Can Reality be simulated by a huge Quantum Computer? Do we believe that Reality is made of something more than interacting quantum systems? The idea that the whole Physics is ultimately a quantum computation—a strong quantum version of the Church-Turing hypothesis well synthesized by the Wheeler’s coinage It from bit—is very appealing. It is theoretically very parsimonious: an Occam razor’s quality-guaranteed description of the world. But, if this is the case, then we need to understand the entire Physics as emergent from the quantum computation. Here I will make a short exploration on how this may come about. Ask a physicist what does he thinks the world is made of. Very likely the first impetuous answer will be: it is made of particles! But, at a second thought the answer will be: it is a Quantum Field. Particles are just states or the Field: they can be created and annihilated. We have indeed a beautiful Grand Unified Field Theory, and we are looking forward to see the Higg’s boson at the LHC. But what is the Quantum Field made of? Ultimately, it is made of quantum systems that are interacting, each system located at a different position in space. Things may be indeed more complicated than that, because the field is a continuum. But is Reality actually continuous? We don ’ t know: but it looks easier to think to Reality as a continuum. Now, suppose that this is not the case, namely Reality is ultimately discrete, and the continuum is only a mathematical fiction. Then, what else is out there more than interacting quantum
Can Reality be simulated by a huge Quantum Computer? Do we believe that Reality is made of something more than interacting quantum systems? The idea that the whole Physics is ultimately a quantum computation—a strong quantum version of the Church-Turing hypothesis well synthesized by the Wheeler’s coinage It from bit—is very appealing. It is theoretically very parsimonious: an Occam razor’s quality-guaranteed description of the world. But, if this is the case, then we need to understand the entire Physics as emergent from the quantum computation. Here I will make a short exploration on how this may come about. Ask a physicist what does he thinks the world is made of. Very likely the first impetuous answer will be: it is made of particles! But, at a second thought the answer will be: it is a Quantum Field. Particles are just states or the Field: they can be created and annihilated. We have indeed a beautiful Grand Unified Field Theory, and we are looking forward to see the Higg’s boson at the LHC. But what is the Quantum Field made of? Ultimately, it is made of quantum systems that are interacting, each system located at a different position in space. Things may be indeed more complicated than that, because the field is a continuum. But is Reality actually continuous? We don ’ t know: but it looks easier to think to Reality as a continuum. Now, suppose that this is not the case, namely Reality is ultimately discrete, and the continuum is only a mathematical fiction. Then, what else is out there more than interacting quantum
Last chapter, we talked about whether quantum states should be thought of as exponentially long vectors, and I brought up class BQP/qpoly and concepts like quantum advice. Actually, I’d say that the main reason why I care is something I didn't mention last time, which is that it relates to whether we should expect quantum computing to be fundamentally possible or not. There are people, like Leonid Levin and Oded Goldreich, who just take it as obvious that quantum computing must be impossible. Part of their argument is that it's extravagant to imagine a world where describing the state of 200 particles takes more bits then there are particles in the universe. To them, this is a clear indication something is going to break down. So part of the reason that I like to study the power of quantum proofs and quantum advice is that it helps us answer the question of whether we really should think of a quantum state as encoding an exponential amount of information. So, on to the Eleven Objections. Works on paper, not in practice. Violates Extended Church–Turing Thesis. Not enough “real physics.” Small amplitudes are unphysical. Exponentially large states are unphysical. Quantum computers are just souped-up analog computers. Quantum computers aren't like anything we've ever seen before. Quantum mechanics is just an approximation to some deeper theory. Decoherence will always be worse than the fault-tolerance threshold. We don't need fault-tolerance for classical computers. Errors aren't independent. What I did is to write out every skeptical argument against the possibility of quantum computing that I could think of. We'll just go through them, and make commentary along the way. Let me just start by saying that my point of view has always been rather simple: it's entirely conceivable that quantum computing is impossible for some fundamental reason. If so, then that's by far the most exciting thing that could happen for us. That would be much more interesting than if quantum computing were possible, because it changes our understanding of physics. To have a quantum computer capable of factoring 10000-digit integers is the relatively boring outcome – the outcome that we'd expect based on the theories we already have.
“I refute it thus!” Samuel Johnson famously dismissed Bishop George Berkeley's argument for the unreality of matter by kicking a large stone (Boswell, 1823). In the light of modern physics, however, Johnson's simple reasoning evaporates. Apparently solid matter is revealed, on closer inspection, to be almost all empty space, and the particles of which matter is composed are themselves ghostly patterns of quantum energy, mere excitations of invisible quantum fields, or possibly vibrating loops of string living in a ten-dimensional space–time (Greene, 1999). The history of physics is one of successive abstractions from daily experience and common sense, into a counterintuitive realm of mathematical forms and relationships, with a link to the stark sense data of human observation that is long and often tortuous. Yet at the end of the day, science is empirical, and our finest theories must be grounded, somehow, “in reality.” But where is reality? Is it in acts of observation of the world made by human and possibly non-human observers? In records stored in computer or laboratory notebooks? In some objective world “out there”? Or in a more abstract location? The ground of reality When a physicist performs an experiment, he or she interrogates nature and receives a response that, ultimately, is in the form of discrete bits of information (think of “yes” or “no” binary answers to specific questions), the discreteness implied by the underlying quantum nature of the universe (Zeilinger, 2004). Does reality then lie in the string of bits that come back from the set of all observations and experiments – a dry sequence of ones and zeros? Do these observations merely transfer really-existing bits of information from an external world reality to the minds of observers, or are the bits of information created by the very act of observation/experiment? And – the question to which this entire discussion is directed – are bits of “classical” information the only sort of information that count in the reality game, or does an altogether different form of information underpin reality? In short, where is the ontological ground on which our impression of a really-existing universe rests?
