19 votes

2025 Physics Nobel awarded to three scientists for work on quantum computing (in the 1980s)

Posted by talklittle
Tags: physics, technology, computing.quantum, science.computer, awards, nobel prize.2025, laureates.nobel, john clarke, michel h devoret, john m martinis, history, 1980s, author.georgina rannard, source.bbc
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98d00nq47jo

Link information

This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.

Title
Physics Nobel prize awarded to three quantum physicists
Published
Oct 7 2025
Word count
98 words

5 comments

  1. plasmon
    Link
    This year's Nobel in physics is not for quantum computing, but instead demonstrating macroscopic quantum effects in Josephson junctions. It is, in essence, a continuation of the 1973 Nobel prize...

    This year's Nobel in physics is not for quantum computing, but instead demonstrating macroscopic quantum effects in Josephson junctions. It is, in essence, a continuation of the 1973 Nobel prize on quantum tunneling in semicondctors and superconductors.

    While Josephson junctions are no doubt important for quantum computing, they're not synonymous with quantum computing. Josephson junctions are used everywhere in physics, such as in nMRI machines magnetoencephalography machines, SQUID magnetometers, and ultra-sensitive image sensors, along with quantum computing. They are a major backbone of modern experimental physics, and I would argue that this year's Nobel is not only for basic research, but also for the leap forward in the manufacturing of superconducting devices—Clarke, Devoret, and Martinis did work that made it possible to make Josephson junctions which were relatively insensitive to environmental conditions.

    I'm going to recommend Douglas Natleson's blog post. I would recommend my own blog post on the topic, but I wrote it late at night and didn't proofread it, so it has some embarrassing grammar mistakes.

    8 votes
  2. [4]
    talklittle
    Link
    The timing makes sense given how quantum computing is getting more attention than ever. Kind of funny the committee chose work from 40 years ago in spite of all the supposed progress being made...

    The timing makes sense given how quantum computing is getting more attention than ever. Kind of funny the committee chose work from 40 years ago in spite of all the supposed progress being made today. Maybe a lot of today's quantum research is difficult to objectively validate and therefore controversial?

    "To put it mildly, it was a surprise of my life," said Professor John Clarke, who was born in Cambridge, UK and now works at the University of California in Berkeley.

    Michel H. Devoret was born in Paris, France and is a professor at Yale University while John M. Martinis is a professor at University of California, Santa Barbara.

    [...] The Nobel committee recognised breakthrough work performed by the three men in a series of experiments in the 1980s on electrical circuits.

    In the words of the committee, "the discovery of macroscopic quantum mechanical tunnelling and energy quantisation in an electric circuit".

    5 votes
    1. [2]
      Fiachra
      Link Parent
      I can see it. The original special relativity paper might have been a good paper, but it's historic because of the field of study that was built on its foundation.

      I can see it. The original special relativity paper might have been a good paper, but it's historic because of the field of study that was built on its foundation.

      4 votes
      1. EpicAglet
        Link Parent
        Einstein got it for the photoelectric effect. Never for relativity.

        Einstein got it for the photoelectric effect. Never for relativity.

        1 vote
    2. EpicAglet
      Link Parent
      I can comment since I work in the field. Nobel prizes are awarded according to the principle "for the greatest benefit to humankind". Quantum computing, while it holds great promise, is currently...

      I can comment since I work in the field.

      Nobel prizes are awarded according to the principle "for the greatest benefit to humankind". Quantum computing, while it holds great promise, is currently still completely and utterly useless. Awarding a Nobel prize for that would be incredibly premature and they don't like to do that so they chose something earlier.

      3 votes