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

An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#31

Post by xenadu02 »

Iv wrote: post #14
xenadu02 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use of the vast majority of the radio spectrum is not used by any form of life that we know of. Being able to communicate non-visibly without giving away our position audibly would be a huge advantage (until your predators/competitors figured it out). Life isn't generally suitable to the use of really high energies like X-rays because it damages cells. It isn't suitable for low energies because it is difficult to cre…

Well, if we exclude all the visual spectrum, which is the most useful part of the RF spectrum for animals: transparent to water and atmosphere, reflects well on a lot of surfaces, has kilometers of range if there is line-of-sight, wavelength of a size making it possible to have lens and sensor cells small enough to fit an animal. But yes, the idea is that if there were a physical principle that would be super useful…

You seem to be engaging in a "No True Scotsman" argument here.

I could point to MRIs and SQUID, but I guess you could claim some animals sense magnetism (for wayfinding or determining north). I don't consider those to be in the same league but then we're back to arguing semantics under your definitions.

The fact remains that physical phenomena exist that evolution did not discover. There are perfectly good reasons for that, but I don't think it is fair to say if nature doesn't use it then it is "questionable".

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#32

Post by wnkrshm »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #27
wnkrshm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What single-mode lasers do offer is a means of inconspicuous communication. If you can aim your communications channel at a receiver, you cannot easily be detected. But life could do similar things with collimating reflectors, even for sound. Are there organisms that use geometry to shape sound to send a signal? I'm only aware of ones that use geometry to boost/tune their reception (e.g. owls). Edit: Dolphins apparen…

> Are there organisms that use geometry to shape sound to send a signal? Wouldn’t this include pretty much any animal than can vocalise?

Technically yes but what I mean is: Are there organisms that shape that sound into a tightly focused beam, to be able to only address the receivers they aim at?

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#33

Post by josalhor »

Iv wrote: post #14
xenadu02 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use of the vast majority of the radio spectrum is not used by any form of life that we know of. Being able to communicate non-visibly without giving away our position audibly would be a huge advantage (until your predators/competitors figured it out). Life isn't generally suitable to the use of really high energies like X-rays because it damages cells. It isn't suitable for low energies because it is difficult to cre…

Well, if we exclude all the visual spectrum, which is the most useful part of the RF spectrum for animals: transparent to water and atmosphere, reflects well on a lot of surfaces, has kilometers of range if there is line-of-sight, wavelength of a size making it possible to have lens and sensor cells small enough to fit an animal. But yes, the idea is that if there were a physical principle that would be super useful…

The properties of quantum computing require incredible low temperatures. We are talking close to 0 K, not -few degrees. That is unfeasible for nature to develop naturally as the advantages of using a quantum algorithm would be far lower than the natural disadvantages of energy requirements, weight, natural complexity, lack of versatility... On top of all that, quantum computing and algorithms always require some kind of non quantum processing, so on top of that we would include non quantum processing...

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#34

Post by _f9cu »

Everything inside living organisms are learnt from nature. organisms with sight, learn from what it could see. Organisms with sense of sound can create only what it had heard in past.

Now imagine primitive organisms that has distributed/scattered sensory system like plants( don't start an argument that plant isn't an organism. instead start the right argument with most flawed system please)

We cannot create anything new which we haven't learnt in the past.

WE CANNOT CREATE ANYTHING NEW WHICH WE HAVENT LEANRT IN THE PAST.

Great people are not great in finding relation in surroundings. They are only good at finding what's inside their brain.

What goes inside the brain ? millions of years of nature's influence.

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#35

Post by Iv »

knzhou wrote: post #21
Iv wrote: post #4

A reason why I allow myself some skepticism on the feasibility of quantum computing is that if it were possible, I would have expected evolution to have used it somehow. If it turns out that protein folding really use a quantum computation, I'll move quantum computers from the "too good to be true" category to the "probably revolutionary stuff that I will see in my lifetime" alongside with nuclear fusion and strong A…

This argument proves too much. By that same argument, nuclear fission, ordinary CPUs, steam engines, rockets, helicopters, jets, X-rays, radio waves, superconductivity, superfluidity, air conditioning, liquid helium, liquid nitrogen, the Haber process, the fractional quantum Hall effect, Doppler cooling, graphene, long-distance satellite communication, gravitational waves, and GPS corrections for relativity all don't…

The argument I propose is not a strong one. It is still an argument: if something is possible, why did evolution not use it? There are several possible answers:

1. Life may not have a use for it

2. It may be impossible to achieve with proteins and cells

3. It may not actually be possible

For quantum computer I (weakly) believe that 1 and 2 are wrong: evolution and cognition would hugely benefit from quantum acceleration and biology operates at a scale where quantum effects are visible. I thought 3. slightly more likely but I'll readily admit that I am nowhere near the knowledge to be categorical about 2.

