Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

John Cox: on 10/2/22 at 1:33am UTC, wrote A proposal for dealing with errors in quantum computers by harnessing a...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/25/22 at 14:29pm UTC, wrote My theory and equation try to unify the informations, the mass and the...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/25/22 at 13:40pm UTC, wrote It is mainly how these quantum computers solve the complex problems that...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/25/22 at 12:52pm UTC, wrote Congrats to them, it is merited for their works about the quantum...

Zeeya Merali: on 9/22/22 at 16:21pm UTC, wrote Congratulations to Charles Bennett of IBM, Gilles Brassard of the...


John Cox: "A proposal for dealing with errors in quantum computers by harnessing a..." in Quantum information...

Steve Dufourny: "There is no proof that the universe can be explained like this like an..." in Schrödinger’s A.I....

Georgina Woodward: "'verisimilitude' is a nice word." in Can We Feel What It’s...

R.H. Joseph: ""[H]ow consciousness plays with quantum mechanics, our theory of the very..." in Can We Feel What It’s...

Jim Snowdon: "If Earth rotated once a year, rather than once every 24 hours, every..." in The Nature of Time

Jim Snowdon: "The constant rotational speed of San Diego is 1,408 kilometers per hour. ..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Dufourny: "If we don t change the global system, we shall add an ocean of chaotical..." in Global Collaboration

Steve Dufourny: "Hi all, The world must absolutelly find adapted solutions , here is the..." in Global Collaboration

click titles to read articles

Schrödinger’s A.I. Could Test the Foundations of Reality
Physicists lay out blueprints for running a 'Wigner's Friend' experiment using an artificial intelligence, built on a quantum computer, as an 'observer.'

Expanding the Mind (Literally): Q&A with Karim Jerbi and Jordan O'Byrne
Using a brain-computer interface to create a consciousness 'add-on' to help test Integrated Information Theory.

Quanthoven's Fifth
A quantum computer composes chart-topping music, programmed by physicists striving to understand consciousness.

The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer
A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

Can We Feel What It’s Like to Be Quantum?
Underground experiments in the heart of the Italian mountains are testing the links between consciousness and collapse theories of quantum physics.

October 2, 2022

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Quantum information pioneers win US$3-million Breakthrough Prize [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 22, 2022 @ 16:21 GMT
Charles Bennett, Breakthrough Prizes
Congratulations to Charles Bennett of IBM, Gilles Brassard of the University of Montreal, David Deutsch of Oxford University and Peter Shor at MIT for sharing this year’s Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. I’ve written more about the win for Nature, as well as the awards in the Life Sciences and in Maths.

The physicists were recognised as founders of the field of quantum information, laying the groundwork for many of today’s advances in quantum communication, cryptography and quantum computing. In 1984, Bennett and Brassard developed the BB84 protocol for exploiting quantum effects for secure communication. In 1985, Deutsch published a paper outlining the first ‘universal quantum computer.’ And then in the 90s, Shor developed an algorithm enabling a quantum computer to factorise large numbers—the first quantum algorithm to describe a practically useful process. It also has potentially troubling consequences, because much of today’s Internet traffic is encoded using a system based on the fact that classical computers cannot factorise large numbers quickly.

In our interview, Shor recalled being reluctant to tell people what he was working on until he had the algorithm; he did mention it to one colleague who “poo pooed” it. But once published, he had assumed that many more would follow, which hasn’t really transpired.

I contacted quantum physicist Sabrina Maniscalco at the University of Helsinki for her reaction to the win, but in the end her quote got cut because the article is quite long. However, I want to share her thoughts on the importance of supporting foundational research. “This prize recognises the importance of purely intellectual-curiosity driven research,” Maniscalco told me. “It shows us how unveiling the fundamental laws of our Universe gives us the fruits of new empowering technologies that will help us face the challenges our society is facing, from climate change to health care and sustainable development.”

Gilles Brassard, Breakthrough Prizes
Quantum computing has also been in the news in recent weeks thanks to a provocative article by Nikita Gourianov, a quantum physicist at Oxford University, who wrote a piece in The Financial Times about “The Quantum Computing Bubble.” There have been numerous announcements in recent years of small-scale quantum computers performing specific tasks faster than a classical supercomputer could. IBM's Eagle quantum computer is the biggest of the current crop, I believe, with 127 quantum bits. Nonetheless Gourianov is concerned that large-scale quantum computers are significantly harder to build because of the difficult challenge of dealing with errors.

