From our other sites
The story
A paper by a research team from IBM, Rutgers University, and others reporting the observation of a “phase transition from quantum chaos to order” — achieved through repeated measurement-and-reset cycles in a 100-qubit experiment — was published in Nature Physics on October 9. On 5ch’s Science News+ thread, opinions split over just how close this result actually brings quantum computers to practical use. Some posters, recalling past “quantum bubble” collapses, warned that this was just hype; others emphasized that the work had cleared peer review, and carefully explained how this experiment differs from quantum error correction. The discussion also spread to when codebreaking might actually become feasible.
IBM Observes “Phase Transition from Quantum Chaos to Order” with 100 Qubits: A New Milestone in Quantum Computer Control
Key points of this article
What happened: IBM and collaborators observed a control-induced phase transition using up to 100 qubits, publishing the result in Nature Physics on October 9.
Source: xenospectrum.com / Original article here
What people said
Dunno what the hell this is even saying
Re: #3
Gemini's summary
A research team from IBM, Rutgers University, and others succeeded in observing a "phase transition from quantum chaos to order" in a 100-qubit experiment through repeated measurement-and-reset operations.
Key points
• Experiment scale: Repeated measurement and reset operations performed on 100 qubits.
• Number of iterations: Quantum state control was carried out through roughly 5,000 repeated operations.
• Result: It was shown that a chaotic many-body quantum system transitions into an ordered state once the frequency/conditions of external intervention (measurement and reset) cross a threshold.
• Significance: Seen as an important step toward understanding quantum error correction and entanglement dynamics, and toward stable control of quantum computers
Gemini's summary
A research team from IBM, Rutgers University, and others succeeded in observing a "phase transition from quantum chaos to order" in a 100-qubit experiment through repeated measurement-and-reset operations.
Key points
• Experiment scale: Repeated measurement and reset operations performed on 100 qubits.
• Number of iterations: Quantum state control was carried out through roughly 5,000 repeated operations.
• Result: It was shown that a chaotic many-body quantum system transitions into an ordered state once the frequency/conditions of external intervention (measurement and reset) cross a threshold.
• Significance: Seen as an important step toward understanding quantum error correction and entanglement dynamics, and toward stable control of quantum computers
This is a classic case of hype dressed up through impression management
That said, resetting all qubits to a known state and protecting unknown quantum information (as quantum error correction must) are fundamentally different goals.
Classic scam-ad move: tuck the disclaimer away in the fine print
That said, resetting all qubits to a known state and protecting unknown quantum information (as quantum error correction must) are fundamentally different goals.
Classic scam-ad move: tuck the disclaimer away in the fine print
The 50-yen Gundam (a cheap gacha capsule-toy figure — a random non-sequitur troll post)
Dunno, but even just looking at the surface wording as a layman — if chaos becomes order, then "phase" (相), i.e. 転移 (ten'i) / 移転 (iten), is just the translation of the English word "transfer"
(kind of like 産生 (sansei) / 生産 (seisan) being the translation of "produce" — that's the level of stupidity Japanese academics operate at)
that's what's changing
To begin with, the English text opens with something like "chaos (theory) is a very familiar idea in science," which tells you it's written for people who already understand what "chaos" means scientifically
Anyone who reads it at the level of "there was chaos in ancient times" goes off in the wrong direction from there
And then the Japanese translation twists it around even further
Isn't this just a pretentious, overcomplicated way of saying that an electron cloud (chaos) became usable as discrete electron quanta (order) — i.e. it underwent a "phase change"?
Dunno, just writing my personal take here
(kind of like 産生 (sansei) / 生産 (seisan) being the translation of "produce" — that's the level of stupidity Japanese academics operate at)
that's what's changing
To begin with, the English text opens with something like "chaos (theory) is a very familiar idea in science," which tells you it's written for people who already understand what "chaos" means scientifically
Anyone who reads it at the level of "there was chaos in ancient times" goes off in the wrong direction from there
And then the Japanese translation twists it around even further
Isn't this just a pretentious, overcomplicated way of saying that an electron cloud (chaos) became usable as discrete electron quanta (order) — i.e. it underwent a "phase change"?
Dunno, just writing my personal take here
Investors who don't know about the quantum bubble collapse of ages past can go ahead and believe it on their own, and lose a ton of money on their own too
But seriously, quit it with the cult-like recruiting of new believers based on your own blind faith — it's honestly exhausting lol
But seriously, quit it with the cult-like recruiting of new believers based on your own blind faith — it's honestly exhausting lol
By the way, Gemini is a stakeholder here, i.e. there's a conflict of interest
Needless to say, it shows pretty low media literacy to take an interested party's own testimony at face value
Needless to say, it shows pretty low media literacy to take an interested party's own testimony at face value
Nobody's complaining about xenospectrum or whatever, but this article is actually quite accurate, not sensationalized, and clearly did its homework on the paper and the surrounding context
Reads like it was written by someone who actually understands the subject — a solid article
Not like Gigazine, which just translates hyped-up foreign articles and hypes them up even more
Reads like it was written by someone who actually understands the subject — a solid article
Not like Gigazine, which just translates hyped-up foreign articles and hypes them up even more
This is just hype preying on the ignorance of rookie investors who can't understand the jargon
What's really malicious is that the technical terms never get properly explained
And the fact that info about the quantum bubble collapse from just ten-odd years ago barely turns up in searches — is that deliberate, or just plain stupidity?
