identifier stringlengths 1 43 | dataset stringclasses 3 values | question stringclasses 4 values | rank int64 0 99 | url stringlengths 14 1.88k | read_more_link stringclasses 1 value | language stringclasses 1 value | title stringlengths 0 200 | top_image stringlengths 0 125k | meta_img stringlengths 0 125k | images listlengths 0 18.2k | movies listlengths 0 484 | keywords listlengths 0 0 | meta_keywords listlengths 1 48.5k | tags null | authors listlengths 0 10 | publish_date stringlengths 19 32 ⌀ | summary stringclasses 1 value | meta_description stringlengths 0 258k | meta_lang stringclasses 68 values | meta_favicon stringlengths 0 20.2k | meta_site_name stringlengths 0 641 | canonical_link stringlengths 9 1.88k ⌀ | text stringlengths 0 100k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2453 | dbpedia | 2 | 35 | https://www.cwi.nl/en/news/goedel-prize-for-ronald-de-wolf/ | en | Prestigious Gödel Prize for Ronald de Wolf | [
"https://stats.cwi.nl/piwik.php?idsite=1",
"https://www.cwi.nl/static/images/logos/cwi-logo-english.svg",
"https://www.cwi.nl/static/images/logos/cwi-logo-brand-image.svg",
"https://www.cwi.nl/static/images/triangle.svg",
"https://www.cwi.nl/images/42467/Ronald_de_Wolf.width-200_NOmxMT7.jpg",
"https://www... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Ronald de Wolf (CWI, UvA and QuSoft) and his co-authors receive the 2023 Gödel Prize for outstanding papers in theoretical computer science. The other winner of the 2023 Gödel Prize is Thomas Rothvoss. | en | /static/images/favicon.ico | https://www.cwi.nl/en/news/goedel-prize-for-ronald-de-wolf/ | Ronald de Wolf (CWI, UvA, QuSoft) and his co-authors receive the prestigious Gödel Prize for outstanding papers in theoretical computer science. The Gödel Prize is jointly awarded by the ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory (ACM SIGACT) and the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science (EATCS). The prize will be awarded during STOC 2023, one of the most important conferences in theoretical computer science, which takes place on 20-23 June 2023 in Orlando, Florida. This year, there are two winning articles. The other winner of the 2023 Gödel Prize is Thomas Rothvoss.
Ronald de Wolf says: “I am very proud and humbled to win this prize along with my co-authors, and to be listed among the amazing papers and amazing researchers that have received this prize before”. Earlier winners of the Gödel Prize include well-known researchers like Cynthia Dwork, Shafi Goldwasser, Johan Håstad, László Lovász, Peter Shor, Dan Spielman, Mario Szegedy and Avi Wigderson.
Travelling Salesman Problem
Authors Samuel Fiorini, Serge Massar, Sebastian Pokutta, Hans Raj Tiwary and Ronald de Wolf were given the award for their article ‘Exponential Lower Bounds for Polytopes in Combinatorial Optimization’. One of its main conclusions was that a particular attempt to solve the famous travelling salesman problem cannot possibly work. Ronald de Wolf explains: “This paper refutes an attempt to solve hard computational problems such as Travelling Salesman (TSP). We know how to solve so-called linear programs efficiently, so since the 1980s researchers have been trying to write down a small linear program for TSP. If successful, this approach would have momentous consequences for efficient algorithms. However, our paper - which generalizes work by Yannakakis from 1988 - definitively showed that the approach is doomed to fail, by proving that every linear program that describes TSP needs to be exponentially large. The proof combines geometry, combinatorics, and even a connection with quantum communication theory.”
At STOC 2012, Ronald de Wolf and the rest of the team already received a Best Paper Award for their work, and in 2022 they won the ACM STOC 10-year Test of Time Award.
Ronald de Wolf did his research in the Algorithms and Complexity group of CWI (Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica) in Amsterdam, the national research institute for mathematics and computer science in the Netherlands. He is also a part-time full professor at the ILLC of the University of Amsterdam and a member of QuSoft. In 2013 he received an ERC Consolidator Grant and in 2003 the Cor Baayen Award. His main scientific interests are quantum computing and complexity theory.
The award committee of the 2023 Gödel Prize consisted of Award Committee: Nikhil Bansal (University of Michigan), Irit Dinur (Weizmann Institute), Anca Muscholl (University of Bordeaux), Tim Roughgarden (Columbia University), Ronitt Rubinfeld, Chair (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and Luca Trevisan (Bocconi University). | |||||
2453 | dbpedia | 1 | 60 | https://bookauthority.org/books/best-selling-computability-books | en | 20 Best-Selling Computability Books of All Time | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | A list of the best-selling computability books of all time, such as Godel's Proof and Computability. | en | /images/favicon/apple-touch-icon.png?v=almeA543QQ | BookAuthority | https://bookauthority.org/books/best-selling-computability-books | |||||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 7 | https://rjlipton.com/2012/01/30/perpetual-motion-of-the-21st-century/ | en | Perpetual Motion of The 21st Century? | [
"https://i0.wp.com/rjlipton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gilandaram.png?resize=297%2C169&ssl=1",
"https://i0.wp.com/rjlipton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/perpetualcollage.png?resize=300%2C225&ssl=1",
"https://i0.wp.com/rjlipton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/baak.png?resize=400%2C298&ssl=1",
"https://s0.w... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2012-01-30T00:00:00 | Are quantum errors incorrigible? Discussion between Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow are world experts on mathematical frameworks for quantum computation. They hold opposing opinions on whether or not quantum computers are possible. Today and in at least one succeeding post, Gil and Aram will discuss the possibility of building large-scale… | en | Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP | https://rjlipton.com/2012/01/30/perpetual-motion-of-the-21st-century/ | Are quantum errors incorrigible? Discussion between Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow
Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow are world experts on mathematical frameworks for quantum computation. They hold opposing opinions on whether or not quantum computers are possible.
Today and in at least one succeeding post, Gil and Aram will discuss the possibility of building large-scale quantum computers.
Quantum computers provide a 21st Century field for the kind of debate first led by Albert Einstein about the reach of quantum theory. One thought experiment by which Einstein tried to contravene the Uncertainty Principle can be described as having asserted that quantum theory implies the creation of perpetual motion machines, which are impossible machines. In a later attempt, after initial puzzlement, Niels Bohr pointed out that Einstein himself had neglected to correct for gravity’s effect on time in general relativity.
Perpetual motion machines were the dream of many inventors over the centuries—and why not? Having a machine that could create useful work but consume no fuel would change the world. Alas advances in our understanding of physics have ruled them out: there is indeed no free lunch. The designs at right look like birds-of-a-feather, but the rightmost was designed in 1960 by Hermann Bondi to illustrate Bohr’s correction above.
The guest discussions here between Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow address the fundamental question:
Are quantum computers feasible? Or are their underlying models defeated by some fundamental physical laws?
Those like Royal Society co-founder John Wilkins who in 1670 wrote of perpetual motion machines did not know of the second law of thermodynamics. We, Dick and Ken, would like to think that if blogs like GLL were around centuries ago there might have been a more penetrating discussion than even the Royal Society could foster. We are here now, and we are very honored that Gil and Aram wish to use GLL as a location to discuss this interesting, important, and wonderful question. We believe in the win-win that either we will have wonderful quantum computers, or we will learn some new laws of nature, particularly about information.
For a roadmap, Gil and Aram will alternate thesis-response in these posts, talking about quantum error-correction and fault tolerance. However, we also invite you, the reader, to take part in the debate sparked by Gil’s paper, “How quantum computers fail: Quantum codes, correlations in physical systems, and noise accumulation.”Perhaps they and we will react to comments. We thank them greatly, and have worked to make the issues even more accessible.
Guest Post: Gil Kalai
The discovery by Peter Shor of the famous quantum algorithm for fast integer factoring gave a strong reason to be skeptical about quantum computers (QC’s), along with an even stronger reason for wanting to build them. Shor is also the pioneer of quantum error-correction and quantum fault-tolerance, which give good reasons to believe that QC’s can be built. Other researchers have focused on this very issue, and the physics community is filled with work on many approaches to building practical QC’s.
In my (Gil’s) part of the world, Michael Ben-Or is a world leader in theoretical computer science with major contributions in cryptography, complexity, randomization, distributed algorithms, and quantum computation. Among the famous notions associated with Michael’s work before he turned quantum are non-cryptographic fault-tolerance, multi-prover interactive proofs, and algebraic decision trees. Dorit Aharonov is one of the great quantum computation researchers in the world and she has studied, among other things, fault tolerance, adiabatic computation, lattice problems, computation of Jones polynomials, and quantum Hamiltonian complexity.
Aharonov and Ben-Or proved in the mid-1990s (along with other groups) the threshold theorem which allows fault tolerant quantum computation (FTQC) at least in theory. The following photo shows them on the road in Jerusalem in 2005 with me at left, and on the right Robert Alicki, a famous quantum physicist from Gdansk, Poland, known for work on quantum dynamical systems.
Alicki is perhaps the only physicist engaged in long-term research skeptical towards quantum computers and error-correction. Over the years he has produced several papers and critiques under this program, coming from several different directions: some based on thermodynamics, others based on various issues in modeling noisy quantum evolutions.
Conjectures on noisy QC’s and error-correction
I suppose readers here are familiar with the basic concepts of quantum computers: qubits, basis states as members of , superposition, entanglement, interference. My comments in the first round of discussions are based on several (related) papers of mine, mainly the one linked above (alternate link). A more technical paper is “When noise accumulates.” Here are slides from a related lecture at Caltech’s Institute for Quantum Information, and an earlier, more-detailed, survey. The feasibility of building quantum computers that can out-perform digital computers is one of the most fascinating and clear-cut scientific problems of our time. The main concern is that quantum systems are inherently noisy. Roughly what this means for QC’s is that the internal states of quantum registers may vary unpredictably outside the range that allows the algorithm to continue.
First consider a single classical bit with some probability of being flipped when read. For any we can improve the odds of correct reading above by making and sending enough separate copies . In case of any flips the reader will take the majority value, and this works provided the error events on the different bits are independent. For strings of bits there are error correcting codes that achieve the same guarantee more efficiently than making copies, and that can also cope with limited kinds of correlated errors such as “burst noise” which affects consecutive bits.
For quantum systems there are special obstacles, such as the inability to make exact copies of quantum states in general. Nevertheless, much of the theory of error-correction has been carried over, and the famous threshold theorem shows that fault-tolerant quantum computation (FTQC) is possible if certain conditions are met. The most-emphasized condition sets a threshold for the absolute rate of error, one still orders of magnitude more stringent than what current technology achieves but approachable. One issue raised here, however, is whether the errors have sufficient independence for these schemes to work or correlations limited to what they can handle. I will now go on to describe my conjectures regarding how noisy quantum computers really behave.
Conjecture 1 (No quantum error-correction): In every implementation of quantum error-correcting codes with one encoded qubit, the probability of not getting the intended qubit is at least some , independently of the number of qubits used for encoding.
Conjecture 1 does not obstruct classical error correction as described above. The rationale behind Conjecture 1 is that when you implement the decoding from a single qubit to qubits , a noise in the input amounts to having a mixture with undesired code words. The conjecture asserts that, for a realistic implementation of quantum error-correction, there is no way around it. Conjecture 1 reflects a strong conjectural interpretation of the principle that quantum systems are inherently noisy:
Conjecture 2 (The strong principle of noise): Quantum systems are inherently noisy with respect to every Hilbert space used in their description.
The next two conjectures concern noise among entangled qubits—proposed mathematical formulations for them are in the paper.
Conjecture 3: A noisy quantum computer is subject to noise in which error events for two substantially entangled qubits have a substantial positive correlation.
Conjecture 4: In any quantum computer at a highly entangled state there will be a strong effect of error synchronization.
Standard circuit or machine models of QC’s divide the computation into discrete cycles, between which one can identify “fresh noise” apart from the accumulated effect of previous noise. The threshold theorem does entail that (when the noise rate is under the threshold) for FTQC to fail, these conjectures must hold for the fresh noise. A QC model in which fresh noise shows these effects differs sharply from the assumptions underlying standard models. I proved that a strong form of Conjecture 3, where “entanglement” is replaced by a certain notion of “emergent entanglement,” implies Conjecture 4.
Conjectured Limit on Entanglement
The papers argue a few other conjectures regarding how noisy quantum computers behave. One describes noisy quantum evolutions that do not enact quantum fault tolerance, which we skip here. The most quantitative one is called Conjecture C in the technical paper on noise, C for censorship because it concerns what types of (highly entangled) quantum states cannot be reached at all by such noisy QC’s.
Consider a QC with a set of qubits. Given a subset of qubits, consider the convex hull of all states that for some factor into a tensor product of a state on some of the qubits and a state on the other qubits. For a state on , define as the trace distance between and . For a state of all the qubits, define .
Conjecture C: There is a polynomial (perhaps even a quadratic polynomial) such that for any QC on qubits, which describes a state (which need not be pure), .
Here QC can be regarded as a quantum circuit given initial state .
Interpreting and Testing the Conjectures
The strong interpretation is that the conjectures hold globally, for any quantum dynamical system on which a QC can be based. The medium interpretation says they hold for processes currently observed in nature, but human artifice can create systems in which they are false, thus allowing computationally superior QC’s to be built via FTQC. The weak interpretation is that they only make a sharp distinction between two kinds of QC models, one supporting FTQC and the other not, and that the former kind can be built artificially and also does represent some quantum processes that occur naturally.
I tend to believe in the strong interpretation, namely, that the conjectures are always true. The weaker interpretations can be used to discuss (as we do below) specific proposals for implementing quantum computation. There are quite a few suggestions on how to build quantum computers based on qubits and gates, and also some suggestions based on computationally equivalent but physically quite different methods.
Nevertheless, I do not expect a common physical reason why my conjectures should apply for each proposed realization of a QC. Hence the conjectures should be examined, either based on detailed modeling, or based on experimentation, on a case-by-case basis. Note that they are not about some mysterious breakdown that occurs when you try to scale quantum computers to a large number of qubits. Conjecture 3 is about the two-qubit behavior of a quantum computer with any number of qubits, and it can be checked (as can the other conjectures) on quantum computers with a rather small number of qubits.
One prominent proposal under which the conjectures can be tested is measurement-based QC employing cluster states. Cluster states can be regarded as code words in a certain quantum error-correcting code. Once you prepare such states, universal quantum-computing can be achieved by a certain measurement of the state. Conjecture 1 asserts that noisy quantum states created in the laboratory will involve a mixture of the intended state with other cluster states.
Question 1: Will such noisy cluster states still support universal quantum-computing?
A second proposal is topological quantum computing. Non-abelian anyons that can support universal quantum-computing can also be regarded as codewords in a certain quantum error-correcting code. Similar to before, the conjecture asserts that when we create such states in the laboratory (in a process that does not apply quantum fault-tolerance) we achieve a mixture of intended codewords with unintended codewords.
Question 2: Will such noisy anyons be useful for universal quantum-computing?
For these two proposals the special physical gadgets are supposed to be constructible by “ordinary” experimental quantum physics that does not involve quantum fault-tolerance, so they are an especially appealing testbed for my conjectures where all three interpretations can apply.
Why I Believe My Conjectures
Let me explain why I think that my conjectures are correct—also mindful of this nice post by Shmuel Weinberger on what “a conjecture” means for a mathematician. I regard it as implausible (see below) that universal quantum computers are realistic, and I think that the issue of noise is indeed the main issue. The strong principle of noise underlying Conjecture 1 strikes me as the right way to approach noise in quantum systems to begin with. The two-qubit conjecture proposes the simplest dividing line that I can think of between noise that allows fault tolerance and noise that does not. The conjecture regarding error-synchronization also captures, in my opinion, a very basic obstacle to quantum fault-tolerance. There is an argument from first principles that since error-correction is possible classically and Nature is really quantum, then error-correction must be possible quantumly. But it strikes me as conflating the settings after-the-fact. In any case, my conjectures allow classical error-correction and fault tolerance. And, finally, as far as I can see, my conjectures on the behavior of noise do not violate any principle of quantum mechanics.
As an aside, let me briefly say why I tend to regard universal quantum computers as unrealistic. An explanation for why universal quantum computers are unrealistic may require some change in physics theory of quantum decoherence. On the other hand, universal quantum computers will be physical devices that are able to simulate arbitrary quantum evolutions, where the word “simulate” is understood in the strong sense that the computer will actually create an identical quantum state to the state created by the evolution it simulates, and the word “arbitrary” is understood in the strong sense that it applies to every quantum evolution we can imagine as long as it obeys the rules of quantum mechanics. As such, quantum computers propose a major change in physical reality.
Aram Harrow: A Short Response
Although Peter Shor has already been featured on this blog for his famous factoring algorithm, I want to mention an arguably deeper contribution of his to quantum information. After demonstrating that -bit numbers could be factored in time, Shor pointed out that this was possible even with noisy gates, as long as each gate’s noise was (This observation is not totally obvious, and rests on the fact that quantum computers, unlike analog computers, cannot magnify small errors in their amplitudes.) Shor made this point to argue that factoring can be achieved with resources that are genuinely only polynomial, even when counting time, number of processors, energy and precision. When proposing new models of computation, it’s important to not to fall into the trap of analog computing, where seemingly innocuous assumptions dramatically change the power of the model.
While requiring noise to scale as might be theoretically reasonable, it’s not very encouraging if we hope to ever build a large-scale quantum computer. In the mid 1990’s, many disbelieved that quantum decoherence could ever be significantly reduced. Shor (and others) responded to this by developing the theory of quantum error correcting codes (QECC), which protect data in a manner analogous to classical codes. This requires overcoming several difficulties, such as the no-cloning theorem (which prevents redundant encodings), the fact that measurements cause disturbance, and the continuous range of possible errors.
Later, Shor (and Aharonov and Ben-Or, and others) extended QECCs to protect dynamic computations, so that fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC) could be achieved in the presence of a sufficiently low, but constant, rate of errors. To be sure, this makes assumptions such as independence that Gil is questioning.
QECC and FTQC are more than an answer to a technical objection; together they describe a potentially new phase of matter. In my opinion, they represent the deepest discovery in quantum mechanics since Bell’s Theorem. And we have in part the criticism of the quantum computing skeptics to thank for these breakthroughs! I hope the conversation between Gil’s skepticism and the optimism of people like me will also lead to useful results.
In a later post, I’ll respond in detail about why I believe that the emperor is fully dressed, and large-scale FTQC is possible, not only in theory, but realistically in the not-too-distant future. But by way of preview, I’ll outline my arguments briefly here.
Response Road Map
Any argument that FTQC is impossible must also deal with the fact that classical computing is evidently possible. Just as we know that any vs proof must avoid working relative to every oracle, we can argue that any proof of quantum computing’s impossibility must somehow distinguish quantum computers from classical computers. This rules out most models of maliciously correlated errors.
The key assumption of FTQC is (approximately) independent errors. Conversely, Gil’s skepticism is based on error models that may have low single-qubit error rates, but are highly correlated even across large distances. While this possibility can’t be definitively ruled out until we build a working large-scale quantum computer, I’ll give both theoretical and experimental evidence that such error models don’t occur in nature.
Current routes to building quantum computers, such as ion traps and superconductors, nevertheless suffer from correlated errors. I think these correlations aren’t too bad, but they definitely exist. However, I’ll propose a thought-experiment implementation of a quantum computer, which is not meant to be practical, but where correlated errors are highly implausible.
Open Problems
What are your thoughts on this matter? Please try to be as clear as possible, and if you refer to specific issues raised here this will be especially good. Also, solve Questions 1 and 2.
[fixed intro’s conflation of two Einstein-Bohr interchanges] | |||||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 94 | https://dokumen.pub/the-amazing-world-of-quantum-computing-9789811524707-9789811524714.html | en | The amazing world of quantum computing 9789811524707, 9789811524714 | [
"https://dokumen.pub/dokumenpub/assets/img/dokumenpub_logo.png",
"https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/the-amazing-world-of-quantum-computing-9789811524714-9789811524707-9811524718.jpg",
"https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/the-amazing-world-of-quantum-computing-undergraduate-lecture-notes-in-physics-9789811524707-97898... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | ... | en | dokumen.pub | https://dokumen.pub/the-amazing-world-of-quantum-computing-9789811524707-9789811524714.html | Table of contents :
Our World Consists of Both Real and Imagined Things......Page 6
Acknowledgements......Page 7
My Expectations from the Reader......Page 8
Contents......Page 11
About the Author......Page 17
1.1 Introduction......Page 18
1.2 Hello to Some Weirdness in Quantum Mechanics......Page 19
1.3 Time for Some Mathematics......Page 21
1.3.1 Quantum Operators that Act on a Qubit......Page 22
1.3.2 A Quantum Operator that Acts on a Qubit Pair......Page 24
1.4 Encryption and Key Distribution......Page 25
1.5 Teleportation......Page 28
References......Page 31
2.1 Introduction......Page 34
2.2 Two-Layer Description of the World......Page 35
2.2.2 Complementarity (Wave-Particle Duality)......Page 36
2.2.3 Causality and Determinism......Page 39
2.3 Superposition, Measurement, and Entanglement......Page 40
2.4 Classical Mechanics Powers Our Intuition......Page 42
2.5 The Birth of Modern Quantum Mechanics......Page 43
2.5.1 Serendipity at Work......Page 45
2.7 Postulates of Quantum Mechanics Formally Stated......Page 47
2.7.2 A Quantum System Evolves via Unitary Transformations......Page 48
2.7.3 A Quantum System Collapses When Measured......Page 49
2.7.4 Hilbert Space Grows Rapidly with the Size of a Quantum System......Page 50
2.7.5 Born’s Probabilistic Interpretation......Page 52
2.7.6 Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle......Page 53
2.8 Observables and Operators......Page 54
2.8.1 Observables in Quantum Mechanics Are Operators......Page 55
2.8.2 The Need for Observable-Operators......Page 56
2.8.3 Remarks on Vector Spaces......Page 57
2.9 Weirdness of Quantum Mechanics (In Summary)......Page 58
2.10 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics......Page 60
2.10.2 Everett’s Many-World Interpretation......Page 61
2.10.3 Bohm’s Interpretation......Page 62
2.11 From Galileo–Newton to Schrödinger–Born......Page 63
2.12 Concluding Remarks......Page 64
References......Page 65
3.1 Introduction......Page 69
3.1.1 Propositional Calculus (Propositional Logic)......Page 70
3.1.2 First-Order Predicate Calculus (First Order Logic)......Page 71
3.2.1 Various Representations of a State Vector......Page 72
3.2.2 Bases and Linear Independence......Page 74
3.3 Linear Operators and Matrices......Page 77
3.3.1 Inner Product......Page 78
3.3.2 Outer Product......Page 79
3.3.3 Tensor Product......Page 80
3.4.1 Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors......Page 83
3.4.3 Normal Operators and Spectral Decomposition......Page 84
3.4.4 Unitary Operators......Page 85
3.4.6 Trace of a Matrix......Page 86
3.4.8 Polar and Singular Value Decompositions......Page 87
3.5 Cauchy–Schwarz Inequality......Page 88
3.6 Pauli Matrices......Page 89
3.7 Concluding Remarks......Page 90
References......Page 91
4.1 Introduction......Page 92
4.2 No-Cloning Theorem......Page 93
4.3 No-Deleting Theorem......Page 95
4.4 No-Hiding Theorem......Page 96
4.5 EPR Paradox and Bell Inequalities......Page 97
4.5.2 Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Pose a Paradox......Page 98
4.5.3 What Does Hidden Variable Theory Mean?......Page 100
4.5.4 Bell Inequality......Page 101
4.5.5 An Intriguing Question......Page 103
4.5.6 Returning to the Bell Inequality......Page 104
4.6 Superposition and Indeterminacy......Page 105
4.7 Mathematical Consequences......Page 106
4.8 Concluding Remarks......Page 109
References......Page 110
5.2 Waves......Page 113
5.2.3 Standing or Stationary Waves......Page 117
5.2.4 Wave Packets......Page 118
5.2.5 Probability Waves......Page 119
5.3 Fourier Analysis......Page 120
5.4 Wave Packets in Some Detail......Page 121
5.4.1 Group and Phase Velocities......Page 122
References......Page 123
6.1 Introduction......Page 125
6.2 Measurement of Quantum Systems......Page 126
6.2.1 Cascaded Measurements Are Single Measurements......Page 128
6.2.2 Projective Measurements; Observable-Operators......Page 129
6.2.4 When Measurement Basis States Differ from Computational Basis States......Page 132
6.2.5 Positive Operator-Valued Measure (POVM) Measurements......Page 133
6.2.6 The Effect of Phase on Measurement......Page 134
6.2.8 Measurement with Photons and Electrons......Page 135
6.2.9 Whither Causality?......Page 136
6.3 Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (Revisited)......Page 137
6.4 Concluding Remarks......Page 140
References......Page 141
7.1 Introduction......Page 142
7.2 Operators (A Summary)......Page 144
7.3 The Qubit......Page 145
7.3.3 Unitary Operators......Page 147
7.4.1 Pauli Gates and Other 1-Qubit Gates......Page 149
7.4.2 2-Qubit Controlled-not Gate......Page 151
7.4.3 Creating Entangled Bell States......Page 153
7.4.5 3-Qubit Toffoli Gate......Page 154
7.4.6 3-Bit Fredkin Gate......Page 156
7.4.7 Controlled-U Gate......Page 157
7.5.1 Universal Set of Classical Gates......Page 158
7.5.2 Universal Set of Quantum Gates......Page 159
7.6.2 n-Qubit Hadamard Gate......Page 161
7.7 Taking Stock of Gates......Page 162
7.8 Concluding Remarks......Page 165
References......Page 166
8.1 Introduction......Page 168
8.1.1 Mach–Zehnder Interferometer......Page 169
8.2.1 Computing x ∧ y......Page 171
8.2.3 Swapping States......Page 172
8.2.4 The Deutsch Algorithm......Page 173
8.2.5 The Deutsch–Jozsa Algorithm......Page 175
8.2.6 Computing f(x) in Parallel......Page 176
8.2.7 Hardy’s Reprieve......Page 177
8.2.8 The Elitzur–Vaidman Bomb Problem......Page 179
8.2.9 Securing Banknotes......Page 181
References......Page 182
9.1 Introduction......Page 184
9.2 Hilbert’s Second Problem......Page 185
9.2.1 Recursive Set......Page 187
9.3 Hilbert’s Tenth Problem......Page 188
9.4 Turing and the Entscheidungsproblem......Page 190
9.4.1 Turing’s Halting Problem......Page 192
9.4.2 The Church–Turing Thesis......Page 196
9.4.3 Deutsch on the Church–Turing Thesis......Page 197
9.5 Thermodynamic Considerations......Page 198
9.5.1 The One-Molecule Gas......Page 200
9.5.3 Information Is Physical......Page 201
9.5.4 Toffoli Gate......Page 203
9.5.5 Bennett’s Solution for Junk Bits......Page 204
9.5.7 Maxwell’s Demon......Page 205
9.6 Computational Complexity......Page 208
9.6.1 Classification of Complexity......Page 212
9.7 Concluding Remarks......Page 216
References......Page 217
10.1 Introduction......Page 220
10.2 General Remarks on Quantum Algorithms......Page 221
10.3.1 Some Important Properties of Congruence......Page 222
10.3.2 Congruence Classes......Page 223
10.4 Bits and Qubits......Page 224
10.4.2 String Manipulation Leads to Algorithms......Page 225
10.5 UTM, DTM, PTM, and QTM......Page 227
10.5.1 Are Quantum Computers More Powerful?......Page 228
10.6.1 Background......Page 229
10.6.2 Quantum Fourier Transform......Page 230
10.7 Computing the Period of a Sequence......Page 234
10.8 Shor’s Factoring Algorithm......Page 237
10.8.2 Computational Complexity of Shor’s Algorithm......Page 239
10.9 Phase Estimation Problem......Page 240
10.10 Grover’s Search Algorithm......Page 242
10.10.1 Grover’s Algorithm Verified......Page 246
10.11 Dense Coding and Teleportation......Page 247
10.11.1 Dense Coding......Page 248
10.11.2 Teleportation......Page 249
10.12 Concluding Remarks......Page 250
References......Page 251
11.1 Introduction......Page 254
11.2 Protecting the Computational Hilbert Space......Page 255
11.2.1 Dissipation......Page 256
11.2.2 Decoherence......Page 257
11.3.1 Encoding-Decoding......Page 259
11.3.2 Steps of Error Correction......Page 260
11.4 Decoherence-Free Subspace......Page 263
References......Page 264
12.1 Introduction......Page 266
12.2 A Conjectured Sub-planck Mechanism......Page 268
12.3.1 Measurement of a Two-Particle Entangled System......Page 271
12.4 Teleporting a Qubit of an Unknown State......Page 272
References......Page 275
Index......Page 276
Citation preview | |||||
2453 | dbpedia | 2 | 19 | https://quantumzeitgeist.com/quantum-technology-luminaries-get-the-2023-breakthrough-prize/ | en | Quantum Technology Luminaries Get The 2023 Breakthrough Prize | [
"https://quantumzeitgeist.com/wp-content/themes/quantumtheme/images/cropped-QuantumZ.png.webp",
"https://quantumzeitgeist.com/wp-content/themes/quantumtheme/images/cropped-QuantumZ.png.webp",
"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5bd011c14c16ddceac2081ea5f53169a?s=50&r=g",
"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5b... | [
"about:blank",
"about:blank"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Inemesit Etim"
] | 2022-09-26T12:01:52+00:00 | The Breakthrough Prize Foundation, the world’s largest science awards, and its founding sponsors -Sergey Brin, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg, Julia and Yuri Milner, and Anne Wojcicki have announced the 2023 Breakthrough Prize laureates recognized for the discoveries in Fundamental Physics, Mathematics, and Life sciences. The Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental physics was awarded to Charles H. Bennet, Grilles Brassard, David Deutsch, and Peter Shor for their foundational work in quantum information. They will share the $3 million Prize. | en | https://quantumzeitgeist.com/wp-content/uploads/favicon.ico | Quantum Zeitgeist | https://quantumzeitgeist.com/quantum-technology-luminaries-get-the-2023-breakthrough-prize/ | The Breakthrough Prize Foundation, the world’s largest science awards, and its founding sponsors -Sergey Brin, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg, Julia and Yuri Milner, and Anne Wojcicki have announced the 2023 Breakthrough Prize laureates recognized for the discoveries in Fundamental Physics, Mathematics, and Life sciences. The Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental physics was awarded to Charles H. Bennet, Grilles Brassard, David Deutsch, and Peter Shor for their foundational work in quantum information. They will share the $3 million Prize.
