Live data from Hacker News

Unix forking the universe by running IBM's free online quantum computer

parel.es

21–30 of 50 posts

Re: Unix forking the universe by running IBM's free online quantum computer

#21
post #15
post #10

This is potentially useful because people can be very impressionable when it comes to quantum magic. I think if I could build some kind of shiny heavy tangible apparatus to interface with the IBM compute service, with like seven segment LEDs (resist the urge to use Nixie tubes, this is a serious, practical device) with a big loud trigger and some kind of boutique radio, I would have a potentially very persuasive magi…

But why would you resist the urge to use Nixie tubes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwIGnATzBTg

He stole my idea, that’s why I don’t post from my GENIUS_IDEAS.txt anymore.

Re: Unix forking the universe by running IBM's free online quantum computer

#22
Superposition does not fork the world. This common misconception arises due to confusion between superposition and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it’s easy to see that the two are only superficially similar. States in a superposition still interfere—that's the essence of the double-slit experiment.

In contrast, when arguing that the timeline 'splits' due to measurements, the resulting universes do not interact at all and remain completely unaware of each other—they can never even know if the others exist.

If quantum computers truly 'forked' the world, they would be equivalent to non-deterministic Turing machines (capable of solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time), but quantum computing experts agree that they can still be modeled as deterministic Turing machines.

It's better to think of quantum computers as a type of analog computer, capable of solving certain problems that fit their model well, but not generally more powerful. It’s like an Intel CPU having SIMD or AVX instructions that allow it to perform certain operations faster, but these don't fundamentally change its capabilities. The no-free-lunch theorem applies.

Re: Unix forking the universe by running IBM's free online quantum computer

#24
post #22

Superposition does not fork the world. This common misconception arises due to confusion between superposition and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it’s easy to see that the two are only superficially similar. States in a superposition still interfere—that's the essence of the double-slit experiment. In contrast, when arguing that the timeline 'splits' due to measurements, the resulting univer…

Quantum computers are generally more powerful in the sense that they can solve a larger set of problems in polynomial time.

i.e. BPP is contained in BQP but the converse is thought to be false.

Re: Unix forking the universe by running IBM's free online quantum computer

#25
post #22

Superposition does not fork the world. This common misconception arises due to confusion between superposition and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it’s easy to see that the two are only superficially similar. States in a superposition still interfere—that's the essence of the double-slit experiment. In contrast, when arguing that the timeline 'splits' due to measurements, the resulting univer…

Correct - superposition doesn't fork the world - measurement does. And correct, you can't communicate with the other universe after the split has happened [1]. I'm glad you mentioned that quantum computers can't solve NP-complete problems - my next blog post was going to be about why. Here's an overview of what I plan on saying:

A typical quantum algorithm like Shor's works by sending every possible input through a gate, and so you get every possible output out in a superposition. If you were to just measure that, you'd get a random result - so instead, you need to somehow interfere the output to get the actual result. You do this by taking advantage of the fact that the superposition is a periodic function and the amplitude repeats. This is literally the core assumption of the algorithm.(a common way of doing this using the QFT).

Every quantum algorithm requires some kind of structure in the output like this. Deustch's algo, dumb ones like Simon's algo, etc. NP-Complete problems have no structure to them, so even if you build a gate that creates the superposition you want, it's not possible to destructively interfere it to get an answer (I don't know how to prove that there's no structure to NP-Complete outputs - it just feels trivial, since they're only solvable in exponential time, so there must be an exponential amount of "structure" there).

---

[1] The only way to communicate with the other universe would be to try to use quantum mechanics with something like an entangled pair. But no information can be communicated through an entangled pair if all you just have 1 of the 2 particles! Measurement collapses a state nonlocally, and if you could somehow measure one particle and change the probability distribution of the other, you'd be communicating faster than light. The measurement genuinely changes the state and the amplitudes, but not in a way that the other person can detect. It's really interesting and leads to stuff like teleportation.

Re: Unix forking the universe by running IBM's free online quantum computer

#27
post #22

Superposition does not fork the world. This common misconception arises due to confusion between superposition and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it’s easy to see that the two are only superficially similar. States in a superposition still interfere—that's the essence of the double-slit experiment. In contrast, when arguing that the timeline 'splits' due to measurements, the resulting univer…

Quantum computers are generally more powerful in the sense that they can solve a larger set of problems in polynomial time. i.e. BPP is contained in BQP but the converse is thought to be false.

Yep, they're essentially giant brute force machines. You can find the period of a function by passing all the inputs through it at once and destructively interfering the result.

Why is there a speedup in quantum, though? Why can't you just brute force classically? The answer is that whether quantum or classical, you can always build a hard-coded circuit that essentially swaps the time and space complexity - just make it so that for every operation you were doing in time, instead, every operation happens at its own place in space.

Quantum is special because it also takes the "log" of the space complexity b/c n qubits represent 2^n bits. So quantum lets you swap space with time and then take the log of time, lol. Superposition, interference, etc aren't really even needed in the explanation.

Re: Unix forking the universe by running IBM's free online quantum computer

#28
post #5

> The outcome provably does not exist until you measure it. This is not true. It only provably does not exist in local hidden variables.

It doesn't change much in practice. If the event is influenced by a state outside of its past light cone, you (that is observer inside the universe) cannot predict the outcome even theoretically.

Re: Unix forking the universe by running IBM's free online quantum computer

#30
post #22

Superposition does not fork the world. This common misconception arises due to confusion between superposition and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it’s easy to see that the two are only superficially similar. States in a superposition still interfere—that's the essence of the double-slit experiment. In contrast, when arguing that the timeline 'splits' due to measurements, the resulting univer…

Correct - superposition doesn't fork the world - measurement does. And correct, you can't communicate with the other universe after the split has happened [1]. I'm glad you mentioned that quantum computers can't solve NP-complete problems - my next blog post was going to be about why. Here's an overview of what I plan on saying: A typical quantum algorithm like Shor's works by sending every possible input through a g…

Where is the best place a layman can dig into this statement “You do this by taking advantage of the fact that the superposition is a periodic function and the amplitude repeats.”? I’ve seen articles hinting at this in an obtuse way but I’d love to see something more approachable to help wrap my head around it.
Post reply on HN