June 23, 2026 • 40 mins
In Episode 143, Patrick and Ciprian break down Microsoft's Majorana 2 announcement and what it means for the future of topological quantum computing. The team cover the physics behind the tetron architecture, why switching from aluminum to lead in the nanowire construction matters, and what coherence times north of twenty seconds — and in some cases a full minute — represent for the field. The conversation weighs Microsoft's history of playing close to the vest, the DARPA program backing the approach, and the newly aggressive 2029 commercial timeline. Patrick and Ciprian also disclose their long history as Microsoft partners and VPs, and close with a broader look at where the modality race stands heading into what may be the final stretch of the NISQ era.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:40):
Hey Tiffrian, how are you doing?
SPEAKER_02 (00:42):
Hey Patrick.
I'm doing well.
Looking forward to anotherepisode of Entangle Things.
SPEAKER_01 (00:47):
It's just us this time, and there's lots of big
news, but we've picked what wethink might be uh the biggest
news.
So um Microsoft has announcedthe Majorana 2, um, which is
still not, they're not shippinga chip, if I understand
correctly.
SPEAKER_02 (01:03):
Well, part of their road towards um materializing
their vision on topologicalquantum computing, right?
Using the uh a phenomenon or aconstruct that is called the
Majorana Zero mode to buildsignificantly more stable qubits
(01:28):
using the Majorana virtualparticle.
And it's interesting because uhit looks like they've made some
significant progress since uhthe previous announcement.
SPEAKER_01 (01:39):
So my understanding from and and I I've read a lot
about this, but especially inthe first round, is they've
taken basically an idea wherethey can use this Majorana
fermion to build a structure,and that structure acts like a
quantum circuit, a quantumstring kind of, in in the same
(02:00):
way that a superconducting qubitis a construct as well.
But the big thing here is Iheard it described as imagine a,
you know the building in um uhMalaysia, the one with the that
the two big buildings andthey're connected on the trauma
stallion Kuala Lumpur, yeah.
Exactly.
So I picture it like that, theway it was described, where if
(02:26):
if one of the legs were takenout, it still could stand.
And so that reduces the riskthat a an errant gamma particle
or some heat or something likethat could take out the whole
structure.
In other words, it introduces astructural fault tolerance to
the the actual qubit that makesit more resilient and therefore
(02:50):
more almost immune to the noise,because the odds that both those
legs are going to get taken outat the same time is near zero
and they're far enough apart.
Now, is part of the newarchitecture that they've gotten
them further apart becausethat's where is that where the a
thousand times more reliablecame from?
Or because they say logical,larger topological gap in the
(03:14):
information that that that youhave shared with me?
SPEAKER_02 (03:18):
Well, I think the the most important uh, let's say
structural change is that theychange materials.
Um and and it's it's interestinguh just to to remind to our
listeners, right?
We are as opposed to, forinstance, uh photonics, right,
(03:39):
where uh we are really talkingabout uh particles that act as
uh qubits, right?
In this case, we are talkingabout what is commonly referred
in physics as a virtualparticle, which essentially
means that's pretty much likethe um uh approach with the uh
the superconducting qubits,right?
(04:02):
It's essentially a structure,it's a physical structure that
ends up acting like a qubit.
And in this particular case, thething that acts like a uh acts
like a qubit is this comes as avery surprising thing, is the
parity of electrons in uh uhwhat is called a nanowire.
(04:24):
Right.
So if you have an odd number ofelectrons, you have one state.
SPEAKER_01 (04:29):
If you have a um uh uh uh change it right with plus
one or minus one, even evenversus odd numbers of you have
you have the other state.
No, and that's a readable statebecause of these the effects.
Uh there's an a name for thateffect, I can't remember what it
is off the top of my head.
SPEAKER_02 (04:48):
This essentially is is built around what is called a
nanowire, which is uh like asuper, super, super, super uh uh
thin like layer of of material.
And what Microsoft said in theirannouncement that one of the big
breakthroughs came fromreplacing aluminum, which is one
(05:09):
of the well-known materials usedfor superconducting, right?
Uh with lead.
Really?
Yes.
Yeah, that's that's one of theuh uh one of the interesting uh
uh one of the interestingthings.
And that resulted insignificantly better protection
from uh interesting.
SPEAKER_01 (05:28):
I mean there's an old old saying from the you
know, maybe before theIndustrial Revolution, cheap as
lead.
Because you'd think that they'dgo to something quixotic like a
rare earth or nimobidium or oneof those others that's hard to
get.
It's good to hear that they'regoing to cheaper materials from
from even though aluminum ispretty cheap, too.
(05:48):
So the claims are a thousandtimes more reliability.
And the and the whole promise ofthis, the whole promise of
Microsoft's approach is ratherthan go down the road that
others have gone down,photonics, superconducting
qubits, what what really hasbeen showing a lot of promise
lately, which is uh neutrali, uhneutral or or ionized atoms,
(06:11):
neutral atoms or ion ion uh ionatoms.
Um they've decided to go back tosomething that had more promise
for scale, but was a muchfurther back starting gate.
And they had that false stepback in, I think it was 2018.
I know I know it was before westarted the podcast.
SPEAKER_02 (06:31):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (06:32):
And so they've been very playing close to the chest,
almost like you know, they'rethey're afraid to make a
mistake, and we understand that.
But Microsoft has a reputationfor getting shellacked, then
going back to the drawing boardwith their massive Microsoft
research organization, and thencoming out with something like
Internet Explorer.
(06:53):
Remember in the in the browserwars, they they were they
weren't a they were a no-show,and then they came in and
dominated.
So I really never count themout, and but I wish they would
talk about this stuff more.
Do you think, are you seeing anysigns that they might start
talking about this more nowbecause it was Sacha Nagella
that made the announcement,correct?
SPEAKER_02 (07:13):
Yes, yeah, yeah.
And I well, it's it'sunderstandable um that there is
a certain, let's say, uh maybenot fear, but reluctance uh to
talking publicly about thesethese things, especially from
some of the some of thebacklash, right?
(07:36):
Remember, probably out of thecompanies that are out there
trying to build reliable umcommercial grade quantum
computers, Microsoft is one thatfaces probably one of the
heaviest scrutinies, right,because of the previous um uh
let's call them issues, but alsobecause the the physics itself
(08:00):
that is involved, right, um hassparked some intense debate um
uh uh in the world of physics,right?
SPEAKER_01 (08:10):
Yeah, this the skeptical camp is still claiming
that there's no definitive proofthat it exists.
Yes, yes, that it's doing whatit's supposed to do.
SPEAKER_02 (08:19):
There's an interesting also uh kind of
twist here, but before that, Ijust want to mention, right,
it's not necessarily a thousandtimes more reliable, it's a
thousand times longer in termsof preserving state.
Right?
So essentially they claim thatthey were able to get to
(08:44):
lifetimes of uh north of 20seconds.
Which is a long time in thiswhich is an eternity in in in
quantum computing, right?
And in some isolated cases,those states were consistent for
up to for up to one minute,right?
SPEAKER_01 (09:01):
Yeah, I I misread that.
I it's a thousand times longerthan earlier devices and a
thousand-fold improvement instability.
SPEAKER_02 (09:08):
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
SPEAKER_01 (09:10):
Which which could be read as reliability.
SPEAKER_02 (09:12):
Exactly.
Well, this is actually in itselfa very significant achievement
because that means that thetypes of qubits that they are
building show at least thepotential, right, of being
stable uh for way longer thanneeded to perform meaningful uh
(09:35):
uh computation.
And I think that's one of thefundamental reasons why
Microsoft chose to uh the pathof topological quantum
computing, because and we'vesaid it many times, right, if it
works, and it's still an if, butif it works, right, it works in
(09:55):
a very reliable way because it'sit's almost like those those
virtual particles are built, areengineered basically to be uh um
protected from interference uhfrom the from the outside world.
