The X Windows Solution

Posted on by
8

A Sun 3/60 Workstation in the late 1980s.

I recently did an interview for an educational video about quantum physics. The filmmaker, who needed some cutaway shots to stitch the interview segments together, suggested a shot of me walking through the server room in my building. I complied, gazing with interest and concern as I strolled past the machines. But I felt very uncomfortable about the phoniness of this scene, because I had never been in the server room before and had no idea what I was looking at.

The experience reminded me, though, of the one time in my life when I felt like I was near the cutting edge of the digital revolution, nearly 20 years ago, as the World Wide Web was just emerging as the Next Big Thing.

Continue reading →

The Future Of Education

Posted on by

I’m a senior software engineer at Knewton, a company that aims to personalize education through adaptive learning technology. Also, in my free time I write stories and design games to teach kids about computer science as DrTechniko. My How To Train Your Robot game, for example, lets kids “program” their parents to do tasks for them. It’s intuitive and fun for kids because they get to “command” their parents. At the same time the parents get a good workout by the end of the class.

But, why do I care about kids and computer science education?

  • Computer science combines problem solving with practical outcomes for a society that is increasingly high-tech.
  • Creative problem solving needs to become the no.1 skill that schools teach today. Information is already available everywhere. Kids need to know how to put this together and solve real, challenging problems.
  • We need to feel comfortable with technology and control it. If we don’t teach this culture to our five-year-olds, then we can’t grow as a society and civilization. We have to “learn to drive a car and let go of the horse”. The lawyer of 2034 needs to know how to program. Everything around her will be programmable.

All of us working to revolutionize education have such goals in mind and we want to break the current educational stereotypes, because they won’t get us there. Instead, every kid becomes a “copy” coming out of a factory-like assembly line called the school. Only recently have we began to develop the tools that allow students to personalize the way they learn new things. The next step is to give kids the tools they need to learn how to learn the things they need in order to unleash their creative potential.

Continue reading →

Showtime for Sophomores

Posted on by
9

Exciting a square Chladni plate with a violin bow.

One of the many unique features of Caltech is our core curriculum. All of our undergraduates are required to take five terms of physics and five terms of math (all three terms freshman year and the fall and winter terms sophomore year) — though this will change for the class entering in the fall of 2013.

Each fall, about 170 sophomores take Physics 2a, a course on vibrations, waves, and quantum mechanics, while the remaining 60 or so sophomores take Physics 12a, a souped up course covering similar material at a level more appropriate for physics concentrators.

This term I am teaching Physics 2a. While 170 students is a lot more than in most courses I teach at Caltech, the workload is manageable, in part because I share the lecturing duties with another professor, and in part because we have a staff of capable and hard working Teaching Assistants who handle recitation sections and grade the homework and quizzes.

Continue reading →

It’s been a tough week for hidden variable theories

Posted on by
31

The RSS subscriptions which populate my Google Reader mainly fall into two categories: scientific and other. Sometimes patterns emerge when superimposing these disparate fields onto the same photo-detection plate (my brain.) Today, it became abundantly clear that it’s been a tough week for hidden variable theories.

Let me explain. Hidden variable theories were proposed by physicists in an attempt to explain the ‘indeterminism’ which seems to arise in quantum mechanics, and especially in the double-slit experiment. This probably means nothing to many of you, so let me explain further: the hidden variables in Tuesday’s election weren’t enough to trump Nate Silver’s incredibly accurate predictions based upon statistics and data (hidden variables in Tuesday’s election include: “momentum,” “the opinions of undecided voters,” and “pundit’s hunches.”) This isn’t to say that there weren’t hidden variables at play — clearly the statistical models used weren’t fully complete and will someday be improved upon — but hidden variables alone weren’t the dominant influence. Indeed, Barack Obama was re-elected for a second term. However, happy as I was to see statistics trump hunches, the point of this post is not to wax political, but rather to describe the recent failure of hidden variable theories in an arena more appropriate for this blog: quantum experiments.

Continue reading →

The TV Frontier

Posted on by
7

Hello, my name is Tim Blasius and I am a physics graduate student at Caltech.  I recently appeared in a comedy bit on the TV show Conan, where I corrected Conan O’Brien’s physics.  I have been asked to share a few words describing this experience.

As with any story involving unbridled success, it begins as a tale of unnoticed, under-appreciated  and nearly unending hard work – I usually watch the show Conan during dinner with my fiancé.  Accordingly, I have seen many segments called “fan corrections” where Conan viewers submit YouTube videos explaining mistakes that they believe Conan has made on the show.  Some are nerdy and funny like the one where viewers pointed out that Conan used a red-tailed hawk call instead of a bald eagle call.  I was like a crocodile lurking in the water waiting for Conan to make a mistake in my expertise.  Then, like a woefully ignorant antelope sipping from the river Nile, Conan made a physics mistake when mocking Felix Baumgartner’s free fall, and I, being the bloodthirsty physics predator that I am, snapped the jaws of immutable truth around his naïve self.

Continue reading →

Quantum = Pink

Posted on by
2

Need we say more?

What color do you imagine when you close your eyes and think “Quantum”? If you are to buy a case for your quantum computer, have you already picked your favorite color? (Okay, maybe it’s too early for that.)
Below I argue that the collective unconscious has already made the choice for you: it is going to be pink.

