6 ms·

Justin Trudeau explains the basics of quantum computing to reporters

55 points by tychonoff 10y ago

fragsworth 10y ago
I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece. It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
- bitwarrior 10y ago
  /r/iamverysmart
- zkirill 10y ago
  There's just no impressing you, eh?
- daeken 10y ago
  Do you honestly believe that the majority of people (hell, even 10% of people) could explain it to even the level he did? It's still a layman's level -- his response is clearly over-simplified and I doubt he could show the math behind any of it -- but it's far and above what the average person could tell you about the subject.
  - fragsworth 10y ago
    > Do you honestly believe that the majority of people (hell, even 10% of people) could explain it to even the level he did? No, and what I said came across wrong. I was surprised, and I think that is sad, because things would be a lot better if most of our politicians understood science and technology. The surprise should only be when they really, deeply understand something like this.
  - Reedx 10y ago
    Right. In fact I'd bet that 10% is a very generous estimate. I'd be surprised if it's even 1%.
    - mchahn 10y ago
      Yes, but almost half of americans understand completely how we were created intelligently.
  - TheOsiris 10y ago
    yes, in fact I believe that everyone who is giving a speech at an institution like that to know everything he talked about if not not more. he didn't mention anything that you can't find on the first page of a cliffs notes on quantum physics
    - sospep 10y ago
      > he didn't mention anything that you can't find on the first page of a cliffs notes on quantum physics ummm, i think the idea was to give a "cliff's notes/ELI5" explanation of the subject If you watched the video[0], a reporter asked a question about a political issue but prefaced his question with a sarcastic question along the lines of "I was going to ask you to explain quantum computing < chuckle, chuckle > When do think Canada's ISIS mission will ...." When Trudeau answered the question, I think many were somewhat surprised. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmv4uD2RQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmv4uD2RQ4
- mgiannopoulos 10y ago
  Watching dozens of videos of Americans answering geography questions would lead me to disagree with you on what the average person knows about quantum physics.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Look at how engineering students answer a question about gravity. http://www.falstad.com/gravity.html http://www.falstad.com/gravity.html > Physics 324 - Modern Physics for Engineers > "A body is at rest tends to stay at rest, plus there's no gravity" > "The gravity of the moon can be said to be negligible, and also the moon's a vacuum, there is no external force on the pen. Therefore it will float where it is." > "The pen will float away because the gravitational pull of the moon, being approximately 1/6 that of the earth, will not be enough to cause the pen to fall nor remain stationary where it is. The gravatational pull of other objects would influence the pen"
    - mgiannopoulos 10y ago
      The answers are kind of scary about the state of science education...
- jlos 10y ago
  The Canadian media is highly supportive of Trudeau at the moment and, with the exception of more reputable periodicals like the Globe and Mail and the National Post, are taking every opportunity to gush. That said, Trudeau has shown a significant capacity to leverage those around him to display competencies he wouldn't have on his own.
  - jszymborski 10y ago
    I think the National Post is doing more than "not gushing" about Trudeau, they take every opportunity to gut him, and I think it's a very clear indication of our "more reputable periodical's" very clear conservative bias which, as illustrated by the Andrew Coyne incident [0], is transparently driven by owner pressure. [0] http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/andrew-coyne-resigns-editor-national-post-1.3278149 http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/andrew-coyne-resigns-editor-...
- thevibesman 10y ago
  > I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's Really? I got the impression that he didn't really get the significance of Q-bits and just thought of it as 'stores more stuff than a digital-bit; MORE GB!!!'. At the same time, I'd be surprised if a man-on-the-street interview would give anywhere near as good of an answer. > It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science. Sad yes, but probably a mentality brought on by the number of U.S. politicians who activity don't believe and don't understand many things in science (great answer from Carl Sagen on Charlie Rose on this: https://youtu.be/U8HEwO-2L4w?t=56 https://youtu.be/U8HEwO-2L4w?t=56).
  - gjkood 10y ago
    Thank you for the link to the video. Its probably the most intellectually stimulating 20 minutes I have spent in a long time. I loved the conversation around politicians, religion, ufos, aliens and their particular proclivities. I am reminded of the choice of selecting Rev. Palmer Joss instead of Dr. Arroway for the mission in 'Contact' because he represents the 99% of the world who have some sort of religious faith vs one holding a scientific or skeptical view of it.
    - thevibesman 10y ago
