The Debate Behind Microsoft's Quantum Breakthrough, and Why You Haven’t Heard of It
If you follow mainstream news, you might have heard about Microsoft creating its own quantum chip, Majorana 1, with CEO Satya Nadella declaring it “an entirely new state of matter.”
If you follow politics, you may have seen Senator Ted Cruz holding this exact quantum chip during a Senate hearing. If you're a tech enthusiast, you might have seen the famous tech influencer Marques Brownlee (MKBHD) tour Microsoft’s quantum lab with tech journalist Cleo Abram in a YouTube video with nearly 10 million views.
Despite all the media buzz, Microsoft didn’t publicly share the data from its Marjorana 1 device. Instead, it was presented behind closed doors to a select group of physicists. One attendee told the Wall Street Journal, that the evidence was too preliminary and inconclusive, something that never made it into viral headlines or YouTube videos.
Microsoft’s rush to announce the Majorana 1 chip, despite its controversial state, was driven by competition in quantum computing from companies like Google and IBM. The timing likely had financial motives as well, as companies use such announcements to attract investments in speculative fields like quantum computing.
Many experts in the scientific community have raised serious concerns about the legitimacy of Microsoft’s quantum chip, which has been largely underreported by mainstream media. This pattern of overlooking skepticism and misrepresenting complex science highlights a deeper issue: the lack of science journalism in mainstream media to bridge the gap between research and the public.
This is not just about scientific integrity; it has real consequences for the public. Investors and policymakers, who rely on mainstream coverage and don't have time to spend hours or even days decoding complex scientific journals, might funnel money into the wrong projects. When corporate PR dominates the conversation, genuine scientific advancements risk being overshadowed by hype.
So, what you likely haven’t seen is the scientific debate unfolding on niche platforms, behind paywalled papers, and at conferences costing thousands of dollars.
Scientific Debate Most People Don’t Know About
That same day, Microsoft published a Nature paper claiming evidence for Majorana fermions, the foundation of its qubit approach. Buried deep in the supplementary materials section was a disclaimer:
The Supplementary Materials section provides additional data, methods, or figures and is usually linked as a PDF file at the end of the paper. However, even scientists in other specialties rarely examine supplementary sections that are not their own field. By placing the disclaimer where only specialists would find it, Nature shielded Microsoft’s claims from broader scrutiny.
But physicists like Henry Legg didn’t let it slip through the cracks. Legg raised concerns about the protocol from Microsoft's 2023 Physical Review B (PRB) paper, which was used in the new Nature paper. Back in 2023, Legg had already identified flaws in the data presented in PRB, suggesting it could be a false positive, and published his critique on arXiv, a preprint (often papers not yet peer-reviewed or under review elsewhere) repository widely used by scientists but largely unknown outside the scientific community. Soon after, Legg and a University of Basel team doubled down and published their analysis in Physical Review Letters (PRL), showing that Microsoft's data could be explained by unrelated effects.
In response, Nayak and Microsoft researchers published a comment on Legg's critique, defending the TGP's methodology and asserting that Legg's concerns were unfounded. Nayak dismissed Legg's critique as a "false straw man" and a "non-issue" in an interview with Nature News. He stated that Legg's claims about discrepancies in the protocol were incorrect. Nayak also emphasized that Microsoft had not been contacted by PRB editors but would respond officially when approached.
This was not the first controversy. In 2018, Microsoft-affiliated scientist Leo Kouwenhoven published a paper claiming evidence for Majorana fermions, only for it to be retracted due to instrument miscalibration and alleged data manipulation. This pattern of retractions and corrections had already cast doubt on Microsoft’s approach, even before Legg's critique.
Even when critiques emerge, scientific journals often suppress them. Tom Hardwicke, a researcher at the University of Melbourne, found that top journals either prohibit critiques or impose strict word limits and short submission windows. Danie Kulp, a senior director at the American Chemical Society, said in an interview with Science Magazine that some journals refuse post-publication critiques due to a lack of resources. Editors often claim that highly technical critiques cannot fit into short “letters to the editor,” effectively shutting down valid concerns.
Even when critiques do get published, they face another obstacle: paywalls. The 2023 critique by Legg and his Basel colleagues remained inaccessible to most, as PRL, like many top journals, locks its articles behind paywalls. Readers without institutional access must pay up to $40 per article, ensuring only experts can engage in the debate.
The APS March Meeting: A Tale of Two Talks
The influence of Big Tech in science goes beyond flashy announcements. It also shapes who gets to be heard, even at major events like the American Physical Society (APS) March Meeting, the world’s largest physics conference.
Attending these scientific conferences is costly, with registration fees often exceeding $1,000, making them largely inaccessible to the general public. Without reporters covering these events, the public would remain unaware of what happens at these conferences—whether it's legitimate scientific breakthroughs or ongoing debates challenging the validity of those claims.
Microsoft secured multiple 30-minute invited talks, including a high-profile presentation by Chetan Nayak, the lead scientist behind Microsoft’s quantum research team. The Wall Street Journal just featured Nayak the day before his talk, calling him a visionary in the current quantum computing competition with tech giants like Google and IBM. His talk was so popular that APS staff had to kick people out of the room due to fire code violations.
Nayak presented data suggesting their device could hold a 0 or 1 state (representing basic quantum information) for up to 10 milliseconds. However, the data on more complex states lasted only microseconds, which isn’t long enough for quantum computing, leading some physicists to question its validity. Many also argued the data resembled noise.
In contrast, Legg was assigned a 12-minute contributed talk in a smaller room with no APS promotions and had to spread the word through social media. Yet, his room was packed, signaling growing skepticism among the scientific community.
Microsoft’s team had a fiery response during the Q&A session of Legg’s talk. Roman Lutchyn from Microsoft stood up and directly addressed Legg, stating that they stand by their data and its validity and that Legg’s claims are incorrect.
In the end, Microsoft’s narrative remained loud and clear, while skepticism from experts lingered in the background.
Breaking Through the PR Barrier in Scientific Reporting
PR campaigns are often timed with financial motives, as companies use them to attract investments and outshine competitors in fields like quantum computing. In contrast, non-corporate-backed researchers like Legg don’t have big marketing budgets and rely on their own efforts to get their voices out. Their talks and papers are highly technical and filled with jargon, unlike the flashy videos and lab tours from big companies with influencers.
This isn’t just a Microsoft problem; it’s a tech journalism problem. Without enough science reporters who can critically evaluate corporate claims and present the criticisms to the general public, PR-driven narratives will dominate the conversation. We've seen this in AI, biotech, and space exploration, where companies shape public perception long before their technology is fully vetted.
While outlets like Nature News, Physics Magazine, and New Scientist cover these issues, more mainstream media should follow suit and provide greater coverage. Since these outlets primarily cater to scientists and science enthusiasts, many members of the general public do not follow them explicitly. As a result, non-technical investors are left unaware of the truth behind PR campaigns and pour money into promises that may lack solid scientific evidence or real progress.
Also, journalists need to approach scientific debates with the same rigor as politics and business, giving scientists a voice to ensure accurate reporting. Science news isn't just about constant breakthroughs; it's about explaining real progress and distinguishing hype from reality. Without accurate reporting, sensational headlines overshadow the true complexity of science, leaving the public misinformed.
Next time a company announces a breakthrough, we should ask: Is this a genuine scientific advancement, or just another marketing spin? Until tech journalism starts holding these companies accountable, the truth about technological progress will remain buried behind the hype.
Post a comment