3 ms·

You 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 ex

You 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 ago
Computing 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.

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 ago

Computing 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.