4 ms·

What you have linked is just bog-standard entanglement simulations. There are a dozen free software apps to do that. It's basically just linear matrix algebra w

What you have linked is just bog-standard entanglement simulations. There are a dozen free software apps to do that. It's basically just linear matrix algebra with complex numbers. What the parent meant was real particle simulation, for example simulating the collision between two electrons or computing the dipole moment of a muon, from fundamental standard model constants. It requires numerically solving 12 dimensional PDE's. That's much more complicated than entanglement simulations.

stared 5y ago
> There are a dozen free software apps to do that. Put your links when your mouth is. :) There is a handful of interactive simulations for qubits. I don't know any other interactive simulation for quantum many-particle systems. > It's basically just linear matrix algebra with complex numbers. It always has been. For Quantum Field Theory it gets much more complicated, and classical simulations are way to slow to simulate most systems. Quantum computers (or even quantum simulators) are likely to change the game. Anyway, being able to simulate does not result in being able to visualize in a meaningful way.
- gambitown 5y ago
  > Put your links when your mouth is List of available QC simulators grouped by programming language: https://quantiki.org/wiki/list-qc-simulators https://quantiki.org/wiki/list-qc-simulators I count more than 40 QC simulator projects. All open source. There is an abundance of quantum computer (QC) simulators, as opposed to a paucity of quantum field theory (QFT) simulators (most of them written in Fortran, yuck).
  - stared 5y ago
    QC simulation (qubits only, no dedicated vis) is much easier. You just make a vector, and multiply it by matrices. Here for Python interface I like QuTiP even more than Qiskit (though, I might be biased, as I contributed to the former). For interactive, IBM Quantum Computing Experience and Quirk (https://algassert.com/quirk https://algassert.com/quirk). As "easier" I mean that 2^10 is still managable, as you can use dense vectors and operators. For, say, this quantum optics simulation you get roughly 1000 dimensions per particle. For 3 particles it is 10^9. Don't even think about dense vectors, let alot - dense operators. Sparse operators are not enough, as even identity is big; so for any real-time-ish simulation there are considerably more tricks and methods. Simulting QFT you need to deal with much more complexity (including continuous dimensions). Instead of numerically pretty much you need to solve some intergrals. (Side note: I wanted at some point to write an interactive editor of Feynman diagrams, turning it into formulae and integrating.)

stared 5y ago

> There are a dozen free software apps to do that. Put your links when your mouth is. :) There is a handful of interactive simulations for qubits. I don't know any other interactive simulation for quantum many-particle systems. > It's basically just linear matrix algebra with complex numbers. It always has been. For Quantum Field Theory it gets much more complicated, and classical simulations are way to slow to simulate most systems. Quantum computers (or even quantum simulators) are likely to change the game. Anyway, being able to simulate does not result in being able to visualize in a meaningful way.

gambitown 5y ago
> Put your links when your mouth is List of available QC simulators grouped by programming language: https://quantiki.org/wiki/list-qc-simulators https://quantiki.org/wiki/list-qc-simulators I count more than 40 QC simulator projects. All open source. There is an abundance of quantum computer (QC) simulators, as opposed to a paucity of quantum field theory (QFT) simulators (most of them written in Fortran, yuck).
- stared 5y ago
  QC simulation (qubits only, no dedicated vis) is much easier. You just make a vector, and multiply it by matrices. Here for Python interface I like QuTiP even more than Qiskit (though, I might be biased, as I contributed to the former). For interactive, IBM Quantum Computing Experience and Quirk (https://algassert.com/quirk https://algassert.com/quirk). As "easier" I mean that 2^10 is still managable, as you can use dense vectors and operators. For, say, this quantum optics simulation you get roughly 1000 dimensions per particle. For 3 particles it is 10^9. Don't even think about dense vectors, let alot - dense operators. Sparse operators are not enough, as even identity is big; so for any real-time-ish simulation there are considerably more tricks and methods. Simulting QFT you need to deal with much more complexity (including continuous dimensions). Instead of numerically pretty much you need to solve some intergrals. (Side note: I wanted at some point to write an interactive editor of Feynman diagrams, turning it into formulae and integrating.)