SPEAKER_00 (10:11):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (10:11):
And that's I I I think that's still the uh let's
say the big prize uh in terms oftopological quantum computing,
right?
If you can build a qubit basedon uh on the topological
approach, then it's very likelythat it's gonna be a very stable
qubit.
SPEAKER_01 (10:30):
Yeah, so the the the another I love analogy.
So like if you think about WorldWar II and fighter planes, if if
one side said, you know what,we're gonna use propeller planes
and we're gonna like massproduce those and we're gonna go
all into that, we're not gonnaworry about future technologies.
And the other side says, well,we're gonna build jets, which no
one's ever heard of, and theymight not work, and you know, we
(10:51):
have to start from square one,and we're gonna take a beating
for a number of years while wedevelop these jets, because
we're not gonna put anythinginto propeller planes.
In the end, they're gonna racepast everybody.
And that's the the expectationor the the concern, I guess.
So DARPA, um, the the U.S.
(11:12):
Defense Advanced ResearchPlanning Agency, I think, I
think I got that name right, um,will make bets.
They'll go and coordinate withcompanies that they think are
gonna disrupt the space.
And it was very telling that acouple of years ago, Microsoft
was one, normally it's smallcompanies and and and university
spin-offs that they're talkingto.
They talk to Microsoft becausethey they recognize that if this
(11:36):
play works, it would take a longtime to even catch up with
everybody.
But if it did, it could raceahead.
And that's we're kind of peopleare starting to declare that the
NISC level, the noisyintermediate quantum computing
age, is coming to an end.
And if that's the case, then youknow, 2029, 2030 could be huge.
(11:59):
I mean, you you know that Mikeuh Google has reined in their Q
day prediction to 2029 and saidthey'll be they'll be you know
quantum secure by that time.
Now they're they're makingquantum processors, so they you
know they might know a littlebit about what's going on.
So it seems like the industry islooking at Microsoft as a dark
(12:20):
horse, but it's still earlydays, and we still, you know,
2029 is still a good ways away.
Um when do you think it will besettled that they've either
found put lightning in a bottleor they went down the wrong path
and it's a it's a coal mine?
SPEAKER_02 (12:37):
Well, the fact that that this ball still keeps
rolling, right, despite all thesetbacks, uh the fact that a
giant like Microsoft continuesto pour money um and in
non-trivial amounts, right?
(12:58):
That for me is a telling signthat there is definitely
something there.
SPEAKER_01 (13:02):
Cool.
SPEAKER_02 (13:03):
Because I think Microsoft, like we know the
Microsoft from the modern age,right?
The Microsoft that um had itsstock uh uh growing from the
almost fixed price of$30, right,to super high levels.
The the modern Microsoft is avery pragmatic company, right?
(13:25):
And and we've seen uh write-offsin the amount of of billions and
billions of dollars, right?
When things were proven thatthey they just don't work.
Think of the phone sada, right?
I think that ended up being avery good thing.
SPEAKER_01 (13:42):
Well, they don't they don't hold on overly long,
they they don't have the sunkcost paranoia where well we
spent so much money, we gottakeep going.
They don't do that.
SPEAKER_02 (13:52):
Yeah, yeah.
So this this is a sign for me,right?
That uh and that there was aninteresting, there was a very
interesting statement from uhChatan Dayak, who's the
Microsoft Technical Fellow, um,deeply involved, right, in the
uh in the quantum research.
Was a very interesting statementfor for me.
(14:13):
Basically, he said our aim is toinvent the transistor for the
quantum age.
Yes, right, yeah.
And that's uh uh uh a clearanalogy to the way classical
computing developed, right?
When you've had lots and lots ofmodalities, right, to build
computers, and all of a suddenthe very stable and efficient
(14:38):
and scalable one namedtransistor emerged, right?
SPEAKER_01 (14:42):
Well, and we started with vacuum tubes.
You can't forget that.
SPEAKER_02 (14:45):
Yeah, exactly.
SPEAKER_01 (14:46):
So there were there were modalities before the
transistor.
SPEAKER_02 (14:49):
And I I I think the kind of the view, right, and the
vision is we're gonna take avery big risk uh in trying to
materialize a concept and atechnology that would be
probably similar to the conceptof a transistor from from
classical computing, right?
(15:10):
Because the other thing that'sthat's that's interesting with
uh the approach that Microsofthas is that if you get, I don't
know, two or four or eightqubits working from two or four
or eight qubits to a millionqubits, it's literally a matter
of just linear scaling, right?
(15:33):
It's not a problem of now youhave too many layers, now you
have interference, now you havethings like that, right?
And and this is the right pointto mention something, Patrick,
that is, I think also, at leastto me, is is is extremely
interesting, right?
We've talked to a lot of peoplewho are um essentially handling
(15:55):
their qubits with tweezers andand with all sorts of things,
right?
The way the the Microsoft chipworks is that the actual
handling of of the qubits isdone with measurements.
And that's that's relativelyunique, right?
(16:17):
The way you you handle yourqubit is actually through
through measurements.
And this is also one of theareas where the skeptics, uh the
skeptics were, yeah, yeah, yeah,right, but you only produce the
details about what we call the Zmeasurements, the X
measurements, but you haven'tproduced details with the Z
(16:38):
measurements, because those arelike essentially across
different axes.
So Microsoft still has to prove,has to produce the hard data for
that.
It is essentially referred to inthe paper that they um they
announced, but the data stillhas to be published.
So that's very interesting.
So we're not going to be able todo that.
But long story short, I thinkthe um I think there is some
(17:02):
some very significant potential.
And the fact that a verypragmatic organization like
Modern Microsoft keeps pushingthis tells me that despite of
the previous setbacks and thecriticism and the pushback,
right?
I think there is there isdefinitely something there.
SPEAKER_01 (17:20):
Yeah.
And and we've said that that wemay not have one modality to
rule them all.
This might be a modality thatworks in certain areas far
better than others, and it mightman, it might not even work out.
When is there a possibility?
I mean, uh I don't have insideinformation, and I don't think
you have any inside information.
I wonder whether you could useone of these qubits to measure
(17:45):
one dimension.
They wouldn't be connected, Iguess.
I I I guess I have questionsabout how they entangle them,
what's that look like, how manythey could entangle.
Um, but again, they're playingit very close to the vest.
I don't I don't know that thatdata is out there, or if it is,
I'm missing it.
SPEAKER_02 (18:03):
Well, the the way this the way this thing is uh
the way this thing is built,right, um, is they essentially
produced a concept that iscalled a Tetron.
That's that's how they that'show they name it, right?
And basically think of a Tetronas essentially two of these
(18:26):
superconducting nanowires,right?
Wires that are are so thin,right, that they're almost like
single-dimensional, and they'rebuilt of of the superconducting
material, which was aluminum,and now it's um and now it's
it's it's it's a lead, right?
And essentially these twonanowires host at their ends
(18:48):
these Majorana Zero modes, whichare coming in pairs, right?
Um, and the information itselfis stored in the um uh in the
parity of electrons via these uhum uh these these these these
structures, right?
Uh which essentially means thatyou can within a Tetron, right,
(19:11):
you can handle either singlequbits or or or or two qubits,
and you can handle uh thingslike um um uh uh entanglement,
right?
Now what they what they say isthat the other important
advantage of this approach,right, is it essentially
(19:32):
supports in a very natural wayboth digital control and error
correction.
So the plan is to actually takethese tetrons and essentially
multiply them um on chips.
So going from like one Tetron toa thousand Tetron to a million
Tetron is essentially a problemof of replicating uh of
(19:56):
replicating them.
