I’ve exhibited some portraits of the D-Wave machine previously in this blog (for example, this one and this one). Here are some more. This time I drew inspiration from the figures in this article in Wired magazine.
May 24, 2014
May 23, 2014
My message to them: Wait a minute! This software is based on the gate model, and Google, due to the urging of Hartmut Neven, is only interested in adiabatic quantum computers like the D-Wave. You guys want to get on Hartmut’s blacklist? Hartmut can see your every move with Google Goggles. He can even detect when you blink. You better watch out!
(1) The Mikado, the Lord High Executioner’s list of people “who would not be missed” if they were executed “As some day it may happen”.
May 18, 2014
You may have long wondered what kind of a person would write
Coming of Age With Quantum Information: Notes on a Paulian Idea by Christopher A. Fuchs and (with foreword by) N. David Mermin
a voluminous compendium of emails between Chris Fuchs and other supposedly great quantum intellectuals of our times, a mountain of self-congratulatory, nonsensical blather with an Amazon book rating so low that you didn’t even think such low numbers were possible, a book published by Cambridge University Press even though the identical content had been published already 10 years previously in arXiv (see here).
You may have long wondered what happened to the young movie star Chris Fuchs once he grew up. Was he able to sustain his movie star status into middle age or not?
Well, TMZ has tracked him down, and this is what we found.
Chris Fuchs continues to pursue unabashedly his life’s mission, which is? to flood the world with lame personal anecdotes about the quantum. He recently (May 10, 2014) published on arXiv a mind numbing 2,348 pages of Twitter-prose:
My Struggles with the Block Universe
(subtitle: My Struggles with Constipation)
How can this be? Who would have the endurance and be paid a full salary to write so many lame personal quantum anecdotes and Twitter-prose, not to mention who would want to read them? OMG, and he hasn’t even started to address the ER=EPR conjecture. That will no doubt be the subject of his next, even more voluminous installment, 5 years from now.
Well, the joke is out. An MIT alumnus named Blake C. Stacey was trying to pull a joke on us gullible people. Chris Fuchs is really an alias for Stacey’ s Gibberish Generator, what is called in geek circles a “Mark V. Shaney“. Its name is a pun on the words “Markov Chain”, a theory on which this software is based. It was first used in Usenet during the early days of the Internet. One can find numerous versions of a Mark V. Chaney throughout the web.
The name Blake C. Stacey may itself be a pseudonym. It sounds to us super-posh and waspy (recall William Blake, famous Brit painter/poet), like the pseudonym of an intrepid Hollywood movie star from a bygone era, like “Clark Gable” or “Marilyn Monroe”. Doesn’t sound as most authentic American names do, like the cursorily anglicized name of some poor European immigrant passing through Ellis Island.
It turns out that Stacey is an unabashed paparazzi of quantum intellectuals, which explains why his new “book” passionately recounts hundreds of email encounters with hundreds of quantum luminaries.
When we asked his friends, we also found out that Stacey is a passionate quantum mechanics aficionado who wants to foist upon an unwitting public his own, deeply garbled interpretation of quantum mechanics. This QM interpretation, which he likes to call QBism, is as easy to understand as a cubist Picasso painting.
One thing is for sure, this Stacey is quite a salesman. Posing as Chris Fuchs by email, he was able to convince a very old guy named N. David Mermin to buy this QBism interpretation, along with an expensive and inconvenient intruder alarm system for Mermin’s Florida retirement home.
May 13, 2014
To whom it may concern and for the record, I would like to point out that the following paper is blatant plagiarism.
Theory-independent limits on correlations from generalised Bayesian networks (http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2572) by
Joe Henson (Imperial College London),
Raymond Lal (University of Oxford),
Matthew F. Pusey (Perimeter Institute)
I wrote my first paper on Quantum Bayesian Networks (qbnets) in 1995. Since then, I have written quite a few papers about qbnets. This blog, which has been going on for 6 years, is named Quantum Bayesian Networks. And yet, these people claim to be the inventors of qbnets. They don’t cite a single paper of mine. They also claim to be the first to extend d-separation to the quantum regime, but I did that long ago in this paper.
May 11, 2014
Like most physicists, I find Group Theory (GT) a majestically beautiful subject, one that is also a formidably useful tool in Physics.
However, in my 50 arXiv papers so far, I’ve only used GT in one un-outstanding paper. Not a wise move since GT shows up everywhere in Physics, and quantum computing should be no exception. To make amends, I’ve recently started trying to apply GT à la physicist (mostly representation theory) to the type of quantum computer programming I do (quantum algorithms).
Of course, some people have already begun to apply GT to quantum algorithms. (for example, it has been applied in quantum error correction, in anyonic quantum computing, and in some papers by Harrow, Bacon and Chuang to decompose n qudits into their irreps. Also, the people trying to simulate quantum field theories on a QC must use GT) I hope to build on the work of those people. As usual, my goals are very modest. I just want to understand WTF is going on, and see if I can write some simple software tools that apply the stuff.
Although I’ve been learning GT for many years, I’ve never found any practically-perfect-in-every-way textbook about the subject.
Some textbooks are just plain bad (for example, I hate Gilmore and Wybourne, two often recommended textbooks, because they have a bizarre, incomplete selection of topics and are generally unclear and hard to read).
In the case of some other books, I like some sections in them, but I find them woefully incomplete. (for example, I LOVE Cvitanovic’s diagrammatic stuff, but it’s wise to learn also the canonical Cartan approach to classifying semi-simple Lie algebras.) Completeness is hard to achieve for GT textbooks because it’s such a vast subject.
Most books written by mathematicians take me too much time to understand and usually fail to explain the practical, physicky and calculational side of things. On the other hand, many textbooks written by physicists dwell too much on the applications (quark models and the like) and never explain clearly the underlying theory.
Due to the lack of really clear and complete (for my taste) GT books, what has happened over the years is that I’ve ended up buying about a dozen GT books, and whenever I’m trying to figure out the answer to a GT question that is nagging me, I just jump from one book to another or to Google until something clicks.
May 8, 2014
I occasionally visit the CapitalistImperialistPig blog (its author, known there only by his nom-de-plume, CIPig, is a very smart, knowledgeable and wise person, with wide ranging interests in science, history, current events, and more). In the comments to this post of his, I discuss my favorite Sci-Fi movie, which, not too surprisingly, is about a quantum computer.