Month: September 2007

Posted on

Book Sale Bonanza

Yesterday I went to the Friends of the Seattle Public Library’s book sale. It’s always fun to see a line stretching out into the distance for people waiting to get a chance to buy used books at less than one dollar a book. Here was my take this year, where I happily picked up a copy of Messiah and Griffiths, both of which I sadly never had in my library:

Nonlinear Programming (Siam-Ams Proceedings, Vol 4) by Richard W. Cottle
Introduction to Mathematical Programming With Courseware by Frederick S. Hillier
Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J. Griffiths
Kinetic Theory of Gases by W. Kauzmann
Quantum Mechanics, Volume II by A. Messiah
Introduction to Cybernetics by W. Ross Ashby
Atoms, Molecules, and Chemical Change by E. Grunwald and R. Johnsen
Revealing the Universe by J. Cornell and A. P. Lightman
The Second Law: An Introduction to Classical and Statistical Thermodynamics by H. A. Bent
Functions of complex variables: An introduction by Z. C. Motteler
Machine Learning: Paradigms and Methods (Special Issues of Artificial Intelligence) edited by J. Carbonell
Thirty Years That Shook Physics by G. Gamow
AI: The Tumultuous History of the Search for Artificial Intelligence by D. Crevier
Introductory Nuclear Physics by D. Halliday
Einstein: Life and Times by R. W. Clark
Tuxedo Park : A Wall Street Tycoon and the Secret Palace of Science That Changed the Course of World War II by J. Conant
Statistics, Third Edition by D. Freedman, R. Pisani, and R. Purves
Astronomy of the 20th Century by O. Struve and V. Zebergs
Great Books of the Western World Vol. 16 Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler edited by R. M. Hutchins
Black holes, quasars & the universe by H. L. Shipman

Not a bad haul for a few bucks. Onto the queue you go, books!

Posted on

New Scientist May Be New, But About That Science?

Via Science after Sunclipse, I find a comment by Greg Egan on The n-category Cafe where I was led to this letter to New Scientist:

Superluminal siblings
22 September 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Nick Webb, London, UK
Robbie and Fred are twins who live together. Wearing identical suits, they leave their house at the same time heading in opposite directions. One twin carries a hidden green wallet; the other has a red one. The wallets are not visible.
Unfortunately, Robbie is mugged and the redness of his wallet is revealed. In quantum terms he is measured and forced to take a value.
An observer can now deduce that Fred’s wallet is green, and if put to the test this will prove to be the case no matter where or when Fred is interrogated.
There is no need for faster-than-light communication or spooky interaction at distance – just knowledge of the initial conditions. I can’t see anything wrong with this analogy. Am I missing something?
The editor writes:
No, it’s exactly right.

At which point my brain just exploded.

Posted on

And Thanks For All The Fish

Michael Nielsen’s switchin’ fields. I’m envious but also sad. Envious that he gets to do something totally cool and new, but sad that I won’t be randomly bumping into him at conferences where I try to explain to him some crazy idea I’m working on and then get to hear his wonderful laugh at my silly ideas. Oh yeah, and when am I ever going to get to use this joke again, huh?
On the more serious side of things, I myself often think about what I would do if I wasn’t working in quantum computing. Which always leads me to think about why I’m still in the field in the first place (history ain’t a good reason, in fact I’d say it is the worst reason of all.) There are mostly two or three things that really keep me in the field these days. One is that I really really really want to see a quantum computer built. And I think the current roadmap ain’t got nothing to do with how a large scale quantum computer will be built. I’ve always said that if I could see how some scheme for quantum computing would really work to build a large quantum computer I’d drop my theorists clothes and work towards building the damn thing. And I work today in the field because I’m naive enough to think that I might be able to contribute to the more radical ideas I think are needed for building a quantum computer.
The second thing which keeps me going these days is a personal quirk. When I first started working in quantum computing I was trying to solve NP-complete problems efficiently on a quantum computer. I was young and I was naive, yes. But I was also drawn to the promise of the power of quantum algorithms. And damnit I still want to come up with an algorithm for a quantum computer which is of some importance. Yep, I really really really want to at least break a public key cryptosystem!
Finally I would say that the other thing which keeps me in quantum computing these days is just to see what Scott Aaronson will do next. Actually what I really mean by this is I do think that quantum information science provides an interesting insight into computation and into physics. Quantum computing beyond the hype of a quantum computer. Quantum computing for its own intellectual sake of revealing more about our physical and computational universe. Quantum computing because (to channell Feynman’s ghost) our world is quantum damnit, and all these views of the interaction betwen physics and computer science which just go with classical computing are interesting but fundamentally lacking.
Of course all this thinking about what keeps me in the field of quantum computing or even in academia also is just my way of avoiding answering the question of what I would do if I wasn’t in the field. But that’s easy for me to answer I guess. I’d be at a computer startup (my original goal in life was to work at Apple, you know) or trying to get a job at someplace like D.E. Shaw where my friends who work there tell me exciting stories of interesting problems and silly sums of money which will let them do what they want in a few short years. Or maybe I’d be a lift operator at a ski resort 🙂

Posted on

Professorship of Quantum Physics

Here is an awesome position for one of you bigwigs out there:

