The h Bar

Slereah

09:00

they just have vague ideas that sound good

Like "sum over all metrics"

Even though that's not at all convergent

Captain Bohemian

but my background is classical gravity, so I don't have much knowledge of quantum gravity, and asymptotic safe gravity looks more akin to classical gravity than other quantum gravity theory, so I asked that professor.

skullpatrol

Here's another secret:

Secret

934 8 17

:P

Slereah

All QG theories claim to be close to something

Usually either GR or QFT

"Our theory is in the true spirit of GR!"

Because it has background independance/Lorentz invariance/causal structures

Take your pick

You know one day I'd like to see a paper that doesn't try to justify its topic with lofty goals

And just says "I picked this topic because it sounded cool"

Captain Bohemian

i do have topics I really like, but not many professors engage with them.

Slereah

What I'm sayin' is probably don't pick your QG theory based on how close to your philosophical ideal it is

ooolb

09:05

@skullpatrol ha-ha

Slereah

Physics has a tendency to play with philosopher's hearts

ooolb

profile puns nice

Captain Bohemian

most profssors work on string theory, which look so complicate that I don't have basic idea of what they are doing.

skullpatrol

@ooolb :P

Slereah

There's a nice intro to string theory somewhere

Who was it again

Captain Bohemian

09:07

I have read the first course of string theory but still have no idea of what string theorists are doing.

Secret

@Slereah I don't know why this cannot be formalised, it seemed like an integral over a function of symmetric bilinear maps, which should be formalisable in some form of a path integral?

Captain Bohemian

a lot of terms are just completely unfamiliar to me.

Slereah

Lemme see

@Secret the EH action isn't bounded from below

@CaptainBohemian thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~weigand/Skript-strings11-12/…

Secret

I see...

Slereah

even worse some do "sum over topologies"

even though topologies aren't even computable

Captain Bohemian

09:15

@Slereah this lecture looks more advanced than the book A first course in string theory I read.

Secret

Well, in principle one can do intersections and unions since topology is a given collection of sets obeying some $\sigma$ algebra, however it you have more than one topology, then trying to have them interacting with each other seemed to bound to give contradictions in some form.

Unless, they interact in e.g. ways similar to connected sum, in which case two different topologies combine to form some resultant topology.

But even then, to talk about a sum of topology means somehow they had to be parametrise by some parameter, and it is not clear at least to me what parameter can be used to l…

Slereah

@CaptainBohemian Well string theory is like a lot of things

You need to have a good grasp on QFT, CFT and GR

Also ideally take a look at like classical strings

Like cosmic string actions and such

also supersymmetry would be helpful

@Secret you can't label topologies in 4 dimensions

that's the point

ooolb

@CaptainBohemian because that book doesn't require qft or gr

it's for undergrads

Captain Bohemian

@ooolb which book?

Slereah

String theory without QFT or GR sounds fairly mild :p

ooolb

09:21

@CaptainBohemian uhm

the one you just said

Secret

Hmm, I guess that's why I cannot seems to find any good continuous parameter to label topologies (NB I have not worked with topologies in spacetime metrics yet, thus I am not very well versed in that field. Most of the topologies I have encountered as far are those that used in some metric spaces of $\Bbb{R}^n$, as well common infinite sets)

Slereah

I mean I guess free string quantization doesn't require those

Anonymous

@Slereah String Theory for Dummies is one :P

Captain Bohemian

@Slereah you know which book I was talking about? I even didn't say who the author is.

Slereah

Captain Bohemian

09:22

sorry, the above is for ooolb.

ooolb

@CaptainBohemian zweibach

yeah i do

Forsete

Hey everyone

Slereah

hello

ooolb

@Slereah should you be asleep right now

or did you just wake up

skullpatrol

Backstreet Boys - Quit Playing Games (With My Heart)

►

Slereah

09:24

It's 10 AM

I'm at work

skullpatrol

:P

ooolb

do you still work at that university?

or what

Slereah

Not since 2011, no

ooolb

hmm what

i swear you said you were working there in 2015

skullpatrol

can you play that at work?

Slereah

09:26

In 2015 I was studying computer """science"""

ooolb

lmao

fock i realized that

i'm the one who should be asleep

Captain Bohemian

@ooolb I just checked the cover of that book. you are right. But I didn't learn much about this aspect as an undergraduate. My undergraduate school is an optics-oriented department. No professor does research of this kind.

ooolb

it's almost 5am i thought it was like 10pm

Slereah

Go to bed Garfield

ooolb

i don't get that reference

why am i garfield?

