Google quantum supremacy paper

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby minkwe » Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:56 pm

minkwe
 
Posts: 1128
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby Heinera » Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:44 pm

Good take on this in John D. Cook's blog:
https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/10/ ... y-and-pqc/

(I can really recommend following his blog. Almost daily entries, on mathematics and computing)
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:06 am

Heinera wrote:Good take on this in John D. Cook's blog:
https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/10/ ... y-and-pqc/

(I can really recommend following his blog. Almost daily entries, on mathematics and computing)

No amount of clever blogging can hide the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy even though they can do some tasks faster in their computer.

Definition: "Quantum supremacy is the potential ability of quantum computing devices to solve problems that classical computers practically cannot."

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby minkwe » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:33 am

local wrote:Very interesting! Thank you for the link.

I share your view that "quantum computation" is nonsense.

It is possible to make an analog circuit that performs a specific task 1000 times faster than a supercomputer. Will it then be justified to claim "Analog Supremacy"?
minkwe
 
Posts: 1128
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby local » Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:41 am

minkwe wrote:It is possible to make an analog circuit that performs a specific task 1000 times faster than supercomputer. Will it then be justified to claim "Analog Supremacy"?

Good point wittily made! There are many (including myself) that argue that once the nonlocality nonsense is excluded quantum computation reduces to a form of analog computation. We moved away from analog to digital because it was too difficult to maintain proper stability and precision for analog machines, especially when the critical things happen way to the right of the decimal point and there is noise. Analogously, in "quantum computation" we have the problem of "maintaining coherence" of the qubits, etc. Error correction, you say? Ask yourself why we did not salvage analog computation with error correction. It is all nonsense.
local
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby local » Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:40 pm

Joy Christian wrote: No amount of clever blogging can hide the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy

It's not even clever. ;)
local
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:21 am

local wrote:
Joy Christian wrote: No amount of clever blogging can hide the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy

It's not even clever. ;)

It’s an excellent blog. Read it. https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/10/23/quantum-supremacy-and-pqc/. Think. Be open to new information. I think that the definition of a scientist is someone who is always prepared to change their mind in the light of new information.

Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:33 am

gill1109 wrote:
local wrote:
Joy Christian wrote: No amount of clever blogging can hide the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy

It's not even clever. ;)

It’s an excellent blog. Read it. https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/10/23/quantum-supremacy-and-pqc/. Think. Be open to new information. I think that the definition of a scientist is someone who is always prepared to change their mind in the light of new information.

Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.

The bottom line is the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy. How hard that can be for anyone to understand?

As for an "excellent blog" or post about this, try this one: https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/09/ ... oogle/amp/.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:50 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
local wrote:
Joy Christian wrote: No amount of clever blogging can hide the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy

It's not even clever. ;)

It’s an excellent blog. Read it. https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/10/23/quantum-supremacy-and-pqc/. Think. Be open to new information. I think that the definition of a scientist is someone who is always prepared to change their mind in the light of new information.

Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.

The bottom line is the fact that Google has not demonstrated quantum supremacy. How hard that can be for anyone to understand?

***

We knew that a month ago. It is not the bottom line. The blog *is* interesting. It seems that some people are scared to learn what is in it, and don’t want others to learn what is in it. My bottom line, for the time being, is: Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.

BTW, if Joy Christian’s model is correct, then quantum computing is dead, because classical computers can fake quantum correlations in polynomial time and space, hence the promises of quantum information theory are empty. You can be sure that the defence industries and secret services and government security agencies of the world would now be actually promoting quantum internet since they would already possess ”Trojan horse” software enabling them to gain total control over all quantum secure communications. No wonder Christian’s work is so severely persecuted. The word must not get out that he is right! The agent in possession of his knowledge and his computer programs rules the world.

This suggests that there is indeed just one organisation in control of everything. The Illuminati, of course.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:04 am

gill1109 wrote:
My bottom line, for the time being, is: Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.

Interesting. I wonder whose mind has been "wide shut" for the past twelve years and who has taken extraordinary steps to undermine my work on quantum correlations.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:59 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
My bottom line, for the time being, is: Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.

Interesting. I wonder whose mind has been "wide shut" for the past twelve years and who has taken extraordinary steps to undermine my work on quantum correlations.

***

I have no idea at all who you are referring to, Joy. ;)

As I recall, I did try very hard indeed to explain to you and to your supporters where you were making certain mistakes. :ugeek: I hate to see talent wasted. I hate very much indeed to see extraordinary talent wasted on such an extraordinary scale. On the way, I did learn a great deal about some very common misconceptions about Bell's theorem. And got into contact with a lot of fascinating people. I admit complaining to some authorities about vulgar personal abuse and about misleading your scientific colleagues about your academic affiliation, and about the origins of certain software. Sure, this had an impact on your scientific career. It doesn't seem to have prevented your work from being published. In fact, your celebrity status thrives on it. :lol: Right now there are 80 guests browsing this forum! They probably aren't all bots. Even if they are mostly bots, it means that the forum is a hotspot of connectedness on the internet.

