Okay, so the title’s a bit harsh, but this PRL by Starkman and Trotta (Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 201301 (2006) ) is an interesting read.
Anthropic Challenge
Andrew Jaffe has posted his review of The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? by Paul Davies. Which is an entertaining read, and got me to thinking (okay, what follows doesn’t exactly qualify as thinking, BTW) So some physicists want to use anthropic principles as a solution to the problem of explaining the physics of our universe. But why stop at explaining things like the value of the cosmological constant? Why not go for something bigger, like the question quantum foundations people love: “why quantum theory?” So a challenge: derive quantum theory from the anthropic principle. Do that and I might even begin to believe that the anthropic principle actually has some value beyond making me shout out in pain when reading anthropic arguments 🙂
Speed Equals Job?
Job title advertisement as seen on the APS job website:
Ultrafast Staff Physicists
Slow physicists, need not apply.
Postdocs Obey a Perimeter Law?
Postdocs, postdocs, everywhere and not a faculty job to seek (just kidding….or am I 😉 )
Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo
Applications are invited for postdoctoral positions in any area of quantum information. The starting date of the appointment is open.
A Ph.D. and proven ability, or the potential, for excellent research is required. Successful candidates will be joining a substantial research and training centre in quantum information at Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC). Information about IQC personnel and activities can be found at www.iqc.ca. The IQC is based at the University of Waterloo, and includes, at present, more than a dozen researchers from the Faculties of Engineering, Mathematics and Science. The candidates will also have the opportunity to interact with scientists at the nearby Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and UW’s Centre for Applied Cryptographic Research.
If interested please go to our application form on-line. https://www.iqc.ca/positions/postdocapp/postdocapp.php
The deadline for receiving applications is 15 November 2006.
Applications may be processed as they are received. Late applications will be accepted as long as positions are still available.
and, hoisted from the comments,
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is seeking postdoctoral applicants in the areas of:
o Quantum Information Theory
o Quantum Gravity
o String Theory
o Cosmology
o Foundations of Quantum Theory
o Condensed Matter Physics
o Elementary Particle Physics
Perimeter Institute is located in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and offers a dynamic, multi-disciplinary research environment with much freedom. Successful candidates will benefit from mentorship by Faculty, ability to invite visitors, opportunity to organize innovative conferences and workshops, access to substantive travel funds, supervision of students, optional participation in scientific committees, assistance from PI’s administrative team, as well as enjoying the productive research atmosphere and amenities of the award winning facility.
The postdoctoral positions are normally for a period of three years. Outstanding candidates may also be considered for a senior postdoctoral position with a five-year term. Exceptional applicants are encouraged to apply by November 15th, 2006. Full details and application forms are available at www.perimeterinstitute.ca.
The Institute is presently staffed with 61 resident researchers including 10 Faculty and 8 Associate Members. Currently, there is a complement of 28 Postdoctoral Researchers and a very active Visitor Program including 15 Long Term Visitors with expectations of hosting some 300 scientists throughout this academic year. A list of Visitors and other researchers is available at www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/
Help feed the blackberry hole!
A PR Battle Worth Fighting?
Yoinked from the comments of my post laugh therapy, John Preskill weighs in with a wise remark:
…But actually it is nice, for those of us who may have come to take the theory of quantum fault tolerance for granted, to be reminded of how truly remarkable and marvelous it is. This paper does not lay a glove on the theory. Even so, let’s be careful not to be too smug. We sure have a long way to go toward turning the theory into practice.
Indeed! My first reaction is always to act like I’m a book critic, and to crank up my hyperbole meter to overdrive. But I certainly agree with John that we should not be too smug. To destroy a line from a baseball movie, “Until we build it, they won’t come.” Indeed to me the best critique of quantum error correction is simply “you haven’t done it yet” to which I can only nod my head in agreement and then run over to the experimentalists and cheer them along.
But John’s comment got me thinking (again) about the relationship quantum computing theory has with the physics community. Certainly I don’t think there has been much of a change in the hiring practices of U.S. physics departments when it comes to quantum computing theorists. In two words: “not good.” And I wonder if perhaps one of the reasons for this is that the central message of the threshold(s) theorem(s) has not penetrated into physics. Indeed, in my mind, the threshold theorem for quantum computation is essentially a statement about a new phase of many-body quantum systems. But to many physicists, I’ll bet that the result, if they’ve heard anything about it at all, sounds more like a strange engineering/computer science result, and the inclussion of the word “theorem” sets off their antimathematical radar detection system.
In some ways what I’m saying is that it feels like we’ve lost the public relations battle in publicizing the significance of the threshold theorem to physics departments. Perhaps part of this is because the language used to describe the theorem is more often devoid of terms physicist would like to see. Indeed when I talk about the threshold theorem I always always immediately transport myself into computer science speak. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a beautiful way to cast the result in terms of the physics of many-body quantum systems. Should we be making fault-tolerance more accessible to physicists? Maybe this is a PR battle we should be trying harder to overcome!
Okay this is strange. Just as I was about to post this, an email popped into my inbox about the APS March meeting:
TGQI is also organizing a tutorial on Quantum Error Correction and Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation, which will be given on Sunday, March 4, with Daniel Gottesman of the Perimeter Institute as the instructor. To attend a tutorial, you must pre-register for the Meeting.