Charles Bennet
Charles Henry Bennett is a physicist, information theorist, and IBM Fellow at IBM Research. He has played a major role in elucidating the interconnections between physics and information, particularly in the realm of quantum computation, but also in cellular automata and reversible computing.
After joining IBM Research in 1972, he built on the work of IBM’s Rolf Landauer to show that a logically and thermodynamically reversible apparatus can perform general-purpose computation. He discovered, with Gilles Brassard, the concept of quantum cryptography and is one of the founding fathers of modern quantum information theory.
Bennett is a National Academy of Sciences member and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He received the Technion’s Harvey Prize in 2008 and the Rank Prize in optoelectronics in 2006. He earned the ICTP’s Dirac Medal in 2017, the Wolf Prize in Physics in 2018, and the Shannon Award in 2019.
Gilles Brassard
Gilles Brassard is a faculty member of the Université de Montréal, where he has been a Full Professor since 1988 and Canada Research Chair since 2001. He is best known for his fundamental work in quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, quantum entanglement distillation, quantum pseudo-telepathy, and the classical simulation of quantum entanglement. He is the founder and Scientific Director of the Institut transdisciplinaire d’informatique quantique and was formerly the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cryptology.
Professor Brassard has played a crucial role in changing quantum information science from a minor pursuit to an area of vibrant and dynamic worldwide activity, thanks to his innovative thinking and pioneering research.
In 1984, Charles H. Bennett of IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center and Gilles Brassard of Université de Montréal created the BB84 protocol to introduce quantum cryptography by creating a workable method for sending secret messages between users with no recorded secret information. It cannot be cracked by an eavesdropper with unlimited computing power, unlike techniques used in e-commerce.
The research was based on Stephen Wiesner’s concept of quantum money. Bennett and Brassard used one of the unusual occurrences of the quantum world to build quantum cryptography: superposition, which allows a single particle to be simultaneously in two or more places. According to quantum theory, this dual state is lost as soon as someone observes the particle, which will then appear in one of two positions. If the same particle were being broadcast at the time, any attempted hack would collapse the superposition, alerting the interlocutors.
Charles and Gilles’s 1993 discovery with the collaborators of quantum teleportation demonstrated that entanglement is a useful quantifiable resource despite having no communication capacity. This helped pave the way for the new science of quantum information processing.
David Deutsch
David’s work on quantum algorithms began with a publication in 1985, which he built on with Richard Jozsa in 1992 to generate the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm, one of the first instances of a quantum algorithm that is exponentially faster than any deterministic conventional algorithm.
Oxford University’s David laid the foundations of quantum computation. He described the quantum equivalent of a Turing machine—a universal quantum computer—and demonstrated that it could simulate any physical system that complies with the laws of quantum mechanics with arbitrary accuracy. Using logic gates that leverage entanglement and the quantum superposition of several states simultaneously, he demonstrated how such a computer is equivalent to a network of fewer quantum gates. He was the first to create a quantum algorithm capable of solving a simple problem faster than a classical algorithm.
Peter Shor
Peter Shor worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley for a year before accepting a position at Bell Labs in New Providence, New Jersey. Before then, he had already received his Ph.D. from MIT. At Bell Labs, he created Shor’s algorithm, for which he received the Nevanlinna Prize and the Gödel Prize at the 23rd International Congress of Mathematicians in 1998.
Shor then developed another technique, this time on quantum error correction, which demonstrated that mistakes in a quantum system could be identified and rectified without disrupting the qubit itself, preserving the quantum computation. The dream of a viable quantum computer became a reality very instantly.
The dream came alive when Bennett went to deliver a talk about his new quantum key encryption technology at AT&T Bell Labs at the time, and; Peter Shor was inspired and began to research quantum information. In 1994, Peter Shor, the Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics at MIT, created the first quantum computer algorithm. His algorithm focuses on how a massive quantum computer can easily factorize enormously big numbers – a feat that would take the most powerful classical supercomputer more than the lifetime of the universe to solve.
Additionally, he created methods for quantum computers, which are much more challenging to implement than classical computers, where simple redundancy will do. These concepts have paved the way for today’s rapidly evolving quantum computers. They are also at the cutting edge of fundamental physics, particularly in studying metrology and quantum gravity.
Their aggregate discoveries result from an arcane investigation that began in the early 1980s and evolved into an ambitious and world-changing drive to build commercial-scale quantum computers. Shor is now developing a quantum information theory to define how data can be stored and conveyed using quantum physics principles.
See More | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 3 | 14 | https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3077363 | en | A quantum leap in computing | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Alan Boyle"
] | 2000-07-19T17:44:16+00:00 | The seemingly bizarre world of quantum mechanics could open the way for a revolution in computing and cryptography. | en | https://nodeassets.nbcnews.com/cdnassets/projects/ramen/favicon/nbcnews/all-other-sizes-PNG.ico/favicon.ico | NBC News | https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3077363 | The world of quantum mechanics goes against the grain of everyday experience. It’s an “Alice in Wonderland” realm beyond the ones and zeroes of classical computing. But if we can figure out how to put this world to work, it would lead to a technological quantum leap, allowing us to solve problems that would take millions of years to figure out using present-day computers. And that has huge implications for the Internet — indeed, for any means of communicating data.
Present-day computing rests on a foundation of bits, with information encoded within electronic circuitry as a series of ones and zeroes. But as circuits become more and more miniaturized, computers come closer to the fuzzy threshold of quantum physics: Quantum objects, such as electrons and other subatomic particles, can be thought of as existing in multiple states simultaneously: “up” as well as “down” … “1” as well as “0.” When you observe a quantum object, you take a snapshot of one of those states — but you also destroy quantum information.
This quantum realm serves as the lower limit for classical computing. The “one-or-zero” concept won’t work in a world of fuzzy “one-and-zero” bits.
But this property, known as “superposition,” opens the way to a completely different approach to computing. In this approach, one quantum bit — or qubit — enables you to manipulate two values at the same time. As you string together more and more qubits, the power grows exponentially. If you link two qubits together, you can work with four values at the same time. Three qubits can work with eight values, and so on. If you can get up to 40 qubits, you could work with more than a trillion values simultaneously.
Code-breaking
What could such computers be used for? One important application would be to find the prime factors of very large numbers.
This isn’t just an empty mathematical exercise. Prime factorization happens to be the foundation for secure data communications. It’s relatively easy to multiply two prime numbers together (7,817 and 7,333, for example), but no one has found an easy way to do the calculation in reverse — that is, figure out which two prime numbers can be multiplied together to equal 57,322,061.
This is what makes public-key cryptography possible. Other people can send you messages that are coded using the product of two primes, but that secret message can be deciphered only by someone who knows the two prime factors.
Your computer automatically handles all this coding and decoding in a secure electronic transaction. That’s what protects your credit card information from electronic eavesdroppers when you buy something over the Internet. But suppose the eavesdroppers had quantum computers: With all that computing power, they could figure out the prime factors of even incredibly large numbers — and crack the code.
Thus, the development of quantum computers would require a complete change in the methods used to protect information transmitted over the Internet and other “secure” communications links.
Code-making
Fortunately for code-makers, quantum computing techniques could be used as well to guarantee security (at least within a negligibly small probability). Quantum cryptography rests on the fact that quantum information cannot be measured without disrupting it. The secret-message software could be built so that attempts to eavesdrop on a message would set off an alarm — and automatically shut down transmission.
Another feature useful for quantum cryptography — and essential for quantum computing — is a bizarre characteristic called entanglement. Two quantum objects can be linked together so that if you observe the result of an interaction with one of the objects, you can figure out what the state of the other object is as well. The entanglement holds even if the two objects are widely separated.
This makes possible an “action-at-a-distance” phenomenon often called quantum teleportation — a term that often leads people to think of “Star Trek” transporters. In reality, what’s being teleported is information about a quantum object, not the object itself.
Two people could encode information, trade it back and forth, and reconstruct the information using entangled quantum systems. Even if eavesdroppers intercept the coded information, they couldn’t read the message because they wouldn’t be part of the entangled system.
Making it real
What forms do these quantum systems take? Photons, ions and atomic nuclei already are being put to work, with the spin of those particles representing ones and zeroes simultaneously.
Researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have demonstrated a quantum cryptography scheme that works over 30 miles (48 kilometers) of optical fiber. At the National Institute of Standards and Technology, two trapped beryllium ions have been wired together through entanglement, potentially representing the world’s first two-qubit computational device.
In addition to ion traps, nuclear magnetic resonance devices are helping scientists use the spin of atomic nuclei in quantum computing experiments. There are even proposals to make quantum computing devices out of good old silicon.
Peter Shor, an award-winning mathematician at AT&T Labs, says it may be possible to develop a 30-qubit computer within the next decade — but that would be just the start. It would take hundreds or thousands of networked qubits to solve problems beyond the capability of classical computers. No one knows when we’ll be able to reach that point. In fact, some researchers worry that the technical hurdles are too great to overcome.
Problems and solutions
Getting the information out: Since measurement destroys quantum information, how do you actually get the results of your calculations? The output from a quantum computer might well be analogous to an interference pattern, Shor says: The correct answer would be built up through constructive interference, while incorrect answers would be canceled out through destructive interference.
Scaling up the system: The NIST experiment shows that qubits can be linked together through entanglement, but can such networks be scaled up in size? Quantum information has a tendency to “leak” into the outside environment, in a process known as decoherence. Thus, the quantum system has to be isolated from outside influence as much as possible.
Compensating for errors: No matter what you do, quantum operations are inherently “noisy.” How do you correct for errors? It turns out that you can adapt classical error-correcting techniques to quantum systems to make them fault-tolerant. If the error rate is less than one part per 10,000, you can make quantum computers work even though the individual operations you’re applying to your qubits aren’t perfectly accurate, Shor says.
If we do develop workable quantum computers, they would come in handy for much more than code-breaking and code-making. They could make it easier to find solutions to other “needle-in-a-haystack” problems — problems for which no better approach is known than exhaustively searching a large set of possible solutions for the correct one. We could gain new insights into how molecules, atoms and subatomic particles behave — unlocking secrets of the quantum world itself.
But in truth, we can’t imagine all the potential uses for quantum computing today — any more than the creators of the first digital computers, a half-century ago, could have imagined where their pioneering work would eventually lead.
This article is based on an interview with Peter Shor, senior researcher at AT&T Labs. Dr. Shor won the 1999 Godel Prize and the 1998 Nevanlinna Award for his work in quantum computing and quantum physics and has been with AT&T Labs since 1986. Dan Simon of Microsoft Research also contributed to this report. | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 16 | https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2014/ | en | Computational Complexity | https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/favicon.ico | https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/favicon.ico | [
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif",
"https://resources.... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Lance Fortnow"
] | null | Computational Complexity and other fun stuff in math and computer science from Lance Fortnow and Bill Gasarch | en | https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/favicon.ico | https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2014/ | The NIPS Experiment
The NIPS (machine learning) conference ran an interesting experiment this year. They had two separate and disjoint program committees with the submissions split between them. 10% (166) of the submissions were given to both committees. If either committee accepted one of those papers it was accepted to NIPS.
According to an analysis by Eric Price, of those 166, about 16 (about 10%) were accepted by both committees, 43 (26%) by exactly one of the committees and 107 (64%) rejected by both committees. Price notes that of the accepted papers, over half (57%) of them would not have been accepted with a different PC. On the flip side 83% of the rejected papers would still be rejected. More details of the experiment here.
No one who has ever served on a program committee should be surprised by these results. Nor is there anything really wrong or bad going on here. A PC will almost always accept the great papers and almost always reject the mediocre ones, but the middle ground are at a similar quality level and personal tastes come into play. There is no objective perfect ordering of the papers and that's why we task a program committee to make those tough choices. The only completely fair committees would either accept all the papers or reject all the papers.
These results can lead to a false sense of self worth. If your paper is accepted you might think you had a great submission, more likely you had a good submission and got lucky. If your paper was rejected, you might think you had a good submission and was unlucky, more likely you had a mediocre paper that would never get in.
In the few days since NIPS announced these results, I've already seen people try to use them not only to trash program committees but for many other subjective decision making. In the end we have to make choices on who to hire, who to promote and who to give grants. We need to make subjective decisions and those done by our peers aren't always consistent but they work much better than the alternatives. Even the machine learning conference doesn't use machine learning to choose which papers to accept.
Guest Post about Barbie `I can be an engineer' -- Sounds good but its not.
There is now a I can be an engineer Barbie. That sounds good! It's not. Imagine how this could be turned around and made sexist. What you are imagining might not be as bad as the reality. Depends on your imagination.
Guest Blogger Brittany Terese Fasy explains:
Remember the controversy over the Barbie doll that said
"Math class is tough!"? Well, Barbie strikes again.
If you haven't heard about II can be a computer engineer it is a story about how Barbie, as a "computer engineer" designs a game, but cannot code it herself. She enlists the help of her two friends, Steven and Brian, to do it for her. Then, she gets a computer virus and naively shares it with hersister. Again, Steven and Brian must come to the rescue. Somehow, in the end, she takes credit for all of their work and says that she can be a computer engineer. Gender issues aside, she does not embody a computer engineer in this book. For more details, please see here.
Children need role models. Naturally, parents are their first role models. And, not everyone's parent is a computer engineer / computer scientist. So, books exploring different career choices to children provides the much-needed opportunity for them to learn about something new, to have a role model (even if if that role model is fictional). In principle, this book is fantastic; however, it fails to convey the right message. That is why I started a petition to Random House to pull this book off the market.The petition is here.
Progress was made as Barbie issued an apology: here. And Amazon and Barnes and Nobles removed the book from its catalog. However, neither Random House, nor the author of the book have issued a statement, and it is still available at Walmart.
Until the book is completely off the market we should not stop! And maybe one day, we'll see
Barbie: I can be a Computational Geometer on the shelves.
A Fly on the wall for a Harvard Faculty meeting: Not interesting for Gossip but interesting for a more important reason
I was recently in Boston for Mikefest (which Lance talked about here) and found time to talk to my adviser Harry Lewis at Harvard (adviser? Gee, I already finished my PhD. Former-Advisor? that doesn't quite sound right. I'll stick with Adviser, kind of like when they refer to Romney as Governor Romney, or Palin as half-governor Palin). He also invited me to goto a Harvard Faculty meeting.
NO, I didn't see anything worth gossiping about. NO I am not going to quote Kissinger ``Academic battles are so fierce because the stakes were so low'' NO I am not going to say that under the veneer or cordiality
you could tell there were deep seated tensions. It was all very civilized. Plus there was a free lunch.
The topic was (roughly) which courses count in which categories incomputer science for which requirements. Why is this interesting? (hmmm- IS it interesting? You'd prob rather hear that Harry Lewis stabbed Les Valiant with a fork in a dispute about whether there should be an ugrad learning theory course). Because ALL Comp sci depts face these problems. At Mikefest and other conferences I've heard the following issues brought up:
Should CS become a service department? Math did that with Calculus many years ago. PRO: They get to tell the dean `we need to hire more tenure track faculty to teach calculus', CON: They have to have their tenure track faculty teach calculus. (I know its more complicated than that.)
What should a non-majors course have in it?
What should CS1,CS2,CS3 have in it (often misconstrued by the question ``what is a good first language'' which misses the point of what you are trying to accomplish). For that matter, should it be a 3-long intro sequence (it is at UMCP).
Can our majors take the non-majors courses? (At UMCP our non majors course on web design has material in it that is NOT in any majors course.)
When new courses come about (comp-bio, programming hand-held devices, Computational flavor-of-the-month) what categories to they fit into? (For an argument in favor of Machine Learning see Daume's post. ) What should the categories be anyway? And what about the functors?
Which courses were at one point important but aren't any more? UMCP no longer requires a Hardware course-- is that bad? (Yes- when I tell my students that PARITY can't be solved by a constant depth poly sized circuit, they don't know what a circuit is!)
I don't have strong opinions to any of these questions (except that, despite my best efforts, we do not require all students to learn Ramsey Theory), but I note that all depts face these questions (or need to- I wonder if some depts are still teaching FORTRAN and COBOL- and even that's not quite a bad thing since there is so much legacy code out there.)
I have this notion (perhaps `grass is always greener on the other side') that MATH (and most other majors) don't have these problems. AT UMCP there have only been TWO new math courses introduced on the ugrad level since 1985 :Crypto (which is cross-listed with CS), and Chaos Theory. CS has new courses, new emphasis, new requirements every few years. Oddly enough when I tell this to Math Profs they ENVY that we CAN change our courses so much. What is better chaos or stability?
When I saw Back to the future 2 in 1989 I noticed that their depiction of academic computer science in 2015 was that Comp Sci Depts across the country agreed on what was important and be similar (as I imagine math is). Instead the opposite has happened- these things are still in flux. (If you can't trust a Science Fiction movie staring Michael J Fox what can you trust?) As a sign of that, the advanced GRE in CS never really worked and has now been discontinued.
So- will CS settle down by 2015? We still have a year to go, but I doubt it. 2025? Before P vs NP is solved?
and is it OKAY if it doesn't?
Non controversial thoughts on rankings
US News has a ranking of CS depts and various subcategories. Recently MohammadTaghi Hajiaghay and Luca Trevisan have suggested alternative rankings here (Moh) and here (Luca). These rankings inspire me to record some thoughts about rankings.
When making a ranking one must ask: What is it for? For Academic depts it may be to help guide potential ugrads or grads in their choice of where to go. Rankings of the most influential people of all time (Michael Harts book here), or in a given year (Time magazine does this) are made to (I think) organize our thoughts and start debates. Michael Hart also did a book about the most influential people as soon from the year 3000 (so half are fictional) as a way to speculate (see here). My own ranking of Bob Dylan satires here was done for my own amusement.
Transparency sounds like a plus. But if a ranking is too transparent, and is considered important, than organizations might game the system. Recall Goodhart's law: When a measure becomes a target is ceases to be a measure. On the other hand, if the measure really is good then it may be okay if it becomes a target. Some measures are hard to game- like surveys of what people think.
There have been a variety of rankings of presidents (see here). These ranking say something about the times they were done. Studying how they change over time could itself be a historical project of interest. Another thought: the book Hail to the chiefs it notes that James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson usually rank as the worst presidents, while Lincoln ranks as one of the best--- but this is unfair!--- Buchanan could not stop the civil war (but nobody really could) and Johnson had to clean up the mess after it (but nobody really could). The Lincoln presidency was almost entirely the civil war which Ameican won, so he gets the credit. More to the point--- ranking presidents is odd since it may depend very much on the times they govern.
Bill James (KEY Baseball statistician who I think should go into the Hall of Fame for changing the way we think about Baseball) has tried to have lists of GREAT TEAMS. But there is a problem (which he fully notes)- some teams are GREAT in terms of having great players, but didn't win the world series, or have only one pennant. Less than the sum of its parts.
Numerical ratings may be odd in that they lump different items together. GPA is a bit odd--- do you prefer a student who got an A in Theory and a C in Operations Systems, or a student who got a B in both? I don't know the answer, but GPA wipes out the distinction.
Rankings that compare very unlike objects are useless. Here is a ranking of CS blogs--- the criteria seems to be just one guys opinion. I disagree with his ranking, but I have no idea what he cares about. Also, he includes Harry Lewis's fine blog BITS AND PIECES, which is often about academic stuff, and also Terry Tao's fine blog WHATS NEW which is really a math blog. Very hard to compare those two to each other or to others.
The tigher the focus the more useful a ranking can be. Ranking the best novelty songs of all time would be impossible (Number one is PDQ Bach's Classical Rap) but if you restrict to, say, best science fiction Satires I(Luke Ski's Grease Wars part 1, part 2, Part 3)- then its easier (Trivia note- Science fiction satire songs are often called FILK SONGS--- the urban legend is that at an early Science Fiction Convention Science fiction Folk Songs was mispelled as Science fiction Filk Songs and hence the term was born.)
SO, what really would help potential CS Grad Students in theory? Perhaps a grid where for every department is listed the theory faculty, and for each one the number of pubs in top tier confs, second tier confs, and journals in the last 5 years, and their area, and a pointer to their website. Then RESIST the urge to boil it down to one number.
I"m reminded of being on the Grad Admissions committee. I get to look at the transcript (much more informative than the GPA), letters, possibly papers. Fortunately I don't have to boil it down to one number--- there are very few categories (accept, wait list of some sort, reject, but there can be a few others involving scholarships, but VERY few categories really).
Finding what you want: I think that Raiders of the lost ark has tone of the best ending-of-a-movie ever. So I Googled best movie ending and variants of it, and alas, Raiders did not do well. One of the rankings didn't have it in the top 50. So I then Googled best movie endings Raiders of the lost ark and I found a ranking that had Raider in the top 10. Yeah! But this is all silly- I found some person who agrees with me.
Steve Skienna and Charlie Ward have written a book Who's bigger: Where historical figures really rank which has a transparent and reasonable way to measure... not clear. Probably fame. For a review see here
A few more notes about Sipser and Sipser-60th
While Lance was AT Mikefest (Sipser's 60th Bday conference), helping to organize it, emceeing the personal statements, I was... also there.
