9 ms·
High-temperature Gibbs states are unentangled and efficiently preparable
- empath75 2y agoI'm very much approaching this from a level of "I know what some of those words mean", but is this result surprising that quantum systems lose entanglement at high temperatures? Isn't that the whole point of running quantum computers at very low temperatures?
- tux3 2y agoRegistering my uneducated guess: Is this implying there was previously hope you could trap a hot system in a Gibbs state and demonstrate nice stable quantum supremacy with those, but they found hot Gibbs states are necessarily all boring and decohered after all?
- hughesjj 2y agoI believe so, from abstract > A priori the task of preparing a Gibbs state is a natural candidate for achieving super-polynomial quantum speedups, but our results rule out this possibility above a fixed constant temperature.
- beefman 2y agoSee also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17519001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17519001
- frithsun 2y ago[flagged]
- johntb86 2y agohttps://www.quantamagazine.org/computer-scientists-prove-that-heat-destroys-entanglement-20240828/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/computer-scientists-prove-tha... gives the more layman-friendly version.
- 0134340 2y agoSo is this another blow for the free will argument based on quantum entanglement that some posited was happening in the brain? It seems this is another nail in the coffin leaving very few arguments other than mostly solipsistic ones.
- layer8 2y agoFree will doesn’t make sense in any case. Either your will is causally determined, or there is a truly random component, which however doesn’t bring you any closer to influencing your own will.
- Vecr 2y agoThat was always the case, to argue otherwise required new physics. I.e. hypothetical physics that probably didn't exist.
- blurbleblurble 2y agoI don't know about the free will argument, but this research doesn't really have anything to do with, for example, the possibility of stable entanglement between Posner molecules. Beyond that, applications of quantum information theory and other quantum tools now extend beyond physics: there's no requirement that something be based on a physically quantum system for it to be useful modeled by quantum tools. All in all, there are lot of ways to use quantum/quantum-like/post-quantum models now, both within physics and outside of it. Quantum stuff just isn't as monolithic as many orthodox physicists would suggest.
- Vecr 2y agoYou can't use it outside of physics, because the combination of digital computers and human brains this hypothetical stuff runs on is in physics. GR (general relativity) + objective collapse (re. quantum physics) does not give you enough for the high-temperature speedups you want.
- blurbleblurble 2y agoI spoke of "physics" first and foremost as a scientific paradigm. It's a time-honored variety of applied mathematics. The map is not the territory, regardless of how accurately its models describe reality. The standard model is great, don't get me wrong, but it's still a map, one of many. "Physical" models are no longer the only context where quantum tools are relevant or useful. Look into Jerome Busemeyer if you want to learn more.