Go further · Chapter 16 · 16a · Real-world case
What are the biggest quantum computing hype stories?
The short answer (tap to open)
Several famous quantum claims didn't hold up as first presented. D-Wave's 2007 demonstration promised more than it showed. Google's 2019 "10,000 years" fell to ordinary methods. Its authors retracted a 2018 Majorana paper. A 2022 claim that 372 qubits might break RSA found no support. Each story ended with other scientists checking, which is how science corrects itself.
Can you guess what happened next?
Last checked: 2 October 2026. Guess first; the stories below tell the rest.
What happened next?
Held up
Partly
Didn't hold
2007: D-Wave's Orion solves Sudoku and seating plans on a 16-qubit annealer
The answers, in words
- 2007: D-Wave's Orion solves Sudoku and seating plans on a 16-qubit annealer: Didn't hold. Didn't hold as a speed-up claim: a 2014 Science study found no evidence of quantum speed-up on a later 503-qubit machine.
- 2019: Google's Sycamore does in 200 seconds what a supercomputer would need 10,000 years for: Partly. Partly: a real milestone, but IBM said about 2.5 days, and by 2022 a team did it in about 15 hours on 512 GPUs.
- 2018: a Nature paper reports a key signature of Majorana particles: Didn't hold. Didn't hold: retracted in March 2021; a TU Delft investigation found the lead authors negligent but found no faked data.
- 2022: 372 qubits might break RSA-2048: Didn't hold. Didn't hold: experts found no evidence the method speeds anything up.
- 2025: Microsoft's Majorana 1 has a "topological core": Partly. Partly: a real chip, but its own journal's editors said the paper didn't show the key particles, and a 2026 critique followed. Microsoft stands by its results.
- 2025: D-Wave's annealer goes "beyond classical": Partly. Partly: ordinary simulations matched some cases within days; D-Wave says its hardest cases weren't reproduced. Contested.
What happened with D-Wave's Orion in 2007?
At the Computer History Museum in California, D-Wave showed a 16-qubit annealer (chapter 10) solving Sudoku puzzles and seating plans. Experts asked whether it was doing anything quantum, or anything faster. In 2014 a study in Science tested a later 503-qubit D-Wave machine and found no evidence of a quantum speed-up on the problems tested. D-Wave has since published other results, and the debate continues (2025 below).
What happened to Google's "10,000 years"?
Google's Sycamore ran a sampling task in 200 seconds and estimated a supercomputer would need 10,000 years (Nature). IBM replied within days that a supercomputer could do it in about 2.5 days. By 2022 a Chinese team did it in about 15 hours on 512 graphics processors. The result was a real milestone; the 10,000 years wasn't.
Why was a 2018 Majorana paper retracted?
A Delft-led team reported in Nature a key signature of Majorana particles, central to Microsoft's topological qubit plans (chapter 10). Other physicists, including Sergey Frolov and Vincent Mourik, found problems in the data. The authors retracted the paper in March 2021. A TU Delft investigation in 2022 found the lead authors negligent but found no faked data.
Could 372 qubits break RSA?
A December 2022 preprint factored a 48-bit number on 10 qubits and suggested its method might break RSA-2048 with 372 qubits. Scott Aaronson (page 16c) found no evidence the method's quantum part speeds anything up, summing it up as "No. Just No." Breaking RSA still needs far larger machines (chapter 13).
What about Microsoft's Majorana 1?
Microsoft announced a chip with a "topological core". Its Nature paper carried an editorial note that the results didn't show evidence for Majorana zero modes. In June 2026 Nature published a critique of the key test; Microsoft stands by its results (page 10b).
And D-Wave's "beyond classical" claim?
D-Wave reported in Science that its annealer simulated a magnetic material in minutes, a task it said would take a supercomputer nearly a million years. Within days, teams at the Flatiron Institute and EPFL posted ordinary-computer simulations of some of the cases. D-Wave says its hardest cases weren't reproduced. Contested.
What do these stories have in common?
A real experiment, a big number in the headline, then other experts testing it. Usually the experiment survives in a smaller form and the headline doesn't.
Check
Two quick ones
Collect
Your aha card
The headline fades; the checking stays.
Each story ended with other scientists testing the claim.