on the discovery includes collaborations with groups" ← No mention of practical use.
↑ This research just measured the change of electric resistance (= R ) in some thin material called "topological insulator (= just name, No topological appeared )" depending on electron's density (= n ) controlled by gate voltage at extremely low temperature (= 1.7K = impractical this p.8-Fig.1f ) with No practical use, No quantum mechanical prediction.
First of all, the so-called topological insulator (= only surface is conductor, bulk is insulator ) is a useless unphysical concept, contrary to a lot of hypes.
This p.6-last-paragraph says
"Topological insulators present unique opportunities for device applications, but realizing useful
topological devices remains challenging"
The 1st, 7-8th paragraphs of this site say
"Their application in consumer products is very challenging though, since they only function at very low temperatures."
"But in topological insulators, electricity flow is unaffected by impurities and consequently, there are no energy losses (= this is untrue ). This makes topological insulators efficient electricity conductors. However, they are Not applied in consumer products yet, because they are difficult to make and can only operate at very low temperatures."
"Science on these special insulators is still in the very fundamental phase. ‘Although use in consumer products is still a long way off,"
↑ Topological insulator, which is Not superconductor, has electric resistance, so electric current loses energy by ordinary scattering (= scattering-free path is very short, only 1.4μm at 10K, this p.14-last-p.15 ) in contradiction to the baseless claim of "energy-efficient promising topological insulator without energy loss or scattering".
Quantum mechanics tries to explain the mechanism of topological insulator by using fictional massless quasiparticle called Dirac fermion ( this-abstract, this-introduction-1st-paragraph ), which pseudo-model prevents scientific development forever.
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.6-1st-paragraph says "The inclusion of SOC gaps the Dirac point (= meaning fictional Dirac quasiparticle ), giving rise to the QSH
p.8-Fig.1-a,c = unphysical band model, Fig.1f shows relation between electric resistance R (= two peaks ) and charge density (= N ) controlled by gate voltage (= No "topological" involved ).
p.9-11 shows this experiment just measured macroscopic electric resistance (= R ) or conductance (= G ) with No detailed microscopic atomic picture nor "topological" something.
p.16-last-paragraphs used one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ) with VASP which means the use of artificially-chosen pseudo-potential, No quantum mechanical prediction.
This research did Not made prediction of any specific physical values (= based on DFT ).
↑ Just trying to explain unexpected macroscopic electric resistance by using unphysical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron model with pseudo-potential and fictional quasiparticle lacking concrete figures is meaningless, never leading to practical application.
This research is also typical example of researchers aiming to publish papers in journals (= the present academia worships top journals as if they were "god" which bad old custom obstructs practical science ) instead of really aiming to make useful devices.
The 4th, 5th, 10th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"When light hits a material, some electrons absorb the energy, and this puts them into an excited state. In organic semiconductors, such as those used in OLEDs, the interaction between such excited electrons and left-over "holes" is very strong, and electrons and holes can no longer be described as individual particles. Instead, negatively charged electrons and positively charged holes combine to form pairs, known as excitons (= fictional quasiparticle model )"
"Understanding the quantum mechanical properties of these excitons in organic semiconductors has long been considered a major challenge (= pseudo-particle model of exciton was introduced 100 years ago, but still the failed quantum mechanics does Not understand nor clarify it, ← No science progress )"
"Photoemission exciton tomography provides the answer: immediately after the exciton is generated by light, it is distributed over two or more molecules (= just imaginary unseen quasiparticle behavior ). However, within a few femtoseconds,.. the exciton shrinks back down to a single molecule." ← trying to explore phenomena that last for only extremely short femtoseconds is useless.
"In the future (= still useless now ), the researchers want to record the behavior of the excitons using the new method.
we hope that this knowledge will (= just speculation ) contribute to the development of more efficient materials for solar cells (= falsely treating real electrons as fictional exciton quasiparticle model never leads to real knowledge nor practical technologies )"
↑ This research just illuminated some molecules with laser light and tried to explain the measured (photo)electrons ejected by light as fictional exciton quasiparticle model lacking real particle picture, so practical use is hopeless.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-left-1st-paragraph fictional quasiparticles such as trions, biexitons, exciton expressed as nonphysical math symbols with No concrete shapes.
p.2-Fig.1c says "high-energy photon photoemits the electron and thereby breaks up the exciton. The single-particle electron
orbitals contributing to the (fictitious) exciton are
imprinted on the photoelectron momentum distribution (= just imagination )"
p.7-left-1st-paragraph says "apply full multidimensional time- and angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy (tr-ARPES) to a multilayer C60 crystal..
Femtosecond exciton (= imaginary quasiparticle ) dynamics were induced using laser pulses.. The exciton
dynamics were probed using our custom photoemission momentum
microscope with ultraviolet light source (← this research just deals with ordinary light and electron with No fictitious quasiparticles )"
p.8-left-1st-paragraphs says " the set of free parameters (= Not quantum mechanical prediction) in the momentum-resolved fitting procedure"
This p.8-Calculation of the C60 exciton says
using a GW+BSE approach ← artificial GW+Bethe-Salpeter equation uses unreal quasiparticle ( this p.11 ) and disagrees with self-consistent method, which means the calculated results depend on the initially-chosen parameters (= one-shot-GW, this p.17, this p.9-right-2nd-paragraph, this p.2-left-(i) ) with No prediction.
↑ p.8 used one-pseudo-electron DFT model with empirical DFT+D3 functional.
Fiesta code depends on artificially-chonsen pseudo-potential ( this p.4-left-3rd-paragraph ). ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
Another recent similar research also depends on fictional exciton quasiparticle model (= the current physicls cannot outgrow fictitious useless quasiparticle models ) and free fitting parameters ( this p.7-9 ) with No quantum mechanical prediction.
As long as we unreasonably stick to the fictional unphysical quasiparticle models, we cannot move forward to real technological innovation or curing deadly diseases.
The 1st, 3-4th, last paragraphs of this hyped news says
"Superfluorescence (SF), as a cooperative radiation effect originating from vacuum quantum fluctuations, is an ideal platform for studying many-body correlation mechanisms in an exciton (= fictional quasiparticle allegedly binding an excited electron and a hole )"
"Their experimental and theoretical work, described in this paper, gives strong evidence for revealing a new quasi-particle of cooperative exciton-polariton (CEP)" ← Exciton-polariton is a "not-new" fictional quasiparticle combining light(= photon) and exciton.
"They demonstrate a light-matter hybrid structure of a perovskite quantum dot film and a simple half-layer Bragg mirror. The cooperative exciton-polariton is formalized by coupling an ensemble of synchronized excitons to a selected optical Bragg mode. The phase transition exhibits key signatures of a decrease of the line width"
"The present demonstration of the new (fictional) quasiparticle condensation enables new potential (= just speculation, still useless ) applications for developing ultra-narrow tunable lasers."
↑ This research just detected light from some material excited by laser at extremely-low temperature (= 10K = impractical device, this p.8-left-3rd-paragraph ), and tried to explain this phenomenon by using fictional exciton-polariton quasiparticle model with No quantum mechanical prediction nor practical application.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-right-1st-paragraph says " The underlying mechanism of the robust protection of the coherent macroscopic state in the material is still under debate (= this research's mechanism is still unknown = quantum mechanics was useless )"
p.2-right-1st-paragraph says "The photoluminescence (PL) measurements are performed at 10 K (= impractically-low temperature ) under the same proper excitation pump power on both samples.."
p.3-Fig.1 shows imaginary exciton quasiparticle picture, and stronger laser pump (= Fig.1e) tended to generate sharper light emission of superfluorescence (= Fig.1d).
p.8-left-3rd-paragraph says temperature 10K (= impractical).
p.8-left-4th-paragraph shows (fictional) exciton quasiparticle and its coupling strength, Hamiltonian as nonphysical abstract math symbol with No real particle figure.
p.8-right says this research extracted various parameters from experimental data with No quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction.
↑ It is impossible for the unphysical quantum mechanics to develop really-useful nano-technology, because it cannot describe physical phenomena by real particles or atoms with concrete shapes.
Fictional exciton-polariton quasiparticle model was extremely old theory which has made No progress since its invention about 100 years ago. ← Science stops progressing.
The 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 11-14th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The team has manipulated quantum bits, so-called qubits, by harnessing the magnetic field of magnons—wave-like excitations (= magnon is a fictional quasiparticle expressing magnetic fluctuation or imaginary spin wave ) in a magnetic material—that occur within microscopic magnetic disks"
"However, the construction of a practical quantum computer has been hindered by the intrinsic fragility of how the information is stored and processed in this technology." ← Quantum computer is deadend, still No practical use.
"The HZDR group investigated the interaction of magnons (= fictional quasiparticle ) and qubits formed by vacancies of silicon atoms in the crystal structure of silicon carbide, "
"some magnons inside the disk possess a much lower frequency than the driving frequency of the antenna. We manipulate qubits only with these lower frequency magnons"
"The research team emphasizes they have Not performed any quantum calculations yet" ← still No quantum bit was realized by this fictitious magnon.
"To date, the quantum engineering community has Not yet realized that magnons can be used to control qubits" ← still No single qubit, No quantum computer.
"In order to further develop their approach, the team is already preparing for their future plans (= just speculation, still useless )"
↑ This research just measured the energy levels which they tried to utilize as a qubit's 0 or 1 states, but still failed (= fictitious spin itself is unobservable ) of silicon-vacancy (VSi) defects in SiC by light, which (= resonant light frequency f ) was affected by the adjoining small magnetic disk whose magnetic field was fluctuated, which they called (fictional) magnon quasiparticle, by the antenna's microwave. No practical use, No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-left-1st-paragraph says "current error rates hamper a monolithic approach to building scalable
quantum systems (← still No quantum error correction )"
p.2-Fig.1B say ". An on-chip antenna surrounding the disc is used to excite the vortex magnons (= fictional quasiparticle magnon model lacking real particle picture )"
p.2-Fig.1E just measured the energy levels (of SiC vacancy ), Not electron spin.
p.3-Fig.2B measured light's frequency (= allegedly influenced by magnetic disk or magnon quasiparticle ) by magnetic resonance.
p.6-right used artificially-chosen parameters or experimental values ( this p.4 ) to simulate (classical) micromagnetic field, No quantum mechanical prediction.
As shown in this latest research published in Science, quantum computers have been deadend with No progress, No hope, or regressing to only one or zero qubit (= this research's quasiparticle magnon qubit still has Not been realized, as the news said ) hindered by fictional quantum mechanical quasiparticle model.
The 1st, 4th, 8-10th, 13th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"For decades, the pursuit of quantum computing has struggled with the need for extremely low temperatures, mere fractions of a degree above absolute zero (0 Kelvin or –273.15°C)." ← completely energy-inefficient and impractical.
