Where's McHawking When You Need Him?

Are doctors scientists? From Chris Mooney, just in time to set my blood pressure up a few notches for the weekend:

“I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith,” Frist said.
Frist, a doctor who graduated from Harvard Medical School, said exposing children to both evolution and intelligent design “doesn’t force any particular theory on anyone. I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future.”

Patterns? You Want Patterns?

I highly recommend this post over at Three-Toed Sloth about identifying coherent structures in spatiotemporal systems. What a pretty post! Oh, and the science is fascinating as well. It reminds me of a question I’ve always wondered about in cellular automata theory. It’s a bit long winded, so if I get the time I’ll write a post on it.

"An Introduction To Black Holes, Information And The String Theory Revolution: The Holographic Universe" by Leonard Susskind and James Lindesay

On the plane trip back from Washington DC I read the book An Introduction To Black Holes, Information And The String Theory Revolution: The Holographic Universe by Leonard Susskind and James Lindesay.
This is a pretty cool book, I must say. First of all, however, we should address the word “Introduction” in the title of this book. On page three of this text (the first full page after the preface) the Schwarzchild metric is written down. Now this sounds like less than an introduction, but really it is a red herring. The book is actually easily readable by anyone who has taken an introduction to general relativity and a good course in quantum theory. I’d say an advanced undergrad could easily grok this book. I make this judgement from the fact that I was able to go through the book in one planeflight.
So what about the quality of the book? There are, basically, three parts to this book. I’m betting that it is based on lecture notes from the two authors: there seems to be major differences in the writing styles for the different sections. Part 1 is “Black holes and mechanics” , part 2 is “Entropy bounds and holography”, and part 3 is “Black holes and strings.” Of these, Part 1 is the largest and takes up most of the book. Which is good, because this is the most interested and best part of the book. In part 1, at a level lacking deep rigor, but a level comfortable for many physicists, the authors introduce the basics of black hole geometry, quantum field time in curved spacetimes, entropy calculations in such spacetimes, black hole thermodynamics and the information paradox for black holes. All in slightly less than a hundred pages. Hence the word “introductory”! This is not a book for those who want to become experts in this stuff, but none-the-less, this is a very beatiful introduction to some really cool ideas. My only major issue with this part of the book is the notation and “words” used to describe quantum theory, and in particular density matrices. If there is one thing quantum information scientists can be proud of, it is their clean and clear notation and exposition about quantum information. I guess everytime I see someone talk about information in quantum theory nowdays, it feels strange if they aren’t using the language of quantum information science. Oh, and for some reason they call the no-cloning principle the no-xerox principle.
Parts 2 and 3 of this book are interesting, but are not as tight as the first part. The entropy bounds deserve a lot more time than is devoted here, I think. But still one gets the basic ideas. Part 3 is very strange because it is so small (less than twenty pages.) It explains, in a very very rudimentary manner, the AdS-CFT correspondence (that supergravity in a certain anti-de Sitter universe can be mapped to a conformal field theory on the boundary of that space.) It’s nice to see this exponsition, but too many details were left out for me to really feel that I got any intuition about this important correspondence.
In total, this is a very nice book and I would definitely recommend it to nonexperts who know the general relativity and quantum theory necessary to understand the book. Part 1 is pretty smooth, I must say. There is only one thing which really bothered me about the book, and that was the lack of references. One of the purposes a book like this can serve is to point the reader to the more rigorous papers dealing with this subject. Unfortunately, the book has only ten references. This is a real shame.
Oh, and by the way, Susskind is, of course, famous for his belief in the anthropic principle. Fortunately it doesn’t make it’s appearance in this book (not that I have strong feelings about this subject 😉 )
Oh, and I especially liked the candor in this passage from the conclussion:

The theory of black hole entropy is incomplete. In each case a trick, specific to the particular kind of black object under study, is used to determine the relation between entropy and mass for the specific string-theoretic object that is believed to represent a particular black hole. Then classical general relativity is used to determine the area-mass relation and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. In no case do we use string theory directly to compare entropy and area. In this sense the complete universality of the area-entropy is still not fully understood.

Warranty

A few days ago, I noticed the down arrow on my laptop was getting a little fussy. Then, of course, I got in my email:

Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:16:32 -0700
From: IBM4PCS
To: Dave Bacon
Subject: Dear Dave,
the warranty on your IBM ThinkPad T30 will expire soon.

I now suspect that IBM emailed my computer to get the down arrow key to act funny. What a great business model, no?

