Justin Trudeau explains the basics of quantum computing to reporters
macleans.caI see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece.
It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
Do you honestly believe that the majority of people (hell, even 10% of people) could explain it to even the level he did? It's still a layman's level -- his response is clearly over-simplified and I doubt he could show the math behind any of it -- but it's far and above what the average person could tell you about the subject.
> Do you honestly believe that the majority of people (hell, even 10% of people) could explain it to even the level he did?
No, and what I said came across wrong. I was surprised, and I think that is sad, because things would be a lot better if most of our politicians understood science and technology.
The surprise should only be when they really, deeply understand something like this.
yes, in fact I believe that everyone who is giving a speech at an institution like that to know everything he talked about if not not more.
he didn't mention anything that you can't find on the first page of a cliffs notes on quantum physics
> he didn't mention anything that you can't find on the first page of a cliffs notes on quantum physics
ummm, i think the idea was to give a "cliff's notes/ELI5" explanation of the subject
If you watched the video[0], a reporter asked a question about a political issue but prefaced his question with a sarcastic question along the lines of "I was going to ask you to explain quantum computing < chuckle, chuckle > When do think Canada's ISIS mission will ...."
When Trudeau answered the question, I think many were somewhat surprised.
Right. In fact I'd bet that 10% is a very generous estimate. I'd be surprised if it's even 1%.
Yes, but almost half of americans understand completely how we were created intelligently.
He went around the perimeter institute building in Waterloo Ontario in Canada and spent some time learning the basics and trying to understand the work that they do there. He did understand the basic ideas that he was saying, it wasn't just a script and he was active and engaged learning throughout the day. Obviously he won't understand very much detail about it, but he doesn't need to. He is a prime minister, not working in this complex field of study. His goal has been trying to understand these more modern technologies so that he can better make decisions for the future. It is important for policy makers to understand the things they are making decisions about.
Can you point out to me in his quote what exactly you claim he understood?
"A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer."
Not sure what you mean here? He spent some time learning and asking questions to some very knowledgeable people in the quantum computing field. Are you trying to imply that he somehow despite all the time he spent that day did not learn anything at all about the quantum computing field? PR stunt or not he spent a good amount of time with these people and I don't see how he would not have learned anything there.
> I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's
Really? I got the impression that he didn't really get the significance of Q-bits and just thought of it as 'stores more stuff than a digital-bit; MORE GB!!!'.
At the same time, I'd be surprised if a man-on-the-street interview would give anywhere near as good of an answer.
> It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
Sad yes, but probably a mentality brought on by the number of U.S. politicians who activity don't believe and don't understand many things in science (great answer from Carl Sagen on Charlie Rose on this: https://youtu.be/U8HEwO-2L4w?t=56).
Thank you for the link to the video. Its probably the most intellectually stimulating 20 minutes I have spent in a long time. I loved the conversation around politicians, religion, ufos, aliens and their particular proclivities.
I am reminded of the choice of selecting Rev. Palmer Joss instead of Dr. Arroway for the mission in 'Contact' because he represents the 99% of the world who have some sort of religious faith vs one holding a scientific or skeptical view of it.
The anti-procrastination feature kicked me off after my last post, but I was planning on submitting the video link to HN after my comment; here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11511570
Interesting note about 'Contact'; the film came out the summer before I was in 7th grade so that and the book are far away in my memory.
When you have half of the American candidates denying climate-change or evolution, you get excited when you see a political leader who evidently has taken the time to have a basic understanding of new and upcoming fields of study.
Please check your categories. One could hardly be sentient if one denies climate change per se and no one does. If rather than these weasel words - not yours of course but introduced when 'global warming' fell out of fashion as a catch phrase - you mean CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) then there are plenty of distinguished scientists who don't go along with that argument. Emphasis is on the C word and fundamentally the argument is a quantitative one bearing on the magnitude of the so-called climate sensitivity parameter i.e., roughly - expected global temperature versus parts per million carbon dioxide.
And Bernie Sanders being in favor of labeling GMOs.
What's wrong with that. I have the right to know the source of the food I eat and decide for myself do I wanna eat it or no...
Watching dozens of videos of Americans answering geography questions would lead me to disagree with you on what the average person knows about quantum physics.
Look at how engineering students answer a question about gravity.
http://www.falstad.com/gravity.html
> Physics 324 - Modern Physics for Engineers
> "A body is at rest tends to stay at rest, plus there's no gravity"
> "The gravity of the moon can be said to be negligible, and also the moon's a vacuum, there is no external force on the pen. Therefore it will float where it is."
> "The pen will float away because the gravitational pull of the moon, being approximately 1/6 that of the earth, will not be enough to cause the pen to fall nor remain stationary where it is. The gravatational pull of other objects would influence the pen"
The answers are kind of scary about the state of science education...
It was a coherent summary of a complex subject, delivered clearly, with just enough information to support the point of his message without getting bogged down in details. This takes skill; popular science writers make their livings and sometimes even become famous based on their ability to create this kind of summary.
