4
$\begingroup$

After finding precedence Should this question be on hold? I'd like to bring a question that I wrote to attention. Namely, Quantum computing records (entangled qubits) is currently marked as closed, but was modified after being placed on hold to limit the scope of answers. The last time a similar question was asked occured 3 years ago, and the field of quantum computing has undergone vast changes since then!

The question has three short sub questions that can be answered with 2-4 sentences each with a paper or link backing up claims. Originally, I had asked if the answers could include more records that might be of interest, and that is where I believe the question became too broad.

In short I am asking that the question be looked at again for opening (preferably brought back) as it has been modified.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That question was closed as too broad. The field may have changed. The question hasn't. $\endgroup$ – Brandon Enright Mar 18 '14 at 3:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If you look at the edits of the question it has. I cut out two questions and the part asking for additional records of interest. $\endgroup$ – sunspots Mar 18 '14 at 3:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have mixed feelings about it. It's not really a physics-based question. I mean, an answer could literally be "Yes/no #, #, #" and answer everything sufficiently. With no explanations of why, or concepts, or anything. Just rattling off trivia. So I don't think it's too broad as it stands, but I also don't really think it's a good question or on topic... I haven't ruled out voting to reopen, but it would include a downvote too. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Mar 18 '14 at 3:41
  • $\begingroup$ And for the record, I don't think the original question is a good one either so it's not that I'm holding a double standard or anything. I just don't see much educational value in either one. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Mar 18 '14 at 3:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @BrandonEnright take a look at the answer from tpg2114. That was useful your poetry is not. $\endgroup$ – sunspots Mar 18 '14 at 3:59
  • $\begingroup$ Related: State-of-the-art tag? $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Mar 18 '14 at 10:07
6
$\begingroup$

Okay, so I posted these as comments but I thought about it some more and figured I should just turn it into an answer.

As the question stands, I don't feel it's too broad. But I also don't feel like it's a good question. It doesn't educate anybody about anything, other than some trivia and 3 numbers. That doesn't mean you couldn't get your numbers and make a good question though.

I would think this could be split into 3 questions:

What is the current record for entangled qubits and how has the number been increased?

This asks for the number but also looks for some analysis about the progress in the field. What cool things did people come up with to increase the number? Or did nothing change except time and money?

What is the longest storage time of a qubit at room temperature and what breakthroughs led to the increase?

Again, it's tying it back to "what physics makes this result possible" rather than "Just give me a number and a reference."

What is the longest storage time of a qubit at any temperature and how does the temperature influence the storage time?

Same trend -- tie it back to what is physically happening and what governs the numbers that are appearing.

Each of those could be their own questions. They almost have to be, all together it would be too broad again. But one at a time, they are answerable with detail and references and give some insight into physics rather than just listing trivia.

As always on questions like this, I can only represent my opinion and I can't guarantee others agree.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This was enjoyable to read, and I appreciate the help in formulating the question. For the sake of getting an answer and further physics insight I will look into modifications with the aforementioned answer in mind. $\endgroup$ – sunspots Mar 18 '14 at 3:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sunspots I think, in general on this site, your best bet to getting good questions and good answers is to look for people to explain the physical concepts. Numbers are boring. And while it's possible somebody would come along and answer your question in an interesting way as it is now, a totally valid answer could really just be 3 numbers. So it helps to form questions that require some more in-depth analysis to A) excite the experts to answer them and B) make them interesting for others (and easier to turn up in web searches to bring more people in) $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Mar 18 '14 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ Your advice is duly noted and I have split the question into two. $\endgroup$ – sunspots Mar 18 '14 at 17:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sunspots I've voted to reopen your original question, it looks like it's sufficiently on topic and answerable for me at least. Hopefully others agree and your question will be reopened. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 Mar 18 '14 at 17:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .