[asah]

Some good ideas take a long time.

Nuclear energy got commercialized in 1957. The core technology was discovered nearly 50 years earlier.

Electricity was first discovered in ~1750 but commercialized in the late 1800s.

Faraday's experiments on electromagnetism were in 1830-1855 but commercialization took decades.

(The list goes on ...)

[pclmulqdq]

Your idea of "core technology" is about the first time a theory was discovered that had a technology as a consequence. That's the only way nuclear energy's "core technology" is discovered in 1907. By the same token, quantum computing's "core technology" was discovered in 1926 during Erwin Schrodinger's work formalizing wave equations for quantum systems. During those periods when technology takes a long time, both the underlying physics and the engineering makes steady advances. 100 years later, we still have very little idea how or why quantum superposition works.

[wasabi991011]

> 100 years later, we still have very little idea how or why quantum superposition works.

We understand superposition perfectly well. Maybe you are confusing science with philosophy.

Anyway, I'm starting to lose track of your point. There's definitely been steady advances in quantum technology, both in the underlying physics and in engineering. I'm not sure why you think that stopped.

[pclmulqdq]

What do you mean when you say "we understand superposition perfectly well"? To be very simplistic about this, are you proposing to know the physics of why entanglement can cause information to seemingly travel instantaneously over a distance when this seems to contradict what we know about the speed of light? Does this trigger no questions in your mind about some physical mechanism we don't understand here?

I understand that we have math that says that superposition does work, but we don't actually understand the physics of it. One of the foibles of modern physics is thinking that knowing the math is enough. Newton knew the math of his 100% internally consistent version of physics, but we know that there were observations that were not explained by his math that we now understand the physical mechanisms for.

I understand that "things that are beyond the math and physics I know" may be philosophy in your mind, but that is not a correct definition of philosophy.

[wasabi991011]

>are you proposing to know the physics of why entanglement can cause information to seemingly travel instantaneously over a distance when this seems to contradict what we know about the speed of light?

I guess, in the sense that we know _it doesn't_. First of all, I'm pretty sure you are confusing superposition with entanglement. Second of all, entanglement doesn't transmit any information, it is purely a type of correlation. This is usually shown in most introductory quantum information or quantum computing courses. You can also find explanations on the physics stackexchange.

Superposition is just another word for the linearity of quantum systems.

Anyway, it's a hard question to figure out the limits between math, physics, and philosophy. A lot of physicists believe physics is about making useful mathematical models of reality, and trying to find better ones. Newton might disagree, but he's also been dead hundreds of years.

Anyway, please don't fall for the Dunning-Kruger effect. You clearly are only slightly familiar with quantum physics and have some serious misconceptions, but you sound very sure of yourself.