$100,000 Prize: Prove Quantum Computers Impossible

mikejuk writes "Quantum computing is currently a major area of research — but is this all a waste of effort? Now Scott Aaronson, a well-known MIT computer scientist, has offered a prize of $100,000 for any proof that quantum computers are impossible: 'I'm now offering a US$100,000 award for a demonstration, convincing to me, that scalable quantum computing is impossible in the physical world.' Notice the two important conditions — 'physical world' and 'scalable.' The proof doesn't have to rule out tiny 'toy' quantum computers, only those that could do any useful work."

Comments

Sorry, what?

[Nemyst]

A similar question could've been asked years ago, back when transistors didn't exist: 'I'm now offering a US$100,000 award for a demonstration, convincing to me, that scalable personal computing is impossible in the physical world.'

Using only technology available then, the answer would've to scale down tubes to the minimal size and go "well this computer's too weak to do anything useful, ergo it's impossible to have a personal computer that isn't just a toy computer." Then transistors happened.

These kinds of things are stupid, because you're asking for a demonstration to an engineering problem, when engineering is always capped by scientific research. You could have a perfectly "convincing" proof today and tomorrow a new discovery crumbles it all to the ground.

Unless a theoretical and fundamental proof can be made that quantum computing is impossible, there's no reason to say that it is, and I have serious doubts such a proof can be made considering what has been accomplished thus far. Current limitations are engineering issues, but nothing fundamental is stopping a useful and practical quantum computer from existing.

Re:Sorry, what?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

In _Profiles of the Future_, Arthur Clarke collected a long series of well-thought-out, quantitative, proofs of the practical impossibility of aviation and space flight. The people he quoted were willing to agree that future breakthroughs such as antigravity might allow aviation to work, but that it was an engineering impossibility.

Proving something negative is impossible

[Taco Cowboy]

Ever try proving something that is not going to happen?

Try it, and you'll know that it's impossible to prove something that is negative - like proving quantum computer impossible

Re:Proving something negative is impossible

[tomhudson]

Please read the original summary (because we all know that you haven't really read it properly) - you don't have to provide 100% proof it impossible - just convincing the person offering the money that it is probably not practical for most real-world situations, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

Hence my whole "just point a gun at him and ask if he's convinced" argument - it works on 2 levels:

1. At the quantum level, both he and the gunholder could be considered in a quantum state - any outside observer cannot state definitively whether he is dead or alive until he either pays the $100,000, or gets shot.

2. The whole "there are no atheists in foxholes" argument.

Also, it is definitely possible to prove a negative. I can prove that there are no lions in my refrigerator, no elephants hiding behind my couch, and no dead zombie typing this comment, to most people's satisfaction, for starters.

Re:Proving something negative is impossible

[Arancaytar]

This is not true in mathematics and physics. Lots of things have been proved to be impossible. One can prove, without leaving room for doubt, that the halting problem is undecidable, that no arithmetic theory can be consistent and complete, that the universe cannot allow FTL propagation while obeying both causality and relativity, etc.

Re:Proving something negative is impossible

[sycodon]

Proving that there are no lions in your fridge is a badly formed question.

The valid question, and scientifically provable question, is does your fridge currently contain a lion?

The difference is subtle but important. "does your fridge currently contain a lion?" is a positive statement that can be verified through observation and to which the answer is a positive assertion that is valid within the context of the question, "there is not currently a lion in my fridge."

Re:Proving something negative is impossible

[grumbel]

One can prove, without leaving room for doubt, ...

All you can ever really do is gaining confidence in your hypothesis by repeated observation and experiments. Even in math it will be impossible to ever reach absolute certainty without leaving room for doubt, as you can never be fully sure that the proof you did is actually correct, as it could always contain a mistake. Having other people look over the work and repeat it will of course shrink the doubt to a negligible tiny fraction that allows you to assert for practical purposes that something is true.

Re:Proving something negative is impossible

[gd2shoe]

The lions in your refrigerator are microscopic. The elephants hiding behind your couch are invisible, and you actually are a dead zombie. You just don't realize it, because of a psychological hallucination that you are not actually dead.

In which case you actually can't prove anything at all... ever. For instance, the entire world (yourself included) could be figments of my imagination. Or maybe we're both characters in a book, and just don't know it.

If you can prove anything, you can prove some negatives. Of course, you do need to accept some axioms on faith, or you'll be checked into a mental institution. (no offence intended)

Re:Proving something negative is impossible

[snowgirl]

In which case you actually can't prove anything at all... ever. For instance, the entire world (yourself included) could be figments of my imagination. Or maybe we're both characters in a book, and just don't know it.

For the strictest definition of "prove", indeed we cannot. As Decartes so eloquently stated, the only thing I can be sure of is my own mind. (After all, if my mind didn't exist in some form, then I wouldn't be able to even contemplate not-existing.) But just because I am sure of my own mind's existence, does not mean that I can definitively extend that to other people.

"Truth" is commonly accepted to be something that is so likely that to withhold provisional belief would be irrational. Sure everything (with a single exception) cannot be proven definitively, but at some point things are so likely true that not believing in them just makes you crazy.

So, proving this whole issue and claiming the prize money would involve demonstrating that believing in practical quantum computers would be unreasonable. And that is perfectly reasonably possible.

But one has to realize the ambiguity of the word "prove" here. There is absolute proof of certainty (for instance most mathematical proofs), while just about everything else lies in a range of "yeah, probably." Newton's Laws of Motion were proven correct time and time again, until we eventually started noticing very small errors, and even yet today, while we know that Newton's Laws of Motion aren't the most accurate model, we still know that it's often "good enough".

Re:D-Wave sold a commercial Quantum computer in 20

[harperska]

When the status quo was a room full of vacuum tubes, I doubt that the way forward (solid state transistors) was as clear as you suggest. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that. There is a vast world of difference between making smaller, faster, better vacuum tubes, and making a transistor. So I think GP's suggestion that we are in the vacuum tube era of quantum computing is reasonable, and we are waiting on the equivalent of a quantum transistor to make quantum computing feasible.

Re:Quantum Mechanics

[Anonymous Coward]

Einstein forces t (time) to be variable because he chose to make c (speed of light) constant. Why is vice-versa not true? If you calibrate a clock (on the surface of earth) to the speed of light on this gravity well, then send it up into space, then the clock will be wrong. Not because time is variable in the two locations, but because the speed of light is not constant in both locations. If you instead calibrate the clocks to something external to the two systems (like a remote spinning neutron star), then your clocks will stay in sync whether located on earth or in a GPS satellite in space.

Or are you really telling me that an observer in space (GPS satellite) SHOULD see a remote neutron star spinning at a different rate than an observer on the surface of earth? If you are saying that, then obviously someone has a broken (uncalibrated) clock, because the spinning neutron hasn't changed at all, and especially doesn't change its spin rate based on where the observer happens to be located.

Re:Like the cat

[spire3661]

Science isnt about being right or wrong, its about looking for the answer, whatever it may be. Schroedinger posed a fantastic, perspective-altering question, and you dismiss it as 'pseudo-science'