      The anti-procrastination feature kicked me off after my last post, but I was planning on submitting the video link to HN after my comment; here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11511570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11511570 Interesting note about 'Contact'; the film came out the summer before I was in 7th grade so that and the book are far away in my memory.
- JamilD 10y ago
  It might just be a reflection on North American politics, but I think it is impressive when a politician is willing to educate themselves about the basics of any technical subject.
- jszymborski 10y ago
  When you have half of the American candidates denying climate-change or evolution, you get excited when you see a political leader who evidently has taken the time to have a basic understanding of new and upcoming fields of study.
  - maverick_iceman 10y ago
    And Bernie Sanders being in favor of labeling GMOs.
    - Lanari 10y ago
      What's wrong with that. I have the right to know the source of the food I eat and decide for myself do I wanna eat it or no...
  - vixen99 10y ago
    Please check your categories. One could hardly be sentient if one denies climate change per se and no one does. If rather than these weasel words - not yours of course but introduced when 'global warming' fell out of fashion as a catch phrase - you mean CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) then there are plenty of distinguished scientists who don't go along with that argument. Emphasis is on the C word and fundamentally the argument is a quantitative one bearing on the magnitude of the so-called climate sensitivity parameter i.e., roughly - expected global temperature versus parts per million carbon dioxide.
- Fogest 10y ago
  He went around the perimeter institute building in Waterloo Ontario in Canada and spent some time learning the basics and trying to understand the work that they do there. He did understand the basic ideas that he was saying, it wasn't just a script and he was active and engaged learning throughout the day. Obviously he won't understand very much detail about it, but he doesn't need to. He is a prime minister, not working in this complex field of study. His goal has been trying to understand these more modern technologies so that he can better make decisions for the future. It is important for policy makers to understand the things they are making decisions about.
  - dnautics 10y ago
    Can you point out to me in his quote what exactly you claim he understood? "A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer."
    - Fogest 10y ago
      Not sure what you mean here? He spent some time learning and asking questions to some very knowledgeable people in the quantum computing field. Are you trying to imply that he somehow despite all the time he spent that day did not learn anything at all about the quantum computing field? PR stunt or not he spent a good amount of time with these people and I don't see how he would not have learned anything there.
- a_imho 10y ago
  Agree 'Normal computers work, either there’s power going through a wire or not. It’s 1 or a 0.' I believe power does not go through the wire, it is current or charges, and usually voltage is used to signal states. We can have wires depending how you define a computer, but in most cases it just feels wrong.
- martythemaniak 10y ago
  Well, he did spend two years studying engineering at a decent school, so it's reasonable to expect him to have a higher aptitude for these things. Also, you're way overestimating how much a layman knows about computing, quantum or otherwise.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  It was a coherent summary of a complex subject, delivered clearly, with just enough information to support the point of his message without getting bogged down in details. This takes skill; popular science writers make their livings and sometimes even become famous based on their ability to create this kind of summary. Whether or not Trudeau's knowledge of the topic goes any deeper than what he's said here, he's demonstrated that he either cares enough about the subject to have consulted with people who understand it and learned how to repeat their explanations without falling off the rails, unlike good ol' Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens for example, or that he cares about the subject enough to have learned enough about it that he can articulate an opinion in a clear and accessible way. Either way, what's impressive is not that he is repeating information which is true, but that he cares enough about quantum computing to get it right.
osweiller 10y ago
While this seems planted and trite (much like the "because it's 2015" answer), I have to confess that I don't get quantum computing. A qubit can hold multiple values, it seems. Okay, that's a data density improvement (presuming a quibit is as dense as a traditional bit). How does that improve computing power (especially by the many magnitudes)? Do you multiply a qubit of infinite values against a quibit of infinite values and have all possible results? I just don't see the bridge from data density to a revolution in computing power. Note that I'm not saying this as a cynic. I know that this is happening, and a lot of very smart people are excited by it. I just have never seen an explanation that bridges data density to calculation speed.
- Filligree 10y ago