A few notes
Aside from his graying hair, Mike still looks like a teenager.
In 1985 Mike was one of the few people who thought P=BPP. He wrote a paper about how a certain kind of expander implies what we would now call a hard vs randomness result and presented it at the 1986 CCC (called STRUCTURES then). After the Nisan-Wigderson Hard vs Rand results most everyone thought P=BPP. But Mike was there first.
I took his grad complexity class in the early 1980's. I remember him proving results that either he or someone else had JUST proven the last week. He did a good job too! What struck me then and now is how vibrant CS is as a field that material taught LAST WEEK can be in an INTRO grad course (that's not as true anymore).
After PARITY not in AC_0, and the monotone circuit results, Sipser and others were OPTIMISTIC that P vs NP would be solved ``soon''. Oh, to be in a field in the early days when people were optimistic. But see next point.
Mike claims he STILL thinks P vs NP will be solved in 20 years. I don't quite know if he REALLY thinks this or wants to make the point that we should be optmistic. Similar to Lipton thinking P=NP--- does he really think that or does he want to make the point that we shouldn't all be so sure of ourselves?
And two non-sipers notes (sort of) from Mikefest
Steve Rudich told me that I misquoted him in a blog post and people often say `Steve, do you really think we are 6 months from an independence result'. I am not surprised that I made a MISTAKE in a blog post. I am surprised that people read it, remembered it, and asked him about it. In any case I have edited that post to SAY it was a mistake and I re-iterate it now: STEVE RUDICH DOES NOT THINK WE ARE SIX MONTHS AWAY FROM AN IND PROOF FOR P VS NP.
I spoke to Mauricio Karchmer who, with Avi W and others, had an approach to P vs NC^1 via comm. comp which at the time I thought was very promising--- since we really can prove things in comm. comp. Alas it still has not panned out. However, Mauricio now thinks that (1) We can't prove lower bounds because they are false, and (2) we can't prove upper bounds because we are stupid.
Metrics in Academics
Congratulations to the San Francisco Giants, winning the World Series last night. In honor of their victory let's talk metrics. Baseball has truly embraced metrics as evidenced in the book and movie Moneyball about focusing on statistics to choose which players to trade for. This year we saw a dramatic increase in the infield shift, the process of moving the infielders to different locations for each batter based on where they hit the ball, all based on statistics.
Metrics work in baseball because we do have lots of statistics, but also an objective goal of winning games and ultimately the World Series. You can use machine learning techniques to predict the effects of certain players and positions and the metrics can drive your decisions.
In the academic world we certainly have our own statistics, publications counts and citations, grant income, teaching evaluation scores, sizes of classes and majors, number of faculty and much more. We certainly draw useful information from these values and they feed into the decisions of hiring and promotion and evaluation of departments and disciplines. But I don't like making decisions solely based on metrics, because we don't have an objective outcome.
What does it mean to be a great computer scientist? It's not just a number, not necessarily the person with a large number of citations or a high h-index, or the one who brings in huge grants, or the one with high teaching scores, or whose students gets high paying jobs. It's a much more subjective measure, the person who has a great impact. in the many various ways one can have an impact. It's why faculty applications require recommendation letters. It's why we have faculty recruiting and P&T committees, instead of just punching in a formula. It's why we have outside review committees that review departments and degrees, and peer review of grant proposals.
As you might have guessed this post is motivated by attempts to rank departments based on metrics, such as described in the controversial guest post last week or by Mitzenmacher. There are so many rankings based on metrics, you just need to find one that makes you look good. But metric-based rankings have many problems, most importantly they can't capture the subjective measure of greatness and people will disagree on which metric to use. If a ranking takes hold, you may optimize to the metric instead of to the real goals, a bad allocation of resources.
I prefer the US News & World report approach to ranking CS Departments, which are based heavily on surveys filled out by department and graduate committee chairs. For the subareas, it would be better to have, for example, theory people rank the theory groups but I still prefer the subjective approach.
In the end, the value of a program is its reputation, for a strong reputation is what attracts faculty and students. Reputation-based rankings can best capture the relative strengths of academic departments in what really matters.
Martin Gardner Centennial
Martin Gardner was born on October 21, 1914, so today is his Centennial (he died on May 22, 2010, at the age of 95). We've mentioned him in the blog before:
The Life of Martin Gardner
Contribute to the Gardner Centennial
Another Post on Martin Gardner
I used the anagram Tim Andrer Gran in both my review of the Lipton-Regan book (see here) and my Applications of Ramsey Theory to History paper (see here)
So what can I add on his centennial?
He was not the first person to write on recreational mathematics, but he was certainly early and did it for a long time.
I suspect he influenced everyone reading this who is over 50. For every y, y is under 50 and reading this column, there exists x such that MG influenced x and x influenced y.
The line between ``recreational'' and ``serious'' math is sometimes blurry or hard to see. An obvious case of this was Euler and the Bridges problem leading to graph theory. At one time solving equations was done for competition, which seems recreational. Galois theory is not recreational.
Donald Knuth's book Selected Papers in Discrete Math (reviewed by me here) states I've never been able to see the boundary between scientific research and game playing.
I am reading a book Martin Gardner in the 21st century which is papers by people who were inspired by him. The papers really do blur the distinction between recreational and serious. Some are rather difficult but all start out with a fun problem.
Aside from recreational math he did other things- magic, and debunking bad science. (Fads and Fallacies in the name of science was excellent.) He was a well rounded person which is rare now.
Brian Hayes and Ian Stewart and others do what he did, but given the times we live in now, its hard capture the attention of a large segment of the public. (analogous to that when I was a kid there were only a handful of TV stations, now there are... too many?)
When I was in high school I went to the library looking for math books I could read (naive?). I found one of his books (collection of his columns) and began reading it. I learned about casting out nines and I learned what was to be the first theorem I ever learned a proof of outside of class (given that I was probably 12 it may be the first proof I learned ever). It was that (in todays lang) a graph is Eulerian iff every vertex is even degree.
Luddite or not?
My first ever guest post for Lance was on Are you a luddite. I certainly am to some extent a luddite, but there are some things where it not clear if they are luddite-ish or not.
I prefer reading books to blogs. This came up when I reviewed both Lipton and Lipton-Regan blog-books, and I am now reading some of Terry Tao's Blog book. l look forward to reading Scott's Blog book. At first I thought that preferring books was luddite-ish. But some high tech people and some young people who I've asked AGREE with me. Why is this?
When reading a blog (or doing anything on line) its so easy to get distracted, e.g. OH, I WONDER IF WHITEY FORD IS STILL ALIVE SO I"LL PUT HIM ON MY LIST OF LIVING FAMOUS PEOPLE OVER 80 (he is, he's 85, and has the same birthday (though not year) as Martin Gardner), OH, I wonder if the word Buypartisan (that is NOT misspelled) is on my list-of-cool-new-words that I keep, OH I wonder how many people have registered for Theory Day. OH, Lipton just posted about Definitions not being needed and used that quote from The Treasure of Sierra Madre (see here) that was satirized in the movie UHF, I wonder if that clip is on You-Tube (It is here). OH, I can write a blog about Math in Weird-Al songs, for example Polka Patterns.
If I read a blog with a proof in it I tend to say I'll read that later.
I work better with pen and paper on hand. This may change if the way to mark up pdf and other documents gets better.
(I do not why it restarted at number 1. I don't care to fix it- is that Luddite or not wanting to waste time on something unimportant?)
Of course, the blog reading issue is MY fault for being distracted.
I don't pay my bills on line. There have been many data breaches and that gets darling and I nervous. Is this Luddite? Not sure--- is banking off-line any safer? I ask non-rhetorically.
In a small class I use the blackboard. Some of my systems faculty have gone from board to slides and then back to board. For a big class I have to use slides, though that may be an argument for small classes.
BILL: When I goto that conference I am going to bring some math to read during the talks I don't understand.
DARLING: Isn't that rude?
BILL: Many people in the audience will have their laptops out, reading email, managing their facebook page, etc.
DARLING: But the speaker can at least imagine they are taking notes
BILL: Unlikely. In the next talk the speaker will become the laptop person.
The fact that I don't look at a laptop during a talk is probably a plus- and not a Luddite thing.
We still don't have Netflix. We watch less TV this way? Worse TV this way? Not clear how this one goes.
I used to write things out before typing them in, now I type them in directly. I wonder if that's good or bad.
I used to have notebooks of random math stuff in them. Now I can't get myself to write things out by hand. That's probably bad.
If someone asks me a question I am too quick to goto the web rather than try to answer it myself. This is mixed--- I don't waste time on problems I can't solve, but I also don't have the joy of solving them. I think of myself as not being a good problems-solver, but this could be a self-fulfilling prophecy that the web makes easier to indulge in.
This is a DUH-comment- I hate technology that does not work. One of the worst episodes of Star Trek was The Ultimate Computer which showed that a good human is better than a MALFUNCTIONING computer. Well DUH. I had a rant about electronic refereeing - and not a single comment accused me of being a Luddite. In short- I hate technology that doesn't work. Duh.
So- your thoughts? Some Luddite things may not be Luddite, but just better. And technology will change yet again, making us all Luddites.
The Complexity of NIM. Open?
Recall 1-pile NIM:
Let A be a finite set of Naturals. NIM(A) is the following game: There are n stones on the board. Players I and II alternate removing a\in A stones. The first player who can't win loses. Note that if 1\in A then `can't move' means that the other player took the last stone. If (say) 2 is the min elt of A then its possible there is 1 stone on the board and a player can't move.
The following are known and easy to prove:
If A={1,L} and L is even then II wins iff n\equiv 0,2,4,...,L-2 mod L+1
If A={1,L,L+1} and L is odd then II wins iff n\equiv 0,2,4,...L-1 mod 2L+1
If A={1,L,L+1} and L is even then II wins iff n\equiv o,2,4,...,L-2 mod 2L
If A= {L,...,M} then II wins iff n\equiv 0,2,4,...,L-2 mod L+1
For ANY set A there will be a mod pattern, after a certain point.
(I think that if 1\in A then the mod pattern goes from the beginning, but if 1\notin A then its possible that it does not start for a while.)
This raises the following computational problem: How hard is the problem of, given finite set A, find the mod pattern. I would want to know the complexity as a function of the size of the representation of A, or possibly just |A|log_2(max elt of A). Has this been looked at? Some Google searches and asking around did not yield anything. I'm hoping that asking my readers may yield something.
Dagstuhl on Algebra in Computational Complexity
(Reminder- Theory day at UMCP: here is the link. )
There was a Dagstuhl on Algebra in Computational Complexity Sept 22-26.
I learned stuff in the talks, over meals, and even in my room alone at night.
1) Recall that a while back Ryan Williams (the theorist, not the American-Football player) showed that NEXP is not in ACC. His proof involved MANY things but one of the core things was an ALGORITHM for a version of SAT (I think Succinct-SAT) that was ever-so-slightly better than brute force. So one lesson is that people in complexity theory should know some algorithms. At Dagstuhl Ryan presented work that shows that people in algorithms should know complexity. He used some old results about circuits to obtain algorithm for all-pairs shortest path that has complexity n^3/X where X=2^{\Omega(log n)^{1/2}. The ultimate goal is to either prove or disproof that all-pairs... has n^{3-ep} algorithms or not. On the NOT side he has (with other people, including Virginia Williams) a large class of problems , including APSP, that either all have n^{3=ep} or none of them do.
2) There were two (possibly three) talks on VP and VNP. Both are circuit classes defined by Valiant. Meena Mahajan has some natural problems that are complete for VNP (if you consider looking at Homomorphic polynomials natural) and Eric Allennder had a dual notion to VP and VNP. A sequence of polynomials is in VP if there is an arithmetic circuit family of polynomial bounded size and degree that computes the sequence. (Circuit C_n computes poly f_n). VNP is if there is a sequence C_n of poly bounded size and degree such that f_n(x) = sum as y\in {0,1}^p(n) C_n(x,y).
This is usually discussed over a finite field. Eric's result depended on which field it was.
3) Stephen Fenner talked about some combinatorial games that were PSPACE complete. The black-white-poset-game is as follows: there is a poset where every node is colored white or black. One player is called black, the other is called white. Players alternate removing nodes of their color, and if they remove a node they remove all nodes above it. Either player can go first, so you may have a game where if B goes first he wins, but if he goes second he does not. Fenner and his co-authors have shown that the general problem of, given a Black-whie Poset and who goes first, determining who wins, is PSPACE complete. They showed that other versions are in P.
4) In the 1990's Karchmar and Wigderson had an approach to NC^1 vs NC^2 and P vs NC^1 that looked promising--- they defined problems in communication complexity (where we actually DO have results!) that would imply some separations. This lead to monotone circuit results, but not to real circuit results. Or Meir spoke on some problems in that realm which can now be approaced with information complexity. Are we closer to a true separation? Next Dagstuhl!
5) David Zuckerman gave a nice talk on Malleable codes. I was intrigued by some of the math that he did. The Sum-Product theorems are along the lines of: If A, B are large sets of reals (or other domains) then either A+A or AA is large. Or one could say that if A,B,C are all large than AB+C is large. David used an entropy version of this--- if A,B,C have large min-entropy, then so does AB+C.
6) Kopparty showed that Polynomial Id Testing and Polynomail Factoring are related and may be equivalent.
7) Over Lunch Jacobo Toran told me the following rather odd result.
a) Imagine the following GI algorithm: given two graphs look at the degree sequence, then the degrees of the degress, then... (this goes on n times). Two graphs are isom if they are never found to be non-isom. DOESN"T WORK- Cai-First-Immerman showed that. Even so, we'll call that FOCSI-isom. Note that FOCS-isom is in P.
b) Recall that G (as a matrix) and H (as a matrix) are isom if there exists a Perm Matrix P such that GP = PH. We can expand what P can be- say to doubly-stocastic (every row and every column adds to 1) We call two graphs G,H STOC-isom if there exists a Double stocastic matrix P such that GP=PH. This is in Poly Time by Linera Programming.
c) FOCS-isom and STOC-isom are the same! Too bad, I thought that STOC-isom might be a way to get GI in P.
8) Sometimes at a conference I find a book in the library and read it at night and learn something out of nowhere. This happened with Mitzenmacher-Upfal book on Prob. and Computing (It could be called ``The Alice book'' as there is a picture of Alice from Alice in Wonderland on the cover. For the longest time a famous compiler book was called The Dragon Book). I read parts of it and even made up notes that I may use in an ugrad course: the coupon collector problem: A cereal company puts coupons labeled 1,2,...,n at random in boxes. If you mail in one of each you get a free box of cereal. You are DETERMINED to get that box of cereal. What is the expected number of boxes of cereal you must buy? It turns out to be nln(n), and is very tight around that.
9) I learned more from the talks, more from the meals, and more from my own alone time, but what is above is a good sampling.
10) More chalk-talks then I would have thought. Either chalk or slides can be done well or poorly.
11) Looking forward to the next Dagstuhl! | |||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 61 | https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/page/5/ | en | Combinatorics and more | [
"https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cropped-gil-jirka.jpg",
"https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=R%284%2Ct%29&bg=ffffff&fg=333333&s=0&c=20201002",
"https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=r%284%2Ct%29+%5Cge+c+%5Cfrac+%7Bt%5E3%7D%7B%5Clog+%5E4+t%7D&bg=ffffff&fg=333333&s=0&c=20201002",
"https://0... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Gil Kalai's blog | en | https://s1.wp.com/i/favicon.ico | Combinatorics and more | https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/ | Yosi Rinott, Tomer Shoham, and I wrote our third paper regarding our statistical study of the Google 2019 supremacy experiment. Our paper presents statistical analysis that may shed light on the quality and reliability of the data and the statistical methods of the Google experiment. Comments, corrections and discussion are most welcome.
The title of the Google 2019 paper was “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor”. As the readers may remember, the supremacy claim has largely been refuted by several research groups; see this post, this one, and this one. The calibration process of the Google experiment weakens the claim of a “programmable processor”, and some of our findings from the second paper as well as a few of the findings from the new paper further weaken this claim (see below).
Questions and Concerns About Google’s Quantum Supremacy Claim
Abstract: In October 2019, Nature published a paper [5] describing an experimental work that was performed at Google. The paper claims to demonstrate quantum (computational) supremacy on a 53-qubit quantum computer. Since then we have been involved in a long-term project to study various statistical aspects of the Google experiment.
In [32] we studied Google’s statistical framework that we found to be very sound and offered some technical improvements. This document describes three main concerns (based on statistical analysis) about the Google 2019 experiment. The first concern is that the data do not agree with Google’s noise model (or any other specific model). The second concern is that a crucial formula for a priori estimation of the fidelity is surprisingly simple and seems to involve an unexpected independence assumption, and yet it gives very accurate predictions. The third concern is about surprising statistical properties of the calibration process
Some findings of this paper
1. There is a large gap between the samples of the Google experiment and the Google noise mode, and any other specific noise model. The gap between the empirical distribution and the model is asymmetric.
2. There are large fluctuations of the empirical behavior which are not understood. Consequently, there is evidence that the distance between the Google noise model and uniform distribution is smaller (when the number of qubits is n > 16) than the distance between the experimental samples and the Google noise model.
3. The empirical behavior of the samples is not stationary.
4. While the empirical distribution is not stationary the XEB fidelity is stable along the samples. Moreover, “high energy events” that lead to abrupt increase in errors that are reported for later experiments with the Sycamore quantum computer cannot be detected in the 2019 quantum supremacy experiment.
5. The predictive power of Formula (77) for the XEB fidelity estimates is statistically surprising: the subsumed independence between components of systems such as quantum computers, which are known to be sensitive to noise and errors caused by interactions with their environment, is striking.
6. The systematic bias of the predictions of Formula (77) for patch circuits seems statistically surprising, and the Google explanation is not convincing.
7. The behavior of the fidelities of the two patches for patch circuits is very different; This appears to be in tension with Formula (77). ( We were not yet provided with the data needed to check this matter.)
8. The success of the experiments fully depends on the very large effect of the calibration adjustments. There are large differences between the effects of the calibration adjustments for different 2-gates, and even for different appearances of the same 2-gate.
9. The calibration adjustments are surprisingly effective, especially given the stated local nature of the calibration. Mathematically speaking, we witness a local optimization process reaching a critical point of a function depending on hundreds of parameters.
A few problems of general interest
Scrutinizing a scientific work necessarily involves punctiliousness and nitpicking, but there are several issues that we find of general interest.
(a) What is the statistical methodology for analyzing samples obtained from noisy quantum computers and for finding appropriate models to describe the empirical data?
(b) We suggest that the statistical independence assumption in a certain predictive model is very surprising. What could be the scientific framework and methodology to study this matter?
(c) We find it surprising that a local optimization process (namely, a process that separately optimizes each variable) of a function of many variables, reaches a critical point. What could be further tools to study this matter?
(d) What are the tools to study if an empirical behavior is non-stationary and perhaps even inherently unpredictable?
(e) What is the appropriate methodology and ethics for scrutinizing major scientific works, and how is it possible to bridge the gap between theoreticians (like us) and experimentalists?
What’s next
We are in the process of writing a paper on readout errors, gate errors, and Fourier expansion. On the theoretical side, we will study the effect of gate errors on the Fourier expansion, which is of interest in and of itself and could serve as some sanity test for various aspects of the Google 2019 experiment. (The effect of readout errors is well understood – it is essentially the noise operator that I have been studying extensively since the mid-1980s.) On the technical side, this will be our first work where we use simulators for noisy quantum circuits, and we currently use both the Google and the IBM simulators. Then, we may apply some of our statistical tools at other NISQ experiments, and will even try to reproduce, using an IBM quantum computer, a certain random circuit experiment with 6 qubits.
Pictorial Summary
Concern I
There is a large gap between the samples of the Google quantum supremacy experiments and the Google noise model. In fact, the samples are far away from any noise model we are aware of. There is evidence that the distance between the Google noise model and uniform distribution is smaller (when
the number of qubits is n > 16) than the distance between the experimental samples and the Google noise model. We studied other properties of the empirical distribution like its behavior in different scales, its non-stationary nature, and its Fourier behavior, and there is more to be done mainly for data coming from other NISQ experiments and data from simulators of noisy circuits.
The left-hand side scatterplots display theoretical vs. empirical frequencies of the Google sample (file 0) with n = 12. The right-hand side scatterplots display theoretical vs. our simulated empirical frequencies according to Google’s noise model (1) with φ = 0.3701.
Concern II
The remarkable predictive power of Formula (77) is statistically surprising: the subsumed independence between components of the quantum computer, is striking. The close agreement of the experimental XEB fidelities between the patch circuits and full circuits shows an unexplained systematic deviation from the predictions of Formula (77). On the other hand, confirmations [13, 23] and replications [33, 35] lend support to the claims in the Google paper. There are various matters that remain to be explored. For example, (i) using simulations of noisy circuits, the magnitude of the difference between the two sides of Formula (77) (Gao et al. [11]) could be estimated, and (ii) the individual values in Formula (77) could be used to study the different XEB fidelities of the two patches in patch circuits.
The striking prediction power of Formula (77): Comparison between average XEB fidelity for full, elided, and patch circuits with (77).
Concern III
The calibration process accounts for systematic errors for 2-gates and applies certain adjustments to the definition of the circuits. These adjustments are local, namely the adjustments for a 2-gate involving qubits x and y primarily depend on outcomes for 1- and 2-circuits on these qubits. Some statistical findings regarding the calibration process are: (i) The effects of the calibration is large even for a single 2-gate; (ii) there is a large difference between the effect for different 2-gates and even different appearances of the same 2-gate, and; (iii) the effectiveness of the 2-gate calibrations is remarkable. We note that these findings enhance the tension between the calibration process and Google’s claim for a “programmable quantum computer.” The effectiveness of the calibration process is especially surprising in view of the local nature of the calibration: mathematically speaking, we witness a local optimization process reaching a critical point of a function depending on hundreds of parameters.
The remarkable effectiveness of the calibration. The effect of removing the calibration for the kth 2-gate of a circuit for the first Google file (file 0) with n = 12. Note that the same 2-gate occurs periodically along the circuit, indicated by the vertical black dashed lines. Here we remove all ingredients of the calibration: both the 1-gate rotations and 2-gate adjustments.
The remarkable effectiveness of the calibration II. The effect of removing the 2-gate adjustments involving the kth 2-gate of a circuit. (The same 2-gate occurs periodically along the circuit.) The 2-gate involving the qubits (3,3) and (3,4) has consistently large effect.
To make matters clear, the calibration is not about tightening the screws in Sycamore; rather, it is about change in the program. We can think about the calibration process as a change in the model that would greatly reduce certain systematic forms of noise. For example, if we discovered that a certain 1-gate that is supposed to apply a 90-degree rotation systematically performs an 80-degree rotation, rather than changing the engineering of the 1-gate, we would change the definition of the circuit.
(no) Conclusion
“We laid the dry facts and findings, and we let the readers make their own interpretation, or rather take note of our concerns and wait for more experimental data from future experiments.”
Was the Google experiment a “Programmable quantum computer?”
The title of the Google 2019 paper was “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor”. As we mentioned, the supremacy claim has largely (but not fully) been refuted. There are also doubts regarding the claim that the Sycamore 2019 experiment represents a “programmable processor” as the calibration process and other matters weaken this. (This was pointed out in a comment from October 2019 by Craig Gidney from the Google team and also a few months later by a commentator “Till” . Till’s comment led to interesting discussion regarding the nature of the calibration, which was earlier believed by many to represent physical changes in the device.)
Some findings of our papers further weaken the Google claim for “programmable device”. The Google paper describes about 1000 experiments on various circuits but, as it turns out, all these experiments depend on the random choices made for the largest ten circuits, and this fact is also in contrast with the “programmable” claim. (It was quite possible to choose a different random circuit in every case.) A related concern is that improvements of the calibration process were interlaced with the experiment, and that the last minute calibration procedure for the EFGH circuits represented a substantial improvement. We note that while the general principles of the calibration process are publicly available, the precise details are a commercial secret. Of course, concerns regarding the Google calibration process may reflect on other Sycamore experiments.
Our earlier papers
We wrote two earlier papers:
Y. Rinott, T. Shoham, and G. Kalai, Statistical Aspects of the Quantum Supremacy Demonstration, Statistical Science (2022)
G. Kalai, Y. Rinott and T. Shoham, Google’s 2019 “Quantum Supremacy” Claims: Data, Documentation, & Discussion (see this post.)
Data
The question of appropriate methodology, ethics, and culture for scrutinizing major scientific works is related to the replication crisis that we mentioned in an earlier post. There we described our policy regarding data requests. Our experience was overall rather positive. (Things went rather slowly but we were slow as well.) We still did not get the individual terms of Formula (77) (namely, the error rate for individual 1-gates and 2-gates) but the Google team promised to try to push toward getting this information.
Disclaimer
(From our paper:) “A few months after the publication of the Google paper we initiated what has become a long-term project to study various statistical aspects of the Google experiment and to scrutinize the Google paper. This is a good place to mention that Google’s quantum supremacy claim appeared to refute Kalai’s theory regarding quantum computation ([15, 16, 18]) and Kalai’s specific prediction that NISQ systems cannot demonstrate `quantum supremacy.’ This fact influenced and may have biased Kalai’s assessment of Google’s quantum supremacy claim. (Recent improved classical algorithms have largely refuted Google’s quantum supremacy claim and therefore the Google results no longer refute Kalai’s theory.)”
For my argument see this post and this one.
A few more figures
Zooming in on the empirical frequency of bitstrings with amplitudes between the median and the 0.55 quantile. The left plot is the empirical occurrences of the bitstrings in Google file 0, n=12. The right plot is based on a simulation with φ = 0.3862. The red line describes the expected number of bitstrings of the Google noise model, and the blue dashed line is 3 standard deviations from the expectation. (We plan to test if these fluctuations are present in samples from IBM quantum computers.)