The Board of Electors to the Professorship of Quantum Physics, to be held in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP), invite applications for this Professorship, to take up appointment on 1 January 2008 or as soon as possible thereafter. Applications are welcome from persons working in the broad areas of quantum computation and quantum information theory (with these taken to include quantum cryptography and quantum communication theory). The Professor will have an outstanding international reputation in their field of research and will be expected to provide strong academic leadership in research, teaching and other activities of DAMTP.
The Chair has become vacant on the departure of the post holder, Professor Artur
Ekert, who played a leading role in establishing a successful Centre for Quantum
Computation in DAMTP housing an internationally leading research activity in quantum information science. The Department wishes to appoint a new Professor who is able to sustain this general line of research to the highest possible standards.
Further information may be obtained from the Academic Secretary, University Offices, The Old Schools, Cambridge, CB2 1TT, (email: ibise@[elephant]admin.cam.ac.uk remove the [elephant] to get the valid email), to whom a letter of application should be sent, together with details of current and future research plans, a curriculum vitae, a publications list and form PD18 with details of two referees, so as to reach him no later than 30 September 2007.
Informal enquiries about this Professorship may be directed at any time to Professor Peter Haynes, Head of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, telephone: (01223) 337862 or email: p.h.haynes@[elephant]damtp.cam.ac.uk, remove the [elephant] to get the valid email. Further information about the post and the Department may be found at http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/.

Oh, and to translate this post across the pond, “centre”=”center” and “1 January 2008” is “January 1, 2008.”

Posted on

2007 MacArthur Awards

MacArthur awards for 2007 have been announced. Seattle scores two, Yoky Matsuoka (right here in my own department!) and Mark Roth at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. My old alma mater (“nourishing mother?”) Caltech received two awards, and my grad school alma mater Berkeley received one.
I think I am begining to understand why I have an inferiority complex.

Posted on

Parallel Universes

I know they exist because slashdot and The New Scientist and some other Site tell me they exist. I keep wondering how I can find my way to a parallel universe where I don’t spend my time reading those articles, but can’t quite get the Hadamard matrix to enact the proper interference pattern.

Posted on

QEC 07 / TQC 08 Deadlines Near

The deadline for QEC07 contributed talks and posters is only a week away, September 30. Contribute, peoples! (The deadline for registration is Halloween October 31.)
The deadline for TQC 08 is also September 30th.
So who wants to try for the difecta and spend all night on the 29th preparing to submit?!

Posted on

Number One Mere Technical School

Sports Illustrated says that Caltech is number one! Err, had the number one college sports prank:

1. The Great Rose Bowl Hoax
School: Rose Bowl
Year: 1961
Today, Caltech has no official mascot, much less a football team. But until 1993, the Rose Bowl was home to the mere technical school’s football squad — as well as the culminating event of college football. In 1961, a team of 14 students decided to capitalize on the event’s irony by changing the University of Washington’s flip-card stunt at half time.
A student disguised himself as an eager reporter from a high school newspaper and interviewed a cheerleader to get the details. They found that by surreptitiously altering 2,232 instruction sheets, the entire Husky fan section could be duped into displaying any pattern the “Fiendish Fourteen” desired — without the crowd realizing it. They stole the instructions, printed modified copies, and replaced them.
On game day, the college card collage played out as expected for the first 11 patterns, lulling the crowd into a sense of security and drawing the lenses of (color) national television. Subtle alterations to the 12th pattern resulted in a Husky that looked an awful lot like a beaver — the dam-building totem of many technical schools. The 13th stunt came off as a mistake: “HUSKIES” spelled backwards. And finally, the 14th stunt spelled “CALTECH,” and it all made sense, casting silence upon the stadium for a few moments. Soon, laughter set in among the crowd and panic among the Washington cheerleaders, who cancelled the final stunt, which was wisely left unadjusted by the pranksters.

But, ahem “Mere technical school?” Note that MIT didn’t even make the list. 😉

Posted on

Is the Sky Falling? Fundanationalist Edition

I’m as much a nationalist as Dick Cheney is a peace loving hippie. Except, of course, when it comes to funding. Yes, I am a “fundanationalist.” Particularly funding of quantum computing. Selfish? Indeed! And you would be too if your salary came from agencies scooped straight out of a bowl of alphabet soup.
So I have no qualms asking the question “Is the US the leading place to do quantum computing theory research?” Now how might one check this out? One way would be to look at the data from the last two QIP conferences. QIP is certainly the top conference for a certain kind of quantum computing theory, one which is more computer sciency than physicy. Note that over the last two QIPs there has been a more democratic method for inviting speakers, so that this data is arguably fairly representative of the work the community currently values. Here are numbers:

QIP 2007 [Brisbane, Australia]
US 12
Canada 8
Europe 13
Asia 1
Australia 1
Israel 2
QIP 2006 [Paris, France]
US 11
Canada 8
Europe 16
Asia 2
Australia 1
Israel 2

Note that I took the authors current affiliation and not the affiliation when they spoke, as I’m more interested in what the current state of theory research is. Well so the United States has less that one third of the speakers. So I would say that the US is certainly not dominating quantum computing research, but is in a three way tie for the top spot with Europe and Canada. Considering the lack of hiring of top quantum computing people in US universities (certain exceptions, of course, apply) I would guess that this divide is only going to deepen.
Of course truthfully I am happy to see quantum computing funded everywhere. However I wonder if this view is shared by those deep in the heart of government funding agencies. Is third place good enough for quantum computing theory research in the United States?