And note that of the list of things you are giving, there are many that uses the same physical principles that are used by life: steam engine (expansion of heated gases), rockets (ignition of gas), jets (propulsion), helicopters (a rotating wing is a wing), radio waves/X-rays (the RF spectrum, which visible light is part of), etc... The rest, IMO, falls either under 1. or 2. For instance I doubt long-distance communication really offers a substantive advantage when you know whales can already contact each other at 100s of kilometers through shouts, and superfluidity may require conditions and materials that are impossible to reach for organic material.

Note however that this last one is actually a kinda good (if weak) argument: if superfluidity was achievable through organic material and conditions close to the temperature and pressure average on earth, life would probably have found it, as it is clearly a useful property. If tomorrow we find that you can get room-temperature superfluids that are made out of C,H and O atoms, wondering why it is not found in nature will be a very good question.

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#36

Post by _f9cu »

_f9cu wrote: post #34

Everything inside living organisms are learnt from nature. organisms with sight, learn from what it could see. Organisms with sense of sound can create only what it had heard in past. Now imagine primitive organisms that has distributed/scattered sensory system like plants( don't start an argument that plant isn't an organism. instead start the right argument with most flawed system please) We cannot create anything…

We gotta turn around and rethink how we are educating ourselves and surrounding us. We have to be very careful in not misinforming facts or the way we think.

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#37

Post by _f9cu »

_f9cu wrote: post #36
_f9cu wrote: post #34

Everything inside living organisms are learnt from nature. organisms with sight, learn from what it could see. Organisms with sense of sound can create only what it had heard in past. Now imagine primitive organisms that has distributed/scattered sensory system like plants( don't start an argument that plant isn't an organism. instead start the right argument with most flawed system please) We cannot create anything…

We gotta turn around and rethink how we are educating ourselves and surrounding us. We have to be very careful in not misinforming facts or the way we think.

Imagine boolean concept in the computer science. The first guy who theorised did he just propose something randomly and error free, or was he able to look / observe how his brain thinks ? I would pick the second one.

This is an example that anything that feels flawless is from within ourselves!

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#38

Post by raverbashing »

knzhou wrote: post #21
Iv wrote: post #4

A reason why I allow myself some skepticism on the feasibility of quantum computing is that if it were possible, I would have expected evolution to have used it somehow. If it turns out that protein folding really use a quantum computation, I'll move quantum computers from the "too good to be true" category to the "probably revolutionary stuff that I will see in my lifetime" alongside with nuclear fusion and strong A…

This argument proves too much. By that same argument, nuclear fission, ordinary CPUs, steam engines, rockets, helicopters, jets, X-rays, radio waves, superconductivity, superfluidity, air conditioning, liquid helium, liquid nitrogen, the Haber process, the fractional quantum Hall effect, Doppler cooling, graphene, long-distance satellite communication, gravitational waves, and GPS corrections for relativity all don't…

I think in your list of examples there are plenty of cases where nature, while not building the exact thing uses the same underlying principles.

There are a lot of seeds that are aerodynamic so that they get spread more widely for example. Even seeds that have controlled falls due to "autorotation"

But of course on planet earth at least it is hard for nature to use things requiring too high or low temperatures. Nature doesn't need the Haber process, but it does fixate nitrogen.

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#39

Post by colechristensen »

jessriedel wrote: post #28
knzhou wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all correct, and shows why both biologists and physicists don't take the conclusions of Patel's paper too seriously. Just aiming for "20" without any context for what that means is a bad kind of numerology. There's probably a grain of truth in the paper, but only enough to get to something like "20 plus or minus 10", not exactly "20". Speaking as an MIT alumnus, some of the school's promotional material is gl…

MIT Tech Review is no longer associated with MIT. The name is historical vestige. It's just another magazine like Popular Science.

Weird that they wouldn't protect their trademark

Re: An important quantum algorithm may be a property of nature

#40

Post by simonh »

Iv wrote: post #35
knzhou wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument proves too much. By that same argument, nuclear fission, ordinary CPUs, steam engines, rockets, helicopters, jets, X-rays, radio waves, superconductivity, superfluidity, air conditioning, liquid helium, liquid nitrogen, the Haber process, the fractional quantum Hall effect, Doppler cooling, graphene, long-distance satellite communication, gravitational waves, and GPS corrections for relativity all don't…

The argument I propose is not a strong one. It is still an argument: if something is possible, why did evolution not use it? There are several possible answers: 1. Life may not have a use for it 2. It may be impossible to achieve with proteins and cells 3. It may not actually be possible For quantum computer I (weakly) believe that 1 and 2 are wrong: evolution and cognition would hugely benefit from quantum accelerat…

I don't think 2 is so easy to justify. Quantum state transitions occur all the time in a discordant mess of activity at room temperatures. The only way we can control for that and have quantum transitions occur in useful controlled circumstances is by operating at close to absolute zero, which isn't very conducive to exploitation by terrestrial life.

It may turn out to be a similar issue to jet engines, or semiconductors. The materials and conditions required for them to operate just aren't very easy for terrestrial life to evolve into.

Post reply on HN