Classical Computers Very Likely Can Not Efficiently Simulate Multimode Linear Optical Interferometers with Arbitrary Inputs quantum.phys.lsu.edu Louisiana.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
BosonSampling Scott Aaronson (MIT) Talk at BBN, October 30, 2013.
Advertisements

Quantum Versus Classical Proofs and Advice Scott Aaronson Waterloo MIT Greg Kuperberg UC Davis | x {0,1} n ?
BQP/qpoly EXP/poly Scott Aaronson UC Berkeley. BQP/qpoly Class of languages recognized by a bounded-error polytime quantum algorithm, with a polysize.
New Evidence That Quantum Mechanics Is Hard to Simulate on Classical Computers Scott Aaronson Parts based on joint work with Alex Arkhipov.
The Computational Complexity of Linear Optics Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkhipov MIT vs.
Quantum Computing with Noninteracting Bosons
New Computational Insights from Quantum Optics Scott Aaronson.
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.
Femtosecond lasers István Robel
Space complexity [AB 4]. 2 Input/Work/Output TM Output.
GENERALIZED STABILIZERS Ted Yoder. Quantum/Classical Boundary How do we study the power of quantum computers compared to classical ones? Compelling problems.
Quantum Computing MAS 725 Hartmut Klauck NTU
Quantum trajectories for the laboratory: modeling engineered quantum systems Andrew Doherty University of Sydney.
Two-Photon Fields: Coherence, Interference and Entanglement Anand Kumar Jha Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur QIPA 2103, HRI, Allahabad.
Shanhui Fan, Shanshan Xu, Eden Rephaeli
Quantum Coherent Control with Non-classical Light Department of Physics of Complex Systems The Weizmann Institute of Science Rehovot, Israel Yaron Bromberg,
Quantum limits in optical interferometry R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański 1, K. Banaszek 1, J. Kołodyński 1, M. Jarzyna 1, M. Guta 2, K. Macieszczak 1,2, R. Schnabel.
Introduction to Molecular Orbitals
Yu Nakayama (Kavli IPMU, Caltech)
Universal Optical Operations in Quantum Information Processing Wei-Min Zhang ( Physics Dept, NCKU )
2. Quantum Mechanics and Vector Spaces 2.1 Physics of Quantum mechanics  Principle of superposition  Measurements 2.2 Redundant mathematical structure.
Anuj Dawar.
Quantum Algorithms II Andrew C. Yao Tsinghua University & Chinese U. of Hong Kong.
Chapter 5. Operations on Multiple R. V.'s 1 Chapter 5. Operations on Multiple Random Variables 0. Introduction 1. Expected Value of a Function of Random.
Quantum Information Processing
Space complexity [AB 4]. 2 Input/Work/Output TM Output.
6. Second Quantization and Quantum Field Theory
Michael A. Nielsen University of Queensland Quantum Mechanics I: Basic Principles Goal of this and the next lecture: to introduce all the basic elements.
Chang-Kui Duan, Institute of Modern Physics, CUPT 1 Harmonic oscillator and coherent states Reading materials: 1.Chapter 7 of Shankar’s PQM.
Pure-state, single-photon wave-packet generation by parametric down conversion in a distributed microcavity M. G. Raymer, Jaewoo Noh* Oregon Center for.
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER School of Physics and Astronomy FACULTY OF MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES “Classical entanglement” and cat states.
The Road to Quantum Computing: Boson Sampling Nate Kinsey ECE 695 Quantum Photonics Spring 2014.
On the dynamics of the Fermi-Bose model Magnus Ögren Nano-Science Center, Copenhagen University. DTU-Mathematics, Technical University of Denmark. In collaboration.
Variational Approach in Quantum Field Theories -- to Dynamical Chiral Phase Transition -- Yasuhiko TSUE Physica Division, Faculty of Science, Kochi University,
Multi-Partite Squeezing and SU (1,1) Symmetry Zahra Shaterzadeh Yazdi Institute for Quantum Information Science, University of Calgary with Peter S. Turner.
Photon Efficiency Measures & Processing Dominic W. Berry University of Waterloo Alexander I. LvovskyUniversity of Calgary.
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER School of Physics and Astronomy FACULTY OF MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES Putting entanglement to work: Super-dense.
Quantization via Fractional Revivals Quantum Optics II Cozumel, December, 2004 Carlos Stroud, University of Rochester Collaborators:
Interference in BEC Interference of 2 BEC’s - experiments Do Bose-Einstein condensates have a macroscopic phase? How can it be measured? Castin & Dalibard.
§ Linear Operators Christopher Crawford PHY
Waves, Light & Quanta Tim Freegarde Web Gallery of Art; National Gallery, London.
Bell Measurements and Teleportation. Overview Entanglement Bell states and Bell measurements Limitations on Bell measurements using linear devices Teleportation.
QUANTUM COMPUTING What is it ? Jean V. Bellissard Georgia Institute of Technology & Institut Universitaire de France.
Quantum Imaging with Undetected Photons
Road To Grad School & Beyond Jonathan Dowling. Buy This Book or the Cat Will (and Will Not) Die! 7 ★★★★★ REVIEWS! “I found myself LAUGHING OUT LOUD quite.
Verification of BosonSampling Devices Scott Aaronson (MIT) Talk at Simons Institute, February 28, 2014.
Jonathan P. Dowling OPTICAL QUANTUM COMPUTING quantum.phys.lsu.edu Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics Department of Physics and Astronomy Quantum.
IPQI-2010-Anu Venugopalan 1 qubits, quantum registers and gates Anu Venugopalan Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha Univeristy Delhi _______________________________________________.
Jonathan P. Dowling QUANTUM SENSORS: WHAT’S NEW WITH N00N STATES?
Restricted and Unrestricted Hartree-Fock method Sudarshan Dhungana Phys790 Seminar (Feb15,2007)
October 1, 2007 Quantum Optical Sensing: Single Mode, Multi-Mode, and Continuous Time Jeffrey H. Shapiro.
Quantum Computing and the Limits of the Efficiently Computable Scott Aaronson (MIT) Papers & slides at
Multi-photon Absorption Rates for N00N States William Plick, Christoph F. Wildfeuer, Jonathan P. Dowling: Hearne Institute for Theoretical Physics, LSU.
Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion and The Biphoton
Lecture from Quantum Mechanics. Marek Zrałek Field Theory and Particle Physics Department. Silesian University Lecture 6.
Review for Exam 2 The Schrodinger Eqn.
Simulation and Design of Stabilizer Quantum Circuits Scott Aaronson and Boriska Toth CS252 Project December 10, X X +Z Z +ZI +IX
Metrology and integrated optics Geoff Pryde Griffith University.
Conservation of Vacuum in an Interferometer
Second quantum revolution, or Why it’s time to study quantum physics
Scott Aaronson (MIT) April 30, 2014
Scott Aaronson (UT Austin)
Complexity-Theoretic Foundations of Quantum Supremacy Experiments
Scott Aaronson (UT Austin)
Ψ WHITFIELD GROUP Ψ WHITFIELD GROUP
Based on joint work with Alex Arkhipov
Scott Aaronson (UT Austin)
Operators Postulates W. Udo Schröder, 2004.
Presentation transcript:

