Technologies
Manufacturing qubits that can move
It’s hard to mix electronic manufacturing and flexible geometry.
It’s hard to mix electronic manufacturing and flexible geometry.
To get quantum computing to work, we will ultimately need lots of high-quality qubits, which we can tie together into groups of error-corrected logical qubits. Companies are taking distinct approaches to get there, but you can think of them as falling into two broad categories. Some companies are focused on hosting the qubits in electronics that we can manufacture, guaranteeing that we can get lots of devices. Others are using atoms or photons as qubits, which give more consistent behavior but require lots of complicated hardware to manage.
One advantage of systems that use atoms or ions is that we can move them around. This allows us to entangle any qubit with any other, which provides a great deal of flexibility for error correction. Systems based on electronic devices, in contrast, are locked into whatever configuration they’re wired into during manufacturing.
But this week, a new paper examined research that seems to provide the best of both worlds. It works with quantum dots, which can be manufactured in bulk and host a qubit as a single electron’s spin. The work showed that it’s possible to move these spin qubits from one quantum dot to another without losing quantum information. The ability to move them around could potentially enable the sort of any-to-any connectivity we see with atoms and ions.
Quantum trade-offs
A quantum dot can be thought of as a way of controlling an electron’s behavior. Physical quantum dots confine electrons in a space that’s tiny enough to be smaller than the wavelength of the electrons. Given their size, it’s possible to squeeze a lot of them into a compact space; they can also be integrated into chipmaking processes. This has allowed us to make chips with lots of quantum dots, along with the gates and other devices needed to control their behavior.
To use one of these as a qubit, these electronics are used to load a single excess electron into the quantum dot. Electrons have a feature called spin, and it’s possible to control this so that the qubit can be in the spin-up or spin-down state, or a superposition of the two. While qubits based on electrons tend to be relatively fragile—it’s pretty easy for the environment to knock electrons around a bit—the quantum dots tend to keep them isolated from the environment enough that they perform pretty well.
Like any other manufactured chip, the wiring that connects the quantum dots is locked into place during the chip’s manufacture. Since different error correction schemes require different connections among the qubits, this forces us to commit to specific error-correction schemes during manufacturing. If a better scheme is developed after a chip is made, it’s probably not possible to switch to it. Less complex algorithms may benefit from simpler error-correction schemes that require less overhead, but we wouldn’t be able to switch schemes with these chips.
So, quantum dots appear to typify the trade-offs that we’re facing with quantum computing: it’s easier for us to make lots of quantum dots and all the hardware needed to manipulate them, but it’s seemingly not possible for them to benefit from the flexibility that other types of qubits have.
The whole point of this new paper is to show that this isn’t necessarily true.
Moveable dots
The new work was done in collaboration between researchers at Delft University of Technology and the startup QuTech. The team built a chip that had a linear array of quantum dots, and they started out with single electron spins at each end. Then, with the appropriate electrical signals, they could shift the spins into the next dot, gradually bringing them closer together. (And, by gradually, we mean a fraction of a second here, but relatively slowly compared to basic switching in electronics.)
Once the electrons were close enough, the spin wavefunctions overlapped, allowing the researchers to perform two-qubit gates on them. These manipulations can be used to entangle the two spins and are thus needed to build error-corrected logical qubits; these gates are also needed for performing calculations.
The researchers then confirmed that they could move the electrons back to their starting positions, after which measurements confirmed that their spins were entangled. And since quantum teleportation also requires a two-qubit gate, they showed that the process could be used for teleportation. Teleportation can enhance the sort of mobility provided by moving the qubits around, since it can be used to move states around after the qubits have been widely separated.
(Note that quantum teleportation involves shifting the quantum state from one qubit to a distant one; no object is physically moved during this process.)
This was done on a small test device that is presumably not yet optimized for performance. But the operations were done with pretty reasonable fidelity. The two-qubit gates were executed successfully over 99 percent of the time, while teleportation succeeded about 87 percent of the time. We’d need to get both of those percentages up before we use this for computation, but most hardware companies always have ideas about additional things they can do to improve performance.
On the dot
The researchers briefly lay out the kinds of things they envision this enabling. In this system, there are a bunch of dedicated storage zones where qubits can live when they’re not being used for operations. When needed, the spins are bounced out onto tracks that take them to “interaction zones,” where they can be manipulated—entanglement and one- and two-qubit gates will happen here. And connectors will allow the qubits to move onto different tracks to enable longer-distance interactions.
