Do you believe that nation state actors are currently utilizing quantum computing, and if not now, do you see this happening in the near future? If so, what use cases do you foresee?
I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
121–130 of 373 posts
Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
#122Why don't we call Qbits just "qits". Since Quantum-Binary-Digit doesn't really make sense. Do people in the field refer to them in other ways?
Sure it makes sense - a qubit is canonically a quantum spin system, which has two eigenstates, up and down.
Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
#123Hi Scott, Do you think there is a significant chance that quantum will never take off (i.e. there are non-obvious limitations that will prevent quantum architectures like superconducting qubits / trapped ions / quantum dots /... from ever outperforming classical supercomputers)? Related, what in your opinion is the best indicator (or would be the best indicator if demonstrated) of the potential of quantum devices?
I also second this question. Do you believe we will be able to construct real machines that can run Shor's or Grover's algorithms in a practical way, and how long is it likely to take to achieve that? (parents question put much better than mine, would like to hear the answer)
Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
#124Hello Scott,
can encrypted data on blockchains easily be decrypted with quantum computers in the coming decade?
Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
#125Hi Scott, thank you for writing your blog all these years. Your Busy Beaver essay ignited my passion for computer science, especially in algorithm analysis, logic, undecidability, and probability theory. I used to be someone who only thought in code; thanks to you, I now also think in math.
Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
#126Why don't we call Qbits just "qits". Since Quantum-Binary-Digit doesn't really make sense. Do people in the field refer to them in other ways?
Sure it makes sense - a qubit is canonically a quantum spin system, which has two eigenstates, up and down.
What about superposition? Or is that not considered a 'state'?
Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
#127This is slightly off-topic (I'm going to be that "this is sorta more a comment than a question..." guy for a second), but I just want to say that Scott's blog is one of my favorite blogs on the whole internet. If only there were more like it!
Thanks!!!
I know that me-too type posts are frowned upon here on HN, but in this case I think an exception is warranted. Too many scientists ensconce themselves in the ivory tower and treat the rest of the world with attitudes ranging from indifference to outright disdain. I also want to thank you for not following that model.
On a totally unrelated note, I've been trying to wrap my brain around coherent states and the photon-number/phase uncertainty relationship (e.g. http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221a/coherentstate.pdf). Do you know of any simple intuitive stories one can tell about that like one can with position-momentum uncertainty? I know this isn't really in your wheelhouse, but people who both understand this stuff and are willing to field questions like this are exceedingly rare (see above paragraph).
(FWIW, and for the benefit of lurkers, this question was prompted by the discussion on this blog post: http://blog.rongarret.info/2018/05/a-quantum-mechanics-puzzl.... Also FWIW, that's my blog.)
Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
#128Most people were not able to succeed in academia. What do you think you did differently than most people?
Uhh, most people don't even try to succeed in academia! So no surprise if they don't. It's not like I made it to the NBA or something. :-)
Let me speak only about academic CS, since that's what I know best. Of the students who enter the major CS PhD programs in the US, I think something on the order of half of them (maybe a bit less) end up in academic positions, with the rest going to startups and industry and government. So, of the PhD students who really want academic positions in CS, fortunately a large fraction are still able to get them---just not necessarily at a top-tier school. Of course, many students outright prefer industry -- Google and Microsoft can, after all, offer compensation packages that blow academic ones out of the water -- or else they prefer industry to the academic options that are available to them. And that's fine. I feel lucky to work in a field where PhD students have multiple career options, and when a student comes to me for advice, I try to help them figure out what's best for them, rather than imposing some global preconception on it.
From what I know, the situation is worse in other academic fields, like math and high-energy physics and certainly philosophy and other humanities fields -- where you can get dozens of well-qualified applicants for every academic opening, with all the cutthroat competition and other pathologies you'd imagine that would lead to.
Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
#129Hi Scott,
what would you say are the main reasons why you in your mid-thirties are a professor at a prestigious university?
Sheer determination and perseverance? Less partying and more learning? Your upbringing?
I’m asking, because sometimes there’s an interesting story behind it, like with Matt Might (http://matt.might.net/articles/tenure/) who found himself in a objectively bad situation — a child believed to die soon — making him reevaluate priorities and getting successful as a side effect.
Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA
#130How do you feel about the Axiom of Choice?
It feels really uncomfortable that, if you have infinitely many people wearing red or blue hats that they can't see, then they can all guess their own hat color with only finitely many of them being wrong. Not to mention Banach-Tarski and a hundred other strange phenomena. This all militates toward rejecting AC. But then, if we reject AC, we can have infinite sets that are incomparable (i.e., they're not isomorphic a…
Thanks for the answer!
For other people reading, here's the blue/red hats puzzle that Scott was referring to (edited from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hat_puzzle#Prisoners_and_hat...):
> A countably infinite number of prisoners, each with an unknown and randomly assigned red or blue hat, line up in a single file line. Each prisoner faces away from the beginning of the line, and each prisoner can see all the hats in front of him, and none of the hats behind. Starting from the beginning of the line, each prisoner must correctly identify the color of his hat or he is killed on the spot. The prisoners have a chance to meet beforehand, but once in line no prisoner can hear what the other prisoners say. The question is, is there a way to ensure that only finitely many prisoners are killed?
The solution is that it is possible, and you can look on the Wikipedia page to find out how.
Even more paradoxical is that the prisoners can still save all but finitely many of themselves even if there are infinitely many possible hat colours. For example you could allow the hat colours to be specified by three real numbers giving an RGB value.