Um so it's very interesting,right?
It's it's uh what was reallyinteresting for me or or to me,
right, is the fact that it is uhfor the first time that we've
heard, um, and again, just weneed to take it with a grain of
(20:17):
salt, we need to see the proofand everything.
It was the first time we'veheard of coherence times that
are into seconds, right?
We were always talking aboutmicroseconds, milliseconds,
things like that, right?
Which by the way, are are aremore than enough for for
performing quantum computation.
SPEAKER_01 (20:38):
But to mind different modalities have
different speeds, so but it'sthe first time we've heard about
these these I would call theminsanely long coherence times,
right?
SPEAKER_02 (20:50):
Like 20 seconds as as as I said, is is is
essentially an eternity.
SPEAKER_01 (21:00):
Um yeah, I wish I wish we could get I I well, I I
guess I'm hoping that they'llthere'll be a lot more talking
now that they see this as awatershed moment, but I I I
think there's a strong chancethere isn't, that they stay
quiet the next year.
SPEAKER_02 (21:14):
Well, the the other interesting thing was to me you
mentioned DARPA, right?
And um maybe it's worthmentioning that the whole DARPA
program.
Um I think the the actual nameis the um um Defense Advanced
Research Projects.
(21:35):
Yeah, no, no, but the programthat DARPA runs is the the
underexplored systems forutility scale quantum computing.
That's that's the the theprogram that it that it runs,
right?
And um this program has per uhuh participation like from from
(21:56):
like some some very heavy names,right?
Like the air.
Force Research Laboratory, theLos Alamos National Laboratory,
the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, right?
John Hopkins Applied PhysicsLaboratory, and so forth.
So there is a bunch of extremelysmart people in there that are
(22:18):
running the program, right?
And Microsoft architecture anddesigns were repeatedly assessed
by this, right?
So it's not like, I don't know,five years ago someone was
impressed, like, oh my God, youhave this great idea, you're
gonna build a Maiorana uhtopological quantum computer,
(22:40):
right?
It they are constantly assessed,which is also an indication to
me that there is somenon-trivial amount of progress
happening there.
SPEAKER_01 (22:51):
And and Microsoft's prepared, we and we don't talk
about this too often, butMicrosoft has really prepared an
ecosystem for them to be themiddleware.
So if this works out, thensuddenly Microsoft becomes one
of the only vendors that's inthe middle with their own stack
because they got Q Sharp,they've got Azure, they've got
(23:14):
hosted quantum already.
They've they you can basicallyuse Q Sharp to address a D-Wave
system and other systems.
I think Regetti's up there aswell.
Um and so they they've got a lotof that.
Right.
So they've got a lot of thatcovered, and it would be easy
for them to just shove theirsystem into the same model.
(23:38):
So they've got a a big, they'vegot a really good play of the
middleware.
Now, when when that firsthappened, I think I remember
saying to you, I think that wasa hedge to some extent.
It makes sense to do if they'regoing to be successful, but even
if they're not successful withtheir own modality, it still
lets them play in the game andbe a middleware broker and a big
(23:58):
one, an important one.
They got the cloud, they got thelanguage and the tooling.
To have the actual an actualmodality of their own to host,
that would be a big deal.
Do you expect them to only makeit available through Azure?
Or would they, you think, sellmachines as well eventually?
I think that it's an impossiblequestion to answer.
(24:20):
I'm just calling forspeculation.
SPEAKER_02 (24:23):
I think everything's on the table, but um remember,
topological quantum computing isstill a modality that requires
uh pretty low temperatures.
SPEAKER_00 (24:35):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (24:36):
Um so this is a modality of building stuff,
right?
It's uh that still requiresdilution refrigerators and and
stuff.
So it will require pretty heavygear.
SPEAKER_01 (24:46):
No, yeah, I'm not thinking they're gonna sell it
on the Microsoft store, but IBMselling their chip and they
require the same.
Is it the same, it's the sametemperature range, isn't it?
It's millikelvin, isn't it?
SPEAKER_02 (24:56):
I yeah, it's it's low.
It's very it's very low.
So and and I think what theyactually have as a strategy is
to at the end of the day offerthe business service, let's call
it like that, right?
Where it doesn't really matterwhat is the underlying hardware.
(25:19):
Um their plan is to essentiallyoffer the output at the other
end, which is the capability ofperforming classes of
computations that are uh, let'ssay, geared towards very
practical problems, whether it'sabout material science or or or
machine learning or or or thingslike things like that, right?
(25:42):
So um I would be, I'm not rulingit out, but I would be surprised
to see Microsoft uh selling umquantum computing machines, uh
whatever the packaging would be,because I think that based on
what they build, the kind of thevertical integration, right,
from the uh uh lower layer,which is the actual hardware,
(26:07):
all the way to the programminglanguages, the SDK, right?
Um I think it suits them betterto do it this way.
And then remember, one of thethings that they are also
pioneering, which doesn't get alot of traction, but I think it
will become one of the veryimportant aspects is hybrid.
Uh and we've covered this many,many times, right?
(26:29):
Um I certainly believe thatthere will be no pure quantum
computer or quantum computingsolution out there, because even
the um, let's say ubiquitousshort discussion that actually
requires an efficientcombination of classical
computing and quantum computing.
(26:50):
And owning the stack, right, andbeing one of the big players in
classical computing, I thinkit's it's gonna provide a
significant, uh a significantadvantage, right?
Now um the other thing that Ibelieve we have to mention,
right, also is um uh that thisis still right, just to keep
(27:11):
things real, it's a majorannouncement, uh but this does
not announce essentially acommercially useful quantum,
right?
So um they proposed theprototype, right?
They they provided some veryinteresting experimental
results, uh, which again stillhave to be reviewed, um, and
(27:33):
we're hopefully not gonna um uhend up with another 2018 um um
moments, right?
But I think it's it's veryencouraging.
It's also encouraging the factthat they kind of changed the
the future estimates previouslythey were put in the 2030s, and
(27:57):
now at this uh uh uh conferencethat they made the announcement,
they said that it's uh uh likelythat a commercial version could
be um available as early as2029.
SPEAKER_01 (28:12):
And that's this was a build, I believe, right?
SPEAKER_02 (28:15):
Yeah, it was the Microsoft Build Conference,
which uh was early June.
SPEAKER_01 (28:20):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (28:20):
Um, so I I believe that this is also significant
because publicly announcing andsetting this expectation um is a
bit different from many otherplayers which are still
providing the horizon of the2030s in terms of of this of
(28:40):
these machines.
So um overall, I think this isvery exciting news.
I think it's positive.
Um and um what what really whatI really like about this is that
uh we if you think about thelast 12 months and we've
discussed with some remarkablepeople, we've discussed with
(29:03):
with with some some someremarkable um companies out
there, right?
Is that we are seeingsignificant improvement across
multiple modalities.
So it's not really that we haveone modality that it's having a
breakthrough, right?
We have seen significant uhsignificant improvement across
(29:27):
the the board, and um that givesme uh uh let's say I am much
more optimistic than I was 12months ago.
SPEAKER_01 (29:37):
A warm fuzzy, yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (29:39):
With yeah, with respect to we're still not
there, that's that's extremelyum um important to say, right?
But um I I I think it's it'sit's significantly we have a
significantly better uh let'ssay uh prediction right now uh
in terms of of where things areit's gonna be exciting times to
(30:04):
come.
SPEAKER_01 (30:05):
Um so you know you and I have a long history with
Microsoft.
We should just definitelydisclose that.
You I was uh involved in theirpartner program and took a lot
of their certifications and hadNDAs for many years, 20 20 plus
years.
Um now I'm I'm uh one of theirMVPs, as are you, and you
participate also as a Microsoftregional director, which I left
(30:27):
a few years ago.