I'm going to talk about the title question, but first, a little digression. In science, there's this traditional hierarchy where you have biology on top, and chemistry underlies it, and then physics underlies chemistry. If the physicists are in a generous mood, they'll say that math underlies physics. Then, computer science is over somewhere with soil engineering or some other nonscience. Now, my point of view is a bit different: computer science is what mediates between the physical world and the Platonic world. With that in mind, “computer science” is a bit of a misnomer; maybe it should be called “quantitative epistemology.” It's sort of the study of the capacity of finite beings such as us to learn mathematical truths. I hope I’ve been showing you some of that. How do we reconcile this with the notion that any actual implementation of a computer must be based on physics? Wouldn’t the order of physics and CS be reversed? Well, by similar logic one could say that any mathematical proof has to be written on paper, and therefore physics should go below math in the hierarchy. Or one could say that math is basically a field that studies whether particular kinds of Turing machine will halt or not, and so CS is the ground that everything else sits on. Math is then just the special case where the Turing machines enumerate topological spaces or do something else that mathematicians care about. But then, the strange thing is that physics, especially in the form of quantum probability, has lately been seeping down the intellectual hierarchy, contaminating the “lower” levels of math and CS. This is how I’ve always thought about quantum computing: as a case of physics not staying where it’s supposed to in the intellectual hierarchy! If you like, I’m professionally interested in physics precisely to the extent that it seeps down into the “lower” levels, which are supposed to be the least arbitrary ones, and forces me to rethink what I thought I understood about those levels.
Can we reduce Quantum Field Theory (QFT) to a quantum computation? Can physics be simulated by a quantum computer? Do we believe that a quantum field is ultimately made of a numerable set of quantum systems that are unitarily interacting? A positive answer to these questions corresponds to substituting QFT with a theory of quantum cellular automata (QCA), and the present work is examining this hypothesis. These investigations are part of a large research program on a quantum-digitalization of physics, with Quantum Theory as a special theory of information, and Physics as emergent from the same quantum-information processing. A QCA-based QFT has tremendous potential advantages compared to QFT, being quantum ab-initio and free from the problems plaguing QFT due to the continuum hypothesis. Here I will show how dynamics emerges from the quantum processing, how the QCA can reproduce the Dirac-field phenomenology at large scales, and the kind of departures from QFT that that should be expected at a Planckscale discreteness. I will introduce the notions of linear field quantum automaton and local-matrix quantum automaton, in terms of which I will provide the solution to the Feynman's problem about the possibility of simulating a Fermi field with a quantum computer.
Can we reduce Quantum Field Theory (QFT) to a quantum computation? Can physics be simulated by a quantum computer? Do we believe that a quantum field is ultimately made of a numerable set of quantum systems that are unitarily interacting? A positive answer to these questions corresponds to substituting QFT with a theory of quantum cellular automata (QCA), and the present work is examining this hypothesis. These investigations are part of a large research program on a "quantum-digitalization" of physics, with Quantum Theory as a special theory of information, and Physics as emergent from the same quantum-information processing. A QCA-based QFT has tremendous potential advantages compared to QFT, being quantum "ab-initio" and free from the problems plaguing QFT due to the continuum hypothesis. Here I will show how dynamics emerges from the quantum processing, how the QCA can reproduce the Dirac-field phenomenology at large scales, and the kind of departures from QFT that that should be expected at a Planck-scale discreteness. I will introduce the notions of linear field quantum automaton and local-matrix quantum automaton, in terms of which I will provide the solution to the Feynman's problem about the possibility of simulating a Fermi field with a quantum computer.
After reviewing recently suggested operational "principles of the quantumness", I address the problem on whether Quantum Theory (QT) and Special Relativity (SR) are unrelated theories, or instead, if the one implies the other. I show how SR can be indeed derived from causality of QT, within the computational paradigm "the universe is a huge quantum computer", reformulating QFT as a Quantum-Computational Field Theory (QCFT). In QCFT SR emerges from the fabric of the computational network, which also naturally embeds gauge invariance. In this scheme even the quantization rule and the Planck constant can in principle be derived as emergent from the underlying causal tapestry of space-time. In this way QT remains the only theory operating the huge computer of the universe. Is QCFT only a speculative tautology (theory as simulation of reality), or does it have a scientific value? The answer will come from Occam's razor, depending on the mathematical simplicity of QCFT. Here I will just start scratching the surface of QCFT, analyzing simple field theories, including Dirac's. The number of problems and unmotivated recipes that plague QFT strongly motivates us to undertake the QCFT project, since QCFT makes all such problems manifest, and forces a re-foundation of QFT.