The Majorana Saga: A 2018 Retraction and the 2025 Majorana 1 Debate
Why this case matters
Topological qubits are a bet that a special kind of particle behavior could give naturally error-resistant qubits (see Topological Qubits Explained). The idea is attractive, which is exactly why this field deserves careful reading. This guide covers two linked episodes: a retraction in 2021 and a contested announcement in 2025. The aim is not to pick a side on the physics but to show the questions a critical reader asks. The shorter overview is in Microsoft's Majorana Chip.
Episode one: the 2018 paper and its retraction
On March 28, 2018, Nature published "Quantized Majorana conductance", led by Leo Kouwenhoven's group at Delft University of Technology. It reported conductance plateaus that the authors read as a sign of Majorana zero modes. Retraction Watch reports Kouwenhoven was also employed by Microsoft at the time.
Other physicists, among them Sergey Frolov and Vincent Mourik, flagged inconsistencies between raw data and published figures. According to Retraction Watch, Nature issued an expression of concern in April 2020, and the retraction notice appeared on March 8, 2021. The authors found that two figures had been corrected for charge jumps without that being stated in the paper, that one axis was mislabeled, and that recalibration moved the plateau values about 8 percent above the expected value. Their notice said they could "no longer claim the observation of a quantized Majorana conductance."
A later review panel commissioned by TU Delft reportedly found no fabrication, but concluded the presentation selected data that supported the sought phenomenon while omitting data that could have raised questions. TU Delft's investigation, as reported, found the first and corresponding authors acted with culpable negligence. That is a story about selective presentation, not about invented numbers, and the distinction matters.
Episode two: Majorana 1 in 2025
In February 2025 Microsoft announced Majorana 1, describing a chip built on what it calls a topoconductor material and presenting a path to scale. Science News reported that the announcement came by press release without publicly shared supporting data. A paper in Nature published on February 20, 2025 described a measurement on a single device, a parity readout showing a state switching between two values. Science News reports that the paper fell short of demonstrating a topological qubit, and that experts disagree on whether the data is evidence for Majorana modes. One secondary outlet reports that Nature's editors noted in the peer review file that the paper does not establish Majorana zero modes; I did not read that file myself, so treat that detail as reported.
What critics said, and what Microsoft said
At the March 2025 American Physical Society meeting, as reported by Science News, Henry Legg of the University of St. Andrews called the data "incredibly unconvincing", and Sergey Frolov called it "just noise". Cornell's Eun-Ah Kim said she did not see two clearly separated states. More measured voices existed: Kartiek Agarwal of Argonne said it was "maybe a bit premature to call it a qubit" but saw "very many positive signs", and Sankar Das Sarma of Maryland said he found the measurement data persuasive while noting "people of goodwill could disagree".
Microsoft's Chetan Nayak presented additional measurements and said statistical analysis showed a hidden pattern. Microsoft's Roman Lutchyn said "We stand behind the results in these papers." The company's position is that it has made real progress; critics' position is that public evidence does not yet prove the central claim. Both can be read in primary sources, and the dispute may evolve after this page was written.
Claims-checking questions this case teaches
- Is there data, or only a press release? A peer-reviewed paper with released data beats a slide deck.
- Does the paper say what the headline says? Compare the abstract with the press release line by line.
- What would convince a skeptic? Experts in this field have named specific tests. Ask whether they were done.
- Is there a trail? A field with a prior retraction is not guilty by association, but it earns extra scrutiny.
- Is there a simpler explanation? Disorder in devices can produce signals that mimic the exotic effect. Ruling that out is the hard part.
Fairness note
A retraction in one lab's earlier work does not prove a later claim wrong, and Microsoft disputes the criticism. Researchers on both sides are working in a hard area, and honest disagreement is normal. Our job as readers is to keep the status of each claim straight: announced, peer reviewed, independently replicated. This page is education, not investment advice, and the QNT memecoin has no connection to Microsoft or Quantinuum Ltd.
Sources and further reading
- Retraction Watch: authors retract Nature Majorana paper (Mar 8, 2021)
- QuTech: retracted Majorana papers
- Science News: physicists are mostly unconvinced by Microsoft's new topological quantum chip (Mar 27, 2025)
- PostQuantum.com: Majorana 1 coverage, secondary source for the Nature editorial note
Reported as of 2026-10-09. Scientific debates move, so check the newest papers before relying on any claim. This page is education, not financial advice, and it makes no price predictions. The QNT memecoin is independent of Quantinuum Ltd, the real company, and of every lab, company and regulator named here.
Frequently asked questions
Was the 2018 Majorana paper fraud?
A review panel reported by Delft found no fabrication of data, but said the presentation selected supportive data and left out data that raised questions. The paper was retracted in March 2021.
Has Microsoft proven a topological qubit?
Microsoft says it has made one. Many outside physicists said in 2025 that the public data did not yet show it. Check the latest peer-reviewed results and independent replications.
What is the difference between peer reviewed and replicated?
Peer review means experts checked the paper before publication. Replication means a different group reproduced the result. Replication is the stronger test.
Does this relate to the QNT memecoin?
No. QNT is an independent community memecoin, not tied to Microsoft or Quantinuum Ltd. This is not financial advice.
Keep reading
- Microsoft's Majorana Chip: The Debate and the Evidence
What Microsoft claimed with Majorana 1 in February 2025, what Nature and outside physicists said, and how to read the dispute fairly. - Topological Qubits Explained: Promise and Debate
What are topological qubits? Learn the idea behind Majorana-based protection from noise, why it is so hard to build, and why claims in this area remain debated. - Jeremy O'Brien and Chetan Nayak: Betting on Photons and Majorana Qubits
Profiles of PsiQuantum co-founder Jeremy O'Brien and Microsoft's Chetan Nayak, two scientists behind the photonic and topological approaches to quantum computing. - Quantum Computing Myths and Misconceptions
Common quantum computing myths, from 'it tries every answer at once' to 'Bitcoin breaks tomorrow'. Learn what is true, what is hype and what is still uncertain.
All Quantum computing guides | Back to top | Search the site
Main pages: Quantum computing explained | Quantum and crypto | Companies | Quantum news | Glossary