So it's not we're not likeoutsiders strictly, so we should
disclose that a little bit.
But we also aren't talking tothe quantum team on a regular
basis, or at least I'm not.
Um and so it it kind of gives usthe freedom to talk about this
without stepping on anythingsecret.
I don't have any deep, darksecrets, but I'd like to.
I'd like to know more aboutwhat's going on here.
(30:49):
So hopefully we we have to justwait for everybody else.
I think the 2029 announcement isaggressive, but I'm very hopeful
that that means that they theyfigured it out and they've got
their steam and they're they'regonna run with it.
Um and let the let the doubtersdig themselves a hole.
I hope that works out.
I'm sure there's others in theindustry that are hoping that
(31:10):
it's all you know justvaporware.
Uh, but I guess time will tell.
Uh what are other dark horses?
I I I think I think um neutralions was a bit of a dark horse
five years ago when we startedthis podcast.
We weren't talking about them.
We were talking about photonicsand we were talking about um
superconducting qubits becauseof Google, uh, because of um uh
(31:32):
IBM.
Yeah, I consider them to besomebody that's kind of come out
of the wings.
Is there any other uh modalitiesyou're kind of keeping an eye
on?
SPEAKER_02 (31:41):
Or no, I think um I think we're seeing these um
modalities maturing, right?
Um neutral atoms, trapped ions,the superconducting stuff, the
photonics, right?
Um uh as well as the thetopological, we are seeing
(32:02):
improvements across the board,right?
And I think rather than havingsome obscure thing as being the
dark horse, I think there areaspects of these modalities,
Patrick, that are we can callthem like the dark horse.
Like if you ask me, right, thethe dark horse of photonics is
(32:23):
or even to some extent neutralatoms is room temperature.
Yes, right?
It's is the fact that they don'trequire those insane
technologies, right, to keepthem.
Uh on the other hand, I thinkthe dark horse of topological
quantum computing is the innerinstability, which looks like
(32:43):
it's been it's been proven.
So they all have, let's say, umuh strong points, uh, but also
significant weaknesses.
Yeah.
Um and and think it's gonna be amatter of of what is the speed
at which those, let's say, um,weaknesses can be addressed um
(33:06):
moving moving forward.
SPEAKER_01 (33:09):
The bet would be on the ones that whose weakness is
more in the rearview mirror andless in the front windshield.
SPEAKER_02 (33:15):
Yeah, and the ones that can handle better error
correction.
SPEAKER_01 (33:18):
I think you were that's the promise.
SPEAKER_02 (33:20):
I I think you said a very important thing at the
beginning of this discussion,which is hey, uh we are really
starting to see the end of thetunnel in terms of addressing
the problem of error correction.
I think whoever is capable ofaddressing it in a more
efficient way, faster or sooner,right, that's gonna be.
(33:41):
But I would also want to say atthis point that I am starting to
almost be like a hundred percentbeliever in a multi-modality
featuring like photonics isdefinitely gonna be a part of
the networking in quantumcomputing.
I I think this is where the thehistory path will diverge from
(34:05):
classical to quantum.
I think at this point, based onwhat we've seen in the past 12
months and what we're seeingnow, I think there is very
likely that the world of quantumcomputing is gonna be shared.
SPEAKER_01 (34:19):
Are you are you saying you don't have any vacuum
tube devices on your desk rightnow?
Um well, not really I use on aregular basis.
Don't mat, don't count.
SPEAKER_02 (34:34):
On a regular basis.
I would dare to say almost, notalmost, all my devices are
transistor based.
SPEAKER_01 (34:39):
Of course.
Yeah, I was making I was tellingyou, G.
SPEAKER_02 (34:41):
So I I I I'm starting to be uh uh uh again,
uh a firm believer inmultimodality because yeah, it
looks like it's you have the uhuh also, right?
You mentioned at some pointsit's a horse race.
It's pretty much like in horseracing, right?
There is one neck in front, andthen there's another neck in
(35:03):
front, and they're changingagain.
Um and I I think based on theinnovation and the investment
that it's being made.
SPEAKER_01 (35:12):
Well, and we've also seen that the the multimodality
is a is an easy bet now when youthink about sensing, because
like the the we talked to thatguy uh a while back about
diamond vacancies, and and thesensors aren't all gonna go down
one road.
So I I think we're it's stillgonna be a bit of a wild west
west for these modalities andwhat they are what their niches
(35:34):
are, what does what which thingbetter.
Uh and so yeah, I think it'll bea much more varied.
SPEAKER_02 (35:40):
And remember, remember, Patrick, one of the
things that are still notsolved, and I think it's gonna
be the next big thing after wehave uh uh relatively stable
computers is still essentiallyembedding problems, real-world
problems, into this paradigm ofcomputing.
And I I this is an area where Idon't feel we've made a lot of
(36:02):
progress.
SPEAKER_01 (36:03):
I think AI is waiting in the wings to solve
this problem, though.
SPEAKER_02 (36:06):
Yeah, but I also think that different modalities
will be suitable for differentclasses of problems.
SPEAKER_01 (36:14):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (36:14):
So there will be certain types of problems that
will be easier to understand.
SPEAKER_01 (36:18):
D-Wave showed that.
D-Wave made it made that clearand already gave us that
example.
Although they're starting todabble in um in universal gate
quantum computers as well,because the writing's on the
wall.
If we get uh the things they'redoing well now, and again, it
they made a conscious play tosay we're gonna go down this
path, which is a little moreshort-lived, but we can get we
(36:41):
can actually get running annualrecurring revenue sooner.
SPEAKER_02 (36:46):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly.
I think it's um uh I thinkD-Wave was a pioneer, it's still
a pioneer, right?
Um, but the fact that we haven'tseen a lot of of other um
startups or companies goingtowards the adiabatic quantum
(37:07):
computing, right?
That also tells me a story.
Um which which is there arecertain types of problems that
can be solved there, but it itit it certainly looks like that
um gate-based quantum computing,right, is is the um is the area
where where these things are areprobably the most uh uh the most
(37:30):
promising.
Yeah.
So yeah, I think it's uhsomething to watch.
Overall, it's we're living againsome very interesting times.
And to my cursed.
And again, this is where historyalso parts ways is and you've
(37:50):
explained this multiple times,right?
Uh a quantum winter is stillnowhere to be seen.
And and that's very likelybecause of the security
implications, right?
SPEAKER_01 (38:00):
Yeah, agree.
SPEAKER_02 (38:00):
And and the cryptography.
And it it certainly looks likethe past 12 months are actually
uh adding some tailwind to tothese companies, right?
And they they seem to be movingforward with with uh a lot of
innovation.
So I don't see at least in thenext maybe 24 to 36 months um
(38:23):
any um situation developingwhere um we could see uh slowing
down in in this particular area.
So it's a very exciting time touh to be connected to this field
for sure.
SPEAKER_01 (38:36):
I agree, and we'll watch it closely, and I think
that's I think I think we'redone for today.
Out of time.
SPEAKER_02 (38:43):
I mean, we could talk for a three for another
couple of hours, but we have tostop somewhere.
SPEAKER_01 (38:48):
So I think this is a we've proven that to the point
we started a podcast.
So uh but I think we shouldleave it there, and we'll see
everybody the next time.
SPEAKER_02 (38:56):
Yep.
SPEAKER_01 (38:56):
Bye, man.
SPEAKER_02 (38:57):
Thanks, everyone.
Bye.
Bye.
SPEAKER_00 (39:00):
Cybercrime is one of the biggest threats to
businesses of all sizes andindustries.
With almost half a million opencyber positions, the problem is
compounded by the lack ofavailable talent in the
marketplace.
At Pulsar Security, our eliteteam of highly credentialed
experts collaborate with you toassess your current defenses and
develop solutions tailored toyour specific needs.
(39:22):
With services ranging fromcybersecurity education to
advanced penetration testing andred teaming, you can start
reducing your risks today.
Visit PulsarSecurity.com andlet's secure your digital future
together.
Hey Tiffrian, how are you doing?
SPEAKER_02 (00:42):
Hey Patrick.
I'm doing well.
Looking forward to anotherepisode of Entangle Things.
SPEAKER_01 (00:47):
It's just us this time, and there's lots of big
news, but we've picked what wethink might be uh the biggest
news.
So um Microsoft has announcedthe Majorana 2, um, which is
still not, they're not shippinga chip, if I understand
correctly.
SPEAKER_02 (01:03):
Well, part of their road towards um materializing
their vision on topologicalquantum computing, right?
Using the uh a phenomenon or aconstruct that is called the
Majorana Zero mode to buildsignificantly more stable qubits
(01:28):
using the Majorana virtualparticle.
And it's interesting because uhit looks like they've made some
significant progress since uhthe previous announcement.
SPEAKER_01 (01:39):
So my understanding from and and I I've read a lot
about this, but especially inthe first round, is they've
taken basically an idea wherethey can use this Majorana
fermion to build a structure,and that structure acts like a
quantum circuit, a quantumstring kind of, in in the same
(02:00):
way that a superconducting qubitis a construct as well.
But the big thing here is Iheard it described as imagine a,
you know the building in um uhMalaysia, the one with the that
the two big buildings andthey're connected on the trauma
stallion Kuala Lumpur, yeah.
Exactly.
So I picture it like that, theway it was described, where if
(02:26):
if one of the legs were takenout, it still could stand.
And so that reduces the riskthat a an errant gamma particle
or some heat or something likethat could take out the whole
structure.
In other words, it introduces astructural fault tolerance to
the the actual qubit that makesit more resilient and therefore
(02:50):
more almost immune to the noise,because the odds that both those
legs are going to get taken outat the same time is near zero
and they're far enough apart.
Now, is part of the newarchitecture that they've gotten
them further apart becausethat's where is that where the a
thousand times more reliablecame from?
Or because they say logical,larger topological gap in the
(03:14):
information that that that youhave shared with me?
SPEAKER_02 (03:18):
Well, I think the the most important uh, let's say
structural change is that theychange materials.
Um and and it's it's interestinguh just to to remind to our
listeners, right?
We are as opposed to, forinstance, uh photonics, right,
(03:39):
where uh we are really talkingabout uh particles that act as
uh qubits, right?
In this case, we are talkingabout what is commonly referred
in physics as a virtualparticle, which essentially
means that's pretty much likethe um uh approach with the uh
the superconducting qubits,right?
(04:02):
It's essentially a structure,it's a physical structure that
ends up acting like a qubit.
And in this particular case, thething that acts like a uh acts
like a qubit is this comes as avery surprising thing, is the
parity of electrons in uh uhwhat is called a nanowire.
(04:24):
Right.
So if you have an odd number ofelectrons, you have one state.
SPEAKER_01 (04:29):
If you have a um uh uh uh change it right with plus
one or minus one, even evenversus odd numbers of you have
you have the other state.
No, and that's a readable statebecause of these the effects.
Uh there's an a name for thateffect, I can't remember what it
is off the top of my head.
SPEAKER_02 (04:48):
This essentially is is built around what is called a
nanowire, which is uh like asuper, super, super, super uh uh
thin like layer of of material.
And what Microsoft said in theirannouncement that one of the big
breakthroughs came fromreplacing aluminum, which is one
(05:09):
of the well-known materials usedfor superconducting, right?
Uh with lead.
Really?
Yes.
Yeah, that's that's one of theuh uh one of the interesting uh
uh one of the interestingthings.
And that resulted insignificantly better protection
from uh interesting.
SPEAKER_01 (05:28):
I mean there's an old old saying from the you
know, maybe before theIndustrial Revolution, cheap as
lead.
Because you'd think that they'dgo to something quixotic like a
rare earth or nimobidium or oneof those others that's hard to
get.
It's good to hear that they'regoing to cheaper materials from
from even though aluminum ispretty cheap, too.
(05:48):
So the claims are a thousandtimes more reliability.
And the and the whole promise ofthis, the whole promise of
Microsoft's approach is ratherthan go down the road that
others have gone down,photonics, superconducting
qubits, what what really hasbeen showing a lot of promise
lately, which is uh neutrali, uhneutral or or ionized atoms,
(06:11):
neutral atoms or ion ion uh ionatoms.
Um they've decided to go back tosomething that had more promise
for scale, but was a muchfurther back starting gate.
And they had that false stepback in, I think it was 2018.
I know I know it was before westarted the podcast.
SPEAKER_02 (06:31):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (06:32):
And so they've been very playing close to the chest,
almost like you know, they'rethey're afraid to make a
mistake, and we understand that.
But Microsoft has a reputationfor getting shellacked, then
going back to the drawing boardwith their massive Microsoft
research organization, and thencoming out with something like
Internet Explorer.
(06:53):
Remember in the in the browserwars, they they were they
weren't a they were a no-show,and then they came in and
dominated.
So I really never count themout, and but I wish they would
talk about this stuff more.
Do you think, are you seeing anysigns that they might start
talking about this more nowbecause it was Sacha Nagella
that made the announcement,correct?
SPEAKER_02 (07:13):
Yes, yeah, yeah.
And I well, it's it'sunderstandable um that there is
a certain, let's say, uh maybenot fear, but reluctance uh to
talking publicly about thesethese things, especially from
some of the some of thebacklash, right?
(07:36):
Remember, probably out of thecompanies that are out there
trying to build reliable umcommercial grade quantum
computers, Microsoft is one thatfaces probably one of the
heaviest scrutinies, right,because of the previous um uh
let's call them issues, but alsobecause the the physics itself
(08:00):
that is involved, right, um hassparked some intense debate um
uh uh in the world of physics,right?
SPEAKER_01 (08:10):
Yeah, this the skeptical camp is still claiming
that there's no definitive proofthat it exists.
Yes, yes, that it's doing whatit's supposed to do.
SPEAKER_02 (08:19):
There's an interesting also uh kind of
twist here, but before that, Ijust want to mention, right,
it's not necessarily a thousandtimes more reliable, it's a
thousand times longer in termsof preserving state.
Right?
So essentially they claim thatthey were able to get to
(08:44):
lifetimes of uh north of 20seconds.
Which is a long time in thiswhich is an eternity in in in
quantum computing, right?
And in some isolated cases,those states were consistent for
up to for up to one minute,right?
SPEAKER_01 (09:01):
Yeah, I I misread that.
I it's a thousand times longerthan earlier devices and a
thousand-fold improvement instability.
SPEAKER_02 (09:08):
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
SPEAKER_01 (09:10):
Which which could be read as reliability.
SPEAKER_02 (09:12):
Exactly.
Well, this is actually in itselfa very significant achievement
because that means that thetypes of qubits that they are
building show at least thepotential, right, of being
stable uh for way longer thanneeded to perform meaningful uh
(09:35):
uh computation.
And I think that's one of thefundamental reasons why
Microsoft chose to uh the pathof topological quantum
computing, because and we'vesaid it many times, right, if it
works, and it's still an if, butif it works, right, it works in
(09:55):
a very reliable way because it'sit's almost like those those
virtual particles are built, areengineered basically to be uh um
protected from interference uhfrom the from the outside world.
SPEAKER_00 (10:11):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (10:11):
And that's I I I think that's still the uh let's
say the big prize uh in terms oftopological quantum computing,
right?