Comparing the two halves of the Google samples: the black vertical lines are the ℓ1 distance of the occurrences of bitstrings when we partition the samples into two halves according to the sampling order. The histograms give the ℓ1 distances between the occurrences of bitstrings for random partitions of the bitstrings into two halves. Drifts in the fractions of ones. We divided the 500,000 bitstrings into 250 groups of 2,000 bitstrings each, according to the sampling order. For each group calculated the fraction of bitstring having a “1” bit in some place in the bitstring. The Figure shows the fractions of ones in locations 11 and 12 for one circuit (file 0) with n = 12. (The red lines are linear regression fits to the data points.) The trend is consistent along the different circuits and is different for different locations in the bitstrings.
A histogram of differences between the empirical distribution and the values given by the Google noise model, n = 12, Google file 0, φ = 0.3701. What can explain the apparent asymmetry in the gaps between the empirical distribution and the model? Is an explanation at all necessary?
(Click to enlarge.)
Plan for this post:
Prologue: “Can we sleep soundly at night?” Meeting Ephraim Halevi (former head of the Israeli Mossad) in 2007.
Israel and CERN, an evening in honor of Eliezer Rabinovici: The story of how Israel joined CERN is an intriguing story that involves science, academic politics, real politics, money, and diplomacy of various kinds. The evening was quite fascinating with interesting lectures by physicists and diplomats. (Click for the video; some of it was over my head.)
Ephraim Halevi’s lecture on Israel, CERN, and more. Test your knowledge: did you ever hear about the organizations Pugwash and Global Zero? And do you know who Joseph Rotblat and Frank von Hippel are?
Reproducibility Crisis zoom conference organized by Sergey Frolov
Giving quantum talks at the German Israeli quantum academy, and at physics colloquia at PI and Rutgers
Max the Demon a physics comics by Assa Auerbach and Richard Codor
Epilogue: “Can we sleep soundly at night?” Ephraim Halevi’s 2023 answer.
Two speakers at the evening celebrating Israel’s admission to CERN: Halina Abramowicz and Shikma Bressler
This post is about things around physics where the main topic is an evening at the Israeli Academy of Science honoring my friend Eliezer Rabinovici who is now the president of CERN. Update: There are now 8 videos of the individual talks in the Israeli Academy You Tube site (I added links below).
Prologue: Meeting Ephraim Halevi, the former head of the Mossad in 2007
In 2007 we had a special semester at the (Israeli) Institute for Advanced Studies, and one evening the director, Eliezer Rabinovici, hosted the director of the sister IAS at Princeton, Peter Goddard (whose nickname, as we were told, was “God” 🙂 ) to a party. I was hanging with Imre Barany and a few minutes after we were introduced to Goddard, we saw him again in the crowd:
“How do you enjoy your stay in Israel” I asked Goddard
“I like it” was the answer “but I am an Israeli!”
Looking more carefully at the man we were talking to, I realized my mistake.
“Imre,” I said with enthusiasm “please meet the former head of the Mossad (“Mossad” is the national intelligence agency of Israel) and the current VP of the Hebrew University: Ephraim Halevi! And this is Professor Imre Barany from the Hungarian Academy of Science!” (“actually the question ‘how do you enjoy your stay in Israel` is quite appropriate for a Mossad guy as well,” I thought.)
Imre and I were both very excited, engaged in a small humorous chat with Halevi.
At the end I asked
“So, can we sleep soundly at night?”
“Yes you can,” Halevi answered, “There are people who make sure of it.”
A few weeks ago I met Halevi at the “Israel joining CERN” evening. He gave an interesting lecture that I will mention shortly and I asked him again if we can sleep soundly at night. You can find his answer at the end of this post.
Ephraim Halevi, Petter Goddard, and Imre Barany
Israel entering CERN
The purpose of the evening at the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities was to honor Eliezer Rabinovici, an old friend of mine who was replaced by Mark Karliner as the representative of Israel in CERN. Rabinovici is still connected to CERN as the president of CERN. The lectures were interesting, although some of them required knowledge of the Israeli physics community or of physics that I don’t have.
Five more speakers at the evening celebrating Israel and CERN: Eliezer Rabinovici, Peter Jenni, Rafi Barak, Giora Mikenberg, and Mark Karliner
Halevi’s lecture
Ephraim Halevi served in the Israeli Mossad for many years and was the head of the organization between 1998 and 2002. The lecture’s title was “Track two and track three in the toolbox over the years.” I still don’t understand what “track two” and track three” refer to :). Halevi talked a little about the diplomacy (and his own part) behind Israel joining CERN, and about SESAME, but large parts of Halevi’s lecture were about one of his main activities since he retired from civil service: acting against nuclear weapon proliferation. Halevi mentioned two notable (and noble!) organizations against proliferation: Pugwash (founded in 1957 by Joseph Rotblat) and Global Zero (founded in 2008) and he talked about the very interesting history of these organizations. As it turned out, these types of organizations served as platforms for building informal relations between Israel and other countries (like the Soviet Union). Halevi told two little stories, one from a 2014 Global Zero meeting where he and Uzi Eilam were the Israeli delegates and they had to deal with a detailed program of Frank von Hippel regarding middle-east disarmament. (The picture above are portrays of these three personalities.) To make an exciting short story even shorter, at the end, the program was not adopted. The second story was about a Pugwash meeting in 2015 where Halevi indirectly posed a question to the Iranian Foreign minister. Ephraim Halevi also briefly mentioned the recent war in Ukraine and his hopes that nuclear weapons will not be applied there, and the question regarding the location of next-generation accelerators and his hopes regarding where it will be built. I found Halevi’s (Hebrew) lecture quite exciting and it is very much recommended. I also greatly enjoyed the lecture of another diplomat, Rafi Barak who was the general manager of our Foreign Office.
Halevi’s lecture
Eliezer’s and Shikma’s Lectures
Eliezer’s lecture (also in Hebrew) told the story of Israel and CERN from his own angle.
Two critical moments (click to enlarge): Israel’s request to join CERN (above); The decision to admit Israel (below); A crucial parameter (in my view): we see in the bottom right picture two women out of ten participants which is rather poor representation of women. (But sadly not surprising for physics/math.)
Shikma Bressler gave a very interesting lecture (click to enlarge the picture) on the role of Israeli scientists for ATLAS detectors.
The replication crisis
Sergey Frolov and Vincent Mourik
A few weeks ago I participated in a short zoom workshop organized by Sergey Frolov about the reproduction crisis, and more precisely about the question “Does condensed matter physics need to worry about a replication crisis?”
I think that a central problem is: “What are the appropriate methodology and ethics for scrutinizing major scientific works,” and this problem is relevant to some of my own scientific endeavors over the years. Sergey Frolov and Vincent Mourik themselves put under the microscope several works regarding “Majorana zero modes”, which are important steps toward topological quantum computers.
One issue that speakers elaborated on in the seminar was on getting data from authors, which is something I encountered on several occasions (and overall, had positive experiences). In the last three years, with Yosi Rinot and Tomer Shoham, we have been putting Google’s 2019 “quantum supremacy” paper under the microscope, and naturally, needed some data. Our policy regarding data was: (a) We always “asked” and never “demanded” data; (b) In cases where the answer was negative we did not ask again; (c) Sometimes, when the answer was positive we did send reminders (trying not to be “pushy”) and so we did when we got no answer at all (which is ok).
German-Israeli quantum academy and other quantum events.
A few weeks ago I gave a talk at an Israeli-German “Quantum Future academy Workshop” for young students. My lecture was about “Limits of Computations, Noise and Quantum Computers”. At the end, I talked mainly about how quantum computing is related to computational complexity and how quantum computers may give computational advantage and left only little time to discuss my own take on why a noisy quantum computer may not give computational advantage after all.
Alef’s humorous futuristic view of me asking GPT7 whether quantum computers will ever achieve advantage.
I gave two (zoom) physics colloquium talks at Rutgers University and at the Perimeter Institute about my argument against quantum computers, and I felt that both talks went very well with very nice discussions afterwards. Thanks to my hosts Daniel Friedan at Rutgers and Latham Boyle at PI.
The PI talk was in direct competition with the World Cup France vs. Morocco football match, and it was recorded (Video is here). It was very nice to meet face-to-face (in the zoom sense) Lee Smolin, Debbie Leung, Ray Lafflamme, and others.
(Slides: Israeli-German academy; Rutgers; PI.)
Max the Demon!
Max the Demon is a wonderful comics book about thermodynamics written by Assa Auerbach (a famous physicist) and Richard Codor (a famous artist, among the writers of the legendary book Zoo Aretz Zoo)
Epilogue: can we have a sound night sleep now?
After the “Israel joining CERN event”, I had a little chat with Halevi. I told him about his answer to my 2007 question and asked him if these days we can also sleep soundly at night. Ephraim Halevi’s response was:
“I haven’t been sleeping soundly in recent weeks and I estimate that my sleep hours will be even shorter in the coming weeks. The days are gradually getting gloomier and the gates of reconciliation are closing.”
(This was in February, and I suppose that Halevi referred to the dispute regarding the judicial reforms in Israel. Indeed in later interviews he expressed his objection to these reforms.)
Plan for next weeks blogging
There are various things to blog about and let me give a quick preview for the plan for the next few posts. The purpose of this post is to give an impression about the hectic mathematical activities around here with special emphasis on combinatorics and early-in-the-week activities. There is so much action around that I feel tired just to write about it. Next post will be around Amnon Shashua’s lecture at Reichman university giving a deep dive on LLMs. Following it I will tell you about developments around physics with special emphasis to the evening at the Israeli Academy celebrating Israel entrance to CERN. Fourth in line is a post about my recent paper with Yosef Rinott and Tomer Shoham on the Google 2019 quantum supremacy experiment (this is our third paper on the subject).
Let’s move on to today’s post which will include more than the usual dose of Hebrew.
Avinoam
A few weeks ago, Avinoam Mann, a dear member of our department in Jerusalem, passed away. Avinoam was a famous group theorist working on many aspects of this theory. I have many warm memories of Avinoam since I was a student when I took with Avinoam two very demanding reading courses, and later as colleagues and friends for many decades. Avinoam was also a poet and here is a poem he wrote.
Many many many Seminars
HUJI Combinatorics seminars
The seminar takes place on Mondays between 11-13. The 2-hour format allows ample discussions. There were brilliant talks at the HUJI (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Combinatorics Seminar. The last four were given by Illay Hoshen, Yuval Filmus, Igor Balla, and Nathan Keller. Ilay Hoshen spoke about his paper with Wojtek Samotij on Simonovits’s theorem for random graphs, and presented a (partial) resolution to a conjecture by DeMarco and Kahn. Yuval Filmus talked about a joint work with Nathan Lindzey, where the starting point was Fourier expansion for function on the Boolean cube and asked what happens if we study functions on other domains, such as the “slice” or the symmetric group? (very elegant connection with representation theory.) Once it’s on the arxive we will add the link. Igor Balla talked about Equiangular lines via matrix projection. This work presents a definite progress on the classical problem of equiangular lines as well as some connections to problems in quantum information theory. Nathan Keller talked about his joint work with Noam Lifshitz, Dor Minzer, and Ohad Sheinfeld. Hypercontractivity for global functions is used for far reaching Erdos-Ko-Rado theorems for permutations. Nati Linial wrote to me about the lecture: מצויינת, מדוייקת, אינפורמטיבית, א-מחיה . (which roughly translates to: “Outstanding, Accurate, Informative – Oh the Joy!”). Today Amir Yehudayoff will talk about his work with Dan Carmon on dual systolic graphs.
This is not the only HUJI combinatorics seminar, on Thursday afternoon we have a joint Jerusalem-Copenhagen combinatorics seminar and at noon we have a joint Jerusalem Copenhagen lunch seminar. I gave a lecture in the lunch seminar a couple of weeks ago about challenges in the combinatorial theory of convex polytopes and spheres beyond the -theorem. Of course, our CS-theory Wednesday seminars have plenty of lectures of combinatorial flavour.
Shachar Lovett’s lecture at Tel Aviv Combinatorics Seminar
Things in TAU (Tel Aviv University) are not calmer.
TAU combinatorics seminar is on Sundays 10:05-11:05, and last week (April 30) the legendary Shachar Lovett gave a talk about his paper with Alexander Knop, Sam McGuire, and Weiqiang Yuan about Structure of monomials of Boolean functions. (Click for the slides.)
The main theorem is the following one. Theorem: Let be a Boolean function with . ( is the number of monomials in the presentation of ) Then f can be computed by an AND decision tree of depth .
The proof uses an auxiliary (sharp) result about hitting sets (aka transversals) for monomials. It is not known if the factor in the main theorem is needed. Shachar described exciting connections with the log-rank conjecture and with Frankl’s union-closed conjecture. He also described the analogous (Fourier) question for functions .
After the lecture Shachar told me about some basic details of the recent amazing proof of Kelly and Meka for sharp bound for Roth’s theorems. Shachar promised me that the crucial new ideas giving a Fourier proof for similar bounds for the cup set problem could be presented in four to six hours. (He started with two hours but I flatly disbelieved it.) We also came back to the idea of a polymath project devoted to Frankl’s conjecture.
This Sunday Shir Peleg-Priester talked about Sylvester-Gallai type theorems for quadratic polynomials. (Joint work with Amir Shpilka, Abhibhav Garg, Rafael Oliveira, Akash K Sengupta.)
Sunday seminar is not the only TAU combinatorics seminar. Two days later, on May 2 Patrick Morris gave a special seminar about a robust Corrádi–Hajnal Theorem (joint work with Peter Allen, Julia Böttcher, Jan Corsten, Ewan Davies, Matthew Jenssen, Barnaby Roberts and Jozef Skokan.) As far as I know there are plans to have special seminars dedicated to both the new ultimate Roth bounds and the Ramsey breakthrough. (Update: just learned too late that the Ramsey seminar already took place on Tuesday.)
Of course, there is also the weekly discrete and computational geometry seminar, and a few weeks ago I gave a talk about “covering problems” which was well accepted and is in line with this year’s theme for the seminar.
More combinatorics seminars
There are many other combinatorics seminars around. If you have an urge for combinatorics lectures between the Tel Aviv seminar and the one in Jerusalem, on Sundays at 2 o’clock there is the Bar Ilan weekly Combinatorics Seminar, and on May 7 Yelena Yuditsky talked about Conflict-free colouring of subsets (joint work with Bruno Jartoux, Chaya Keller and Shakhar Smorodinsky.) On Mondays Martin Golumbic runs the seminar: “Monday with Marty and Students of Sunil” devoted to algorithmic graph theory. Tomorrow, Pradeesha Ashok talks about: Exact and Parameterised algorithms for Graph Burning (joint work with Avi Tomar, Shaily Verma, Sayani Das, Lawqueen Kanesh and Saket Saurabh).
Shmuel Weinberger’s lectures
Of course, things are just as amazingly intense in other fields of mathematics as well. Last week I attended two great talks by Shmuel Weinberger. The first talk gave the answer to the question which groups act without fixed points on some aspherical topological space. Shmuel said that his talk will be structured like a Tarantino’s movie, and at the end he expressed hope that the talk was as entertaining but not as violent. This is based on joint work with Sylvain Cappell, and Min Yan. The second talk gave (among other things) a lower bound for the number of vertices needed to triangulate -dimensional lens spaces which is the quotient space of an action of on . The proof goes via the notions of -homology and certain invariants of Cheeger and Gromov and it would be really nice to have some simpler proofs. (This is based on an old work with Stanley Chang, and a new work with Geunho Lim.
Here is a lecture on calculus on extraordinary spaces by Yael Karshon (Hebrew).
Kazhdan’s Sunday seminars – a plan for fall 2024 (maybe 2023).
Since David Kazhdan moved from Harvard to HUJI he is running four-five semester-long seminars every year on Sundays, and a basic notion seminar on Thursday afternoons. This semester, for example, in one of the seminars, Udi de Shalit presents Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s last theorem (taking Ribet’s part for granted).
Once every decade or so, I serve as a co-teacher in a Kazhdan seminar. In fall 2003 David Kazhdan and I ran a seminar on polytopes, toric varieties, and related combinatorics and algebra. In 2013 David and I felt that it was time to run another such event in 2014, perhaps establishing a tradition for a decennial joint seminar. I announced this coming event in my January 2013 post and wrote: “So next spring, the plan is …[to] devote one of David’s Sunday seminars to computation, quantumness, symplectic geometry, and information.” Alas, David had a terrible car accident and we had to delay the plan to a fall 2019 seminar that Leonid Polterovich, Dorit Aharonov, Guy Kindler and I ran. Also, in fall 2018, Karim Adiprasito gave a Kazhdan seminar on “Positivity in combinatorics and beyond” where Karim presented his proof for the g-conjecture. We are now planning a Kazhdan seminar in fall 2024 around “global hypercontractivity” with Noam Lifshitz, myself and perhaps also Guy Kindler and others. (Kazhdan’s 2023/2024 schedule was fully booked, but come to think of it, since Dor Minzer is in town in fall 2023, maybe we will do something then.)
60th birthday conferences for the young: Gunter Ziegler and Leonid Polterovich
Noga Alon recently complained that “younger and younger people are celebrating their 60th birthdays”. Indeed, two weeks from now there will be a day-and-a half workshop in Berlin celebrating Günter Ziegler’s birthday and in June there will be a Leonid Polterovich fest in Zurich. Happy birthdays, kids!
Maybe it is over
A well-known Israeli poet and writer Yonatan Gefen passed away recently and here is a nice song he wrote (performed by Arik Einstein): Yhachol lihyot sheze nigmar (It is possible that it is over.)
Four posts ago I wrote about three recent breakthroughs in combinatorics and in the following post I would like to mention some problems that I posed over the years that are loosely related to these advances.
Rank of incidence matrices and q-analogs
The goal of finding q-analogs of combinatorial results where, roughly speaking, sets are replaced by subspaces of vector spaces over a field with elements, is common both in enumerative combinatorics and in extremal combinatorics. A recent breakthrough we discussed by Keevash, Sah, and Sawhney was about the existence of -analogs of designs (subspace designs).
I will mention a problem (Question 4) in this direction about incidence matrices, following three questions that have largely been solved.
Incidence matrices and weighted incidence matrices for sets
The incidence matrix of -subsets vs. -subsets of , is a matrix whose rows correspond to -subsets of , whose columns correspond to -subsets of , and the entry equals 1 if , and equals 0 if .
A weighted incidence matrix of -subsets vs. -subsets of , is a matrix whose rows correspond to -subsets of , whose columns correspond to -subsets of , and if and if .
Question 1: What is the rank of the incidence matrix of -subsets vs. -subsets of , over a field of characteristic .
This question was beautifully answered by Richard Wilson in 1990 . The problem was posed by Nati Linial and Bruce Rothschild in 1981 and they settled the case . (The answer for , , that motivated the question, had been observed earlier by Perles and by Frankl.) It is unforgivable that I did not present the statement of Wilson’s theorem here on the blog.
Question 2: What is the minimum rank, denoted by , of a weighted incidence matrix of -subsets vs. -subsets of $[n]$ over a field of characteristic .
I answered this question in the early 80s (it is related also related to various results presented by other researchers around the same time). The answer is , and remarkably it is independent from the characteristic .
Incidence matrices and weighted incidence matrices for subspaces
The incidence matrix of -dimensional subspaces vs. -dimensional subspaces of ( has entries if and if .
A weighted incidence matrix of -dimensional subspaces vs. -dimensional subspaces of ( ) has entries if and if .
We pose two additional questions which are the “q-analogs” of Questions 1 and 2.
Question 3: What is the rank of the incidence matrix over a field of characteristic $p$ (you can simply take the field ).
Frumkin and Yakir settled problem 3 when is not a power of .
The problem I wish to pose (again) here is:
Question 4: What is the minimum rank denoted by of a weighted incidence matrix over a field of characteristic .
In particular, I would like to know if the answer does not depend on and if it agrees with some easy lower bounds (obtained from certain identity submatrices) like in the case of a field with one element (namely, subsets).
q-trees
Qoestion 5: What are the q-analogs of trees? (and hypertrees).
The basic idea is first to first find weights so that the incidence matrix of 1-subspace vs 2-subspaces has rank , and then the -trees will correspond to collection of 2-spaces with linearly independent columns. (I don’t expect uniqueness.) This is a somewhat related to a -analog of the notion of symmetric matroids that I studied in the late 80s.
A year ago Ferdinand Ihringer, Motaz Mokatren and I made some very preliminary steps in this direction before moving on (separately) to other projects. It will be nice to come back to it.
Remark: There are even greater generalities where problems can be extended from set systems (graphs and hypergraphs) to more general algebraic objects. Those could be related to general primitive permutation groups, to association schemes, and to other objects in algebraic combinatorics.
Unit distances and related problems in discrete geometry.
Let be a normed space. For a set the unit distance graph is the graph whose vertices are points in and two vertices are adjacent if their distance is one.
We can consider the following quantities
1) : The maximum size of a unit distance set in . (In other words, the maximum clique in .)
2) : The number of colors needed for if two points of unit distance are colored with different colors.
3) : The maximum number of colors needed to color points in a set of diameter 1 if every color set has a diameter smaller than 1. (This is the Borsuk number of .)
4) The maximum number of colors needed to color points in a finite set of diameter 1 if two points of unit distance are colored with different colors.
5) The maximum number of points of norm 1 with pairwise distances at least 1.
6) The maximum over all sets with points of pairwise distance at least one, of the minimum degree in the unit distance graph .
7) The maximum over all sets with points of pairwise distance at least one of the chromatic number of the unit distance graph of .
Estimating these seven quantities for Euclidean spaces and for other normed spaces are well-known problems. (See my survey article on problems around Borsuk’s problem.) Alon, Bucić, and Sauermann made a remarkable breakthrough on the first problem of the largest clique in unit distance graphs for arbitrary normed spaces.
Jordan Ellenberg asked: “Does the Alon-Bucic-Sauermann result give you upper bounds for the chromatic number of (the unit distance graph of) with a typical norm? (Or is that already easy for some reason?) “. But I know little about Jordan’s question.
There is much to say about them but I will not discuss these problems here. I will mention a single annoying problem.
Question 6: Is there an example of a normed space such that ?
(I am not even sure if for the seventh item it makes a difference to consider finite .)
Intersection patterns of standard boxes
In the post that I mentioned we also discussed Tomon’s remarkable result on intersection patterns of standard boxes. Here is a loosely related problem. In short, we want to find topological analogs for results on intersection patterns of standard boxes.
Topological Helly-type theorems is an important direction in geometric and topological combinatorics. The idea is to prove Helly type theorems about convex sets in a much wider topological context.
A primary goal of Topological Helly-type theorems is to extend results for nerves of families of convex sets in to the class of -Leray simpilcial complexes. Among the results achieved so far are: The upper bound theorem; Eckhoff’s conjecture; Alon and Kleitman’s (p,q)-theorem; colorful and matroidal Helly’s theorem; topological Amenta’s theorem, and more.
Another goal of Topological Helly-type theorems is to study if results on nerves of standard boxes can be extended to flag -Leray simplicial complexes?
In this direction the immediate goal is to extend Eckhoff’s upper bound theorem. (Item 3 in this post.)
Question 7. Conjecture: Let be a Leray flag complex of dimension with $n$ vertices. Then the -vector of obeys Eckhoff’s upper bound theorem for standard boxes.
A closely related question is
Question 8. Conjecture: Let be a -Leray flag complex of dimension , then the -vector of is the -vector of a completely balanced -dimensional -Leray complex.
Studying the equality cases of the conjecture is also of interest and the extremal complexes can also be regarded as some sort of ultra-trees.
Roy Meshulam and I worked together on topological Helly type theorems for more than two decades. | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 36 | http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/what-is-quantum-measurement-problem.html | en | Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: What is the quantum measurement problem? | https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tww_M07lHbqP8e3_EFyDbXCbwSEUv50AcFasVPb12lu1z3WOTHGM2mCE5p6C2cTeaQ248wSafEeduuLZ02GcfXMUQ2trWwiUYrr96eQsxu2rPocQ=w1200-h630-n-k-no-nu | https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tww_M07lHbqP8e3_EFyDbXCbwSEUv50AcFasVPb12lu1z3WOTHGM2mCE5p6C2cTeaQ248wSafEeduuLZ02GcfXMUQ2trWwiUYrr96eQsxu2rPocQ=w1200-h630-n-k-no-nu | [
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N9QDX9zz1aE/XGuq12-EKSI/AAAAAAAAEgE/EuyipZCfAW8vKpgNLc1fh744VXTtai6ZQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/br_banner_new06.jpg",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif",
"http://www.blogger.com/img/blogger_logo_round_35.png",
"http://www.blogger.com/img/blogger_logo_round_35.png",
... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Sabine Hossenfelder"
] | null | Science News, Physics, Science, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science | http://backreaction.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/what-is-quantum-measurement-problem.html | |||||
2453 | dbpedia | 3 | 0 | https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/07/15/peter-shor-wins-ieee-2025-shannon-award/ | en | Peter Shor Wins IEEE 2025 Shannon Award | [
"https://www.hpcwire.com/wp-content/themes/tci-theme/assets/img/d_favicon.png",
"https://www.hpcwire.com/wp-content/themes/tci-theme/assets/img/eai_favicon.png",
"https://www.hpcwire.com/wp-content/themes/tci-theme/assets/img/hpcwj_favicon.png",
"https://www.hpcwire.com/wp-content/themes/tci-theme/assets/img/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"John Russell"
] | 2024-07-15T00:00:00 | Peter Shor, the MIT mathematician whose ‘Shor’s algorithm’ sent shivers of fear through the encryption community and helped galvanize ongoing efforts to build quantum computers, has been named the 2025 […] | en | HPCwire | https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/07/15/peter-shor-wins-ieee-2025-shannon-award/ | Peter Shor, the MIT mathematician whose ‘Shor’s algorithm’ sent shivers of fear through the encryption community and helped galvanize ongoing efforts to build quantum computers, has been named the 2025 winner of the IEEE Claude Shannon Award for 2025. It’s a fitting honor for Shor, coming as it does on the eve of NIST’s expected issuance of the first Post Quantum Cryptography standards sometime this summer. (Don’t miss Shor’s limerick at the end of this article – I was tempted to lead with it.)
