Live data from Hacker News

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

parel.es

31–40 of 50 posts

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

#31
post #2

> I genuinely think it's a fun & potentially meaningful way to make a decision. what difference is there to any 50/50 choice mechanism you chose, other than being horrendously expensive to implement?

If you roll a regular coin without any quantum effects, every version of you will either see only heads, or only tails. You need quantum in order to make the choice nondeterministic.

How do I know they won't just give me a cached output from someone else's identical job, or from a simulator? I don't really trust IBM to not mess it up.

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

#32

Watch the Remedial Chaos Theory episode of Community to see why it is a bad idea to play around with making decisions that can spawn alternative worlds and timelines based off a single unnatural random event. (also probably one of the best episodes ever)

man we're getting Community and Rick and Morty shoutouts to OP.

probably a sign there is no real discussion here :/

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

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I just tried finding a good resource and I can’t. All of them are mile long page scrolls… I don’t know how they have so much stuff to spew. Qiskit had amazing lessons with cool illustrations (although they did spew at the end) but I can’t even find that anymore on their site.

Don’t worry though, even the professional researchers I’ve worked with think it’s a waste of time. The field is screwed.

Here’s a quick explanation from me- The state |x> means you have some qubits that represent the number x. Say you want to represent the number 13, that just means you have |1,0,1,1>, it just means you have 4 qubits in this configuration (quits can be 0 or 1). It’s also written |13>. If you want the state “13 AND 14 AND 15” in superposition where qubits are both 0 and 1, that’s represented by |1,0,1,1> + |1,1,0,0> + |1,1,0,1>. It’s in that superposition and can interact with itself until you choose to measure it. When you do go to measure it, you might measure any of the values (you dont get to choose which). Maybe you measure 15, that means the state is now |1,1,0,1>, you just deleted all the terms that aren’t 15.

This is a full pic of Shor’s algorithm https://images.app.goo.gl/ZE5rDxHScm4LUqms6

If you look at the pic, main idea is the first layer of H’s creates the state sum_x=0…2^n-1 |x, 0>, then gate U turns that state into sum_x |x, f(x)>, then the measurements measure which f(x) you have, deleting all the terms that don’t have that f(x) in them, so for example if you measure that f(x) is 13, the state is now |0, 13> + |15, 13> + |30, 13> + |45, 13> + … This is the periodic state. Now that we have it we can just apply a gate that takes the QFT (finds the frequency, which here turns the state into roughly |15, 13>), and then measures it, giving the answer period=15.

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

#34
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…

Since quantum computers can stimulate classical computers, presumably they can solve NP-complete problems, since classical computers, by definition, can. Perhaps you mean that they can’t solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time, but we don’t even know that of classical computers, so you would presumably have shown that P≠NP, which would be fairly impressive.

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

#36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since quantum computers can stimulate classical computers, presumably they can solve NP-complete problems, since classical computers, by definition, can. Perhaps you mean that they can’t solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time, but we don’t even know that of classical computers, so you would presumably have shown that P≠NP, which would be fairly impressive.

So you're nitpicking it for being too strong of a statement and too weak of a statement at the same time?

How about this, they can't do the thing NP stands for. They can't run a generic polynomial-time algorithm in a nondeterministically-branching way, and then pick the winner.

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

#37
@andrewp123 cool blog post, tried the experiment like this (the result - 0 is kinda of anticlimactic):

Statement: I will make a minimal BTC transfer today, May 11. 2024, as near noon UTC+2 if the outcome is 1/true.

Result: [ { "0": 0.5140027374683648, "1": 0.4859972625316353 } ] So now we have(will) also split the bitcoin hash forever in more than 2 different branches (I guess way more than 2).

@andrewp123 Check my blog post. https://initsix.dev/in-finite-central-curve/ ,feedback appreciated :D

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

#38
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.

I believe "in practice, theoretically" simplifies to "theoretically".

In actual practice there might as well be hidden local variables here. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference, even though you could in theory.

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

#39
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…

Thanks for restoring my sanity. Every now and then I read articles about quantum computing that upend my (limited) understanding of how it functions, and I feel like I really know nothing about it. In fairness, I do know close to nothing about it, it just turns out that "close to nothing" is still more than a good chunk of the discussion about quantum computing.
Post reply on HN