Slashdot Mirror
$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."
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.
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.
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)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
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".
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
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'
Good-bye