If you can build a qubit basedon uh on the topological
approach, then it's very likelythat it's gonna be a very stable
qubit.
SPEAKER_01 (10:30):
Yeah, so the the the another I love analogy.
So like if you think about WorldWar II and fighter planes, if if
one side said, you know what,we're gonna use propeller planes
and we're gonna like massproduce those and we're gonna go
all into that, we're not gonnaworry about future technologies.
And the other side says, well,we're gonna build jets, which no
one's ever heard of, and theymight not work, and you know, we
(10:51):
have to start from square one,and we're gonna take a beating
for a number of years while wedevelop these jets, because
we're not gonna put anythinginto propeller planes.
In the end, they're gonna racepast everybody.
And that's the the expectationor the the concern, I guess.
So DARPA, um, the the U.S.
(11:12):
Defense Advanced ResearchPlanning Agency, I think, I
think I got that name right, um,will make bets.
They'll go and coordinate withcompanies that they think are
gonna disrupt the space.
And it was very telling that acouple of years ago, Microsoft
was one, normally it's smallcompanies and and and university
spin-offs that they're talkingto.
They talk to Microsoft becausethey they recognize that if this
(11:36):
play works, it would take a longtime to even catch up with
everybody.
But if it did, it could raceahead.
And that's we're kind of peopleare starting to declare that the
NISC level, the noisyintermediate quantum computing
age, is coming to an end.
And if that's the case, then youknow, 2029, 2030 could be huge.
(11:59):
I mean, you you know that Mikeuh Google has reined in their Q
day prediction to 2029 and saidthey'll be they'll be you know
quantum secure by that time.
Now they're they're makingquantum processors, so they you
know they might know a littlebit about what's going on.
So it seems like the industry islooking at Microsoft as a dark
(12:20):
horse, but it's still earlydays, and we still, you know,
2029 is still a good ways away.
Um when do you think it will besettled that they've either
found put lightning in a bottleor they went down the wrong path
and it's a it's a coal mine?
SPEAKER_02 (12:37):
Well, the fact that that this ball still keeps
rolling, right, despite all thesetbacks, uh the fact that a
giant like Microsoft continuesto pour money um and in
non-trivial amounts, right?
(12:58):
That for me is a telling signthat there is definitely
something there.
SPEAKER_01 (13:02):
Cool.
SPEAKER_02 (13:03):
Because I think Microsoft, like we know the
Microsoft from the modern age,right?
The Microsoft that um had itsstock uh uh growing from the
almost fixed price of$30, right,to super high levels.
The the modern Microsoft is avery pragmatic company, right?
(13:25):
And and we've seen uh write-offsin the amount of of billions and
billions of dollars, right?
When things were proven thatthey they just don't work.
Think of the phone sada, right?
I think that ended up being avery good thing.
SPEAKER_01 (13:42):
Well, they don't they don't hold on overly long,
they they don't have the sunkcost paranoia where well we
spent so much money, we gottakeep going.
They don't do that.
SPEAKER_02 (13:52):
Yeah, yeah.
So this this is a sign for me,right?
That uh and that there was aninteresting, there was a very
interesting statement from uhChatan Dayak, who's the
Microsoft Technical Fellow, um,deeply involved, right, in the
uh in the quantum research.
Was a very interesting statementfor for me.
(14:13):
Basically, he said our aim is toinvent the transistor for the
quantum age.
Yes, right, yeah.
And that's uh uh uh a clearanalogy to the way classical
computing developed, right?
When you've had lots and lots ofmodalities, right, to build
computers, and all of a suddenthe very stable and efficient
(14:38):
and scalable one namedtransistor emerged, right?
SPEAKER_01 (14:42):
Well, and we started with vacuum tubes.
You can't forget that.
SPEAKER_02 (14:45):
Yeah, exactly.
SPEAKER_01 (14:46):
So there were there were modalities before the
transistor.
SPEAKER_02 (14:49):
And I I I think the kind of the view, right, and the
vision is we're gonna take avery big risk uh in trying to
materialize a concept and atechnology that would be
probably similar to the conceptof a transistor from from
classical computing, right?
(15:10):
Because the other thing that'sthat's that's interesting with
uh the approach that Microsofthas is that if you get, I don't
know, two or four or eightqubits working from two or four
or eight qubits to a millionqubits, it's literally a matter
of just linear scaling, right?
(15:33):
It's not a problem of now youhave too many layers, now you
have interference, now you havethings like that, right?
And and this is the right pointto mention something, Patrick,
that is, I think also, at leastto me, is is is extremely
interesting, right?
We've talked to a lot of peoplewho are um essentially handling
(15:55):
their qubits with tweezers andand with all sorts of things,
right?
The way the the Microsoft chipworks is that the actual
handling of of the qubits isdone with measurements.
And that's that's relativelyunique, right?
(16:17):
The way you you handle yourqubit is actually through
through measurements.
And this is also one of theareas where the skeptics, uh the
skeptics were, yeah, yeah, yeah,right, but you only produce the
details about what we call the Zmeasurements, the X
measurements, but you haven'tproduced details with the Z
(16:38):
measurements, because those arelike essentially across
different axes.
So Microsoft still has to prove,has to produce the hard data for
that.
It is essentially referred to inthe paper that they um they
announced, but the data stillhas to be published.
So that's very interesting.
So we're not going to be able todo that.
But long story short, I thinkthe um I think there is some
(17:02):
some very significant potential.
And the fact that a verypragmatic organization like
Modern Microsoft keeps pushingthis tells me that despite of
the previous setbacks and thecriticism and the pushback,
right?
I think there is there isdefinitely something there.
SPEAKER_01 (17:20):
Yeah.
And and we've said that that wemay not have one modality to
rule them all.
This might be a modality thatworks in certain areas far
better than others, and it mightman, it might not even work out.
When is there a possibility?
I mean, uh I don't have insideinformation, and I don't think
you have any inside information.
I wonder whether you could useone of these qubits to measure
(17:45):
one dimension.
They wouldn't be connected, Iguess.
I I I guess I have questionsabout how they entangle them,
what's that look like, how manythey could entangle.
Um, but again, they're playingit very close to the vest.
I don't I don't know that thatdata is out there, or if it is,
I'm missing it.
SPEAKER_02 (18:03):
Well, the the way this the way this thing is uh
the way this thing is built,right, um, is they essentially
produced a concept that iscalled a Tetron.
That's that's how they that'show they name it, right?
And basically think of a Tetronas essentially two of these
(18:26):
superconducting nanowires,right?
Wires that are are so thin,right, that they're almost like
single-dimensional, and they'rebuilt of of the superconducting
material, which was aluminum,and now it's um and now it's
it's it's it's a lead, right?
And essentially these twonanowires host at their ends
(18:48):
these Majorana Zero modes, whichare coming in pairs, right?
Um, and the information itselfis stored in the um uh in the
parity of electrons via these uhum uh these these these these
structures, right?
Uh which essentially means thatyou can within a Tetron, right,
(19:11):
you can handle either singlequbits or or or or two qubits,
and you can handle uh thingslike um um uh uh entanglement,
right?
Now what they what they say isthat the other important
advantage of this approach,right, is it essentially
(19:32):
supports in a very natural wayboth digital control and error
correction.
So the plan is to actually takethese tetrons and essentially
multiply them um on chips.
So going from like one Tetron toa thousand Tetron to a million
Tetron is essentially a problemof of replicating uh of
(19:56):
replicating them.
Um so it's very interesting,right?
It's it's uh what was reallyinteresting for me or or to me,
right, is the fact that it is uhfor the first time that we've
heard, um, and again, just weneed to take it with a grain of
(20:17):
salt, we need to see the proofand everything.
It was the first time we'veheard of coherence times that
are into seconds, right?