CSEP 590tv – Quantum Computing

Well, I just finished my last lecture for the quantum computing class I taught this summer. Now all I have to do is grade the final and submit grades. The class started roughly, with me going too fast, then things smoothed out, and then a tough homework hit, and then things sped up again. Not what I was shooting for, but, well, live and learn. I would say that I am 60 percent happy with the way the class went: i.e. I’d give myself a D.
What would I do different? Lots of things. One is that I might try to teach the course along with one of the quantum simulator programs. These are, after all, professional masters students in a computer science program. This means that the majority are programmers. And programmers, well they like to learn by programming. So I think I would teach it that way for this particular audience.
I have to teach a quantum course in Italy to graduate students in computer science coming up in a few weeks. The course will have twelve hours of lectures and a two hour final examination. How do you talk about quantum computation in twelve hours? Four hours to introduce quantum theory, four hours to build up to quantum algorithms, two hours for quantum error correction, and two hours for quantum cryptography? Or is it better to do more surveying of results? It’s an interesting question and one I’ll be struggling with for the next week.

The Incompleteness of Gravity

A new gravity theory, Intelligent Falling. Gotta love the Onion:

What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that ‘gravity waves’ and ‘gravitons’ are just secular words for ‘God can do whatever He wants.’

Does this mean that LIGO can get faith-based funding now?

Bohring Fault-Tolerance

(Update: Sean Barret points out that his comment when I first posted this was exactly the point I talk about in this post. Somehow my brain didn’t register this when I read his comment. Doh.)
Back from a workshop in Arlington, VA.
One of the most interesting events in this workshop was that Daniel Lidar talked (all to briefly) about his (along with Alicki and Zanardi’s) objections to the theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation. I’ve talked about this before here, where the resulting discussion in the comments was very interesting. At the workshop, Hideo Mabuchi brought up something about the paper which I had totally missed. In particular, the paper says that (almost all) constructions of fault-tolerant quantum computation are based upon three assumptions. The first of these is that the time to execute a gate times the Bohr frequency of the system should be on the order of unity. The second assumption is a constant supply of fresh ancillas. The third is that the error correlations decay exponentially in time and in space.
What Hideo pointed out was that this first assumption is actually too strong and is not assumed in the demonstrations/proofs of the theory of fault-tolerant quantum computation. The Bohr frequency of a system is the frequency which comes from the energy spacings of the system doing the quantum computing. The Bohr frequency is (usually) related to the upper limit on the speed of computation (see my post here), but is not the speed which is relevant for the theory of fault-tolerance. In fault-tolerance, one needs gates which are fast in comparison to the decoherence/error rate of your quantum system. Typically one works with gate speeds in implementations of quantum computers which are much slower than the Bohr frequency. For example, in the this implementation of a controlled-NOT gate in ion traps at NIST, the relevant Bohr frequency is in the gigahertz range, while the gate speeds are in the hundreds of kilohertz range. What is important for fault-tolerance is not that this first number, the Bohr frequency, is faster than your decoherence rates/error rates (which it is), but instead that the gate speed (roughly the Rabi frequency) is faster than your decoherence rates/error rates (which is also true.) In short, the first assumption used to question the theory of fault-tolerance doesn’t appear to me to be the right assumption.
So does this mean that we don’t need to worry about non-Markovian noise? I don’t think so. I think in many solid state implementations of quantum computers, there is a strong possibility of non-Markovian noise. But I don’t now see how the objection raised by Alicki, Lidar, and Zanardi applies to many of the quantum computing proposed systems. Quantifying the non-Markovian noise, if it exists, in different physical implementations is certainly an interesting problem, and an important task for the experimentalists (and something they are making great progess on, I might add.) Along these lines it is also important to note that there are now fault-tolerant constructions for non-Markovain noise models (Terhal and Burkard, quant-ph/0402104 and Aliferis, Gottesman, and Preskill, quant-ph/0504218.) Interestingly, these models postulate non-Markovian models which are extremely strong in the sense that the memory correlations are possibly infinitely long. However, it is likely that any non-Markovian noise in solid state systems isn’t of this severly adversarial form. So understanding how the “amount” of non-Markovian dynamics effects the threshold for fault-tolerance is an interesting question.

Washington D.C.

The joy I find in locating a power plug which is not in use at an airport really scares me.
Power! Now I can work on my laptop on the plane AND at the airport. Oh joy!

Words Are Confusing

Stop calling me a buffoon. I am not a buffoon! Oh, what is that word you are saying?

Main Entry: bof·fin
Pronunciation: ‘bä-f&n
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
chiefly British : a scientific expert; especially : one involved in technological research

Quantum Problem

Richard Feynman:

We always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I’m an old enough man that I haven’t got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it … you know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there’s no real problem. It has not yet become obvious to me that there’s no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.

Whenever I read this, I think, “poor quantum theory.” It seems that many of us have a problem with quantum theory, but quantum theory, it has no problem with us!