Classical Computers Very Likely Can Not Efficiently Simulate Multimode Linear Optical Interferometers with Arbitrary Inputs quantum.phys.lsu.edu Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana USA Computational Science Research Center Beijing, , China QIM 19 JUN 13, Rochester BT Gard, et al., JOSA B Vol. 30, pp. 1538–1545 (2013). BT Gard, et al., arXiv: Jonathan P. Dowling

Buy This Book or The Cat Will (and Will Not)Die! 5 ★★★★★ REVIEWS! “I found myself LAUGHING OUT LOUD quite frequently.” “The book itself is fine and well- written … I can thoroughly recommend it.”

Classical Computers Can Very Likely Not Efficiently Simulate Multimode Linear Optical Interferometers with Arbitrary Inputs BT Gard, RM Cross, MB Kim, H Lee, JPD, arXiv: Why We Thought Linear Optics Sucks at Quantum Computing Multiphoton Quantum Random Walks Generalized Hong-Ou-Mandel Effect Chasing Phases with Feynman Diagrams Two- and Three- Photon Coincidence What? The Fock! Slater Determinant vs. Slater Permanent This Does Not Compute! Andrew White Experiments With Permanents!

Why We Thought Linear Optics Sucks at Quantum Computing Blow Up In Energy!

Blow Up In Time! Why We Thought Linear Optics Sucks at Quantum Computing

Blow Up In Space! Why We Thought Linear Optics Sucks at Quantum Computing

Linear Optics Alone Can NOT Increase Entanglement— Even with Squeezed-State Inputs! Why We Thought Linear Optics Sucks at Quantum Computing

Multi-Fock-Input Photonic Quantum Pachinko Detectors are Photon-Number Resolving

Generalized Hong-Ou-Mandel No odds! (But we’ll get even.) N00N Components Dominate! (Bat State.) A B

Schr ö dinger Picture: Feynman Paths “One photon only ever interferes with itself.” — P.A.M Dirac

Two photons interfere with each other! (Take that, and that, Dirac!) HOM effect in two-photon coincidences Schr ö dinger Picture: Feynman Paths

Three photons interfere with each other! (Take that, and that, and that, Dirac!) GHOM effect Exploded Rubik’s Cube of Three-Photon Coincidences Schr ö dinger Picture: Feynman Paths

How Many Paths? Let Us Count the Ways. A B This requires 8 Feynman paths to compute. It rapidly goes to Helena Handbasket!

