I understand your point, jessriedel, but my contention remains that there's a marked distinction between quantum sensing and quantum computing. As we're discussing, quantum sensing has yielded tangible, applicable results, which is the physical manifestation I was alluding to earlier.
In terms of computing, we have seen many new paradigms materialize within decades, even centuries, of their conception. Babbage conceived of the Analytical Engine in the 1800s, but we saw programmable computers by the mid-1900s. The transition from electromechanical to electronic computing occurred within a few decades. Every instance of these examples are real physical examples that were able to be used and demonstrated as a physical device providing utility. We can even go back to the early computation devices of the loom or even analog computing calendar/clock systems.
Quantum computing is an ambitious concept, and while I respect the academic rigor that goes into its development, the lack of concrete, physical outcomes, even in a rudimentary sense, after four decades is notable. Theoretical advancements are important, but the inability to materialize them in some substantial form, especially when juxtaposed against the timeline of prior computing paradigms, can warrant skepticism.
Don't get me wrong, I value innovation and the pursuit of new technological frontiers, but I also believe in questioning, and when the physical evidence is wanting, I'll voice my concerns. This is not to discredit the work being done but rather to keep the discussion grounded and accountable.