Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 373 posts

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#201

Post by gkfasdfasdf »

raverbashing wrote: post #149
DC-3 wrote: post #3

Hi Scott, Shtetl-Optimized's tagline is famously "Quantum computers would not solve hard search problems instantaneously by simply trying all the possible solutions at once". What phrase do you think should replace 'trying all the possible solutions at once' in the public conciousness as a succinct description of the mechanisms of a quantum computer? Or is this topic simply too complex to be distilled into a neat syn…

I'll just point to this https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 which was posted as an answer to a similar question I had on a previous discussion about a blog post of his.

That was fantastic and enlightening, thank you.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#202

Post by dschuetz »

ScottAaronson wrote: post #140
DC-3 wrote: post #3

Hi Scott, Shtetl-Optimized's tagline is famously "Quantum computers would not solve hard search problems instantaneously by simply trying all the possible solutions at once". What phrase do you think should replace 'trying all the possible solutions at once' in the public conciousness as a succinct description of the mechanisms of a quantum computer? Or is this topic simply too complex to be distilled into a neat syn…

A quantum computer is a device that exploits constructive and destructive interference among exponentially many amplitudes , which are numbers that are closely related to probabilities but can be positive, negative, or even complex. If you feel that sentence wasn't clear enough, and it would take at least a few more paragraphs to flesh it out ... well, duh, what did you expect? :-D For a SLIGHTLY longer account, see…

QM was invented, not as you say "discovered". It was the only means to explain things that were inexplicable with the means of classical physics, or even rational thought. And still, there are a so many physicists who claim and toot that they've got it all about QM and act like it's a no-brainer to study 5 years worth physics curriculum first to properly get it.

Most people mistake QM for a natural mechanism, rather than means to explain things. Same people invent Quantum Computing and Entanglement Communication. Well, good luck, I guess?

And you sir, please get over yourself.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#203

Post by [deleted] »

lambda wrote: post #199
ScottAaronson wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quantum computer is a device that exploits constructive and destructive interference among exponentially many amplitudes , which are numbers that are closely related to probabilities but can be positive, negative, or even complex. If you feel that sentence wasn't clear enough, and it would take at least a few more paragraphs to flesh it out ... well, duh, what did you expect? :-D For a SLIGHTLY longer account, see…

In your 35 second blurb, and the New York Times article, it seems like the point you're making is that interference is the main way that quantum computers work. But what makes quantum interference special over other kinds? You can get interference in sound waves, light waves, radio waves, etc. You also mention that magnitudes can be complex, but the same is true of other kinds of waves; complex numbers are used for d…

[deleted]

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#204

Post by EtherTyper »

jey wrote: post #183
EtherTyper wrote: post #156

Will non-linear quantum computers ever be possible? If so, how would they be made, and what would programming them be like? Do we still model non-linear states with vectors and transformations with unitary matrices?

What does "linear" mean to you? Integration is linear[1]. The Hilbert space of all the functions you care about is linear[2]. Life is locally linear[3]. So maybe "non-linear" is just a red herring. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearity_of_integration 2. Not really but close enough. 3. I don't know what I mean either, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_time-invariant_theory is interesting anyway.

I mean quantum computers that harness the NLSE in their computations somehow.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#206

Post by code_coyote »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #200
mpodlasin wrote: post #135

What would be your advice for older (25+) people who want to get into science? Is it even possible? Or should I just accept that the train has left and focus on something else? Can you develop your math/logic/critical thinking skills at that point? How about if you never excelled at these topics in school? Is hard work enough, or do you think some people are born with these talents?

The brain is able to change well into adulthood ("neuroplasticity"), and that includes mathematical/scientific/abstraction centers. There are plenty of folks who didn't get a great start in STEM, but through hard work and dedication, they pushed through the inherent frustration in learning STEM. While some people might be born with a proclivity for these activities, I wouldn't say any individual could not get into sc…

Good uplifting answer. But it is for what can lead to a hobby, rather than a career. Even certificates from MOOCs won't lead to a job in science, researcher or not.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#208

Post by vslira »

What would be the best way to understand the relation between amplitudes and probabilities in the “non-quantum” world? In your NYT piece you say that it would be weird to give a “sq(-1) probability of rain tomorrow”, but are there relatable uses or cases for amplitudes outside of quantum physics?

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#210

Post by joshuamorton »

martin1975 wrote: post #196
JakeTyo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You simply can't something 'physics' if its not testable. :)

That word 'testable', is very loaded. :) But I get what you mean. Are there things that we can't test that do exist?

Scientifically speaking, no. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, and to be falsifiable it must be testable. I guess in some sense you could claim that there are hypothesis that are testable, but which we do not have the capacity to test. But then, is the claim that "one day in the future, we will be able to test this other claim" itself falsifiable? I'd argue not (it's a recognizable, not decidable claim, in the computational sense, and I think that for a claim to be falsifiable, it must be decidable).
Post reply on HN