Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generated comments are against HN guidelines.
Not seeing anything about generated comments in there: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Willow, Our Quantum Chip
161–170 of 557 posts
Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really not so extraordinary, exponential reduction in logical errors when the physical error rate is below a threshold (for certain types of error correcting codes_ is well accepted an both theoretical and computational grounds. For a rough but well-sourced overview, see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_theorem For a review paper on surface codes, see A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis…
Does this not assume uncorrelated errors?
It does. It's up to engineering to make errors uncorrelated. The google paper being referenced actually makes an "error budget" to see what the main sources of errors are, and also run tests to find sources of correlated errors.
The claim about this is that correlated errors will lead to an "error floor", a certain size of error correction past which exponential reduction in errors no longer applies, due to a certain frequency of correlated errors. See figure 3a of the arxiv version of the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13687
Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip
#163The slightly mind blowing bit is detailed here: > https://research.google/blog/making-quantum-error-correction... “the first quantum processor where error-corrected qubits get exponentially better as they get bigger” Achieving this turns the normal problem of scaling quantum computation upside down.
It also breaks a fundamental law of quantum theory, that the bigger a system in a quantum state is, the faster it collapses, exponentially so. Which should at least tell you to take Google's announcement with z grain of salt.
This is not a "fundamental law of quantum theory", as evidenced by the field of quantum error correcting codes.
Google's announcement is legit, and is in line with what theory and simulations expect.
Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip
#164With this plus the weather model announcement. I’m curious what people think about the meta question on why corporate labs like Google DeepMind etc seem to make more progress on big problems than academia?
There are a lot of critiques about academia. In particular that it’s so grant obsessed you have to stay focused on your next grant all the time. This environment doesnt seem to reward solving big problems but paper production to prove the last grant did something. Yet ostensibly we fund fundamental public research precisely for fundamental changes. The reality seems to be the traditional funding model create incremental progress within existing paradigms.
Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry. I don't care whether an idea was influential or not. All I care is whether someone has a better explanation.
I'll remind you of the quote that started this thread: "Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?" In this context, your opinion and Deutsch's opinion don't matter. The question is about whether the idea is common in the field or not.
Okay. I just don't understand. Are you saying Quantum Computers are also implemented without assuming the computations run in parallel universe?
Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree that it is "the best explanation we have". It's a nice theory, but like all theories in quantum foundations / interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is (at least currently) unfalsifiable. I didn't "assume" hype, I hypothesized it based on the evidence before me: There is nothing in Google's paper that deals with interpretations of quantum mechanics. This only appears in the blog post, with no evidence gi…
From what I understand, David Deutsch invented the idea of quantum computer as a way to test Parallel Universes. And later people went on and built the quantum computer. Are you saying that the implementation of a quantum computer does not require any kind of assumption on computations being run in parallel universes?
It's just not how it works. All this type of quantum computer can do is test some of the more dubious objective collapse theories. Those are wrong anyway, so all theories that are still in the running agree.
Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip
#167> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?
I'm upset they put this in because this is absolutely not the view of most quantum foundations researchers.
From Wikipedia[1]:
A poll of 72 "leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" conducted before 1991 by L. David Raub showed 58% agreement with "Yes, I think MWI is true".[85]
Max Tegmark reports the result of a "highly unscientific" poll taken at a 1997 quantum mechanics workshop. According to Tegmark, "The many worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the consistent histories and Bohm interpretations."[86]
In response to Sean M. Carroll's statement "As crazy as it sounds, most working physicists buy into the many-worlds theory",[87] Michael Nielsen counters: "at a quantum computing conference at Cambridge in 1998, a many-worlder surveyed the audience of approximately 200 people... Many-worlds did just fine, garnering support on a level comparable to, but somewhat below, Copenhagen and decoherence." But Nielsen notes that it seemed most attendees found it to be a waste of time: Peres "got a huge and sustained round of applause…when he got up at the end of the polling and asked 'And who here believes the laws of physics are decided by a democratic vote?'"[88]
A 2005 poll of fewer than 40 students and researchers taken after a course on the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics at the Institute for Quantum Computing University of Waterloo found "Many Worlds (and decoherence)" to be the least favored.[89]
A 2011 poll of 33 participants at an Austrian conference on quantum foundations found 6 endorsed MWI, 8 "Information-based/information-theoretical", and 14 Copenhagen;[90] the authors remark that MWI received a similar percentage of votes as in Tegmark's 1997 poll.[90]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Pol...
Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip
#168Imagine your civilization develops quantum computing technology and it's for... advertising. "What is their mission? Cure cancer? Eliminate poverty? Explore the universe? No, their goal: to sell another fucking Nissan." --Scott Galloway
That's how you monetize attention, digital consumption. If you aren't paying for it, you are the product being sold.
In modern world, sometimes, even if you pay for it, it doesn't always give guarantees... :(
Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip
#169They opened the API for it and I'm sending requests but the response always comes back 300ms before I send the request, is there a way of handling that with try{} predestined{} blocks? Or do I need to use the Bootstrap Paradox library?
What happens when you don't send the request after receiving the response? Please try and report back.
Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip
#170Is anyone else even close to Google in this space? (e.g. on the "System Metrics" the blog defines)
I would expect IBM, but I can't find any information on their system metrics based on a quick google search.
Would love if someone could weight in.