
Justin Trudeau explains the basics of quantum computing to reporters - tychonoff
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeaus-quantum-leap/
======
fragsworth
I 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.

~~~
daeken
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.

~~~
TheOsiris
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

~~~
sospep
> 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.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmv4uD2RQ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmv4uD2RQ4)

------
osweiller
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.

~~~
galadran
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.

------
Lanari
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.

------
Torgo
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.

~~~
gjkood
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.

------
getoutofherefly
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.

------
sreenadh
I am hoping that someone is working on a video of Trump answering this
question.

------
dnautics
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.

~~~
gjkood
Isn't getting funding for science actually politics and not science? Using the
funding is science, but getting the funding is politics, no?

~~~
dnautics
You're conflating a strict definition of politics with "playing politics".

~~~
gjkood
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)?

~~~
dnautics
[http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm](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.

------
agnivade
Seems like a publicity stunt to me. The way he answered the question cannot be
impromptu.

