Making a Traversable Wormhole with a Quantum Computer | Hacker News Reader

Making a Traversable Wormhole with a Quantum Computer

ai.googleblog.com

40 pointszdw20 comments

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.

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.

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...

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.

You cant prove a negative. Quantum Computers need to prove superiority in some useful calculation not just arbitary math equation nobody uses or wants.

There exists no quantum computer in physical form. There only exists mathematical models simulated touting to be a quantum computer proved by a classical computer.

I don't think there's any physical argument which prevents them from existing. However what is well known is that all existing schemes require exponential energy input to scale (for example because dilution refrigeration becomes exponentially difficult)

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-...

>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

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.

https://twitter.com/nattyover/status/1598062171732447232?s=2... a discussion on the headline

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.

> but in a certain sense identical.

You mean analogue?

No identical. In the same way that the Peano construction and the von Neuman construction of the natural numbers are identical.

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).

Same happens with economics.

A more sober take on this story can be found here: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13181

summary:

   The claim that “Physicists Create a Wormhole” is just complete bullshit, with the huge campaign to mislead the public about this a disgrace, highly unhelpful for the credibility of physics research in particular and science in general.

   …

   As far as I can tell, all they did was perform elaborate SYK calculations on a classical computer, together with simulations of noise on the Google quantum computer, trying to find a possible calculation on the quantum computer that would have signal, not just noise. Once such an N=7 SYK calculation was identified, they used a 9 qubit quantum computer and the noisy result matched the simulation result from the classical computer, exactly as expected. Seeing the completely expected match between results from a 9 bit noisy quantum computer and the results of the simulation of this on a classical computer caused Maria Spiropulu to say that “I was shaken” and “It was nuts. It was nuts”, while Joe Lykken felt that the moment was on a par with discovery of the Higgs particle.

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.

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.

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_

Reply on news.ycombinator.com