3 ms·

Quantum Computing May Help Us Study Quantum Gravity

52 points by MindGods 6y ago

Koshkin 6y ago
I think we have been focused too much on computational models (which is what mathematics essentially is) while the solution to quantum gravity may lie in a new conceptual framework. Most of the books on quantum mechanics and ones on general relativity jump, way too quickly, to what essentially comes down to merely describing the mathematical tools, which enforces the "shut up and calculate" mindset. This is indeed valuable from the practical standpoint, because most physics courses are intended for future engineers and specialists in applied science. But being presented with Schrödinger's equation, its consequences, and methods of solving it on the one hand, and Einstein's field equation on the other, does nothing in the way of raising one's conceptual awareness of the real "meaning of it all" and the unity of Nature.
- drannex 6y ago
  Sounds similar to David Deutch's views on mathematics and quantum computational models. His book 'Fabric of Reality' seems to touch on nearly everything you just said.
- foxes 6y ago
  I don't necessarily think the focus was on the computational model aspect. Yes quantum computing is theoretically purely described by quantum mechanics so it doesn't add anything new. But his point was that actually implementing physical quantum computers seemed to have interesting problems associated with it.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  We present engineers with equations, in physics we derive them. Maybe doesn't seem important to outsiders but the distinction is very important. There are no engineers studying general relativity, I should add. If your book jumps straight to mathematical machinery, read another book - different authors have different approaches. We know the tools are incomplete one way or another - there probably is another conceptual framework, just that no one can come up with one yet that we can test on earth. That conceptual model still has to fit the vague shape of a scientific theory i.e. predictions, hypothesis etc. You may be surprised how little framework there is to modern physics - there is a rich mathematical basis but at it's core there aren't many (if any?) assumptions to it (by which I mean glaring ones I.e. we assume space is flat for QM because it practically is). We don't have a handle on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics yet, but part of that is that it boils down to philosophy in a sense and physicists generally don't spend much time thinking about it. Shut up and calculate is very tempting because there is a huge amount of calculating to be done.

52 points by MindGods 6y ago

I think we have been focused too much on computational models (which is what mathematics essentially is) while the solution to quantum gravity may lie in a new conceptual framework. Most of the books on quantum mechanics and ones on general relativity jump, way too quickly, to what essentially comes down to merely describing the mathematical tools, which enforces the "shut up and calculate" mindset. This is indeed valuable from the practical standpoint, because most physics courses are intended for future engineers and specialists in applied science. But being presented with Schrödinger's equation, its consequences, and methods of solving it on the one hand, and Einstein's field equation on the other, does nothing in the way of raising one's conceptual awareness of the real "meaning of it all" and the unity of Nature.

drannex 6y ago
Sounds similar to David Deutch's views on mathematics and quantum computational models. His book 'Fabric of Reality' seems to touch on nearly everything you just said.
foxes 6y ago
I don't necessarily think the focus was on the computational model aspect. Yes quantum computing is theoretically purely described by quantum mechanics so it doesn't add anything new. But his point was that actually implementing physical quantum computers seemed to have interesting problems associated with it.
mhh__ 6y ago
We present engineers with equations, in physics we derive them. Maybe doesn't seem important to outsiders but the distinction is very important. There are no engineers studying general relativity, I should add. If your book jumps straight to mathematical machinery, read another book - different authors have different approaches. We know the tools are incomplete one way or another - there probably is another conceptual framework, just that no one can come up with one yet that we can test on earth. That conceptual model still has to fit the vague shape of a scientific theory i.e. predictions, hypothesis etc. You may be surprised how little framework there is to modern physics - there is a rich mathematical basis but at it's core there aren't many (if any?) assumptions to it (by which I mean glaring ones I.e. we assume space is flat for QM because it practically is). We don't have a handle on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics yet, but part of that is that it boils down to philosophy in a sense and physicists generally don't spend much time thinking about it. Shut up and calculate is very tempting because there is a huge amount of calculating to be done.