Author Topic: Episode #90  (Read 24012 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Episode #90
« on: Apr 13, 2007, 07:17:17 AM »
Podcast #90 4/10/2007
News Items: Quantum Computer?, Fermilab Flub, Dieting News, Time Travel, Meta Analysis
Your E-mails and Questions: Chiropractic Confusion, Death Star Conspiracy, Hugh Ross and Testable Creationism, Near Death Experiences
Science or Fiction
Skeptical Puzzle
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline Hayden Jones

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Episode #90
« Reply #1 on: Apr 13, 2007, 08:04:23 AM »
Woo Hoo!

Early podcast... suppose I should listen to it before I digg it!

Offline Opcn

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2952
  • Perpetually happy!
    • facebook
Episode #90
« Reply #2 on: Apr 13, 2007, 08:19:55 AM »
No Rebecca, oh no!

When she is gone you should get a female guest panelist, sort of softens the whole adventure, makes it seem less nerdy.

Offline JBStrickland

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
    • http://www.howstuffworks.com
Episode #90
« Reply #3 on: Apr 13, 2007, 08:53:27 AM »
I actually have an article on Quantum Computers publishing next week.  At first I was worried that new information had come to light that would make the article outdated, but fortunately the 16 qubit computer is something I was aware of when writing the piece.

Quantum computers, assuming they are ever perfected, will be able to make parallel calculations to solve complex problems much faster than a classical computer.  However, classical computers will still calculate more traditional problems as fast or faster than a quantum computer.  In other words, quantum computers aren't going to make everything faster; just extremely complex problems that would normally take a classical computer an impractical amount of time to solve.

Oh, and all answers will be expressed in probabilities, not certainties.
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5878
    • Trip23
Episode #90
« Reply #4 on: Apr 13, 2007, 12:44:40 PM »
First of all, it's OK that Rebecca's not there. It makes me personally no less likely to listen to the episode. And I'm not gay or anything, and I enoy listening to Rebecca very much, as much for her wit as for her intelligent, well-informed perspective. But I'm still very much looking forward to listening to the rest of the episode, even knowing she won't be a participant. So that's this one 30-something heterosexual American male listener's perspective, for whatever that's worth. :-)

Secondly (directed primarily to my fellow listeners), is it just me, or does Bob sound a little...strange? At least during the discussion of quantum computers and qubits (that's as far as I've gotten). It's not objectionable at all, but it sounds like he's being REALLLLY serious! Like his mood is out of synch with the rest of the panel. I almost wonder if he'll start talking about news of an impeding catastrophic plague in an upcoming segment. :)

It sounds nitpicky, and like negative feedback. But it's not. Just an observation. Maybe a sanity check. Am I just nuts? Wait. Don't answer that. Especially if you're a chiropractor. :)

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5878
    • Trip23
Episode #90
« Reply #5 on: Apr 13, 2007, 12:50:44 PM »
As a computer scientist, I just cannot grasp the concept of a qubit. I cannot help but try to relate it to a bit, the most fundamental piece of information. Arrgh! Help!

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5878
    • Trip23
Episode #90
« Reply #6 on: Apr 13, 2007, 12:55:40 PM »
I don't understand how Fermilab's quality-control process didn't include actually subjecting the structural components to relevant forces? Durrrr....

Offline Larry Coon

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Episode #90
« Reply #7 on: Apr 13, 2007, 01:02:02 PM »
I suppose one test of a black box that is asserted to be a quantum computer would be to solve a problem that runs in exponential time on a classical computer, but p-time (or less) on a quantum computer.  An example would be prime factorization.  A lot of encryption is based on concepts like this -- it's trivial to multiply two big prime numbers and derive a bigger number.  It's much more complex to take the resulting number and reverse it back to the two original factors, in fact, there's no known way of doing it except try out all the possibilities.  When the product is sufficiently large (say, 128 bits large), trying out the possibilities one by one would take so long that the sun would nova before you'd expect to find the solution.

Going on memory here (I'm no expert on quantum computing, and it's been a while since I read about this), there are algorithms for quantum computers which would reduce the computational complexity (i.e., the time it takes an algorithm to complete) of this algorithm from end-of-the-world time to much more reasonable time.

A proper test of this black box would be to construct a test (a problem) around a subject like this, which wouldn't finish in a reasonable amount of time UNLESS there was a quantum computer inside the box.

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5878
    • Trip23
Episode #90
« Reply #8 on: Apr 13, 2007, 01:02:17 PM »
Quote from: "JBStrickland"
I actually have an article on Quantum Computers publishing next week.  At first I was worried that new information had come to light that would make the article outdated, but fortunately the 16 qubit computer is something I was aware of when writing the piece.

Quantum computers, assuming they are ever perfected, will be able to make parallel calculations to solve complex problems much faster than a classical computer.  However, classical computers will still calculate more traditional problems as fast or faster than a quantum computer.  In other words, quantum computers aren't going to make everything faster; just extremely complex problems that would normally take a classical computer an impractical amount of time to solve.

Oh, and all answers will be expressed in probabilities, not certainties.

Are you saying that big benefit of quantum computing is not speed, but massively parallel processing? And that the results are not somehow directly digital?

