You are completely misunderstanding physical qubits<>logical qubits.
If you understood what a logical qubit was you would understand that QEC doesn’t “repeal” Lindblad. Also repeal is a legal term, are you a lawyer? That would explain a lot.
Lindblad itself is fine as far as math and physics goes. It’s about limits imposed by environmental decoherence. Great. Key point though: if you have a way to pump coherence back into the logical qubit faster than the physical environment can drain it out, then this limit, which is again fine in itself, simply does not come into play.
What atom and many others have *already* done is empirical proof that the pump works, so to speak. You cannot say oh such a pump can never be built, because they exist today and are proven to work. And you cannot say the the resulting logical (yes logical) qubits can't preform the right knid of computation, because that's also proven. You've been proven out of an argument.
The fact that you’re misunderstanding this as “falsifying” (or, er, “repealing”) the Lindblad limit, as opposed to simply removing the need to worry about hitting it, makes it pretty clear that you don’t understand what a logical qubit actually is.
It’s like you’re saying there is a physical limit to how fast a human being can work an abacus. This is provably true, you can keep that one in your bag. But then you go on to claim that this “abacus limit” in turn limits the complexity of the mathematics that our species can do. Except, hello calculators and computers.
Dunno. It’s like debating OP_RETURN with someone only to find out at some point that they don’t actually understand what what a UTXO is. How far can the debate really go?