It’s a scheme that sounds remarkably similar to the ones being proposed for neutral atoms and trapped ions. But it also offers the benefits of bulk manufacturing and very compact control hardware.
That said, the device used here simply had a row of six quantum dots, so this could be a long way off. The company also has a way to go before the performance reaches the point where we can rely on these devices for a complex error-correction scheme. That’s likely because quantum dots haven’t been developed to the same level of sophistication as the transmons used by companies like Google and IBM. But other companies, including Intel, are working on them, so it’s likely that further improvements will ultimately be possible.
Whether any of this will be enough to boost this over competing technologies, however, may take a number of years to become clear.
Nature, 2026. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-026-10423-9 (About DOIs).

Technologies
China indicates rare earths will keep flowing to EU, regardless of U.S. trade deal expiration
European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing last week.
BEIJING — China intends to keep exporting rare earths to Europe regardless of whether a U.S. trade deal with Beijing gets extended past January.
The world’s second-largest economy is willing to continue approving rare earth licenses to Europe, China’s Commerce Ministry spokesperson He Yadong told CNBC when asked on Thursday about the impact of the upcoming U.S. deadline.
Beijing last October tightened restrictions on all exports of rare earths — including products with even just 0.1% of China-sourced rare earths. The move followed a new U.S. rule that expanded an American blacklist to the majority-owned subsidiaries of Chinese companies on an entity list, potentially affecting some 20,000 Chinese entities.
However, both the U.S. and China agreed to suspend those measures for one year at a meeting in late October 2025 between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. Ahead of the leaders’ latest summit last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the truce was extended by two months to January.
Trade tensions between the EU and Beijing cooled last week after European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing. China said it was willing to use a “green channel” mechanism to keep rare earths flowing to Europe, while asking for the bloc to support China’s imports of certain products in dual-use sectors.
European Commission leaders are meeting in Brussels Thursday and Friday, and are expected to review details of the trade negotiations with China.
Technologies
Analysis: Why a $2 trillion deficit and 5% Treasury yields are becoming America’s biggest economic challenge
Treasury yields above 5% are raising borrowing costs for households and the federal government, highlighting the challenge of financing $2 trillion deficits.
Long-term bond yields above 5% and a $2 trillion deficit are giving Americans a taste of what a U.S. debt crisis would be like. A true emergency would hurt much more, and isn’t baked in. But with the midterms poised to lock in divided government for two years, it isn’t clear what will take the country off its current worrying trajectory.
Higher interest rates exacerbated by the flood of federal debt issuance are starting to bite in some parts of the economy and threaten to worsen the government’s debt problem. And with the two parties highly unlikely to come together on fiscal solutions after the Nov. 3 midterms, any fixes are years off in the future.
The housing market is showing signs of slowing as the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage hovers around 7.5%. Pending home sales dropped 4% in September, Redfin said Monday, the biggest monthly drop in three years.
Mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield
Several factors are pushing up the 10-year, including the war in Iran, which kicked off on Feb. 28 and precipitated the rise in long-term yields. Oil and diesel prices are up sharply, and that has bond traders asking for more yield to account for the possibility that central banks such as the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates.
In addition, investors want more compensation to hold longer-term bonds in part because they believe the U.S. government will continue to flood the market with them. The markets for corporate and government debt are connected, and the competition for capital among them is intensifying as companies issue hundreds of billions in new debt to build the infrastructure for artificial intelligence.
Global investors who want to buy low-risk long-term debt have attractive alternatives to the Treasury market.
If the U.S. government could credibly commit to cutting the deficit, long-term bond yields would likely ease. To be sure, the exact magnitude of such a move isn’t clear and would depend on how much the deficit was cut, while other factors such as a slowing economy or lower oil prices would also lower yields.
But the possibility of a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and lower yields is why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that the U.S. ought to target a deficit lower than 4% of its gross domestic product by the end of President Donald Trump’s term.
There is almost no way the U.S. will hit that target. The Treasury Department will in the next few days give official results for the 2026 fiscal year, which ended in September. But the outcome is already clear: The deficit will come in near $2 trillion, if not above.
That is likely to put the deficit in the range of 6.0-6.2% of gross domestic product for the year, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of a $1.993 trillion deficit and a projection of third quarter GDP.
Higher rates make debt reduction tougher. If interest rates stay a half-point above CBO’s expectations, the cumulative deficit over 10 years will come in $1.9 trillion higher, the agency estimates. If rates overshoot by 1.5 points, that adds $6 trillion in deficits.