  > Do you multiple a qubit of infinite values against a quibit of infinite values and have all possible results? The accurate answer would be "no", or at least "thinking that way will lead you to believe that they're more powerful than they are". In particular, quantum computers won't allow you to solve NP-hard problems in less than exponential time, not unless there's something we're missing in the math. That said? Since I don't have the chance to describe it better right now, you can start off by thinking "sorta, yes".
- empath75 10y ago
  Google 'quantum complexity classes'.
- inlineint 10y ago
  One qubit could hold 0 and1 simultaneously and perform some operations/calculations on it simultaneously. Two (entangled) qubits could hold 00, 01, 10, 11 simultaneously and perform calculations on these four values simultaneouslty. ... 100 (entangled) qubits could hold 2^100 distinct values simultaneously and perform calculations on them simultaneously. That's the basic idea. The problem is keeping entangled state that's becomes harder and harder as number of entangled qubits grows. Also there are limitations in extracting of calculations results from system of qubits, so not all algorithms can be speed up on quantum computers (but e.g. integer factorization can).
- 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sreenadh 10y ago
I am hoping that someone is working on a video of Trump answering this question.
Torgo 10y ago
Trudeau is reasonably smart, and admitted his knowledge was basic. It's everyone else that's acting ridiculous. >“I was flabbergasted,” Laflamme says. “I don’t know how he does in other subjects, but in quantum physics, he knows the basic pieces and the important questions.” Maybe he read a single article about quantum theory in an issue of Popular Science. Maybe, before an event at a facility where he knew he would be speaking, he spent fifteen minutes reading something he asked an aide to give him, so he could speak intelligently about it.
- gjkood 10y ago
  Canada should be congratulated for selecting a PM who atleast takes the trouble to educate himself before spouting an opinion. Here in the US, we elect politicians who actively deny science and are proud of their lack of knowledge.
dnautics 10y ago
The statement itself is pure technobabble. "A regular computer bit is either a one or a zero, either on or off. A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer." To be sure, there are statements in there that are correct, but they don't connect up to a coherent description of the science behind QC. In short: I see words, I do not see understanding. What is distressing or embarrassing though is the scientist who blatantly kowtows to Trudeau: “I was very impressed he made an attempt,” said Dr. Lucien Hardy. “He got it spot on.” No. He didn't get it "spot on". But I suppose if the prime minister is spearheading an initiative to fund you you'd better not embarrass him. But that sort of political play is not how you're supposed to do things in science.
- gjkood 10y ago
  Isn't getting funding for science actually politics and not science? Using the funding is science, but getting the funding is politics, no?
  - dnautics 10y ago
    You're conflating a strict definition of politics with "playing politics".
    - gjkood 10y ago
      I am just suggesting that both politicians and scientists may need to do things that they may despise to get what they want. Politicians may need to kiss babies to get elected and scientists may need to kiss politicians (metaphorically) to get funding :). Isn't the ability to "play politics" a significant factor in rising up a hierarchy (scientific or otherwise)?
      - dnautics 10y ago
        http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm "I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.... So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom." After quitting traditional academic science, so far I have found that I haven't had to compromise my integrity in the pursuit of science. It hasn't been easy, but I am happy with where I am, so far.
getoutofherefly 10y ago
I agree it is sad that people are making a big deal about a politician seeming to have a basic grasp of a science that is not well understood, but at the same time a high level understanding is really all he should have. I think that ideally politicians should be working at a high level of abstraction (like any manager/executive in any field, especially technical). This means having a high level, big picture understanding of a field and the major benefits and hurdles to overcome. Having a deep understanding of one area like this would make people in that field happy maybe, but it would not necessarily make him better at making big policy decisions and balancing the needs of the quantum computing industry with the other industries and the needs of the country. The problem is that politicians generally tend to only be good at one thing: politics. A good leader would strive to understand at a high level all of the topics that involve policy decisions, with the intelligence to dive deeper if need be or be able to understand and verify the advice of an expert in that field and make educated decisions. This is usually not the case, but when it is we shouldn't deride someone for only having a topical knowledge of our own fields.
Lanari 10y ago
Looks to me he used a bunch of buzzwords followed by a humble brag. In reality it isn't so weird for a leader to know about quantum physics, like if you asked Angela Merkel I bet she will actually explain the concept. So I don't get all this hype.
agnivade 10y ago
Seems like a publicity stunt to me. The way he answered the question cannot be impromptu.

