* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Another version - Scott Aaronson
Basil Hiley wikipedia , lookup
Perturbation theory wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Erwin Schrödinger wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Quantum decoherence wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Quantum dot wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Bell test experiments wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Hydrogen atom wikipedia , lookup
Delayed choice quantum eraser wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum fiction wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable Scott Aaronson MIT 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? Some would say Mr. T & friends already answered this question in the 1930s But what about finding proofs of bounded length? Can that be done in a way that avoids exhaustive search? This sounds like (literally) a $1,000,000 question: P=NP? If there actually were a machine with [running time] ~Kn (or even only with ~Kn2), this would have consequences of the greatest magnitude. —Gödel to von Neumann, 1956 However, an important presupposition underlying P vs. NP is the... Extended Church-Turing Thesis “Any physically-realistic computing device can be simulated by a deterministic or probabilistic Turing machine, with at most polynomial overhead in time and memory” So how sure are we of this thesis? Have there been serious challenges to it? 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” 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) Quantum Computing A quantum state of n qubits takes 2n complex numbers to describe: x0,1 x x n Chemists and physicists knew that for decades, as a practical problem! In the 1980s, Feynman, Deutsch, and others had the amazing idea of building a new type of computer that could overcome the problem, by itself exploiting the exponentiality inherent in QM Actually building a QC: Damn hard, because of decoherence. (But seems possible in principle!) Popularizers Beware: A quantum computer is NOT like a massively-parallel classical computer! x x x1,, 2 n Exponentially-many basis states, but you only get to observe one of them Any hope for a speedup rides on the magic of interference BQP (Bounded-Error Quantum Polynomial-Time): The class of problems solvable efficiently by aInteresting quantum computer, defined by Bernstein and Vazirani in 1993 Shor 1994: Factoring integers is in BQP NP-complete NP BQP Factoring P But factoring is not believed to be NP-complete! And today, we don’t believe BQP contains all of NP (though not surprisingly, we can’t prove that it doesn’t) 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!) So, is there any quantum algorithm for NP-complete problems that would exploit their structure? Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm (Farhi et al. 2000) Hi Hamiltonian with easilyprepared ground state Hf Ground state encodes solution to NP-complete problem Problem: “Eigenvalue gap” can be exponentially small Nonlinear variants of the Schrödinger Equation Abrams & Lloyd 1998: If quantum mechanics were nonlinear, one could exploit that to solve NPcomplete problems in polynomial time 1 solution to NP-complete problem No solutions Relativity Computer DONE Zeno’s Computer Time (seconds) STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 Closed Timelike Curves (CTCs) Here’s a polynomial-time algorithm to solve NP-complete problems (only drawback is that it requires time travel): Read an integer x{0,…,2n-1} from the future If x encodes a valid solution, then output x Otherwise, output (x+1) mod 2n If valid solutions exist, then the only fixed-points of the above program input and output them Building on work of Deutsch, [A.-Watrous 2008] defined a formal model of CTC computation, and showed that in both the classical and quantum cases, it has exactly the power of PSPACE (believed to be even larger than NP) “The No-SuperSearch Postulate” There is no physical means to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time. Includes PNP as a special case, but is stronger No longer a purely mathematical conjecture, but also a claim about the laws of physics If true, would “explain” why adiabatic systems have small spectral gaps, the Schrödinger equation is linear, CTCs don’t exist... Question: What exactly does it mean to “solve” an NPcomplete problem? Example: It’s been known for decades that, if you send n identical photons through a network of beamsplitters, the amplitude for the photons to reach some final state is given by the permanent of an nn matrix of complex numbers Per A n a S n i 1 i, i But the permanent is #P-complete (believed even harder than NPcomplete)! So how can Nature do such a thing? Resolution: Amplitudes aren’t directly observable, and require exponentially-many probabilistic trials to estimate Lesson: If you can’t observe the answer, it doesn’t count! Recently, Alex Arkhipov and I gave evidence that even the observed output distribution of such a linear-optical network would be hard to simulate on a classical computer—but the argument was necessarily subtler Last year, groups in Brisbane, Oxford, Rome, and Vienna reported the first 3-photon BosonSampling experiments, confirming that the amplitudes were given by 3x3 permanents # of experiments > # of photons! Obvious Challenges for Scaling Up: - Reliable single-photon sources - Minimizing losses - Getting high probability of n-photon coincidence Goal (in our view): Scale to 10-30 photons Don’t want to scale much beyond that—both because (1) you probably can’t without fault-tolerance, and (2) a classical computer probably couldn’t even verify the results! Theoretical Challenge: Argue that, even with photon losses and messier initial states, you’re still solving a classically-intractable sampling problem Suppose we believe certain computational problems (e.g., NP-complete ones) are intractable in the physical world. Does that belief do any nontrivial work for physics? Until this January, I thought the answer was yes—but all my examples involved ruling out possibilities (like CTCs) that most physicists consider crazy anyway! But recently, Harlow and Hayden made a striking connection between computational intractability and the black-hole firewall paradox [AMPS 2012] What is this firewall paradox? Firewalls: Black Hole Information Problem Redux R = Faraway Hawking Radiation H = Just-Emitted Hawking Radiation Near-maximal entanglement B = Interior of “Old” Black Hole Also near-maximal entanglement Violates “monogamy of entanglement”! The same qubit can’t be maximally entangled with 2 things Harlow-Hayden 2013 (arXiv:1301.4504): Under plausible assumptions about black-hole physics, for Alice to decode the early Hawking radiation R and “see” that it’s entangled with H, she’d need the ability to find “collisions” in a function of the form f:{0,1}n{0,1}n-1 Moreover, I proved in 2002 that, for a “generic” f, the above problem takes exponential time even for a QC! Complexity theory to the rescue of quantum field theory?? Recently I improved the HH argument, to show that Alice’s decoding task is at least as hard as inverting one-way functions (“almost” as hard as NP-complete) “Physical meaning” of these results? Surely a contradiction in physics isn’t OK just because it takes exponential time to find? Conclusions 1990s: Today: Computational Complexity Shor & Grover Computational Complexity Quantum Mechanics Quantum Mechanics Many other exciting connections between these areas are currently being explored! (Condensed matter, quantum chemistry…) NP Hardness Assumption: Candidate for a robust, fruitful, falsifiable principle bridging complexity and physics?