I'll read it when I'm home. But I want to say that the fact that this is from google "quantum AI" makes me doubt the legitimacy. They are really ruining their reputation with all the absurd quantum stuff they have been publishing, e.g: their wormhole stuff and a lot of quantum neural networks bs.
A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
11–20 of 67 posts
Re: A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
#12I'll read it when I'm home. But I want to say that the fact that this is from google "quantum AI" makes me doubt the legitimacy. They are really ruining their reputation with all the absurd quantum stuff they have been publishing, e.g: their wormhole stuff and a lot of quantum neural networks bs.
It would be a good idea to read the blog post before making comments.
The result looks very interesting, and the blog post is well written (e.g., I did not know about the prior work re. Grover's algorithm and pendulum systems).
The blog post is also based on a recent FOCS paper, and the authors are reputable people in CS theory, if that convinces anyone to take a closer look.
Re: A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
#13I'll read it when I'm home. But I want to say that the fact that this is from google "quantum AI" makes me doubt the legitimacy. They are really ruining their reputation with all the absurd quantum stuff they have been publishing, e.g: their wormhole stuff and a lot of quantum neural networks bs.
Anyone have an interesting link to some quantum neural network bs? Sounds interesting...
Re: A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
#14[deleted]
Re: A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
For that, accuracy seems to be a stronger limiting factor than speed.
My lay understanding of the problem with classical algorithms is basically that a lack of resolution means you need to monte carlo the thing millions of times... which is why it's slow. If you could model it as a set of quantum states of similar inaccuracy, wouldn't that by definition be just as (in)accurate but faster? [edit] this reminds me of something I read about how NASA doesn't predict solar eclipses by trying…
I don’t think there’s many three body problems in the real world where compute is the limiting factor. If you’re projecting so far out into the future that simulation speed is a problem, you’re initial measurement error will have compounded to the point that your solution is meaningless.
We struggle to predict the exact path of asteroids because of measurement errors, not because computing is slow. Minuscule changes to the initial condition manifest as massive differences in the outcome.
Re: A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
#16One of the most important insights you take away from a physics undergrad is that you can model much of physical phenomena as a harmonic oscillator. The reason for this is quite simple 1. Every closed system has a fixed total energy, so many systems just settle into an oscillating state, where kinetic energy converts into potential and back. 2. Most real world systems are approximately closed, so they leak energy til…
Well that's an illusion of physics education -- you can model almost nothing in the world this way. Rather we engineer circumstances (devices, experiments, etc.) where nature is forced to imitate this otherwise useless approximation.
And mostly this fails. You cant really analyse the world using simple closed-form formula -- all the stuff that this worked for is studied and reported in books.
Re: A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
#17One of the most important insights you take away from a physics undergrad is that you can model much of physical phenomena as a harmonic oscillator. The reason for this is quite simple 1. Every closed system has a fixed total energy, so many systems just settle into an oscillating state, where kinetic energy converts into potential and back. 2. Most real world systems are approximately closed, so they leak energy til…
This is overly complicated. The reason harmonic oscillators pop up everywhere is even simpler and more general than that.
It models first order perturbations over a stable equilibrium. For sufficiently small perturbations around a stable equilibrium everything is an harmonic oscillator.
It's basically taking the first order perturbation of a Taylor expansion around a local minima.
Re: A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
#18I'll read it when I'm home. But I want to say that the fact that this is from google "quantum AI" makes me doubt the legitimacy. They are really ruining their reputation with all the absurd quantum stuff they have been publishing, e.g: their wormhole stuff and a lot of quantum neural networks bs.
Stop basing your opinions on titles alone. Most of their blog posts on AI and quantum are exceptionally well written and researched, even the one you referenced: "Making a Dual of a Traversable Wormhole with a Quantum Computer" [1]
It's like saying quantum teleportation [2] is BS, just because you don't like the SF sounding word "teleportation".
https://blog.research.google/2022/11/making-traversable-worm...
Re: A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
#19> Further, we use this mapping to prove that any problem efficiently solvable by a quantum algorithm can be recast as a problem involving a network of coupled oscillators, albeit exponentially many of them.
Is this a new result, giving that quantum field theory is described in terms of quantum harmonic oscillators?
Re: A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
For that, accuracy seems to be a stronger limiting factor than speed.
My lay understanding of the problem with classical algorithms is basically that a lack of resolution means you need to monte carlo the thing millions of times... which is why it's slow. If you could model it as a set of quantum states of similar inaccuracy, wouldn't that by definition be just as (in)accurate but faster? [edit] this reminds me of something I read about how NASA doesn't predict solar eclipses by trying…
People were predicting solar eclipses thousands of years ago with no calculators or even a modern understanding of math. Can't be that hard.