How Many Paths? Let Us Count the Ways. L is total number of levels. N+M is the total number of photons.

How Many Paths? Let Us Count the Ways. So Much For the Schr ö dinger Picture! Total Number of Paths Choosing photon numbers N = M = 9 and level depth L = 16, we have = 5×10 86 total possible paths, which is about four orders of magnitude larger then the number of atoms in the observable universe.

News From the Quantum Complexity Front? From the Quantum Blogosphere: “… you have to talk about the complexity-theoretic difference between the n*n permanent and the n*n determinant.” — Scott “Shtetl-Optimized” Aaronson “What will happen to me if I don’t!?” — Jonathan “Quantum-Pundit” Dowling Aaronson

What ? The Fock ! — Heisenberg Picture M = 0 BS XFMRS Example: L=3. Powers of Operators in Expansion Generate Complete Orthonormal Set Of Basis Vectors for Hilbert Space.

What ? The Fock ! — Heisenberg Picture Dimension of Hilbert State Space for N Photons At Level L. The General Case: Multinomial Expansion!

Computationally Complex Regime L = 69 and fix N = 2L – 1 = 137 The Heisenberg and Schrödinger Pictures are NOT Computationally Equivalent. (This Result is Implicit in the Gottesman-Knill Theorem.) This Blow Up Does NOT Occur for Coherent or Squeezed Input States. What ? The Fock ! — Heisenberg Picture

Coherent-State No-Blow Theorem! Displacement Operator Input State Computationally Complex? Output is Product of Coherent States: Efficiently Computable

What ? The Fock ! — Heisenberg Picture Squeezed-State No-Blow Theorem! Squeezed Vacuum Operator Input State Computationally Complex? Output Can Be Efficiently Transformed into 2L Single Mode Squeezers: Classically Computable.

News From the Quantum Complexity Front!? Ref. A: “AA proved that classical computers cannot efficiently simulate linear optics interferometer … unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses…I cannot recommend publication of this work.” Ref: B: “… a much more physical and accessible approach to the result. If the authors … bolster their evidence … the manuscript might be suitable for publication in Physical Review A.

News From the Quantum Complexity Front!? Response to Ref. A: “… very few physicists know what the polynomial hierarchy even is … Physical Review is physics journal and not a computer science journal. Response to Ref: B: “… the referee suggested publication in some form if we could strengthen the argument … we now hope the referee will endorse our paper for publication in PRA.”

Hilbert Space Dimension Not the Whole Story: Multi-Particle Wave Functions Must be Symmetrized! Bosons (Total WF Symmetric) Fermions (Total WF AntiSymmetric) Spatial WF Symmetric (Bosonic) Spatial WF AntiSymmetric (Fermionic) Effect Explains Bound State Of Neutral Hydrogen Molecule!

Fermion Fock Dimension Blows Up Too!? Hilbert Space Dimension Blow Up Necessary but NOT Sufficient for Computational Complexity — Gottesman & Knill Theorem Choosing Computationally Complex Regime: N = L.

A Shortcut Through Hilbert Space? Treat as Input-Output with Matrix Transfer! Efficient!!! O(L 3 )

Must Properly Symmetrize Input State! Take coherence length >> L BS XFRMs Insure Proper Symmetry All the Way Down Input/Output Problem

Laplace Decomposition +–+ Determinant: (2L)! Steps +++ Permanent: (2L)! Steps

Slater Determinant vs. ‘Slater’ Permanent Fermions: Dim(H) exponential Anti-Symmetric Wavefunction Slater Determinant: O(L 2 ) Gaussian Elimination Does Compute! Hilbert Space Dimension Blow Up Necessary but NOT Sufficient! Bosons: Dim(H) exponential Symmetric Wavefunction Slater Permanent: O(2 2L L 2 ) Ryser’s Algorithm (1963) Does NOT Compute!

Classical Computers Can Very Likely Not Efficiently Simulate Multimode Linear Optical Interferometers with Arbitrary Inputs BT Gard, RM Cross, MB Kim, H Lee, JPD, arXiv: Why Linear Optics Should Suck at Quatum Computing Multiphoton Quantum Random Walks Generalized Hong-Ou-Mandel Effect Chasing Phases with Feynman Diagrams Two- and Three- Photon Coincidence What? The Fock! Slater Determinant vs. Slater Permanent This Does Not Compute!

LeeVeronis WildeDowling Olson ShengSinghXiao Seshadreesan BalouchiGardGranierJiang Bardhan Brown Kim Cooney