Quantum Research at MIT Lincoln Laboratory — Annotated Lecture Notes & Key Takeaways

The talk is short — roughly twelve minutes of substance, bracketed by applause and, at the very end, instructions about how to find lunch in the building next door. Inside that frame, though, it covers a lot of ground: seventy-five years of institutional history, three separate quantum​ research programs, a chip foundry that outside universities design into, a diamond magnetometer dangling beneath a helicopter, and a genuinely funny piece of advice about notifying local police before you fly something missile-shaped over a suburb.

What follows is my attempt to reconstruct what was actually said, in the order it was said, with a few notes on where I thought the argument was sturdy and where it felt thin. I wasn't in the room as an expert — I came to this the way you're coming to these notes, as someone listening and trying to keep up.
 

A federally funded lab that starts from the mission, not the technology

The speaker was introduced by a man named Ian, whose role includes oversight of the laboratory and who set the tone with a joke at the expense of the previous speaker, Troy — apparently if Troy ever tires of quantum chemistry, he could host a talk show. It's a small thing, but it tells you the register of the event: an internal-family gathering, people who know each other's work, applause on cue.

The speaker, Dan Ripin, heads the Advanced Technology Division at MIT Lincoln Laboratory and co-leads its Civil Space Systems and Technology Office. His doctorate is in physics from MIT, in ultrafast lasers and photonic crystals. He opened with a bit of homecoming sentiment — he'd walked across the street that morning from Building 36, where he did his graduate work in the Research Laboratory of Electronics.

Then the identity slide. Lincoln Laboratory is about 4,500 people sitting out in Lexington on Hanscom Air Force Base, and its reason for existing is national security. What I found useful was the three-step working method he sketched (2:11–2:44): first look at the architecture of a possible technological solution to a real problem, then do the long-term research that makes that solution possible, then prototype quickly and push the result out — out to the field, and out to industry, where it can scale into something with national-level impact.
That sequence matters for everything later in the talk. It's not "we study quantum because quantum is interesting." It's "we study quantum because we think it closes a capability gap, and we intend to hand it to someone who can build it."

The historical section is where the talk gets its rhetorical weight. Lincoln was founded in 1951 and grew out of the MIT Radiation Laboratory, the same root as RLE. The motivating crisis was the threat of Soviet bombers crossing over the North Pole, against which the country had no sensing architecture at all. The lab's answer required inventing real-time computing and magnetic core memory along the way, and the eventual system was acquired for the country through a spinoff — MITRE.

I want to flag how this story functions. It is a story about a mission so concrete that it forced the invention of general-purpose technology, and then that technology leaked outward into everything else. He then fast-forwarded: missile defense, space surveillance, radar imaging of satellites, and core enabling technologies. Two examples got singled out.

The first is 193-nanometer lithography, where Lincoln did pivotal work that underpinned semiconductor fabrication worldwide for the following couple of decades (4:05). The second is a free-space laser communication link to the moon, demonstrated around 2013–2014, which at the time was the longest laser link ever made (4:27). The part he wanted you to notice about the moon demo wasn't the moon — it was that the link was enabled by extremely sensitive superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, built both at Lincoln and on campus with Professor Karl Berggren.

Both examples are doing the same job: proving that a defense-driven lab can produce tools the entire world ends up using. They're also both, notably, decades old. Keep that in the back of your mind for the last section.
 

Three quantum programs, one of them clearly closer to the field

Lincoln's quantum effort runs at roughly 200 staff level of effort (5:12) — a phrase I'd have liked unpacked, since it's ambiguous whether that's headcount, full-time-equivalent, or something else.

The work splits three ways:

Quantum computing, led by Mollie Schwartz and Daniel Braschi, with Jonilyn Yoder and Kyle Serniak also heavily involved.

Quantum interconnects and communication​ — moving quantum states and quantum information around. Scott Hamilton and Ben Dixon were called out by name from the audience.

Quantum sensing, led by Daniel Braschi, and described explicitly as the area with the most near-term potential for field impact (5:52–6:03).
Braschi's name attaching to both computing and sensing struck me as odd, and I couldn't tell from the audio whether that's genuinely the same person holding two portfolios or whether I misheard. It's a small detail, but it's the kind of thing worth confirming before you repeat it.

The hierarchy is stated plainly and is, I think, the single most useful takeaway from the talk. Quantum sensing is framed as the near win. Computing is framed as the long game. Interconnects are the connective tissue that would let you link multiple quantum computers together, and also handle longer-distance communication.
 

Making the hardware, and then handing it to everyone else

Two hardware platforms are being pushed at once.

The superconducting approach uses aluminum devices built in Lincoln's own 8-inch wafer line at a 90-nanometer node — a silicon foundry that is also a secure foundry, which he stressed matters for national security work (6:22–6:45). That equipment has been in use for something like twenty to twenty-five years, much of it in collaboration with Professor Will Oliver, who started at Lincoln and is now on campus, on record-breaking superconducting qubits. More recently the platform was extended into three tiers, which makes room-temperature readout and control easier.

The second platform is trapped ions, but the interesting move is the packaging: integrating the ion trap itself with integrated photonics, integrated electronic readout, and the same class of single-photon-sensitive detectors used to read out quantum states (7:15). Ike Chuang is the named campus collaborator; John Chiaverini is the key Lincoln figure.

Where the talk stopped being a tour of its own lab and became something more interesting was the ecosystem argument that followed (7:46). The position is basically this: these tools are extremely hard to get working well, so once they do work, the fastest way to grow the whole national field is to let other people use them. Lincoln therefore opens its platforms — superconducting, trapped ion, and some NV-center diamond work — to research groups across the country.