CBO expects the 10-year Treasury to average 4.3% over that period, compared to 5.3% today. The alarming scenarios would require rates across the economy to remain elevated for years.
“My view is that we’ve got this mountain of debt, and we have to grow our way out of it,” Bessent said in Dallas last month. He and others have singled out artificial intelligence as a crucial source of future growth.
AI could help but can’t fix the problem entirely. It would take a decade of 7.2% growth to balance the budget with growth alone, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a research group that advocates for balanced budgets.
GDP growth was recently revised up for the second quarter from 1.5% to 2.2% at an annualized rate. The acceleration that quickly would get us to 7.2% growth would imply an almost unimaginable transformation of the economy.
Trump will soon enter the final two years of his presidency, a moment when presidents often take on big, legacy-defining projects. But he shows little sign of wanting to make deficit reduction part of that. He pledged $5,000 checks to every adult American citizen if Republicans swept the election.
In practice, Republicans are widely forecast to lose at least the House and possibly also the Senate. Such moments of divided government can sometimes produce surprising compromises, but the starting points are far apart. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrats’ likely next House speaker, wants to reverse the $1 trillion in healthcare cuts that Congress enacted last year as part of Trump’s signature legislative package.
And that’s leaving aside the deep animosity between the parties.
The overall U.S. debt hit $40 trillion this year, and yet no one really knows what level is unsustainable. A full-on debt crisis likely remains much farther out in the future. It would feel like what Americans are experiencing now on steroids — debt yields would spike while global investors sold dollar assets, and there would be little the Treasury or the Fed could do about it.
For now, though higher yields are also attracting investors to U.S. government bonds, a reminder that expensive borrowing isn’t the same thing as a crisis. But the bottom line is that economics alone can’t solve the problem. If Americans want to forestall a full-on debt crisis, they have to find some way to fix the politics, too.
Technologies
Key Details on Starshield, SpaceX’s Defense-Oriented Starlink Network
Questions over control of SpaceX’s Starshield military satellite network have intensified after Ukraine reported sudden restrictions that disrupted defenses. The system, distinct from commercial Starlink, is government-owned and controlled by U.S. authorities.
Questions surrounding control of SpaceX’s military satellite constellation, Starshield, have resurfaced after limitations on the system impeded Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.
Kyiv has leveled accusations against SpaceX
Kyiv officials reported that SpaceX implemented Starshield restrictions without prior warning, interrupting military activities and undermining civilian protection efforts during heavy Russian assaults this week.
Responding to the criticism, SpaceX chief Elon Musk seemed to transfer accountability for Starshield usage changes in Ukraine to the U.S. government and President Donald Trump. Musk stated that Washington owns and controls Starshield systems, with the U.S. military and ultimately the president setting any usage boundaries. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately respond to Verum’s request for comment.
Here’s an overview of Starshield and its distinctions from Starlink.
What is Starshield and how does it function?
Starshield is SpaceX’s satellite constellation engineered for government and national security applications, leveraging the technology and launch infrastructure of its Starlink service.
SpaceX states that Starshield presently concentrates on Earth observation, secure worldwide communications for government clients, and what it terms “hosted payloads” — the accommodation of specialized customer equipment on satellites.
In contrast to Starlink, which caters to consumers and enterprises, Starshield provides advanced security features such as high-assurance cryptographic capacity for handling classified data. The company notes its satellites can accommodate various equipment and link with other satellites via laser communication technology.
SpaceX disclosed in its most recent earnings report that it secured over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. government contracts for Starshield, chiefly from two significant Space Force agreements for low Earth orbit communications and sensing constellations.
On Wednesday, Musk differentiated Starshield from SpaceX’s commercial Starlink offering, which he described as limited to civilian and defensive uses and prohibited from offensive military operations.
How does Starshield contrast with Starlink?
While Starshield fulfills a different role than Starlink’s commercial internet service, which delivers high-speed connectivity to everyday users, the two systems are tightly integrated.
Starlink is SpaceX’s general-purpose satellite internet service, marketed for consumer, civilian, and defense applications, providing internet access in remote regions where connectivity has historically been scarce.
Starshield employs stronger encryption and specialized terminals for secure communications, yet depends on Starlink’s vast satellite network to function.
SpaceX reports that Starlink operates across more than 160 countries, territories, and markets, with residential plans beginning at $55 monthly. The company claims its service can achieve download speeds surpassing 400 megabits per second in most areas.
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
-
Technologies5 years agoiPhone 13 event: How to watch Apple’s big announcement tomorrow