Whether or not Trudeau's knowledge of the topic goes any deeper than what he's said here, he's demonstrated that he either cares enough about the subject to have consulted with people who understand it and learned how to repeat their explanations without falling off the rails, unlike good ol' Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens for example, or that he cares about the subject enough to have learned enough about it that he can articulate an opinion in a clear and accessible way. Either way, what's impressive is not that he is repeating information which is true, but that he cares enough about quantum computing to get it right.
It might just be a reflection on North American politics, but I think it is impressive when a politician is willing to educate themselves about the basics of any technical subject.
The Canadian media is highly supportive of Trudeau at the moment and, with the exception of more reputable periodicals like the Globe and Mail and the National Post, are taking every opportunity to gush.
That said, Trudeau has shown a significant capacity to leverage those around him to display competencies he wouldn't have on his own.
I think the National Post is doing more than "not gushing" about Trudeau, they take every opportunity to gut him, and I think it's a very clear indication of our "more reputable periodical's" very clear conservative bias which, as illustrated by the Andrew Coyne incident [0], is transparently driven by owner pressure.
[0] http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/andrew-coyne-resigns-editor-...
Well, he did spend two years studying engineering at a decent school, so it's reasonable to expect him to have a higher aptitude for these things.
Also, you're way overestimating how much a layman knows about computing, quantum or otherwise.
There's just no impressing you, eh?
Agree 'Normal computers work, either there’s power going through a wire or not. It’s 1 or a 0.'
I believe power does not go through the wire, it is current or charges, and usually voltage is used to signal states. We can have wires depending how you define a computer, but in most cases it just feels wrong.
/r/iamverysmart
While this seems planted and trite (much like the "because it's 2015" answer), I have to confess that I don't get quantum computing.
A qubit can hold multiple values, it seems. Okay, that's a data density improvement (presuming a quibit is as dense as a traditional bit). How does that improve computing power (especially by the many magnitudes)? Do you multiply a qubit of infinite values against a quibit of infinite values and have all possible results? I just don't see the bridge from data density to a revolution in computing power.
Note that I'm not saying this as a cynic. I know that this is happening, and a lot of very smart people are excited by it. I just have never seen an explanation that bridges data density to calculation speed.
Note: This explanation is FAR from precise and is only trying to give an intuition
The key point is that qubits aren't limited to finite "multiple values", they can express an uncountable number of values. The best "short" answer is that a qubit can exist in a superposition (QM Term) of states. LOOSELY put it can have a probability of being a 0 and a probability of being 1 (with both probabilities adding to 1). This ability to encode information as the probability is the key to quantum computing.
When you measure (QM Term) the qubit, it takes on either the value 0 or 1 according to the probabilities you set it up with. This is computationally useful because with clever constructions you can make these probabilities meaningful.
For example Grover's Algorithm allows you to search an unsorted database for a particular item in O(sqrt(N)) time rather than the classical best O(N). The algorithm is successful with very high probability, note that because it uses the probabilistic nature of qubits, it itself can only be probabilistically correct, it just so happens you can make the probability of error very low (in theory lower than the chance your classical computer has a bit flip or similar)
The unfortunate restriction on QC is that you need enough qubits to encode your problem, if you can't hold the database in your "qubit memory" then you can't perform algorithm. In practice, building systems of qubits is extremely difficult and the current record is about 1000 as of 2015 I believe.
I'll try to answer this by presenting two types of computations a quantum computer is good at.
1) Quantum Simulation. So in a quantum system, your state can be in a superposition of states ("because waves"). There is a lot of information that resides in the way this system is in superposition and it determines how the system will interfere and evolve (amplification or destruction of certain states). Mathematically, it means you need to keep track of the complex amplitude of each of the 2^n states of a n-qubits system. On a classical computer, this means 2^n complex numbers are necessary to represent the quantum state.
However, on a quantum computer, you only need n-qubits to represent the quantum state, because qubits can be in superposition the same way any quantum state in nature can be. You can now do careful operations on your n-qubits state and simulate any quantum mechanical phenomena. It is therefore way easier to simulate quantum mechanics on a quantum computer than on a classical computer. This could be useful in many areas, like chemistry to simulate protein-folding.
2) Factorization (Shor's algorithm). It is possible to engineer a quantum state that is the superposition of all possible inputs. Then, it is also possible to carefully create interference so that non-solution of the factorization problems get lower amplitude, while solutions get bigger amplitude. At some points you can measure the state and collapse it in one of the state. Since the amplitude of the solutions is big compared to the amplitude of non-solutions, you get the solution with significant probability. You can then verify it using any classical computer because multiplying two numbers is easy. This algorithm breaks most of today public key cryptography used on the internet.
One qubit could hold 0 and1 simultaneously and perform some operations/calculations on it simultaneously.
Two (entangled) qubits could hold 00, 01, 10, 11 simultaneously and perform calculations on these four values simultaneouslty.
...
100 (entangled) qubits could hold 2^100 distinct values simultaneously and perform calculations on them simultaneously.