"our team has shown a certain kind of qubit—the spins of individual electrons (= electron spin is Not real spinning )—can operate at temperatures around 1K (= still almost absolute zero, energy-inefficient, impractical fake quantum computer ), far hotter than earlier examples."
"Our new research may (= just speculation ) offer a way forward. We have demonstrated that a particular kind of qubit—one made with a quantum dot printed with metal electrodes on silicon.. can operate at temperatures around 1K. This is only one degree above absolute zero (= only 1K ), so it's still extremely cold (= even this latest fake quantum computer still needs impractically-low temperature, so deadend )."
"The stakes are high in fields like drug design (= hackneyed drug design hype ), where quantum computing promises (= just speculation ) to revolutionize how we understand and interact with molecular structures." ← overhyped fake promise. Actually, even this latest research used only two bits or two qubits (= just 00, 11, 01.. ) with high error rate that is Not a computer at all.
"It is still early days in the development of quantum computers (= "early-stage" forever, No progress ). Quantum computers may one day be as ubiquitous as today's silicon chips, but the path to that future will (= uncertain future, again ) be filled with technical hurdles (= conclusion: quantum computer is hopeless despite longtime researches )"
↑ This research tried to use only two electrons trapped in silicon quantum dots (= artificial atoms ) as two quantum computer's bits or two qubits (= each electron's orbital motion, not fictional spin is used as a bit state 0 or 1 manipulated by microwave ) with still-high error rate at almost absolute zero temperature (= 1K ), which is impractical and Not a computer at all.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-abstract says "two-qubit gate fidelity of 98.92%" ←still only two bits were available with extremely-high error rate of 1% or 0.01, which falls far short of future practical quantum computer, which is said to need at least millions of qubits with error rate of less than 0.000000000000001 or 10-15 ( this abstract ).
p.1-right-Device and two-qubit operation says "We conduct our study on a prototype (only) two-qubit processor based on.. double quantum dot... The quantum dots are electrostatically defined in areas of around 80nm2 underneath the plunger gates (P1, P2) at the Si/SiO2 interface. An exchange gate ( J) controls the inter-dot separation and two-qubit exchange"
p.2-left-2nd-paragraph says "To form the qubits, we load an odd number of electrons in the P1 and P2 dots. We measure the states using parity readout, a type of qubit readout based on Pauli spin blockade (PSB). Charge movement between dots" ← Each electron's (fictitious) spin cannot be directly seen, instead, only the irrelevant electric current through quantum dots could be measured, and this electric current was (mis)interpreted as (imaginary) spin.
p.6-left-3rd paragraph says "The engineering challenges in building a fault-tolerant, million-qubit quantum processor remain formidable" ← Even this latest research used only two qubits (= so still Not a computer at all ) far smaller than practically-required millions of qubits.
Quantum computer's research has been already deadend.
Silicon-type spin qubit is said to use the quantum dot's (unrealistic) electron spin up (= 0 ) or down (= 1 ) as each qubit's state.
But it is impossible to observe such an unrealistic electron spinning directly.
All they can measure is irrelevant electric current or Coulomb voltage ( this Fig.1c ) instead of electron's spin magnet.
They baselessly claim, when two adjacent quantum dots include two electrons with the same spin up-up or down-down, these two electrons may repel each other by quantum mechanical (fictitious) Pauli principle exchange energy lacking real exchange force, and eventually electric current may be blocked under applied voltage. ← just imagination
First of all, a quantum dot is an artificial (= Not real ) atom with about 50nm size ( this p.2-Fig.1 ) that is far bigger than a single atom (= only 0.1 nm ), hence, each quantum dot has large space enough to contain more than two electrons without caring about whether two electrons enter one same smaller atomic orbital exerting Pauli exclusion principle.
Actually, in this quantum dot's Pauli blockade mechanism, one electron was artificially fixed by external electric field in the place completely distant from the other electron, and only this other electron could move as electric current through different routes ( this p.3-Fig.1 ), which had nothing to do with Pauli principle repulsion that requires two electrons to enter the same (real) atomic orbital far smaller than a single quantum dot or a bigger artificial atom.
In the actual quantum dot or artificial atom, much more complicated mechanism happens, and the electric current depends on relationship between electron's orbital motion and other surrounding atoms, which can be artificially-controlled by external (exchange) voltage ( this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph ).
As a result, the unphysical quantum mechanics lacking real particle picture needs to fabricate fictional target called "parallel-world quantum computer" that has been deadend with an impractically-low number of qubits (= still only two qubits in this latest research ), which is useless forever except for aiming at journals (= impractical quantum computer is just journals' toy ).
The 1st, 4th, 5-6th paragraphs of this hyped news about the latest Microsoft, Quantinuum's still-impractical ion-qubit quantum computer (= with only two bits ) say
"Microsoft and Quantinuum today announced a major breakthrough (= hackneyed breakthrough hype, again ) in quantum error correction (= false, actually, this research did Not correct errors )."
"the team was able to run thousands of experiments with "virtually no" errors (= Not completely no-errors ). That involved quite a bit of preparation and pre-selecting systems that already looked to be in good shape for a successful run (= they just "selected" only convenient results masking errors instead of performing true error correction )"
"It's a step in the right direction for quantum computing. There are still plenty of problems to be solved (= still useless )"
"The team used Quantinuum’s H2 trapped-ion processor and was able to combine 30 physical qubits (= still far from millions of qubits required for practical computers, this 11th-paragraph ) into four highly reliable logical qubits. Encoding multiple physical qubits into a single logical qubit helps protect the system from errors ( = which is Not the case in quantum computers )."
Quantum computers are already deadend (= in fact, all quantum computer's researchers already know and hide this inconvenient fact, Only taxpayers are deceived ), error-prone and known to be unable to give right answers.
The point is the present quantum computers can Not correct errors, instead, they just artificially select only good results (= discard or ignore qubits that show errors instead of correcting them ) which fake error correction method cannot scale up, as shown in the hyped recent Harvard-QuEra atomic qubits.
The 4-8th paragraphs of this blog (= that started to deal with topics except "AI" ) about Microsoft, Quantinuum say
"The collaboration used a trapped-ion system with 32 fully-connected physical qubits.. One can apply an entangling gate to any pair of qubits with ~99.8% fidelity (= 0.2% error rate, which is still far worse and higher than practically-required 10-15 error rate )."
"They created up to 4 logical encoded qubits, using the Steane code and other CSS codes. Using logical CNOT gates, they then created logical Bell pairs — i.e., (|00⟩+|11⟩)/√2" ← when one logical qubit is 0 (or 1 ), the other qubit is 0 (or 1 ), which is Not a practical calculation at all.
"That's in the version of their experiment that uses “preselection but not postselection.” In other words, they have to try many times until they prepare the logical initial states correctly.. they just apply the logical CNOT gates, measure, and see what they got." ← No "error-correction" was mentioned.
"For one thing, they show that when they do allow postselected measurement outcomes, the decrease in the effective error rate can be much much larger, as large as 800x. That allows them (again, under postselection !) " ← It means they not only pre-selected but also post-selected only convenient results (= discarding or ignoring error qubits without correcting errors )
"They don't try to do (e.g.) a quantum supremacy demonstration with their encoded qubits, like QuEra did" ← The fact that even this "best" error-correction research could Not achieve quantum supremacy means the quantum supremacy or advantage so far was just fake.
As a result, the current quantum computers are still useless, error-prone, No-advantage and unable to correct errors.
Instead, they just pre- or post-selected only convenient results, ignoring or discarding all qubits that showed errors, which method is impractical, because in large calculations, almost all qubits (= even if they just show slight errors ) must be discarded and unusable for calculation of final answers (= post-selection ), or physicists must take too much time to reset and repeat until luckily no errors happen (= pre-selection ).
To truly correct errors, one virtual logical qubit (= used for calculation ) must consist of multiple (physical) qubits (= used for just components or detecting errors ), and the (physical) qubits that cause errors must be detected and corrected by seeing the remaining intact qubits to keep the error-free logical qubit. ← But this error correction is impossible.
This 10th paragraph says
"Data (physical) qubits on the vertices make up the logical qubit, while "measure" qubits at the center of each square are used for so-called "stabilizer measurements." These measurements tell us whether the qubits are all the same, as desired, or different, signaling that an error occurred,"
To reduce errors to the level of practical use, more than millions of (physical) qubits are said to be necessary where each (virtual) logical qubit consists of more than 1000 physical qubits ( this 18~21th paragraphs ).
But actually, the opposite thing happens.
When they try to detect or correct erroneous qubits, on the contrary, the total error rates worsen or increase instead of decreasing errors.
The recent Google quantum computer error correction research increased their error rate from the original 0.01~0.0001 to about 3.0 % ( this 3rd-last-paragraph ), and they could Not correct errors ( this 3rd-paragraph ).
p.1-left-1st-paragraph says "Quantum computers have the potential (= just speculation, still No advantage ) to solve important classically-intractable problems, however doing so requires improving error rates.. The experimental challenges remain significant (= No progress )"
p.2-right-2nd-paragraph says " Each logical qubit has seven data qubits and three ancilla qubits, leading to the experiments having a total of 20 physical qubits"
p.2-right-3rd-paragraph says "Upon failure to verify the preparation a logical |0⟩ state, the qubits can be conditionally reset and the fault-tolerant preparation can be re-attempted in a repeat-until-success fashion or pre-selected upon verification" ← pre-selection is meaningless "repeat-until-success" operations.
p.2-right-4th-paragraph says
"After both logical qubits are prepared in |0⟩, we apply a
transversal Hadamard to one of the logical qubits, followed
by a transversal CNOT between the two logical qubits.
Ideally, this circuit would produce (|00⟩ + |11⟩)/
√2." ← They just prepared two logical (= calculation ) qubits,: when one qubit is 0 (or 1 ), the other qubit is 0 (or 1 ) with No practical computation.
p.3-left-1st-paragraph says "At the end of each destructive logical measurement (= measurement of qubits destroys quantum superposition state, this-middle ), these syndromes are used to generate a correction to the logical outcome using a lookup table decoder. These corrected outcomes are determined by running the decoder during the hybrid quantum/classical program" ← Their "error correction" means the virtual correction by classical computer's software instead of actually correcting qubits that just worsens error rates ( this p.4-left-2nd-paragraph ).