Slereah

09:28

it is an old maymay

ooolb

ya but

ok

Forsete

Could you solve me a doubt? In this question, as @JohnRennie said, we do not understand physics well enough and no one has come up with any experimental way to test the idea from Tyron and Vilenkin for the origin of the universe. Does that mean that despite these models are perfectly possible and capable of producing a big bang, because we do not know the physics at the time of the big bang, we cannot know if these models produced OUR big bang?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46337/is-it-possible-that-the-big-bang-was-caused-by-virtual-particle-creation

Secret

Well tbh, we don't even know much a few seconds after the big bang, where some theory of quantum gravity is expected to dominate

ooolb

wait actually

i thought we do know a lot about a few seconds after

just not < 1 second or even less after

Forsete

Yes I mean that's the problem isn't it? These models could produce a big bang but because we do not understand very well what happened at the beginning of big bang we cannot say that these models produced OUR big bang

I think that's what is happening here

Slereah

09:42

that paper is using $A$ for the action

gross

ooolb

A is for action

am right???

Slereah

S is for saction

ooolb

yes

exactly

aaaaaaa i'm sleepy aches everywhere

gnight @Slereah

Secret

@Forsete Yeah, I think the experimental side on what happens < 1s of the big bang is lacking, though some hoped that future gravitational wave detectors in the (seconds? minutes?) range will give us more hints on what happens back then

I forgot what frequency the gravitational waves in LIGO are, but those from big bang era will be much much longer

Forsete

Ok thank you very much!

Secret

09:52

Random comment about art:

It seems that art is a non reductive entity which while all its physical and performance components can be easily quantified, there is no way to predict how different audience will react to it and why

glS

are you guys aware of this proposal? area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/106955/quantum-computing

John Rennie

@Forsete hi, you still around?

Secret

10:08

For the biologist in this chat, you can find preprints here:

biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/25/225086

Emilio Pisanty

10:18

@glS I see one expert committed to that proposal

and there's nothing that would be on topic there that isn't already on topic either here in PSE or in TCS.SE

Slereah

Don't we have Shor himself on PSE?

Emilio Pisanty

I see little need for that proposal - and a pretty slim chance of it getting much bigger

Peter Shor , Cambridge, MA

7.8k 21 46

quantum-mechanics quantum-information quantum-computer black-holes quantum-entanglement thermodynamics research-level

this guy, you mean?

Slereah

yeah

Emilio Pisanty

or this one?

Peter Shor , Cambridge, MA

20.4k 2 77 113

cc.complexity-theory quantum-computing ds.algorithms it.information-theory reference-request co.combinatorics soft-question

or this one?

127

A: Was the reduction in Shor's algorithm originally discovered by Shor?

I have to admit (surprising as it sounds) that I don't know really the answer. I either discovered or rediscovered this reduction myself. I discovered the discrete log algorithm first, and the factoring algorithm second, so I knew from discrete log that periodicity was useful. I knew that facto...

Slereah

A smorgasbord of shors

Emilio Pisanty

10:21

@Slereah well, it's not like they're that distinct

Slereah

yeah, same meta user :p

"Stone replaces $−i$ by $i$; this clearly has no significance, as the laws of the universe should be invariant under $Gal(\Bbb C/\Bbb R)$, but we’ve retained the physicists’ usual sign convention"

What is that group

Secret

It's always interesting when a high impact paper author respond in rather public sites like these

Mithrandir24601

@EmilioPisanty I wrote an answer in the meta totally disagreeing with that point of view. It did only reach the commitment stage today, so we'll see what happens

glS

@EmilioPisanty are you referring to the self-declared being expert, or that you recognised a known name in the list of people committed? Btw I do wonder what is in this case the difference between "expert" and "academia" in this case. I mean most "experts" in QC will come from academia. Does being doing a PhD on the topic qualify as being an "expert or professional"?

Mithrandir24601

10:36

Also, it looks like 3 'experts' and 6 'academics'

glS

Also the commitment stage started yesterday so it's really too soon to argue on that front I think. But regardless, I really don't think the argument that most questions there would be on topic here is the most important one. It seems to me that the point to consider is more whether there is a possibly of more people from the community gathering around such a site.

Mithrandir24601

@glS I'm doing a PhD on that and I listed myself as an "academic or research-student", so there's your first data point :P

Secret

Quantum computing will only get bigger as time went on

glS

Look at MathOverflow or cstheory for example. Wouldn't you agree that many "experts" that are active in these sites wouldn't have otherwise been active on math.stackexchange, or equivalent for computer science?

@Mithrandir24601 same for me

Secret

so a QC site is going to went beta

Anonymous

10:40

I think that's a nice proposal as QC is quite a growing field. Also as of now it neither completely fits in PSE or TCSSE. I had supported the proposal but don't think I should commit as I don't know much of QC as of yet. Let's see if in the coming months I can start asking and answering questions there. :P

Anonymous

Anyway, good luck to those who are committing to the site. :)

Mithrandir24601

@Blue you don't have to know anything about it to commit!

@Blue thanks! :)

Anonymous

@Mithrandir24601 They say that I got to ask/answer at least 10 questions

Anonymous

If I commit

glS

@Blue yea well, in practice you can commit and not fulfil the commitment afterwards. It's not very nice though, and if many people do that it can give a false sense of the actual number of people that are going to be active.

Anonymous

10:44

Alright...if you say...area51.stackexchange.com/users/181409/blue?tab=stats. Gotta start learning it anyway. :D @Mithrandir24601

Anonymous

I hope I can learn something in the next couple of months so that I can ask a few good questions at least

Anonymous

Let's see

Forsete

@JohnRennie i'm here

John Rennie

@Forsete do you still want to ask about physical theories and the Big Bang etc? I see Secret responded to your question earlier.

Mithrandir24601

@Blue woohoo! Another 0.5% ;)

Forsete

10:49

@JohnRennie well if you want to give me your "point of view" (since you answered the original question i quoted) it would be great

John Rennie

@Forsete OK, I think a good way to understand this is to look at the difference between quantum field theory and string theory

We use quantum field theory every day to analyse results from the LHC, and it works ... well ... perfectly.

Mithrandir24601

@glS I think the 'commitment' thing is weird though - I have a look at Worldbuilding virtually every day, but if you were to look at my activity that counts towards 'commitment', it would seem that I'm rarely active

glS

@Mithrandir24601 by the way, I was curious to know what do you work on. Most people I know would consider QC part of QI (I ask in relation to the comments of my question on the proposal)

John Rennie

As in when we calculate what should happen using QFT then do the experiment we find the results from the experiment match our calculation.

So QFT is what I would consider a well understood theory. That is we can (in principle) calculate anything we want from it.

@Forsete Make sense so far?

Forsete

Yep

glS

10:53

@Mithrandir24601 but if everybody does that the site doesn't take enough momentum, which is not good. I think that is why they ask you to "promise" to actively ask/answer questions, especially in the first crucial phases

Mithrandir24601

@glS simulation on a quantum (photonic) chip, possibly to include some chip design (in some sense of 'design') - this is the bit that is neither physics, maths, CS or quantum information

Anonymous

@Mithrandir24601 Engineering ;)

glS

@Mithrandir24601 let me shoot in the dark. Bristol?

John Rennie

@Forsete Now string theory is interesting because quantum field theory emerges as a low energy limit of string theory, and we've already established that QFT is a good theory. Likewise general relativity also emerges from string theory as a low energy limit, and GR is also a good theory.

Anonymous

@glS That's one of the very few places that has a course in Quantum Engineering

Anonymous

10:56

So good guess :D

Mithrandir24601

@Blue well, technically, I am a quantum engineer, so yes :)

glS

@Blue also one of the few places where they can do "serious" quantum simulation with photonic chips

John Rennie

@Forsete but the problem is that we don't know exactly how QFT and GR emerge from string theory because we don't know enough about string theory.

Anonymous

The others being ETH, UCSB, and Stanford

Secret

@Mithrandir24601 Even simulation on a quantum chip is not quite engineering, if one not just talk about hardware, but also on protocols on implementing the simulations, I think...

Mithrandir24601

10:57

@glS yep :) If you don't mind me asking, where are you at?

@Secret chip design is, though

@Blue MIT might have such a department as well

John Rennie

@Forsete in fact there are quite starkly differing views about how this might happen. For example some people believe QFT and GR emerge from a compactification process while others believe they emerge froma brane world. Right now we don't know which of these is correct or even if either of them is correct.

