Upcoming Talks

Three talks (maybe four) coming up in the next few weeks have me attached at the hip to Microsoft Powerpoint. First up is the SQuInT conference in Tuscon Arizona where I will be talking Friday, Feb. 18 about my work with Andrew Childs and Wim van Dam on the optimal measurements for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem. Then it’s off to Washington State where I will be giving a Physics colloqium on Tuesday, Feb. 22. The title of this talk is “Quantum Computing in 2020.” Which led me to a very nice quote by Niels Bohr: “Predicition is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” After WSU, I’m off to Seattle where I will be giving a Computer Science and Engineering colloqium at the University of Washington on Thursday Feb. 24. The title of this talk is “How and What to Quantum Compute” and I have (ack!) boldly promised that I

…will draw insights from the vast knowledge base of theoretical and experimental physics, mathematics, engineering, and computer science. The talk will be accessible to practitioners from all of these fields and represents not just an opportunity to see the different fields interact, but also an invitation to participate in the intellectual and practical challenges of quantum information science.

This colloqium will probably be taped and put online in streaming format which I’m really looking forward to. Once I was taped teaching a section of an undergrad physics course at Berkeley. It was very informative to see all the places I was messing up and at least for the next few weeks I think I was a much better teacher. Ak, OK, enough distraction from the blog. Back to my best friend Powerpoint.

Under the Milky Way Tonight

In astro-ph/0501177, Warren Brown, Margaret Geller, Scott Kenyon, and Michael Kurtz announce the discovery of a star which is traveling out of the Milky Way galactic halo at a speed of at least around 700 kilometers per second (.2% of the speed of light.) That’s the fastest ever observed, and the authors speculate that this may be an example of a star which interacted with the black hole at the center of our galaxy. For comparrison, the escape velocity for a star located at its current distance from the galactic center (50 kiloparsecs) is 300 kilometers per second.
So I guess we should all say good bye to SDSS J090745.0+024507. Say “hi” to the intergalactic medium for us, won’t you?

Laughlin Breaks the Law(s)

Via 3 Quarks Daily comes this very interesting essay by Robert Laughlin (he of the strong anti quantum computing sentiment, none the less…) Here Laughlin lays out his main thesis,

I am increasingly persuaded that all physical law we know about has collective origins, not just some of it. In other words, the distinction between fundamental laws and the laws descending from them is a myth — as is therefore the idea of mastery of the universe through mathematics solely. Physical law cannot generally be anticipated by pure thought, but must be discovered experimentally, because control of nature is achieved only when nature allows this through a principle of organization.

from which he concludes that

To defend my assertion I must openly discuss some shocking ideas: the vacuum of space-time as “matter,” the possibility that relativity is not fundamental, the collective nature of computability, epistemological barriers to theoretical knowledge, similar barriers to experimental falsification, and the mythological nature of important parts of modern theoretical physics. The radicalness is, of course, partly a stage prop, for science, as an experimental undertaking, cannot be radical or conservative but only faithful to the facts. But these larger conceptual issues, which are not science at all but philosophy, are often what most interest us because they are what we call upon to weigh merit, write laws, and make choices in our lives.

I can understand all of his shocking ideas, except I have now clue what “the collective nature of computability” means. Anyone have a guess?

Nature's Harshness

Sometimes even the mass emailings can be a bit biting:

From: Naturejobs <nature @scientific-direct.net>
Reply-To: Naturejobs <0a818b044 .>
To: D Bacon <dabacon at cs.caltech.edu>
Subject: What is your excuse this year?

The Knuth Is We Fail

If you’ve ever been fascinated by how people approach solving problems, these notes from a “Programming and Problem Solving Seminar” taught by Donald Knuth at Stanford are an extremely interesting read. Knuth selected five (unsolved) problems for the class to work on (with an eye for problems that would lead to interesting subproblems) over the course of the semester. The problems are extremely interesting in their own right, but reading the way in which people attacked the problems is actually much more interesting. One gets the impression, sometimes, that theory is about solved problems, but actually it’s more about a lot of failures. Well, maybe this is my own predjudice due to the number of times I’ve failed, but I suspect I’m not the only one.

Cosmic…Dude!

