* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Computation, Quantum Theory, and You
Supersymmetry wikipedia , lookup
Quantum chromodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Quasi-set theory wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model wikipedia , lookup
Photon polarization wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Theory of everything wikipedia , lookup
Quantum fiction wikipedia , lookup
Quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum tunnelling wikipedia , lookup
Matrix mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum tomography wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum potential wikipedia , lookup
Event symmetry wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantum gravity wikipedia , lookup
Relational approach to quantum physics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum gravity wikipedia , lookup
Quantum vacuum thruster wikipedia , lookup
Uncertainty principle wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Old quantum theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum chaos wikipedia , lookup
The Complexity of Sampling Histories Scott Aaronson, UC Berkeley http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~aaronson August 5, 2003 Words You Should Stop Me If I Use Words I’ll Stop You If You Use Words To Be Careful With polysize oracle relativizing zero-knowledge #P-complete nonuniform holonomy gauge SU(2) intertwinor kinematical Lagrangian loop string Outline • • • • Why you should stay up at night worrying about quantum mechanics Dynamical quantum theories Solving Graph Isomorphism by sampling histories Search in N1/3 queries (but not fewer) Quantum mechanics What we experience Assumption 4 1 1 2 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 Time 1 4 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 2 1 Quantum state of the universe 4 4 4 4 A Puzzle • Let |OR = you seeing a red dot |OB = you seeing a blue dot t2 : R OR B OB ( H ) t1 : R OR B OB • What is the probability that you see the dot change color? The Goal 1 u11 Quantum state N u1N uN 1 1 Quantum Unitary state matrix uNN N 2 2 s s 11 N1 1 Probability 1 Probability Stochastic distribution distribution matrix 2 2 s s NN N N 1N Why Look for This? • Quantum theory says nothing about multiple-time or transition probabilities • Reply: “But we have no direct knowledge of the past anyway, just records” • Then what is a “prediction,” or the “output of a computation,” or the “utility of a decision”? Bohm’s Theory • Gives a deterministic evolution rule for particle positions and momenta • But doesn’t make sense for discrete observables: 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 • Mathematicianly approach: Study the set of all discrete dynamical rules, without presupposing one of them is “true” Our Results • We define dynamical theories for obtaining classical histories, and investigate what axioms they can satisfy • We give evidence that by examining a history, one could solve problems that are intractable even for a quantum computer - Graph Isomorphism and Approximate Shortest Lattice Vector in polynomial time - Unordered search in N1/3 steps instead of N1/2 • We obtain the first model of computation “slightly” more powerful than quantum computing Dynamical Theory • Fix an N-dimensional Hilbert space (N finite) and orthogonal basis • Given an NN unitary U and state acted on, returns a stochastic matrix S D ,U • Must marginalize to single-time probabilities of quantum mechanics: diagonal entries of and UU-1 Axiom: Symmetry D is invariant under relabeling of basis states: D PP , QUP 1 1 QD ,U P 1 Axiom: Indifference If U acts on H1 H 2 and is the identity on H2, then S should also be the identity on H2 Can formalize without tensor products: partition U into minimal blocks of nonzero entries Not the same as commutativity: D U A ABU A1 ,U B D AB ,U A D U B ABU B1 ,U A D AB ,U B Theorem: No dynamical theory satisfies both indifference and commutativity Proof: Suppose A and B share an EPR pair 00 11 / 2. UA applies /8 rotation to first qubit, UB applies -/8 to second qubit. Consider probability p of being at |00 initially and |10 at the end If UA applied first: If UB applied first: 1 cos 2 00 2 8 1 2 sin 01 2 8 1 cos 2 00 2 8 1 2 sin 01 2 8 1 2 sin 10 2 8 1 cos 2 11 2 8 1 2 sin 10 2 8 1 2 cos 11 2 8 1 2 p sin 2 8 1 1 2 1 2 p sin sin 4 2 8 2 8 Axiom: Robustness Small (1/poly(N)) change to or U Small (1/poly(N)) change to joint probabilities matrix, S·diag() Arguably that’s needed for any physical theory or model of computation Example 1: Product Dynamics Take probabilities at any two times to be independent of each other 2 2 1 1 2 2 N N 2 1 1 2 2 N N 2 Symmetric, robust, commutative, but not indifferent Example 2: Dieks Dynamics Partition U into minimal blocks, then apply product dynamics separately to each 4 / 5 0 1 3/ 5 3/ 5 1 0 4 / 5 4 / 52 0 1 3/ 52 2 2 3/ 5 1 0 4 / 5 Symmetric, indifferent, but not commutative or robust Theorem: Suppose 1 u11 u N 1 1 N u1N . u NN N Then there is a weight-1 “flow” through the network 1 u11 2 t N 2 uNN 1 2 s N 2 where flow through an edge can’t exceed the edge’s capacity Proof Idea: By the Max-Flow-Min-Cut Theorem (Ford-Fulkerson 1956), it suffices to show that any set of edges separating s from t (a cut) has total capacity at least 1. Let A,B be right, left edges respectively not in cut C. Then the capacity of C is iA 2 i j 2 jB iA, jB uij so we need to show 1 u iA, jB i j . 