I put values into registers, and then I tell the chip to perform an instruction. It takes some values, does some stuff, and sets some values. Some chips can perform several of these operations simultaneously.

How does quantum computing fit into that basic understanding?

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5878
    • Trip23
Episode #90
« Reply #9 on: Apr 13, 2007, 01:08:09 PM »
Quote from: "Larry Coon"
I suppose one test of a black box that is asserted to be a quantum computer would be to solve a problem that runs in exponential time on a classical computer, but p-time (or less) on a quantum computer.  An example would be prime factorization.  A lot of encryption is based on concepts like this -- it's trivial to multiply two big prime numbers and derive a bigger number.  It's much more complex to take the resulting number and reverse it back to the two original factors, in fact, there's no known way of doing it except try out all the possibilities.

Well, differential calculus is helping us out here, but your example makes sense to me regarding quantum computing's theoretical parallel processing capabilties.

Quote
Going on memory here (I'm no expert on quantum computing, and it's been a while since I read about this), there are algorithms for quantum computers which would reduce the computational complexity

And I've heard the same stuff, and I'm equally vague about it. I think the sticking point for me is that algorithm. I want to understand the details of that algorithm. How do you short-circuit prime factorization with **hardware**?

Quote
A proper test of this black box would be to construct a test (a problem) around a subject like this, which wouldn't finish in a reasonable amount of time UNLESS there was a quantum computer inside the box.

Or he could have discovered a twist on differential mathematics or something.

Offline Larry Coon

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Episode #90
« Reply #10 on: Apr 13, 2007, 01:14:29 PM »
Quote from: "skidoo"
How does quantum computing fit into that basic understanding?

It's completely different.  I'll get some references together and post them, but you can find a great reference to it if you look for the course notes on the quantum computing course at the Caltech Physics department.

Parallelism reduces the problem by a linear factor only, and is useless (well, not very useful) for attacking truly complex problems.  When we talk about computational complexity, we can talk about a problem being a polynomial-time problem -- as the number of inputs increases, the function of the time it takes is a polynomial function.  In p-time functions, the coefficients are essentially ignored because they don't change the complexity.  A problem that runs in n^2 time and a problem that runs in 1000n^2 time are essentially equally complex, because the exponent overwhelms the coefficient.  And the point is, parallelism affects the coefficient, not the exponent.  Or to put it another way, if you have 1,000 CPUs working in parallel on a problem that would take a trillion years to finish, you've now reduced it to only a billion years.  Remember, for exponential problems, it doesn't take much input at all to make the problem completely impractical to solve.

Quantum computation uses fundamentally different algorithms, oftentimes with algorithmic complexity that are orders of magnitude different.  If you can take an exponential problem (i.e., one that runs in n! time) and reduce it to a polynomial time, you've really done something -- and done far more than you could do through parallelism.

Offline Larry Coon

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Episode #90
« Reply #11 on: Apr 13, 2007, 01:19:24 PM »
Note to the above: I read that you have a CS background, so a lot of this is stuff I'm sure you already know.  My intent is not to talk down to you, but rather to provide something the general reader can hopefully follow.

Offline Larry Coon

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 205
Episode #90
« Reply #12 on: Apr 13, 2007, 01:22:30 PM »
More follow-up: Here's the home page for the Caltech course I referenced.  BTW, John Preskill, the author, is rather famous for being the guy who won the bet against Stephen Hawking.

LINK

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5878
    • Trip23
Episode #90
« Reply #13 on: Apr 13, 2007, 01:31:01 PM »
Quote from: "Larry Coon"
Quote from: "skidoo"
How does quantum computing fit into that basic understanding?

It's completely different.  I'll get some references together and post them, but you can find a great reference to it if you look for the course notes on the quantum computing course at the Caltech Physics department.

I'll definitely look that up. Thanks.

Quote
Parallelism reduces the problem by a linear factor only, and is useless (well, not very useful) for attacking truly complex problems.  When we talk about computational complexity, we can talk about a problem being a polynomial-time problem -- as the number of inputs

Yes, I understand all of that very well. That's why I'm saying that my understanding the benefits of quantum computing as being tantamount to parallelism must be a flawed understanding. I am having a difficult time dissociating speed and complexity.

Quote
Quantum computation uses fundamentally different algorithms, oftentimes with algorithmic complexity that are orders of magnitude different.  If you can take an exponential problem (i.e., one that runs in n! time) and reduce it to a polynomial time, you've really done something -- and done far more than you could do through parallelism.

See, something in there breaks. For me anyway. "Algortihmic complexity" is just a gauge of the number of discrete functions, redardless of whether it runs in polynomial time.

EDIT: In other words, I don't understand how the algorithms can simply be more complex. There's got to be something fundamentally different about them. That difference is tripping me up.

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5878
    • Trip23
Episode #90
« Reply #14 on: Apr 13, 2007, 01:33:11 PM »
Quote from: "Larry Coon"
Note to the above: I read that you have a CS background, so a lot of this is stuff I'm sure you already know.  My intent is not to talk down to you, but rather to provide something the general reader can hopefully follow.

No that's cool. I appreciate the dialog.