Sounds like a good way to convert some physics skeptics!
Nobel Prize in Physics to COBE investigators
Here is a picture
that is worth a Nobel prize. The 2006 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to George Smoot and John Mather for their work on the Cosmic Background Explorer and its verification of many of the details of the big bang cosmology. George Smoot is currently at Berkeley/LBNL and was an undergrad and grad at MIT. John Mather is currently at the Goddard Space Flight Center and was an undergrad at Swarthmore College and a grad at Berkeley. When I first showed up at Berkeley I was planning on going into cosmology. I can still remember learning how the angular spectrum of the cosmic background radiation could be used to rule out certain cosmological theories. If there’s a bump here that is bigger than that bump there, then you’ve just ruled out Joe Schmoes pet cosmological model. Very cool!
Scammed?
Joe points me to a review of Lee Smolin’s new book The Trouble with Physics
The string theorists were scammed!, September 25, 2006
Reviewer: Peter W. Shor (Wellesley, MA USA) – See all my reviews
The part of the book I found most interesting was the part which tells how the string theorists were scammed by Nature (or Mathematics). Of course, Smolin doesn’t put it exactly like this, but imagine the following conversation.
String theorists: We’ve got the Standard Model, and it works great, but it doesn’t include gravity, and it doesn’t explain lots of other stuff, like why all the elementary particles have the masses they do. We need a new, broader theory.
Nature: Here’s a great new theory I can sell you. It combines quantum field theory and gravity, and there’s only one adjustable parameter in it, so all you have to do is find the right value of that parameter, and the Standard Model will pop right out.
String theorists: We’ll take it.
String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, our new theory won’t fit into our driveway. String theory has ten dimensions, and our driveway only has four.
Nature: I can sell you a Calabi-Yau manifold. These are really neat gadgets, and they’ll fold up string theory into four dimensions, no problem.
String theorists: We’ll take one of those as well, please.
Nature: Happy to help.
String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there’s too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one.
Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you’ll be all set.
String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now!
Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly.
String theorists: It does?
Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you’ll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests.
String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory.
Okay, I’ve taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin’s book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it’s hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your return. One of the questions Smolin addresses in the rest of the book is why the theoretical physics community has kept with string theory and largely abandoned all the other approaches to quantum gravity. The short answer is that it’s hard to admit that you’ve been scammed. The long answer is much more complicated. Another thing Smolin addresses in the book is other approaches to quantum gravity. And as could be predicted, he gives lots of space to his own approach and too little space to others, especially Alain Connes’ non-commutative geometry. But overall, I found it very worthwhile and entertaining, and a good explanation as to how theoretical physics came to be in the state it is today.
Smolin was in Seattle recently, but unfortunately I was away at the time. It would have been fun to ask him about his recent paper and also about his mysterious comments in his book that “time” is the key to a great leap forward in quantum gravity.
QIPC Workshop Extended Registration
In a few weeks I’ll be heading over the pond to London to participate in the QIPC Workshop in London. Scott Aaronson and I will be kicking off the workshop with a talk entitled “What have I learned from physicists/ computer scientists and what else would I like to learn from them?” My goal will be to convince Scott that he may have learned something from physicists 🙂 Ha, right! Anyway, the registration deadline for the workshop has been extended. So register now!
Extended registration: Today is the last day for payment. We extend the registration till next Wednesday 4th October at 2pm. Please register on the web site in order to reserve your place for dinner. We need to know in advance how many dinners to order. You can pay the registration fee in cash on site during the first day of the workshop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The FET QIPC proactive initiative together with the ERA Pilot QIST project and the following Committee: Artur Ekert (Chairman), Harry Buhrman, Philippe Grangier, Martin Plenio, Miklos Santha, Peter Zoller, Ian Walmsley, Goran Wendin are organizing
The 7th European QIPC Workshop on Quantum Information Processing and Communication
Physicists and Computer Scientists Unite!
October 13-14, 2006 The Royal Society London, UK
Registration is obligatory and can be done on the web site: http://www.qist-europe.net/QIPC-Workshop/
We have already 122 registered participants.
Please tell your colleagues about this event. You can still decide to join us!
We are looking forward to seeing you in London!
Freezing Anomalous Heating
One problem with ion traps qubits has been the heating of the motional degrees of the trapped ions, due mostly to fluctuating potentials on the trap electrodes. The electrode potential goes yee-yaw and the ion goes wee-wah, heating up and thus ruining the motional degree of freedom of the ion. One idea has been that these potentials are thermally activated. If this is true, then cooling down the electrodes should reduce this “anomalous” heating. And indeed, here is a Physical Review Letter describing just such a result from the group at the University of Michigan using a cool double-needle radio frequency trap (See also here.) By lowering the electrodes from 300 K to approximately 150 K the group was able to reduce the heating rate by an order of magnitude. Mmmm, delicious order of magnitude.
A New Path to Research
Steve sends me a link to a Seed magazine article about The Poker Playing Physicist. No word on whether he will continue in poker or retire to a life of physics research.