Total amnesia, huh
Ten years later and it's the same urban legend — pure déjà vu
What's really malicious is that the technical terms never get properly explained
And the fact that info about the quantum bubble collapse from just ten-odd years ago barely turns up in searches — is that deliberate, or just plain stupidity?
Total amnesia, huh
Ten years later and it's the same urban legend — pure déjà vu
What this experiment aimed to do was reset qubits to the known "0" state.
Quantum error correction, by contrast, has to protect the unknown quantum information being used in a computation.
Sure, if you measure the qubits and reset them all to 0, you do get an ordered state — but in the process, you also destroy the quantum information that was supposed to be preserved.
Understanding this difference in goals is essential to thinking about how this result relates to fault-tolerant quantum computing.
Quantum error correction, by contrast, has to protect the unknown quantum information being used in a computation.
Sure, if you measure the qubits and reset them all to 0, you do get an ordered state — but in the process, you also destroy the quantum information that was supposed to be preserved.
Understanding this difference in goals is essential to thinking about how this result relates to fault-tolerant quantum computing.
Whoever called this a scam ad in Re: #14 — you might want to double-check you didn't misread it
This research was first released as a preprint on September 22, 2025, and was also slated for presentation at the American Physical Society (APS) meeting in March 2026. Its publication in Nature Physics now means these results have been formally published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Re: #16 — the article text itself does say "peer-reviewed journal," for what it's worth
It's AI x quant, so AI is confirmed as an accomplice here
Ten years ago people were making this exact same déjà-vu complaint
It's an immortal zombie scheme that moves the goalposts once a decade
No point saying anything to this dumb industry, so I'll just call out the debt
Same one-pattern bait as a one-hit-wonder singer
Quantum magic can't shrink the debt, and when scientists push back they can't actually refute them — it's an industry that runs on Nostradamus-style prophecy
Ten years ago people were making this exact same déjà-vu complaint
It's an immortal zombie scheme that moves the goalposts once a decade
No point saying anything to this dumb industry, so I'll just call out the debt
Same one-pattern bait as a one-hit-wonder singer
Quantum magic can't shrink the debt, and when scientists push back they can't actually refute them — it's an industry that runs on Nostradamus-style prophecy
What this experiment and quantum error correction have in common is the technical element of measuring partway through a quantum computation and repeating processing based on the results.
This study does not show that logical qubits were protected and error rates were lowered.
Even so, there's value in having coordinated large-scale measurement and feedback on an actual quantum processor and obtaining statistical data usable for verifying the underlying physics — because it managed to carry out, on a large-scale circuit, the repeated measure-and-control operations that quantum error correction will also require.
This study does not show that logical qubits were protected and error rates were lowered.
Even so, there's value in having coordinated large-scale measurement and feedback on an actual quantum processor and obtaining statistical data usable for verifying the underlying physics — because it managed to carry out, on a large-scale circuit, the repeated measure-and-control operations that quantum error correction will also require.
Per Re: #19's point in the article, I'd guess there are people who'd be in trouble if this really did become usable statistics for verifying physical phenomena
Maybe it'd make sense to just ask an AI which industries or occult-adjacent fields would be troubled by this
Then whichever industry got an inconvenient answer from the AI would be the one voicing the opposing opinion
Maybe it'd make sense to just ask an AI which industries or occult-adjacent fields would be troubled by this
Then whichever industry got an inconvenient answer from the AI would be the one voicing the opposing opinion
Re: #20
Because it'd mean the psychic/spiritual-scam industry can't keep cashing in via lawsuits and lucky charms anymore
Because it'd mean the psychic/spiritual-scam industry can't keep cashing in via lawsuits and lucky charms anymore
Everyone should take history more seriously and actually learn from it
If you're a true believer who won't learn from history, there's no point saying anything, so I won't
If you're a true believer who won't learn from history, there's no point saying anything, so I won't
Let me put it simply
Nobody's saying the paper itself is false
This is not a quantum computer
This isn't even an implementation of error correction
This is just an experimental rig for researching error correction before it's actually implemented
How many more times are they going to push this back?
The real question is whether encryption will actually be broken by 2035
The losses just keep piling up
Nobody's saying the paper itself is false
This is not a quantum computer
This isn't even an implementation of error correction
This is just an experimental rig for researching error correction before it's actually implemented
How many more times are they going to push this back?