PS. another recent development: news from China: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09930

Boson sampling with 20 input photons in 60-mode interferometers at 1014 state spaces
Hui Wang, Jian Qin, Xing Ding, Ming-Cheng Chen, Si Chen, Xiang You, Yu-Ming He, Xiao Jiang, Z. Wang, L. You, J. J. Renema, Sven Hoefling, Chao-Yang Lu, Jian-Wei Pan
(Submitted on 22 Oct 2019)
Quantum computing experiments are moving into a new realm of increasing size and complexity, with the short-term goal of demonstrating an advantage over classical computers. Boson sampling is a promising platform for such a goal, however, the number of involved single photons was up to five so far, limiting these small-scale implementations to a proof-of-principle stage. Here, we develop solid-state sources of highly efficient, pure and indistinguishable single photons, and 3D integration of ultra-low-loss optical circuits. We perform an experiment with 20 single photons fed into a 60-mode interferometer, and, in its output, sample over Hilbert spaces with a size of 1014 −over ten orders of magnitude larger than all previous experiments. The results are validated against distinguishable samplers and uniform samplers with a confidence level of 99.9%.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby localyokel » Sun Oct 27, 2019 9:03 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
My bottom line, for the time being, is: Beware of your own mind if you find yourself in the situation that new information can *never* cause you to change your mind. You might as well be dead.

Interesting. I wonder whose mind has been "wide shut" for the past twelve years and who has taken extraordinary steps to undermine my work on quantum correlations.

***

I have no idea at all who you are referring to, Joy. ;)

As I recall, I did try very hard indeed to explain to you and to your supporters where you were making certain mistakes. :ugeek: I hate to see talent wasted. I hate very much indeed to see extraordinary talent wasted on such an extraordinary scale. On the way, I did learn a great deal about some very common misconceptions about Bell's theorem. And got into contact with a lot of fascinating people. I admit complaining to some authorities about vulgar personal abuse and about misleading your scientific colleagues about your academic affiliation, and about the origins of certain software. Sure, this had an impact on your scientific career. It doesn't seem to have prevented your work from being published. In fact, your celebrity status thrives on it. :lol: Right now there are 80 guests browsing this forum! They probably aren't all bots. Even if they are mostly bots, it means that the forum is a hotspot of connectedness on the internet.

PS. another recent development: news from China: https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.09930

Boson sampling with 20 input photons in 60-mode interferometers at 1014 state spaces
Hui Wang, Jian Qin, Xing Ding, Ming-Cheng Chen, Si Chen, Xiang You, Yu-Ming He, Xiao Jiang, Z. Wang, L. You, J. J. Renema, Sven Hoefling, Chao-Yang Lu, Jian-Wei Pan
(Submitted on 22 Oct 2019)
Quantum computing experiments are moving into a new realm of increasing size and complexity, with the short-term goal of demonstrating an advantage over classical computers. Boson sampling is a promising platform for such a goal, however, the number of involved single photons was up to five so far, limiting these small-scale implementations to a proof-of-principle stage. Here, we develop solid-state sources of highly efficient, pure and indistinguishable single photons, and 3D integration of ultra-low-loss optical circuits. We perform an experiment with 20 single photons fed into a 60-mode interferometer, and, in its output, sample over Hilbert spaces with a size of 1014 −over ten orders of magnitude larger than all previous experiments. The results are validated against distinguishable samplers and uniform samplers with a confidence level of 99.9%.


Richard, I find it odd that you have persisted so long and devoted so much energy to your debate with Joy. I am just a hobbyist, so I have difficulty comparing it to "normal" academic debate. I once took a deep dive into a preprint I found online by an academic mathematician, and realized it was all wrong. I devised the most simple counterexample to one of his theorems in the paper I thought possible, and emailed it to him, in hopes of him making a major overhaul or giving up on what might be a doomed idea. All he did was add extra conditions to that theorem that basically just excluded my simple counterexample. It was still wrong, and I could have emailed him a more elaborate counterexample, but I decided to give up. I was disappointed in the exchange, in that I thought I had just made it harder for an actual journal referee to realize something was wrong. I usually don't care if/where a paper is published when I evaluate it, but I then became curious and looked at what journals his published papers were in, and they seemed "low tier". I am now asking the group: "Are there low tier math journals where you can expect to often find an entire paper has a fundamental flaw and it is all wrong?" As far as theoretical physics papers go: an alarming number appear to me to be metaphysics with a token equation or two, with trivial statements about them which look like there is some sort of derivation going on. As I said, I don't keep tabs on where/if anything is published, but I am guessing a lot of these are published. In which case, if I did believe Joy's idea was doomed, I would put it in the category of such metaphysical papers (even though it has a lot more equations), and move on.
localyokel
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:49 pm