We were always talking aboutmicroseconds, milliseconds,
things like that, right?
Which by the way, are are aremore than enough for for
performing quantum computation.
SPEAKER_01 (20:38):
But to mind different modalities have
different speeds, so but it'sthe first time we've heard about
these these I would call theminsanely long coherence times,
right?
SPEAKER_02 (20:50):
Like 20 seconds as as as I said, is is is
essentially an eternity.
SPEAKER_01 (21:00):
Um yeah, I wish I wish we could get I I well, I I
guess I'm hoping that they'llthere'll be a lot more talking
now that they see this as awatershed moment, but I I I
think there's a strong chancethere isn't, that they stay
quiet the next year.
SPEAKER_02 (21:14):
Well, the the other interesting thing was to me you
mentioned DARPA, right?
And um maybe it's worthmentioning that the whole DARPA
program.
Um I think the the actual nameis the um um Defense Advanced
Research Projects.
(21:35):
Yeah, no, no, but the programthat DARPA runs is the the
underexplored systems forutility scale quantum computing.
That's that's the the theprogram that it that it runs,
right?
And um this program has per uhuh participation like from from
(21:56):
like some some very heavy names,right?
Like the air.
Force Research Laboratory, theLos Alamos National Laboratory,
the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, right?
John Hopkins Applied PhysicsLaboratory, and so forth.
So there is a bunch of extremelysmart people in there that are
(22:18):
running the program, right?
And Microsoft architecture anddesigns were repeatedly assessed
by this, right?
So it's not like, I don't know,five years ago someone was
impressed, like, oh my God, youhave this great idea, you're
gonna build a Maiorana uhtopological quantum computer,
(22:40):
right?
It they are constantly assessed,which is also an indication to
me that there is somenon-trivial amount of progress
happening there.
SPEAKER_01 (22:51):
And and Microsoft's prepared, we and we don't talk
about this too often, butMicrosoft has really prepared an
ecosystem for them to be themiddleware.
So if this works out, thensuddenly Microsoft becomes one
of the only vendors that's inthe middle with their own stack
because they got Q Sharp,they've got Azure, they've got
(23:14):
hosted quantum already.
They've they you can basicallyuse Q Sharp to address a D-Wave
system and other systems.
I think Regetti's up there aswell.
Um and so they they've got a lotof that.
Right.
So they've got a lot of thatcovered, and it would be easy
for them to just shove theirsystem into the same model.
(23:38):
So they've got a a big, they'vegot a really good play of the
middleware.
Now, when when that firsthappened, I think I remember
saying to you, I think that wasa hedge to some extent.
It makes sense to do if they'regoing to be successful, but even
if they're not successful withtheir own modality, it still
lets them play in the game andbe a middleware broker and a big
(23:58):
one, an important one.
They got the cloud, they got thelanguage and the tooling.
To have the actual an actualmodality of their own to host,
that would be a big deal.
Do you expect them to only makeit available through Azure?
Or would they, you think, sellmachines as well eventually?
I think that it's an impossiblequestion to answer.
(24:20):
I'm just calling forspeculation.
SPEAKER_02 (24:23):
I think everything's on the table, but um remember,
topological quantum computing isstill a modality that requires
uh pretty low temperatures.
SPEAKER_00 (24:35):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (24:36):
Um so this is a modality of building stuff,
right?
It's uh that still requiresdilution refrigerators and and
stuff.
So it will require pretty heavygear.
SPEAKER_01 (24:46):
No, yeah, I'm not thinking they're gonna sell it
on the Microsoft store, but IBMselling their chip and they
require the same.
Is it the same, it's the sametemperature range, isn't it?
It's millikelvin, isn't it?
SPEAKER_02 (24:56):
I yeah, it's it's low.
It's very it's very low.
So and and I think what theyactually have as a strategy is
to at the end of the day offerthe business service, let's call
it like that, right?
Where it doesn't really matterwhat is the underlying hardware.
(25:19):
Um their plan is to essentiallyoffer the output at the other
end, which is the capability ofperforming classes of
computations that are uh, let'ssay, geared towards very
practical problems, whether it'sabout material science or or or
machine learning or or or thingslike things like that, right?
(25:42):
So um I would be, I'm not rulingit out, but I would be surprised
to see Microsoft uh selling umquantum computing machines, uh
whatever the packaging would be,because I think that based on
what they build, the kind of thevertical integration, right,
from the uh uh lower layer,which is the actual hardware,
(26:07):
all the way to the programminglanguages, the SDK, right?
Um I think it suits them betterto do it this way.
And then remember, one of thethings that they are also
pioneering, which doesn't get alot of traction, but I think it
will become one of the veryimportant aspects is hybrid.
Uh and we've covered this many,many times, right?
(26:29):
Um I certainly believe thatthere will be no pure quantum
computer or quantum computingsolution out there, because even
the um, let's say ubiquitousshort discussion that actually
requires an efficientcombination of classical
computing and quantum computing.
(26:50):
And owning the stack, right, andbeing one of the big players in
classical computing, I thinkit's it's gonna provide a
significant, uh a significantadvantage, right?
Now um the other thing that Ibelieve we have to mention,
right, also is um uh that thisis still right, just to keep
(27:11):
things real, it's a majorannouncement, uh but this does
not announce essentially acommercially useful quantum,
right?
So um they proposed theprototype, right?
They they provided some veryinteresting experimental
results, uh, which again stillhave to be reviewed, um, and
(27:33):
we're hopefully not gonna um uhend up with another 2018 um um
moments, right?
But I think it's it's veryencouraging.
It's also encouraging the factthat they kind of changed the
the future estimates previouslythey were put in the 2030s, and
(27:57):
now at this uh uh uh conferencethat they made the announcement,
they said that it's uh uh likelythat a commercial version could
be um available as early as2029.
SPEAKER_01 (28:12):
And that's this was a build, I believe, right?
SPEAKER_02 (28:15):
Yeah, it was the Microsoft Build Conference,
which uh was early June.
SPEAKER_01 (28:20):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (28:20):
Um, so I I believe that this is also significant
because publicly announcing andsetting this expectation um is a
bit different from many otherplayers which are still
providing the horizon of the2030s in terms of of this of
(28:40):
these machines.
So um overall, I think this isvery exciting news.
I think it's positive.
Um and um what what really whatI really like about this is that
uh we if you think about thelast 12 months and we've
discussed with some remarkablepeople, we've discussed with
(29:03):
with with some some someremarkable um companies out
there, right?
Is that we are seeingsignificant improvement across
multiple modalities.
So it's not really that we haveone modality that it's having a
breakthrough, right?
We have seen significant uhsignificant improvement across
(29:27):
the the board, and um that givesme uh uh let's say I am much
more optimistic than I was 12months ago.
SPEAKER_01 (29:37):
A warm fuzzy, yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (29:39):
With yeah, with respect to we're still not
there, that's that's extremelyum um important to say, right?
But um I I I think it's it'sit's significantly we have a
significantly better uh let'ssay uh prediction right now uh
in terms of of where things areit's gonna be exciting times to
(30:04):
come.
SPEAKER_01 (30:05):
Um so you know you and I have a long history with
Microsoft.
We should just definitelydisclose that.
You I was uh involved in theirpartner program and took a lot
of their certifications and hadNDAs for many years, 20 20 plus
years.
Um now I'm I'm uh one of theirMVPs, as are you, and you
participate also as a Microsoftregional director, which I left
(30:27):
a few years ago.
So it's not we're not likeoutsiders strictly, so we should
disclose that a little bit.
But we also aren't talking tothe quantum team on a regular
basis, or at least I'm not.
Um and so it it kind of gives usthe freedom to talk about this
without stepping on anythingsecret.