This research paper ↓
p.3-right-3rd-paragraph says "For the logical experiments with error correction and pre-selection, 12, 100 experiments were ran.. About 9, 000 shots were pre-accepted for each basis resulting in a pre-acceptance rate of about 75%." ← this means "25% error rates" or 25% of qubits, which showed errors, must be ignored and reset, repeatedly (= pre-selection ).
p.3-right-last-paragraph says "Post-selecting on non-trivial syndromes (so No error correction is performed, only error detection), the total acceptance rate goes from 75% to 72% (= which means the actual error rates were more than 25% ! which cannot be used for practical computers )"
p.5-Table I shows the numbers of artificially-pre-selected or post-selected results, and says "corrections refers to the number of pre-accepted experiments where a non-trivial syndrome (= errors ) was observed (= correction does Not mean error-correction )"
p.5-left-2nd-paragraph ( or this p.5-left-3rd-paragraph ) says " Post-selection is based on... if two Pauli errors of a particular weight have the same syndrome (= showing errors, this p.2- 1) ).. those outcomes are post-rejected, otherwise it is added to the acceptance set" ← No error correction
p.9-Table III and Fig.7 show just repeating this (fake) error correction operation (= pre- or post-selections ) three times worsens or increases their error rates from 0.03% to 0.8% which was almost the same as non-corrected (= non-selected or unencoded ) error rate of 1.4%. ← Even "artificial selection" turned out to be meaningless.
↑ This latest Microsoft, Quantinuum quantum computer, which just used only 30 ion qubits as 2~4 logical (= calculation ) qubits (= actually only 2 logical or block qubits were used, which is Not a computer at all ), just worsened and increased their error rates, even if they artificially discarded error qubits and illegitimately selected only convenient results.
As a result, quantum computers are already deadend, or rather, regressing.
One important thing that Scott forgot to mention is that even if some researches seemed to have "progressed" a small step (= like the recent useless two spin-qubit case that managed to raise temperature only 1K after decades of researches ), they eventually need more "infinite steps" or "infinite progresses" to realize (hopeless) quantum computers.
The 6th paragraph of this hyped news about quantum optimization problem say
"The team.. has now used purely analytical methods to evaluate how a quantum computer with qubits could solve this class of problems, a classic thought experiment with pen and paper and a lot of expertise." ← just theoretical research, No experimental realization.
↑ This research is just theoretical work about how imaginary quantum computer can tackle optimization problem (= finding the lowest energy solution ), and did Not experimentally prove quantum computer's advantage.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-abstract says "It is unclear to what extent quantum algorithms can outperform classical algorithms for problems of combinatorial optimization"
p.16--left-2nd-paragraph says "it remains to be studied how well the corresponding Hamiltonians can be solved using quantum optimization algorithms in practice" ← just desk theory with No experimentally verification of quantum advantage.
The recent hyped news claims that D-Wave quantum annealer showed quantum advantage in some optimization problem (= finding the lowest energy state ) called Ising model that would take classical computers millions of years to compute. ← this is just hype, untrue, still No quantum advantage.
People may get used to D-Wave (fake) quantum computer's speed-up hypes for the past 10 years, which hyped quantum pseudo-science ( repeated by D-Wave, Google, IBM.. behind almost all of which Nature pulled the strings ) clearly contributed to obstructing really useful science or curing deadly diseases.
The 5-6th, 11th paragraphs of this recent D-Wave hyped advantage news says
"The researchers compared the performance of quantum annealing with state-of-the-art classical simulation techniques, including tensor networks and neural networks (= tensor network is very old theory, Not state-of-the-art ). Their findings reveal that no known classical approach can match the accuracy of the quantum annealer within a reasonable timeframe (← false )."
"In fact, the study concluded that even the most advanced classical algorithms would require runtimes of millions of years on modern supercomputers (← lie )"
"The next step for the research would be vetting through peer-review" ← Peer-reviewed journals are more important than inventing really-useful computers ? (= if D-Wave machine was really so much faster, they would try to secure a patent instead of worrying about peer-reviewed journals ).
In this research, D-Wave annealing machines were used to find the lowest ground-state energy state of Ising spin model by optimization. = finding bit patterns (= each bit or qubit 0 or 1 expresses virtual spin up or down ) giving the lowest total energy under the input spin-spin interaction parameters.
↑ Even this latest D-Wave research paper says ( this p.1-right )
"great strides have been
made in classical simulations of noisy quantum systems,
curtailing some supremacy claims. While it is no
longer controversial to say that near-term QPUs (= quantum processing units ) can solve
some problems far faster than the best classical methods (= "near-term" means quantum speed-up claims so far were fake ),
this has Not yet been firmly established for problems of
practical interest (= still No practical use of quantum computer )"
↑ If quantum computer really could calculate something a million times faster than classical supercomputers, such "useful faster" quantum computers would have been much more widely used, dominating the market by now. ← This does Not happen, contrary to the longtime hypes.
↑ No practical use means quantum computers' advantage or speed-up is just fake and unreal ( this 4~5th-last-paragraphs ).
The trick of this (fake) quantum advantage is caused by D-Wave's quantum annealing compared with bad slow classical method called tensor networks and neural networks ( this 5th-paragraph ).
D-Wave paper ( this p.47-last-paragraph~p.48-upper ) says
"Tensor-network approaches provide faithful approximations to quantum dynamics.. There are other methods, especially various Monte Carlo (MC)
dynamics, which have been proposed to mimic the output of quantum annealers... The dynamics
we discuss here are simulated annealing (= SA ), simulated quantum annealing (SQA) with path-integral Monte
Carlo, spin-vector MC (SVMC = one of Monte-Carlo methods )"
"On one hand, these methods are computationally inexpensive compared to tensor-network approaches (= tensor-network is slower than any other classical methods ), and therefore can be run on all system sizes used in our QA (= quantum annealing of D-Wave ) experiments (= these classical methods did Not take millions of years )."
↑ This means they deliberately chose bad slowest classical method (= tensor network ) taking much more time than other classical methods, and falsely claimed the quantum advantage in tasks which would take classical methods millions of years (← which turned out to be wrong ).
Furthermore, this D-Wave research deliberately ignored the best fastest classical simulating method called Selby's algorithm that is known to be faster and more accurate than D-Wave quantum annealing machines ( this 2~3rd-paragraphs, this 3rd-paragraph ).
This 7th-paragraph says
"The latest announcement from Google states that the D-Wave machine is more than 108 times faster than simulated annealing (= SA which is faster than tensor network ) running on a single core. However, (classical) Selby’s algorithm still performs better than the D-Wave quantum computer, so there’s a long way to go for D-Wave"
In fact, it is still uncertain D-Wave really outperformed even classical simulated annealing, as this p.2-1st-paragraph-last says
"On the other hand, we did Not find any advantage of the D-Wave quantum
annealer over the simulated annealing (= D-Wave is bad especially at hard samples, this p.15 )."
This paper comparing classical Selby and D-Wave quantum annealing ↓
p.14-3rd-paragraph says "D-Wave finds true ground states for 48 of the 80 instances (= 32 were wrong answers )"
p.14-last-paragraph says "D-Wave never finds a true ground
state (= D-Wave gave all wrong answers in some instances )"
p.15 shows names of instances (= .. rfr,.. k64maxcut ), Selby-best-30 (= number of instances for which the Selby heuristic found the best known
solution within 30 second ), DW-best (= number of instances for which D-Wave found the best known solution, )
p.16-Table.2 shows D-Wave (= DW-best ) could give No right answers in instances of rfr, selby-c16, k64maxcut, while classical Selby methods can perfectly find right answers in a shorter time.
The fact that this latest D-Wave research intentionally avoided comparison with the best classical Selby method means D-Wave quantum annealers still could Not outperform this best classical computing method (= D-Wave itself knows this is fake quantum advantage ).
Classical tensor network methods were known to outperform Google quantum supremacy and IBM quantum utility (= so there is No quantum supremacy now ), but they are bad for annealing.
Both Google (fake) quantum supremacy and IBM (fake) quantum utility were unable to give right answers due to the current error-prone quantum computers (= IBM managed to obtain the right answers using ordinary classical computers for error mitigation ), so there is No quantum supremacy or advantage from the beginning.
Quantum computers are said to calculate faster by using (baseless) quantum superposition or unseen parallel worlds, which have No evidence because the quantum computers give only wrong erroneous solutions that cannot prove the quantum superposition computation.
Classical computers were unfairly forced to emulate this unfounded quantum superposition and parallel worlds by using tensor network methods, and outperformed the Google and IBM (fake) quantum advantage (= this is why quantum advantage still has No practical use ).
The classical tensor network is good at imitating quantum bit's gate operation allegedly utilizing superposition or parallel worlds (= Google's random number generation or IBM performed simple qubit gate operations without computing total energies, this p.2 ).
But in case of annealing, classical tensor network was forced to not only imitate the baseless quantum superposition ( this p.3-3.1 ) but also compute total energies in each step at short-time intervals, many, many times to find the lowest energy state, which takes an enormous amount of time ( this p.11-2nd-paragraph-superposition, p.12-2nd-paragraph-calculate total energy, this p.8-9-Hamiltonian energy is computed, this 2.4 ).
As shown in the existence of the classical annealing (= Not using quantum superposition ), the D-Wave quantum annealing just trying to find the lowest stable state does Not utilize quantum superposition or parallel worlds, hence, forcing the classical tensor network to take much time for imitating the non-existent quantum superposition or parallel worlds is unfair and nonsense.
It is crystal clear that all these dubious quantum advantage or supremacy claims with No practical use are just overhyped pseudo-science, but (almost all) physicists refused to criticize them.
Even Scott, who refuted D-Wave quantum (fake) speed-up ( this 6th-last-paragraph ), avoids making some comments on this latest D-Wave fake quantum advantage claim, instead, focuses only on irrelevant (hyped) AI.
Because he knows criticizing D-Wave will boomerang on his own dubious quantum advantage claim using (useless) boson sampling based on wrong assumption.
Chinese and Canadian Xanadu's photon quantum computer's advantage based on this Gaussian boson sampling (= GBS ) were outperformed by classical computer's algorithm (= which was also forced to imitate baseless quantum superposition ) after all.
This 2nd-paragraph says
"However, other scientists immediately started to build better classical algorithms to simulate these quantum experiments and challenged the quantum supremacy claims to vary degrees. Specifically, our recent work shows that Gaussian boson sampling quantum supremacy experiments can in fact be simulated fairly quickly on a classical supercomputer." ← No longer quantum supremacy.
Basically, physicists are afraid that ordinary people become more knowledgeable about the inconvenient truth of the current already-deadend quantum computers and quantum mechanics.
So they tend to allow the media to limitlessly spread overhyped baseless science news, and it is extremely hard for ordinary people to arrive at the truth, which tendency badly affects the current science and innovation.