The Shannon Award is given by the IEEE Information Theory Society and was created in reconizes 1972 “to honor consistent and profound contributions to the field of information theory. It is a prestigious prize in information theory, covering technical contributions at the intersection of mathematics, communication engineering, and theoretical computer science.”
Here’s some background on Shannon from Wikipedia: “Claude Elwood Shannon (April 30, 1916 – February 24, 2001) was an American mathematician, electrical engineer, computer scientist and cryptographer known as the “father of information theory” and as the “father of the Information Age”. Shannon was the first to describe the Boolean gates (electronic circuits) that are essential to all digital electronic circuits, and was one of the founding fathers of artificial intelligence. He is credited alongside George Boole for laying the foundations of the Information Age.”
Shor is an applied mathematician perhaps best known for his work on quantum computation. His eponymously named Shor’s algorithm was developed in 1994 and demonstrated how to use an adequately performant quantum computer to to break conventional RSA codes.
Broadly, it’s a factoring algorithm that if run on a “quantum computer with a sufficient number of qubits could operate without succumbing to quantum noise and other quantum-decoherence phenomena, then Shor’s algorithm could be used to break public-key cryptography schemes, such as: the RSA scheme; the Finite Field Diffie-Hellman key exchange; and the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman key exchange.”
RSA is based on the assumption that factoring large integers is computationally intractable and this assumption is generally considered valid for classical (non-quantum) computers.
Shor is an interesting person (brief bio below) who sometimes scribbles more than math. Here’s a pair of limericks (and explanation) he has posted on his website:
“My wife and I wrote the following for a poetry contest by Science News. It didn’t win, so I posted it on my web page. (Editor’s note – he doesn’t give the submission date)
If computers that you build are quantum,
Then spies of all factions will want ’em.
Our codes will all fail,
And they’ll read our email,
Till we’ve crypto that’s quantum, and daunt ’em.
Jennifer and Peter Shor
“When he introduced me at the 1998 International Congress of Mathematicians, Prof. Volker Strassen recited my limerick, and added a reply:
To read our E-mail, how mean
of the spies and their quantum machine;
Be comforted though,
they do not yet know
how to factorize twelve or fifteen. (Volker Strassen)
Gotta love it.
Brief Shor Bio
Peter Shor is Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics since 2003. He received the B.A. in mathematics from Caltech in 1981, and the Ph.D. in applied mathematics from MIT in 1985, under the direction of Tom Leighton. Following a postdoctoral fellowship at MSRI, he joined AT&T. He was a member of its Research staff, 1986-2003. He joined the MIT faculty in applied mathematics as full professor in 2003. Professor Shor’s research interests are in theoretical computer science: currently on algorithms, quantum computing, computational geometry and combinatorics. In 1998, Peter Shor received the Nevanlinna Prize and the International Quantum Communication Award. He also received the Dickson Prize in Science from Carnegie-Mellon in 1998. He was awarded the Gödel Prize of the ACM and a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship in 1999. He received the King Faisal International Prize in Science in 2002, and was named one of Caltech’s Distinguished Alumni in 2007. He is a member of the National Academy of Science (2002), and fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2011). In 2017, Professor Shor received the Dirac Medal of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics. He also received the 2017 IEEE Information Theory Society Paper Award, jointly with Charles Bennett, Igor Devetak, Aram Harrow, and Andreas Winter for the paper “The Quantum Reverse Shannon Theorem and Resource Tradeoffs for Simulating Quantum Channels” which appeared in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 2926–2959, May 2014. In 2018, Shor received the IEEE Eric E. Sumner Award, for Outstanding Contributions to Communications Technology. He also received the 2018 Micius Quantum Prize in April 2019. In May 2022, Shor was named the recipient of MIT’s 2022-2023 James R. Killian Jr. Faculty Achievement Award, the highest honor the Institute faculty can bestow upon one of its members each academic year. The award citation credits Peter’s “seminal contributions that have forever shaped the foundations of quantum computing. Indeed, quantum computing exists today, in practice, because of Peter Shor.” As of 2020, Shor is a Member of the National Academy of Engineering, and in 2022 Fellow of the AMS.
Photo credit: Christopher Harting, MIT News | |||||
2453 | dbpedia | 3 | 75 | https://research.ibm.com/haifa/seminars/index.shtml | en | Haifa Seminars | [
"https://research.ibm.com/haifa/seminars/images/web_banner.jpg"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2011-05-17T00:00:00 | en | http://www.ibm.com/favicon.ico | null | Abstract:Â
Quantum communication allows two communicating parties (Alice and Bob) to share a secret at a distance - the encryption key. Relying on the basic principle of quantum mechanics - measurement affects the measured state, Alice and Bob can verify the security of the key, since any eavesdropper (Eve) will be revealed by the measurement traces she leaves behind.Â
I will discuss the current limits on the speed of quantum communication, which are primarily due to the limitations of the standard quantum measurement of optical states (single photons or very weak light). I will review the broad context of quantum measurement, and the standard homodyne methods that are limited by the electronic bandwidth of photo-detectors. I will then describe our recently demonstrated parallel optical homodyne measurement that allows to overcome this limit completely1. Using optical parametric amplification, we could measure quantum optical squeezing simultaneously across a bandwidth of 55THz.
Finally, I will discuss our implementation of this new measurement method for broadband, parallel Quantum communication, where many quantum channels (up to 1000) can be multiplexed over a single broadband squeezer and using a single measurement device.Â
1 Yaakov Shaked, Yoad Michael, Rafi Vered, Leon Bello, Michael Rosenbluh and Avi Peâer, âLifting the Bandwidth limit of Optical Homodyne Measurementâ, Nature Comm. 9, 609 (2018) | ||||||
2453 | dbpedia | 3 | 22 | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/12/2643 | en | Evaluation and Comparison of Lattice-Based Cryptosystems for a Secure Quantum Computing Era | [
"https://pub.mdpi-res.com/img/design/mdpi-pub-logo-black-small1.svg?da3a8dcae975a41c?1724334283",
"https://pub.mdpi-res.com/img/design/mdpi-pub-logo-black-small1.svg?da3a8dcae975a41c?1724334283",
"https://pub.mdpi-res.com/img/journals/electronics-logo.png?8600e93ff98dbf14",
"https://www.mdpi.com/bundles/mdpis... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Maria E. Sabani",
"Ilias K. Savvas",
"Dimitrios Poulakis",
"Georgia Garani",
"Georgios C. Makris",
"Maria E",
"Ilias K",
"Georgios C"
] | 2023-06-12T00:00:00 | The rapid development of quantum computing devices promises powerful machines with the potential to confront a variety of problems that conventional computers cannot. Therefore, quantum computers generate new threats at unprecedented speed and scale and specifically pose an enormous threat to encryption. Lattice-based cryptography is regarded as the rival to a quantum computer attack and the future of post-quantum cryptography. So, cryptographic protocols based on lattices have a variety of benefits, such as security, efficiency, lower energy consumption, and speed. In this work, we study the most well-known lattice-based cryptosystems while a systematic evaluation and comparison is also presented. | en | MDPI | https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/12/2643 | by
Maria E. Sabani
1,*,† ,
Ilias K. Savvas
1,† ,
Dimitrios Poulakis
2 ,
Georgia Garani
1 and
Georgios C. Makris
1
1
Department of Digital Systems, University of Thessaly, Geopolis Campus, Larissa-Trikala Ring-Road, 415 00 Larissa, Greece
2
Department of Mathematics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Electronics 2023, 12(12), 2643; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12122643
Submission received: 5 May 2023 / Revised: 6 June 2023 / Accepted: 7 June 2023 / Published: 12 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quantum Computation and Its Applications)
Abstract
:
The rapid development of quantum computing devices promises powerful machines with the potential to confront a variety of problems that conventional computers cannot. Therefore, quantum computers generate new threats at unprecedented speed and scale and specifically pose an enormous threat to encryption. Lattice-based cryptography is regarded as the rival to a quantum computer attack and the future of post-quantum cryptography. So, cryptographic protocols based on lattices have a variety of benefits, such as security, efficiency, lower energy consumption, and speed. In this work, we study the most well-known lattice-based cryptosystems while a systematic evaluation and comparison is also presented.
1. Introduction
Quantum computing constitutes a critical issue as the impact of its advent and development will be present in every cell of our technology and therefore, our life. Quantum computational systems use the qubit (QUantum BIT) instead of the typical bit, which has a unique property; it can be in basic states ∣0〉, ∣1〉 but it can also be in a state that is a linear combination of these two states, such that a ∣ 0 〉 + b ∣ 1 〉 , a , b ∈ C , ∧ a 2 + b 2 = 1 [1]. This is an algebraic-mathematical expression of quantum superposition which claims that two quantum states can be added and their sum can also be a valid quantum state [2]. Regardless of superposition, quantum computers’ power and capability are based on quantum physics and specifically on the phenomenon of quantum entanglement and the no-cloning system. The odd phenomenon of quantum entanglement states that there are particles that are generated, interact, and are connected, regardless of the distance or the obstacles that separate them [3]. This fundamental law of quantum physics allows us to know or to measure the state of one particle if we know or measure the other particles.
Programmable quantum devices are capable of solving and overcoming problems that typical computers cannot solve in logical time. A quantum computer can perform operations with enormous speed, and in the flash of an eye, can process and store an extensive amount of information. This huge computational power which makes quantum computers superior to classical computers was described in 2012 by John Preskill with the term quantum supremacy [4]. Quantum mechanics provides us a fascinating theorem, the no-cloning theorem. As an evolution of the no-go theorem by James Park, the no-cloning theorem was proposed, a fundamental theorem of quantum physics and quantum cryptography. According to this theorem, the independent and identical replication of any unknown quantum state is impossible [2].
Cryptography is one of the oldest sciences and was developed out of the human necessity for secure communication [5]. Cryptographic protocols and algorithms are based on complex mathematics and cryptosystems appear in every electronic transaction and communication in our everyday life. The security, efficiency, and speed of these cryptographic methods and schemes are a main issue of interest and study. Contemporary cryptosystems are considered to be vulnerable to a quantum computer attack. In 1994, the American mathematician and cryptography professor Peter Shor presented an algorithm [6], which dumbfounded scientists. Shor in his work argued that with the implementation of the proposed algorithm in a quantum device, there would be no more security in current computational systems. This was a real revolution for the science of computing and a great motivator for the design and construction of quantum computational devices. The science that studies and develops cryptographic algorithms resistant to attacks by quantum computers is well known as post-quantum cryptography [7]. By bringing up to date mathematically based algorithms and standards, post-quantum cryptography examines and studies how to prepare the world for the era of quantum computing. [8,9].
Lattice-based cryptographic protocols attract the interest of researchers for a number of reasons. Firstly, the algorithms that are applied to lattice-based protocols are simple and efficient. Additionally, they have proven to be secure protocols and create a multitude of applications.
In this review, we examine the cryptographic schemes that are developed for a quantum computer. The following research questions are answered:
How much is the science of Cryptography affected by quantum computers ?
Which cryptosystems are efficient and secure for the quantum era?
Which are the most known lattice-based cryptographic schemes and how do they function?
How can we evaluate NTRU, LWE, and GGH cryptosystem?
What are their strengths and weaknesses ?
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present changes and challenges due to quantum devices in cryptography and in Section 3, cryptographic schemes in the quantum era are described. In Section 4, we present some basic issues of lattice theory. In Section 5 and Section 6, we present the lattice-based cryptographic schemes NTRU, LWE, and GGH correspondingly, while a discrete implementation of them is given. In addition, the GGH cryptosystem is described in Section 7. Results and comparisons are given in Section 8, while some future work directions are presented in Section 9. Finally, Section 10 concludes this work.
2. The Evolution of Quantum Computing in Cryptography
Cryptography is an indispensable tool for protecting information in computer systems, and difficult mathematical problems such as the discrete logarithm problem and the factorization of large prime numbers are the basis of current cryptographic protocols. We can divide the cryptographic protocols into two broad categories: symmetric cryptosystems and asymmetric (public key cryptosystems) cryptosystems [5].
The same key for both encryption and decryption is being used in symmetric cryptosystems, and despite their speed and their easy implementation, they have certain disadvantages. One main issue of this type of cryptosystem is the secret key distribution between two parties that want to communicate safely. Another drawback of symmetric cryptographic schemes is that the private keys which are being used must be changed frequently in order not to be known by a fraudulent user. If we can ensure the existence of an efficient method to generate and exchange keys, symmetric encryption and decryption methods are considered to be secure [10,11].
Asymmetric cryptographic schemes use a pair of keys, private and public keys, for encryption and decryption. This type of cryptosystem relies on mathematical problems that are characterized as hard to solve [12]. Some of the most widely known and implemented public key cryptosystems are RSA [13], the Diffie–Helman protocol, ECDSA, and others. Since the early 1990s, all these cryptographic schemes were believed to be effective and secure but Shor’s algorithm changed things.
Peter Shor proved with his algorithm that a quantum computer could quickly and easily compute the period of a periodic function in polynomial time [14]. Since 1994, when Shor’s protocol was presented, has been a great amount of study, analysis, and implementation of the algorithm both in classical and quantum computing devices. Shor’s method solves both the discrete logarithm problem and the factorization problem that are the basis of the current cryptographic schemes and therefore, the public key cryptosystems are insecure and vulnerable to a quantum attack [6].
2.1. Quantum Cryptography
In 1982, for the first time the term “Quantum Cryptography” was recommended but the idea of quantum information appeared for the first time in the decade of the 1970s, from Stephen Wiesner and his work about quantum money [15]. The science of quantum cryptography uses the fundamental laws of quantum physics to securely transfer or store data. In general, in quantum cryptography, the transmission and the encryption procedure is performed with the aid of quantum mechanics [16]. Quantum cryptography exploits the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics such as superposition and quantum entanglement, and constructs cryptographic protocols in a more advanced and efficient way.
A basic problem in classical cryptographic schemes is the key generation and exchange, as this process is endangered and unsafe when it takes place in an insecure environment [17]. When two different parties want to communicate and transfer data, they exchange information (i.e., key, message) and this procedure occurs in a public channel, so their communication could be vulnerable to an attack by a third party [18]. The most fascinating and also the most useful discovery and a widely used method of quantum cryptography is quantum key distribution.
2.2. Quantum Key Distribution
Quantum key distribution (QKD) utilizes the laws of quantum physics in the creation of a secret key through a quantum channel. With the principles of quantum physics, in QKD a secret key is generated and a secure communication between two (or more parties) is established. The inherent randomness of the quantum states and the results accrue from their measurements and they have as a result total randomness in the generation of the key. Quantum mechanics solves the problem of key distribution—the main challenge in cryptographic schemes—with the aid of quantum superposition, quantum entanglement, and the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg. Heisenberg’s Principle argues that two quantum states cannot be measured simultaneously [3]. This principle has as a consequence the detection of someone who tries to eavesdrop on the communication between two parties. If a fraudulent user tries to change the quantum system, he will be detected and the users abort the protocol.
Let us suppose that we have two parties that want to communicate and use a quantum key distribution protocol to generate a secret key. A quantum key distribution scheme has two phases and for its implementation the existence of a classical and a quantum channel is necessary. In the quantum channel, the private key is generated and reproduced and in the classical channel, the communication of the two parties takes place. Into the quantum channel are sent polarized photons and each one of the photons has a random quantum state [17]. Both the two parties have in their possession a device that collects and measures the polarization of these photons. Due to Heisenberg’s principle, the measurement of the polarized photons can reveal a possible eavesdropper as in his effort to elicit information, the state of the quantum system changes and the fraudulent user is detected [19].
The BB84 protocol, named after its creators and the year it was published, was the first quantum key distribution protocol and it was proposed in 1984 by Charles Bennett and Gilles Brassard [20]. BB84 is the most studied, analyzed, and implemented QKD protocol; since then, various QKD protocols have been proposed. B92 and SARG04, which are known as variants of BB84 and E91 that exploit the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, are a few of the widely known quantum key distribution protocols [1]. All these QKD protocol are in theory well designed and structured and are proved to be secure, but in practice, there are imperfections in their implementation. Loopholes, such as poorly constructed detectors or defective optical fibers, and general imperfections in devices and the practical QKD system make the QKD protocols vulnerable to attacks. By exploiting these weaknesses of the system, one can perform certain types of attacks and this is the basic issue of research and study, QKD security.
Significant progress has been made in the implementation of the quantum phase of communication and the development of quantum systems. Entanglement dynamics in CV quantum channels for both common and independent reservoirs have received a lot of attention recently [21]. As the security of QKD is the main goal, interesting experiments have shown that non-Markovian features can be used to improve security and/or locate an eavesdropper along the transmission line and determine their location [22]. Additionally, the entanglement dynamics have been studied and recent experiments have shown that photonic band gap media are promising to acquire non-Markovian behaviour and that materials with a photonic bandgap may be able to transmit entanglement reliably over long distances [23]. Moreover, the study of the phase modulation of coherent states in channels where the quantum communication phase takes place has turned into a subject of interest. Very interesting and useful studies and experiments have proven that phase diffusion is the most damaging kind of noise in a phase modulation scheme, where the information is encoded in the phase of a quantum seed signal [24]. Additionally, time-independent Markovian noise, specifically when the seed state is coherent, has been shown to be detrimental to information transfer and may compromise the channel’s overall performance [25,26]. The environment’s spectral structure, on the other hand, may lead to non-Markovian damping or diffusion channels in quantum optical communications [22,26]. It has also demonstrated that phase channels better preserve the transfer of information above a threshold on the loss and phase noise parameters, which is compared to the lossy coherent states amplitude-based scheme. So, in the presence of time-correlated noise, which results in dynamical non-Markovian phase diffusion, the interaction between the use of NLA and the memory effects results in a pronounced rise in performance [24].
3. Cryptographic Schemes in Quantum Era
The advances in computer processing power and the evolution of quantum computers seem for many people to be a threat in the distant future. On the other hand, researchers and security technologists are anxious about the capabilities of a quantum computational device to threaten the security of contemporary cryptographic algorithms. Shor’s algorithm consists of two parts, a classical part and a quantum part, and with the aid of a quantum routine could break modern cryptographic schemes, such as RSA and the Diffie–Hellman cryptosystem [27]. The factorization problem and the discrete logarithm problem are the fundamental basis for modern cryptographic schemes and serve as the foundation for these kinds of cryptosystems.
From that moment and after, it has been widely known in the scientific and technological community that with the arrival of a sufficiently large quantum computer, there is no more security in our encryption schemes. Therefore, post-quantum data encryption protocols are a basic topic of research and work, with the main goal being to construct cryptosystems resistant to quantum computers’ attacks [7,8]. Subsequently, we present certain cryptographic schemes that have been developed and that are secure under an attack of a quantum computer.
3.1. Code-Based Cryptosystems
Coding Theory is an important scientific field which studies and analyzes linear codes that are being used for digital communication. The main subject of research in coding theory is finding a secure and efficient data transmission method. In the process of data transmission, data are often lost due to errors owing to noise, interference, or other reasons, and the main subject of study of coding theory is to minimize this data loss [28]. When two discrete parties want to communicate and transfer data, they add extra information to each message which is transferred to enable the message to be decoded despite the existing errors.
Code-based cryptographic schemes are based on the theory of error-correcting codes and are considered to be prominent for the quantum computing era. These cryptosystems are considered to be reliable and their hardness relies on hard problems of coding theory, such as syndrome decoding (SN) and learning parity with noise (LPN).
The first code-based cryptosystem was proposed by Robert McEliece in 1978. It was based on the difficulty of decoding random linear codes, a problem which is considered to be NP-hard [29]. The main idea of McEliece is to use an error-correcting code, for which a decoding algorithm is known and which is capable to correct up to t errors to generate the secret key. The public key is constructed by the private key, covering up the selected code as a general linear code. The sender creates a codeword using the public key that is disturbed up to t errors. The receiver performs error correction and efficient decoding of the codeword and decrypts the message.
McEliece’s cryptosystem and the Niederreiter cryptosystem that was proposed by Harald Niederreiter in 1986 [30] can be suitable and efficient for encryption, hashing, and signature generation. The McEliece cryptosystem has a basic disadvantage, which is the large size of the keys and ciphertexts. In modern variants of the McEliece cryptosystem, there has been an effort to reduce the size of the keys. However, these types of cryptographic schemes are considered to withstand attacks by quantum computers and this makes them prominent for post-quantum cryptography.
3.2. Hash-Based Cryptosystems
Hash-based cryptographic schemes in general generate digital signatures and rely on cryptographic hash functions’ security, such as SHA-3. In 1979, Ralph Merkle proposed an asymmetric signature scheme based on one-time signature (OTS) and the Merkle signature scheme is considered to be the simplest and the most widely known hash-based cryptosystem [31]. This digital signature cryptographic scheme converts a weak signature with the aid of a hash function to a strong one.
The Merkle signature scheme is a practical development of Leslie Lamport’s idea of OTS that turn it into a many-times signature scheme, a signature process that could be used multiple times. The generated signatures are based on hash functions and their security is guaranteed even against quantum attacks.
Many of the reliable signature schemes based on hash functions have the drawback that the person who signs must keep record of the precise number of messages that have been signed before, and any error in this record will create a gap in their security [32]. Another disadvantage of these schemes is that a certain number of digital signatures can be generated and if this number increases indefinitely, then the size of the digital signatures is exceptionally big. However, hash-based algorithms for digital signatures are regarded as safe and strong against a quantum attack and can be used for post-quantum cryptography.
3.3. Multivariate Cryptosystems
In 1988, T. Matsumoto and H. Imai [33] presented a cryptographic scheme which relied on two-degree multivariate polynomials over a finite field for encryption and for signature verification. In 1996, J. Patarin [34] implemented a cryptosystem, the security of which relied on the fact that multivariate polynomial systems in finite fields are difficult to solve.
The multivariate quadratic polynomial problem states that given m quadratic polynomials f 1 , … , f m in n variables x 1 , … , x n with their coefficients to be chosen from a field F , it is requested to find a solution z ∈ F n such that f i ( z ) = 0 , for i ∈ [ m ] . The choice of the parameters make the cryptosystem reliable and safe against attacks, so this problem is considered to be NP-hard.
These type of cryptographic schemes are believed to be efficient and fast with high-speed computation processes and suitable for implementation on smaller devices. The need for new, stronger cryptosystems with the evolution of quantum computers created various candidates for secure cryptographic schemes based on the multivariate quadratic polynomial problem [8]. These type of cryptosystems are considered to be an active issue of research due to their quantum resilience.
3.4. Lattice-Based Cryptosystems
Cryptographic algorithms that are based on lattice theory have gained the interest of researchers and are perhaps the most famous of all candidates for post-quantum cryptography. Imagine a lattice like a set of points in an n dimensional space with periodic structure. The algorithms which are implemented in lattice-based cryptosystems are characterized by simplicity and efficiency and are highly parallelizable [35].
Lattice-based cryptographic protocols are proven to be secure, as their strong security relies on well-known lattice problems such as the Shortest Vector Problem (SVP) and the Learning with Errors problem (LWE) [36]. Additionally, they create powerful and efficient cryptographic primitives, such as functional encryption and fully homomorphic encryption [37]. Moreover, lattice-based cryptosystems create several applications, such as key exchange protocols and digital signature schemes. For all these reasons, lattice-based cryptographic schemes are believed to be the most dynamic field of exploration in post-quantum cryptography and the most prominent and promising one.
4. Lattices
Lattices are considered to be a typical subject in both cryptography and cryptanalysis and an essential tool for future cryptography, especially with the transition to the quantum computing era. The study and the analysis of the lattices goes back to the 18th century, when C.F. Gauss and J.L. Lagrange used lattices in number theory and H. Minkowski with his great work “geometry of numbers” sparked the study of lattice theory [38]. In the late 1990s, a lattice was used for the first time in a cryptographic scheme, and in recent years the evolution in this scientific field has been enormous, as there are lattice-based cryptographic schemes for encryption, digital signatures, trapdoor functions, and much more.
A lattice is a discrete subgroup of points in n-dimensional space with periodic structure. Any subgroup of Z n is a lattice, which is called integer lattice. It is appropriate to describe a lattice using its basis [35]. The basis of a lattice is a set of independent vectors in R n and by combining them, the lattice can be generated.
Definition 1.
A set of vectors { b 1 , b 2 , … , b n } ⊂ R m is linearly independent if the equation
c 1 b 1 + c 2 b 2 + ⋯ + c n b n = 0 , where c i ∈ R ( i = 1 , … , n )
accepts only the trivial solution c 1 = c 2 = ⋯ = c n = 0 .
Definition 2.
Given n linearly independent vectors b 1 , b 2 , … , b n ∈ R m , the lattice generated by them is defined as
L ( b 1 , b 2 , … , b n ) = { ∑ x i b i / x i ∈ Z } .
Therefore, a lattice consists of all integral linear combinations of a set of linearly independent vectors and this set of vectors { b 1 , b 2 , … , b n } is called a lattice basis. So, a lattice can be generated by different bases as can be seen in Figure 1.
Definition 3.
The same number d i m ( L ) of elements of all the bases of a lattice L it is called the dimension (or rank) of the lattice, since it matches the dimension of the vector subspace s p a n ( L ) spanned by L .
Definition 4.
Let L be a lattice with dimension n and B = { b 1 , b 2 , … , b n } a basis of the lattice. We define as fundamental parallelepiped the set:
P ( b 1 , b 2 , … , b n ) = { t 1 b 1 , t 2 b 2 , … , t n b n : 0 ≤ t i < 1 } = ∑ j = 1 n [ 0 , 1 ) b j
Not every given set of vectors forms a basis of a lattice and the following theorem gives us a criterion.
