Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

ACM SIGACT News

Guest Column: NP-complete problems and physical reality

Scott Aaronson

Published Mar 1, 2005• 226 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Can NP-complete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adiabatic algorithms, quantum-mechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, quantum gravity, closed timelike curves, and "anthropic computing." The section on soap bubbles even includes some "experimental" results. While I do not believe that any of the proposals will let us solve NP-complete problems efficiently, I argue that by studying them, we can learn something not only about computation but also about physics.

DOI
10.1145/1052796.1052804

Related papers

NP-complete Problems and Physical Reality

Scott Aaronson

Can NP-complete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adiabatic algorithms, quantum-mechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, quantum gravity, closed timelike curves, and "anthropic computing." The section on soap bubbles even includes some "experimental" results. While I do not believe that any of the proposals will let us solve NP-complete problems efficiently, I argue that by studying them, we can learn something not only about computation but also about physics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0502072•Feb 12, 2005•153 citations

If Many Physicists Are Right and No Physical Theory Is Perfect, Then by Using Physical Observations, We Can Feasibly Solve Almost All Instances of Each NP-Complete Problem

Olga M. Kosheleva, Michael Zakharevich, Владик Крейнович

Many real-life problems are, in general, NP-complete, i.e., informally speaking, are difficult to solve -- at least on computers based on the usual physical techniques. A natural question is: can the use of non-standard physics speed up the solution of these problems? This question has been analyzed for several specific physical theories, e.g., for quantum field theory, for cosmological solutions with wormholes and/or casual anomalies, etc. However, many physicists believe that no physical theory is perfect, i.e., that no matter how many observations support a physical theory, inevitably, new observations will come which will require this theory to be updated. In this paper, we show that if such a no-perfect-theory principle is true, then the use of physical data can drastically speed up the solution of NP-complete problems: namely, we can feasibly solve almost all instances of each NP-complete problem.

Matematičeskie struktury i modelirovanie•Jan 1, 2014•4 citations

Quantum computers and intractable (NP-complete) computing problems

V. Černý

In this paper we discuss physical aspects of intractable (NP-complete) computing problems. We show, using a specific model, that a quantum-mechanical computer can in principle solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time; however, it would use an exponentially large energy for that computation. We conjecture that our model reflects a complementarity principle concerning the time and the energy needed to perform an NP-complete computation.

Physical Review A•Jul 1, 1993•38 citations

Different adiabatic quantum optimization algorithms for the NP-complete exact cover and 3SAT problems

ChoiVicky

One of the most important questions in studying quantum computation is: whether a quantum computer can solve NP-complete problems more efficiently than a classical computer? In 2000, Farhi, et al. ...

Quantum Information and Computation•Jul 1, 2011•9 citations

Quantum Computing: Solving Complex Problems

David Peter Divincenzo

One of the motivating ideas of quantum computation was that there could be a new kind of machine that would solve hard problems in quantum mechanics. There has been significant progress towards the experimental realization of these machines (which I will review), but there are still many questions about how such a machine could solve computational problems of interest in quantum physics. New categorizations of the complexity of computational problems have now been invented to describe quantum simulation. The bad news is that some of these problems are believed to be intractable even on a quantum computer, falling into a quantum analog of the NP class. The good news is that there are many other new classifications of tractability that may apply to several situations of physical interest.

•Apr 11, 2007•0 citations

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

R. Srikanth

Abstract. 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 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.

•Feb 14, 2006•8 citations
Can NP-complete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adiabatic algorithms, quantum-mechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, quantum gravity, closed timelike curves, and "anthropic computing." The section on soap bubbles even includes some "experimental" results. While I do not believe that any of the proposals will let us solve NP-complete problems efficiently, I argue that by studying them, we can learn something not only about computation but also about physics.
Can NP-complete problems be solved efficiently in the physical universe? I survey proposals including soap bubbles, protein folding, quantum computing, quantum advice, quantum adiabatic algorithms, quantum-mechanical nonlinearities, hidden variables, relativistic time dilation, analog computing, Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, quantum gravity, closed timelike curves, and "anthropic computing." The section on soap bubbles even includes some "experimental" results. While I do not believe that any of the proposals will let us solve NP-complete problems efficiently, I argue that by studying them, we can learn something not only about computation but also about physics.
Many real-life problems are, in general, NP-complete, i.e., informally speaking, are difficult to solve -- at least on computers based on the usual physical techniques. A natural question is: can the use of non-standard physics speed up the solution of these problems? This question has been analyzed for several specific physical theories, e.g., for quantum field theory, for cosmological solutions with wormholes and/or casual anomalies, etc. However, many physicists believe that no physical theory is perfect, i.e., that no matter how many observations support a physical theory, inevitably, new observations will come which will require this theory to be updated. In this paper, we show that if such a no-perfect-theory principle is true, then the use of physical data can drastically speed up the solution of NP-complete problems: namely, we can feasibly solve almost all instances of each NP-complete problem.
One of the motivating ideas of quantum computation was that there could be a new kind of machine that would solve hard problems in quantum mechanics. There has been significant progress towards the experimental realization of these machines (which I will review), but there are still many questions about how such a machine could solve computational problems of interest in quantum physics. New categorizations of the complexity of computational problems have now been invented to describe quantum simulation. The bad news is that some of these problems are believed to be intractable even on a quantum computer, falling into a quantum analog of the NP class. The good news is that there are many other new classifications of tractability that may apply to several situations of physical interest.
Abstract. 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 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.