The 1~3rd, 9th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Scientists have for the first time created a giant quantum vortex to mimic a black hole in superfluid helium that has allowed them to see in greater detail how analog black holes (= unreal black holes ) behave and interact with their surroundings." ← far-fetched analogy, helium superfluid in a lab has nothing to do with imaginary outer space black hole.
"They have created a giant swirling vortex within superfluid helium that is chilled to the lowest possible temperatures." ← helium superfluid at almost absolute zero is the opposite of high-energy black hole.
"Through the observation of minute wave dynamics on the superfluid's surface, the research team has shown that these quantum tornados mimic (= Not mimic at all ) gravitational conditions near rotating black holes. The research has been published in Nature"
"Now, with our more sophisticated experiment, we have taken this research to the next level, which could (= just speculation ) eventually lead us to predict how quantum fields behave in curved spacetimes around astrophysical black holes." ← impractical research.
"The exhibition will comprise newly commissioned sculptures, installations, and immersive artworks by leading artists.." ← Black holes are just "art", Not science ?
↑ This research unscientifically tried to associate irrelevant helium superfluid's vortex with imaginary black hole, with No Einstein relativistic nor quantum mechanical threoretical prediction.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-left-2nd-paragraph says " spinning propeller, which is responsible for establishing a continuous circulating loop
of He II (= outer space black hole rotation is also caused by artificial big propeller ? )"
p.3-right-last-paragraph says "effective potential barrier (= Not real potential ), preventing waves from reaching the vortex core"
p.4-left-last-paragraph says "we focus on counter-rotating (m = −8) modes,.. this is not the case in the hollow-core regime,.. Bound states are not formed at all because the effective potential shows a shallow maximum before decreasing towards zero... These excitations, previously identified as ringdown modes of an analogue black hole ?" ← forced interpretation
p.6 used WKB approximation, which is just semi-classical method with No quantum mechanical nor Einstein relativistic prediction.
↑ So they tried to generate votices in superfluid helium by a propeller, and the votex' counter-rotating mode mimicked (imaginary) black hole's ringdown mode when black holes merge.
First of all, the time must stop near black holes (= seen from the distant earth ), so (imaginary) black holes could neither be formed nor merged to emit (illusory) gravitational wave.
This site evades answering the question of why LIGO could detect (fantasy) black hole collision despite their time stopping (= "time stop" means No movement, No collision nor merger ).
And if the helium's superfluid can really mimic the black hole whose time stops, No votices were seen (= No motions were detected ) contrary to this research's claim.
This research is also one of typical examples aiming only at publishing papers in journals instead of really wanting to do useful research.
The 1st, 10th, 17th, 26th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"In a new study, researchers have observed the freezing of saltwater droplets at a molecular level, offering new insights for de-icing and anti-icing technologies"
"I think people could not fully understand this phenomenon until now, especially when using a binary droplet, such as a salty droplet (= quantum mechanics is useless, unable to explain even ordinary salty droplet )"
"The MD (= molecular dynamical ) simulations aimed to reproduce the experimental observations and provide additional insights into the molecular interactions occurring during droplet freezing by simulating the behavior of ions, water molecules, and freezing interfaces at the nanoscale." ← pseudo-classical molecular dynamics (= MD ) just uses pseudo-potentials called force fields with artificially adjustable parameters, Not predicting physical phenomena.
"Using our definition of freezing duration for salty droplets, researchers may (= just speculation, still useless ) be able to quantitatively evaluate the performance of their anti-icing methods against salty droplets. This may (= just speculation ) be helpful for the development of marine anti-icing technologies"
↑ This research tried to simulate the freezing of saltwater droplets by using (pseudo-)classical molecular dynamics (= MD ) with artificial water model, fake molecules and freely-adjustable potential parameters. No quantum mechanical prediction nor practical application.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-left-1st-paragraph says "salty
water droplet icing remains poorly understood (= useless quantum mechanics failed to explain even ordinary salty water )"
p.3-Fig.1 shows icing of actual salty water (= taking 30 seconds ) and its molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulation with fake molecules (= taking only 400 ns ), which have completely different time scales ( this Fig.1-B = actual droplet of 30s expressed by D. fake water model of 400ns ) !
p.7-MD simulations used (fictional) mW-ion model
p.8-1st-paragraph says "It should
be noted that the nanoscale results obtained by MD (= molecular dynamical ) simulation cannot
be directly compared with the macroscopic experimental results in
time and space" ← MD simulation relying on pseudo-moelcular model is Not equal to actual saltwater, so this research is fake simulation.
This p.11-1st-paragraph says
"the two atomic models require large amounts of computational resources (= MD takes too much time ) even with the
solid-liquid coexistence technique,.. In
the mW-ion model, the water model is mW ( monatomic water, mW = a water molecular is expressed as one pseudo-atom ).. The Stillinger-Weber force field
is used to describe the interactions between the water and the Na+
and Cl- in the mW-ion model"
↑ This fictional mW-ion model treats a water molecule consisting of three atoms H2O as one pseudo-atomic model ( this-introduction ) with pseudo-potential = coarse-grained MD without real charges.
This researh paper ↓
p.1-abstract says "the original mW (= monatomic water ) model is unable to reproduce the negative thermal expansivity experimentally observed at low temperatures... by re-adjusting the so-called tetrahedrality parameter λ (= just artificially fitting parameters to experiments with No prediction )"
p.5-1st-paragraph says "It is impossible to distinguish four hydrogen bonding molecules out of the eight neighbors in the mW model because of the absence of the hydrogen atoms (= mW uses unreal molecular models which cannot distinguish individual atoms )."
This p.2-introduction says
"owing to the loss of information, capturing atomistic properties through CG-MD (= coarse-grained molecular dynamics ) or simply CG simulations is a challenge"
This paper p.1-left-last-paragraph says
"Empirical force fields, such as three-body Stillinger–Weber
(SW).. SW
and Tersoff parameters yielded significant overestimates of
Si thermal conductivity (= MD artificial pseudo-potentials or force fields often failed )"
↑ This research tried to simulate the actual salty water droplet freezing that took 30 seconds by using fake water molecular model that took only 400 nanoseconds (= because MD using actual atoms is too time-consuming to simulate 30s ) sacrificing atomic level accuracy, which MD (and useless quantum mechanics) can Not clarify real mechanism of water freezing.
Another recent research moved one single atom (= chroline Cl ) of salt by scanning tunneling microscope (= STM, this 6-7th,last paragraphs ), and tried to explain it by using the impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT with artificial pseudo-potential and empirical D3 intermolecular functional ( this p.6-computational details used VASP-pseudo-potential, D3 ). No quantum mechanical prediction.
As seen here, the current nanotechnology has made No progress from manipulating one single atom or molecule due to the unphysical quantum mechanical DFT, pseudo-potential and the extremely-time-consuming (pseudo-)classical molecular dynamical (= MD ) model.
The 1st, 4-5th, 8-10th, 17th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Researchers.. have realized a new type of metamaterial through which sound waves flow in an unprecedented fashion. It provides a novel form of amplification of mechanical vibrations, which has the potential (= just speculation, still useless ) to improve sensor technology (= this research's so-called "sensor" is completely impractical ) and information processing devices."
"The "Kitaev chain" is a ( nonphysical ) theoretical model that describes the physics of electrons in a superconducting material (= this model lacks real particle figure ), specifically a nanowire. The model is famous for predicting the existence of special excitations at the ends of such a nanowire: Majorana zero modes (= fictional Majorana quasiparticle ). These have gained intense interest because of their possible use in quantum computers (= false. fictional Majorana quasiparticles will never be of practical use )."
"We were interested in a model that looks mathematically (= Not physically ) identical, but describes waves like light or sound, instead of electrons. ← This research's only purpose is to express the unphysical Kitaev's chain equation originally made for superconductor's fictional Majorana quasiparticle by using the irrelevant light or sound wave (= instead of electrons ) with No practical use.
"We realized that we could experimentally create the required links between nanomechanical resonators—small vibrating silicon strings on a chip—by coupling them with the help of forces exerted by light; thus creating 'optical' springs (= not real springs ). Carefully varying the intensity of a laser over time then allowed linking five resonators and implementing the (unphysical) bosonic Kitaev chain."
"The optical coupling mathematically resembles the superconducting links in the fermionic Kitaev chain" ← false. Light (= boson in this research ) is a completely different thing from electrons (= fermions ) in superconductors.
"But uncharged bosons do not exhibit superconductivity; instead, optical coupling adds amplification to the nanomechanical vibrations (= enhanced sensors ? ). As a result, sound waves, which are the mechanical vibrations propagating through the array, are exponentially amplified from one end to the other."
"if the frequency of the last resonator on the chain is slightly perturbed, the amplified signals along the chain can suddenly travel backwards again, experiencing amplification a second time (= which is what they call "sensor" that is useless ). The result is that the system is very sensitive to such a small perturbation,"
"We now need to investigate in more detail how these topological sensors work (= "needing more investigation" means "still useless as sensors" )"
↑ This research just vibrated five small materials (= silicon strings ) by laser light in vacuum (= not air, this p.9-A-last mentions vacuum chamber ), which cannot be used in the normal air condition, so completely useless for practical sensors.
No quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction was made in this research.
This research's only purpose was to artificially express the nonphysical useless abstract equation called Kitaev chain (= made for describing superconductor's fictitious Majorana quasiparticle ) using the irrelevant light, and publich papers in journals with No purpose of practical application.
p.1-left-last says "It is a bosonic analogue (= just analogue, not real ) of the fermionic Kitaev chain"
p.1-right-1st-paragraph says "The BKC (= bosoning Kitaev chain ) is formed
by coupling bosonic modes through both beamsplitter
and two-mode squeezing interactions, mimicking (= Not real ) hopping and p-wave superconducting pairing in the fermionic
Kitaev chain"
p.2-left-last unphysical equation (1) showed vibrating materials (= a ) connected by light or beam splitter (= BS ) expressed as J or λ ← No real particle picture.
p.6-right-conclusions say "These results point to potential (= still useless ) applications of the BKC (= bosonic Kitaev chain ) in sensing and directional amplification, which are both related to its behavior as a unique non-Hermitian topological phase" ← non-Hermitian is just an unphysical concept meaning "material's energy is not conserved due to losing or gaining energy from outside". In some condition (= called exceptional points ) material's energy or vibration may be enhanced.
↑ In this research just connecting five small materials or silicon strings (= resonators ), when the frequency of the last resonator on the chain is slightly perturbed (= ε ), the string's vibration or sensitivity was enhanced, which corresponded to "non-Hermitian system's signal amplification ( this p.1-right-1st-paragraph, p.5-Fig.4 )"
This tiny vibration induced by light could be detected only in vacuum (= not normal circumstances ), hence, this apparatus is impractical as sensors (= from the beginning, physicists have Not tried to make useful things or sensors in quantum mechanical research ).
