Computational solution to quantum foundational problems

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7686

by frisco • 12 years ago

30 19 12 years ago

arxiv.org

wolfgke• 12 years ago

Scott Aaronson has commented on the paper; he considers it as garbage:

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

frisco• 12 years 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. :(

jessriedel2• 12 years 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.

madlag3• 12 years 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• 12 years 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.

gus_massa2• 12 years 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 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_gas

Strilanc• 12 years 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 2: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pp/decoherence/

jessriedel2• 12 years 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.

gus_massa2• 12 years ago

I´ll repeat one of my comments in a previous submittion of the same paper:

There are some experiments where it’s easy to see quantum effects in “big” things. There are experiments that show explicitly the wave behavior of helium atoms (they have like 2 electrons and 12 quarks, and a lot of gluons, they are not a single particle) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_atom_scattering . I think there are bigger examples, but I should google a little to find them.

Also, the superconductivity and superfluity effects are due to quantum mechanics effects (a lot of properties of solids only can be explained correctly using quantum mechanics, but they are not so evident).

There is more hand waving that a proof here. Obligatory Xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1240/

troymc• 12 years ago

Don't forget the obligatory Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena

chm3• 12 years ago

If someone's interested in a hard problem: design a density functional that's exact with regards to strong correlation and you have my respect.

selimthegrim3• 12 years ago

It's instructive to remember at this point that Feynman used to call the exchange-correlation energy "the stupidity energy" out of frustration. Many Bothans died to give us PBE and B3LYP (at least it seems like it)

chm3• 12 years ago

I actually never read that quote before, thanks. I'm a 1st year M. Sc. student in a theoretical chemistry group. Although most members in the group do DFT, I don't. My knowledge of the literature extends to some Perdew, Yang, HK and KS.

Computational solution to quantum foundational problems

Related Stories