Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

What Quantum Computers Can Do A Structural Clarification Beyond Qubit Count and Cooling

Sungsil Chung

Published Feb 5, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This document does not propose a new quantum computer,nor does it critique existing implementations. Instead, it clarifies what quantum computers can and cannot dounder their current structural assumptions,and introduces an alternative computational framingdeveloped outside dominant narratives. The work is shared as a stable reference point for researchersinterested in structural distinctions between time-dominantand phase-structured computation.

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.18489315

Related papers

Waveband Ontology: A Unified Structural Map Bridging General Relativity and Quantum Reality

Fernandes, Ricardo Miguel Machado

This work presents a structural ontology intended to clarify how core concepts from general relativity, quantum theory, thermodynamics, and information theory may be discussed within a single, consistent descriptive framework. The document does not propose new physical laws or claim experimental validation. Instead, it aims to organize existing physical concepts around a minimal set of constraints, expressed through a three mode perspective referred to as GR, QR, and a waveband based representation. The waveband perspective is introduced as an interpretive layer rather than a competing theory. It is used to track coherence, constraint, and accessibility across physical regimes, from spacetime geometry and quantum measurement to entropy production and record formation. The emphasis is on conceptual continuity and structural consistency, not on replacing established formalisms. This document is intended as a foundation for discussion, critique, and future refinement. It remains compatible with standard physics and does not depend on the correctness of any specific model. Related frameworks developed previously by the author, including Resonant Coherence Field Theory and associated works, are referenced as prior exploratory material rather than as required assumptions. The author offers this work as an open preprint in the spirit of transparency and collaboration, with the expectation that some elements may be revised, clarified, or rejected as further analysis and feedback are obtained.

•Dec 13, 2025•0 citations

Beyond Quantum Computers

Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, Paolo Perinotti +1 more

The manuscript poses and addresses a new very fundamental issue in Quantum Computer Science, which is going to have a radical impact on the way we currently conceive quantum computation. We show that there exists a new kind of higher-order quantum computation, potentially much more powerful than the usual quantum processing, which is feasible, but cannot be realized by a usual quantum circuit. In order to implement this new kind of computations one needs to change the rules of quantum circuits, also considering circuits with the geometry of the connections that can be itself in a quantum superposition. The new kind of computation poses also fundamental problems for unexplored aspects of quantum mechanics in a non-fixed causal framework, which go far beyond computer-science problems, and may be of relevance in quantum gravity.

•Dec 1, 2009•13 citations

The art of quantum computing

Miya Knights

This paper presents a different kind of computer that will exploit the peculiarities of the quantum world to accomplish number-crunching feats that are currently impossible. The principles by which a quantum computer would work are quite different from those governing today's classical computers. Despite current processor and memory designs already having to take quantum mechanical effects into account, quantum computing is something far stranger.

Engineering & Technology•Jan 1, 2007•5 citations

On Synchronization as a Physically Enforced Regime A Foundational Clarification

Darren Cudd

This paper clarifies why clock synchronization and shared reference frames are not free or purely conventional features of physics, but physically enforced states that require continuous energy dissipation. Any system capable of being synchronized must be physically addressable, which necessarily makes it an open system subject to relaxation and drift. Preventing this drift requires ongoing information processing and entropy production, consistent with relativistic causality, thermodynamics, and Landauer’s Principle. The paper does not propose new physics; instead, it makes explicit an operational precondition that existing theories already assume but rarely state: reference frames, simultaneity, and coordinated measurement are transient, maintained structures with finite lifetime and spatial extent.

•Jan 7, 2026•0 citations

Physical Interaction Distance as a Fundamental Limit on Qubit Scaling in 2D Quantum Architectures

B.Y. Hughes Graduate Student

This work presents a simple but physically grounded model that establishes an upper bound on the number of qubits that can be effectively coupled within a two‑dimensional quantum computing architecture. While most discussions of scalability focus on gate fidelities, coherence times, or error‑correction thresholds, this study highlights a more fundamental constraint: the finite interaction distance between physical qubits. Assuming (i) a finite effective interaction range, (ii) a realistic physical footprint for each qubit including control structures, and (iii) a strictly two‑dimensional layout, the analysis shows that the maximum number of mutually interacting qubits is limited to approximately 10^2 – 10^3 . This estimate is consistent with experimental observations across multiple platforms, including superconducting qubits, semiconductor spin qubits, quantum dots, ion traps, and photonic systems. The purpose of this work is not to claim an absolute limit, but to provide a baseline, architecture‑independent reference for understanding the physical constraints that govern quantum processor scaling. By making the assumptions explicit, the model clarifies which aspects of current architectures must be changed—such as dimensionality, coupling mechanisms, or modularity—to enable scaling beyond present limits. This document may serve as a conceptual reference for researchers, engineers, and students seeking to understand the physical foundations of quantum computing scalability.