Physicists are wasting their time in pursuing the useless nonphysical equations (= Kitaev chain, Majorana quasiparticle ) and publishing papers in journals, instead of really aiming to invent practical devices or cure diseases.
The 1st, 3rd, 6-8th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"One of the most fundamental interactions in physics is that of electrons and light... scientists have now managed to observe what is known as the Kapitza-Dirac effect for the first time in full temporal resolution (= false, No progress ). This effect was first postulated more than 90 years ago."
"In 1933, the two theorists Piotr Kapitza and Paul Dirac proved that an electron beam is even diffracted from a standing light wave (due to the particles' properties = false ) and that interference effects as a result of the wave properties are to be expected."
"In their experiment, the scientists in Frankfurt first fired two ultrashort laser pulses (= light wave, Not photon particle ) from opposite directions at a xenon gas. At the crossover point.. This tore electrons out of the xenon atoms, i.e., it ionized them."
"Very shortly afterward, the physicists fired a second pair of short laser pulses at the electrons released in this way, which also formed a standing wave at the center. These pulses were slightly weaker and did not cause any further ionization. They were, however, now able to interact with the free electrons, which could be observed with the help of a COLTRIMS reaction microscope"
"Either the electron does not interact with the light—or it is scattered to the left or to the right"
"According to the laws of quantum physics,.. The cloud-like space in which the electron—with a certain probability—is likely to be, collapses (= illusion, this 6th-paragraph )"
"This opens up many exciting applications in quantum physics. Hopefully, it will (= just speculation, still useless ) help us to track how electrons transform from 'quantum particles' into completely normal particles (= which means 'quantum particles' are abnormal, unreal things )"
↑ This experiment just vaguely (= not precisely ) measured interference of electrons (from ionized Xenon atoms) scattered by laser light wave (= Not photon particles, this p.7-Fig.1 ), and No occult quantum mechanics such as paradoxical wave-particle duality or parallel-universes ( this middle ) was involved. Only realistic classical mechanics, light wave, electron's de Broglie wave are related.
First of all, quantum mechanical ridiculous claim that each light or electron can be two different things: a particle and light at the same time is physically impossible.
If light is a photon particle, physicists have to give a precise size and shape of a photon, but they can never tell even how big each photon is for more than 100 years.
↑ The experimental fact that light always travels at the constant speed (= in the same medium ), splits and interferes shows light is definitely wave, Not an occult photon particle.
Photoelectric effect showed light's energy (interacting with each atom) is proportional to light frequency related to light wavelength, which is clearly a proof that light is wave (= light wavelength means "wave" ).
Quantum mechanics unscientifically claims that a real electron can absorb or emit only unreal virtual photon with imaginary mass in photoelectric effect (= if they obey total energy and momentum conservation law ).
The fact that light's frequency or wavelength is related to energy interacting with each electron is compatible with an electron's de Broglie wave's (kinetic) energy related to the wave's frequency (= light wave's frequency interacts with electron's de Broglie wave energy, so quantum photon particle is unnecessary ).
It is often said that classical light wave is always spreading over all space uniformly, so each tiny electron (= confined in each tiny atom ) would take too much time (= or causing time lag ) to absorb and accumulate weak light energy enough to cause photoelectric effect ( this p.3-4 ).
↑ This popular explanation is based on baseless assumption that light wave must always spread over all space uniformly.
Actually, light wave splits into tiny wave packets especially in weak light.
And light or electromagnetic wave is known to interact with Coulomb electric field of each electron (= instead of the tiny electron's charge itself ).
The electric field or de Broglie wave of each electron is known to spread over far larger or more distant area than a tiny single atom.
So the above popular explanation of photoelectric effect uses wrong classical wave or electron model.
As a result, the realistic light wave (= Not fictitious photon ) can perfectly explain the photoelectric effect between light wave and an electron (= each electron must include spreading Coulomb electric field around it ).
In Compton scattering, if light is a photon particle, the photon's speed must slow down after the photon is scattered by an electron and loses its energy.
But instead, light losing energy elongates its wavelength (= instead of slowing down ) after scattered by an electron.
So Compton scattering is also a proof that light is wave, Not a photon particle.
Quantum mechanical and Einstein relativistic photon particle picture without real medium causes serious paradoxes such as parallel-world interference, fictional virtual photons and electron's kinetic energy.
This latest experiment could not precisely measure or control the momentum transfer between light wave and an electron, so still impractical research (= just for the purpose of publishing papers in journals ).
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.2-last-paragraph says "an electron wave packet is released from a xenon atom upon strong-field ionization using a highly intense, pulsed standing light wave (pump pulse ← light is wave, Not a particle ). After a variable time delay, a weaker, non-ionizing, femtosecond standing light wave (probe pulse) is applied to diffract the emitted electron (de Broglie) wave packet"
p.3-1st-paragraph says "The three-dimensional momenta of the electrons were measured using a COLTRIMS reaction microscope (= which is just based on random electrons' scattering and time-of-flight measurement that cannot precisely measure each electron's momentum, this p.7, this p.4 )"
p.3-2nd-paragraph says "This observation is remarkably different from that of the
conventional Kapitza-Dirac effect, where the diffraction pattern shows a constant spacing of twophoton momenta (= this experiment failed to detect precise electron's momentum change )"
p.7-Fig.1 experimental setting.
As a result, there is No such thing as "quantum effect", quantum interference or quantum photon that failed to give detailed consistent explanation of physical mechanism.
The 1st 3-4th, 6th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"An international team.. has succeeded in creating a special state of superconductivity. This discovery could (= just speculation ) advance the development of quantum computers (= actually, this research has nothing to do with the hyped already-dead quantum computer, which does Not exist )."
"They combined the superconductor with a special semiconductor material known as a topological insulator (= useless pseudo-science, again ). Topological insulators are materials that conduct electricity on their surface but not inside"
"The superconductors and topological insulators were coupled to form a so-called Josephson junction, a connection between two superconductors separated by a thin layer of non-superconducting material"
"The special combination creates an exotic state in which superconductivity and magnetism are combined—normally these are opposite phenomena that rarely coexist. This is known as the proximity-induced Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (p-FFLO) state (= useless quantum mechanical concept except for journals )"
"Our discovery could help stabilize quantum bits so that they can be used in "quantum computers (= fake convenient target )" in the future (= just speculation, still useless research )."
↑ This research just measured the electric current (= I ) in some Josephson junction with thin topological insulator sandwiched by superconducting materials at extremely low temperature (= 24mK = impractical ) with No quantum mechanical prediction and No practical application.
This observed electric current I decreased, increased, decreased again under increasing external magnetic field (= Hx ), which is said to be related to (useless) quantum mechanical concept called FFLO state allegedly caused by fictional quasiparticle with fake effective mass ( this p.2-left-1st-paragraph ).
Josephson circuit could be used as quantum computer's bit or ( flux superconducting ) qubit where two opposite directions of electric current I could be used as qubit's 0 or 1 states.
↑ This flux superconducting qubit is known to be so unstable and impractical that No major companies are using this useless flux qubit except for D-Wave annealing machine that is Not a true quantum computer (= D-Wave cannot conduct ordinary gate-bit-operation based on quantum superposition ).
This latest research, which did Not conduct any (flux) qubit's operation, has nothing to do with (fictional deadend) quantum computers, contrary to the overhyped news.
Actually this research's abstract (= last ) just says
" This will (= just speculation ) enable the study of the (useless) Fulde–Ferrell–Larkin–
Ovchinnikov state in much more accessible experimental conditions" ← No mention of quantum computer that is used as fake targets of useless quantum mechanical concept (= FFLO state ) in overhyped news.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-left-2nd-paragraph says "The pFFLO state is responsible for, among other effects, the transition from a zero phase to a π phase (= unphysical phase ) in superconductor–normal–superconductor Josephson junctions ( JJs). This is actually a change in the ground state of the junction. It is detected as a re-entrant behaviour of the supercurrent. As a function of continuously varying a parameter, the observed critical current first decreases to zero and then increases again ( this Fig.2.d-k (vertical-line) current I at V = 0 is changing in different magnetic field Hx )"
p.4-left-2nd-paragraph says T0 = 730 mK (refs. 22–25) is an empirical fitting parameter (= just artificially fitting model's parameters to experimental results, No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation ).
This p.5-F Choice of fitting parmeters~p.7 used artificial model equation and two empirically fitting parameters ΔEmax and T0 = 730 mK that disagreed with other research's results ( this p.2-right-2nd-last paragraph used different T0 = 2.6 K ). ← different researches used different artificial parameters, No prediction.
As a result, to make the current impractical quantum mechanical researches "look promising", the already-deadend quantum computers are often used as fake future targets.
The 1st, 5th, 7th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"an international team.. succeeded in voltage-based magnetization switching and reading of magnetoelectric spin-orbit nanodevices (= actually this spin-orbit effect is paradoxical, Not happening ). This study constitutes a proof of principle of these nanodevices, which are the building blocks for magnetoelectric spin-orbit (MESO) logic, opening a new avenue for low-power beyond-CMOS technologies (= this research device suffered a lot of errors, impractical, far from "beyond-CMOS technologies", contrary to hypes )."
"magnetization is switched solely with a voltage pulse and is electrically read using spin-to-charge current conversion (SCC) phenomena (← So this device just read electric voltage switched by electric voltage, Neither magnetization nor fictional spin was necessary )."
