{"id":95,"date":"2006-06-19T18:10:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-19T18:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/?p=95"},"modified":"2006-06-19T18:10:00","modified_gmt":"2006-06-19T18:10:00","slug":"the-physicists-and-the-wagon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/?p=95","title":{"rendered":"The physicists and the wagon"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>[Here&#8217;s a little fable that I wrote today, while listening to a talk &#8220;showing&#8221; that a fault-tolerant quantum computer would need at least 100 physical qubits for every logical qubit.  Physicists are welcome to shoot back with counter-fables, as are closet computer scientists like <a href=\"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/\">His Holiness<\/a>.]<\/p>\n<p>Update: The Pontiff has accepted my challenge and posted a <a href=\"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/?p=1267\">counter-fable<\/a> to his blog.  I&#8217;ve replied in his comments section with a <a href=\"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/?p=1267#comment-108973\">counter-counter-fable<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>One day a group of physicists ran excitedly into the computer science building.  &#8220;Guess what?&#8221; they cried.  &#8220;You know how you&#8217;re always trying to prove lower bounds, but you almost never succeed?  Well, today we proved a lower bound!&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;What did you prove?&#8221; asked the computer scientists.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We proved that to pull a wagon through a forest, you need at least five oxen.  It&#8217;s physically impossible to do it with four oxen or less, regardless of what other resources you have.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;How did you prove that?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Well, we looked up the strength of a typical ox, the weight of a typical wagon, the size of every forest in a 30-mile radius&#8230;&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Yeah, but what if you had an ox the size of a Brontosaurus?  Or what if the forest was only two feet across?  Or what if the wagon weighed less than a fingernail?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The physicists snickered.  &#8220;These are clearly unphysical assumptions.  As long as you stay within a realistic region of parameter space, our impossibility proof is airtight.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Ah, but how do you know there couldn&#8217;t be some completely different method of pulling wagons &#8212; maybe even a method that&#8217;s not ox-based at all?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Look, we physicists are interested in the real world, not complexity-theory la-la land.  And at least in the real world, when people want to pull wagons, oxen are what they use.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The physicists weren&#8217;t heard from again until almost a decade later, when they once again barged into the CS building.  &#8220;Guess what?&#8221; they cried.  &#8220;We just discovered a loophole in the famous Five-Ox Theorem &#8212; the one we published years ago in Nature!&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;What&#8217;s the loophole?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Elephants!  If you had an elephant pulling the wagon, you wouldn&#8217;t need any oxen at all.  With hindsight it&#8217;s almost obvious, but what a paradigm shift it took!&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The computer scientists stared blankly.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;You see,&#8221; said the physicists.  &#8220;This is why we never trust so-called impossibility proofs.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[Here&#8217;s a little fable that I wrote today, while listening to a talk &#8220;showing&#8221; that a fault-tolerant quantum computer would need at least 100 physical qubits for every logical qubit. Physicists are welcome to shoot back with counter-fables, as are closet computer scientists like His Holiness.] Update: The Pontiff has accepted my challenge and posted [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"{title}\n\n{excerpt}\n\n{url}","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"_wpas_customize_per_network":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-csphysics-deathmatch"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=95"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=95"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=95"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=95"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}