55 points by tychonoff 10y ago

I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece. It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.

bitwarrior 10y ago
/r/iamverysmart
zkirill 10y ago
There's just no impressing you, eh?
daeken 10y ago
Do you honestly believe that the majority of people (hell, even 10% of people) could explain it to even the level he did? It's still a layman's level -- his response is clearly over-simplified and I doubt he could show the math behind any of it -- but it's far and above what the average person could tell you about the subject.
- fragsworth 10y ago
  > Do you honestly believe that the majority of people (hell, even 10% of people) could explain it to even the level he did? No, and what I said came across wrong. I was surprised, and I think that is sad, because things would be a lot better if most of our politicians understood science and technology. The surprise should only be when they really, deeply understand something like this.
- Reedx 10y ago
  Right. In fact I'd bet that 10% is a very generous estimate. I'd be surprised if it's even 1%.
  - mchahn 10y ago
    Yes, but almost half of americans understand completely how we were created intelligently.
- TheOsiris 10y ago
  yes, in fact I believe that everyone who is giving a speech at an institution like that to know everything he talked about if not not more. he didn't mention anything that you can't find on the first page of a cliffs notes on quantum physics
  - sospep 10y ago
    > he didn't mention anything that you can't find on the first page of a cliffs notes on quantum physics ummm, i think the idea was to give a "cliff's notes/ELI5" explanation of the subject If you watched the video[0], a reporter asked a question about a political issue but prefaced his question with a sarcastic question along the lines of "I was going to ask you to explain quantum computing < chuckle, chuckle > When do think Canada's ISIS mission will ...." When Trudeau answered the question, I think many were somewhat surprised. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmv4uD2RQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmv4uD2RQ4
mgiannopoulos 10y ago
Watching dozens of videos of Americans answering geography questions would lead me to disagree with you on what the average person knows about quantum physics.
- DanBC 10y ago
  Look at how engineering students answer a question about gravity. http://www.falstad.com/gravity.html http://www.falstad.com/gravity.html > Physics 324 - Modern Physics for Engineers > "A body is at rest tends to stay at rest, plus there's no gravity" > "The gravity of the moon can be said to be negligible, and also the moon's a vacuum, there is no external force on the pen. Therefore it will float where it is." > "The pen will float away because the gravitational pull of the moon, being approximately 1/6 that of the earth, will not be enough to cause the pen to fall nor remain stationary where it is. The gravatational pull of other objects would influence the pen"
  - mgiannopoulos 10y ago
    The answers are kind of scary about the state of science education...
jlos 10y ago
The Canadian media is highly supportive of Trudeau at the moment and, with the exception of more reputable periodicals like the Globe and Mail and the National Post, are taking every opportunity to gush. That said, Trudeau has shown a significant capacity to leverage those around him to display competencies he wouldn't have on his own.
- jszymborski 10y ago
  I think the National Post is doing more than "not gushing" about Trudeau, they take every opportunity to gut him, and I think it's a very clear indication of our "more reputable periodical's" very clear conservative bias which, as illustrated by the Andrew Coyne incident [0], is transparently driven by owner pressure. [0] http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/andrew-coyne-resigns-editor-national-post-1.3278149 http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/andrew-coyne-resigns-editor-...
thevibesman 10y ago
> I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's Really? I got the impression that he didn't really get the significance of Q-bits and just thought of it as 'stores more stuff than a digital-bit; MORE GB!!!'. At the same time, I'd be surprised if a man-on-the-street interview would give anywhere near as good of an answer. > It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science. Sad yes, but probably a mentality brought on by the number of U.S. politicians who activity don't believe and don't understand many things in science (great answer from Carl Sagen on Charlie Rose on this: https://youtu.be/U8HEwO-2L4w?t=56 https://youtu.be/U8HEwO-2L4w?t=56).
- gjkood 10y ago
