* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The Future of Computer Science
Algorithmic cooling wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Basil Hiley wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Hawking radiation wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Bell test experiments wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Hydrogen atom wikipedia , lookup
Delayed choice quantum eraser wikipedia , lookup
Quantum decoherence wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Quantum dot wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Quantum fiction wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Quantum cognition wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable Scott Aaronson (MIT UT Austin) NYSC, West Virginia, June 24, 2016 Things we never see… GOLDBACH CONJECTURE: TRUE NEXT QUESTION Warp drive Perpetuum mobile Übercomputer The (seeming) impossibility of the first two machines reflects fundamental principles of physics—Special Relativity and the Second Law respectively So what about the third one? Moore’s Law Extrapolating: Robot uprising? But even a killer robot would still be “merely” a Turing machine, operating on principles laid down in the 1930s… = And Turing machines have limitations—on what they can compute at all, and certainly on what they can compute efficiently NP-hard All NP problems are efficiently reducible to these Steiner tree Coin balancing Maximum cut Satisfiability Maximum clique … NPcomplete NP Efficiently verifiable Graph connectivity Primality testing Matrix determinant Linear programming … P Efficiently solvable Matrix permanent Halting problem … Factoring … As Dana discussed, most computer scientists believe that PNP… But if so, there’s a further question: is there any way to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time, consistent with the laws of physics? Old proposal: Dip two glass plates with pegs between them into soapy water. Let the soap bubbles form a minimum Steiner tree connecting the pegs—thereby solving a known NP-hard problem “instantaneously” Relativity Computer DONE Zeno’s Computer Time (seconds) STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 Time Travel Computer S. Aaronson and J. Watrous. Closed Timelike Curves Make Quantum and Classical Computing Equivalent, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 465:631-647, 2009. arXiv:0808.2669. Answer Polynomial Size Circuit C “Closed Timelike Curve Register” R CTC R CR 0 0 0 “CausalityRespecting Register” Ah, but what about quantum computing? (you knew it was coming) Quantum mechanics: “Probability theory with minus signs” (Nature seems to prefer it that way) The Famous Double-Slit Experiment Probability of landing in “dark patch” = |amplitude|2 = |amplitudeSlit1 + amplitudeSlit2|2 = 0 Yet if you close one of the slits, the photon can appear in that previously dark patch!! A bit more precisely: the key claim of quantum mechanics is that, if an object can be in two distinguishable states, call them |0 or |1, then it can also be in a superposition a|0 + b|1 1 Here a and b are complex numbers called amplitudes satisfying |a|2+|b|2=1 If we observe, we see |0 with probability |a|2 |1 with probability |b|2 Also, the object collapses to whichever outcome we see 0 1 2 0 To modify a state a1 1 aN N we can multiply the vector of amplitudes by a unitary matrix—one that preserves 2 2 a1 a N 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 20 1 01 11 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 0 We’re seeing interference of amplitudes—the source of “quantum weirdness” Two qubits: a 0 0 b 0 1 c1 0 d 1 1 |a|2+|b|2+|c|2+|d|2=1 What happens when you measure? |a|2, |b|2, |c|2, |d|2 What if you measure (say) the first qubit only? Separable state: a 0 b 1 c 0 d 1 ac 0 0 ad 0 1 bc 1 0 bd 1 1 Example: 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 Is this state separable? 0 0 1 1 2 ac 0 0 ad 0 1 bc 1 0 bd 1 1 No—we call it “entangled” “Spooky Action at a Distance”? No-Communication Theorem vs. The Bell Inequality The No-Cloning Theorem: No physical procedure can copy an unknown quantum state 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 Quantum Computing A general entangled state of n qubits requires ~2n amplitudes to specify: x factored 21 into 37, Where we are: A QC has n x 0 , 1 with high probability (Martín-López et al. 2012) a x Presents an obvious practical problem when using Scaling up is hard,tobecause decoherence! conventional computers simulateofquantum mechanicsBut unless QM is wrong, there doesn’t seem to be any Interesting Feynman 1981: So then why not turn things around, and fundamental obstacle build computers that themselves exploit superposition? Shor 1994: Such a computer could do more than simulate QM—e.g., it could factor integers in polynomial time NP-complete Bounded-Error Quantum Polynomial-Time BQP NP Factoring P Factoring is in BQP, but not believed to be NP-complete! Today, we don’t believe quantum computers can solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time in general (though not surprisingly, we can’t prove it) Bennett et al. 1997: “Quantum magic” won’t be enough If you throw away the problem structure, and just consider an abstract “landscape” of 2n possible solutions, then even a quantum computer needs ~2n/2 steps to find the correct one (That bound is actually achievable, using Grover’s algorithm!) If there’s a fast quantum algorithm for NP-complete problems, it will have to exploit their structure somehow The “Adiabatic Optimization” Approach to Solving NP-Hard Problems with a Quantum Computer Hi Operation with easilyprepared lowest energy state Hf Operation whose lowest-energy state encodes solution to NP-hard problem Hope: “Quantum tunneling” could give speedups over classical optimization methods for finding local optima Remains unclear whether you can get a practical speedup this way over the best classical algorithms. We might just have to build QCs and test it! Problem: “Eigenvalue gap” can be exponentially small Some Examples of My Research… BosonSampling (with Alex Arkhipov): A proposal for a rudimentary photonic quantum computer, which doesn’t seem useful for anything (e.g. breaking codes), but does seem hard to simulate using classical computers (We showed that a fast, exact classical simulation would “collapse the polynomial hierarchy to the third level”) Experimentally demonstrated with 6 photons by a group in Bristol, UK Quantum Computing and Black Holes Hawking 1970s: Black holes radiate The radiation seems thermal (uncorrelated with whatever fell in). But if quantum mechanics is true, then it can’t be! Susskind, ‘t Hooft 1990s: “Black-hole complementarity.” Idea that quantum states emerging from black hole are somehow “the same states” as the ones trapped inside, just measured in a different way The Firewall Paradox [Almheiri et al. 2012] If the black hole interior is “built” out of the same qubits coming out as Hawking radiation, then why can’t we do something to those Hawking qubits (after waiting ~1067 years for enough to come out), then dive into the black hole, and see that we’ve completely destroyed the spacetime geometry in the interior? Entanglement among Hawking photons detected! Harlow-Hayden 2013: Argued that, to do the experiment on the Hawking radiation that would produce a “firewall” in the interior, would require an amount of processing time exponential in the number of qubits—meaning 1067 ~2 for a black hole the mass of our sun! In which case, long before one had made a dent in the problem, the black hole would’ve already evaporated… Their evidence used a theorem I proved as a grad student in 2002: given a “black box” function with N outputs and >>N inputs, any quantum algorithm needs at least ~N1/5 steps to find two inputs that both map to the same output (improved to ~N1/3 by Yaoyun Shi, which is optimal) Summary Quantum computers are the most powerful kind of computer allowed by the currently-known laws of physics There’s a realistic prospect of building them Contrary to what you read, even quantum computers would have limits But those limits might help protect the geometry of spacetime!