Anonymous

@Mithrandir24601 qeg.mit.edu Oh, yes. I forgot

Anonymous

web.stanford.edu/dept/app-physics/cgi-bin/…

Anonymous

Okay, nice. Both of them have QE groups

glS

@Mithrandir24601 Belfast, NI. Which mostly identifies me irl but whatever :). I do theory but we work quite a bit with experimentalists, me in particular mostly with people doing quantum optics/photonics. I know a few people in Bristol doing simulation with photonic chips actually. We may know each other

John Rennie

11:00

@Forsete so can we feed the equations of string theory into a big computer and actually predict things we could measure? Well, no, we can't, for the resons I've described above. We don't know enough about how string theory works.

Mithrandir24601

@glS ... Oh wow! I'm from the North coast (Coleraine)

Secret

There are also more exotic background independent models which go as far to say spacetime emerged from networks of entanglements, as well most of GR and QFT

Mithrandir24601

I was not expecting that for an answer :P

John Rennie

@Forsete to go back to the question that started all this, we know that QFT cannot describe the Big Bang because we know QFT isn't applicable to such high energy densities. And we also know we can't use string theory because we don't know how experimentally measurable properties can be calculated from string theory.

Slereah

QFT can totally describe the big bang

It's just probably not a good description

glS

11:03

@Mithrandir24601 haha what are the chances. I'm not originally from here though I'm afraid. Do you work more on using the chips or do you mostly handle the design process?

Slereah

Hell there's a solution of scalar fields for the FRW metric

John Rennie

@Forsete So when you're asking if quantum fluctuations could have caused the Big Bang, well we have to say we simply can't answer that question.

Slereah

There's even a cosmological model for a scalar field with backreaction!

The Starobinski inflation model

It's easy to remember because there's "star" in the name

a good cosmology name

Balarka Sen

@Sid It's a good movie!

I absolutely recommend it; it ranks higher than 2001 in my list of Kubrick movies

Secret

What are good competitor of string theory and brane cosmology that is background independent, cause LQG only does gravity but not unification?

Slereah

11:06

No other quantum gravity does unification

Mithrandir24601

@glS definitely more focused on using them at the minute, although I'm only a couple of months in, so that may change in the future

Slereah

I'm not even sure if it makes sense to do unification with a background independant theory

Emilio Pisanty

@glS Both. Up it to three or four, maybe. You need a good mix with a large base of postgraduate students and a small but solid representation on your Frédéric Grosshanses and your Norbert Schuchs and your Peter Shors. This seems to have gone past the Definition stage without much input from the right-hand side of that spectrum, and I don't think that's all that encouraging.

Slereah

You can't unify with gravity for a start

Emilio Pisanty

@Mithrandir24601 I'm assuming you mean this? area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/27139/85454

I don't see how that disagrees with the viewpoint I stated

Slereah

11:08

Unification outside of string theory is mostly independant of gravity

And then it's just one of those weird ass gauge groups

Like $SU(5)$ or $SU(10)$ or $Spin(10)$ or $E_8$

Emilio Pisanty

no, wait, presumably you mean this area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/27328/85454

glS

@EmilioPisanty I see your point. However, I'm under the impression that there are many people in the field that would not naturally be active on physics.se (they would find it not very relevant to them) but would be much more encouraged in frequenting a dedicated site.

As for the more senior people (professors and such)... those are much harder to get, but again I see them more likely coming to see what is being done on a dedicated site, that going on physics.se and filtering through thousands of uninteresting questions to find something worth dedicating a bit of time on

Forsete

@JohnRennie ok, so we just do not know what started the big bang. I thought that the inflation cosmological model (which i think os the most accepted nowadays) defended that it was caused by quantum fluctuations

Slereah

The inflation model as far as I know is due to symmetry breaking

Not "quantum fluctuations"

glS

@Mithrandir24601 do you work with some italian guy by chance? By the way, the group (or one of the groups) in Bristol doing QSimulation with integrated photonics is called "Bristol Quantum Information Institute"...

Emilio Pisanty

11:15

BTW @glS since you're here

"MathOverflow exists because the community it attracts isn't a good fit on MSE" has it exactly backwards. MO predates MSE, and the latter was created because non-professional maths was having a hard time fitting into MO. (For the full timeline see here.) — E.P. 18 secs ago

Slereah

that buzzword

IIRC symmetry breaking induces an effect very much like a cosmological constant

glS

@EmilioPisanty well I didn't know nor expect that! What about cstheory vs cs?