2 2 ij i A jB Fix U and consider maximum of right-hand side. Equals the max eigenvalue of a positive semidefinite matrix, which we can analyze using some linear algebra… Example 3: Flow Dynamics Using the previous theorem, we construct a dynamical theory that satisfies the symmetry, indifference, and robustness axioms Not obvious a priori that any such theory exists Model of Computation • Polynomial-time classical computation, with one query to a history oracle • Oracle takes as input descriptions of quantum circuits U1,…,UT • Any dynamical theory D induces a distribution D over classical histories for 0 n U1 0 n U T U1 0 n • Oracle chooses a symmetric robust indifferent theory D “adversarially,” then returns a sample from D • At least as powerful as standard quantum computing The Graph Isomorphism Problem • Decide whether two graphs G and H are isomorphic • The best known algorithm takes about n = number of vertices 2 n time • But we don’t think Graph Isomorphism is NP-complete • Intuitively, it’s “only” as hard as counting collisions in 1 G , , n! G , 1 H , , n! H Could be easier than finding a needle in a haystack! The Collision Problem 361542 vs. 622565 • Given a list of N numbers x1,…,xN, you’re promised that either every number occurs once, or every number occurs twice. Decide which. • Best classical algorithm makes ~ N queries (“birthday paradox”) • Brassard, Høyer, Tapp 1997 gave a quantum algorithm that makes ~N1/3 queries • Is there a faster quantum algorithm—say, log N queries? If so, we’d get a polynomial-time quantum algorithm for Graph Isomorphism! The Collision Problem (con’t) • Aaronson 2002: Any quantum algorithm needs at least ~N1/5 queries • Improved by Shi to ~N1/3 queries • Previously, couldn’t even rule out constant number of queries! • Proofs use multivariate polynomials • Implications: • No “dumb” quantum algorithm for Graph Isomorphism • “Oracle separation” between the complexity classes BQP (Bounded-Error Quantum Polynomial-Time) and DQP (Dynamical Quantum Polynomial-Time) Conjectured World Map NP Satisfiability, Traveling Salesman, etc. DQP My New Class BQP Quantum Polynomial Time Graph Isomorphism Approximate Shortest Vector Factoring P Polynomial Time Solving the Collision Problem by Sampling Histories Suppose every number occurs twice. Then 1 N N i i 1 xi “Measurement” of 2nd register 1 i j 2 x 1 i j 2 x i Two bitwise Fourier transforms i GOAL: When we inspect the classical history, see both |i and |j with high probability Solving the Collision Problem by Sampling Histories (con’t) Theorem: Under any dynamical theory satisfying the symmetry and indifference axioms, the first Fourier transform makes the hidden variable “forget” whether it was at |i or |j. So after the second Fourier transform, it goes to |i half the time and |j half the time; thus with ½ probability we see both |i and |j in the history Proof Idea: Use symmetry axiom, together with n automorphisms of Z 2 Indifference axiom needed to “trace out” second register Finding a Marked Item in N1/3 Queries N1/3 iterations of Grover’s quantum search algorithm Probability of observing the marked item after T iterations is ~T2/N Hidden variable N1/3 Search Algorithm Is Optimal • Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard, Vazirani 1996: If a quantum computer searches a list of N items for a single randomly-placed marked item, the probability of observing the marked item after T 2 steps is at most T N • So probability of observing it in a history of the first T steps is at most 2 3 T t t 1 N T N • Summary: If “your whole life flashed before you in an instant,” and if you’d prepared for this by putting your brain in certain superpositions, then (under reasonable axioms) you could solve Graph Isomorphism in polynomial time • But probably still not Satisfiability • Contrast: Nonlinear quantum mechanics would put Satisfiability and even harder problems in polynomial time (Abrams and Lloyd 1998) • Postulate: NP-complete problems can’t be efficiently solved in physical reality • Justification for the postulate: Maybe I’m wrong, but then I’d be too busy solving NPcomplete problems to care that I was wrong • What does the postulate imply? (1) Quantum states evolve linearly (under plausible complexity assumptions) (2) We can’t make unlimited-precision measurements (3) The “self-sampling” anthropic principle (Bostrom 2000) is false (4) Constraints on quantum gravity? • The postulate does not imply your whole life couldn’t flash before you in an instant