Theorem 1.
Let L be a lattice with rank n and { b 1 , b 2 , … , b n } ∈ L , n linearly independent lattice vectors. The vectors { b 1 , b 2 , … , b n } form a basis of L if and only if P ( b 1 , b 2 , … , b n ) ∩ L = { 0 } .
Definition 5.
A matrix U ∈ Z n × n is called unimodular if d e t U = ± 1 .
For example, the matrix
4 5 13 16
with d e t ( U ) = − 1 .
Theorem 2.
Two bases B 1 , B 2 ∈ R m × n generate the same lattice if and only if there is an umimodular matrix U ∈ R n × n such that B 2 = B 1 U .
Definition 6.
Let L = L ( B ) be a lattice of rank n and let B a basis of L . We define the determinant of L denoted d e t ( L ) , as the n-dimensional volume of P ( B ) .
We can write
d e t ( L ( B ) ) = v o l ( P ) and also
d e t ( L ) = d e t ( B T B ) .
An interesting property of the lattices is that the smaller the determinant of the lattice is, the denser the lattice is.
Definition 7.
For any lattice L = L ( B ) , the minimum distance of L is the smallest distance between any two lattice points:
λ ( L ) = i n f { ∥ x − y ∥ : x , y ∈ L / x ≠ y }
It is obvious that the minimum distance can be equivalently defined as the length of the shortest nonzero lattice vector:
λ ( L ) = i n f { ∥ v ∥ : v ∈ L , { 0 } }
4.1. Shortest Vector Problem (SVP)
The Shortest Vector Problem (SVP) is a very interesting and extensively studied computational problem on lattices. The Shortest Vector Problem states that given a lattice L , the shortest nonzero vector in L should be found.
That is to say, given a basis B = { b 1 , b 2 , … , b n } ∈ R m × n , the shortest vector problem is to find a vector v → satisfying
∥ v → ∥ = min u → ∈ L ( B ) / 0 = λ ( L ( B ) )
which is a variant of the Shortest Vector Problem is computing the length of the shortest nonzero vector in L (e.g., λ ( L ) ) without necessarily finding the vector.
Theorem 3.
Minkowski’s first theorem. The shortest nonzero vector in any n-dimensional lattice L has length at most γ n d e t ( L ) 1 / n , where γ n is an absolute constant (approximately equals to n ) that depend only of the dimension n and d e t ( L ) is the determinant of the lattice.
Two great mathematicians, J. Lagrange and C.F. Gauss, were the first ones to study the lattices and they knew an algorithm to find the shortest nonzero vector in two dimensional lattices. In 1773, Lagrange proposed an efficient algorithm to find a shortest vector of a lattice and Gauss, working independently, made a publication with his proposal for this algorithm in 1801 [38].
A g-approximation algorithm for SVP is an algorithm that on input a lattice L , outputs a nonzero lattice vector of length at most g times the length of the shortest vector in the lattice. The LLL lattice reduction algorithm is capable of approximating SVP within a factor g = O ( ( 2 / 3 ) n ) where n is the dimension of the lattice. Micciancio proved that the Shortest Vector Problem is NP-hard even to approximate within any factor less than 2 [39]. SVP is considered to be a hard mathematical problem and can be used as a cornerstone for the construction of provably secure cryptographic schemes, such as lattice-based cryptography.
One more form of the CVP is figuring the distance of the objective from the lattice without finding the nearest vector of the lattice, and numerous applications are only interested in finding a vector in the lattice that is somewhat close to the objective, not necessarily the nearest one.
4.2. Closest Vector Problem (CVP)
The Closest Vector Problem (CVP) is a computational problem on lattices that relates closely to the Shortest Vector Problem. CVP states that given a target point x → , the lattice point closest to the target should be found.
Let L be a lattice and a fixed point t ∈ R n ; we define the distance:
d ( t , L ) : m i n x ∈ L ∥ x − t ∥ .
CVP can be formulated as follows: Given a basis matrix B for the lattice L and a t ∈ R n , compute a non-zero vector v ∈ L such that ∥ t − v ∥ is minimal. So, we search a non-zero vector v ∈ L , such that ∥ v ∥ = d ( t , L ) .
Another version of the CVP is computing the distance of the target from the lattice without finding the closest vector of the lattice, and many applications only demand to find a lattice vector that is not too far from the target, not necessarily the closest one [40].
The most famous polynomial-time algorithms to solve the Shortest Vector Problem are Babai’s algorithm and Kannan’s algorithm which are based on lattice reduction. Below, in Algorithm 1, we present the first algorithm which was proposed by Lazlo Babai in 1986 [41].
Algorithm 1 Babai’s Round-off Algorithm.
Input: basis B = { b 1 , b 2 , … , b n } ∈ Z n , target vector c ∈ R
Output: approximate closest lattice point of c in L ( B )
1: procedure RoundOff
2: Compute inverse of B : B − 1 ∈ Q n
3: v : = B [ B − 1 c ]
4: return v
5: end procedure
CVP is the foundation of many cryptographic schemes of lattice cryptography, where the decryption procedure corresponds to a CVP computation. It is regarded as NP-hard to solve approximately within any constant factor [42]. Besides cryptography, the problem of finding a good CVP approximation algorithm with approximation factors that grow as a polynomial in the dimension of a lattice has numerous applications in computer science and is an active open problem in lattice theory.
4.3. Lattice Reduction
Lattice reduction, or lattice basis reduction, is about finding an interesting, useful basis of a lattice. Such a requested useful basis, from a mathematical point of view, satisfies a few strong properties. A lattice reduction algorithm is an algorithm that takes as input a basis of the lattice and returns a simpler basis which generates the same lattice. For computing science, we are interested in computing such bases in a reasonable time, given an arbitrary basis. In general, a reduced basis is composed from vectors with good properties, such as being short or being orthogonal.
A polynomial-time basis reduction algorithm developed by Laszlo Lovasz, Arjen Lenstra, and Hendrik Lenstra was published in 1982, the LLL, which took its name from the initials of their surnames [43]. The basis reduction algorithm approaches the solution of the smallest vector problem in small dimensions, especially in two dimensions; the shortest vector is too small to be computed in a polynomial time. On the contrary, in large dimensions there is no algorithm known which solves the SVP in a polynomial time. With the aid of the Gram–Schmidt orthonormalization method, we define the base reduction method LLL.
5. The NTRU Cryptosystem
A public key cryptosystem known as NTRU was presented in 1996 by Joseph H. Silverman, Jill Pipher, and Jeffrey Hoffstein. [44]. Until 2013, the NTRU cryptosystem was only commercially available, but after that it was released into the public domain for public use. The NTRU is based on the shortest vector problem in a lattice and is one of the fastest public key cryptographic schemes. It encrypts and decrypts data using polynomial rings. NTRU is more efficient than other current cryptosystems such as RSA, and it is believed to be resistant to quantum computer attacks, and this makes it a prominent post-quantum cryptosystem.
To describe the way the NTRU cryptographic scheme operates, we first have to give some definitions.
Definition 8.
Fix a positive integer N. The ring of convolution polynomials (of rank N) is the quotient ring
R = Z [ X ] ( X N − 1 ) .
(1)
Definition 9.
The ring of convolution polynomials (modulo q) is the quotient ring
R q = ( Z / q Z ) [ x ] ) ( X N − 1 ) .
(2)
Definition 10.
We consider a polynomial a ( x ) as an element of R q by reducing its coefficients mopulo q. For any positive integers d 1 and d 2 , we let
L ( d 1 , d 2 ) = a ( x ) ∈ R : a ( x ) has d 1 coefficients equal to 1 a ( x ) has d 2 coefficients equal to − 1 a ( x ) has all other coefficients equal to 0
(3)
Polynomials in L ( d 1 , d 2 ) are called ternary (or trinary) polynomials. They are analogous to binary polynomials, which have only 0’s and 1’s as coefficients.
We assume we have two polynomials a ( x ) and b ( x ) . The product of these two polynomials is given by the formula
a ( x ) × b ( x ) = c ( x ) with c k = ∑ i = 0 k a i b k − i + ∑ i = k + 1 N − 1 a i b N + k − i = ∑ i + j ≡ k mod N a i b j
(4)
We will denote the inverses by F q and F p , such that
F q × f ≡ 1 ( mod q ) and F p × f ≡ 1 ( mod p )
(5)
5.1. Description
The NTRU cryptographic scheme is based firstly on three well-chosen parameters ( N , p , q ) , such that N is a fixed positive large integer, p and q, is not necessary to be prime but are relatively prime, e.g., g c d ( p , q ) = 1 and q will be always larger than p [44]. Secondly, NTRU depends on four sets of polynomials L f , L g , L ϕ and L m with integer coefficients of degree N − 1 and works on the ring R = Z [ X ] X N − 1 .
Every element f ∈ R is written as a polyonomial or as vector f = ∑ N − 1 i = 0 f i x i = [ f 0 , f 1 , … , f N − 1 ] . We make the assumption that Alice and Bob are the two parties that they want to transfer data, to communicate with security. A trusted party or the first party selects public parameters ( N , p , q , d ) such that N,p are prime numbers, g c d ( p , q ) = g c d ( N , q ) = 1 and q > ( 6 d + 1 ) p .
Alice chooses randomly two polynomials f ( x ) ∈ L ( d + 1 , d ) and g ( x ) ∈ L ( d , d ) . These two polynomials are Alice’s private key.
Alice computes the inverse polynomials
F q ( x ) = f ( x ) − 1 ∈ R q and F p ( x ) = f ( x ) − 1 ∈ R p
(6)
Alice computes h ( x ) = F q ( x ) × g ( x ) ∈ R q and the polynomial h ( x ) is Alice’s public key. Alice’s private key is the pair ( f ( x ) , F p ( x ) ) and by only using this key, she can decrypt messages. Otherwise, she can store it, which is probably mod q and compute F p ( x ) when she needs it.
Alice publishes her key h.
Bob wants to encrypt a message and chooses his plaintext m ( x ) ∈ R p . The m ( x ) is a polynomial with coefficients m i such that − 1 2 p ≤ m i ≤ 1 2 p .
Bob chooses a random polynomial r ( x ) ∈ T ( d , d ) , which is called ephemeral key, and computes
e ( x ) ≡ p h ( x ) × r ( x ) + m ( x ) ( mod q )
(7)
and this is the encrypted message that Bob sends to Alice.
Alice computes
a ( x ) ≡ f ( x ) × e ( x ) ( mod q )
(8)
Alice chooses the coefficients of a in the interval from − q / 2 to q / 2 (center lifts a ( x ) to an element of R).
Alice computes
b ( x ) ≡ F p ( x ) × a ( x ) ( mod p )
(9)
and she recovers the message m as if the parameters have been chosen correctly; the polynomial b ( x ) equals the plaintext m ( x ) .
Depending on the choice of the ephemeral key r ( x ) the plaintext m ( x ) can be encrypted with many ways, as its possible encryptions are p h ( x ) × r ( x ) + m ( x ) . The ephemeral key should be used one time only, e.g., it should not be used to encrypt two different plaintexts. Additionally, Bob should not encrypt the same plaintext by using two different ephemeral keys.
5.2. Discrete Implementation
Assume the trusted party chooses the parameters ( N , p , q , d ) = ( 11 , 3 , 61 , 2 ) . As we can see, N = 11 and p = 3 are prime numbers, g c d ( 3 , 61 ) = g c d ( 11 , 2 ) = 1 and the condition q > ( 6 d + 1 ) p is satisfied as it is 61 > ( 6 · 2 + 1 ) 3 = 39 .
Alice chooses the polynomials
f ( x ) = x 10 − x 8 − x 6 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1 ∈ L ( 3 , 2 ) g ( x ) = x 9 − x 8 − x 6 + x 4 + x 2 + 1 ∈ L ( 2 , 2 )
These polynomials, f , g are the private key of Alice.
Alice computes the inverses
F 61 ( x ) = f ( x ) − 1 mod 61 = = 45 x 10 + 49 x 9 + 26 x 8 + 40 x 7 + 53 x 6 + 47 x 5 + 21 x 4 + 24 x 3 + 60 x 2 + 32 x + 31 ∈ R 61 F 3 ( x ) = f ( x ) − 1 = x 9 + x 7 + x 5 + 2 x 4 + 2 x 3 + 2 x 2 + x ∈ R 3
Alice can store ( f ( x ) , F 3 ( x ) ) as her private key.
Alice computes
h ( x ) = F 61 ( x ) × g ( x ) = = 11 x 10 + 49 x 9 + 26 x 8 + 46 x 7 + 28 x 6 + 53 x 5 + 31 x 4 + 36 x 3 + 30 x 2 + 5 x + 50
and publishes her public key h ( x ) .
Bob decides to encrypt the message m ( x ) = x 7 − x 4 + x 3 + x + 1 and uses the ephemeral key r ( x ) = x 9 + x 7 + x 4 − x 3 + 1 .
Bob computes and sends to Alice the encrypted message
e ( x ) ≡ p h ( x ) × r ( x ) + m ( x ) ( mod q )
that is
e ( x ) = 11 x 10 + 49 x 9 + 52 x 8 + 35 x 7 + 30 x 6 + 25 x 5 + 35 x 4 + 32 x 3 + 18 x 2 + 56 x + 28 ( mod 61 ) .
Alice receives the ciphertext e ( x ) and computes
f ( x ) × e ( x ) = = 58 x 10 + 60 x 9 + 60 x 8 + 4 x 7 + 56 x 5 + 6 x 4 + 55 x 2 + 3 x + 6 ∈ R 61
Therefore, Alice centerlifts modulo 61 to obtain
a ( x ) = − 3 x 10 − x 9 − x 8 + 4 x 7 + 5 x 5 + 6 x 4 − 6 x 2 + 3 x + 6 ∈ R 61
She reduces a ( x ) modulo 3 and computes
F 3 ( x ) × a ( x ) = x 7 + 2 x 4 + x 3 + x + 1 ∈ R 3
and recovers Bob’s message m ( x ) = x 7 − x 4 + x 3 + x + 1
5.3. Security
Lattice-based NTRU is one of the fastest public key cryptosystems and it is used for encryption (NTRU-Encrypt) and digital signatures (NTRUSign). From the moment that NTRU was presented in 1996, NTRU security has been a main issue of interest and research. NTRU hardness relies on the hard mathematical problems in a lattice, such as the Shortest Vector Problem [35].
The authors of NTRU in their paper [44] argue that the secret key can be recovered by the public key, by finding a sufficiently short vector of the lattice that is generated in the NTRU algorithm. D. Coppersmith and A. Shamir proposed a simple attack against the NTRU cryptosystem. In their work, they argued that the target vector f | | g ∈ Z 2 N (the symbol || denotes vector concatenation) belongs to the natural lattice:
L C S = { F | | G ∈ Z 2 N | F ≡ h × G mod q where F , G ∈ R } .
It is obvious that L C S is a full dimension lattice in Z 2 N , with volume q N . The target vector is the shortest vector of L C S , so the private keys should be outputted heuristically by SVP-oracle f and g. Hoffstein et al. claimed that if one chooses the number N reasonably, the NTRU is sufficiently secure, as all these types of attacks are exponential in N. These types of attacks are based on the difficulty of solving certain lattice problems, such as SVP and CVP [45]. Lattice attacks can be used to recover the private key of an NTRU system, but they are generally considered to be infeasible for the current parameters of NTRU. It is important that the key size of the NTRU protocol is O ( N log q ) and this fact makes NTRU a promising cryptographic scheme for post-quantum cryptography [46].
Furthermore, the cryptanalysis of NTRU is an active area of research and other types of attacks against the NTRU cryptosystem have been developed [47,48,49]. We refer to some of them as detailed below.
Brute-Force Attack. In this type of attack, all possible values of the private key are tested until the correct one is found. Brute-force attacks are generally not practical for NTRU, as the size of the key space is very large [50].
Key Recovery Attack. This type of attack relies on exploiting vulnerabilities in the key-generation process of NTRU. For example, if assuming the arbitrary number generator used to create the confidential key is frail, a fraudulent user may be able to recover the private key [51].
Side-channel Attack. This type of attack take advantage of the weaknesses in the implementation of NTRU, such as timing attack, power analysis attack, and fault attack. Side-channel attacks require the device to be physically accessible running the implementation [52,53].
To protect NTRU against these types of attacks and avoid the leak of secret data and information, researchers use various techniques to ensure its security, such as parameter selection, randomization, and error-correcting codes.
6. The LWE Cryptosystem
In 2005, O. Regev presented a new public key cryptographic scheme, the Learning with Errors cryptosystem, and for this work, Regev won the Godel Prize in 2018 [54]. LWE is one of the most famous lattice-based cryptosystems and one of the most widely studied in recent years. It is based on the Learning with Errors problem and the hardness of finding a random linear function of a secret vector modulo a prime number. A probabilistic cryptosystem with a high probability algorithm is the LWE public key cryptosystem. Since LWE proved to be secure and efficient, it has become one of the most contemporary and innovative research topics in both lattice-based cryptography and computer science.
6.1. The Learning with Errors Problem
Firstly, we have to introduce the Learning with Errors problem (LWE). Assuming that we have a secret vector s = ( s 1 , s 2 , … , s n ) ∈ Z n with coefficient integer numbers and n linear equations, such that
a 11 s 1 + a 12 s 2 + … + a 1 n s n ≈ a a 21 s 1 + a 22 s 2 + … + a 2 n s n ≈ b ⋮ a m 1 s 1 + a m 2 s 2 + … + a m n s n ≈ m
We use the symbol “≈” to claim that within a certain error, the value approaches the actual response. This is a difficult problem because adding and multiplying rows together will increase the number of errors in each equation, resulting in the final row reduced state being worthless and the answer being far away from the real value.
Definition 11.
Let s ∈ Z q n be a secret vector and χ be a given distribution on Z q . An LWE distribution A s , n , q , χ generates a sample ( a , b ) ∈ Z q n × Z q or ( A , b ) ∈ Z q m × n × Z q m where a ∈ Z q n is uniformly distributed and b = 〈 a , s 〉 + e , where e ← χ and 〈 a , s 〉 is the inner product of a and s in Z q .
We call A s , n , q , χ = ( a , b ) ∈ Z q n × Z q the LWE distribution, s is called the private key, and e is called the error distribution. If b ∈ Z q is uniformly distributed, then it is called the uniform LWE distribution.
Definition 12.
Fix n ≥ 1 , q ≥ 2 and an error probability distribution χ on Z q . Let s be a vector with n coefficients in Z q . Let A s , χ on Z q n × Z q be the probability distribution choosing a vector a ∈ Z q uniformly at random, choosing e ∈ Z q according to χ and outputting ( a , 〈 a , s 〉 + e ) where additions are performed in Z q . We say an algorithm solves LWE with modulus q and error distribution χ if for any s ∈ Z q n given enough samples from A s , χ it outputs s with high probability.
Definition 13.
Suppose we have a way of generating samples from A s , χ as above, and also generating random uniformly distributed samples of ( a , b ) from Z q n × Z q . We call this uniform distribution U. The decision-LWE problem is to determine after a polynomial number of samples whether the samples are coming from A s , χ or U.
Simplifying the definition and formulated in more compact matrix notation, if we want to generate a uniformly random matrix A with coefficients between 0 and q and two secret vectors s, e with coefficients drawn from a distribution with small variance, the LWE sample can be calculated as: ( A , b = A s + e mod q ) . According to the LWE problem, it is challenging to locate the secret s from such a sample.
Definition 14.
For a > 0 , the family Ψ a is the (uncountable) set of all elliptical Gaussian distributions D r over a number field K R in which r ≥ a .
The choice of the parameters is crucial for the hardness of this problem. The distribution is a Gaussian distribution or a binomial distribution with variance 1 to 3; the length of the secret vector n is such that 2 9 < n < 2 10 and the modulus q is in the range 2 8 to 2 16 .
6.2. Description
Assume n ≥ 1 , q ≥ 2 are positive integers and χ is a given probability distribution in Z q . The LWE cryptographic scheme is based on LWE distribution A s , χ and is described below.
The parameters of the LWE cryptosystem are crucial to the protocol’s security. So, let n be the security parameter of the system; m, q are two integer numbers and χ is a probability distribution on Z q .
The security and the correctness of the cryptosystem are based on the following parameters, which are be chosen appropriately.
Choose q, a prime number between n 2 and 2 n 2 .
Let m = ( 1 + ϵ ) ( n + 1 ) log q for some arbitrary constant ϵ > 0 .
The probability distribution is chosen to be χ = Ψ a ( n ) for a ( n ) ∈ O ( 1 / n log n )
We suppose that there are two parties, Alice and Bob, who want to transfer information securely. The LWE cryptosystem has the typical structure of a cryptographic scheme and its steps are the following.
Alice chooses uniformly at random s ∈ Z q n . s is the private key.
Alice generates a public key by choosing m vectors a 1 , a 2 , … , a m ∈ Z q n independently from the uniform distribution. She also chooses elements (error offsets) e 1 , e 2 , … , e m ∈ Z q n independently according to χ . The public key is ( a i , b i ) i = 1 m , where b i = 〈 a i , s 〉 + e i .
In matrix form, the public key is the LWE sample ( A , b = A s + e mod q ) , where s is the secret vector.
Bob, in order to encrypt a bit, chooses a random set S uniformly among all 2 m subsets of [ m ] . The encryption is ( ∑ i ∈ S a i , ∑ i ∈ S b i ) if the bit is 0 and ( ∑ i ∈ S a i , ⌊ q 2 ⌋ + ∑ i ∈ S b i ) if the bit is 1.
In matrix form, Bob can encrypt a bit m by calculating two LWE problems: one using A as random public element, and one using b. Bob generates his own secret vectors s ′ , e ′ and e and make the LWE samples ( A , b ′ = A T s ′ + e ′ mod q ) , ( b , v ′ = b T s ′ + e ′ ′ mod q ) . Bob has to add the message that wants to encrypt to one of these samples, where v ′ is a random integer between 0 and q. The encrypted message of Bob consists of the two samples ( A , b ′ = A T s ′ + e ′ mod q ) , ( b , v ′ = b T s ′ + e ′ ′ + q 2 m mod q ) .
Alice wants to decrypt Bob’s ciphertext. The decryption of a pair ( a , b ) is 0 if b − 〈 a , s 〉 is closer to 0 than to ⌊ q 2 ⌋ modulo q. In another case, the decryption is 1.
In matrix form, Alice firstly calculates Δ v = v ′ − b ′ T s . As long as e T s ′ + e ′ ′ − s T e ′ is small enough, Alice recovers the message as m e s = ⌊ 2 q Δ v ⌉ .
6.3. Discrete Implementation
We choose n = 4 and q = 13 .
Alice chooses the private key s = [ 2 , 5 , 0 , 6 ] .
Let m = 3 so Alice generates the public key with the aid of three vectors a i , i = 1 , 2 , 3 and three elements e i , i = 1 , 2 , 3 (error terms). She chooses: a 1 = [ 1 , 6 , 2 , 4 ] and e 1 = 1 , a 2 = [ 0 , 3 , 5 , 1 ] and e 2 = 0 and a 3 = [ 2 , 1 , 6 , 3 ] and e 3 = − 1 . Therefore, Alice’s public key is:
{ ( [ 1 , 6 , 2 , 4 ] , 4 ) , ( [ 0 , 3 , 5 , 1 ] , 8 ) , ( [ 2 , 1 , 6 , 0 ] , 0 ) }
Bob wants to encrypt 0 so he takes the subset S = { 1 , 2 } . So, he computes
( ∑ i ∈ S a i , ∑ i ∈ S b i ) = ( [ 1 , 6 , 2 , 4 ] + [ 0 , 3 , 5 , 1 ] , 4 + 8 ) = ( [ 1 , 9 , 7 , 5 ] , 12 )
Alice performs the decryption algorithm by computing
b − 〈 a , s 〉 = 12 − 〈 [ 1 , 9 , 7 , 5 ] , [ 2 , 5 , 0 , 6 ] 〉 = 12 − 12 = 0
and obviously the decryption is 0 since the output value is closer to 0 (in this case equal to 0) than to ⌊ 13 2 ⌋ modulo 13.
Therefore, the encryption scheme worked correctly.
6.4. Implementations and Variants
The Learning with Errors (LWE) cryptosystem is a popular post-quantum cryptographic scheme that relies on the hardness of using lattices to solve particular computational problems. There are several variants of the LWE cryptosystem, including the Ring-LWE, the Dual LWE, the Module-LWE, the Binary-LWE, the multilinear LWE, and others [55,56,57].
The RING-LWE Cryptosystem
This variant of LWE uses polynomial rings instead of the more general lattices used in standard LWE. Ring-LWE has a simpler structure, which improves execution speed and memory utilization efficiency. In 2013, Lyubashevsky et al. [46] presented a new public key cryptographic scheme that is based in the LWE problem.
The Ring-LWE cryptosystem structure.
Lyubachevsky et al. proposed a well-analyzed cryptosystem that uses two ring elements for both public key and ciphertext and it is a plain lattice-based version of the public key cryptographic system.
The two parties they want to communicate agree on the complexity value of n, the highest co-efficient power to be used. Let R = Z [ X ] ( X n + 1 ) be the fixed ring and an integer q is chosen, such as q = 2 n − 1 . The steps of the Ring-LWE protocol are described below.
A secret vector s with n length is chosen with modulo q integer entries in ring R q , where q ∈ Z + . This is the private key of the system.
An element a ∈ R q is chosen and a random small element e ∈ R from the error distribution and we compute b = a s ˙ + e .
The public key of the system is the pair ( a , b ) .
Let m be the n bit message that is meant for encryption.
The message m is considered an element of R and the bits are used as coefficients of a polynomial of a degree less than n.
The elements e 1 , e 2 , r ∈ R are generated from error distribution.
