Quantum computing is a typical example of taking a model (QM), further than it was ever intended to.
Instead of recognizing the fallacy, they blindly accept its promises : cramming an infinite computational power using very little mass.
They then uses the excuse that it's extremely complicated to build to cover for the lack of results demonstrating the model is holding its promises.
After a few decades, they will achieve at tremendous cost a "success" where quantum computer are typically faster by a factor 10^6 than a classical computer, and with better energy efficiency,
and recognize then that the model had indeed its limits, and that quantum supremacy was never about delivering an exponential speed-up (who would be stupid enough to believe such fallacies, of course all models have their limits) but just a better way of computing.
Is there a way to find how far a model stays valid other than taking it further than it was ever intended to? I personally like to think that physics can be explained by a discrete finite automaton so quantum computers are not possible, but believing this would be more stupid than believing the opposite. Whichever alternative is true, there is a good reason to try to build quantum computer, because the process itself will improve our understanding. And implying that there is some conspiracy to pretend quantum computers are real, is strange to say the least.
If your model can't predict its limits, it is an indication that you are already past its limits.
When you build a model, you build it to map the range of behaviors you are interested in. When mathematical infinities of any kind (like infinite computational power) emerge it's usually a strong hint that the model is not applicable, not an invitation to fantasize about the things you will be able to achieve following your model outside of its region of trust.
You question your hypothesis and then look for an alternative model that is more probable. You don't spend your resources doubling down on blind model following.
Assuming some priors and Bayesian updating your beliefs about how the world works is probably a better strategy.
I am not a Physicist so I don't have skin in this game, but the QM scene really look like a mix between snake oil vendor and religion, and doing more of this "science" by marketing firms isn't really any scientist should wish for.
All the physical theories we had so far require infinite computational power, because they work with real numbers, it's easy to say that it is wrong, but that's not really useful without saying what is right.
There are several interpretations of quantum mechanics that predict quantum computers not working in different ways, to find which one of them is correct you need an experiment that is not described by traditional view. Building quantum computers is the first experiment that has a chance to show what exactly is wrong with QM. Even the people who think there is nothing wrong with QM agree that quantum computer not working would be a bigger discovery than working, and are considering all the alternatives, so i don't see how it is anything like a religion.
Working with real numbers, doesn't mean requiring infinite computational power. Numerical integration can make the integration error arbitrary small, even without symplectic integrators, this mean you can work with finite-precision number instead.
The thing with building a quantum computer is that the original hard test (breaking RSA) is being watered down. Until you prove that you've done it you only get non-results telling you that you are not there yet but you don't know why and require ever more funds. So the incentives are badly aligned and you prove a softer test that you try to sell as something as good as the hard test. If you are not familiar with bias you might even fool yourself into thinking you are making progress because you managed to reach the softer goal you have set for yourself while you are adding complexity to obscure your theoretical shortcomings.
>Building quantum computers is the first experiment that has a chance to show what exactly is wrong with QM.
Don't blindly trust experiments : Bell officially proved that what's very probably wrong is right.
Especially when they require expensive equipment or specialized knowledge to reproduce. If there is something wrong with the protocol you can easily falsely convince yourself. Putting a non-zero prior on unknowns unknowns should be a must.
If you ever try to question the Gospel of Non-Locality, you will find yourself cast aside like many before as the vast literature show.
Instead of recognizing the fallacy, they blindly accept its promises : cramming an infinite computational power using very little mass.
They then uses the excuse that it's extremely complicated to build to cover for the lack of results demonstrating the model is holding its promises.
After a few decades, they will achieve at tremendous cost a "success" where quantum computer are typically faster by a factor 10^6 than a classical computer, and with better energy efficiency, and recognize then that the model had indeed its limits, and that quantum supremacy was never about delivering an exponential speed-up (who would be stupid enough to believe such fallacies, of course all models have their limits) but just a better way of computing.