
The recent “How Quantum is the D-Wave Machine?” Shin et.al. paper - jonbaer
http://dwave.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/the-recent-how-quantum-is-the-d-wave-machine-shin-et-al-paper/
======
nmc
Impressive. This guy goes to the extent of linking to the transcript of a talk
perfectly irrelevant to the point. But he cannot link to the paper he is
criticizing.

So here it is:

Shin _et al._ How "Quantum" is the D-Wave Machine?
[http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7087](http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7087)

------
ot
Scott Aaronson is one of the main D-Wave skeptics. His most recent post on the
subject has a nice overview on the latest works on d-wave "quantumness":

[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1643](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1643)

------
troymc
He starts with his philosophy of what science is, which is apparently based on
a TED talk by David Deutsch:

"...good explanations for why things are the way they are."

Oh no. Science, emphatically, does _not_ answer why, or at least not the
ultimate why. It answers _how_ ; it provides a set of models.

To quote Feynman, "While I am describing to you _how_ Nature works, you won't
understand _why_ Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that."
from _QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter_ , p. 10.

~~~
tbrownaw
Actually, "how" _is_ "why".

~~~
lutusp
> Actually, "how" is "why".

In a scientific context, "how" and "why" are generally regarded as separate
questions. Consider the classic case of peppered moth evolution: the "how" is
answered by natural selection -- through random genetic variations the moths
changed color over time to match their changing environment. The "why" is
answered by noting that the camouflaged moths escaped predation by moth-eating
species.

------
bestrapperalive
When I read this blog post, it was like opening a Christmas present and
getting socks.

I don't know much about the state of the art, the points in contention between
the people in this argument, or quantum computing in general. An article that
explained the competing standards for what constitutes a quantum computer and
either made a case for why one standard is more useful or described how one
participant's argument was inconsistent with their standard would have been
genuinely helpful. Instead I read a link to a TED talk, epistemological meta-
babble, and a promise that further experiments are incoming.

This company may be completely legitimate and its product may be the most
revolutionary thing since sliced bread, but I didn't know before I read this
post, I don't know now, and I now think their CTO sounds too Steorn-y for
comfort.

------
Guvante
Wasn't one of the major points about the D-Wave machine that while it appeared
to work quantum like with low numbers of qubits, it appeared classical once
you actually started doing real work?

This would perfectly align with the defended studies. Additionally it would
also align with what skeptics claim it is doing, performing some efficient
classical analysis on custom hardware.

Unfortunately the meat is missing from this response, specifically a non-
trivial example of definitely quantum data.

------
TallGuyShort
>> chief technology officer of D-Wave and 2010 NAGA Brazilian jiu-jitsu light
heavyweight world champion.

He could always challenge skeptics in a fight to the death.

~~~
MrZongle2
Which is why clever skeptics should insist on pistols at 20 paces.

------
lowglow
I recently had the pleasure of talking about this particular subject over
beers with someone very close to the quantum computing community.

The short answer is: "They aren't really doing quantum computing. They're
essentially cheating."

But, I'm no quantum mechanic PhD, so it's not first hand knowledge as to why.

~~~
fidotron
It seems quite likely that whoever turns quantum computing into something
practical will face exactly that criticism from the academic quantum computing
community, largely since it appears construction of what they think of as
proper quantum computers doesn't seem to be too feasible. If D-Wave have
managed it I must admit I'd be surprised, but the amount of venom thrown their
way is curious.

~~~
CJefferson
The venom is understandable in any competition (and the battle to build a
working, useful quantum computer is a major competition between both companies
and universities) where just about every knowledgeable person is convinced
someone cheated.

------
higherpurpose
I think the jury will remain out on this one for the next few generations of
D-wave computers. If by the time it reaches 2k-4k qubits, they still can't
prove without a doubt that it's at least a special form of quantum computing,
then I guess then we'll have our final answer.

~~~
cdibona
From what we've seen (on the nasa/google installation) we're seeing quantum
operation, but yes, once we see 2k qubit chips (which we hope happens within
the year) that's when we'll know about whether there is an actual advantage vs
scalar processors for annealing problems.

This is one of the reasons we're all going round and round on proving
'quantumness' so that when we get a processor with more qubits we can predict
and test that it is indeed all that an a bag of chips.

~~~
levlandau
how do you know you are seeing quantum operation?

------
foobarqux
"D-Wave's Dream Machine" is a good article I submitted recently that never
made the front page.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7128382](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7128382)

------
kposehn
"When I saw how trivially wrong it was it was like opening a Christmas present
and getting socks."

Wait, what is wrong with getting socks at Christmas? >_>

~~~
Tloewald
He can't use his ju-jitsu while wearing socks!

------
lutusp
> D-Wave answers "How Quantum is the D-Wave Machine?"

This is the first time I've heard "quantum" used as an adjective. But probably
not the last.

~~~
bcbrown
Isn't the 'quantum' in "quantum mechanics" an adjective?

~~~
lutusp
> Isn't the 'quantum' in "quantum mechanics" an adjective?

Is "mathematical" in "mathematical physics" an adjective or a noun? I think
it's a noun. On the other hand, the "extreme" in "extreme physics" is an
adjective.

Now for a gray-area example. If I say "very mathematical physics", then
"mathematical" becomes an adjective.

And I might be wrong about this. :)

~~~
duskwuff
> I think it's a noun.

On what grounds? It's being used to modify a noun ("physics"), and can be
modified by an adverb ("very"). This is characteristic of an adjective.