"voltage pulses were applied to switch the BiFeO3, reversing the magnetization of CoFe (writing) and different SCC (= unseen fictional spin-current conversion ) output voltages were measured depending on the magnetization direction (reading). (← voltage-writing → unseen spin or magnetization → read output-voltage = No fictional quantum spin magnet or spin-orbit effect was necessary for this switch )"
"While further work is required in terms of controllability and reproducibility of the switching (= meaning still erroneous impractical switch ),.. these results provide a key step forward toward voltage-control of magnetization in nanoscale magnets, essential for future (= just speculation, still useless ) low-power spin-based logic and memory devices"
↑ This research just applied electric voltage to some material (= BiFeO3 ), which might cause magnetization in a ferromagnet (= CoFe ) which might cause inverse spin Hall effect (= magnetic → electric voltage conversion, which can be naturally explained by classical Magnus effect of electron's orbital motion instead of paradoxical spin-orbit effect, this 1st-paragraph ), which final electric voltage was detected with a lot of errors, No practical use, No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-Fig1c shows this device or one switch is as big as 1μm = 1000 nm, which is far bigger and more energy-inefficient than the already-used transistor switch of only 50nm.
p.2-right-1st-paragraph says "voltage pulses are applied to switch the BiFeO3, reversing the magnetization of CoFe (writing) and different SCC (= spin-current conversion ) output voltages are measured depending on the magnetization direction (reading)" ← electric voltage (= writing ) → electric voltage (= reading ), so No magnetization nor fictional spin, spin-orbit was necessary, then, the ordinary transistor switch is much better, more energy-efficient and reliable.
p.2-right-Results say "Voltages pulses (Vp) are applied between a metallic La0.7Sr0.3MnO3/SrRuO3 bottom electrode and the CoFe, so that the polarization (P) and the AF order (L) in the BiFeO3 can be switched, , the magnetization direction of CoFe (MCoFe) is also reversed, following the reversal of P and L, due to exchange coupling (= quantum exchange energy lacking real exchange force has No physical meaning, this p.8-last-paragraph, this-p.11-last. ← This is just electric voltage modifying the direction of ferromanget's electron's orbital motion, Not spin )"
"A spin-polarized current (Iin) is electrically driven from CoFe to Pt, where, at the Pt/CoFe junction, the (unseen) spins are converted into a (electric) charge current through the inverse spin Hall effect (ISHE) and picked up as a transverse voltage VSO" → Relativistic spin-orbit effect (= allegedly causing spin Hall effect ) depending on observers' viewpoints (= from electrons or nuclei ) is paradoxical and illusion.
p.3-right-1st-paragraph says "Out of 24 out-of-plane polarization switching events, we observed that the magnetization switched 13 times (54%) and did Not switch 11 times (46%)" ← error rate is about 50%, completely impractical switch.
p.7-Methods mentioned No quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction.
p.7-right-eletrical characterization showed the writing electric pulse duration took 200μs (= 0.2ms = write only 5000 bits/s ). ← The total time including reading was much longer and more useless than the current already-used hard-disk device that can transfer (= read+write ) 200MB/s (= 1600000000 bits /s )
This research device just the "input electric voltage" switched "output electric voltage" unstably with high error rate (= 50% error ), which (fictional spin) device can Not match the already-used compact, energy-efficient transistor that can also switch electric voltage by the input electric voltage more stably and efficiently.
The 1st, 4th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A research team.. experimentally realized it in antiferromagnetic materials with spin-splitting band structure (= unreal spin itself is unobservable though ).. The team also demonstrated the material's capability to manipulate Néel vector, paving the way for the manufacturing of ultrafast memory devices (= actually the opposite, this research device is an "ultraslow impractical" switch or memory )."
"The electrical 180° switching of the Néel vector (= which means direction of magnetization ) is a long-term objective for producing electrically controllable antiferromagnetic memory using opposite Néel vectors as binary "0" and "1"
"In the future,.. the team will (= just speculation, still useless ) explore more switching mechanisms and the underlying physics."
↑ This research just changed the direction of slight magnetization of an antiferromagnet by applying external magnetic field (+ electric field ), and this magnetization was detected as anomalous Hall effect (= based on classical Lorentz force bending electric current ) with No quantum mechanical prediction, No practical use.
Detection of this antiferromagnet's magnetization change (= between up and down ) as "memory bit" was extremely slow. ← One switch operation took as long as 10 seconds ! ( this p.7-left-transport measurements ), and this one switch was very big (= energy-inefficient ) about 10μm ( this p.6-Fig.4A ), which is completely impractical and inferior to the present already-used hard disk's faster and more compact memory bit which is only 50nm, and can switch more than 100000000 times per second (= speed is 200 MB/s ).
↑ This research paper ↓
p.3-Fig.2A, B shows the direction of magnetization (= M ) of antiferromagnet Mn3Si3 (= Mn compound is basically close to ferromagnet with intrinsic magnetization ) was changed under external magnetic field H like this, which was detected as anomalous Hall effect's electric resistance (= ρxy ) change at low temperature (= 150K = this device is useless at room temperature ).
p.4-left-2nd-paragraph says anomalous Hall effect (= AHE, which is due to material's internal magnetization generating classical Lorentz magnetic force turning electric current in the perpendicular direction detected as Hall current or Hall resistance ) might be caused by fictitious magnetic field called Berry curvature or phase ( this p.4-1st-paragraph ). ← unscientific quantum mechanics.
p.6-Fig.4A, B shows this one device or one switch is as big as 10μm (= an impractical bulky memory device compared to the already-used hard-disk more compact memory of only 50nm ), electrical switching WI (= electric pulse, writing taking 1ms ), RV (= reading by measuring the electric Hall voltage Vyx of anomalous Hall effect taking 10s, very slow ! p.7-left-3rd-paragraph ) at low temperature 180K (= not room temperature ) under external magnetic field H ±0.2kOe.
p.7-right-first principle calculation used impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT with VASP pseudo-potential. No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.5-last-paragraph, Jc prediction was wrong ).
As a result, this research just made an impractical antiferromagneic very slow (= opposite of the hyped ultrafast ) and bulky memory switch (= unusable at room temperature ), and tried to explain the antiferromagnetic internal small magnetization change (= detected as Hall electric resistance ) by using the unphysical fictitious magnetic field Berry curvature ( this p.1-left ) and pseudo-potential that clarified No real mechanism.
This research said antiferromagnetic magnetization was too weak to cause anomalous Hall effect (= so tried to rely on fictitious Berry phase ), but probably, the electric current flowing inside this antiferromagnet felt local internal magnetic field that was hard to detect from outside.
This research is also a typical example of researchers aiming only to publish papers in (top) journals ( whose nonphysical fictitious concept Berry curvature and monopole, this p.4~5 ) instead of aiming to make really practical devices or memories.
The 5-7th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Bridging this fundamental gap, where 2D magnetic materials can be electrically switched above room temperature without any magnetic fields, could potentially (= just speculation ) catapult the translation of 2D magnets into the next generation of "green" computers."
"A team of MIT researchers has now achieved this critical milestone by designing a van der Waals atomically layered heterostructure device where a 2D van der Waals magnet, iron gallium telluride (= Fe3GaTe2 ), is interfaced with another 2D material, tungsten ditelluride (= WTe2 )... the team shows that the magnet can be toggled between the 0 and 1 states simply by applying pulses of electrical current across their two-layer device."
"Our device enables robust magnetization switching without the need for an external magnetic field, opening up unprecedented opportunities for ultra-low power and environmentally sustainable computing technology for big data and AI (← This logic is weird and wrong, because magnetic field must be eventually generated by electric current like the already-existing hard disk that can also induce magnetization by electric field, so No difference. )"
"They are also hoping (= still unrealized ) to collaborate with other researchers to find ways to manufacture the 2D magnetic switch devices at commercial scale (= this research device is neither green nor practical, though )"
↑ This research just measured small magnetizing direction's change detected as anomalous Hall effect (= ferromagnet's internal magnetization causes classical Lorenz magnetic force to turn electric current in the direction perpendicular to the original current's direction with Hall resistance Rxy without external magnetic field ), when they applied electric current pulse to two thin layers consisting of ferromagnet (= Fe3GaTe2 ) and non-ferromagnet (= WTe2 ) with No quantum mechanical prediction and No practical use.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-Fig.1A,C (= scale bar = 10 μm = very big switch ! ) shows this one switch of magnetization (= 0 ↔ 1 ) under applied current I is much bigger, bulkier (= one bit is more than 10μm ! this p.2-3 ), more energy-inefficient, less green than the current already-used hard disk magnetization bit of only 50nm size.
p.5-Fig.4 shows depending on applied current I's direction, magnetization in the interface of two different layers slightly changes between up and down, which magnetization change could be detected as anomalous Hall effect (= due to Lorentz magnetic force acting on electric current ) or electric (Hall) resistance change (= Rxy becomes up and down ), which could be "green switch 0 ↔ 1" controlled by applied electric current I ? ← No.
↑ This magnetization switch is completely impractical, energy-inefficient, far from "green memory", contrary to the hypes.
Because each one bit switch (= bigger than 10μm, this p.2-3 ) is far bigger than the currently-used hard disc bit size of only 50nm.
And the speed at which this bulky switch changed between 0 and 1 was much much slower, whose one bit or one switch change takes as long as 1 second (= 1bit/s, this p.6-transport measurement says read pulse takes 999ms = 1 second ! this-D ), while the present hard disk, which is much faster, able to read or transfer more than 100 MB per second (= 800000000 bits/s ).
This p.6-first-principle calculation used the impractical one pseudo-electron DFT with artificially-created pseudo-potential (= allegedly including paradoxical spin-orbit effect in relativistic pseudo-potential ) with No quantum mechanical prediction. ← This research did Not compare theoretical prediction and experimental results.
↑ No (fictitious) spin in ferromagnet could be directly detected.
In the interface between these special thin materials, the (realistic) electric orbital motion (= Not spin ) was probably aligned (= orbital plane perpendicular to the material's layer's plane ), and the electric current I hit those electrons and changed the directions of the electrons' orbits up or down depending on the electric current I directions, which magnetization change was detected as the slight anomalous Hall effect's resistance change, which is trick of this research.
Anyway, this so-called "green device or switch" is completely useless, far bigger, bulkier, much much slower and more energy- inefficient than the current already-widely-used hard-disk magnetic storage device.
So meaningless except for publishing papers in journals.
The 1st, 3-4th, 7-8th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A team of researchers at Google Quantum AI and their collaborators showed this novel capability by studying dynamics in 1D quantum magnets, specifically chains of (nonphysical) spin-1⁄2 particles."
"conjecture that the spin dynamics in the spin-1⁄2 Heisenberg model are in the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) universality class (= abstract, useless equation needing many fitting parameters )"
"The KPZ equation was originally introduced to describe the stochastic (= just random ), nonlinear dynamics of driven interfaces and has proven to apply to a wide range of classical systems (= quantum mechanics is irrelevant )"
"Specifically, using a chain of 46 superconducting qubits (= just classical circuits irrelevant to unrealistic spin = they treated qubit's 0 and 1 as fictitious spin's up and down ), they measured the probability distribution of how many spins crossed the center of the chain (= how many qubits in the right side flipped from 0 to 1 ), a quantity known as the transferred magnetization."
"that they found clear deviations from the predictions for the KPZ universality class (= theory disagreed with experiments )"
"This work, published in Science, excellently represents the current exciting (= ambiguous, unscientific word ) era of quantum simulation (= which does Not even exist ), in which quantum processors allow for deepening our understanding of novel physical phenomena (= No mention of practical application, so useless research just generating random meaningless numbers )."
↑ This research just measured how many superconducting qubits in the right half (= 23 qubits ) of Google 46-qubit quantum computer flipped from 0 to 1 randomly with a lot of errors, and No meaningful computation.
