O brave new quantum world!
From a Boston Herald article (appears to be an AP news release):
“Users don’t care about quantum computing – users care about application acceleration. That’s our thrust,” he said. “A general purpose quantum computer is a waste of time. You could spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it” and not create a working computer.
And you’re probably happy that you don’t have an account on fool.com or else you might read this article comparing the demonstration to December 17, 1903.
Ha, via Pharyngula, a new kind of sorting algorithm, Intelligent Design Sort
Oh wow does this (via Structure & Strangeness) hit home. Yep, I spent large portions of my trip on the ferries in Alaska doing perturbation theory calculations.
Today I was entering an article into BibTeX about an NMR quantum computing experiment. The article entry was published in May and has the BibTeX entry
@article{Negreverge:06a,
title={Benchmarking Quantum Control Methods on a 12-Qubit System},
author={C. Negrevergne and T. S. Mahesh and C. A. Ryan and M. Ditty and F. Cyr-Racine and W. Power and N. Boulant and T. Havel and D. G. Cory and R. Laflamme},
journal=prl,
volume=96,
pages=170501,
year=2006
}
Okay, what’s so interesting about this? Well suppose that you cite this article in a LaTeX article using the alphabetical labeling scheme favored by computer scientists. What does the citation look like? It looks like [NMR+06]! Awesome.
And now for something a little different. A little economics and finance humor: here. (Via Rain City Guide)
Gordon Watts over at Life as a Physicist describes a cool response to (crank) manuscripts purporting to factor large numbers (via The Old New Thing). This reminds me of a scam I once dreamed up. The scam would consist of an email like the one here:
Dear sir or madam!
In today’s modern world, an increasing amount of the world’s commerce is performed over the internet. Most people believe that such financial transactions over the internet are perfectly secure. They do not hesistate to send their credit card over “so-called” secure connections because they have been told by computer scientists that such transactions are secure. But are these transactions really secure? The main reason for the claims of security for these transaction is “that it is hard to factor large numbers?” But why should it be hard to factor large numbers. Certainly my computer can multiply large numbers very rapidly!
Recently, I was pondering this question with deep thought and it occured to me that indeed, rapid factoring of large numbers is indeed possible. In a brilliant flash of insight I have develope a new and revolutionary method for factoring large numbers. Thus I can break the codes used to protect your credit card transactions. That’s right: I can steal money from you the next time you use the internet. Now, I wouldn’t want to do this to you, an anonymous person who I am sure is a law abiding citizen. However, the U.S. patent office will not allow me to patent my algorithm for factoring. Thus I, the great discoverer of an amazing new algorithm will go away from my invention penniless. That’s not how capitalism is supposed to work is it. Thus I am willing to make the following deal with you. If you want to securely use your credit card over the internet again, I am willing to offer you protection from my algorithm for factoring large numbers. The Factoring Protection Plan(TM) will provide you total security for your internet transactions. And it only costs ten U.S. dollars a month. To subscribe to this plan, please click on this link.
Of course, you may not believe that my algorithm can be used to efficiently factor large numbers. But I’m willing to share some of my results with you. For example, when I ran my program on the number
18819881292060796383869723
94616504398071635633794173
82700763356422988859715234
66548531906060650474304531
73880113033967161996923212
05734031879550656996221305
168759307650257059
my program told me that this number is the product of
3980750864240649373971
2550055038649119906436
2342526708406385189575
946388957261768583317
and
4727721461074353025362
2307197304822463291469
5302097116459852171130
520711256363590397527
Amazing, no? Do you need any more proof that your next credit card transaction will not be secure?
I hope that you will make the correct decision and decide to subscribe to my
Yours,
The trapdoor breaker
In tonight’s quant-ph a keen eyed colleage finds a paper wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a koan:
Quantum Physics, abstract
quant-ph/0605070
From: Yu Shi [view email]
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 12:02:44 GMT (16kb)
High Energy Quantum Teleportation Using Neutral Koans
Does this mean that Deepak Chopra was right? 😉
In this sprit:
Two students were watching an atom. One students said to the other: “look the electron is a particle, right?” The other said, “no most definitely a wave!” A wise master came along, so the students decided to ask the master his opinion on the matter. They both discussed with the master why each thought that the electron was what it was. The master thought for a while and then replied: “I’m not a physicist you damn fools.”
On a somewhat related note: This weekend we went to see Julia Sweeney and Ira Glass. Julia Sweeney does quite a routine about losing her religion (part of which is available from a “This American Life” show here here.) At one point in her routine she describes how after leaving her Catholic faith, she learns about all the new age mumbo jumbo. She is very excited by this: a blend of science and religion. But she makes the mistake of getting interested enough to actually go out and learn about quantum theory. Paraphrasing: “sure there is a lot about the behavior of atom particles and waves we don’t understand, but there is no quantum consciousness. Deepak Chopra is full of shit!” Ouch, new age slam!
Quantum Quandries has founded a new church: The Church of the Smaller Hilbert Space. Humor that appeals directly to quantum physicists: priceless. I am greatly looking forward to the theological debate between members of the Church of the Larger Hilbert Space and Church of the Smaller Hilbert Space. And can we look forward to the Church of the Infinite Hilbert Space, or the Church of the Empty Hilbert Space (that last one feels a little Zen, doesn’t it?) And why aren’t their any Churches for Banach Spaces? Members of all Hilbert Space Churches would be welcome, of course.
Most people in quantum information science try to be sensitive to not overhyping the field. (Okay, so I get a little breathless sometimes!) This, however, is pretty amusing. I especially like
But could you imagine not using a Quantum Computer to come up with the most efficient sequence of nanobots to administer the cure to cancer.
Quantum-nano-bio!
Update: Jon brings up in the comments the word “quantum leap.” I have always found it amusing that in the Oxford English dictionary uses this example from 1977, as one of the early uses:
New Yorker 13 June 108/2 The imperial Presidency did not begin with Richard Nixon although under him abuses of the office took a quantum leap.
Of course once you find this out, you are at the OED website and you can’t help finding words like “quaquadrate” which means a sixteenth power.
Steve sends along this link to…well, it’s a bit hard to describe, but it involves pi. No, not pie, pi!