Closed Timelike Curves Make Quantum and Classical Computing Equivalent

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Closed Timelike Curves Make Quantum and Classical Computing Equivalent
Advertisements

The Polynomial Method In Quantum and Classical Computing Scott Aaronson (MIT) OPEN PROBLEM.
Quantum Lower Bound for the Collision Problem Scott Aaronson 1/10/2002 quant-ph/ I was born at the Big Bang. Cool! We have the same birthday.
Quantum Versus Classical Proofs and Advice Scott Aaronson Waterloo MIT Greg Kuperberg UC Davis | x {0,1} n ?
Quantum Software Copy-Protection Scott Aaronson (MIT) |
Limitations of Quantum Advice and One-Way Communication Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley IAS Useful?
BQP/qpoly EXP/poly Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley. BQP/qpoly Class of languages recognized by a bounded-error polytime quantum algorithm, with a polysize.
Advice Coins Scott Aaronson. PSPACE/coin: Class of problems solvable by a PSPACE machine that can flip an advice coin (heads with probability p, tails.
How to Solve Longstanding Open Problems In Quantum Computing Using Only Fourier Analysis Scott Aaronson (MIT) For those who hate quantum: The open problems.
Scott Aaronson Institut pour l'Étude Avançée Le Principe de la Postselection.
BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World Scott Aaronson MIT.
Computational Intractability As A Law of Physics
QMA/qpoly PSPACE/poly: De-Merlinizing Quantum Protocols Scott Aaronson University of Waterloo.
The Equivalence of Sampling and Searching Scott Aaronson MIT.
When Qubits Go Analog A Relatively Easy Problem in Quantum Information Theory Scott Aaronson (MIT)
Quantum Computing with Noninteracting Bosons
Scott Aaronson (MIT) Based on joint work with John Watrous (U. Waterloo) BQP PSPACE Quantum Computing With Closed Timelike Curves.
University of Queensland
Quantum Information and the PCP Theorem Ran Raz Weizmann Institute.
One time-travelling bit is as good as logarithmically many
THE QUANTUM COMPLEXITY OF TIME TRAVEL Scott Aaronson (MIT)
Quantum Computing MAS 725 Hartmut Klauck NTU
6.896: Probability and Computation Spring 2011 Constantinos (Costis) Daskalakis lecture 2.
Interactive Proofs For Quantum Computations Dorit Aharonov, Michael Ben-Or, Elad Eban School of Computer Science and Engineering The Hebrew University.
1 Recap (I) n -qubit quantum state: 2 n -dimensional unit vector Unitary op: 2 n  2 n linear operation U such that U † U = I (where U † denotes the conjugate.
Lecture 20: April 12 Introduction to Randomized Algorithms and the Probabilistic Method.
Quantum Computing Lecture 1 Michele Mosca. l Course Outline
Efficient Semantic Communication via Compatible Beliefs Brendan Juba (MIT CSAIL & Harvard) with Madhu Sudan (MSR & MIT)
New quantum lower bound method, with applications to direct product theorems Andris Ambainis, U. Waterloo Robert Spalek, CWI, Amsterdam Ronald de Wolf,
NP Complexity By Mussie Araya. What is NP Complexity? Formal Definition: NP is the set of decision problems solvable in polynomial time by a non- deterministic.
Quantum Computing MAS 725 Hartmut Klauck NTU
PROBABILISTIC COMPUTATION By Remanth Dabbati. INDEX  Probabilistic Turing Machine  Probabilistic Complexity Classes  Probabilistic Algorithms.
You Did Not Just Read This or did you?. Quantum Computing Dave Bacon Department of Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington Lecture 3:
CSEP 590tv: Quantum Computing Dave Bacon July 20, 2005 Today’s Menu n Qubit registers Begin Quantum Algorithms Administrivia Superdense Coding Finish Teleportation.
Ryan O’Donnell includes joint work with A. C. Cem Say for Manuel Blum, on his Magic77 th birthday.
1 Introduction to Quantum Information Processing CS 467 / CS 667 Phys 467 / Phys 767 C&O 481 / C&O 681 Richard Cleve DC 3524 Course.
1 Introduction to Quantum Information Processing CS 467 / CS 667 Phys 667 / Phys 767 C&O 481 / C&O 681 Richard Cleve DC 653 Lecture.
Complexity 24-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Interactive Proofs.
The Matrix Equation A x = b (9/16/05) Definition. If A is an m  n matrix with columns a 1, a 2,…, a n and x is a vector in R n, then the product of A.
Cosmological Computation Computers in a weird universe Patrick Rall Ph70 May 10, 2016.
Attendance Syllabus Textbook (hardcopy or electronics) Groups s First-time meeting.
PROBABILITY AND COMPUTING RANDOMIZED ALGORITHMS AND PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1 IWAMA and ITO Lab. M1 Sakaidani Hikaru 1.
Data Structures and Algorithm Analysis Lecture 24
The Acceptance Problem for TMs
Richard Cleve DC 2117 Introduction to Quantum Information Processing CS 467 / CS 667 Phys 667 / Phys 767 C&O 481 / C&O 681 Lecture.
Probabilistic Algorithms
Great Theoretical Ideas in Computer Science
Introduction to Randomized Algorithms and the Probabilistic Method
Hash table CSC317 We have elements with key and satellite data
Postulates of Quantum Mechanics
Introduction to Quantum Computing Lecture 1 of 2
Computability and Complexity
Markov Chains Mixing Times Lecture 5
Matrix Chain Multiplication
Lecture 22 Complexity and Reductions
Growth of functions CSC317.
A way to detect a collision…
HIERARCHY THEOREMS Hu Rui Prof. Takahashi laboratory
Turnstile Streaming Algorithms Might as Well Be Linear Sketches
Complexity 6-1 The Class P Complexity Andrei Bulatov.
Hidden Markov Models Part 2: Algorithms
Matrix Chain Multiplication
Reinforcement Learning in MDPs by Lease-Square Policy Iteration
Quantum Computing and the Quest for Quantum Computational Supremacy
Quantum Computation and Information Chap 1 Intro and Overview: p 28-58
What LIMIT Means Given a function: f(x) = 3x – 5 Describe its parts.
Quantum Computation – towards quantum circuits and algorithms
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
Introduction to Quantum Information Processing CS 467 / CS 667 Phys 467 / Phys 767 C&O 481 / C&O 681 Lecture 4 (2005) Richard Cleve DC 653
Presentation transcript:

Closed Timelike Curves Make Quantum and Classical Computing Equivalent BQP PSPACE Scott Aaronson MIT John Watrous U. Waterloo

But really … you don’t like time travel?! Uh-oh … here goes Scott with another loony talk about time travel or some such … distracting everyone from the serious stuff like quantum multi-prover interactive proof systems... If you don’t like time travel, then this talk is about a new algorithm for implicitly computing fixed points of superoperators in polynomial space. But really … you don’t like time travel?!

THIS DOES NOT WORK Why not? Everyone’s first idea for a time travel computer: Do an arbitrarily long computation, then send the answer back in time to before you started THIS DOES NOT WORK Why not? Ignores the Grandfather Paradox Doesn’t take into account the computation you’ll have to do after getting the answer

Deutsch’s Model A closed timelike curve (CTC) is simply a resource that, given an operation f:{0,1}n{0,1}n acting in some region of spacetime, finds a fixed point of f—that is, an x such that f(x)=x Of course, not every f has a fixed point—that’s the Grandfather Paradox! But since every Markov chain has a stationary distribution, there’s always a distribution D s.t. f(D)=D Probabilistic Resolution of the Grandfather Paradox - You’re born with ½ probability - If you’re born, you back and kill your grandfather - Hence you’re born with ½ probability

Polynomial Size Circuit CTC Computation R CTC R CR C Answer Polynomial Size Circuit “Closed Timelike Curve Register” “Causality-Respecting Register” PCTC is the class of decision problems solvable in this model

You (the “user”) pick a uniform poly-size circuit C on two registers, RCTC and RCR, as well as an input to RCR. Let C’ be the induced operation on RCTC. Then Nature is forced to find a probability distribution D over states of RCTC such that C’(D)=D. (If there’s more than one such D, Nature chooses one adversarially.) Then given a sample from D in RCTC, you read the final output off from RCR.

Theorem: PCTC = PSPACE Proof: For PCTC  PSPACE, just need to find some x such that C’(m)(x)=x for some m. Pick any x, then apply C’ 2n times. For PSPACE  PCTC: Have C’ input and output an ordered pair mi,b, where mi is a state of the PSPACE machine we’re simulating and b is an answer bit, like so: mT-1,0 mT,0 m1,0 m2,0 mT-1,1 mT,1 m1,1 m2,1 The only fixed-point distribution is a uniform distribution over all states of the PSPACE machine, with the answer bit set to its “true” value

Main Result: BQPCTC = PSPACE What About Quantum? Let BQPCTC be the class of problems solvable in quantum polynomial time, if for any operation E (not necessarily reversible) described by a quantum circuit, we can immediately get a mixed state  such that E() =  Clearly PSPACE = PCTC  BQPCTC  EXP Main Result: BQPCTC = PSPACE “If time travel is possible, then quantum computers are no more powerful than classical ones”

BQPCTC  PSPACE: Proof Sketch Let vec() be the “vectorization” of : i.e., a length-22n vector of ’s entries. We can reduce the problem to the following: given an (implicit) 22n22n matrix M, prepare a state  in BQPSPACE such that

Idea: Let Then Furthermore: We can compute P exactly in PSPACE, by using fast parallel algorithms for matrix inversion (e.g. Csanky’s algorithm) It’s easy to check that Pv is the vectorization of some density matrix So then just take (say) Pvec(I) as the fixed-point of the CTC Hence M(Pv)=Pv, so P projects onto the fixed points of M

Coping With Error Problem: The set of fixed points could be sensitive to arbitrarily small changes to the superoperator E.g., consider the two stochastic matrices The first has (1,0) as its unique fixed point; the second has (0,1) However, the particular CTC algorithm used to solve PSPACE problems doesn’t share this property! Indeed, one can use a CTC to solve PSPACE problems “fault-tolerantly” (building on Bacon 2003)

Application: Advice Coins Consider an “advice coin” with probability p of landing heads, which a PSPACE machine can flip as many times as it wants Theorem (A. 2008): BQPSPACE/coin = PSPACE/poly Proof uses exactly the same technique as for BQPCTC=PSPACE: use parallel linear algebra to implicitly compute fixed-points of superoperators in polynomial space

Discussion Three ways of interpreting our result: CTCs exist, so now we know exactly what can be computed in the physical world (PSPACE)! CTCs don’t exist, and this sort of result helps pinpoint what’s so ridiculous about them CTCs don’t exist, and we already knew they were ridiculous—but at least we can find fixed points of superoperators in PSPACE! Our result formally justifies the following intuition: By making time “reusable,” CTCs make time equivalent to space as a computational resource.

Closed Timelike Curves Make Quantum and Classical Computing Equivalent BQP PSPACE Scott Aaronson MIT John Watrous U. Waterloo