TEDxCaltech - Scott Aaronson - Physics in the 21st Century: Toiling in Feynman's Shadow
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ก.พ. 2011
- Scott Aaronson is an Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT. Scott's research interests center around fundamental limits on what can efficiently be computed in the physical world. This has entailed studying quantum computing, the most powerful model of computation we have, based on known physical theory. He also writes a popular blog, www.scottaaronson.com/blog , and is the creator of the Complexity Zoo, qwiki.stanford.edu/index.php/C... , an online encyclopedia of computational complexity theory.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event: In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized. (Subject to certain rules and regulations.)
On January 14, 2011, Caltech hosted TEDxCaltech, an exciting one-day event to honor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate, Caltech physics professor, iconoclast, visionary, and all-around "curious character." Visit TEDxCaltech.com for more details. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
"Quantum mechanics is actually, contrary to its reputation, unbelievably simple once you take all the physics out."
Tony Mottaz WAT?
Tim Horton Scott Aaronson said this at 11:15. I thought it was a great quote, so I posted it :)
+Tony Mottaz Fun fact, he's actually right. The mathematical structure is probably the simplest imaginable -- the kind of stuff undergraduates learn in their first year.
avicenna In what country?
Tim Horton It's true. I realize that this statement sounds absurd to laypeople but the truly complicated and counterintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics arise only when trying to connect it to everyday experience.
Other than that, it's pretty much just linear algebra. That makes it much simpler than probability theory, for instance.
Great talk!
Not everyone has amazing speaking skills, but if you have amazing things to say, then that really doesn't matter.
i know. this guy has been a fav of mine since i saw his buhl lecture 5yrs ago
Very well put
For those who want to catch up on him - He gave a new TEDx talk on "What Quantum Computing Isn't" in 2017 at our event. It's linked in our channel!
'I don't understand the subject matter, and only watched long enough to comment on the speakers body language.'
this is next-level stand-up comedy. brilliant!
I always love listening to Scott Aaronsen lecture. So much giddy enthusiasm. :)
Assertion: P=NP
Feynman: False
Done
Ahmed Abdullah He did say with out proof
jilow That was the proposal 1:40 (Feynman can recognize the answer without the proof which implies his attitude "you silly mathematicians, rigorously proving trivial assertions")
Thats the first thing I thought when greeted with the idea, but I'm not well equipped with the tools of mathematics (Though I try and study at home), I'm not at the point of proofs yet, and the only kind of math I've ever done is plug and chug math where you solve equations. I've just been introducing myself to this other aspect of math, where you describe real things with it (a.k.a Physics) and I think it's pretty cool.
the problem is not even a problem... it's not even a question.
Computers only understand "true" or "false", Any program can tell you whether the answer is correct or not by returning a "true" or "false" value, but how do you find an answer which returns true value??? jesus you don't even have a question in first place.....
This guy is amazing. Zero interest in being a smooth speaker, awesome content.
he's also incredibly smart and asks good questions.
There is something genuinely warm and reassuring in seeing that, even someone with such a brilliant mind, is real and human enough to be seriously affected by nerves when speaking publicly. No matter how sure of your material you are, it takes balls to stand there and say it.
great speech, highly efficient word / time ratio, nice to listen too, clear, understandable, intelligent. kudos
Bravo Scott...I loved your 2017 reprise also
Fantastic talk! Spectacularly hilarious and a refreshing take on qm. Bravo!
That was awesome. I want to learn more from this guy!
Aaronson got Feynman's anecdote about asking mathematicians for non-obvious statements wrong, because Aaron uses "What is the fastest algorithm to multiply two nxn matrices" as an example. But Feynman was asking for statements, not questions. The correct example would have been "True or false, O(n^2.736) is the optimal worst case time complexity for an algorithm multiplying two n x n matrices".
This guy is a hero :D God, laughed my ass off
Having read through his blog I'm considering purchasing his book - a very bright man in the field.
Democritus is a wondrous book. I've skimmed through it three times, didn't understand most of what I read three times, learned an AMAZING amount.
Could have listened to him for hours, very entertaining.
I completely agree with you. I have a mathematical theory that explains QM, in terms of complex system dynamics in high dimensional spaces, but it will be quite a few years before I get it published. It turns out, if you make the single assumption (which is not really an assertion about the human mind's ability to perceive logical reality) that the universe is fundamentally discrete, then you can easily derive the underlying physical origins of Born's rule.
One possible experiment is as follows: Set up a low frequency electromagnetic wave, and an enclosure that only allows the wave to take a specific path where the nodes of the wave are a multiples of a definite length from the photon emission source on a circular track. One should measure a VERY slight increase in the probability of detecting a photon near the nodes of the wave after the light has made numerous rounds of the track (due to discretization of probability near the nodes).
Brilliance.
Totally serious. I don't have a publication on it yet. I am working on a Ph.D. in Computer Science, so it will be a few years before I publish. The basic idea is that probability in Born's rule necessarily implies an underlying complex system. I go on to prove that the system must be discrete by analyzing the PDEs that describe wave behavior. I then derive the underlying particle system that must exist and show that experiments can be done to verify this.
This talk was both highly informative and humorous. His nervous movements are a little distracting to me but certainly do not cover any of his brilliance.
Yes that's true. Pretty amazing really!
The trouble is the constants in the running time of these new "faster" algorithms are so large that they would only make matrix multiplication on the scale that couldn't even fit on modern day computers faster than Strassen's algorithm.
This is really not how I imagined Scott Aaronson from his blog.
me neither... he would seem to be more serious
This is totally is his kind of humour, judging from his book lol
@endoras0666 Before the talk. the emcee had asked everyone to be back from the lunch break by 1:35, "which I'm sure you nerds will remember since those are the first three prime numbers." Mentioning 1 as prime was a joking reference to that.
Scott Aaronson is one of the cleverest persons on the planet.
"Where does that leave theoretical computer science?" Internet porn
There is an error in this talk, the best known complexity for multiplying two matrices isn't 2.76, it's around 2.3 as far as I can remember. The 2.76 algorithm is the most commonly used though.
I agree with his prediction
@myszone Well, assuming it was the slide which was transposed then he says it's 2.376, meaning there's no error in the talk :P
Also, the traveling salesman problem was never thought to be impossible; it's NP-Hard (complete for the decision version), but that doesn't mean impossible, just that there are no known algorithms that solve it in polynomial time. This has been known for decades.
What has been heard cannot be unheard, Mr. Garrison is that you?
P=NP... Forget proving, we had a full unit in college just explaining what those terms meant...
Totally !!
What a great "mad scientist" impersonation.
Didnt get the 351 joke. Can someone explain?:P
I love his odd body movements and his yiddish accent.
You could make the argument that the Universe is THE prime number, e-Pi-i Principle of continuous creation connection, with infinities of leaky holographic uncertainty and instability, so apart from Totality, there's no discrete sub calculations or devices for P = nP.., probably.
Belisimo
Was he in a video with Faye?
Got you all thinking and laughing. RF
Scale-able quantum computer? Are you sure? Because if they had one that could solve the discrete logarithm or integer factorization problem quickly then public key cryptography is broken.
In any case, BQP is not suspected to be equal to NPC (i.e., quantum computers probably won't be able to solve NP-Complete problems in polynomial time, which is what P vs. NP is about).
My brain cells get mad at me each time i watch anything related to physics... The need to chill cuz my brain will be happy when i get rich thanks to this video. I love the humor in this ted talk as i believe that making people laugh is essential to education , and since being a "stand up comedian" is a skill , yes i found out recently , teachers in schools should learn this skill to help the students learn better...and you know it will be priceless as how awkward it will be at the beginning and the cringe might make it even funnier ... No tallent is needed to be funny only hard work (constant joke telling?)
It was listed as one of the seven top problems in math. (The Millennium Problems: The Seven Greatest Unsolved Mathematical Puzzles Of Our Time amazon it!)The solution is a patented piece of software now...non random genetic algorithm (which makes it solvable in polynomial time (last time i checked)).
Quantum Computing=New era of physics which is going to revolutionize the technological world in future.
^^^^^
This is why I do not watch hardly any science programs on TV that deal with physics or astronomy. I wish more people could read your comment.
@endoras0666 Actually he was bloody hilarious. Like the one that ended at 7:30 cracked me right up! :)
Scott uh you know uh Aarinson
btw he did some great work
Its Leonard Hofstadter
@AlohaBay Except 1/0 is not infinity. Not even the limit exists.. Lim(x->+h) 1/x =/= Lim (x->-h) 1/x therefore the limit does not exist. Q.E.D.
i think scott was prepared to do 30 minutes but had to do it in 2x speed. watch in .5 for a laugh.
Came here after watching Lex
how about a url to your publications with that? or were you making a joke lioke Fermat's margin?
Proofs proofs proofs, we need more proofs!!! :D
There is now, since 2.376 was recently crushed by ... 2.373 ...
this guy might be the pinnacle of geekness, still that's a great speech
With regards to the Feynman claim of being able to answer any math question true/false without proof: Strictly speaking, Prof. Aaronson's examples wouldn't have "cleaned Feynman's clock". First both are unsolved, so for P=NP he would have just said "false" (without proof), and who's to say otherwise? The same with the matrix multiplication question. If you chose a problem and asked: is such and such (known) exponent 2.75 or 2.74, he would have said he didn't understand the question.
smart and funny, maybe sometimes awkward, but if all humans were that clever earth would be a better place :)
True
I never said it was impossible, just that quantum computers aren't believed to be able to solve NP-Complete problems in polynomial time if P =/= NP. "Nothing is impossible" is a nice motto, but it's not always true. For instance, there are problems that known to be impossible to solve in all instances by any algorithm (e.g., the halting problem).
How funny if he will be your professor !!!
beat me to it ha!
A new quantum principle, you cant tell what Aronson is saying and where he is standing at the same time within 2.736 footnotes.
Feel free to mock his shuffle or his bad public speaking. People like him are at the very heart of the computer in which you are using to listen to him right now.
So please reconsider your irreverence
The quantum apple has a probability of not falling under the apple tree, doesn't it?
he was only 29 when he gave this lecture..he looks so old in this video..
says to himself, "picture them naked, picture them naked..."
Great talk. It's not true, though, that at Babbage's age there was not technology to build a computer.
so now that stanford has scaleable quantum computers this whole talk is moot?
This is Mulder if he was interested in computer science and engineering instead of aliens.
I got seasick.
but i liked it, thanks
the problem about believing something is impossible is.....that sooner or later someone is gonna make you look like an idiot.."probably won't" The traveling salesman problem stood for 8 years or so and was "impossible" , mind reading mice were 25 years in the making and are now common place at $300 a pop...(very expensive) quantum computers (or hardware that ACTS like a quantum computer is now at Stanford developed in B.C....is YES new in cryptography standards are being developed .......
@endoras0666
probably a joke from an earlier talk
I take it he's not used to public speaking.
Did people laugh because he mentioned 1 as a prime number? ...otherwise I don't get it :-/
Don't worry professor, you are good. For a man to show visiting dignitaries a near critical mass of weapons grade plutonium and ask him to feel the heat emissions, and then fails to attribute his cancer to his time at Los Alamos is sufficient to not find him infallible like the pope.
Can you imagine taking a team of young engineers to do yield calculations with unit record machines? Yes, 70 years on if you couldn't clean his clock it would be very sad indeed!
Seriously funny guy.
Ok??? Ok.
This guy make many breathing errors.
With this error rate he never can play a trumpet.
Why is he dancing?
Because of string theory
He's taunting theoretical physicists today because Feyman did the same to mathematicians
He's talking like he's on speed.
well, iv just witnessed the geek god.
This man is beautifully awkward.
I am not certain about my following statement so correct me if Im wrong.
-- Quantum Mechanics is not probabilistic as he says. This is what Einstein used to think as well but this idea was disproven.--
Correction: It is definitely probabilistic exactly as he says.
To elaborate, classical physics was about using math to determine how direct physical quantities change over time. Modern (quantum) physics on the other hand is about the probability that a particular physical quantity is some value. The mathematical methods that we use to determine how the probabilities (rather than the direct physical quantity itself) change over time is exactly what quantum mechanics is.
Einstein was troubled by this idea of studying the evolution of probabilities rather than deterministic physical properties, but experiments have verified that quantum mechanics is undoubtedly more accurate than any classical theory, in the sense that it's predictions agree with experimental data to a much higher degree than classical physics.
And drink every time he does the "nerd shuffle".
Theoretical computer science would be giving someone a reach around.
hä?
since the audience laughed at that point, it was probably a joke.
uh uh uh uh uh uh
not really
Is it supposed to be more entertaining when _you_ say it?
@hallstripes2 the things he talked about were mathematical philosophy... That's a very different animal from philosophy -- the non-rigorous stuff that the humanities folks delve into.
@hallstripes2 "formally rigorous philosophy" is an oxymoron. Surely, if it's formal then it's mathematics and not philosophy. Philosophising on proven statements in mathematics is the best anyone can do. It is the closest to an ideal "rigorous philosophy". On the other hand, the people who actually call themselves philosophers enjoy spending time forwarding pointless and/or weak arguments from their rear-ends.
Philosophers often use various kinds of formal logic (e.g. modal logics) and Bayesian probability theory (in formal epistemology) to solve philosophical problems. Other examples include decision theory (for problems involving practical rationality) and causal modeling.
Fun drinking game, drink everytime he says "uh.."
@hallstripes2 None that are rigorous enough to be meaningful. It's all half-cocked. You need rigorous footing like what you find in mathematics - the only real philosophy.
Is this a looong apology?
One isn't a prime number you dog!
you lovely lovely jew
1 is not a prime number.
That's the joke
I guess if this dude was thugged out, with tats all over him, a criminal record as long as your arm, can't even READ, I guess he would have some respect?