Top Banner
BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT
20

BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

Dec 20, 2015

Download

Documents

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

BQP

PSPACE

NP

P

PostBQP

Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics

Scott Aaronson

MIT

Page 2: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

RESOLVED: That the results of quantum complexity research over the last two decades have deepened our understanding of physics.

That this represents an intellectual “payoff” from quantum computing, whether or not scalable QCs are ever built.

A Personal Confession…While proving theorems about QCMA/qpoly and QMAlog(2), sometimes even I wonder whether it’s all just an irrelevant mathematical game

Page 3: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

“A quantum computer is obviously just a souped-up analog computer: continuous voltages, continuous amplitudes, what’s the difference?”

“A quantum computer with 400 qubits would have ~2400 classical bits, so it would violate a cosmological entropy bound”

“My classical cellular automaton model can explain everything about quantum mechanics!(How to account for, e.g., Schor’s algorithm for factoring prime numbers is a detail left for specialists)”

“Who cares if my theory requires Nature to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem in an instant? Nature solves hard problems all the time—like the Schrödinger equation!”

But then I meet distinguished physicists who say things like:

Page 4: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

The biggest implication of QC for fundamental physics is obvious:

“Shor’s Trilemma”

1. the Extended Church-Turing Thesis—the foundation of theoretical CS for decades—is wrong,

2. textbook quantum mechanics is wrong, or

3. there’s a fast classical factoring algorithm.

All three seem like crackpot speculations.

At least one of them is true!

That’s why YOU

should care about quantum

computing

Because of Shor’s factoring algorithm, either

Page 5: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

Ten of my favorite quantum complexity theorems … and their relevance for physics

PART I. BQP-Infused Quantum Foundations

BQP P#P, BBBV lower bound, collision lower bound, limits of random access codes

PART II. BQP-Encrusted Many-Body Physics

QMA-completeness, the limits of adiabatic computing, search by quantum walk

PART III. Quantum Gravity With a Side of BQP

TQFT’s, postselection & closed timelike curves, black holes as mirrors

Rest of the Talk

Page 6: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

PART I. BQP-Infused Quantum Foundations

BQP

Page 7: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

Quantum Computing Is Not Analog

The Fault-Tolerance Theorem

Absurd precision in amplitudes is not

necessary for scalable quantum

computing

is a linear equation, governing quantities (amplitudes) that are not directly observable

Hdt

di

This fact has many profound implications, such as…

BQP

EXP

P#P

Page 8: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

I.e., if you want more than the N Grover speedup for solving an NP-complete problem, then you’ll need to exploit problem structure [Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard, Vazirani 1997]

QC’s Don’t Provide Exponential Speedups for Black-Box Search

BBBV

The “BBBV No SuperSearch Principle” can even be applied in physics (e.g., to lower-bound tunneling times)

Is it a historical accident that quantum mechanics courses teach the Uncertainty Principle but not the “No SuperSearch Principle”?

Page 9: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

Computational Power of Hidden Variables

2

yx

N

x

xfxN 1

1Measure 2nd

register

xf

Consider the problem of breaking a cryptographic hash function: given a black box that computes a 2-to-1 function f, find any x,y pair such that f(x)=f(y)

Can also reduce graph isomorphism to this problem

QCs can “almost” find collisions with just one query to f!

Nevertheless, any quantum algorithm needs (N1/3) queries to find a collision [A.-Shi 2002]

Conclusion [A. 2005]:If, in a hidden-variable theory like Bohmian mechanics, your whole life trajectory flashed before you at the moment of your death, you could solve problems that are (probably) intractable even for quantum computers

(Probably not NP-complete problems though)

Page 10: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

The Absent-Minded Advisor Problem

Some consequences:

BQP/qpoly PostBQP/poly [A. 2004]

Any n-qubit state can be “PAC-learned” using O(n) sample measurements—exponentially better than tomography [A. 2006]

One can give a local Hamiltonian H on poly(n) qubits, such that any ground state of H can be used to simulate on all yes/no measurements with small circuits [A.-Drucker 2009]

Can you give your graduate

student a state | with poly(n) qubits—such that by measuring | in an appropriate basis, the

student can learn your answer to any yes-or-no question of size n?

NO [Ambainis, Nayak, Ta-Shma, Vazirani 1999]

Page 11: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

PART II. BQP-Encrusted Many-Body Physics

BQP

Page 12: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

QMA-completeness

Just one of many things we learned from this theory:

In general, finding a ground state of a 1D nearest-neighbor Hamiltonian is just as hard as finding the ground state

of any Hamiltonian[Aharonov, Gottesman, Irani, Kempe 2007]

One of the great achievements of quantum complexity theory, initiated by Kitaev

Page 13: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

The Quantum Adiabatic Algorithm

Why do these two energy levels almost “kiss”?

An amazing quantum analogue of simulated annealing [Farhi, Goldstone, Gutmann et al. 2000]

Seems to come tantalizingly close to solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time! But…

One answer: because NP-complete problems are hard!

[Van Dam, Mosca, Vazirani 2001; Reichardt 2004]

Page 14: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

Quantum WalksTo develop a quantum walk algorithm for spatial search, algorithmists essentially had to rediscover the Dirac equation [Childs, Goldstone 2004]

A free particle in a 2D box

To develop a quantum walk algorithm for game-tree search, they would’ve had to rediscover scattering theory[Farhi, Goldstone, Gutmann 2007]

To develop a quantum walk algorithm for graph isomorphism, will we need to rediscover some more physics? [Bacon]

Page 15: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

PART III. Quantum Gravity With a Side of BQP

BQP

Page 16: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

Topological Quantum Field Theory

Free

dman

, Kita

ev, L

arse

n, W

ang

2003

Aharonov, Jones, Landau 2006

Witten 1980’s

TQFTs

Jones PolynomialBQP

Page 17: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

Beyond Quantum Computing?If QM were nonlinear, one could exploit that to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time [Abrams & Lloyd 1998]

Quantum computers with closed timelike curves (i.e. time travel) could solve PSPACE-complete problems—but not more than that [A.-Watrous 2008]

Quantum computers with postselected measurements could solve not onlyNP-complete problems, but even counting problems [A. 2005]

R CTC R CR

C

000

Answer

Page 18: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

Black Holes as Mirrors

Against many physicists’ intuition, information dropped into a black hole seems to come out as Hawking radiation almost immediately—provided you know the black hole’s state before the information went in [Hayden & Preskill 2007]

Their argument uses explicit constructions of approximate unitary 2-designs

Page 19: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

For Even More Interdisciplinary Excitement, Here’s What You

Should Look For

A plausible complexity-theoretic story for how quantum computing could fail (see A. 2004)

Intermediate models of computation between P and BQP (highly mixed states? restricted sets of gates?)

Foil theories that lead to complexity classes slightly larger than BQP (only example I know of: hidden variables)

A sane notion of “quantum gravity polynomial time” (first step: a sane notion of “time”?)

Page 20: BQP PSPACE NP P PostBQP Quantum Complexity and Fundamental Physics Scott Aaronson MIT.

A bold (but true) hypothesis linking complexity and fundamental physics…

GOLDBACH CONJECTURE: TRUE

NEXT QUESTION

There is no physical means to solve

NP-complete problems in polynomial time.Encompasses NPP, NPBQP, NPLHC…

My Prediction: Someday, this hypothesis will be about as canonical as the 2nd Law or no superluminal signalling