Live data from Hacker News

Build a toy quantum computer at home

dhruvonmath.com

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Build a toy quantum computer at home

#21
Analogous statement would be that interference of light (say through a pair of slits) is also quantum mechanical in nature. This isn't strictly wrong (since basically everything is quantum mechanical in nature when you get down to it) but is a misleading way to present something that can (and was) understood perfectly well before quantum mechanics came along Thatis.

Re: Build a toy quantum computer at home

#22
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's how to do the "three polarizing filter" experiment. You can do it at home if you have three pairs of polarized sunglasses. 1. Take two of the lenses, hold them an inch apart, and shine a light so that it goes through both. The amount of light that goes through depends on their relative angle; at the right angle (90 degrees difference), no light will pass through. Hold them like this, so that no light gets thro…

Thank you for an interesting experiment to try. I’m looking forward to doing it myself. I want to ask, though. Is it correct to call the third filter an obstacle? In the quantum realm, it’s not really an obstacle, is it?

> Is it correct to call the third filter an obstacle? In the quantum realm, it’s not really an obstacle, is it?

Evidently not!

Re: Build a toy quantum computer at home

#23
post #2

Hi! Author here - If you have any feedback on what can improve please let me know! Thanks for reading and feel free to shoot me a note at dhruv.parthasarathy@gmail.com if you'd like to see something edited.

It is a very nice article, and very well articulated.

However, this article falls into a pet peeve of mine which is that the behavior exhibited here can also be completely explained classically -- this is also a standard demo when explaining how polarization works classically. I feel that it is worth it to at least include a footnote to that effect. The reason that I bring it up is that I (as someone who first learned classical optics, but is now learning quantum optics) personally suffered from some deep rooted misunderstandings about quantum mechanics due to having seen so many of these simplified demos which do not actually capture the quantum nature of light.

The way this article is presented it implies that one can also model quantum phenomenon using maxwells equations -- which is obviously not true. In this specific case you get the same answer, but as soon as you start looking at the individual photon statistics your answers will start to diverge. This is where the actually quantum things like Bells inequality and the Hong–Ou–Mandel effect come into play. If people had just been up front with their descriptions 'oh by the way, when you look at the aggregate behavior of photons they look perfectly classical, it is only when you look at the statistics do they behave any different' it would have saved me a lot of soul searching and misguided contempt for the quantum community.

Re: Build a toy quantum computer at home

#24
post #2

Hi! Author here - If you have any feedback on what can improve please let me know! Thanks for reading and feel free to shoot me a note at dhruv.parthasarathy@gmail.com if you'd like to see something edited.

It is a very nice article, and very well articulated. However, this article falls into a pet peeve of mine which is that the behavior exhibited here can also be completely explained classically -- this is also a standard demo when explaining how polarization works classically. I feel that it is worth it to at least include a footnote to that effect. The reason that I bring it up is that I (as someone who first learne…

Hey - this is perfectly reasonable and constructive feedback - thank you! I see your point that the polarization example can be explained using classical approaches. I wanted to explain it in terms of individual photons as I wanted to use this to help provide some visual intuition for qubits. Photon polarization is a nice, visual way of interpreting qubits and as such lent itself well to the task.

EDIT: I've gone ahead and added the footnote. Thanks for the suggestion!

Re: Build a toy quantum computer at home

#25
The 3-polarizer experiment is a very cool way to demonstrate the weirdness of light.

And the idea of using sequential rotation to keep track of cumulative bias in coin flips is an interesting concept.

But ultimately I think neither one of those concepts really depends on the other in this experiment. Checking for light through polarizers is neat, but keeping track of any other rotating macro-scale object would work just as well. You can do the same thing by rotating a stick on a piece of graph paper. If it goes beyond your pre-determined test angle, you declare a bias.

As I understand it, the crazy thing about quantum computing is that you don't need to go sequentially; you can simultaneously compute every test flip in one step with qubits. That's why quantum computing could speed up certain calculations. (Note: please don't ask me to explain how.)

Re: Build a toy quantum computer at home

#26

The 3-polarizer experiment is a very cool way to demonstrate the weirdness of light. And the idea of using sequential rotation to keep track of cumulative bias in coin flips is an interesting concept. But ultimately I think neither one of those concepts really depends on the other in this experiment. Checking for light through polarizers is neat, but keeping track of any other rotating macro-scale object would work j…

Hey, you're right you could use a stick on a piece of paper etc. Totally fair. That being said this is in fact a real application where a qubit can model things a standard bit can't. Professor Aaronson describes it in this paper: https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/qcoin13.pdf. Additionally, it's described in his lecture notes here: https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/5.pdf

Re: Build a toy quantum computer at home

#27

While this is a nice demonstration of the polarization of light, this is not a demonstration of quantum mechanics, or quantum computing (though it does have pedagogical value, if qualified properly). Polarizers essentially just project the electric field of the wave onto some axis, zeroing out the perpendicular component. Keeping in mind that light intensity is the square of the electric field strength, all of this c…

Hi - thanks for pointing this out. I've added a note clearing up that as you correctly write the quantum interpretation makes sense at the single photon level. Obviously it's hard to generate and manipulate single photons without the right equipment (especially with a phone like in my case) but I do believe this still provides a nice intuition for what's going on. Thanks for your suggestion!

Re: Build a toy quantum computer at home

#28
This is a real-valued computer, not a quantum computer. In the described algorithm the state is the real-valued angle of the polarizer. One could very well implement this algorithm using the charge on a capacitor. Also the algorithm has bugs, it can overshoot the vertical. The author does acknowledge these shortcomings in the "caveats" section. But with all those caveats, you are not building a quantum computer at home.

Re: Build a toy quantum computer at home

#29
post #26

The 3-polarizer experiment is a very cool way to demonstrate the weirdness of light. And the idea of using sequential rotation to keep track of cumulative bias in coin flips is an interesting concept. But ultimately I think neither one of those concepts really depends on the other in this experiment. Checking for light through polarizers is neat, but keeping track of any other rotating macro-scale object would work j…

Hey, you're right you could use a stick on a piece of paper etc. Totally fair. That being said this is in fact a real application where a qubit can model things a standard bit can't. Professor Aaronson describes it in this paper: https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/qcoin13.pdf . Additionally, it's described in his lecture notes here: https://www.scottaaronson.com/qclec/5.pdf

Thanks for the links. It doesn't seem like your experiment captures the interesting part, which is that you don't need more qubits to measure a more subtle bias.

As I understand the experiment now, it seems like the more subtle the bias in the coin, the more times you would need to rotate the polarizer to detect the bias.

If there is something about using the polarizing filters to keep track of tries that is more efficient than using something like a stick, then I would emphasize that in your write-up.

Post reply on HN