The u = a · r + e 1 mod q is computed.
The v = b · r + e 2 + · ⌊ q 2 ⌉ · m mod q is computed and it is sent ( u , v ) ∈ R q 2 to receiver.
The second party receives the payload ( u , v ) ∈ R q 2 and computes r = v − u · s = ( r · e − s · e 1 + e 2 ) + ⌊ q 2 ⌉ · m mod q . Each r i is evaluated and if r 1 ≈ q 2 , then the bits are recovered back to 1, or else 0.
The Ring-LWE cryptographic scheme is similar to the LWE cryptosystem that was proposed by Regev. Their difference is that the inner products are replaced with ring products, so the result is a new ring structure, increasing the efficiency of the operations.
6.5. Security
Learning with Errors (LWE) is a computational problem that is the basis for cryptosystems and especially for cryptographic schemes of post-quantum cryptography. It is considered to be a hard mathematical problem and as a consequence, cryptosystems that are based on the LWE problem are of high security as well. LWE cryptographic protocols are a contemporary and active field of research and therefore their security is studied and analyzed continually and steadily.
There are various attacks that can be performed against the cryptosystems which are based on the LWE problem. We can say that these types of attacks are, in general, attacks that exploit weaknesses in the LWE problem itself, and attacks that exploit weaknesses in the specific implementation of the cryptosystem. Below, we present some of these types of attacks that can be launched against LWE-based cryptographic schemes.
Dual Attack. This type of attack is based on the dual lattice and is most effective against LWE instances with small size of plaintext messages.
Thus, hybrid dual attacks are appropriate for spare and small secrets, and in a hybrid attack, one estimates part of the secret without knowledge and performs some attacks on the leftover part [58] The cost of attacking the remaining portion of the secret is decreased because guessing reduces the problem’s size. Additionally, the component of the lattice attack can be utilized for multiple guesses. When the lattice attack component is a primal attack, we call it a hybrid primal attack and a hybrid dual attack, respectively, and the optimal attack is achieved when the cost of guessing is equal to the lattice attack cost.
Sieving Attack. This type of attack relies on the idea of sieving, which claims to find linear combinations of the LWE samples that reveal information about the secret. Sieving attacks can be used to solve the LWE problem with fewer samples than its original complexity.
Algebraic attack. This type of attack is based on the idea of finding algebraic relations between the LWE samples that let out secret data information. Algebraic attacks can be suitable for solving the LWE problem with fewer samples than the original complexity as well.
Side-channel attack. This type of attack exploits weaknesses in the implementation of the LWE-based scheme, such as timing attacks and others. Side-channel attacks are generally easier to mount than attacks against the LWE problem itself, but they require physical access to the device running the implementation.
Attacks that use the BKW algorithm. This is a classic attack; it is considered to be sub-exponential and is most effective against small or small-structured LWE instances.
To mitigate these attacks, LWE-based schemes typically use various techniques such as parameter selection, randomization, and error-correcting codes. These techniques are designed to make the LWE problem harder to solve and to prevent attackers from taking advantage of vulnerabilities in the implementation [59,60].
7. The GGH Cryptosystem
In 1997, Oded Goldreich, Shafi Goldwasser, and Shai Halevi proposed a cryptosystem (GGH) [61] based on algrebraic coding theory and it can be seen as a lattice analogue of the McEliece cryptosystem [29]. In both the GGH and McEliece schemes, the addition of a random noise vector to the plaintext is called the ciphertext [35]. In the GGH cryptosystem, the public and the private key are a representation of a lattice and in the McEliece, the public and the private key are a representation of a linear code. The basic distinction between these two cryptographic schemes is that the domains in which the operations take place are different. The main idea and structure of the GGH cryptographic scheme is characterized by simplicity and it is based on the difficulty of reducing lattices.
7.1. Description
The GGH public key encryption scheme is formed by the key generation algorithm K, the encryption algorithm E, and the decryption algorithm D. It is based on lattices in Z n , a key derivation function h : Z n × Z n → K s and a symmetric cryptosystem ( K s , P , C , E s , D s ), where K is the key generation algorithm, P the set of plain texts, C the set of ciphertexts, E s the encryption algorithm, and D s the decryption algorithm.
The key generation algorithm K generates a lattice L by choosing a basis matrix V that is nearly orthogonal. An integer matrix U it is chosen which has determinant d e t ( U ) = ± 1 and the algorithm computes W = U V . Then, the algorithm outputs e k = W and d k = V .
The encryption algorithm E receives as input an encryption key e k = W and a plain message m ∈ P . It chooses a random vector u ∈ Z n and a random noise vector u. Then it computes x = u W , z = x + r and encrypts the message w = E s ( h ( x , r ) , m ) . It outputs the ciphertext c = ( z , w ) .
The decryption algorithm D takes as input a decryption key d k = V and a ciphertext c = ( z , w ) . It computes x = ⌊ z V − 1 ⌉ V and r = z − x and decrypts as m = D s ( h ( x , r ) , w ) . If D s algorithm outputs the symbol ⊥ the decryption fails and then D outputs ⊥, otherwise the algorithm outputs m.
We assume that there exist two users, Alice and Bob, who want to communicate secretly. The main (classical) process of the GGH cryptosystem is described below.
Alice chooses a set of linearly independent vectors v 1 , v 2 , … , v n ∈ Z n which form the matrix V = [ v 1 , v 2 , … , v n ] , v i ∈ Z n , 1 ≤ i ≤ n . Alice, by calculating the Hadamard Ratio of matrix V and verifying that is not too small, checks her vector’s choice. This is Alice’s private key and we let L be the lattice generated by these vectors.
Alice chooses an n × n unimodular matrix U with integer coefficients that satisfies d e t ( U ) = ± 1 .
Alice computes a bad basis w 1 , w 2 , … , w n for the lattice L, as the rows of W = U V , and this is Alice’s public key. Then, she publishes the key w 1 , w 2 , … , w n .
Bob chooses a plaintext that he wants to encrypt and he chooses a small vector m (e.g., a binary vector) as his plaintext. Then, he chooses a small random “noise” vector r which acts as a random element and r has been chosen randomly between − δ and δ , where δ is a fixed public parameter.
Bob computes the vector e = m W + r = ∑ i = 1 n m i w i + r = x 1 w 1 + x 2 w 2 + ⋯ + x n w n + r using Alice’s public key and sends the ciphertext e to Alice.
Alice, with the aid of Babai’s algorithm, uses the basis v 1 , v 2 , … , v n to find a vector in L that is close to e. This vector is the a = m W , since the “noise” vector r is small and since she uses a good basis. Then, she computes a W − 1 = m W W − 1 ans she recovers m.
Supposing there is an eavesdropper, Eve, who wants to obtain information of the communication between Alice and Bob. Eve has in her possession the message e that Bob sends to Alice and therefore tries to find the closest vector to e, solving the CVP, using the public basis W. As she uses vectors that are not reasonably orthogonal, Eve will recover a message e ^ which probably will not be near to m.
7.2. Discrete Implementation
Alice chooses a private basis v 1 → = ( 48 , 1 ) and v 2 → = ( − 1 , 48 ) which is a good basis since v 1 → and v 2 → are orthogonal vectors, e.g., it is 〈 v 1 → , v 2 → 〉 = 0 . The rows of the matrix V = 48 1 − 1 48 are Alice’s private key. The lattice L spanned by v 1 → and v 2 → has determinant d e t ( L ) = 2305 and the Hadamard ratio of the basis is H = ( d e t ( L ) / | v 1 → | | v 2 → | ) 1 / 3 ≃ 1
Alice chooses the unimodular matrix U that its determinant is equal to 1, such that U = 5 8 3 5 with d e t ( U ) = + 1 .
Alice computes the matrix W, such that W = U V = 232 389 139 243 . Its rows are Alice’s bad basis w 1 → = ( 232 , 389 ) and w 2 → = ( 139 , 243 ) , since it is c o s ( w 1 → , w 2 → ) ≃ 0.99948 and these vectors are nearly parallel, so they are suitable for a public key.
It is very important for the noise vector to be selected carefully and that it is not shifted where the nearest point is located. For Alice’s basis that generates the lattice L, r → is chosen that | r → | < 20 . So, the vector r → is chosen to be ( r x , r y ) with − 10 ≤ r x and r y ≤ 10 .
Bob wants to encrypt the message m = ( 35 , 27 ) . The message can be seen as a linear combination of the basis w 1 → , w 2 → , such as 35 w 1 → + 25 w 2 → and the noise vector r → can be added.
The corresponding ciphertext is e = m W + r = ( 35 , 27 ) 232 389 139 243 + ( − 9 , 1 ) = ( 19 , 285 , 17 , 064 ) + ( − 9 , 1 ) = ( 19 , 276 , 17 , 065 ) and Bob sends it to Alice.
Alice, using the private basis, applies Babai’s algorithm and finds the closest lattice point. So, she solves the equation a 1 ( 48 , 1 ) + a 2 ( − 1 , 48 ) = ( 19 , 276 , 17 , 065 ) and finds a 1 ≃ 463.02 and a 2 ≃ 345.8 . So, the closest lattice point is a 1 ( 48 , 1 ) + a 2 ( − 1 , 48 ) = 463 ( 48 , 1 ) + 346 ( − 1 , 48 ) = ( 21 , 878 , 17 , 071 ) and this lattice vector is close to e.
Alice realizes that Bob must have computed ( 21 , 878 , 17 , 071 ) as a linear combination of the public basis vectors and then solving the linear combination again m 1 ( 232 , 389 ) + m 2 ( 139 , 243 ) = ( 21 , 878 , 17 , 071 ) , she finds m 1 = 35 and m 2 = 27 and recovers the message m = ( m 1 , m 2 ) = ( 35 , 27 ) .
Eve has in her possession the encrypted message ( 19 , 276 , 17 , 065 ) that Bob had sent to Alice and she tries to solve the CVP using the public basis. So, she is solving the equation m 1 ( 232 , 389 ) + m 2 ( 139 , 243 ) = ( 19 , 276 , 17 , 065 ) ; she finds the incorrect values m 1 ≃ 1003.1 , m 2 ≃ − 1535.5 and recovers the incorrect encryption m ′ = ( m 1 , m 2 ) = ( 1003 , − 1535 ) .
In 1999 and in 2001, D. Micciancio proposed a simple technique to reduce both the size of the key and size of the ciphertext of GGH cryptosystem without decreasing the level of its security [62,63].
7.3. Security
In the GGH cryptographic scheme, if a security parameter n is chosen, the time required for encryption and the size of the key is O ( n 2 log n ) and it is more efficient than other cryptosystems such as AD.
There are some natural ways to perform an attack on the GGH cryptographic scheme.
Leak information and obtain the private key V from the public key W.
For this type of attack, a lattice basis reduction (LLL) algorithm is performed on the public key, the matrix W. It is possible that the output is a basis W ′ that is good enough to enable the effective solution of the necessary instances of the closest vector. It will be extremely difficult for this attack to succeed if the dimension of the lattice is sufficiently large.
Assuming we have a small error vector r, try to extract information about the message from the ciphertext e.
For this type of attack, it is useful that in the ciphertext e = m W + r , the error vector r is a vector with small entries. An idea is to compute e W − 1 = m W W − 1 + r W − 1 and try to deduce possible values for some entries of r W − 1 . For example, if the j-th column of W − 1 has a particularly small norm, then one can deduce that the j-th entry of r W − 1 is always small and hence get an accurate estimate for the j-th entry of m. To defeat this attack, one should only use some low-order bits of some entries of m to carry information, or use an appropriate randomized padding scheme
Try to solve the Closest Vector Problem of e with respect to the lattice that is being generated by W, for example, by performing the Babai’s nearest plane algorithm or the embedding technique.
Moreover, certain types of attacks can be performed against GGH which are discussed below, such as Nguyen’s attack and Lee and Hahn attack.
Goldreich, Goldwasser, and Halevi claimed that increasing the key size compensates for the decrease in computation time [35]. When presenting their paper, the three authors published five numerical challenges that corresponded to increase the value of the parameters n in higher dimensions with the aim of supporting their algorithm. In each challenge, a public key and a ciphertext were given and it was requested to recover the plaintext.
In 1999, P. Nguyen exploited the weakness specific to the way the parameters are chosen and developed an attack against the GGH cryptographic scheme [64]. The first four challenges, for n = 200 , 250 , 300 , 350 were broken; since then, GGH is considered to be broken partially in its original form. Nguyen argued that the choice of the error vector is its weakness and that it makes it vulnerable to a possible attack. The error vectors used in the encryption of the GGH algorithm must be shorter than the vectors that generate the lattice. This weakness makes Closest Vector Problem instances arising from GGH easier than general CVP instances [35].
The other weakness of the GGH cryptosystem is the choice of the error vector e in the encryption algorithm procedure. The e vector is in { ± σ } n and it is chosen to maximize the Euclidean norm under requirements on the nity norm. Nguyen takes the ciphertext c = m B + e modulo s i g m a , where m is the plaintext and B the public key, and the e disappears from the equation. This is because e ∈ { ± σ } n and every choice is 0 mod σ . So, this leaks information about the message m ( mod σ ) and increasing the modulus to 2 σ and adding an all − σ vector s to the equation. If this equation is solved for m, it leaks information for m ( mod 2 σ ) . Nguyen also demonstrated that in most cases, this equation could be easily solved for m.
In 2006, Nguyen and Regev performed an attack on the GGH signatures scheme, transforming a geometrical problem to a multivariate optimization problem [65]. The final numerical challenge for n = 400 was solved by M.S. Lee and S.G. Hahn in 2010 [66]. Therefore, GGH has weaknesses and trapdoors, such that it is vulnerable to certain type of attacks, such as one attack that allows a fraudulent user to recover the secret key using a small amount of information about the ciphertext. Specifically, if an attacker can obtain the two smallest vectors in the lattice, they can give information and recover the secret key using Coppersmith’s algorithm [67]. As a result, GGH has limited practical use and has been largely superseded by newer and more secure lattice-based cryptosystems. So, while GGH made an important early contribution to the field of lattice-based cryptography, it is not currently considered a practical choice for secure communication due to its limitations in security.
8. Evaluation, Comparison and Discussion
We have presented a few of the main cryptographic schemes that are based on the hardness of lattice problems and especially based on the Closest Vector Problem. GGH is a public key cryptosystem which is based in algebraic coding theory. A plaintext is been added with a vector noise and the result of this addition is a ciphertext. Both the private and the public keys are a depiction of a lattice and the private key has a specific structure. Nguyen’s attack [64] revealed the weakness and vulnerability of the GGH cryptosystem and many researchers after that considered GGH to be unusable [64,68]
Therefore, in 2010, M.S. Lee and S.G. Hahn presented a method that solved the numerical challenge of the highest dimension 400 [66]. Applying this specific method, Lee and Hann came to the conclusion that the decryption of the ciphertext could be accomplished using partial information of the plaintext. Thus, this method requires some knowledge of the plaintext and cannot be performed in actually real cryptanalysis circumstances. On the other side, in 2012 M. Yoshino and N. Kunihiro and C. Gu et al. in 2015 presented a few modifications and improvements in the GGH cryptosystem, claiming that they made it more resistant to these attacks [67,69].
The same year, C.F. de Barros and L.M. Schechter, in their paper “GGH may not be dead after all”, proposed certain improvements for GGH and finally a variation of the GGH cryptographic scheme [70]. De Barros and Schecher, by reducing the public key in order to find a basis with the aid of Babai’s algorithm, perform a direct way to attack to GGH. They increase the length of the noise vector r → setting a new parameter k that modified the GGH cryptographic algorithm. Their modifications resulted in a variation of GGH more resistant to cryptanalysis, but with slower decryption process of the algorithm. In 2015, Brakerski et al. described certain types of attacks against some variations of the GGH cryptosystem and relied on the linearity of the zero-testing procedure [71].
GGH was a milestone in the evolution of post-quantum cryptography; it was one of the earliest lattice-based cryptographic schemes and it is based on the Shortest Vector Problem’s difficulty. Even though is is viewed as one of the most significant lattice-based cryptosystems and still has a theoretical interest, it is not recommended for practical use due to its security weaknesses. GGH is less efficient than other lattice-based cryptosystems [72]. The process to encrypt and decrypt a message requires a large amount of computations and this fact makes the GGH cryptosystem obviously slower and less practical than other lattice-based cryptosystems.
Thus, the GGH protocol is vulnerable to certain attacks, such as Coppersmith’s attack and Babai’s nearest plane algorithm, and it is considered not to be strong enough. These attacks disputed the security of the GGH and made it less preferable than newer, stronger, and more secure lattice-based cryptosystems. Evaluating the efficiency of GGH cryptographic protocol, GGH is relatively inefficient compared to other lattice-based cryptosystems such as NTRU, LWE, and others, and especially in the key generation and for large key length. As the GGH cryptosystem is based in multiplications of matrices, when we choose large keys, it requires a computationally expensive basis reduction algorithm for the encryption and decryption procedure.
Moreover, GGH is considered to be a complex cryptographic scheme which requires concepts and knowledge of lattices and linear algebra to study, analyze, and implement. GGH also has one more drawback, which is the lack of standardization, and this makes hard the comparison of its functionality, security, and connectivity with other cryptographic schemes. GGH was one of the first cryptographic schemes that were developed based on lattice theory and cryptography. In spite of the fact that GGH certainly has interesting theoretical basis and properties, GGH is not used in practice due to its limitations in security, efficiency, and complexity.
NTRU is a public key cryptographic scheme that is based on the Shortest Vector Problem in a lattice and was first presented in the 1990s. It is one of the most well studied and analyzed lattice-based cryptosystems and there have been many cryptanalysis studies of NTRU algorithms, including NTRU signatures. NTRU has a high level of security and efficiency and it is a promising protocol for post-quantum cryptography. Moreover, the NTRU cryptographic algorithm uses polynomial multiplication as its basic operation and it is notable for its simplicity.
A main advantage of the NTRU cryptosystem is its speed and it has been used in certain commercial applications where speed is a priority. NTRU has a fast implementation compared with other lattice-based cryptosystems, such as GGH, LWE, and Ajtai-Dwork. For this reason, NTRU is preferable for applications that require fast encryptions and decryption, such as in IoT devices or in embedded systems. In addition to its speed, NTRU uses smaller key sizes than other public key cryptosystems, but the same level of security is maintained. This makes it ideal for applications or environments with limited memory and processing power.
NTRU is considered to be a secure cryptographic scheme against various types of attacks. It is designed to be resistant against attacks such as lattice basis reduction, meet-in-the-middle attacks, and chosen ciphertext attacks. NTRU is believed to be a strong cryptographic scheme for the quantum era, meaning that it is considered to be resistant against attacks by quantum computers.
NTRU has become famous and widely usable after 2017, because before then, it was under a patent and it was difficult for researchers to use it and modify it. Thus, NTRU is not widely used or standardized in the industry, making it difficult to assess its interoperability with other cryptosystems. Furthermore, NTRU is considered to be a public key cryptographic protocol with relative complexity, and its analysis and implementation require a good understanding of lattice-based cryptography and ring theory. NTRU is a promising lattice-based cryptosystem for post-quantum cryptography that offers fast implementation and strong security guarantees [73].
Learning with Errors (LWE) is a widely used and well-studied public key cryptographic scheme that is based in lattice theory [74]. LWE is considered to be secure against both quantum and classical attacks and indeed, it is considered to be among the most secure and efficient of these schemes, while NTRU has limitations in terms of its security [75]. LWE depends its hardness on the difficulty of finding a random error vector in a matrix product and this makes it a resistant cryptosystem against various types of attacks, the same types of attacks as with NTRU. It is considered to be a strongly secure cryptosystem and post-quantum secure, which means that it is resistant to attacks by a quantum computer [76].
LWE uses keys with small length size compared with other cryptographic schemes that are designed for the quantum era, such as code-based and hash-based cryptosystems [77]. Just like NTRU, LWE is appropriate for implementation in resource-constrained environments, such as in IoT devices or in embedded systems. A basic advantage of the LWE cryptosystem is its flexibility, as it is a versatile cryptographic scheme that can be suitable in a variety of cryptographic methods such as digital signatures, key exchange, and encryption. LWE also serves as a foundation for more advanced cryptographic protocols, which developed other variations of it.
LWE can be vulnerable to certain type of attacks, such as side-channel attacks, i.e., timing attacks or power analysis attacks, if we do not take the right countermeasures [78]. Just like NTRU, LWE is not considered to be standardized and widely adopted by the computing industry and this makes it difficult to assess its interoperability with other cryptosystems and make a comparison with them. Moreover, LWE cryptographic protocol is characterized by complexity and understanding and modifying it becomes challenging.
Undoubtedly, both NTRU and LWE are fast, efficient, and secure cryptographic schemes. NTRU uses smaller key sizes and that makes it suitable for applications where memory and computational power are limited. Both LWE and NTRU are considered to be strong and resistant to various types of attacks and are considered to be prominent for post-quantum cryptography. Thus, LWE is an adaptable cryptographic protocol and can be used in a wide range of cryptographic tasks and methods, while NTRU is primarily used for encryption and decryption.
In summary, LWE and NTRU are both promising lattice-based cryptosystems that offer strong security guarantees and are resistant to quantum attacks. NTRU is known for its fast implementation and smaller key sizes, while LWE offers more flexibility in cryptographic primitives and is currently undergoing standardization. Ultimately, the choice between LWE and NTRU will depend on specific use cases and implementation requirements.
Overall, each lattice-based cryptosystem has its own strengths and weaknesses depending on the specific use case. Choosing the right one requires careful consideration of factors such as security, efficiency, and ease of implementation.
9. Lattice-Based Cryptographic Implementations and Future Research
Quantum research over the past few years has been particularly transformative, with scientific breakthroughs that will allow exponential increases in computing speed and precision. In 2016, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced an invitation to researchers to submit their proposals for developed public—key post-quantum cryptographic algorithms. At the end of 2017, when was the initial submission deadline, 23 signature schemes and 59 encryption—key encapsulation mechanism (KEM) schemes were submitted, in total, 82 candidates’ proposals.
In July 2022, the NIST finished the third round of selection and chose a set of encryption tools designed to be secure against attacks by future quantum computers. The four selected cryptographic algorithms are regarded as an important milestone in securing sensitive data against the possibility of cyberattacks from a quantum computer in the future [79].
The algorithms are created for the two primary purposes for which encryption is commonly employed: general encryption, which is used to secure data transferred over a public network, and digital signatures, which are used to verify an individual’s identity. Experts from several institutions and nations collaborated to develop all four algorithms which are presented below.
CRYSTALS-Kyber
This cryptographic scheme is selected by NIST for general encryption and is based on the module Learning with Errors problem. CRYSTALS-Kyber is similar to the Ring-LWE cryptographic scheme but it is considered to be more secure and flexible. The parties that communicate can use small encrypted keys and exchange them easily with high speed.
CRYSTALS-Dilithium
This algorithm is recommended for digital signatures and relies its security on the difficulty of lattice problems over module lattices. Like other digital signature schemes, the Dilithium signature scheme allows a sender to sign a message with their private key, and a recipient uses the sender’s public key to verify the signature but Dilithium has the minor public key and signature size of any lattice-based signature scheme that only uses uniform sampling.
FALCON
FALCON is a cryptographic protocol which is proposed for digital signatures. The FALCON cryptosystem is based on the theoretical framework of Gentry et al [80]. It is a promising post-quantum algorithm as it provides capabilities for quick signature generation and verification. The FALCON cryptographic algorithm has strong advantages such as security, compactness, speed, scalability, and RAM Economy.
SPHINCS+
SPHINCS plus is the third digital signature algorithm that was selected by NIST. SPHINCS + uses hash functions and is considered to be a bit larger and slower than FALCON and Dilithium. It is regarded as an improvement of the SPHINCS signature scheme, which was presented in 2015, as it reduces the size of the signature. One of the key points of interest of SPHINCS+ over other signature schemes is its resistance to quantum attacks by depending on the hardness of a one-way function.
10. Conclusions
In recent years, significant progress has been made, taking us beyond classical computing and into a new era of data called quantum computing. Quantum research over the past few years has been particularly transformative, with scientific breakthroughs that will allow exponential increases in computing speed and precision. Research on post-quantum algorithms is active and huge sums of money are being invested for this reason, because it is necessary for the existence of strong cryptosystems.
It is considered almost certain that both the symmetric key algorithm and hash functions will continue to be used as tools of post-quantum cryptography. A variety of cryptographic schemes have been proposed for the quantum era of computing and this is a topic of ongoing research. The development and the standardization of an efficient post-quantum algorithm is the challenge of the academic community. What was once considered a science fiction fantasy is now a technological reality. The quantum age is coming and it will bring enormous changes; therefore, we have to be prepared.
Author Contributions
Investigation, G.C.M.; Writing—original draft, M.E.S.; Supervision, I.K.S., D.P. and G.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Sabani, M.; Savvas, I.K.; Poulakis, D.; Makris, G. Quantum Key Distribution: Basic Protocols and Threats. In Proceedings of the 26th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2022), Athens, Greece, 25–27 November 2022; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 383–388. [Google Scholar]
Nielsen, M.; Chuang, I. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Sabani, M.; Savvas, I.K.; Poulakis, D.; Makris, G.; Butakova, M. The BB84 Quantum Key Protocol and Potential Risks. In Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Information and Communication Technology (ICICT 2023), London, UK, 20–23 February 2023. [Google Scholar]
Preskill, J. Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier. In Proceedings of the 25th Solvay Conference on Physics, Brussels, Belgium, 19–25 October 2011; Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813 (accessed on 26 March 2012).
Poulakis, D. Cryptography, the Science of Secure Communication, 1st ed.; Ziti Publications: Thessaloniki, Greece, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Shor, P.W. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. J. Comput. SIAM 1997, 26, 1484–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Alkim, E.; Dukas, L.; Pöppelmann, T.; Schwabe, P. Post-Quantum Key Exchange—A New Hope. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium 2016, Austin, TX, USA, 10–12 August 2016; Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1092.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2015).
