Enterprise technology leaders weighing quantum computing claims have a new example of how far vendors will go to protect proprietary results: Microsoft does not intend to prove its Majorana particle findings to the scientific community. According to WIRED, corporate vice president of quantum Zulfi Alam said he is not interested in appeasing scientists who cited inconclusive data in Microsoft's research papers and a lack of peer-review analysis. Microsoft's multibillion-dollar effort to build a quantum computer is one of several racing programs from tech powerhouses and startups.
The Majorana controversy
Microsoft is one of several tech powerhouses and startups racing to build commercially useful quantum computers, according to WIRED. These systems would exploit quantum mechanics to process bits in a fundamentally different way than classical machines, solving currently impossible problems in fields from drug development to defense. Companies are taking different approaches to constructing qubits, including:
- Neutral atoms
- Charged atoms
- Light
Microsoft's approach relies on Majorana particles, first hypothesized nearly 90 years ago, which have proved elusive. The firm's longest-running research project has been plagued by controversies. Last year, Alam's team claimed to have effectively split an electron into Majorana quasiparticles. Scientists cited inconclusive data in Microsoft's research papers and a lack of peer-review analysis for many results, and they could not rule out that other physical phenomena were driving the signals Microsoft used to draw its conclusion. In 2021, Microsoft retracted a quantum computing paper from Nature that claimed evidence of Majorana particles after independent physicists pointed out issues in the data analysis.
Why Microsoft won't share raw data
Alam told WIRED he is unmoved by the criticism: "I don't really care." When asked why Microsoft refuses to share the raw data behind its results, he replied, "Why should I?" He cited the commercial sensitivity of his work, saying the team cannot publicize the granular data scientists are asking for. He also complained that the publishing process is too slow, noting that a paper published in Nature in June was based on work done two years before.
"The world has changed in two years, so this notion of having peer reviews and publications doesn't work in this fast-moving world right now," Alam said, adding, "That's why this paper thing is kind of boring now."
In June, Microsoft announced it had produced a qubit that is 1,000 times more reliable than its predecessor, using Microsoft's scientific discovery AI agent. Still, scientists are questioning the Majorana work underpinning that breakthrough, as Microsoft refuses to share raw data.
An independent physicist's counter
Physicist Trevor Lanting, chief development officer at Nasdaq-listed quantum computer maker D-Wave Quantum, which has similarly faced accusations of inflating claims, pushed back. "The field is growing, there are a lot of experts outside of these firms that are able to reliably assess claims and scientific work," he told WIRED. Having claims evaluated by science is "part of the healthy process of really establishing the science and the technical foundation for the technology," Lanting added, "so when a company or group says they don't have time, I would read that as 'our results aren't strong enough to stand up to that scrutiny.'"
For enterprise buyers, Lanting's perspective is a reminder that vendor claims in quantum computing carry significant uncertainty.
What enterprise technology buyers should weigh
Microsoft has said it will create a useful quantum computer by 2029. Alam plans to win over academics with the working machine rather than published papers. "Get this machine up and let the machine do the work," he said. The feedback from the scientific community, he claimed, "motivates us to be even faster."
The timeline below, based on WIRED's reporting, summarizes the key events:
| When | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021 | Microsoft retracted a Nature paper claiming evidence of Majorana particles after physicists raised data analysis issues. |
| Last year | Microsoft claimed to have split an electron into Majorana quasiparticles; scientists cited inconclusive data and missing peer review. |
| June | Microsoft reported a qubit 1,000 times more reliable than its predecessor, using its scientific discovery AI agent. |
| 2029 | Microsoft's stated target for a useful quantum computer. |
The disagreement also raises practical procurement questions. Quantum computers are expected to eventually crack common encryption, according to WIRED, so enterprises tracking post-quantum cryptography timelines need to assess which vendors are credible. The Microsoft case shows that rapid commercial progress and independent scientific verification can be at odds, and that a company's confidence in its roadmap is not always shared by the wider research community.
Sources:
