Is the ‘quantum singularity’ near?
January 18, 2013

(Credit: Christine Daniloff/MIT)
Four research groups have announced progress on a quantum-computing proposal made two years ago by MIT researchers.
In early 2011, two theoretical computer scientists at MIT proposed an optical experiment that would harness the weird laws of quantum mechanics to perform a computation impossible on conventional computers.
Commenting at the time, Terry Rudolph, a quantum-computing researcher at Imperial College London said that the experiment “has the potential to take us past what I would like to call the ‘quantum singularity,’ where we do the first thing quantumly that we can’t do on a classical computer.”
The experiment involves generating individual photons — particles of light — and synchronizing their passage through a maze of optical components so that they reach a battery of photon detectors at the same time.
The MIT researchers — Scott Aaronson, an associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science, and his student, Alex Arkhipov — believed that, difficult as their experiment may be to perform, it could prove easier than building a fully functional quantum computer.
In December, four different groups of experimental physicists, centered at the University of Queensland, the University of Vienna, the University of Oxford and Polytechnic University of Milan, reported the completion of rudimentary versions of Aaronson and Arkhipov’s experiment. Papers by two of the groups appeared back to back in the journal Science; the other two papers are as-yet unpublished.
All four papers, however, appeared on arXiv, an online compendium of research papers, within a span of three days. Aaronson is a co-author on the paper from Queensland, as is Justin Dove, a graduate student in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and a member of MIT’s Optical and Quantum Communications Group.
Changing channels
The original formulation of Aaronson and Arkhipov’s experiment proposed a network of beam splitters, which are optical devices ordinarily used to split an optical signal in half and route it down separate fibers. In practice, most of the groups posting papers on arXiv — those other than the Queensland group — built their networks on individual chips, using channels known as waveguides to route the photons. Where two waveguides come close enough together, a photon can spontaneously leap from one to the other, mimicking the behavior caused by a beam splitter.
Performing a calculation impossible on a conventional computer would require a network of hundreds of beam splitters, with dozens of channels leading both in and out. A few dozen photons would be fired into the network over a random subset of the channels; photodetectors would record where they come out. That process would have to be repeated thousands of times.
The groups posting papers on arXiv used networks of ten or so beam splitters, with four or five channels leading in, and three or four photons. So their work constitutes a proof of principle — not yet the “quantum singularity.”
The computation that Aaronson and Arkhipov’s experiment performs is obscure and not very useful: Technically, it samples from a probability distribution defined by permanents of large matrices. There are, however, proposals to use optical signals to do general-purpose quantum computing, most prominently a scheme known as KLM, after its creators, Emanuel Knill, Raymond Laflamme and Gerard Milburn.
According to Dove, some in the quantum-computing community have suggested that Aaronson and Arkhipov’s experiment may be difficult enough to perform with the requisite number of photons that researchers would be better off trying to build full-fledged KLM systems.
But, Dove says, “One of the ways that Scott and I like to pitch this idea is as an intermediate step that we need to do KLM.” Building a KLM optical quantum computer would entail building everything necessary to perform the Aaronson-Arkhipov experiment — plus a bunch of other, perhaps even more challenging, technologies.
“You can think of Scott and Alex’s result as saying, ‘Look, one of the steps to performing KLM is interesting in its own right,’” Dove says. “So I think it’s inevitable that we’re going to do these experiments, whether people label them that way or not.”
“Quantum singularity” also has various meanings in science fiction. — Editor

In the Star Trek: Voyager episode “Parallax,” the quantum singularity creates a mirror image and a temporal distortion. Voyager flies into the singularity after seeing an image of itself inside. To escape, the crew uses a shuttle and fires a tachyon beam at an opening created upon entry. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)
References:
- Matthew A. Broome et al., Experimental BosonSampling, arxiv.org/abs/1212.2234
- Max Tillmann et al., Experimental Boson Sampling, arxiv.org/abs/1212.2240
- Justin B. Spring et al., Experimental Boson Sampling, arxiv.org/abs/1212.2622
- A. Crespi et al., Experimental boson sampling in arbitrary integrated photonic circuits, arxiv.org/abs/1212.2783
Comments (20)
by anthrobotic
Exactly, Gabor. Star Trek in particular has inspired quite a lot of practical science. EX: Martin Cooper. The 1960s. Sees the Star Trek communicators. Pioneers the mobile phone. http://goo.gl/yJeZB
Aside from this being a nice piece of coverage on the research, including the scene and comment from Star Trek is excellent. It’s humanizing. Down to earth.
Anywhere there’s a current of anti-intellectualism compounding the already considerable marketing problems faced by those encouraging science & tech literacy, being an arrogant, insufferable egghead and criticizing a little flair or lightheartedness – well, that ain’t part of the solution.
So props to Ms. Angelica – your occasional playfulness is noticed and appreciated.
And for all of us who care about science & tech education and sharing & spreading information, just remember, when you have the choice to belittle someone or not, just think: “What would Carl Sagan do?”
-Reno at Anthrobotic.com
by Elliot
how is this a singularity..? there is no event horizon here.
by Doug Safarik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU
by Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis
SAVING ME A LOT OF BOTHER – THANKS.
