With the progress of the research in Quantum Computation and other unconventional forms of computations(e.g.DNA computation),the idea that one can just look physical procedures themselves as computations,or more precisely,one can solve a problem by substituting specific physical procedures Turing machines has also been developed.However,because of the obscurity in its fundamental concepts,this theory so far actually remains quite ambiguous and makes people hard to analyze. In this paper,we unify the forms of input/output,strictly describe the three crucial parts of all physical experiments: initialization,evolution and measurement,and then,introduce a formal definition of physical computation(including the deterministic version and the probabilistic version).Based on this,the concept of physical complexity is given,which includes energy and mass as two new fundamental resources in addition to the classical ones: time and space.So the complexity qualifies the amount of these 4 resources with respect to the length of input.As examples,we have analyzed DNA computation,Quantum computation and a famous example-Calculating average of three numbers using statistical physics,due to Pitowsky. Besides,the issues about the computability of some classical non-computable functions under physical computation are also discussed in this paper.We conclude,that all of the examples discussed in this paper fail to outdo universal Turing machine in computability,considering the infinite resources they cost before obtaining the correct answer.
The physics and the mathematics of computation are examined to provide a foundation and perspective for the investigation of the quantum mechanics of computation. Our purpose is to explore the fundamental limits and constraints imposed on computation by Nature through the laws of physics and the mathematics of computational complexity. Inasmuch as information storage and transmission are an integral part of computation, their physical bounds are considered. The computer is viewed both physically and mathematically as a dynamical system, and is depicted in terms of the basic Turing machine paradigm. Three fundamental classes of the Turing machine are defined; the deterministic, stochastic and quantum Turing machines. Hamiltonian models and physical realizations of quantum computing are described. Quantum computers can perform some tasks which have no classical analogue, but they cannot compute functions that are non-computable by classical means. Some classically intractable problems can be solved with quantum computers.
Abstract It is argued that underlying the Church–Turing hypothesis there is an implicit physical assertion. Here, this assertion is presented explicitly as a physical principle: ‘every finitely realizible physical system can be perfectly simulated by a universal model computing machine operating by finite means’. Classical physics and the universal Turing machine, because the former is continuous and the latter discrete, do not obey the principle, at least in the strong form above. A class of model computing machines that is the quantum generalization of the class of Turing machines is described, and it is shown that quantum theory and the 'universal quantum computer’ are compatible with the principle. Computing machines resembling the universal quantum computer could, in principle, be built and would have many remarkable properties not reproducible by any Turing machine. These do not include the computation of non-recursive functions, but they do include ‘quantum parallelism’, a method by which certain probabilistic tasks can be performed faster by a universal quantum computer than by any classical restriction of it. The intuitive explanation of these properties places an intolerable strain on all interpretations of quantum theory other than Everett’s. Some of the numerous connections between the quantum theory of computation and the rest of physics are explored. Quantum complexity theory allows a physically more reasonable definition of the ‘complexity’ or ‘knowledge’ in a physical system than does classical complexity theory.
Lots of efforts in the last decades have been done to prove or disprove whether the set of polynomially bounded problems is equal to the set of polynomially verifiable problems. This paper will present an overview of the current beliefs of quantum complexity theorists and discussion detail the impacts these beliefs may have on the future of the field. We introduce a new form of Turing machine based on the concepts of quantum mechanics and investigate the domain of this novel definition for computation. The main object is to show the domain of these computation machines and the new definition of algorithms using these automata. In section one we give a brief fundamental overview of classical complexity theory, Turing machine and all the fundamental concepts required for the next chapters. In section two we describe various classes of classical complexity automata. In next chapter we introduce quantum complexity featuring quantum Turing machines and discuss its relationship to classical complexity. Section four presents a relationship between quantum complexity classes based on the quantum Turing machines and quantum oracles, and their relationship with corresponding classical complexity classes. And section five presents a discussion on the practical phenomena in problem solving using quantum computers. Finally in section five we speculate briefly on the direction we believe the field to be headed, and what might reasonably be expected in the future
The rapid evolution of computers in the half century since their invention has resulted in dramatically smaller and faster computers. However, from a computational point of view, all these computers look alike; for example, they are built out of simple logic gates. A fundamental thesis of computer science---the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis---asserts that this is inevitable in a deep sense. Any computer can be simulated with at most a polynomial factor slowdown by a probabilistic Turing machine. Quantum computation poses the first credible challenge to this thesis. It goes back to a suggestion by Feynman [4], who pointed out that there appears to be no efficient way of simulating a quantum mechanical system on a computer, and suggested that, perhaps, a computer based on quantum physical principles might be able to carry out the simulation efficiently. Two formal models for quantum computers---the quantum Turing machine [2] and quantum computational networks [3]---were defined by Deutsch. The first three papers in this issue describe efficient quantum algorithms for computational tasks that we do not know how to solve classically. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani give the first formal evidence that quantum computers violate the modern form of the Church--Turing thesis. They show that a certain problem---the recursive Fourier sampling problem---can be solved in polynomial time on a quantum Turing machine, but relative to an oracle, requires superpolynomial time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. Simon, in the paper "On the Power of Quantum Computation" introduces a fundamental projection technique and uses it to design an efficient quantum algorithm to determine whether a certain type of function is 2-1 or 1-1. He further shows that, relative to an oracle, this problem requires exponential time on a classical probabilistic Turing machine. In the paper "Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer," Shor gives remarkable polynomial time quantum algorithms for two of the most famous problems in computer science: factoring and discrete log. Since the computational hardness of these problems is the basis of several famous cryptosystems, Shor's paper very dramatically underlines the power of quantum computers. To understand the computational power of quantum computers, it is helpful to consider a quantum mechanical system of n particles, each of which can be in one of two states, labeled