The concrete instance is the SQUILL Foundry (8:26). More than thirty research groups nationwide are designing into Lincoln's process. The effort was kicked off by the Laboratory for Physical Sciences under its National Quantum Initiative, and the stated goal is to lift the entire domestic quantum ecosystem rather than just one institution.

I appreciated that this was the one place where the talk gave a number that wasn't about itself. "Thirty plus external groups" is checkable. It's also the point at which the national-security mission and the open-science mission stop being in tension — the secure foundry and the shared foundry are the same building.
 

Moving quantum states between buildings, and navigating without satellites

The interconnects section is short and mostly proper nouns. There is a real optical fiber link running from Scott Hamilton's lab at Lincoln to Dirk Englund's lab on campus, with a node in Ike Chuang's lab, and on to Misha Lukin's lab at Harvard (9:12). It's been used to demonstrate quantum state distribution and storage at record fidelity. He framed it as a Boston-area collaborative achievement, which it plainly is — that's three institutions wired together through city streets.

Then the sensing demo, which is the most vivid moment in the talk (9:55).

A nitrogen-vacancy diamond sensor — a vector magnetometer — was packaged up and flown beneath a helicopter. The claim being tested was about GPS denial: if satellite navigation were unavailable, could this thing do better than a state-of-the-art inertial navigation system at positioning? His answer was yes, and by a meaningful margin.

The aside that followed is the best line in the lecture, and I'm paraphrasing heavily on purpose: if you're going to fly something that looks a bit like a missile around under a helicopter, tell the local police first (10:27). It's funny, but it's also the only moment in the talk where field-testing stops being a slide and becomes a logistical reality with paperwork.
 

Where I wanted more, and where the talk leaned on its résumé

Here's my honest reaction as a listener, and it's not a complaint so much as a description of what kind of talk this was.

The sensing claim — better than state-of-the-art inertial navigation under GPS denial — is the strongest practical assertion in the whole twelve minutes, and it arrived with almost no scaffolding. No altitude, no flight duration, no error figures, no statement of what "much better" meant in meters or in percentage terms, no description of the magnetic-map data the technique depends on. I don't disbelieve it. I just can't evaluate it, and I suspect that in a room of quantum people nobody was going to interrupt a peer to ask for the error bars. The helicopter story and the photograph carried the persuasion; the numbers, if they exist, stayed off the slide.

The two historical showpieces have the same shape in reverse. The lithography work and the lunar laser link are genuinely impressive and genuinely world-changing, and they are the evidence offered for the proposition that mission-driven lab work spills over into broad national benefit. But they're also stories with endpoints already written. The quantum portfolio being described doesn't yet have an equivalent. The talk is, in effect, borrowing credibility from 1951 and from deep-UV lithography to underwrite a sensing program that is still in the prototyping stage. That's a legitimate rhetorical move, and it's worth naming as one.

The closing framing has a similar softness. Lincoln is presented as "one of many amplifiers" (11:30) — a phrase the speaker borrowed from Will Oliver, who had used it earlier for the Center for Quantum Engineering. The idea is that MIT has many routes to impact and many routes to industry, and Lincoln is one additional route: take campus technology, apply it to national security problems, and get it out that way too.
I like the metaphor, but it isn't an argument; it's a posture. It tells you how the institution wants to be seen relative to campus, not what specifically it will do differently under the new MIT Quantum Initiative. The talk ends on enthusiasm about expanding an already-thriving partnership and amplifying QMIT's national security impact, which is the right note for the occasion and the wrong note if you came looking for a roadmap.

Things I'd have liked and didn't get: any statement of timeline for the computing work, any mention of error correction (which is the thing everyone outside the field assumes is the bottleneck), any sense of budget or scale relative to other national efforts, and any acknowledgment of a program that didn't work out. For a lab that just told a story about inventing core memory because nothing else would do, the absence of failures felt like a missed opportunity to make the method concrete.

There's also a framing question the talk never surfaces. Everything here is justified through national security, and the civilian benefit is asserted rather than argued — with 193-nanometer lithography as the single worked example. That's one case study supporting a general claim, stretched across seventy-five years.
 

The through-line is the relationship, not the hardware

If you strip away the platforms, what the lecture is really about is a relationship. He says at 10:45 that calling it collaboration is an understatement, and then shows photographs of Lincoln staff, students, and faculty working together. The claim is that these ties are integral — load-bearing — to the success of the work rather than a pleasant addition to it.

The structural logic runs through every example he gave. The moon link needed detectors made on both sides of the relationship. The superconducting devices trace back to a professor who started at Lincoln and moved to campus. The trapped-ion packaging runs through Chuang's group. The fiber link physically connects three labs because the interesting experiment required all three.

That's the version of the story I'd carry away. The hardware list will age; the institutional argument — that a defense lab embedded next to a university can compress the distance between a research result and a deployed system — is the part that's meant to last, and it's the part the new initiative is built on.

For our purposes, the practical ranking to remember is: sensing now, interconnects next, computing later. And if you only retain one image, make it the diamond magnetometer under the helicopter, because that's the one that tells you how far along this actually is — far enough to fly, not yet far enough to quote a number.

---

Note on scope: the final two minutes of the recording are logistics — lunch is in Building 46 on the third floor, reachable by a connecting passage, and there's an iQuISE-curated poster session over lunch. I've left that out of the substantive notes above.