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.1-right-I. shows the nonphysical old Heisenberg spin equation lacking real particle (or spin ) figures.
p.2-Fig.1B shows (meaningless) random flipping of qubits.
p.2-right-(4) shows "transferred magnetization M" meaning the net number of zeros (or 1 ) that
have crossed from the right (or left ) to the left (or right) in ramdom qubit change.
p.9-1st-paragraph says "Finally, all 46 qubits are measured in the computational basis. Because ideal fSim gates are number-conserving, we post-select on the measured bitstrings having the correct number of 1s, effectively mitigating against photon loss, which otherwise causes the number of 1s to decay (= number of "1" qubit state decreased in each qubit operation, which errors must be artificially post-rejected )."
p.10-Fig.S1A shows the fraction of total counts that passed the post-selection (= artificially discarding erroneous qubits ), which is just 1/100 (= 10-2 ) of the total samples after 10 qubit operations, so the error rate of this Google 46-qubit quantum computer is more than 99% (= after just 10 qubit operations or 10 cycle numbers ), which is useless for actual calculation, showing why the current quantum computers could only generate random meaningless numbers (= which could mask errors ) in fake quantum supremacy.
As a result, even the current state-of-the-art Google quantum computer with (only) 46 qubits (= still far from practically-required millions of qubits ) can only give erroneous wrong numbers (= with 99% error rate, this p.3-upper says Google's fidelity is only 0.2% ), which can be used only for outputting random meaningless numbers or flipping qubits randomly with 99% error rate or only 0.01 of samples post-selected (= valuable only for journals' or prize's pseudo-science ) with No ability to calculate useful correct values.
The 1st, 4-5th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The full power of next-generation quantum computing could soon be harnessed by millions of individuals and companies (= lie ), thanks to a breakthrough by scientists at Oxford University Physics guaranteeing security and privacy. This advance promises (= just speculation ) to unlock the transformative potential of cloud-based quantum computing (= actually, this research has nothing to do with cloud-based quantum computers )"
"..blind quantum computing with trapped ions and single photons"
""We have shown for the first time that quantum computing in the cloud can be accessed in a scalable, practical way (← false, this research used only two trapped ions or two qubits with a lot of errors, impractical, Not a computer at all, this p.3-Fig.2 ) which will also give people complete security and privacy of data"
"In the new study, the researchers use an approach dubbed "blind quantum computing," which connects two totally separate quantum computing entities (= false, No quantum computers appeared in this research )— potentially (= just speculation ) an individual at home or in an office accessing a cloud server—in a completely secure way. Importantly, their new methods could be scaled up to large quantum computations (= but still only two qubits )."
↑ This research used only two trapped ions as two qubits (= each ion's two energy levels were used as one bit's 0 or 1 states ), which state (= encoded into light's polarization ) was sent to the other person who measured the light polarization, and communicated some information (= how to modify ion's qubit ) by ordinary classical network, No quantum computing, a lot of errors, No practical use, contrary to hypes.
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.3-Fig.2 shows this research used only two trapped ions (= Ca+ and Sr+ ) as two qubits (= 00, 11, 01 = still Not a computer at all ) which falls far short of the future practical quantum computer that is said to need more than millions of qubits ( this 1st-paragraph ). ← Impossible
p.4-right says the trap qubit failure rate is 0.21 (= more than 20% error rate in only two ions or two qubits, this p.4-right ), which cannot make any practical reliable computers at all.
p.5-left-1st-paragraph says "The protocol that we have implemented does Not incorporate error correction; (= The present quantum computers cannot even correct errors )"
This supplemental paper ↓
p.9-protocol showed a client (= receiver ) used ordinary classical communication to send the unitary U (= how to modify the target single ion qubit = Not a quantum computer ) to the server (= sender ) who changed the ion qubit state and sent this qubit information to client using weak light or photon (= high error rate ), No meaningful computation (= only two bits 01, which can calculate nothing ), much less "secure quantum computing at home".
As a result, despite decades of researches, the so-called quantum computer is still "two qubits or two impractical trapped ions" in this case with a lot of errors (= No error correction ), which clearly shows quantum computers are already-deadend pseudo-science valueless except for journals.
↑ To hide this fact of already-dead hopeless quantum computer from ordinary people, the academia and media tend to spread overhyped baseless news every day.
The 2nd, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Now, using neutron spectroscopy experiments,. a team.. has unveiled the unique movement of triphenylphosphine (PPh3) molecules on graphite surfaces, a behavior akin to a nanoscopic moon lander."
"Understanding the detailed mechanisms of molecular motion at the nanoscale opens up new avenues (= ambiguous expression, No mention of detailed practical application ) for the fabrication of advanced materials with tailored properties"
↑ This research just measured the energy change of neutron scattered from the molecule of triphenylphosphine, and tried to explain it using unphysical quantum mechanical model lacking real physical picture, No practical application, No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.3-left-experimental results mention quasielastic neutron scattering that just vaguely estimated how much energy neutrons lost (= energy transfer ) by scattering fitted to some scattering function, which could not show detailed molecular motion ( this p.4-6 ).
p.6-left-upper says molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulation deviate significantly from the experimental values.
p.7-right computational details used the impractical DFT treating the whole material as one-pseudo-electron spreading as unphysical plane wave (= each atom has No shape nor boundary, contrary to this hyped colorful picture ) through artificially-chosen pseudo-potential in CASTEP code ( this p.3-right-2. ) and intermolecular dispersion exchange-correlation functional with empirically-fitting free parameters ( this p.4-left-3rd-paragraph ). ← No quantum mechanical prediction
p.7-right used the extremely-time-consuming force-field molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulation that could simulate only very short-time motion (= only 30ps, this p.4-left-1st-paragraph ) that is unable to simulate many important molecular or protein behaviors with more than millisecond time scale, so useless.
↑ As a result, quantum mechanical unphysical model (= one-pseudo-electron DFT, time-consuming MD ) lacking real atomic shapes prevent researchers from advancing from one molecular simulation to multi-molecular practical device forever.
The 1st, 3rd, 9th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A team of scientists has developed a method that harnesses the structure of light to twist and tweak the properties of quantum materials (= ambiguous "quantum" something ). Their results, published today in Nature, pave the way for advancements in next generation quantum electronics, quantum computing and information technology (← so many hypes, actually, this research has nothing to do with quantum electronics, computing or information )."
"The way the light wave is twisted also allows researchers to precisely control the material's quantum properties (= ambiguous "quantum" properties ).. which are essential for electricity and data flow. This ability to control quantum properties on demand could pave the way for creating ultrafast quantum switches for future (= just speculation, still useless ) technologies (← actually this research has nothing to do with practical switch )"
"The researchers' ability to manipulate the quantum valleys (= this unphysical band minimum valley with fictional quasiparticle model is their so-called "quantum properties" ) in hBN (= hexagonal boron nitride ) could lead to.. ultrafast quantum switches.. This will (= still useless ) allow for faster, more efficient ways of processing and storing information (= false, this research's switched "quantum band valley properties" lasted for only extremely short 60 fs, which cannot be used for storing any information, this p.5-left-3rd-paragraph-valley lifetime is only 60 fs )."
↑ This research just illuminated and excited some material (= hBN, boron nitride ) with laser polarized light (= pump and probe lights ), and saw how this (probe) light's polarization changed (= Neither quantum properties nor unphysical band valleys were directly seen ).
This transient state (of quantum properties or unphysical band valleys ) excited by (pump) laser light lasted for too short (= just 60 fs, this p.5-left-3rd-paragraph ) to use as switch storing information. ← No practical use, No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-light analogue of Haldane model says "Two counter-rotating circularly polarized fields of frequencies ω and 2ω combine to produce a strong tailored light wave whose projection on the hBN crystal.. modifies the CNNN hopping and band structure (= of unphysical useless Haldane model lacking real particle picture, this p.3 )"
p.2-right-last-paragraph says "Thus, in the presence of the laser-induced valley-contrasting band structure modification indicated above, the resulting (unphysical) valley populations should oscillate.. (= laser switching unobservable valley-band structure is just imagination )"
p.3-Fig.2 shows pump and probe laser light got through the material and split into two polarized lights that were detected at photodiodes. ← No (fictional) quantum computation was related.
p.4-left-3rd-paragraph mentions fictitious magnetic field called Berry curvature ( this p.4-1st-paragraph ), which unphysical concept is the mechanism behind this ambiguous quantum band valley ?
p.5-right says "we estimated that hBN has a valley lifetime of about 60fs at ambient temperature when driven by strong, tailored light fields.. These results may (= just speculation ) encourage future studies of room-temperature ultrafast switches with strong tailored light.. (= the laser-induced band-valley change lasted for only ultrashort 60fs, which cannot be used for practical switch storing information for practically-long time )"
p.8-right-numerical calculations used artificially-chosen free parameters. ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
As a result, this research just illuminated some material with laser light whose polarization change was interpreted as the (impractical) switch of imaginary quantum properties or unseen band valleys which state lasted for only extremely short time of 60fs, which is completely useless for data storage or switch except for publishing papers in journals.
The 1st, 4-6th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"An international research team.. has demonstrated experimentally that electrons in naturally occurring double-layer graphene move like particles without any mass (= fictional massless Dirac quasiparticle ). Furthermore, they have shown that the current can be "switched" on and off, which has potential (= just speculation ) for developing tiny, energy-efficient transistors—like the light switch in your house but at a nanoscale (= hype, this research's tool was opposite from the energy-efficient tiny transistors )."
"In graphene, however, such a "switch" in the speed of the carrier cannot be easily achieved... which has limited graphene's potential a transistor (= impractical, hopeless graphene )."
"University team have now found that two graphene layers,.. a structure that supports the amazingly fast motion of electrons moving like light as if they had no mass (= fictional massless particle ), in addition to an insulating state. The researchers showed that this condition can be changed by the application of an electric field applied perpendicularly to the material, making the double-layer graphene insulating."
"While these experiments were carried out at cryogenic temperatures—at around 273° below freezing (= almost absolute zero temperature )—they show the potential of bilayer graphene to make highly efficient transistors (= operating only at extremely-low, almost absolute zero temperature is completely impractical, unable to make any energy-efficient transistors or switches )."
"The next step for researchers will (= just speculation, still useless ) be to see if bilayer graphene really can improve transistors or to investigate the potential.."
