3 ms·
> Is there a good way to start studying the basics of quantum computing? Most quantum mechanics theory out there is taught by physicists. You'll discover that
by ur-whale 2y ago
> Is there a good way to start studying the basics of quantum computing?
Most quantum mechanics theory out there is taught by physicists.
You'll discover that their brain works in a way that's fundamentally different than that of a computer scientist, making it really hard.
Very specifically, you'll find that they are basically incapable to reason without physical support and/or experiments and sticking to a theoretical presentation of the subject from first principles is not something they can materially do.
Even Scott Aaronson, who claims to try to explay QM and QC using only math falls back to talking about particles and spin and shit after the fourth paragraph.
My recommendation: if you want to learn QM from first mathematical principles, avoid like the plague anything written by a physicist: they're all parroting each other tracing all the way back to Dirac and Bohr.
If you find a book that can talk about QM without using the following words "double slit experiment", "hydrogen atom", "spectrum", "spin", "wave", and only use terms taken from linear algebra in infinite dimensions then you stand a chance to understand.
- amelius 2y agoHow will you build your quantum machine with only pure math?
- PhilipRoman 2y agoI guess the same way I built my AMD Ryzen from a pile of sand...
- amelius 2y agoWell, at least you're starting from something physical.
- aqme28 2y agoWhy is this post so vitriolic towards physicists? What did they do to you??
- 331c8c71 2y agoNot op but I was subjected to a statistical physics exam where the examiner didn't quite appreciate the Kolmogorov axiomatization of the probability theory (which I majored in). It was weird to say the least...
- kgwgk 2y agoHow was that relevant to a statistical physics exam?
- 331c8c71 2y agoAs far as I remember probability distributions were clearly used all over the course but were introduced in a "probability light" manner (which probably made sense for people studying physics but not so much for me).
- ur-whale 2y agoThis is exactly what I remember from every physics course I took in my life: many physicists use math as a blunt tool rarely even bothering explaining them, and almost never justifying why the tool is actually applicable to the problem at hand (e.g. by simply stating that the axioms of the math seem to align with physical observations at all times, thereby very much justifying the use of the mathematical framework). Far worse, many a physic teacher doesn't even understand the tools they're using from math: they're just parroting and regurgitating from memory a combo of the textbook and what they've been told all the way to grad school, and if you happen to manage to corner them after class to dig a little, you quickly discover how shallow their understanding of the math actually is. Both Thermodynamics and Electromagnetism were initially hell on earth for me for this very reason: the profs were both incapable of explaining what the tools were and did, how they worked and why they were applicable. All they wanted was for you to absorb and memorize the formulas and stop asking all these stupid questions about the math. When I finally understood the math tools underlying the two subjects, both thermo and electromagnetism became crystal clear, but boy was the initial exposure an effing headache. A very good example of this is the famous book "div, grad, curl and all that" that many people hail as excellent. Well, I strongly disagree. It was written by a physicist, and the whole book is laden with references to either fluid mechanics or electromagnetism. It never is capable of explain things without making reference to physics when the tools are in fact completely independent of it.
- condensedcrab 2y agoYou can’t exactly take the physics out of quantum computing… otherwise you’re just left with linear algebra with a certain set of axioms. Physics is full of examples of math informed by physical phenomena. There are some good QM/quantum optics books that heavily lean on the linear algebra.
- ur-whale 2y ago> You can’t exactly take the physics out of quantum computing Why? I've actually heard even physicists claim the exact opposite. > otherwise you’re just left with linear algebra with a certain set of axioms. You say it like it's a bad thing. In my book, it's a very, very good thing. > Physics is full of examples of math informed by physical phenomena. Yes indeed, it is. And many a discovery in math actually came from physics in the first place. And the magic of math is: it extirpates the interesting principles and patterns from the muck of physical reality, making it available, stripped of its lowly origins, to reason with and apply to completely different contexts, including other areas of physics and engineering and CS. > There are some good QM/quantum optics books that heavily lean on the linear algebra. Please list some, I'd be very happy to peruse them. Specifically please list some that don't just "lean" on linear algebra but use it exclusively. Many a QM book basically expounds on the fact that it is both possible and legitimate to derive QM axiomatically and without ever resorting to physical references, only to immediately do the exact opposite of what they claim in the next chapter.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoComputing is the science of constructing abstractions. For quantum computing to be computing, it must be separable from the physics. What you have just said is equivalent to "you can't take the semiconductor physics out of silicon computing." Many good attempts are being made to do exactly this with QC, and it is a good thing.