[gaze]

Pessimistically I think it's most comparable to fusion. Theoretically possible but very difficult. I'm biased because I'm in the industry, but nothing has cropped up that I've seen that requires a miracle.

[naasking]

> I'm biased because I'm in the industry, but nothing has cropped up that I've seen that requires a miracle.

Scaling is itself the open question. Gravitational effects start creeping in when you scale up sensitive entangled systems and we don't have a good understanding of how gravity interacts with entanglement. Entangled systems above a certain size may just be impossible.

[cwillu]

That would itself be a tremendous theoretical breakthrough for all of physics.

[shrubble]

The difference is that whenever it’s daytime and there aren’t many clouds in the sky, you can see an example of fusion working at scale…

[krastanov]

And every time you use a transistor, observe a green plant living, or see that your hand does not pass through the table when you tap it, you see quantum mechanical effects working at scale. Every time you use a telescope, you see quantum information processing (interference) at scale. The control over that process is the difficult part, same as with fusion.

[_heimdall]

In don't think the argument is whether nuclear fusion is possible at all. The question is whether it is possible to reliably control it and whether Tue captured energy output will be worth the inputs required to run the system.

[_heimdall]

Quantum state is the miracle in my opinion. By definition it can never really be confirmed.

You cannot observe the initial state because that collapses the super position. Said more simply, we can only see the end result and make educated guesses as to how it happened and what the state was prior to the experiment.

[gaze]

There's plenty of valid criticisms of the quantum computing industry but the idea that quantum mechanics is whole-cloth invalid is nonsense. You can absolutely verify a quantum state through tomography