Detecting Developmental Delay With Cars: A Head-Start Application

Aaronson, Doris; Aaronson, May

doi:10.1207/s19309325nhsa0101_6

Cited by 25 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We treat QMP interpreted as an objective collapse as a threshold phenomenon, which separates the quantum behaviour in the micro-world from the classical behaviour in the macro-world. It may be thought of as a sort of quantitative (as against qualitative) "Sure/Shor" separator [41], a criterion that separates the quantum states are that are surely experimentally preparable, from states that arise in a large-scale implementation of Shor's algorithm. Given the polynomiality of the universe per option (3), and the tested exponentiality at small scales, option (3) predicts that the quantum superposition principle should break down at some finite scale.…”

Section: The Quantum Measurement Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quantum Measurement Problem and Physical reality: A Computation Theoretic Perspective

Srikanth¹

2006

AIP Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the universe computable? If yes, is it computationally a polynomial place? In standard quantum mechanics, which permits infinite parallelism and the infinitely precise specification of states, a negative answer to both questions is not ruled out. On the other hand, empirical evidence suggests that NP-complete problems are intractable in the physical world. Likewise, computational problems known to be algorithmically uncomputable do not seem to be computable by any physical means. We suggest that this close correspondence between the efficiency and power of abstract algorithms on the one hand, and physical computers on the other, finds a natural explanation if the universe is assumed to be algorithmic; that is, that physical reality is the product of discrete subphysical information processing equivalent to the actions of a probabilistic Turing machine. This assumption can be reconciled with the observed exponentiality of quantum systems at microscopic scales, and the consequent possibility of implementing Shor's quantum polynomial time algorithm at that scale, provided the degree of superposition is intrinsically, finitely upper-bounded. If this bound is associated with the quantum-classical divide (the Heisenberg cut), a natural resolution to the quantum measurement problem arises. From this viewpoint, macroscopic classicality is an evidence that the universe is in BPP, and both questions raised above receive affirmative answers.A recently proposed computational model of quantum measurement, which relates the Heisenberg cut to the discreteness of Hilbert space, is briefly discussed. A connection to quantum gravity is noted. Our results are compatible with the philosophy that mathematical truths are independent of the laws of physics.

show abstract

Section: The Quantum Measurement Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quantum Measurement Problem and Physical reality: A Computation Theoretic Perspective

Srikanth¹

2006

AIP Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For any theory, whether it applies to Nature or not, one can consider the information processing possibilities of this theory, the differences from those of classical or quantum theory, and attempt to trace these possibilities back to the fundamental features of the theory. Some authors have indeed investigated unrealistic theo- * Electronic address: jbarrett@perimeterinstitute.ca ries, with a view to understanding the relevant features [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I introduce a framework in which a variety of probabilistic theories can be defined, including classical and quantum theories, and many others. From two simple assumptions, a tensor product rule for combining separate systems can be derived. Certain features, usually thought of as specifically quantum, turn out to be generic in this framework, meaning that they are present in all except classical theories. These include the non-unique decomposition of a mixed state into pure states, a theorem involving disturbance of a system on measurement (suggesting that the possibility of secure key distribution is generic), and a no-cloning theorem. Two particular theories are then investigated in detail, for the sake of comparison with the classical and quantum cases. One of these includes states that can give rise to arbitrary non-signalling correlations, including the super-quantum correlations that have become known in the literature as Nonlocal Machines or Popescu-Rohrlich boxes. By investigating these correlations in the context of a theory with well-defined dynamics, I hope to make further progress with a question raised by Popescu and Rohrlich, which is, why does quantum theory not allow these strongly nonlocal correlations? The existence of such correlations forces much of the dynamics in this theory to be, in a certain sense, classical, with consequences for teleportation, cryptography and computation. I also investigate another theory in which all states are local. Finally, I raise the question of what further axiom(s) could be added to the framework in order uniquely to identify quantum theory, and hypothesize that quantum theory is optimal for computation.

show abstract

“…However, no proof exists yet for the general superiority of quantum computers over their classical counterparts 19 . Specifically, quantum computers are neither known nor believed to be able to solve NP-complete problems efficiently 20 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the survey 20 , none of the models of computation -known or potential one -that are based on physical processes can solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%