  Thank you for the link to the video. Its probably the most intellectually stimulating 20 minutes I have spent in a long time. I loved the conversation around politicians, religion, ufos, aliens and their particular proclivities. I am reminded of the choice of selecting Rev. Palmer Joss instead of Dr. Arroway for the mission in 'Contact' because he represents the 99% of the world who have some sort of religious faith vs one holding a scientific or skeptical view of it.
  - thevibesman 10y ago
    The anti-procrastination feature kicked me off after my last post, but I was planning on submitting the video link to HN after my comment; here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11511570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11511570 Interesting note about 'Contact'; the film came out the summer before I was in 7th grade so that and the book are far away in my memory.
JamilD 10y ago
It might just be a reflection on North American politics, but I think it is impressive when a politician is willing to educate themselves about the basics of any technical subject.
jszymborski 10y ago
When you have half of the American candidates denying climate-change or evolution, you get excited when you see a political leader who evidently has taken the time to have a basic understanding of new and upcoming fields of study.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  And Bernie Sanders being in favor of labeling GMOs.
  - Lanari 10y ago
    What's wrong with that. I have the right to know the source of the food I eat and decide for myself do I wanna eat it or no...
- vixen99 10y ago
  Please check your categories. One could hardly be sentient if one denies climate change per se and no one does. If rather than these weasel words - not yours of course but introduced when 'global warming' fell out of fashion as a catch phrase - you mean CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) then there are plenty of distinguished scientists who don't go along with that argument. Emphasis is on the C word and fundamentally the argument is a quantitative one bearing on the magnitude of the so-called climate sensitivity parameter i.e., roughly - expected global temperature versus parts per million carbon dioxide.
Fogest 10y ago
He went around the perimeter institute building in Waterloo Ontario in Canada and spent some time learning the basics and trying to understand the work that they do there. He did understand the basic ideas that he was saying, it wasn't just a script and he was active and engaged learning throughout the day. Obviously he won't understand very much detail about it, but he doesn't need to. He is a prime minister, not working in this complex field of study. His goal has been trying to understand these more modern technologies so that he can better make decisions for the future. It is important for policy makers to understand the things they are making decisions about.
- dnautics 10y ago
  Can you point out to me in his quote what exactly you claim he understood? "A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer."
  - Fogest 10y ago
    Not sure what you mean here? He spent some time learning and asking questions to some very knowledgeable people in the quantum computing field. Are you trying to imply that he somehow despite all the time he spent that day did not learn anything at all about the quantum computing field? PR stunt or not he spent a good amount of time with these people and I don't see how he would not have learned anything there.
a_imho 10y ago
Agree 'Normal computers work, either there’s power going through a wire or not. It’s 1 or a 0.' I believe power does not go through the wire, it is current or charges, and usually voltage is used to signal states. We can have wires depending how you define a computer, but in most cases it just feels wrong.
martythemaniak 10y ago
Well, he did spend two years studying engineering at a decent school, so it's reasonable to expect him to have a higher aptitude for these things. Also, you're way overestimating how much a layman knows about computing, quantum or otherwise.
marssaxman 10y ago
It was a coherent summary of a complex subject, delivered clearly, with just enough information to support the point of his message without getting bogged down in details. This takes skill; popular science writers make their livings and sometimes even become famous based on their ability to create this kind of summary. Whether or not Trudeau's knowledge of the topic goes any deeper than what he's said here, he's demonstrated that he either cares enough about the subject to have consulted with people who understand it and learned how to repeat their explanations without falling off the rails, unlike good ol' Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens for example, or that he cares about the subject enough to have learned enough about it that he can articulate an opinion in a clear and accessible way. Either way, what's impressive is not that he is repeating information which is true, but that he cares enough about quantum computing to get it right.