Emilio Pisanty

@glS well, maybe now is a good time to start making less assumptions and more checks about the historical background of stuff you post? ;-)

re: CS vs TCS, timeline is also on the link

> Keep an eye on the timings, though: TCS was proposed in June 2010, went to public beta in August 2010, and it graduated from beta in November 2010; the plain CS site was proposed in September 2011, started public beta in March 2012, and it graduated four years later in January 2016.

> Thus, this is arguably another case where the 'hard' site came before the 'soft' one (bad descriptors, but you know what I mean), though obviously the elephant in that room is Stack Overflow, which isn't computer science as such but has a strong bearing on that discussion.

Forsete

@Slereah I cannot remember where i read it, but it said that the initial singularity began to expand because of quantum fluctuations. It was a paper about inflation cosmology

glS

@EmilioPisanty yes just saw that part. Fine, you are right, I should have checked beforehand, I will edit that post (it just made enough sense that I didn't think of checking). Let me ask you then, given that you seem to have spent quite a bit of time thinking about this: do you think going in the opposite direction is less feasible?

Emilio Pisanty

11:23

@glS opposite direction to what?

glS

@EmilioPisanty higher-level site coming from the lower-level one

Emilio Pisanty

@glS I don't know.

glS

well "higher-level" and "lower-level" doesn't really do it justice but you probably get what I mean

Emilio Pisanty

I know of only one relevant data point.

namely theoretical physics

but the way I see it, that failed because of several unrelated reasons

I don't know what would've happened if TP.SE had been started two years later than it did, for one

and it had some severe issues with scope, in my opinion

@glS I think that this has it backwards as well. Experts are what's going to make or break that site. You can gather all the enthusiasts you want, but if you don't have somebody there answering questions, and asking the kind of high-level questions that'll actually attract other experts, then that sounds like a steep slippery slope into wither-and-die territory, simply because the enthusiasts' questions won't be getting quality answers.

you need them now and active in setting the tone

not "maybe at some point once this thing gets established"

@ACuriousMind 'inacceptable' isn't a word in English

John Rennie

@Forsete no. In fact inflation is also poorly understood.

glS

11:32

@EmilioPisanty I don't know how many people in the proposal are actually people working on the field. I personally discovered the existence of the proposal basically a couple of days ago. But I believe many people I know (mostly PhDs and researchers working on the field) would be interested in following such a site, so I don't see why not give it a shot

Mithrandir24601

@EmilioPisanty yeah, that one

glS

is your main point against it the fact that it could draw people away from physics.se?

Mithrandir24601

@glS some Italian guy? There are a couple that I work with

Secret

For me, I am not terribly worried about QCSE draw away traffic from PSE, because a huge portion of the PSE is not QC

glS

@Mithrandir24601 haha ok I may know who you work with, and actually be working with you in the near future. Let me contact you in private

Forsete

11:36

Okay thank you very much for clearing my mind a bit haha

glS

@Mithrandir24601 actually I'm not sure how lol. Is there a way to send private messages on SE?

@Mithrandir24601 ok can you send me an email here? [email protected]

Mithrandir24601

@glS I can do, but I'm actually in China at the moment, so it might be easier if we leave it a couple of days

glS

@Mithrandir24601 sure thing! ping me here maybe (the email address above is only a temporary one)

Mithrandir24601

@glS OK! I'll do that when I get back on Wednesday/Thursday

Anonymous

@Mithrandir24601 Hope you're enjoying the Chinese cuisine :D

Anonymous

11:44

I'd expect noodles...noodles and more noodles

Secret

Omninous predictions after reading this week's NewScientist as well other things in the past:

1. New physics may be popping up about our understanding of dark energy

2. Talks about how to regulate cyberweapons

3. Climate change models are predicting a global temperature rise of 3.3-4C in 20 years time, thus all past models underestimate climate change

and as always:

4. Something big is going to happen as early as 2020

Mithrandir24601

@Blue :D It's really nice, although hard to tell what's what sometimes

Secret

IMO, one or more of the following will happen on 2020:

1. Quantum computing will reach 500 qubits

2. We will find new physics either at cosmological scales, or somewhere in condensed matter physics or nuclear physics

3. 5 more countries will be able to have at least a week running entirely on renewables

4. Storms will cause even more destruction in the asia pacific and the US

5. WWIII may broke out first involving North Korea, Japan and China

Mithrandir24601

@Secret 2 years! Ha! I'd be astonished if that happened

Secret

It's currently on 53 qubits now right, the current record holder?