Fermilab and SLAC have come together to produce a free magazine called Symmetry. Last week I received my first issue. In this day when science writing is usually pretty dumbed down, Symmetry seems to have quite a few well written articles.
I especially enjoyed the article on the Pierre Auger Observatory for cosmic rays located in Argentina (Some of you may remember studying the Auger effect in physics where a vacancy of an electron in an inner shell of an atom is filled not by radiating, but instead by ejecting energetic electrons from the outer shells.) Comsic rays are very high energy particles which strike the Earth’s atmosphere and produce spectacular showers of billions of electrons, muons, and other particles. The great mystery, of course, is what produces these highly energetic particles. The first thing you might think is, well just use the shower to locate where in the sky the cosmic rays come from. For low energy cosmic rays, this indeed has been done. But what you find is that they are pretty much randomly distributed across the sky. There’s a simple explanation for this: the galactic magnetic field is strong enough to singificantly bend the direction of the charged particles which produce the cosmic ray showers. Thus you’re not getting a true indication of where the particle is coming from by tracking its direction when it strikes the Earth.
What’s nice about the Auger observatory is that it will be able to detect significant numbers of really high energy cosmic rays. At something like greater than 10^19 electron Volts, the galactic magnetic fields are not able to significantly bend the charged particles. And here is the really neat thing: nobody has any real good idea of what could produce cosmic rays with energies of 10^19 or 10^20 eV. (The world record for such a particle had 3×10^20 eV, 300 million times more powerful than the our most powerful particle accelerator!) One constraining effect that we do know is that these particles must come from somewhere in the local galactic neighborhood. This is because of the GZK cutoff: the cosmic background radiation looks pretty nasty to a particle with greater than 5×10^19 eV. Almost no particles above 5×10^19 eV can survive long at these energies and within something like a few hundreds of millions of years almost all particles will be reduced down to the cutoff. Thus we know that these particles must be coming from our local neighborhood of galaxies (ruling out active quasars, everybody’s favorite explanation for all things energetic.)
The cool thing is that the Auger observatory (which consists of 1600 detectors covering 1200 square miles!) will be able to really begin to pen down where these high energy cosmic rays are coming from. Which is particularly good, considering that there are nearly as many theories about cosmic rays as there are theorists who have studied them. When will we know more? Sometime around August the observatory will be reporting its first results. Exciting stuff!

More Than You Think

Yesterday I was talking with Yuzuru Sato, a fellow postdoc here at the Santa Fe Institute, and he was telling me how amazed he was at the size of quantum information science. Actually it’s sort of the field’s dirty little secret that it is so intellectually expansive. I think, perhaps, that an outsiders view of quantum information science contains not much more than quantum key distribution and Shor’s algorithm. But in the past ten years a lot more has happened, quantum error correction, quantum information theory, the study of quantum entanglement, etc. have all progressed a huge amount. But to a larger extend, these results haven’t been spread to the larger world. Part of this, maybe, is that we’re just having too much fun working on the problems. Someday, I hazard to bet, we’ll look back at this decade and the next decade as a golden age of intellectual expansion of quantum information science. But don’t tell anyone: it’s just too fun right now!

Writing a Grant

Yesterday I finished with my first grant application. Now most scientists I know yell and scream about how much of a pain writing a grant is. And while I do think the time sink is pretty severe, I found that it was really quite enjoyable to actually write the proposal. It’s not often that one gets to argue for your research in much the way that you can do in a grant application. In scientific articles you make arguments based on a logical progression and only in the intro do you get to motivate why what you are studying is important. It especially helps that I really [Correction: uh the word “like” should be here] the research I do. If I had to write a proposal about something I had only half my heart in, I can see myself not enjoying the process. Also I tend to view my work as a luxury item: being paid to work on theoretical science is like being given a big shiny yacht and allowed to cruise in the deep blue waters of ideas. Yeah, it’s a blessed life.
Of course, this is my first grant application. Talk to me in a few years and maybe I’ll be like all the other jaded researchers grubbing for money. But if I do, will someone please grab me by the nose and smack me back to my senses?

Finding Ordinary Matter is No Ordinary Matter

Today, thanks to some very beautiful cosmology, we think we know quite a bit about the matter content of our universe. The observed universe is, according to these studies, 1 part ordinary matter, 5 parts dark matter, and 14 parts dark energy. One of the interesting gaps in our understanding of this picture, however, is that when we add up all the numbers, we find that we are missing between 30 to 40 percent of the ordinary matter. One possibility for where this matter may be found is in hot (10^6 K) low density gas in the intergalactic medium. At these high temperatures, atoms like oxygen and nitrogen retain a few bound electrons. But because these are heavy elements with a few bound electrons they will absorb only at very high energies. In order to see this absorbtion, you need to look in the ultraviolet or X-ray regime of the spectrum. Since it’s impossible to test this theory from ground-based instruments, this idea has floated around, but never really been verified.
Now there is news today, published in Nature by Nicastro et. a (vol. 433, p.493), that the Chandra space telescope has indeed detected evidence of this absorption and, with admittedly still large uncertainty, the calculations suggest that indeed this indeed makes the calculations for ordinary matter add up.

Nature Discovers Physics

The journal Nature has finally discovered physics! For a while now there have been specialized Nature journals for different disciplines. Now, starting in October 2005, they’ve discovered physics: Nature Physics.
Oh and look what at the list of what they will cover:

* quantum physics
* atomic and molecular physics
* statistical physics, thermodynamics and nonlinear dynamics
* condensed-matter physics
* fluid dynamics
* optical physics
* chemical physics
* information theory and computation
* electronics, photonics and device physics
* nanotechnology
* nuclear physics
* plasma physics
* high-energy particle physics
* astrophysics and cosmology
* biophysics
* geophysics

Clearly not alphabetical and quantum physics is number one!