Dear Amara (and indirectly, to Ray),
I dont agree with Ray’s politics, (or rather the lack of them) but I do appreciate very much being kept up to date with daily hi-tech developments, and particularly in the area of quantum computing, which I believe will be one of the major developments of the 21st century when it finally comes (given its exponentially greater computational capacity, compared to today’s slothful classical computers). Now that I’m an ARCer (after retired careerer) I label myself a “globacator” (global educator), making YouTube home lecture videos on PhD level pure math and math physics to help educate the planet for free, leading to the development of a worldwide middle class, which then dedictates the planet (i.e. rids the world of its last dictators). Since advanced democracies dont go to war with each other, we can expect to live in a war free state (until the artilect starts raising its (very) ugly head) in the coming few decades, so no more arms trade, no more ignorance, no more poverty. One of the topics I will be teaching the planet is definitely quantum computing, so I want to express my gratitude to kurzweilai for saving me the bother of having to do my own literature review to keep up to date – thanks.
Cheers, Hugo
profhugodegaris@yahoo.com
http://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com
=========
by Nyk
May I point out a faulty assumption: that education increases intelligence.
In fact it is the other way around: individual intelligence (half of it genetic) predicts education levels. The intelligence of humans follows a bell curve distribution. Those on the left half of the bell curve will not have the inclination to make the considerable intellectual effort of watching your lectures, or they might not even understand what you’re trying to explain.
Also, you assume that democracy leads away from poverty, while dictatorship does not. Surely this is why India is so much more prosperous than , South Korea, Taiwan, China, Singapore (all of which were, or still are, dictatorships during their period of greatest economic growth)? Except that it is most definitely not.
by de Broglie
Nyk, I am glad you mentioned the distribution of intelligence and its relationship to education.
by pt
I’d imagine that epigenetics and neuroplasticity create a situation where intelligence is highly variable with time. You may have a certain intellectual genetic predisposition prior to education, but that can change dramatically depending on how education engages you, particularly when you involve the element of parenting. While I don’t think the current education system does a great job of accelerating the potential of most people, it’s not a primarily genetic limitation that’s holding their minds back. With the proper lifestyle variables, learning is less of an effort and more an enjoyable exercise of curiosity. Although, like our education system, most people’s conditions don’t enable this, but it’s not a massive leap, imo, for people to be in prime physical and mental health such that curiosity is a natural experience. It’s been shown that IQ is a faulty metric to use for intelligence, and that metric in any case is relative, so it’s difficult to say what the distribution of intelligence looks like with respect to time. Whether it’s a bell curve or not doesn’t matter much if the entire curve can be shifted to higher intelligence levels with a more advanced education system.
Relevant study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220080443.htm
“It’s not how smart students are but how motivated they are and how they study that determines their growth in math achievement. That’s the main finding of a new study that appears in the journal Child Development.”
by Whittaker
“Also, you assume that democracy leads away from poverty, while dictatorship does not. Surely this is why India is so much more prosperous than , South Korea, Taiwan, China, Singapore (all of which were, or still are, dictatorships during their period of greatest economic growth)? Except that it is most definitely not.”
Excellently said! Actually, read this (In Chinese, help yourself with Google Translation)
http://bbs.wforum.com/guns/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=207463
An Indian Student’s opinion
I personally venture out of the English world of Internet a bit everyday to check out information in other languages. With the wonderful help of Google Translation of course.
by snake0
Lack of politics? Nice joke coming from someone who is helping the Chinese government make an artificial brain so they can control their people easier.
by Whittaker
All technologies lead to the Artilect. Professor de Garis is merely working hard to actualize his own vision.
Whether the Chinese (or USA, if you prefer) government use an AI to control their own people is of little concern. Anyways, the human era will end in less than fifty years. Enjoy your last days.
by snake0
I agree, but surely in that case politics don’t matter to begin with? It just seemed like a strange thing to say given his work.
by pt
Last days? Human era ending just means we will begin upgrading ourselves with technology, from my perspective. Perhaps my vision of most people becoming hyperadvanced genius superheroes alongside AIs (not really sure it’s appropriate to call them artificial, at a point) as we expand out and explore the galaxy is flawed, though.
by Jager
Your flesh is a relic, a mere vessel. Hand over your flesh and a new world awaits you. We demand it. – Nah, just kidding. I’m pretty sure we humans will blow each other to hell competing over diminishing natural resorces before the machines get a chance to take over. Which is a great shame since I think computers could do a better job of ruling Earth and expanding throughout the local cluster.
by steve
So the answer to the question posed in this piece’s title would be No.
by Boristabby
Ms. Amara, you are sooo cool.
by eldras
Brilliant. the potential of quantum machines ans quantum computers and eventually quantum robots is parallel to where electricity was in Edison’s time ie we knew it was a breakthrough but not what it could achieve:
It some stage will will have t construct quantum upwards, triggering seemingly spontaneous products to grow from quantum seeding.
MIT lacks people to proactively take their inventions to industry and how would they do that?
by Durabys
I think posting that Voyager-thing picture was not-such-a-great idea. It decreases the validity of the article.
by Editor
It’s clearly identified as “science fiction.”
by Durabys
..and completely off-topic. Sorry.
by Gabor
Yesterdays’s science fiction is today’s science. Excellent article!