Precedings

Jim points me to the fact that Nature has a new website call Precedings which is supposed to act like an arxiv for those not lucky enough to be physicists. Oh, and look you can vote for papers 😉 One interesting feature is you can put posters and presentations on the site as well. I’ve always wondered if anyone has tried to submit a pdf of a talk to the arXiv.

I Dream of Computation

I dream of computation.
Our generous universe comes equiped with the ability to compute. That it didn’t have to be this way is, of course, a truism. An unspeakable truism–for that it is this way, is what allows us to even ask the question of why it is this way. But down this rabbit hole I sometimes drop. And a haunted world I find. For what could be worse than a universe in which computation is not possible? What a nightmare world, one which allows for, at most, the basic order of the universe to transform impotently. No computers is an insignificant consequence. No life, now that is larger. Even grander, nothing digital nor coarsely analog that is not uniform and changable in ways which aren’t transparently tractable. So totally random or so ploddingly deterministic, with no blemeshes. For me this world seems like an absolute hell. The perfect embodiment of the boring. A universe made up of a solved problem.
And yet, dispite the depressing thought of realities without computation, even our universe is not so generous as to make computation the norm. Certainly, even if life is prevaliant all throughout our galaxy, large chunks of our universe seem devoid of computing anything at all interesting. When I look up at the night sky and the light of photons traveling years in my reference frame strikes my eye, what useful computation has been performed? The universe as a computer is the other truism, this one equally dangerous. For computation is more than just dynamics. More than just that photon going its merry way across the universe, refracting, reflecting, dying as it passes beyond my eye lash. Computation, or at least the kind of computation worth caring about, is more than just trajectories through spacetime, it is instead a robust movement of something signficant. Just because the universe is doing a calculation, if we cannot be privy to it, then it does not count as computation, at least for mere mortals like us. The lesson of chaos, the lesson of statistical physics, the lesson of fault-tolerant computation, is that that generous gift called robust computation is a rare one in our universe.
Which leads us to yet another alternative reality, pressing further along the ladder of possibilities. This universe is the one which is the opposite of a world in which computation is not possible. A universe in which all that exists is perfect robust computation. A world in which noise is not possible, everything is digital, and a robust computation. In this world that photon which travelled across the universe did perform a computation. And this computation will be robust to any inhomogeneity it has experience in its life. Those reflections and refractions which could previously lead it to wobble, unstable, on the brink of a computation, have now all been eliminiated, or at least immunized against. Indeed in this overly computational universe, your own path in life would be so immunized against interaction with things outside of yourself that it is not clear that competing computational entities could even arise in this universe. Every competing entity, if it is to obey our law of perfect robustness, must be part of yourself or it will possibly violate your own robustness. Indeed, we may as well call this the universe of the Borg, that great monolithic enemy in Star Trek, but where, by definition and in contrast to in Star Trek, everything has been assimilated.
Three universes, ours, a world where nothing computes, and a world where everything robustly computes. And what I dream about at night is, of course and in total abhorance of the part of me which hates any-centric reasoning, how wonderous our Goldilock’s of a universe seems to be. But what keeps waking me up from this wonderful dreaming, in this world were robust computation seems the true jewel, is whether this idea, this form of a computational universe, shows up in the heart of the theory of our universe or the theory of our computers.
Questions. What role does error correction play in the fundamental physics of our universe? What role does statistical physics play in our understanding of complexity classes? For both these questions we have peripheral answers, indeed when I pose these questions in this forum, I am immediately given by commentors examples of both contributions. But these are, at best, small hints. Is there a deep and wonderous connection, one which in a hundred years we will find as obvious as the idea that mathematics can be used to describe how our universe operates? Of all the universes I imagine, when I try to turn the deity dial from a universe with no computation to one with perfect robust computation, do I find a continuum or islands of stability, with our universe being one of these islands? Is the universe the way it is because of the properties of how any universe could possible support or not support computation?
Through nightmares of boredom and perfection fairytales, to perturbations around our own universe, I dream of computation. And wonder where this dream’s computation about computation will finally lead.

Unique Models

Sure, arXiv:physics is great for entertaining papers. But so is arXiv:cs. For example,
take 0706.1926:

Title: Towards understanding and modelling office daily life
Authors: Michele Bezzi, Robin Groenevelt
Measuring and modeling human behavior is a very complex task. In this paper we present our initial thoughts on modeling and automatic recognition of some human activities in an office. We argue that to successfully model human activities, we need to consider both individual behavior and group dynamics. To demonstrate these theoretical approaches, we introduce an experimental system for analyzing everyday activity in our office.

Sorry, I looked: there are no histograms of TPS reports per day in the paper.