Excited?

Fear not. We will easily differentiate ourselves from warm and fluffy pink slippers. Our color is pink on black. Closer to purple, actually. We have good heritage: purple with white was the color of kings. But kings are no more, so let’s admit it: People think that “spooky” quantum phenomena have a purple glow around them. The disaster movie “Quantum Apocalypse” has a mysterious purple vortex approach Earth. Sci-fi now has “quantum cannons” shooting pink aura at the enemies, unleashing the chaos of uncertainty. You can’t fly your battlecruiser if you’re no longer certain you still have a battlecruiser.
Continue reading →

Fermat’s Lost Theorem

Posted on by
8

Pierre Fermat, known for his Last Theorem and for rarely proving any of his claims.


Last week, I posted a series of increasingly difficult challenges in the post One line proof. Today, I would like to spend some time with the second challenge:

Fermat’s Lost Theorem: Show that (x+y)^n = x^m+y^m has only one solution for integers x > y > 0 and m,n > 1.

The truth is, I don’t know how to solve this problem myself. But, I think that we can figure it out together. Below, I will give the solution to the simpler case of y=1 and x > 1. I expect that many of you know the following variant of the problem:

Fermat’s Last Theorem: Show that z^m = x^m + y^m has no solutions for integers z > x > y > 0 and m > 2.

The above theorem was one of the most important unsolved problems in mathematics, until Andrew Wiles presented his proof to the public at a conference in Cambridge in 1993. Then someone pointed out a serious flaw in his proof and the extreme high Wiles was feeling turned into a dark abyss of despair. But being awesome implies that you pick yourself up and run full force towards the wall as if you didn’t get floored the last time you tried breaking through. And so Andy went back to his office and, with a little help from his friend (and former student) Richard Taylor, he fixed the flaw and published the massive proof in the most prestigious journal of mathematics, the Annals of Mathematics, in 1995.
Continue reading →

One line proof

Posted on by
19

It is not often that we come across a problem whose solution can fit in the margins of a notebook. In fact, many of the problems I have worked on in the field of quantum many-body physics require proofs that often exceed 30 pages. And that is without taking into account the several references included as sources for results used as “elementary” tools in the proof (referees love these papers…) So it is natural to think that a proof is a proof, so long as it is correct, and once confirmed by the academic community it is time to move on to something new.

But… sometimes things get interesting. A 30-page proof collapses to a 3-page proof when a different point of view is adopted (see the famous Prime Number Theorem). Below, you will find two problems that may, or may not have a “one-line” proof. The challenge is for you to find the shortest, most elegant proof for each problem:

A unit triangle: A triangle with sides a\le b \le c has area 1. Show that b^2 \ge 2.

Fermat’s Lost Theorem: Show that (x+y)^n = x^m+y^m has only one solution with positive integers x > y > 0 and m,n > 1.

Continue reading →

Individual quantum systems

Posted on by
16

When I went to school in the 20th century, “quantum measurements” in the laboratory were typically performed on ensembles of similarly prepared systems. In the 21st century, it is becoming increasingly routine to perform quantum measurements on single atoms, photons, electrons, or phonons. The 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics recognizes two of the heros who led these revolutionary advances, Serge Haroche and Dave Wineland. Good summaries of their outstanding achievements can be found at the Nobel Prize site, and at Physics Today.

Serge Haroche developed cavity quantum electrodynamics in the microwave regime. Among other impressive accomplishments, his group has performed “nondemolition” measurements of the number of photons stored in a cavity (that is, the photons can be counted without any of the photons being absorbed). The measurement is done by preparing a Rubidium atom in a superposition of two quantum states. As the Rb atom traverses the cavity, the energy splitting of these two states is slightly perturbed by the cavity’s quantized electromagnetic field, resulting in a detectable phase shift that depends on the number of photons present. (Caltech’s Jeff Kimble, the Director of IQIM, has pioneered the development of analogous capabilities for optical photons.)
Continue reading →

No calculators allowed

Posted on by
33

During Friday evenings at Caltech, the Institute for Quantum Information and Matter runs a seminar series focusing on research talks geared towards a diverse audience whose common background is quantum mechanics (just that, nothing else…) But, the fun doesn’t end after the 45 minute talks are over. The seminar is followed by a mingling session on the brand new patio of East Bridge, the building where Richard Feynman delivered his famous lectures.

Grigori Perelman. Not a Russian middle-schooler anymore, but still pretty smart.

Last Friday, Aleksander Kubica (pronounced Koobitsa), a Polish graduate student in the Theory group of IQIM and a first prize winner of the 2009 European Union Contest for Young Scientists, decided to test our ingenuity by giving us a problem that Russian middle-schoolers are expected to solve. If you haven’t met any Russian middle-schoolers, well, let’s just say that you should think carefully before accepting a challenge that is geared towards their level of mathematical maturity. What was the challenge?

Problem 1: Show that: \frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{3}{4}\cdot \frac{5}{6}\cdot \frac{7}{8}\cdot \frac{9}{10}\cdots \frac{99}{100} < \frac{1}{10}.
Continue reading →