[HN Gopher] Making a Traversable Wormhole with a Quantum Computer
___________________________________________________________________
Making a Traversable Wormhole with a Quantum Computer
Author : zdw
Score : 28 points
Date : 2022-11-30 21:11 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (ai.googleblog.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ai.googleblog.com)
| nyc111 wrote:
| The concept of wormholes, it appears to me, is a direct product
| of the concept of spacetime. Not space. Not time. But a different
| mathematical entity called spacetime.
|
| But when I read the article I see that the actual experiment is
| done in space not in a spacetime. Spacetime enters only in
| theoretical discussions. I copied the sentences where the word
| "space" occurs. The first sentence is theoretical explanation of
| wormhole with the clieche of "fabric of spacetime" as if
| spacetime has a fabric. Wormholes -- wrinkles
| in the fabric of _spacetime_ that connect two disparate locations
| What's the maximum amount of information that can fit in a single
| region of _space_? the description of a volume of
| _space_ with gravity acting in it can be thought of as encoded on
| the boundary enclosing the volume: every object inside the
| _space_ has a corresponding description on the boundary and vice
| versa to connect objects in _space_
| beckingz wrote:
| This is the fun part of physics where you go so far into the math
| that you lose connection with reality. (or rarely find something
| interesting that actually matters, but the odds are bad by
| cosmological standards).
| ngoilapites wrote:
| Same happens with economics.
| machina_ex_deus wrote:
| They should go back to the drawing board and actually get a
| stronger argument they really have a quantum computer.
|
| For those not following https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6645, their
| quantum supremacy experiments used quite a bad metric that's very
| easily spoofable. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01657
|
| Quantum computer is the perpetual motion machine of the 21st
| century. I'm sure we'll never get there, but getting an insight
| like the second law of thermodynamics of why it's impossible will
| be important too.
|
| And I don't buy the attitude of "the errors will be bad", that's
| like "there is always friction" to perpetual motion machines.
| There needs to be something deeper.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| This in particular is obviously not a great presentation of
| research, but what prompts your skepticism that QC is possible
| in general? Unlike perpetual motion, quantum phenomena is
| observed all over the place. It's a difficult engineering
| problem to set up an environment where we can directly
| manipulate it, but it doesn't exactly need any new physics.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| Gil Kalai ("Henry and Manya Noskwith Professor Emeritus of
| Mathematics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel,
| Professor of Computer Science at the Interdisciplinary
| Center, Herzliya, and adjunct Professor of mathematics and of
| computer science at Yale University" - from Wikipedia) is a
| noted skeptic of quantum computing. Here's an article:
| https://www.quantamagazine.org/gil-kalais-argument-
| against-q...
| reikonomusha wrote:
| If you can write a publication demonstrating quantum computers
| won't get there, you'd be famous. As it stands, quantum
| computers are improving remarkably year-over-year, both in
| theory and in practice. There is no guarantee, either on
| theoretical or practical grounds, that quantum computers will
| be better. Likewise, there's no guarantee of the converse.
|
| This wormhole stuff, or more specifically the way it's
| presented and intentionally broadcasted, however, does a
| disservice to the field.
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| Here is an (excellent, IMO) article instead of a press release:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/30/science/physics-wormhole-...
|
| Here is a rather critical reddit comment:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/z9n8ns/comment/iyib9...
|
| See also quanta magazine for even more background:
|
| https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-create-a-wormhole-...
| elil17 wrote:
| >By studying this quantum theory on the processor, we are able
| to... probe the dynamics of a quantum system equivalent to a
| wormhole in a model of gravity.
|
| Not a real wormhole, but rather a model of a wormhole which they
| say has the same dynamics. A bit like this if I'm not mistaken:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrkiJZKJfpY
| blamestross wrote:
| I'm increasingly convinced our current iteration of quantum
| computing research is a scam being run on tech CEOs and the
| government. This article's attempt to vaguely claim you can model
| a wormhole with a quantum computer but phrase it in a way that
| sounds like you could make a wormhole with a "quantum computer"
| has not improved that perception.
| reikonomusha wrote:
| There is lots of genuine work going on. Unfortunately,
| companies with public shareholders and bottom lines seemingly
| benefit from abstruse claims being strewn around the commons.
| Especially when it sounds like crazy sci-fi buzzword soup, like
| creating wormholes in quantum computers.
|
| The idea of quantum computing and quantum information
| processing is a genuine and testable scientific pursuit. Some
| organizations and institutions working in the field,
| fortunately, don't share the same incentives as companies like
| Google.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Just to be clear, which to their credit, is obvious in the first
| paragraph, but is not in this fairly misleading headline, they
| are _simulating_ a traversable wormhole, not creating one.
| scld wrote:
| https://twitter.com/nattyover/status/1598062171732447232?s=2...
| a discussion on the headline
| niemandhier wrote:
| What is the simulation and what is the system?
|
| Nambu-Goldstone bosons were conceived for super conductivity,
| turns out the Higgs mechanism works similarly, but it could
| have been the other way around.
|
| Two systems governed by the same dynamics are not simulations
| of each other, but in a certain sense identical.
| Ygg2 wrote:
| > but in a certain sense identical.
|
| You mean analogue?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-01 23:01 UTC)