Perfect Trifecta of Negativity Constructively Interfering on my Head

Yesterday at the Perimeter Institute, while I was attending FTQC II, I developed a tremendous headache (conveniently it arose just before the panel discussion I was on started its session) which lasted into the night and is only now disipating. This headache was, I’ve concluded, the result of a perfect trifecta of downers. And because I have nothing better to do while waiting for my ride to the Toronto airport to fly back to Seattle, I thought I’d catelog these downers, for posterity, and for my own egotistical record. No one likes to hear anyone complain, heck I myself particularly hate to hear whining complaints come from someone as lucky as I’ve been, so if you’re not interested in such purging, please stop reading now. I meant it! Proceed at your own caution.
(Downer Numero 1) Being surrounded by people who are absolutely a trillion times smarter than I am. Can I ever hope to keep up with Aram Harrow, Barbara Terhal, and Daniel Gotesman? Nope, I most certainly can’t! Most of the time my wonded ego simply keeps its head down and silently wanders through the backrooms of its own extremely minor accomplishments, but yeseterday it seemed my own shortcomings decided to take refuge directly in between my temples. Ouch! Why does this matter, that I’m that much slower than everyone around me? Well certainly in a big picture it doesn’t, but it reminds me of how little I’ve actually done, and the small probabilities that I actually have of doing anything of major merit. Headache pain meter increase “plus one.”
(Downer Numero 2) Hearing about fault-tolerant quantum computing reminded me how far we are from building a quantum computer and how little we realize that we have no clue how far we are from building a quantum computer. The threshold theorem for fault-tolerant quantum computing seems, to me, a soothing balm which we can spread over our proof of principle exposed skin, but it certainly, to me at least, doesn’t seem like anything we’d remotely like to really do. And being at a conference where the whole point of the conference was to explore the realm, and only the realm, of fault-tolerance, began by the time my headache started, to drive me crazy. I think this was exacerbated by the fact that, while there were a few experimental talks (and they were excellent, of course) I have a hard time thinking about fault-tolerance without thinking about experiments. And then I start thinking about experiments and I start wishing I myself could work in a lab, because what I so desire is lots and lots of qubits, which I can tinker with and come up with new ideas for fault-tolerance in these systems. Because I’m an arrogant theorist locked up in an ivory tower, I find myself frustrated at not being able to participate in experimental progress. I want a quantum computer and I want it now, without another decade of fault-tolerant workshop to beat my head up against. Headache pain meter “plus one more.”
(Downer Numero 3) I’ve been reading The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This is the kind of book which is both infuriating and which I highly recommend. Infuriating because of the numerous points were I contend that it has gone too far to a philosophical extreme, yet at the same time highly recommended for spouting interesting takes on the world about which I wholeheartedly agree. So how can reading such a book be a downer? Because the “Black Swan”‘s of the title, the highly improbably events you didn’t see coming, remind me so much of the reason I got into this whole quantum business in the first place (or more properly remind me of the story I tell myself about why I am were I am.) In particular I got excited by quantum computing because it was a totally new and rebelious direction. Because it was new, something we hadn’t conceived of before. A new hole in the phase space of ideas, so to speak. Quantum computing was a Black Swan: who ordered Peter Shor and his factoring algorithm? And certainly there have been other quantum Black Swans, not the least of which I would say was the threshold theorem for fault-tolerant quantum computing. But at the workshop, the only swans I saw were white and swimming in the pond just outside the hulking monolithic Perimeter Institute building. Without totally new and novel approaches to fault-tolerance, or new and novel advances in quantum computing or new and novel advances from outside of the phase space of quantum computing, the whole workshop began to remind me of a fear a friend of mine described to me: “of being the scientist who works on water hexamers and goes to conferences to be patted on my back by my water
hexamer friends where we would stand in a six sided circle arms outstretched.” Headache pain meter “plus one.”
Really most days trifectas like the ones above don’t spend their time haunting my heads. But yesterday they ate up my brain, kept me up at night, and, as you can certainly tell from reading this post, made me very very grumpy. Well, I guess there is, as the saying goes, always tomorrow. When I’m hoping only a few of the trifecta pose haunts my throbing head.

Robust Bacon

I’m currently visiting the Perimeter Institute for a workshop on fault-tolerant quantum computing. The workshop is great, but the coolest thing is that I get to wear a badge which calls me fault-tolerant:
ftbacon.jpg
Am I robust? I certainly don’t feel robust, indeed every day it seems entropy finds yet another way to sneak attack me 🙂

A Thesis Where?

A strange place to find a computer science dissertation: Walmart.
Update: Commentor Michael points to another interesting book for sale at Walmart. But who is this Iaac third author?

Power Laws, Power Laws, Everywhere, and Not a Ball to Kick

Boy reading the physics section of the arxiv sure has given me much amusement lately:

arXiv:0706.1758
Statistics of football dynamics
Authors: R. S. Mendes, L. C. Malacarne, C. Anteneodo
Abstract: We investigate the dynamics of football matches. Our goal is to characterize statistically the temporal sequence of ball movements in this collective sport game, searching for traits of complex behavior. Data were collected over a variety of matches in South American, European and World championships throughout 2005 and 2006. We show that the statistics of ball touches presents power-law tails and can be described by $q$-gamma distributions. To explain such behavior we propose a model that provides information on the characteristics of football dynamics. Furthermore, we discuss the statistics of duration of out-of-play intervals, not directly related to the previous scenario.

In related power law news, if you’ve got the data and want to know whether it’s power law distributed, you’d better read this:

arXiv:0706.1062
Power-law distributions in empirical data
Authors: Aaron Clauset, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi, M. E. J. Newman
Abstract: Power-law distributions occur in many situations of scientific interest and have significant consequences for our understanding of natural and man-made phenomena. Unfortunately, the empirical detection and characterization of power laws is made difficult by the large fluctuations that occur in the tail of the distribution. In particular, standard methods such as least-squares fitting are known to produce systematically biased estimates of parameters for power-law distributions and should not be used in most circumstances. Here we describe statistical techniques for making accurate parameter estimates for power-law data, based on maximum likelihood methods and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic. We also show how to tell whether the data follow a power-law distribution at all, defining quantitative measures that indicate when the power law is a reasonable fit to the data and when it is not. We demonstrate these methods by applying them to twenty-four real-world data sets from a range of different disciplines. Each of the data sets has been conjectured previously to follow a power-law distribution. In some cases we find these conjectures to be consistent with the data while in others the power law is ruled out.

Blog post about this paper at Structure and Strangeness here.