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby gill1109 » Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:08 am

localyokel wrote:Richard, I find it odd that you have persisted so long and devoted so much energy to your debate with Joy. I am just a hobbyist, so I have difficulty comparing it to "normal" academic debate. I once took a deep dive into a preprint I found online by an academic mathematician and realized it was all wrong. I devised the most simple counterexample to one of his theorems in the paper I thought possible, and emailed it to him, in hopes of him making a major overhaul or giving up on what might be a doomed idea. All he did was add extra conditions to that theorem that basically just excluded my simple counterexample. It was still wrong, and I could have emailed him a more elaborate counterexample, but I decided to give up. I was disappointed in the exchange, in that I thought I had just made it harder for an actual journal referee to realize something was wrong. I usually don't care if/where a paper is published when I evaluate it, but I then became curious and looked at what journals his published papers were in, and they seemed "low tier". I am now asking the group: "Are there low tier math journals where you can expect to often find an entire paper has a fundamental flaw and it is all wrong?" As far as theoretical physics papers go: an alarming number appears to me to be metaphysics with a token equation or two, with trivial statements about them which look like there is some sort of derivation going on. As I said, I don't keep tabs on where/if anything is published, but I am guessing a lot of these are published. In which case, if I did believe Joy's idea was doomed, I would put it in the category of such metaphysical papers (even though it has a lot more equations), and move on.

Yes, I have also pondered long on the psychology of this case. Clearly, it did become an obsession with me. I'm an autistic mathematician type, I get these obsessions. Deeper still, I perceived a kind of affinity, brother-like, with Joy (obviously this was not mutual - it is in my own psyche) and I felt a strong need to help him by showing him where he had made some mistakes. Actually he had the same effect on several other people. They knew his maths was wrong, and obviously could not implement his math in computer programs (Bell's theorem is a true theorem in computer science!), so they implemented other people's detection loophole programs or made other ad hoc changes to Joy's maths so that the program gave the "right answer". Christian can't read or write computer programs and he likes to believe that his math got implemented by other people in their programs.

There is also a "higher" motive. How can highly intelligent people believe obviously impossible things? To mention a specific example, there is an editor at RSOS and at IEEE Access, who has written a brilliant tutorial and historical papers on Geometric Algebra, and is an invited speaker alongside the two Lazenby's and Leo Dorst at major international conferences on Geometric Algebra, who promotes Christian's work. Hence, obviously, does not check the mathematical details. I notice that most physicists and most philosophers of science don't check the maths. They are interested in the ideas and they may buy into the ideas or may argue about the ideas. But they often never bother to take any notice of the maths. I am the opposite. The ideas are beyond me, and I am not trained as a philosopher, nor as a physicist. My "academic credentials" (and my heart) lie in mathematics, even though I was never a great pure mathematician. I became a statistician and an applied probabilist of sorts by a series of accidents and lucky coincidences. I became a quite famous statistician through quite incredible coincidences, I am only too aware of the case (I suffer from imposter syndrome. Joy Christian on the other hand from the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon).

I want to understand the thinking of this kind of person because I want to find ways to explain Bell's childishly simple and totally impeccable logic. Logic and statistical insight. There is a statistical element in Bell's argument which physicists simply cannot grasp. I struggle to find ways to help the blind to see. I may only have one eye, but I do see more than those who are completely blind. Bell saw very, very clearly. Unfortunately, his training and the culture in which he operated did not allow him to express things with the clarity which certainly was needed.

Regarding your question to the group: "Are there low tier math journals where you can expect to often find an entire paper has a fundamental flaw and it is all wrong?" the answer is yes, and the so-called predatory journals are obviously exactly where this is common. Maybe one should distinguish between pure math journals and applied math journals. In pure mathematics, there is a myth of objective truth and of perfect rigour. In applied math, anything goes. What is interesting is that respectable publishing houses are setting up their own predatory journals. Springer, Elsevier, and IEEE have all done this. When your paper is rejected by one of their flagship journals they offer to fast track it in their lower-tier journals, provided of course you come up with the publication fee. Now Joy tells us that his publication fee in IEEE Access was waived. Obviously, he presumably does not have vast financial resources. But he does seem to have allies in high places. Yes, he does come across as extremely wise and well-informed, and he did, long ago, have strong academic credentials. People are drawn to him. He commands the undying support of very intelligent people, though of people who are not ever going to actually check his mathematics, and who almost certainly are not even capable of doing so.

It's a cargo cult. Christian is entirely sincere. He does learn from past experience. Civilised behaviour does pay off. So does increasing the complexity of the mathematical structures.
Last edited by gill1109 on Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:36 am

:lol:
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:39 am

Joy Christian wrote::lol:

I will second that. :lol:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby gill1109 » Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:41 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote::lol:

I will second that. :lol:
.

I second that, too. The motion is passed. :lol:
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby local » Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:28 pm

Happy Halloween to you all! 8-)
local
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:41 pm

***
AI is another hype that needs to be exposed as such: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... exist-yet/.

AI is Artificial but not necessarily Intelligent. :)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:30 pm

***

A quantum computing future is unlikely, due to random hardware errors: https://theconversation.com/a-quantum-c ... ors-126503.


***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Google quantum supremacy paper

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:34 pm

***
Some people want to ban words like "supremacy" from science: https://www.quantumresponsibility.org/openletter.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library