osweiller 10y ago

While this seems planted and trite (much like the "because it's 2015" answer), I have to confess that I don't get quantum computing. A qubit can hold multiple values, it seems. Okay, that's a data density improvement (presuming a quibit is as dense as a traditional bit). How does that improve computing power (especially by the many magnitudes)? Do you multiply a qubit of infinite values against a quibit of infinite values and have all possible results? I just don't see the bridge from data density to a revolution in computing power. Note that I'm not saying this as a cynic. I know that this is happening, and a lot of very smart people are excited by it. I just have never seen an explanation that bridges data density to calculation speed.

Filligree 10y ago
> Do you multiple a qubit of infinite values against a quibit of infinite values and have all possible results? The accurate answer would be "no", or at least "thinking that way will lead you to believe that they're more powerful than they are". In particular, quantum computers won't allow you to solve NP-hard problems in less than exponential time, not unless there's something we're missing in the math. That said? Since I don't have the chance to describe it better right now, you can start off by thinking "sorta, yes".
empath75 10y ago
Google 'quantum complexity classes'.
inlineint 10y ago
One qubit could hold 0 and1 simultaneously and perform some operations/calculations on it simultaneously. Two (entangled) qubits could hold 00, 01, 10, 11 simultaneously and perform calculations on these four values simultaneouslty. ... 100 (entangled) qubits could hold 2^100 distinct values simultaneously and perform calculations on them simultaneously. That's the basic idea. The problem is keeping entangled state that's becomes harder and harder as number of entangled qubits grows. Also there are limitations in extracting of calculations results from system of qubits, so not all algorithms can be speed up on quantum computers (but e.g. integer factorization can).
10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sreenadh 10y ago

I am hoping that someone is working on a video of Trump answering this question.

Torgo 10y ago

Trudeau is reasonably smart, and admitted his knowledge was basic. It's everyone else that's acting ridiculous. >“I was flabbergasted,” Laflamme says. “I don’t know how he does in other subjects, but in quantum physics, he knows the basic pieces and the important questions.” Maybe he read a single article about quantum theory in an issue of Popular Science. Maybe, before an event at a facility where he knew he would be speaking, he spent fifteen minutes reading something he asked an aide to give him, so he could speak intelligently about it.

gjkood 10y ago
Canada should be congratulated for selecting a PM who atleast takes the trouble to educate himself before spouting an opinion. Here in the US, we elect politicians who actively deny science and are proud of their lack of knowledge.

dnautics 10y ago

The statement itself is pure technobabble. "A regular computer bit is either a one or a zero, either on or off. A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer." To be sure, there are statements in there that are correct, but they don't connect up to a coherent description of the science behind QC. In short: I see words, I do not see understanding. What is distressing or embarrassing though is the scientist who blatantly kowtows to Trudeau: “I was very impressed he made an attempt,” said Dr. Lucien Hardy. “He got it spot on.” No. He didn't get it "spot on". But I suppose if the prime minister is spearheading an initiative to fund you you'd better not embarrass him. But that sort of political play is not how you're supposed to do things in science.

gjkood 10y ago
Isn't getting funding for science actually politics and not science? Using the funding is science, but getting the funding is politics, no?
- dnautics 10y ago
  You're conflating a strict definition of politics with "playing politics".
  - gjkood 10y ago
    I am just suggesting that both politicians and scientists may need to do things that they may despise to get what they want. Politicians may need to kiss babies to get elected and scientists may need to kiss politicians (metaphorically) to get funding :). Isn't the ability to "play politics" a significant factor in rising up a hierarchy (scientific or otherwise)?
    - dnautics 10y ago
      http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm "I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.... So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom." After quitting traditional academic science, so far I have found that I haven't had to compromise my integrity in the pursuit of science. It hasn't been easy, but I am happy with where I am, so far.

getoutofherefly 10y ago

I agree it is sad that people are making a big deal about a politician seeming to have a basic grasp of a science that is not well understood, but at the same time a high level understanding is really all he should have. I think that ideally politicians should be working at a high level of abstraction (like any manager/executive in any field, especially technical). This means having a high level, big picture understanding of a field and the major benefits and hurdles to overcome. Having a deep understanding of one area like this would make people in that field happy maybe, but it would not necessarily make him better at making big policy decisions and balancing the needs of the quantum computing industry with the other industries and the needs of the country. The problem is that politicians generally tend to only be good at one thing: politics. A good leader would strive to understand at a high level all of the topics that involve policy decisions, with the intelligence to dive deeper if need be or be able to understand and verify the advice of an expert in that field and make educated decisions. This is usually not the case, but when it is we shouldn't deride someone for only having a topical knowledge of our own fields.

Lanari 10y ago

Looks to me he used a bunch of buzzwords followed by a humble brag. In reality it isn't so weird for a leader to know about quantum physics, like if you asked Angela Merkel I bet she will actually explain the concept. So I don't get all this hype.

agnivade 10y ago

Seems like a publicity stunt to me. The way he answered the question cannot be impromptu.