David Deutsch, Breakthrough Prizes
Gourianov’s piece caused a bit of a stir. Scott Aaronson gave a brief response, on his blog, noting that there are known strategies for addressing errors, even if it may take a while to develop the technological capabilities to deal with them. Given this discussion, I also contacted Gourianov for comment on the physics prize. Part of his comment has been included in the Nature article, but anyone who has read the FT piece can probably guess that his positive quote was tempered by a big “but” that followed, which has been cut to save space.

Here is Guarinov’s full quote, with a bit of extra context:

“This massive result proved that quantum computers were more than just another academic curiosity,” says quantum physicist Nikita Gourianov, also at Oxford. However, Gourianov has been urging against overhyping progress. He notes that building a large-scale quantum computer is no easy feat. "Whenever quantum computers become larger, the noise and errors explode," he says.

I also spoke to Shor about this concern. He agreed that building a large-scale quantum computer remains an “immense engineering job” adding that error-correction will require gates that are 10 to 100 times more accurate than we have now. He was not pariticularly surprised by any backlash to quantum computing. “The media hype has really accelerated over the past few years,” giving the wrongful impression that a large-scale quantum computer lies around the corner, he told me. “It’s probably going to take 20, 30 or even 40 years,” he added.

Peter Shor, Breakthrough Prizes
This, of course, shouldn’t detract from the well-deserved wins by the physics winners—and indeed the life sciences winners and the maths winner. You can read more about them all in the Nature piece. And for a fun proposal for dealing with errors in quantum computing by harnessing a portal to an extra time dimension (of sorts), check out this article I wrote for Scientific AmericanNew Phase of Matter Opens Portal to Extra Time Dimension,” in July.

I’ll finish with more words from Maniscalco, who was speaking in the context of the Fundamental Physics award, but whose words are probably relevant for all the winners, and indeed beyond:

“History teaches us that…we need resources, focus, and hard work,” she says. “But most of all we need to believe in the impossible and make it happen.”

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 25, 2022 @ 12:52 GMT
Congrats to them, it is merited for their works about the quantum computing.

If you take the church thesis and the theory of numbers with the factorizations and a ranking of algorythms with discreteness and in trying to converge with the spin and quantum mechanics ,the fourier transformations are relevant if and only if you find the correct foundamental objects and the philosophical origin...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 25, 2022 @ 13:40 GMT
It is mainly how these quantum computers solve the complex problems that our actual classical computers cannot solve, so in a sense it is about the multidimenisonal spaces and the outputs and how the quantum computers can find the solution in computing their own computational spaces , that implies the necessity to create the correct algorythms with the sortings, synchros, superposititons to reach the correct answer in these computations of spaces. We return about these foundamental objects also and they imply spaceific spaces also that we actually don t know. But if we mimate the universe and a kind of logic about these spherical volumes, that will permit to have better quantum computers able to solve more complex problems still , there is nothing of more complex that the primary series of spheres and their motions, oscillations, vibrations . The spaces are in 3D but can be fractalised and create these mutidimensional spaces, the informations also need to be better understood, and if this DE is the secret that we don t know well still and that we have not still found like massless scalar fields in our standard model , that become relevant to try harmonical possible solutions for these series primary, these computers can find the road to solve these unknowns.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 25, 2022 @ 14:29 GMT
My theory and equation try to unify the informations, the mass and the energy in a kind of equivalence. If the dark energy is quantum informations of negative pressure , and that this dark matter are the quantas of mass and that these photons are the quantas of heat and electromagnetism and if these informations of the space vacuum and its fluctuations possess the main codes, that become relevant for the quantum computing also because it is this DE which encodes the CDM and photons to create this ordinary matter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox wrote on Oct. 2, 2022 @ 01:33 GMT
A proposal for dealing with errors in quantum computers by harnessing a portal to an extra time dimension (sort of) need not be as esoteric as usually indulged in by arguments on the nature of time; the nice thing about theoretics is that for practical purposes the scientist has the option of simply choosing what a useful dimension might be, timewise or otherwise.

So a useful purpose might be to biforate a time parameter into a proper linear time, and an extra (sort of) dimension which would be the bounded interval of light velocity being a chosen non-linear speed of the linear time interval as somewhere between nil and equivalent light velocity. Relativisticly speaking; time only appears to stop at light velocity for the object in motion because light velocity is as fast as time can go.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.