THE QUANTUM COMPLEXITY OF TIME TRAVEL Scott Aaronson (MIT)

Slides:



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

How Much Information Is In Entangled Quantum States? Scott Aaronson MIT |
The Learnability of Quantum States Scott Aaronson University of Waterloo.
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) |
The Future (and Past) of Quantum Lower Bounds by Polynomials Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley.
Limitations of Quantum Advice and One-Way Communication Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley IAS Useful?
How Much Information Is In A Quantum State? Scott Aaronson MIT |
Lower Bounds for Local Search by Quantum Arguments Scott Aaronson (UC Berkeley) August 14, 2003.
An Invitation to Quantum Complexity Theory The Study of What We Cant Do With Computers We Dont Have Scott Aaronson (MIT) QIP08, New Delhi BQP NP- complete.
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.
New Evidence That Quantum Mechanics Is Hard to Simulate on Classical Computers Scott Aaronson Parts based on joint work with Alex Arkhipov.
Pretty-Good Tomography Scott Aaronson MIT. Theres a problem… To do tomography on an entangled state of n qubits, we need exp(n) measurements Does this.
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.
The Computational Complexity of Linear Optics Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkhipov MIT vs.
When Qubits Go Analog A Relatively Easy Problem in Quantum Information Theory Scott Aaronson (MIT)
Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable Scott Aaronson MIT.
New Computational Insights from Quantum Optics Scott Aaronson.
Scott Aaronson Associate Professor, EECS Quantum Computers and Beyond.
New Evidence That Quantum Mechanics Is Hard to Simulate on Classical Computers Scott Aaronson (MIT) Joint work with Alex Arkhipov.
Solving Hard Problems With Light Scott Aaronson (Assoc. Prof., EECS) Joint work with Alex Arkhipov vs.
The Computational Complexity of Linear Optics Scott Aaronson (MIT) Joint work with Alex Arkhipov vs.
Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable
Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable Scott Aaronson MIT.
Scott Aaronson (MIT) Based on joint work with John Watrous (U. Waterloo) BQP PSPACE Quantum Computing With Closed Timelike Curves.
Scott Aaronson (MIT) The Limits of Computation: Quantum Computers and Beyond.
Scott Aaronson Associate Professor, EECS And Why Every Other Major Sucks By Comparison.
Turing Machines January 2003 Part 2:. 2 TM Recap We have seen how an abstract TM can be built to implement any computable algorithm TM has components:
University of Queensland
CS211 Problems: unsolvable, unfeasible and unsolved Topic 3: P and NP.
Copyright © CALTECH SCOTT AARONSON Massachusetts Institute of Technology QUANTUM COMPUTING AND THE LIMITS OF THE EFFICIENTLY COMPUTABLE.
Foundations of Cryptography Lecture 2: One-way functions are essential for identification. Amplification: from weak to strong one-way function Lecturer:
Space complexity [AB 4]. 2 Input/Work/Output TM Output.
The mysterious quantum world and why Einstein was probably wrong.
One time-travelling bit is as good as logarithmically many
CPSC 411, Fall 2008: Set 12 1 CPSC 411 Design and Analysis of Algorithms Set 12: Undecidability Prof. Jennifer Welch Fall 2008.
Efficient Statistical Pruning for Maximum Likelihood Decoding Radhika Gowaikar Babak Hassibi California Institute of Technology July 3, 2003.
The Brick Wall: NP-Completeness Christopher King Joshua Greenspan.
Computational Complexity, Physical Mapping III + Perl CIS 667 March 4, 2004.
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.
Daniel A. Pitonyak Lebanon Valley College
PhD students Class nine. Use a table? AlgorithmAverageWorst case Bubble sortn2n2 n2n2 Quicksortn*log(n) n2n2.
One Complexity Theorist’s View of Quantum Computing Lance Fortnow NEC Research Institute.
The Limits of Adiabatic Quantum Algorithms
Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable Scott Aaronson (MIT)
Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable Scott Aaronson MIT.
Manipulating the Quota in Weighted Voting Games (M. Zuckerman, P. Faliszewski, Y. Bachrach, and E. Elkind) ‏ Presented by: Sen Li Software Technologies.
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.
Verification of BosonSampling Devices Scott Aaronson (MIT) Talk at Simons Institute, February 28, 2014.
An Introduction to Quantum Computation Sandy Irani Department of Computer Science University of California, Irvine.
Cosmological Computation Computers in a weird universe Patrick Rall Ph70 May 10, 2016.
Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable Scott Aaronson (MIT  UT Austin) NYSC, West Virginia, June 24, 2016.
Scott Aaronson (MIT) QIP08, New Delhi
Computability and Complexity
Complexity 6-1 The Class P Complexity Andrei Bulatov.
CSCE 411 Design and Analysis of Algorithms
Scott Aaronson (UT Austin) Lakeway Men’s Breakfast Club April 19, 2017
Section 14.3 Complexity Classes
Quantum Computing and the Quest for Quantum Computational Supremacy
Scott Aaronson (UT Austin) Bazaarvoice May 24, 2017
What Google Won’t Find: The Ultimate Physical Limits of Search
Universal Semantic Communication
What Quantum Computing Isn’t
Introduction to Oracles in Complexity Theory
Closed Timelike Curves Make Quantum and Classical Computing Equivalent
Presentation transcript:

THE QUANTUM COMPLEXITY OF TIME TRAVEL Scott Aaronson (MIT)

Things we never see… Warp drive Perpetuum mobile GOLDBACH CONJECTURE: TRUE NEXT QUESTION Übercomputer Does the absence of these devices tell us anything fundamental about physics? In the first two cases, the answer is obvious My view: It’s also obvious in the third case

My Research Interest: What We Can’t Do With Computers We Don’t Have The Limits of Quantum Computers: Could quantum computers solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time? Could they break any cryptographic code (not just RSA)? Evidence strongly suggests no Most people don’t know this What about analog computers, or quantum gravity computers, or… This talk: Closed timelike curve computers

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 Even in this bizarre setting, still need to quantify computational resources

David Deutsch’s Model A closed timelike curve (CTC) is a computational resource that, given a function f, immediately finds a fixed point of f—that is, an x such that f(x)=x Problem: Not every f has a fixed point! But there’s always a distribution D such that 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

Question: What problems can be solved in this model? Theorem: Exactly those problems solvable on a classical computer with a polynomial amount of memory, but possibly exponential time (the class PSPACE) In other words, CTC’s make space and time equivalent as computational resources You get to specify a polynomial time computation C, mapping n-bit strings to n-bit strings Then Nature adversarially chooses a fixed point of the computation: a distribution D such C(D)=D You get a sample from D The computational model

The Nontrivial Question What if we can perform a polynomial-time quantum computation inside the closed timelike curve? Then certainly we can at least do PSPACE, since quantum computers can always simulate classical ones But can we do more than PSPACE? Three years ago I raised this as an open problem Recently John Watrous and I managed to give a negative answer: if closed timelike curves exist, then quantum computers are no more powerful than classical ones

How did we show this? Furthermore, we can compute P exactly in PSPACE, using Csanky’s NC 2 algorithm for matrix inversion Solution: Let Then by Taylor expansion, Hence P projects onto the fixed points of M Let vec(  ) be a “vectorization” of . We can reduce the problem to the following: given an (implicit) 2 2n  2 2n matrix M, prepare a state  in BQPSPACE such that

Conclusions If closed timelike curves existed, then besides all the other strange implications, we could efficiently solve PSPACE-complete computational problems For me, this is just additional evidence that closed timelike curves don’t exist And yet, even in a world with closed timelike curves, we still wouldn’t have infinite computational power Also, throwing quantum computing into the mix wouldn’t increase that power any further

THE QUANTUM COMPLEXITY OF TIME TRAVEL Scott Aaronson (MIT)