Mithrandir24601

11:58

@Secret this is maybe possible though - there was something about (part of) Scotland doing so this year

@Secret I don't know when it happened, but I found out yesterday that this is indeed the case :)

Oh, it's not a universal chip though

The biggest universal chip is either 20, 50 (both are so badly connected, I don't want to count them) or whatever Google has or Intel's 17 qubits. I think, although none of those are fully connected, which is really annoying

Oh wait, it would have been 2 days ago, from Chris Monroe himself :P

Slereah

12:37

"The first observation to make is that (1) has no solutions if $H$ is finite-dimensional since the trace of any commutator must vanish but $Tr(-i\hbar) = -i\hbar \dim H$ does not."

What's the trace if it's infinite dimensional

Emilio Pisanty

@glS I never said I think the proposal is harmful. I just said that I don't see a need for it, and that I don't see high chances of it succeeding in its current state.

ACuriousMind

yesterday, by ACuriousMind

@Sid Ah, damn languages. It's inakzeptabel in German :/

Slereah

@ACuriousMind plz halp

Emilio Pisanty

If it does go to beta in this state and it fails, then that has a nontrivial opportunity cost associated with it, and that needs to be considered carefully

ACuriousMind

@Slereah What do you require?

Slereah

12:41

cf slightly above

Emilio Pisanty

@ACuriousMind well, you do have magical mod editing powers

Slereah

about traces

Emilio Pisanty

Particularly if you want to mod star it

Slereah

Why is the trace $0$ if the space is infinite dimensional

glS

@EmilioPisanty I would myself give a 50/50 chance of success to that proposal honestly. I however think that it could be a very good and useful thing if it succeed, making it worth the shot

ACuriousMind

12:43

@Slereah The point is that in infinite dimensions, the trace is not defined for all operators (in particular not for the identity), so taking the trace of the CCR is ill-defined to begin with

@EmilioPisanty Ah, right. I didn't intend to mod star it, that was someone else :P

Slereah

@ACuriousMind that is a tricky argument!

glS

@EmilioPisanty btw, I edited that post. If you want to argue against (or for :)) my points I appreciate your opinion

Emilio Pisanty

@glS I seriously don't see what this site brings that the existing venues don't, and I suspect a large fraction of the existing expert userbase will have a similar reaction.

Ultimately, though

You do you

Just mind the opportunity costs you're burning through

ACuriousMind

I have a feeling we've had this discussion here before

Ah, yes:

Dec 3 '16 at 16:27, by ACuriousMind

Which kind of questions about quantum computers can you not already ask either here or on one fo the cs sites?

glS

@EmilioPisanty let's put this way. My main point is that many people that would potentially be interested and proficiently be active in asking/answering research-level questions on the topic, coming to something like physics.se, would not see it as worth the time frequenting, seeing so many not relevant questions and not enough high-level/interesting ones.

On the other hand, seeing a site dedicated to the topic, they would naturally assume it to be a good fit for many research level questions they could have

and I'm not saying they would be right in not asking the questions directly on physics.se. I'm saying that the average person would just assume it to not be worth the time due to the so many undergraduate questions and such.

Slereah

12:53

well there already is a site for that

glS

@EmilioPisanty what do you mean?

ACuriousMind

@glS So, this new site is explicitly research level?

I don't see that in the proposal and don't see why you would expect less of a "gosh, this place is full of laymen's questions" there

Slereah

There's already physics overflow

ACuriousMind

@Slereah Not a part of the SE network, and also not...particularly successful :P

Slereah

well why would you expect another one to be more successful

glS

12:57

@ACuriousMind I can hardly think of questions about QC that would fit on cs sites, except for questions about quantum complexity theory, but I'm not expert on that site of the story so it may be due to personal ignorance. Most questions on QC I can think of are a fit on physics.se.

As I said, my hopes for a dedicated site is to gather more of the QC/QI community around it. I know very well that this site is not for just layman questions and there is plenty of experts, but I think many physicists not so well versed with stackexchange would not see that

ACuriousMind

@Slereah I don't.

Transcript for