•Jan 9, 2026•0 citations

Quantum computing: promises, achievements and challenges

Thomas Ayral

Quantum computers regularly make the headlines, with optimistic claims (often issued by companies large and small) alternating with pessimistic rebuttals (often by academic labs): sometimes they supposedly solve outstanding hard computational problems, sometimes their performances are dwarfed by classical machines. The goal of this article is to shed light on this back-and-forth, and explain what quantum computing could really be useful for.

Photoniques•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations
This document does not propose a new quantum computer,nor does it critique existing implementations. Instead, it clarifies what quantum computers can and cannot dounder their current structural assumptions,and introduces an alternative computational framingdeveloped outside dominant narratives. The work is shared as a stable reference point for researchersinterested in structural distinctions between time-dominantand phase-structured computation.
This work presents a structural ontology intended to clarify how core concepts from general relativity, quantum theory, thermodynamics, and information theory may be discussed within a single, consistent descriptive framework. The document does not propose new physical laws or claim experimental validation. Instead, it aims to organize existing physical concepts around a minimal set of constraints, expressed through a three mode perspective referred to as GR, QR, and a waveband based representation. The waveband perspective is introduced as an interpretive layer rather than a competing theory. It is used to track coherence, constraint, and accessibility across physical regimes, from spacetime geometry and quantum measurement to entropy production and record formation. The emphasis is on conceptual continuity and structural consistency, not on replacing established formalisms. This document is intended as a foundation for discussion, critique, and future refinement. It remains compatible with standard physics and does not depend on the correctness of any specific model. Related frameworks developed previously by the author, including Resonant Coherence Field Theory and associated works, are referenced as prior exploratory material rather than as required assumptions. The author offers this work as an open preprint in the spirit of transparency and collaboration, with the expectation that some elements may be revised, clarified, or rejected as further analysis and feedback are obtained.
The manuscript poses and addresses a new very fundamental issue in Quantum Computer Science, which is going to have a radical impact on the way we currently conceive quantum computation. We show that there exists a new kind of higher-order quantum computation, potentially much more powerful than the usual quantum processing, which is feasible, but cannot be realized by a usual quantum circuit. In order to implement this new kind of computations one needs to change the rules of quantum circuits, also considering circuits with the geometry of the connections that can be itself in a quantum superposition. The new kind of computation poses also fundamental problems for unexplored aspects of quantum mechanics in a non-fixed causal framework, which go far beyond computer-science problems, and may be of relevance in quantum gravity.
This paper clarifies why clock synchronization and shared reference frames are not free or purely conventional features of physics, but physically enforced states that require continuous energy dissipation. Any system capable of being synchronized must be physically addressable, which necessarily makes it an open system subject to relaxation and drift. Preventing this drift requires ongoing information processing and entropy production, consistent with relativistic causality, thermodynamics, and Landauer’s Principle. The paper does not propose new physics; instead, it makes explicit an operational precondition that existing theories already assume but rarely state: reference frames, simultaneity, and coordinated measurement are transient, maintained structures with finite lifetime and spatial extent.
This work presents a simple but physically grounded model that establishes an upper bound on the number of qubits that can be effectively coupled within a two‑dimensional quantum computing architecture. While most discussions of scalability focus on gate fidelities, coherence times, or error‑correction thresholds, this study highlights a more fundamental constraint: the finite interaction distance between physical qubits. Assuming (i) a finite effective interaction range, (ii) a realistic physical footprint for each qubit including control structures, and (iii) a strictly two‑dimensional layout, the analysis shows that the maximum number of mutually interacting qubits is limited to approximately 10^2 – 10^3 . This estimate is consistent with experimental observations across multiple platforms, including superconducting qubits, semiconductor spin qubits, quantum dots, ion traps, and photonic systems. The purpose of this work is not to claim an absolute limit, but to provide a baseline, architecture‑independent reference for understanding the physical constraints that govern quantum processor scaling. By making the assumptions explicit, the model clarifies which aspects of current architectures must be changed—such as dimensionality, coupling mechanisms, or modularity—to enable scaling beyond present limits. This document may serve as a conceptual reference for researchers, engineers, and students seeking to understand the physical foundations of quantum computing scalability.