Some human resources departments have a title called “Generalist” who is someone that can basically handle a wide variety of issues. Academia, on the other hand, has a title called “Professor” who more often than not is an expert in one particular narrow area of their already fairly narrow profession. There are very few professors who are generalists, though I don’t think this is of their own choosing, but is the product of a lot of culture and practicality (expertise is necessary for advancement of the academic’s field.)
I was thinking about this the other day, and mulling over how I think I’m might be more of a generalist than a specialist (or at least I’m a lousy dilettante), when it occurred to me that perhaps this is the reason why I ended up in quantum computing. To the outside world quantum computing people are often characterized by “Oh they’re a quantum person.” I’ve heard exactly that phrase (especially when it comes to hiring decisions 🙁 )
But let’s think a bit about what that means. Quantum theory is an uber-theory of physics, sitting squarely at the base of theoretical physics. Computing is…well….gigantic. It is a joke that to form a research area in quantum computing you simply go to the dictionary of fields in computing and affix a big fat “quantum” in front of it. It may be a joke, but it’s very much true.
For example, I have worked in quantum error correction, quantum algorithms, universal quantum computing, simulation of quantum correlations, quantum foundations (Bell inequalities with communication), quantum computing in bizarre models of physics, adiabatic quantum protocols, and matrix product states algorithms for simulating quantum physics. And I’m a lazy bastard with a short publication list. A further example of this is the last paper I put up on the arxiv, arXiv:1006.4388 with co-authors Isaac Crosson and Ken Brown. In that paper we discuss essentially a statistical physics result and, along with connecting it to a model of computing, we also tie our work to a fundamental complexity class. Fun stuff! (Though hard to find an appropriate journal.)
I’ve often said that one of the great things about working in quantum computing is that I get to see all sorts of talks, from hard-core experimental physics to pie in the sky theoretical computer science. It only recently occurred to me that this is, apparently, is my own private way of getting to pretend to be a generalist. Which is to say, it used to bug me when people said “oh that Quantum Pontiff he’s just a quantum dude” (quantizing Bishops left and right, well mostly right!) But now I take it as a great protective shield, keeping me from bolting a system that favors single minded expertise over any broader approach.
O brave new quantum world!
Outstanding post!
So Dave, given that (1) yer a quantum generalist, and (2) the future is quantum (small, fast, efficient, and clean) …
Then perhaps yer able to foresee the future better than many … or maybe even create a future that’s better than many.
So please tell a story about how wonderful life is gonna be, on baby Bacon’s planet, in baby Bacon’s century.
`Cuz seriously Dave, if a person with your broad quantum background can’t do it … well … then soberingly … perhaps no-one can.
You may as well have written a manifesto for my own life… minus having written actual papers yet. What a wonderful way to kick off the new old blog!
Nah … quantum is an approximation of semi-classical … just increase the tensor network rank until the sectional curvatures flatten-out.
But imagine how much broader a classicist must be!
Ah, but classical is a special case of quantum 🙂
Dave, I haven’t posted here since 2006 but I felt I had to after reading your plight of bolting the narrow thinking road.
Robert Dickie blasted something I wrote in 1966 and I still have and treasure a letter from Lincoln Barnett approving of it. I didn’t see until 1997 where Dickie was wrong.
Time gave me a better view of things. We need to come out of the water, of our own sphere, and breathe the air of all of science – now and then – just to get a better view of things.
I know you hate Stephen Wolfram but:
Stephen Wolfram’s book, “A New Kind of Science” gives us three (3) very important facts:
1. Mathematics can only explain simple things.
2. You need a model to explain complicated things.
3. But – a simple model can explain complicated things.
It looks to me like we have an important PHASE model here that almost everyone has completely overlooked. This applies, very much, to your quantum computing field.
“in phase attract”
Type those three words – above – into Google (Include quote marks) to learn not only the basics of electricity but how all the fundamental forces work.
Or click the following link that will give you the same page in Google. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22in+phase+attract%22&btnG=Google+Search
Not only do all electric motors obey these phase laws but this entire universe seems to as well.
(Click link below.)
http://www.amperefitz.com/in.phase.attract.htm
Don’t let this detract from any important work, you are doing, on quantum computing, Dave
Cheers,
Fitz
Re: “And I’m a lazy bastard with a short publication list.” I count 41 papers of which you are author or co-author over the years 1996-2010. If the ones submitted this year are published this year, that would be 41/15 = 2.73 publications per year, suspiciously close to the temperature in Kelvins of the Cosmic Microwave Background. That’s merely a 1st-order model, not normalizing for number of coauthors/paper nor weighting for impact of venue. But neither “lazy” nor “prodigious” — but somewhere in between. My calibration of publication/baby cross section my not be applicable for you. But some babies grow up surprisnigly fast to become coauthors. Just saying.
Jonathan, shooting for the CMB temperature in Kelvin for my papers/year is just about crazy enough to be something I would consider shooting for into the future 🙂
Thanks, Dave. There’s a Nobel Prize in there for you, someplace.
When I worked at Rockwell International, “Visionary” was a formally defined term of art. To paraphrase, it denoted Members of Technical Staff who correctly prognosticated where the technology was going to evolve, accurately enough to position to company for future contracts. I got dubbed a “Visionary” — which enraged the community college drop-out plagiarists who later got me canned, one of whom started a company called “Visionary Enterprises” and whose major product was stolen from me.
Earlier, at Boeing’s Kent Space Center, I had a dreadful serial embezzler Manager who said: “I’ve figured out what you are, Post. You’re one of those goddamned creative types. We had another tech writer once like that. Had to can his ass.” After some nosing around, I found that he was referring to Thomas Pynchon. Really!
Dave, this post is dead on! I can’t wait until I can get back into the fray. 🙂