That's the basic idea. The problem is keeping entangled state that's becomes harder and harder as number of entangled qubits grows.
Also there are limitations in extracting of calculations results from system of qubits, so not all algorithms can be speed up on quantum computers (but e.g. integer factorization can).
I was under the impression that the benefit of quantum computing was the ability to come to the "correct" answer for certain kinds of computationally complex problems instantaneously without having to actually "compute" them. So for example you'd spend a great deal of time up front engineering a way to present a problem to a quantum computer and when you execute said program it gives you the result that very moment without actually having to perform any traditional "operations".
So for example, let's say you wanted to figure out if some enormous number is prime. If you get your program right you could feed it to a quantum computer and all possible states of prime/non-prime would be measured at once resulting in the answer (state) being available the moment you "observe" it.
From this perspective quantum computing can be nearly infinitely faster than traditional computers while at the same time being mostly useless for every-day tasks such as surfing the web.
I'm no expert and might be horrible wrong on the math, but I imagine it like this:
2 bit => 2 ^ 2 => 1 of 4 possible state
2 qbit => 4 of 4 possible states. That's 4 times the information (although extraction of the information is limited)
With bigger numbers:
10bit => 1 of 1024 possible states
10qbit => 1024 of 1024 possible states (1024 times as much)
> Do you multiple a qubit of infinite values against a quibit of infinite values and have all possible results?
The accurate answer would be "no", or at least "thinking that way will lead you to believe that they're more powerful than they are".
In particular, quantum computers won't allow you to solve NP-hard problems in less than exponential time, not unless there's something we're missing in the math.
That said? Since I don't have the chance to describe it better right now, you can start off by thinking "sorta, yes".
There are some great explanation here, but I wanted to add an article that gave me some insight about the subject: http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/01/a-tale-of-two-qubits-...
I couldn't recommend enough Michael Nielsen's on quantum computation. He has also written many articles:
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/quantum-computing-for-the-det...
Google 'quantum complexity classes'.
Looks to me he used a bunch of buzzwords followed by a humble brag.
In reality it isn't so weird for a leader to know about quantum physics, like if you asked Angela Merkel I bet she will actually explain the concept. So I don't get all this hype.
Trudeau is reasonably smart, and admitted his knowledge was basic. It's everyone else that's acting ridiculous.
>“I was flabbergasted,” Laflamme says. “I don’t know how he does in other subjects, but in quantum physics, he knows the basic pieces and the important questions.”
Maybe he read a single article about quantum theory in an issue of Popular Science. Maybe, before an event at a facility where he knew he would be speaking, he spent fifteen minutes reading something he asked an aide to give him, so he could speak intelligently about it.
Canada should be congratulated for selecting a PM who atleast takes the trouble to educate himself before spouting an opinion.
Here in the US, we elect politicians who actively deny science and are proud of their lack of knowledge.
I agree it is sad that people are making a big deal about a politician seeming to have a basic grasp of a science that is not well understood, but at the same time a high level understanding is really all he should have.
I think that ideally politicians should be working at a high level of abstraction (like any manager/executive in any field, especially technical). This means having a high level, big picture understanding of a field and the major benefits and hurdles to overcome.
Having a deep understanding of one area like this would make people in that field happy maybe, but it would not necessarily make him better at making big policy decisions and balancing the needs of the quantum computing industry with the other industries and the needs of the country.
The problem is that politicians generally tend to only be good at one thing: politics. A good leader would strive to understand at a high level all of the topics that involve policy decisions, with the intelligence to dive deeper if need be or be able to understand and verify the advice of an expert in that field and make educated decisions. This is usually not the case, but when it is we shouldn't deride someone for only having a topical knowledge of our own fields.
I am hoping that someone is working on a video of Trump answering this question.
The statement itself is pure technobabble.
"A regular computer bit is either a one or a zero, either on or off. A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer."
To be sure, there are statements in there that are correct, but they don't connect up to a coherent description of the science behind QC. In short: I see words, I do not see understanding.
What is distressing or embarrassing though is the scientist who blatantly kowtows to Trudeau:
“I was very impressed he made an attempt,” said Dr. Lucien Hardy. “He got it spot on.”
No. He didn't get it "spot on". But I suppose if the prime minister is spearheading an initiative to fund you you'd better not embarrass him. But that sort of political play is not how you're supposed to do things in science.
Isn't getting funding for science actually politics and not science? Using the funding is science, but getting the funding is politics, no?
You're conflating a strict definition of politics with "playing politics".
I am just suggesting that both politicians and scientists may need to do things that they may despise to get what they want.
Politicians may need to kiss babies to get elected and scientists may need to kiss politicians (metaphorically) to get funding :).
Isn't the ability to "play politics" a significant factor in rising up a hierarchy (scientific or otherwise)?
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
"I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I’m not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to do when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen....
So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom."
After quitting traditional academic science, so far I have found that I haven't had to compromise my integrity in the pursuit of science. It hasn't been easy, but I am happy with where I am, so far.
Seems like a publicity stunt to me. The way he answered the question cannot be impromptu.