↑ This research just measured electric conductance (= G or Hall electric conductance based on classical Lorentz magnetic force ) of the bilayer graphene, which electric conductance was varied depending on the magnitude of applied electric (= D ) and magnetic (= B ) fields, at extremely-low, almost absolute-zero temperature (< 0.1 K, this Fig.2c ), which can Not be energy-efficient transistors at all.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.2-left-Results say ". All
measurements were performed in a cryostat at a temperature of 10 mK (= impractically-low, almost-absolute-zero temperature )"
"By varying both gate voltages, we were able to tune the charge
carrier density (n) and the electric displacement field (D)"
p.2-Fig.1 shows unphysical band model with Dirac cone meaning fictional massless Dirac quasiparticle.
p.3-left mentions "measured two-terminal (electric) conductance |dG/
dn| as a function of n (= carrier density ) and B (= magnetic field ) at D = 0 V/nm (= electric field). Quantum Hall states appear
as plateaus in the conductance and thus as dips in |dG/dn|"
p.3-right-1st-paragraph says "this two-fold degeneracy is
only observed in our experimental data but Not visible in the calculated
inverse compressibility (= theoretical prediction was wrong )"
p.4-5,Fig.3e, Fig.4 also just measured the electric conductance (= G ) under different magnetic (= B ) and electric (= D ) field. ← No (fictional) massless electron nor Dirac quasiparticle was directly observed.
p.5-right-Methods used artificially-chosen parameters (= choosing different models' parameters made different inconsistent predictions, this p.6-right-3rd-paragraph ) ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
p.6-left-7th-paragraph says "Without aiming for an exact quantitative description, we estimate the rough magnitude of U.. (= No exact quantitative prediction )"
This p.13 shows this so-called "graphene switch" was very bigger (= more than 20μm or 20000nm size ), bulkier (= Not tiny ), more energy-inefficient than the already-used ordinary compact transistors (< 50 nm size ).
As a result, this research just measuring electric conductance in very cold bulky graphene at impractically-low temperature (< 1 K ), which has nothing to do with "dreamlike energy-efficient tiny transistor switch usable in your house", contrary to the hypes.
And the overhyped wonder graphene has been deadend, useless ( this 6th-paraggraph ) except as fictional scientific target of the impractical quantum mechanical concepts of journals.
The 1-2nd, 10-11th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Silicon-based electronics are approaching their physical limitations and new materials are needed to keep up with current technological demands. Two-dimensional (2D) materials.. are promising candidates for use in electronic systems, such as transistors (= hype, this research has nothing to do with transistors, and rather regressing technology instead of keeping up with demands )."
"researchers.. have developed a method to visualize the thermally-induced rearrangement of 2D materials, atom-by-atom, from twisted to aligned structures using transmission electron microscopy (TEM)." ← just "visualize atoms", No transistors nor practical devices were involved.
"The encapsulated bilayer was then put on a chip that could be heated and cooled quickly. To capture the fast atomic dynamics, the sample underwent half-second heat pulses (= each heat pulse took 0.5 second, too slow process to make transistors, = regressing technology ) between 100–1000°C. After each pulse, the team would look at where the atoms were using TEM and then repeat the process."
"That can help us understand both the initial structure as it is fabricated and how it evolves with heat (← No mention of detailed practical use nor transistors )."
↑ This research just observed the change of arrangement of two atomic layers after applying heat pulses (= each heat pulse time duration is 0.5 second ) by the very old technology of transmission electron microscope. No practical use, No quantum mechanical prediction.
Observing atomic layers using transmission electron microscopes based on de Broglie wave is very old technique (= almost 100-year-old microscopes ), so just seeing atoms by this very old microscopes with No practical application means the current nano-technology has substantially made No progress for 100 years due to unphysical quantum mechanical model.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-abstract-last says ".. illustrates the potential (= just speculation ) to pattern interfacial structure and properties of 2D materials at the nanoscale (= No mention of practical use nor transistors )."
p.2-Fig.1 shows the change of arrangement of two atomic layers of MoSe2/WSe2 by repeated heat pulses (= each pulse duration is 0.5s ) observed by the very old technique of the transmission electron microscope, like in the remaining Fig.2-4. ← Just 'seeing' it by microscope, No checking of properties of these materials, No practical use
p.5-7-Materials and methods mentioned No quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction, because simulating more than 0.5 seconds of the heat-stimulated atomic change is out of reach of even the current fastest molecular dynamics (= MD ) with extremely-short fs time step ( this p.5-lower ).
As a result, this research just seeing some atomic arrangement change by very old microscopy after heating has nothing to do with practical application, so the hyped media needed to imply "fictional targets" such as irrelevant transistors or the possibility of beyond-silicon-based-electronics (= never happen by impractical quantum mechanics ), as shown in the 1st-paragraph of this news.
The 1~3rd paragraphs of this hyped news say
"An international research team.. has discovered that the magnetic nanobubbles known as skyrmions (= fictional quasiparticle ) can be moved by electrical currents, attaining record speeds up to 900 m/s (= but not so fast, and they could move only very short several micrometers due to skyrmion's very short lifetime, completely impractical. Skyrmion usually collapses and annihilates within 1 μs = too short to use as memory, this p.8 )."
"Anticipated as future (= just speculation, still useless ) bits in computer memory, these nanobubbles offer enhanced avenues for information processing in electronic devices. Their tiny size provides great computing and information storage capacity (= false, skyrmion quasiparticle's lifetime is extremely short, only less than microseconds, which can Not be used as storage at all. ), as well as low energy consumption."
"Until now, these nanobubbles moved no faster than 100 m/s, which is too slow for computing applications. However, thanks to the use of an antiferromagnetic material as medium, the scientists successfully had the skyrmions move 10 times faster than previously observed."
↑ This research just moved several tiny magnetic swirls treated as fictional skyrmion quasiparticles irregularly over only micrometer short distance by electric pulses, and they did Not perform any writing nor reading of data on these skyrmion quasiparticles, so this research has nothing to do with storage memory. No practical application.
First of all, the lifetime of this extremely-unstable magnetic swirl (= due to electrons' complex orbital motions ) treated as fictional skyrmion quasiparticle at room temperature is only less than a few microseconds (= μs, this p.4-right, p.5-Fig.5, this p.6-right ), which is impossible to use as stable storage memory device.
This last paragraph says "the estimated lifetime of skyrmions was only 2.117 ns" ← Completely-useless skyrmion quasiparticle memory.
Furthermore, manipulating this fictional skyrmion quasiparticle precisely (= for practical purpose ) is impossible.
This abstract says "Still, the utilization of skyrmions in spintronic devices has Not been achieved yet"
This-9th-paragraph says
"It all sounds very good, but the problem with skyrmions today is that they are very difficult to measure and read... This makes it extremely expensive to read information, and therefore skyrmions cannot yet be used as storage media."
↑ This research paper ( this ↓ )
p.1-last-paragraph says "However, ferromagnetic (FM) skyrmions suffer from several limitations in view of
applications (= still No practical use)"
p.2-1st-paragraph says "demonstrating their current-induced dynamics remains challenging"
p.5-Fig.3 shows several black irregular things (= corresponding to fictional skyrmion quasiparticles or magnetic swirling ) detected by magnetic force microscope moved very short distance (= only μm ) irregularly (= cannot be used as controllable memory device ) after applied electric pulse. ← No operation of writing or reading of skyrmion's bit memories.
p.6-Fig.4C, p.7-Fig.5 show this skyrmion magnetization moved for only extremely short time less than 1 ns (= skyrmion's lifetime is too short to use as data storage ).
p.8-last-paragraph says "we performed micromagnetic simulations using experimental magnetic and transport parameters (← No quantum mechanical prediction )"
p.10 mentions fictitious effective mass.
p.20-middle mentions parameters artificially obtained from experiments.
p.44- these skyrmion magnetic quasiparticle's size was too irregular to use as reliable memory bits.
As a result, contrary to the hypes, this fictional skyrmion quasiparticle or magnetic swirling was hard to control and too short-lived (= lifetime is less than 1 μs ) to use as practical storage memory even after longtime researches. ← useless except for journals' impractical pseudo-science like "topological" something.
The 3-6th, 8th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"the particles in such a system interact, meaning that they attract or repel each other, like electrons in solids. Studying topology and interactions together in solids, however, is extremely difficult. A team of researchers.. has now managed to detect topological effects (= ambiguous 'topological' something ) in an artificial solid, in which the interactions can be switched on or off using magnetic fields (← This research was about fake artificial solid instead of real solid )."
"Their results, which appear in Science, could be used in quantum technologies (= ambiguous quantum technology ) in the future (= just speculation, still useless )".
"his colleagues constructed the artificial solid using extremely cold atoms (fermionic potassium K atoms), which were trapped in spatially periodic lattices using laser beams. Additional laser beams caused the energy levels of adjacent lattice sites (= cold K atoms trapped in laser light were used as fake solid, which has nothing to do with clarifying real mechanism nor future technology )"
"After some time, the researchers measured the positions of the atoms in the lattice"
"that obstacle was an additional laser beam that restricted the freedom of movement of the atoms in the longitudinal direction."
"the transport of atoms or ions by topological pumping could (= just speculation ) be used as a qubit highway to take the qubits (quantum bits) in quantum computers to the right places (= just moving atoms has nothing to do with quantum computing that is used as fake target for impractical quantum mechanical pseudo-science )"
↑ This research just treated cold K atoms trapped in laser light as fake solid's fictitious electrons, and moved those K atomic cloud by laser, with No practical application, and No relation to (hyped) quantum computers.
↑ This research paper ( this or this ↓ )
p.1-abstract-last says "We establish that a non-zero repulsive (useless) Hubbard interaction leads to the emergence of an additional edge in the system, relying on a purely interaction-induced mechanism, in which pairs of fermions are split" ← No mention of detailed practical application nor quantum computers, contrary to the hyped media.
p.1-left-last-paragraph says "The experiments are performed with ultracold fermionic potassium-40 (= K ) atoms, which are loaded into a three-dimensional optical (= laser light ) lattice (= as fake solid )"
p.1-right shows unphysical abstract Rice-Mele-Hubbard Hamiltonian with No real particle pictures, which cannot clarify or explain detailed atomic mechanism.
p.3-Fig.2, p.4-Fig.3 show vague atomic cloud's distribution and motion without distinguishing each single atom nor manipulating single atomic state (= so this research has nothing to do with quantum computer that must distinguish and manipulate each single atom as a qubit ).
p.5-left mentions Berry phase (or curvature = fictitious magnetic field, this p.1-right-last-paragraph ) and Chern number (= fictitious monopole ), which are unphysical models.
p.7-right-last~p.8-left used artificial parameters for unphysical models with No quantum mechanical prediction.
As a result, this experiment just vaguely moved clouds of potassium atoms by laser light, which has nothing to do with practical technology nor quantum computers that are often used as fake scientific target of these impractical quantum mechanical concepts.
Feel free to link to this site.