∣0⟩ and
∣1⟩. If this were a classical system, then its instantaneous state could be described by n bits. However, in quantum physics, the system is allowed to be in a linear superposition of configurations, and indeed the instantaneous state of the system is described by a unit vector in the 2n dimensional vector space, whose basis vectors correspond to all the2n classical configurations. Therefore, to describe the instantaneous state of the system, we must specify 2n complex numbers. Nature must update 2n complex numbers at each instant to evolve the system in time. This is an extraordinary amount of effort, since even for n = 200, 2n is larger than estimates of the number of elementary particles in the visible universe. Nonetheless, there are limits to the power of quantum computers. In "Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing," Bennett, Bernstein, Brassard, and Vazirani show that, relative to a random oracle, with probability 1, the class NP cannot be solved on a quantum Turing machine in time o(2n/2). This bound is tight, since recent work of Grover [5] has shown how to accept any language in NP in time O(2n/2) on a quantum Turing machine. Quantum computers are necessarily time reversible. Indeed, Bennett's work [1] on reversible computation inspired early work on quantum computation that preceded Feynman's paper [4]. The reversibility requirement makes it quite complex to implement even basic computational primitives such as looping or composition. In "Quantum Complexity Theory," Bernstein and Vazirani show how to implement quantum programming primitives and give a construction for an efficient universal quantum Turing machine. The structure of the universal quantum Turing machine is quite simple: it consists of a deterministic Turing machine with a single "quantum coin flip." In "Quantum Computability," Adleman, DeMarrais, and Huang greatly simplify this further by showing that a very simple type of coin flip is sufficient---a rotation by an angle
θ such that
sinθ=3/5. Making quantum computers robust against noise and decoherence is an important and challenging problem. In "Stabilization of Quantum Computations by Symmetrization," Barenco, Berthiaume, Deutsch, Ekert, Jozsa, and Macchiavello show how to use the quantum watchdog effect to stabilize a quantum computation against noise. Their method is based on running several copies of the quantum computer in parallel and projecting its state into the symmetric subspace at frequent intervals. They show that the quantum watchdog effect results in the suppression of errors that lie outside the symmetric subspace. Quantum computation touches upon the foundations of both computer science and quantum physics. It is not unlikely that the issues raised by quantum computation will stimulate further research into the foundations of quantum physics. I wish to express my gratitude to several people who made this special section possible. Oded Goldreich acted as editor for two of the papers in the issue and dealt with them with his characteristic efficiency and judgment. The editorial staff at SIAM, most notably Lisa Dougherty, Beth Gallagher, Deidre Wunderlich, and Sam Young, were extremely helpful, patient, and resourceful. Finally, I would like to thank a number of referees whose careful and timely reviews were critical to putting together this issue. Umesh Vazirani
Computation is a process of performing a large number of simple operations. The main building blocks of classical computers are bits. Each of them can take either the value 0 or 1. A series of gates can change these values by acting on them selectively. This process is structured to fulfil a purpose. For example, if we are interested in adding two numbers, the numbers are encoded into bits and gates are performed such that the final state of the bits reveals the desired answer: a number which is the sum of the initial ones. While it is possible to build algorithms that can perform almost any computation, it is also desirable to find the answer within a reasonable length of time or with a reasonable amount of resources. There is an ever-growing demand in computational power for both scientific and commercial purposes. Indeed, it is surprisingly easy to find an application that can jam even the fastest computer. This fuels a vast effort in the research of information science to increase the speed and processing power of computers. Modern computational models are based on the universal Turing machine (Turing, 1937). This is a theoretical information processing model that employs the elementary gate processes described above. It can efficiently simulate any other device capable of performing an algorithmic process. Since the introduction of the Turing machine, physics has influenced computation in many ways.
Church-Turing Thesis as saying something about the scope and limitations of physical computing machines. Although this was not the intention of Church or Turing, the Physical Church Turing thesis is interesting in its own right. Consider, for example, Wolfram’s formulation: One can expect in fact that universal computers are as powerful in their computational capabilities as any physically realizable system can be, that they can simulate any physical system...Nophysically implementable procedure could then shortcut a computationally irreducible process. (Wolfram 1985) Wolfram’s thesis consists of two parts: (a) Any physical system can be simulated (to any degree of approximation) by a universal Turing machine (b) Complexity bounds on Turing machine simulations have physical significance. For example, suppose that the computation of the minimum energy of some system of n particles takes at least exponentially (in n) many steps. Then the relaxation time of the actual physical system to its minimum energy state will also take exponential time. An even more extreme formulation of (more or less) the same thesis is due to Aharonov (1998): A probabilistic Turing machine can simulate any reasonable physical device in polynomial cost. She calls this The Modern Church Thesis. Aharonov refers here to probabilistic Turing machines that use random numbers in addition to the usual deterministic table of steps. It seems that such machines are capable to perform certain tasks faster than fully deterministic machines. The most famous randomized algorithm of that kind concerns the decision whether a given natural number is prime. A probabilistic algorithm that decides primality in a number of