The real question is whether encryption will actually be broken by 2035
The losses just keep piling up
By the way, how many times has this "2035" roadmap deadline already been pushed back?
Probably more than 30 years' worth by now, right?
Probably more than 30 years' worth by now, right?
Re: #7
Quantum computers don't make computation faster across the board
They only speed up specific problems like integer factorization, so encryption algorithms that depend on that are simply being phased out of new adoption,
and everyone's shifting over to things like lattice-based cryptography, which quantum computers can't solve quickly
Quantum computers don't make computation faster across the board
They only speed up specific problems like integer factorization, so encryption algorithms that depend on that are simply being phased out of new adoption,
and everyone's shifting over to things like lattice-based cryptography, which quantum computers can't solve quickly
Just found this, but Nikkei xTECH published an article this year agreeing with my own take that AES-128 encryption won't be broken (just my personal impression)
This back-and-forth between true believers and skeptics is pointless, so can we please stick to talking about this in terms of money as much as possible —
or just quote neutral articles instead
or just quote neutral articles instead
By the way, the US government's NIST already did one round of updating to AES-256 as a quantum countermeasure, so a second update would be premature at this point
That's just building a roof on top of a roof — a total waste
That's just building a roof on top of a roof — a total waste
Good news
Looks like US NIST has officially certified AES-128 as safe post-quantum cryptography
This was in the English-language source article that the Nikkei xTECH piece was based on
So, at least for AES-128, claims like Team Mirai's (a Japanese political party) "the encryption will be broken" are flat-out false
Not sure about elliptic-curve cryptography, but it's probably safe too, right?
In justifying the use of AES-128, NIST refers to the same observations we explained above, and introduces the concept of MAXDEPTH which is exactly the maximum serial computation that forces parallelization and limits Grover's quadratic speedup.
Looks like US NIST has officially certified AES-128 as safe post-quantum cryptography
This was in the English-language source article that the Nikkei xTECH piece was based on
So, at least for AES-128, claims like Team Mirai's (a Japanese political party) "the encryption will be broken" are flat-out false
Not sure about elliptic-curve cryptography, but it's probably safe too, right?
In justifying the use of AES-128, NIST refers to the same observations we explained above, and introduces the concept of MAXDEPTH which is exactly the maximum serial computation that forces parallelization and limits Grover's quadratic speedup.
By the way, apparently Google is boasting that it'll break elliptic-curve encryption by 2029 (needs verification)
That's just not happening, right? Are they stupid?
Looking forward to two and a half years from now
Don't go pulling the amnesia act and play dumb when it doesn't happen
That's just not happening, right? Are they stupid?
Looking forward to two and a half years from now
Don't go pulling the amnesia act and play dumb when it doesn't happen
Re: #33
The quantum computing scene has been getting amnesia every single year since around 2000 lol
The quantum computing scene has been getting amnesia every single year since around 2000 lol
So basically, this cures baldness?
Well, hair regrowth might be a side benefit too, but — the US government has already officially called half of this "quantum breakthrough!" hype a lie.
@MinatoYuichiro
Show translation
Right now in the US, something pretty rough is happening: quantum computing researchers doing perfectly ordinary, serious work are getting called frauds. If an ordinary person hears about "universal quantum computation" and thinks, "wait, it can't actually compute anything yet — why are you announcing this? Isn't that fraud?" then a lawsuit wouldn't be out of line, and that's actually starting to happen for real.
8:47 AM · Jul 19, 2022
Show translation
Right now in the US, something pretty rough is happening: quantum computing researchers doing perfectly ordinary, serious work are getting called frauds. If an ordinary person hears about "universal quantum computation" and thinks, "wait, it can't actually compute anything yet — why are you announcing this? Isn't that fraud?" then a lawsuit wouldn't be out of line, and that's actually starting to happen for real.
8:47 AM · Jul 19, 2022
I bet there's at least one Gigazine reporter out there reading the 5ch thread on their own article
Background and Key Points of the Debate
This result demonstrates a “measurement-driven phase transition” that resets qubits to a known state — a goal different from quantum error correction, which protects the unknown quantum information used in a computation. Because this distinction wasn’t easy to grasp, the thread split between those who saw it as “hype” or a “bubble” and those who, pointing to its peer-reviewed publication, judged the result on its merits. On the cryptography side, with an eye toward practical quantum computers, the US’s NIST is pushing a transition to post-quantum cryptography such as lattice-based schemes, and even experts disagree on exactly when AES-128 or elliptic-curve cryptography might actually be threatened. The significance of the research itself needs to be read separately from the inflated expectation that codebreaking is “right around the corner.”
*This article is compiled as excerpts and a summary from the 5ch (Science News+) thread “IBM Observes “Phase Transition from Quantum Chaos to Order” with 100 Qubits: A New Milestone in Quantum Computer Control.”
Leave a Reply