I don't have any deep, darksecrets, but I'd like to.
I'd like to know more aboutwhat's going on here.
(30:49):
So hopefully we we have to justwait for everybody else.
I think the 2029 announcement isaggressive, but I'm very hopeful
that that means that they theyfigured it out and they've got
their steam and they're they'regonna run with it.
Um and let the let the doubtersdig themselves a hole.
I hope that works out.
I'm sure there's others in theindustry that are hoping that
(31:10):
it's all you know justvaporware.
Uh, but I guess time will tell.
Uh what are other dark horses?
I I I think I think um neutralions was a bit of a dark horse
five years ago when we startedthis podcast.
We weren't talking about them.
We were talking about photonicsand we were talking about um
superconducting qubits becauseof Google, uh, because of um uh
(31:32):
IBM.
Yeah, I consider them to besomebody that's kind of come out
of the wings.
Is there any other uh modalitiesyou're kind of keeping an eye
on?
SPEAKER_02 (31:41):
Or no, I think um I think we're seeing these um
modalities maturing, right?
Um neutral atoms, trapped ions,the superconducting stuff, the
photonics, right?
Um uh as well as the thetopological, we are seeing
(32:02):
improvements across the board,right?
And I think rather than havingsome obscure thing as being the
dark horse, I think there areaspects of these modalities,
Patrick, that are we can callthem like the dark horse.
Like if you ask me, right, thethe dark horse of photonics is
(32:23):
or even to some extent neutralatoms is room temperature.
Yes, right?
It's is the fact that they don'trequire those insane
technologies, right, to keepthem.
Uh on the other hand, I thinkthe dark horse of topological
quantum computing is the innerinstability, which looks like
(32:43):
it's been it's been proven.
So they all have, let's say, umuh strong points, uh, but also
significant weaknesses.
Yeah.
Um and and think it's gonna be amatter of of what is the speed
at which those, let's say, um,weaknesses can be addressed um
(33:06):
moving moving forward.
SPEAKER_01 (33:09):
The bet would be on the ones that whose weakness is
more in the rearview mirror andless in the front windshield.
SPEAKER_02 (33:15):
Yeah, and the ones that can handle better error
correction.
SPEAKER_01 (33:18):
I think you were that's the promise.
SPEAKER_02 (33:20):
I I think you said a very important thing at the
beginning of this discussion,which is hey, uh we are really
starting to see the end of thetunnel in terms of addressing
the problem of error correction.
I think whoever is capable ofaddressing it in a more
efficient way, faster or sooner,right, that's gonna be.
(33:41):
But I would also want to say atthis point that I am starting to
almost be like a hundred percentbeliever in a multi-modality
featuring like photonics isdefinitely gonna be a part of
the networking in quantumcomputing.
I I think this is where the thehistory path will diverge from
(34:05):
classical to quantum.
I think at this point, based onwhat we've seen in the past 12
months and what we're seeingnow, I think there is very
likely that the world of quantumcomputing is gonna be shared.
SPEAKER_01 (34:19):
Are you are you saying you don't have any vacuum
tube devices on your desk rightnow?
Um well, not really I use on aregular basis.
Don't mat, don't count.
SPEAKER_02 (34:34):
On a regular basis.
I would dare to say almost, notalmost, all my devices are
transistor based.
SPEAKER_01 (34:39):
Of course.
Yeah, I was making I was tellingyou, G.
SPEAKER_02 (34:41):
So I I I I'm starting to be uh uh uh again,
uh a firm believer inmultimodality because yeah, it
looks like it's you have the uhuh also, right?
You mentioned at some pointsit's a horse race.
It's pretty much like in horseracing, right?
There is one neck in front, andthen there's another neck in
(35:03):
front, and they're changingagain.
Um and I I think based on theinnovation and the investment
that it's being made.
SPEAKER_01 (35:12):
Well, and we've also seen that the the multimodality
is a is an easy bet now when youthink about sensing, because
like the the we talked to thatguy uh a while back about
diamond vacancies, and and thesensors aren't all gonna go down
one road.
So I I think we're it's stillgonna be a bit of a wild west
west for these modalities andwhat they are what their niches
(35:34):
are, what does what which thingbetter.
Uh and so yeah, I think it'll bea much more varied.
SPEAKER_02 (35:40):
And remember, remember, Patrick, one of the
things that are still notsolved, and I think it's gonna
be the next big thing after wehave uh uh relatively stable
computers is still essentiallyembedding problems, real-world
problems, into this paradigm ofcomputing.
And I I this is an area where Idon't feel we've made a lot of
(36:02):
progress.
SPEAKER_01 (36:03):
I think AI is waiting in the wings to solve
this problem, though.
SPEAKER_02 (36:06):
Yeah, but I also think that different modalities
will be suitable for differentclasses of problems.
SPEAKER_01 (36:14):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_02 (36:14):
So there will be certain types of problems that
will be easier to understand.
SPEAKER_01 (36:18):
D-Wave showed that.
D-Wave made it made that clearand already gave us that
example.
Although they're starting todabble in um in universal gate
quantum computers as well,because the writing's on the
wall.
If we get uh the things they'redoing well now, and again, it
they made a conscious play tosay we're gonna go down this
path, which is a little moreshort-lived, but we can get we
(36:41):
can actually get running annualrecurring revenue sooner.
SPEAKER_02 (36:46):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly.
I think it's um uh I thinkD-Wave was a pioneer, it's still
a pioneer, right?
Um, but the fact that we haven'tseen a lot of of other um
startups or companies goingtowards the adiabatic quantum
(37:07):
computing, right?
That also tells me a story.
Um which which is there arecertain types of problems that
can be solved there, but it itit it certainly looks like that
um gate-based quantum computing,right, is is the um is the area
where where these things are areprobably the most uh uh the most
(37:30):
promising.
Yeah.
So yeah, I think it's uhsomething to watch.
Overall, it's we're living againsome very interesting times.
And to my cursed.
And again, this is where historyalso parts ways is and you've
(37:50):
explained this multiple times,right?
Uh a quantum winter is stillnowhere to be seen.
And and that's very likelybecause of the security
implications, right?
SPEAKER_01 (38:00):
Yeah, agree.
SPEAKER_02 (38:00):
And and the cryptography.
And it it certainly looks likethe past 12 months are actually
uh adding some tailwind to tothese companies, right?
And they they seem to be movingforward with with uh a lot of
innovation.
So I don't see at least in thenext maybe 24 to 36 months um
(38:23):
any um situation developingwhere um we could see uh slowing
down in in this particular area.
So it's a very exciting time touh to be connected to this field
for sure.
SPEAKER_01 (38:36):
I agree, and we'll watch it closely, and I think
that's I think I think we'redone for today.
Out of time.
SPEAKER_02 (38:43):
I mean, we could talk for a three for another
couple of hours, but we have tostop somewhere.
SPEAKER_01 (38:48):
So I think this is a we've proven that to the point
we started a podcast.
So uh but I think we shouldleave it there, and we'll see
everybody the next time.
SPEAKER_02 (38:56):
Yep.
SPEAKER_01 (38:56):
Bye, man.
SPEAKER_02 (38:57):
Thanks, everyone.
Bye.
Bye.
SPEAKER_00 (39:00):
Cybercrime is one of the biggest threats to
businesses of all sizes andindustries.
With almost half a million opencyber positions, the problem is
compounded by the lack ofavailable talent in the
marketplace.
At Pulsar Security, our eliteteam of highly credentialed
experts collaborate with you toassess your current defenses and
develop solutions tailored toyour specific needs.
(39:22):
With services ranging fromcybersecurity education to
advanced penetration testing andred teaming, you can start
reducing your risks today.
Visit PulsarSecurity.com andlet's secure your digital future
together.
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.