Perhaps this year-by-year survey of arxiv preprints whose abstract matches ‘(quantum AND (comput* OR information))’ will spark comment:

—————————-
Year: # arxiv preprints
2008: 739
2007: 734
2006: 738
2005: 712
2004: 683
2003: 645
2002: 534
2001: 475
2000: 390
1999: 278
1998: 215
1997: 147
—————————-

So, did the era of QIS growth really end circa 2004?

To my mind, QIS is assuming such central significance, to every branch of science and engineering—and mathematics too—that this stagnation (if it is real) is inexplicable/ regrettable/ strategically disastrous (your choice).

Let’s suppose, for example, that you are accidentally teleported back in time to the year 1900. You know that inventions like heavier-than-air flying machines are possible—which will let you control the flow of history—if only you can remember how these inventions work.

Not to worry! Your T-shirt has the answer … not only for airplanes, but for lightbulbs, penicillin, and even methods for determining the longitude. All in friendly, practical, nontechnical language … as the T-shirt puts it: “Energy is mass time the speed of light squared; take the credit.”

This suggests a strategy by which the Vienna QIS Workshop can enormously accelerate the progress of QIS: design and sell QIS T-shirts for time-travellers. Sooner or later, some time-travelling techo-nerd wearing one of these T-shirts will talk to the founders of QIS, who will instantly grasp and apply these ideas, thus accelerating the progress of QIS by decades.

What should the QIS Workshop put on its time-travel T-shirts? That’s a great topic for this forum! If we consult the Federal Vision for Quantum Information Science we find that it specifies three scoping questions.

Federal Scoping Q1: What is the true power of a general purpose quantum computer? This question is accompanied by a 1981 quote from Richard Feynman:

“If you want to make a simulation of Nature, you’d better make it quantum mechanical, and by golly it’s a wonderful problem, because it doesn’t look so easy.”

So we need to visit Feynman in 1981 wearing a T-shirt that says: “Richard, when it comes to open quantum systems, the arguments of your 1981 article simply don’t apply. In fact, the Connection Machine that you and your son are working on already has enough power to compute the properties of medium-sized molecules from ab initio quantum mechanics. This quantum simulation market will grow exponentially in coming decades, so that’s a good place to invest your resources.”

Federal Scoping Q2: Are there fundamental limits to our ability to control and manipulate quantum systems, and, if so, what constraints do they place on technology and QIS? This is accompanied by a 1959 quote from Richard Feynman:

“When we get to the very, very small world we have a lot of new things that would happen that represent completely new opportunities for design.”

This is a terrific opportunity for a T-shirt that says: “Richard, your 1959 article is wonderful, and you should push as hard as possible to turn all its ideas into hardware. Do this in three stages. First, start using magnetic resonance for imaging purposes. Even with 1959 technology you’ll be able to image living tissues with millimeter-scale resolution … from which you’ll create a whole new medical industry and make tens of billions of dollars. Invest these billions in very-large scale integrated circuits … because just imagine how many transistors could be printed on silicon at (say) 50 nanometer resolution, and how fast these transistors would switch. You’ll make hundreds of billions of dollars, and create a vibrant industry. Invest these hundreds of billions in quantum information science. Namely, combine quantum-limited magnetic resonance sensing with quantum-limited device fabrication, and commence observing (as both you and von Neumann envisioned) every structure in the biosphere with atomic resolution. This largest of all scientific projects will be an engine of prosperity and cooperation for the entire planet throughout much of the twenty-first century. Plus, you’ll make trillions of dollars, which might be fun. Don’t forget to work with Philip Anderson on this!”

Federal Scoping Q3: Are there new states of matter that emerge from collective quantum systems? This is accompanied by a 1972 quote from Philip Anderson:

“The workings of our minds and bodies, and of all animate and inanimate matter of which we have any detailed knowledge, are assumed to be controlled by the same set of fundamental laws, which except under certain extreme conditions we feel we know pretty well. … But the state of a
really big system does not at all have to have the symmetry of the laws which govern it .”

In response, our time-travel T-shirt needs a paragraph that reads something like: “Philip, by 2009 there will be tens of thousands of articles published on the quantum theory of superconducting materials (many of these articles will be yours) yet there will still be no symmetry-driven consensus as to how these materials work … leading some folks to suspect that perhaps there never will be. The practical consequence will be that ab initio quantum simulation codes—embodying an increasingly deep understanding of quantum information science—will come to play an ever-increasing role in condensed matter physics, because these codes accommodate complex systems in which multiple competing physical mechanisms are in-play. Such systems will turn out to be ubiquitous in both materials science and biology. You should work with Richard Feynman on this!”

