4 ms·

Scott Aaronson has commented on the paper; he considers it as garbage: > http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1767#comment-103591 http://www.scottaaronson.com/

by wolfgke 13y ago

Scott Aaronson has commented on the paper; he considers it as garbage: > http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1767#comment-103591 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1767#comment-103591 Also look at the update at the beginning of http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1767 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1767

frisco 13y ago
OP here, just saw that. Knew I should have checked Scott's blog before submitting to HN. Or just have asked myself what I was doing before submitting an ArXiv link. :(
- jessriedel 13y ago
  Yea. Keep in my that almost anyone can put stuff on the arXiv. If you found the paper on a random person's personal website and you wouldn't post it, you shouldn't decide to post it just because its on the arXiv.
madlag 13y ago
Does somebody know of good papers about potential links between computation complexity and why we do not observe large scale quantum behaviours ? As a basic computer guy, I have always suspected that the large computer that is running our universe does not have the resources to handle quantum entanglement on a large number of particules, and has to fallback to some classical approximation to be able to run the full simulation in real time ;-)
- kremlin 13y ago
  why would it have to run it in 'real time'? what's the difference between this universe being simulated by a very slow computer in the super-verse, vs being simulated by a very fast computer in the super-verse? for us, I'd argue there's no difference at all.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    Not always a fan of linking xkcd, but: http://xkcd.com/505/ http://xkcd.com/505/
  - madlag 13y ago
    That's right, thanks for this point.
- gus_massa 13y ago
  Superconduction and superfluity are examples of macroscopic quantum phenomena. I’m not sure they can be classified as entanglement, but the fundamental reason is at least as weird as entanglement and I think they would be also very difficult to simulate. There is also a correction of the law for Ideal gases. It’s more important when the temperature is low and the quantum effects are more visible. Essentially, let’s suppose that you have a lot (~1E23) of identical atoms/molecules in a gas. In some gases the atoms/molecules can’t be in the some quantum state at the same place (fermions) and in other gases they can be (bosons). Moreover, the particles are all identical, so you can’t label them and can’t track them. This causes an “apparent repulsion” in the fermions gasses and an “apparent traction”. It’s not a real force, it’s only a statistical effect that looks like a attraction/repulsion. (It’s a little more complicated because the positions and velocities are not discrete, so “the same place” is more difficult to define.) (I can’t find a link to a direct simple measurement.) More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_gas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_gas
  - madlag 13y ago
    Of course there are some large scale (~150km http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/8/9/193/fulltext/ http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/8/9/193/fulltext/ ) or large number of particles quantum effects that are usually very carefully crafted , but the majority of the matter that surround us does not show such behavior, so I still wonder about this ;-) That said, thanks for the reminder !
- Strilanc 13y ago
  I don't know about links to computational complexity, but in the many worlds interpretation the "classical approximation" is explained by "quantum decoherence". 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence 2: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pp/decoherence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pp/decoherence/
jessriedel 13y ago
I was actually asked to referee this article. (I think I'm allowed to say that since I declined, I won't say which journal it was, and it's on the arXiv.) Although I agree with everything Scott says, I also recall another fundamental confusion. The author makes a grossly unjustified jump from (a) assuming the Universe as a "computing device" is "performing a calculation"--when in fact this mean our method for making predictions employs this calculations--to (b) concluding that you can construct a physical device capable of harnessing that power so as to perform similarly difficult computations. In fact, all sorts of problems come up in trying to make this leap that have to do with the finite precision of realistic preparations and measurements. The author did not acknowledge them. For the sections where the paper was strictly discussing my area of expertise (decoherence), the author avoided egregious errors but basically just summarized some well-known ideas in a haphazard way that didn't advance his argument.

by wolfgke 13y ago

frisco 13y ago

OP here, just saw that. Knew I should have checked Scott's blog before submitting to HN. Or just have asked myself what I was doing before submitting an ArXiv link. :(

jessriedel 13y ago
Yea. Keep in my that almost anyone can put stuff on the arXiv. If you found the paper on a random person's personal website and you wouldn't post it, you shouldn't decide to post it just because its on the arXiv.

madlag 13y ago

Does somebody know of good papers about potential links between computation complexity and why we do not observe large scale quantum behaviours ? As a basic computer guy, I have always suspected that the large computer that is running our universe does not have the resources to handle quantum entanglement on a large number of particules, and has to fallback to some classical approximation to be able to run the full simulation in real time ;-)

kremlin 13y ago
why would it have to run it in 'real time'? what's the difference between this universe being simulated by a very slow computer in the super-verse, vs being simulated by a very fast computer in the super-verse? for us, I'd argue there's no difference at all.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Not always a fan of linking xkcd, but: http://xkcd.com/505/ http://xkcd.com/505/
- madlag 13y ago
  That's right, thanks for this point.
gus_massa 13y ago
Superconduction and superfluity are examples of macroscopic quantum phenomena. I’m not sure they can be classified as entanglement, but the fundamental reason is at least as weird as entanglement and I think they would be also very difficult to simulate. There is also a correction of the law for Ideal gases. It’s more important when the temperature is low and the quantum effects are more visible. Essentially, let’s suppose that you have a lot (~1E23) of identical atoms/molecules in a gas. In some gases the atoms/molecules can’t be in the some quantum state at the same place (fermions) and in other gases they can be (bosons). Moreover, the particles are all identical, so you can’t label them and can’t track them. This causes an “apparent repulsion” in the fermions gasses and an “apparent traction”. It’s not a real force, it’s only a statistical effect that looks like a attraction/repulsion. (It’s a little more complicated because the positions and velocities are not discrete, so “the same place” is more difficult to define.) (I can’t find a link to a direct simple measurement.) More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_gas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_gas
- madlag 13y ago
  Of course there are some large scale (~150km http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/8/9/193/fulltext/ http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/8/9/193/fulltext/ ) or large number of particles quantum effects that are usually very carefully crafted , but the majority of the matter that surround us does not show such behavior, so I still wonder about this ;-) That said, thanks for the reminder !
Strilanc 13y ago
I don't know about links to computational complexity, but in the many worlds interpretation the "classical approximation" is explained by "quantum decoherence". 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence 2: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pp/decoherence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pp/decoherence/

jessriedel 13y ago

I was actually asked to referee this article. (I think I'm allowed to say that since I declined, I won't say which journal it was, and it's on the arXiv.) Although I agree with everything Scott says, I also recall another fundamental confusion. The author makes a grossly unjustified jump from (a) assuming the Universe as a "computing device" is "performing a calculation"--when in fact this mean our method for making predictions employs this calculations--to (b) concluding that you can construct a physical device capable of harnessing that power so as to perform similarly difficult computations. In fact, all sorts of problems come up in trying to make this leap that have to do with the finite precision of realistic preparations and measurements. The author did not acknowledge them. For the sections where the paper was strictly discussing my area of expertise (decoherence), the author avoided egregious errors but basically just summarized some well-known ideas in a haphazard way that didn't advance his argument.