————————–

This leads to the interesting question, is the 2009 QIS Workshop chartered to suggest modifications of its own scoping questions? My tentative opinion is “yes” … for the pragmatic reason that the Federal Vision for Quantum Information Science was issued by the previous administration (and signed by political appointee John Marburger III). Nowadays we have a new OSTP director, John Holdren. So perhaps someone should ask Holdren’s office what the appropriate scoping questions are for QIS?

Even from the Hollywood level, we have the fun, respectful, and historically accurate Apollo 13, which is highly recommended. Keep your eye out in the movie for the key role played by Apollo’s funky 70s-style system simulation technology … all of which was subcontracted to IBM!

In Johnson’s book we read a passage that should be thought-provoking for all the QIS Workshop attendees:

The extreme environment of space exacted its toll in numerous failures of extremely expensive systems. Those funding the race demanded results. In response, development organizations created what few expected and what even fewer wanted — a bureaucracy for innovation.

To begin to understand this apparent contradiction in terms, we must first understand the exacting nature of space technologies and the concerns of those who create them.

Does this sound familiar? To every QIS researcher, it should sound familiar. Because I think most people who contemplate the broad implications of QIS come to appreciate that it will play a central role in 21st century systems engineering … and in fact appreciate that at many companies, QIS (in its broad conception) is already playing a central role.

Where are the “Suits” who grasp and apply fundamental QIS principles? They are running (or soon will be running) every company whose products press against the fundamental limits to size, speed, sensitivity, and power efficiency.

Which is good news for young QIS researchers!

Researchers like Claude Shannon, John von Neumann, Norbert Weiner understand this confluence perfectly, and in fact all three are among the honored architects of modern system engineering (my recent short essay for PNAS documents their work’s connection to modern QIS objectives, via a systems engineering point of view).

Just to mention, two lines from Apollo 13 that today are resonant for everyone on our planet are EECOM Ted White’s sobering assessment “Gene, the Odyssey is dying” and Flight Controller Gene Kranz’ response, “What have we got on the spacecraft that’s good?” The strengthening capability of QIS is (IMHO) among the very best things that we have on the 21st century “spacecraft” that is our planet.

Systems engineers are famously optimistic, but not particularly humorous, and never are cynical. This reflects my attitude to QIS perfectly.

I think the term ’suits’ originated in the music business. I understand it to refer to people who wear suits in hopes that others thinks they are a big deal.

Wearing a suit is not a totally negative thing. I encourage my students to buy a suit at Goodwill for a couple of bucks, and practice wearing it around the house, and while drinking a couple beers. That way they can go to a job interview or whatever, and not feel like an idiot because they are wearing a suit. If you are in a university and are considering moving from a professor to a dean or administrator, being able to look like you belong in a suit is a key element.

But, on the other hand, about 75% of the thrust of the word ’suit’ is someone with a rudimentary knowledge about the issue at hand (music, CS, QIT, whatever) who thinks they should be regarded as a big deal only they are wearing a suit.

** tangent ** I have no idea about the suits as Microsoft, but I bet they are smarter than the average suit, because MS hires a lot of smart people. MS products usually get a bad rap in the CS world, but actually they are by far the best for “ordinary people”. For one thing, MS has usability labs where they find out what ordinary users can figure out. Everyone has heard plenty of bad raps about Vista, but if you actually try it out, in about 10 minutes you figure out the plan, and it is much better than the alternatives. System administration issues might be another story.

User interfaces are hard to make intuitive. I tell my students to make things work like the standard MS products. If you have a table, make it work like Excel. That way, anyone in the world can use it without thinking too much.

The extreme contrast to MS is GNU stuff, which is way powerful, but can only be used by a smart person who has spent a long time learning the “gnu way”. Unix/Linux is in a similar situation.
** /tangent **

I’m kind of confused what you mean by ’suits’? I was referring to people with MBA degrees and no real scientific training/background (a high level manager at Microsoft for example). I wouldn’t consider a VC to be a suit. And wasn’t Celera, along with many other biotech startups, founded by people with strong academic backgrounds?