Berstein, D.J.; Buchmann, J.; Brassard, G.; Vazirani, U. Post-Quantum Cryptography; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Zheng, Z.; Tian, K.; Liu, F. Modern Cryptography Volume 2 a Classical Introduction to Informational and Mathematical Principle; Springer: Singapore, 2023. [Google Scholar]
Silverman, J.H.; Piher, J.; Hoffstein, J. An Introduction to Mathematical Cryptopraphy, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Galbraith, S. Mathematics of Public Key Cryptography; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Kannan, R. Algorithmic Geometry of Numbers. In Annual Reviews of Computer Science; Annual Review Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1987; pp. 231–267. [Google Scholar]
Rivest, R.L.; Shamir, A.; Adleman, A. Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems. J. ACM 1978, 21, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sabani, M.; Galanis, I.P.; Savvas, I.K.; Garani, G. Implementation of Shor’s Algorithm and Some Reliability Issues of Quantum Computing Devices. In Proceedings of the 25th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2021), Volos, Greece, 26–28 November 2021; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 296–392. [Google Scholar]
Wiesner, S. Conjugate coding. Sigact News 1983, 15, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Van Assche, G. Quantum Cryptography and Secret-Key Distillation, 3rd ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Scherer, W. Mathematics of Quantum Computing, An Introduction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Bennett, C.H.; Brassard, G.; Ekert, A. Quantum cryptography. Sci. Am. 1992, 50–57. Available online: https://https://www.jstor.org/stable/e24939235 (accessed on 2 October 1992). [CrossRef]
Bennett, C.H.; Brassard, G.; Breidbart, S.; Wiesner, S. Quantum cryptography, or Unforgeable subway tokens. In Advances in Cryptology; Conference Paper; Springer Science + Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 1982; pp. 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bennett, C.H.; Brassard, G. Quantum Cryptography: Public Key Distribution and Coin Tossing. In Proceedings of the International Conference in Computer Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India, 10–12 December 1984. [Google Scholar]
Teklu, B. Continuous-variable entanglement dynamics in Lorenzian environment. Phys. Lett. A 2022, 432, 128022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vasile, R.; Olivares, S.; Paris, M.G.A.; Maniscalco, S. Continuous variable quantum key distribution in non-Markovian channels. Phys. Rev. A 2011, 83, 042321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Teklu, B.; Bina, M.; Paris, M.G.A. Noisy propagation of Gaussian states in optical media with finite bandwidth. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 11646. Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15865-5 (accessed on 8 June 2023). [CrossRef]
Adnane, H.; Teklu, B.; Paris, M.G. Quantum phase communication assisted by non-deterministic noiseless amplifiers. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 2019, 36, 2938–2945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Teklu, B.; Trapani, J.; Olivares, S.; Paris, M.G.A. Noisy quantum phase communication channels. Phys. Scr. 2015, 90, 074027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Trapani, J.; Teklu, B.; Olivares, S.; Paris, M.G.A. Quantum phase communication channels in the presence of static and dynamical phase diffusion. Phys. Rev. A 2015, 92, 012317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Diffie, W.; Hellman, M. New Directions in Cryptography. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 1976, 22, 644–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Trappe, W.; Washington, L.C. Introduction to Cryptography with Coding Theory; Pearson Education: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
McEliece, R. A public key cryptosystem based on alegbraic coding theory. DSN Prog. Rep. 1978, 42–44, 114–116. [Google Scholar]
Niederreiter, H. Knapsack-type cryptosystems and algebraic coding theory. Probl. Control Inf. Theory Probl. Upr. I Teor. Inf. 1986, 15, 159–166. [Google Scholar]
Merkle, R. A certified digital signature. In Advances in Cryptology—CRYPTO’89, Proceedings of the CRYPTO ’89, 9th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 20–24 August 1989; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1989; pp. 218–238. [Google Scholar]
Bai, S.; Gong, Z.; Hu, L. Revisiting the Security of Full Domain Hash. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Security, Privacy and Anonymity in Computation, Communication and Storage, Nanjing, China, 18–20 December 2013. [Google Scholar]
Matsumoto, T.; Imai, H. Public quadratic polynomials-tuples for efficient signature verification and message encryption. Adv. Cryptol. Eur. Crypt’88 1988, 330, 419–453. [Google Scholar]
Patarin, J. Hidden field equations and isomorphism of polynomials. In Proceedings of the Eurocrypto’96, Zaragoza, Spain, 12–16 May 1996. [Google Scholar]
Nguyen, P.Q.; Stern, J. The two faces of Lattices in Cryptology. In Proceedings of the International Cryptography and Lattices Conference, Rhode, RI, USA, 29–30 March 2001; pp. 146–180. [Google Scholar]
Micciancio, D.; Regev, O. Lattice-based cryptography. In Post-Quantum Cryptography; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Lyubashevsky, V. A Decade of Lattice Cryptography. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT 2015; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Peikert, C. Lattice-Based Cryptography: A Primer. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2016. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/939.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2016).
Micciancio, D. On the Hardness of the Shortest Vector Problem. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
Micciancio, D. The shortest vector problem is NP-hard to approximate within some constant. In Proceedings of the 39th FOCS IEEE, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 8–11 November 1998. [Google Scholar]
Babai, L. On Lovasz’ lattice reduction and the nearest lattice point problem. Combinatorica 1986, 6, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Micciancio, D. The hardness of the closest vector problem with preprocessing. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 2001, 47, 1212–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Lenstra, A.K.; Lenstra, H.W., Jr.; Lovasz, L. Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients. Math. Ann. 1982, 261, 513–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hoffstein, J.; Pipher, J.; Silverman, J. NTRU: A ring-based public key cryptosystem. In Algorithmic Number Theory (Lecture Notes in Computer Science); Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1998; Volume 1423, pp. 267–288. [Google Scholar]
Faugère, J.C.; Otmani, A.; Perret, L.; Tillich, J.P. On the Security of NTRU Encryption. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT 2010; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
Lyubashevsky, V.; Peikert, C.; Regev, O. On Ideal Lattices and Learning with Errors over Rings. ACM 2013, 60, 43:1–43:35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Albrecht, M.; Ducas, L. Lattice Attacks on NTRU and LWE: A History of Refinements; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Ashur, T.; Tromer, E. Key Recovery Attacks on NTRU and Schnorr Signatures with Partially Known Nonces. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 19–23 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
Coppersmith, D.; Shamir, A. Lattice attacks on NTRU. In Advances in Cryptology—EUROCRYPT’97; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1997. [Google Scholar]
Buchmann, J.; Dahmen, E.; Vollmer, U. Cryptanalysis of the NTRU Signature Scheme. In Proceedings of the 6th IMA International Conference on Cryptography and Coding, Cirencester, UK, 17–19 December 1997. [Google Scholar]
Singh, S.; Padhye, S. Cryptanalysis of NTRU with n public keys. IEEE. 2017. Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7976980 (accessed on 13 July 2017).
May, A.; Peikert, C. Lattice Reduction and NTRU. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 23–25 October 2005. [Google Scholar]
Buchmann, J.; Dahmen, E.; Hulsing, A. XMSS - A Practical Forward Secure Signature Scheme Based on Minimal Security Assumptions. In Post-Quantum Cryptography; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Regev, O. On lattices, learning with errors, random linear codes, and cryptography. J. ACM 2009, 56, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Komano, Y.; Miyazaki, S. On the Hardness of Learning with Rounding over Small Modulus. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on the Theory and Application of Cryptology and Information Security, Auckland, New Zealand, 29 November–3 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
Regev, O. Learning with Errors over Rings. In Algorithmic Number Theory: 9th International Symposium, ANTS-IX, Nancy, France, 19–23 July 2010. Proceedings 9, 2010. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-14518-6_3 (accessed on 10 July 2010).
Brakerski, Z.; Gentry, C.; Vaikuntanathan, V. New Constructions of Strongly Unforgeable Signatures Based on the Learning with Errors Problem. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Cambridge, MA, USA, 19–21 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
Bi, L.; Lu, X.; Luo, J.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Z. Hybrid Dual Attack on LWE with Arbitrary Secrets. Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2022. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/152 (accessed on 25 February 2021).
Bos, W.; Costello, C.; Ducas, L.L.; Mironov, I.; Naehrig, M.; Nikolaenko, V.; Raghunathan, A.; Stebila, D. Frodo: Take off the ring! Practical, quantum-secure key exchange from LWE. In Proceedings of the CCS 2016; Vienna, Austria, 24–28 October 2016, Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/659.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2016).
Chunsheng, G. Integer Version of Ring-LWE and its Applications. Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2017. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/641.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2019).
Goldreich, O.; Goldwasser, S.; Halive, S. Public-Key cryptosystems from lattice reduction problems. Crypto’97 1997, 10, 112–131. [Google Scholar]
Micciancio, D. Lattice based cryptography: A global improvement. Technical report. Theory Cryptogr. Libr. 1999, 99-05. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=9591bda3813b0d09522eff2ba17c3665b530ebb9 (accessed on 4 March 1999).
Micciancio, D. Improving Lattice Based Cryptosystems Using the Hermite Normal Form. In Cryptography and Lattices Conference; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
Nguyen, P.Q. Cryptanalysis of the Goldreich-Goldwasser-Halevi cryptosystem from crypto’97. In Annual International Cryptology Conference; Springer: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 1999; pp. 288–304. [Google Scholar]
Nguyen, P.Q.; Regev, O. Learning a parallelepiped: Cryptanalysis of GGH and NTRU signatures. J. Cryptol. 2009, 22, 139–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lee, M.S.; Hahn, S.G. Cryptanalysis of the GGH Cryptosystem. Math. Comput. Sci. 2010, 3, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gu, C.; Yu, Z.; Jing, Z.; Shi, P.; Qian, J. Improvement of GGH Multilinear Map. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing (3PGCIC), Krakow, Poland, 4–6 November 2015; pp. 407–411. [Google Scholar]
Minaud, B.; Fouque, P.A. Cryptanalysis of the New Multilinear Map over the Integers. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2015, 941. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/941 (accessed on 28 September 2015).
Yoshino, M. Kunihiro, Improving GGH Cryptosystem for Large Error Vector. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Theory and Its Applications, Honolulu, HI, USA, 28–31 October 2012; pp. 416–420. [Google Scholar]
Barros, C.; Schechter, L.M. GGH may not be dead after all. In Proceedings of the Congresso Nacional de Matemática Aplicada e Computacional, Sao Paolo, PR, Brazil, 8–12 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
Brakerski, Z.; Gentry, C.; Halevi, S.; Lepoint, T.; Sahai, A.; Tibouchi, M. Cryptanalysis of the Quadratic Zero-Testing of GGH. IACR Cryptol. ePrint. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/845 (accessed on 21 September 2015).
Susilo, W.; Mu, Y. Information Security and Privacy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 845. [Google Scholar]
Bonte, C.; Iliashenko, I.; Park, J.; Pereira, H.V.; Smart, N. FINAL: Faster FHE Instantiated with NTRU and LWE. Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2022. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/074 (accessed on 20 January 2022).
Bai, S.; Chen, Y.; Hu, L. Efficient Algorithms for LWE and LWR. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Applied Cryptography and Network Security, Singapore, 26–29 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
Brakerski, Z.; Langlois, A.; Regev, O.; Stehl, D. Classical Hardness of Learning with Errors. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2–4 June 2013; pp. 575–584. [Google Scholar]
Lyubashevsky, V.; Micciancio, D. Generalized Compact Knapsacks Are Collision Resistant. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, Venice, Italy, 10–14 July 2006; pp. 144–155. [Google Scholar]
Takagi, T.; Kiyomoto, S. Improved Sieving Algorithms for Shortest Lattice Vector Problem and Its Applications to Security Analysis of LWE-based Cryptosystems. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, Lyon, France, 2–6 May 2004. [Google Scholar]
Balbas, D. The Hardness of LWE and Ring-LWE: A Survey. Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2021. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/1358.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2021).
Post-Quantum Cryptography. Available online: https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/selected-algorithms-2022 (accessed on 8 June 2023).
Gentry, C.; Peikert, C.; Vaikuntanathan, V. Trapdoors for Hard Lattices and New Cryptographic Constructions. Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2007. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2007/432 (accessed on 24 November 2007).
Figure 1. Bases of a lattice.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Sabani, M.E.; Savvas, I.K.; Poulakis, D.; Garani, G.; Makris, G.C. Evaluation and Comparison of Lattice-Based Cryptosystems for a Secure Quantum Computing Era. Electronics 2023, 12, 2643. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12122643
AMA Style
Sabani ME, Savvas IK, Poulakis D, Garani G, Makris GC. Evaluation and Comparison of Lattice-Based Cryptosystems for a Secure Quantum Computing Era. Electronics. 2023; 12(12):2643. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12122643
Chicago/Turabian Style
Sabani, Maria E., Ilias K. Savvas, Dimitrios Poulakis, Georgia Garani, and Georgios C. Makris. 2023. "Evaluation and Comparison of Lattice-Based Cryptosystems for a Secure Quantum Computing Era" Electronics 12, no. 12: 2643. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12122643
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
Article Metrics
No
No
Article Access Statistics
For more information on the journal statistics, click here.
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view. | |||||
2453 | dbpedia | 3 | 59 | https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_deutsch-the-edge-of-computation-science-prize | en | THE EDGE OF COMPUTATION SCIENCE PRIZE | [
"https://www.edge.org/sites/default/files/edge_logo.jpg",
"https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/prize05/images/David1.jpg",
"https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/prize05/images/1125844.gif",
"https://www.edge.org/sites/all/modules/print/icons/print_icon.png",
"https://www.edge.org/sites/all/modules/print/print_mail... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | https://www.edge.org/favicon.ico | https://www.edge.org/conversation/david_deutsch-the-edge-of-computation-science-prize | THE $100,000 EDGE OF COMPUTATION SCIENCE PRIZE
For individual scientific work, extending the computational idea, performed, published, or newly applied within the past ten years.
David Deutsch
Recipient of the 2005
$100,000 Edge of Computation Science Prize
DAVID DEUTSCH is the founder of the field of quantum computation. Paul Benioff, Richard Feynman, and others had written about the possibility of quantum computation earlier, but Deutsch's 1985 paper on Quantum Turing Machines was the first full treatment of the subject, and the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm is the first quantum algorithm.
When he first proposed it, quantum computation seemed practically impossible. But the last decade has seen an explosion in the construction of simple quantum computers and quantum communication systems. None of this would have taken place without Deutsch's work.
The nominating essay is reproduced in part below.
Although the general idea of a quantum computer had been proposed earlier by Richard Feynman, in 1985 David Deutsch wrote the key paper which proposed the idea of a quantum computer and initiated the study of how to make one. Since then he has continued to be a pioneer and a leader in a rapidly growing field that is now called quantum information science.
Presently, small quantum computers are operating in laboratories around the world, and the race is on to find a scalable implementation that, if successful, will revolutionize the technologies of computation and communications. It is fair to say that no one deserves recognition for the growing success of this field more than Deutsch, for his ongoing work as well as for his founding paper. Among his key contributions in the last ten years are a paper with Ekert and Jozsa on quantum logic gates, and a proof of universality in quantum computation, with Barenco and Ekert (both in 1995).
One reason to nominate Deutsch for this prize is that he has always aimed to expand our understanding of the notion of computation in the context of the deepest questions in the foundations of mathematics and physics. Thus, his pioneering work in 1985 was motivated by interest in the Church-Turing thesis. Much of his recent work is motivated by his interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, as we see from his 1997 book.
ABOUT DAVID DEUTSCH
The main papers written by Deutsch that contained "achievement in scientific work that embodies extensions of the computational idea" were in 1985 ("Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle, and the universal quantum computer") and 1989 ("Quantum computational networks").
His 1995 paper, "Conditional quantum dynamics and logic gates" (with A. Barenco, A. Ekert and R. Jozsa) was an important step in clarifying what sort of physical processes would be needed to implement quantum computation in the laboratory, and what sort of things the experimentalists should be trying to get to work.
"Universality in quantum computation," also written in 1995 (with A. Barenco and A. Ekert) proved the universality of almost all 2-qubit quantum gates, thus verifying his conjecture made in 1989 and showing that quantum computation and quantum gate operations are "built in" to quantum physics far more deeply than classical physics. In 1996, in "Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels" (with A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu and A. Sanpera), he brought quantum cryptography a little bit closer to being practical as opposed to just a laboratory curiosity.
His recent work as seen in the following three papers can be seen as new "applications" of the computational idea, rather than extensions of it.
In 2000, "Information Flow in Entangled Quantum Systems" (with P. Hayden) refutes the long-held belief that quantum systems contain 'non-local' effects, and it does it by appealing to the universality of quantum computational networks, and analysing information flow in those.
Also in 2000, in "Machines, Logic and Quantum Physics" (with A. Ekert and R. Lupacchini), a philosophic paper, not a scientific one, he appealed to the existence of a distinctive quantum theory of computation to argue that our knowledge of mathematics is derived from, and is subordinate to, our knowledge of physics (even though mathematical truth is independent of physics).
In 2002, he answered several long-standing questions about the multiverse interpretation of quantum theory in "The Structure of the Multiverse" — in particular, what sort of structure a "universe" is, within the multiverse. It does this by using the methods of the quantum theory of computation to analyse information flow in the multiverse.
His two main lines of research at the moment, qubit field theory and quantum constructor theory, may well yield important extensions of the computational idea eventually, but at the moment neither of them has yielded any results at all, to speak of, only promising avenues of research.
Born in Haifa, Israel, David Deutsch was educated at Cambridge and Oxford universities. After several years at the University of Texas at Austin, he returned to Oxford, where he now lives and works. Since 1999, he has been a non-stipendiary Visiting Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, where he is a member of the Centre for Quantum Computation at the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University.
In 1998 he was awarded the Institute of Physics' Paul Dirac Prize and Medal. This is the Premier Award for theoretical physics within the gift of the Council of the Institute of Physics. It is made for "outstanding contributions to theoretical (including mathematical and computational) physics." In 2002 he received the Fourth International Award on Quantum Communication for "theoretical work on Quantum Computer Science."
He is the author of The Fabric of Reality [1997].
References:
"Quantum Theory, The Church-Turing Principle, and the Universal Quantum Computer," Proc. Roy. Soc. London A400, 97-117 (1985)
" Quantum computational networks" Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A425:73-90. (1989)
"Conditional quantum dynamics and logic gates" (with A. Barenco, A. Ekert and R. Jozsa) Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 4083-6 (1995)
"Universality in quantum computation" (with A. Barenco and A. Ekert) Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A449 669-77 (1995)
"Quantum privacy amplification and the security of quantum cryptography over noisy channels" (with A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu and A. Sanpera) Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 2818-21 (1996)
"Information Flow in Entangled Quantum Systems" (with P. Hayden) Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A456 1759-1774 (2000)
"Machines, Logic and Quantum Physics" (with A. Ekert and R. Lupacchini) Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 3 3 (2000)
"The Structure of the Multiverse" Proc. R. Soc. Lond.A458 2028 2911-23 (2002) | |||||||
2453 | dbpedia | 3 | 18 | https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/my-quantum-debate-with-aram-harrow-timeline-non-technical-highlights-and-flashbacks-i/ | en | My Quantum Debate with Aram Harrow: Timeline, Non-technical Highlights, and Flashbacks I | [
"https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cropped-gil-jirka.jpg",
"https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/aram.jpg?w=300&h=200",
"https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/hkd1.png?w=300&h=180",
"https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/leon... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2013-03-16T00:00:00 | How the debate came about (Email from Aram Harrow, June 4, 2011) Dear Gil Kalai, I am a quantum computing researcher, and was wondering about a few points in your paper... (Aram's email was detailed and thoughtful and at the end he proposed to continue the discussion privately or as part of a public discussion.)… | en | https://s1.wp.com/i/favicon.ico | Combinatorics and more | https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/my-quantum-debate-with-aram-harrow-timeline-non-technical-highlights-and-flashbacks-i/ | Perpetual Motion of the 21st Century
Post I, January 30, 2012; Are quantum errors incorrigible? Discussion between Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow
Dorit Aharonov, Robery Alicki, Michael Ben-Or and me (Jerusalem, left 2012; right 2005). Every post on GLL has one or more “patron saints,” and I chose Robert, Dorit and Micahel.
(The title of the first post looked at first overly provocative to me. But in hindsight it was good.)
(Gil) I will now go on to describe my conjectures regarding how noisy quantum computers really behave.
The body of the first post described and explained in some details my conjectures on noisy quantum systems. They will not be reproduced here.
(Gil) Let me explain why I think that my conjectures are correct—also mindful of this nice post by Shmuel Weinberger on what “a conjecture” means for a mathematician. I regard it as implausible that universal quantum computers are realistic, and I think that the issue of noise is indeed the main issue… as far as I can see, my conjectures on the behavior of noise do not violate any principle of quantum mechanics.
…let me briefly say why I tend to regard universal quantum computers as unrealistic. An explanation for why universal quantum computers are unrealistic may require some change in physics theory of quantum decoherence. On the other hand, universal quantum computers … propose a major change in physical reality.
Aram laid his roadmap for a response.
(Aram) 1) Any argument that FTQC (fault-tolerant quantum computing) is impossible must also deal with the fact that classical computing is evidently possible.
2) The key assumption of FTQC is (approximately) independent errors. Conversely, Gil’s skepticism is based on error models that may have low single-qubit error rates, but are highly correlated even across large distances. I’ll give both theoretical and experimental evidence that such error models don’t occur in nature
3) I’ll propose a thought-experiment implementation of a quantum computer, which is not meant to be practical, but where correlated errors are highly implausible.
In the comments:
(In green, a few of my afterthoughts are added.)
Cris Moore
The very first comment by Cris Moore was the basis of a long further discussion:
(Cris) ..Skeptics of quantum computing are really skeptics of quantum mechanics. … Thus I would be much more interested in engaging with the skeptics if, rather than computer science-style conjectures that certain algorithms are impossible, they made conjectures about the underlying physics, proposing an alternative to QM that would explain the phenomena we have observed while making large-scale quantum computing impossible.
(Gil) Just to make it clear: I do not believe in any nonlinearities in the Schrödinger equation. I am not a skeptic of quantum mechanics and if my conjectures are in conflict with QM I will happily admit that they are wrong. If you are interested in engaging in a conversation with somebody skeptical of QM you need to find somebody else.
Geordie Rose
(Geordie) BTW I side with Gil in the debate going on here, but for different (but related) reasons. The ideas underlying the circuit model of quantum computation are not good ideas, and I don’t think useful quantum computers based on circuit model ideas will ever be built. But this doesn’t mean that using quantum mechanics to make better computers won’t work.
Robert Alicki
(Robert) As my name was mentioned by Gil I think, I should present my view on the discussed issue. First of all, I like the title of this debate corresponding to my last preprint on this topic – “Quantum memory as a perpetuum mobile of the second kind”, because I believe that impossibility of fault-tolerant quantum computations (FTQC) should follow from the existing, perhaps refined, laws of thermodynamics…
Joe Fitzsimons
As you will see below, Joe Fitzsimons has made great pointed critical comments regarding my conjectures throughout the debate. Let me quote first an interesting comment he made on his feelings towards the debate itself.
(Joe) I have found the debate so far very interesting (if somewhat infuriating, as I find it hard to understand what could possibly lead someone knowledgeable in the area to conjecture that building a quantum computer is impossible),
(Robert) In my case the answer is simple : 35 years of experience in the theory of quantum open systems which exactly deals with quantum noise, decoherence , stability etc.
John Sidles
John was the most prolific commentator in the entire debate. It will probably take a special post to describe his point of view and contributions. Here is his very first comment:
(John S) Oh boy! Gil and Aram are two researchers whom I respect greatly … so this is one debate that (IMHO) both sides are sure to win.
How can both sides win the debate? Easily … even naturally!
John Preskill
(Happy birthday-conference, John)
(John P) I hope Robert Alicki realizes that I have always taken his criticism seriously. … I have also found Gil Kalai’s skepticism stimulating, and I enjoyed our discussions during Gil’s visit to Caltech last year.
Flashback: Visiting Caltech
(Email from John Preskill, October 1 2010) Dear Gil, I am writing to invite you to visit Caltech, and speak at our quantum information seminar, sometime during the 2010-2011 academic year. You would be welcome to stay for as long as you please…,
It would be a long trip for you, of course, so it would make sense for you to stay here for a while, if you can get away for long. I would enjoy the opportunity to learn more about your ideas concerning fault-tolerant quantum computing. I hope you will be able to come.
(I had some correspondence with John in 2005 and 2006, but this nice invitation came out of the blue. It caught me (on my birthday) in the US soon before returning to Israel so the trip to Caltech would indeed be very long. Should I go?)
(Gil to John, eleven minutes later:) Dear John, thanks a lot, this sounds great. Let me try to think about the best time.
Groucho Marx (disclaimer: this blog discourages smoking)
I went to Caltech in January, and stayed a little over a week. It was an enjoyable and fruitful visit. On the fifteen hour direct flight from Tel Aviv to LA I thought that the Marx brothers would have been very proud! (Groucho Marx famously talked about the caring to enter a club only if it does not want you as a member.)
I recall some phone calls that I made from Caltech with my family in Jerusalem:
Hagai (My son; over the phone): So, did you win the quantumists?
Gil: But Hagai, it is not about winning or losing, and I am a quantumist myself.
(Who am I kidding)
My wife (over the phone): So, did they convince you?
Me: Well, not yet…
Back to the debate; John Preskill
(John P) Gil’s visit provided the impetus for me to work out some sufficient conditions for scalable quantum computing, something I had been meaning to do anyway. The results are a bit much to explain in a blog post, but I have posted my notes at…
(Nice and unexpected)
(John P (cont.)) Gil believes that Hamiltonian noise models like the one discussed in my notes are not physically realizable; that could well be, though I would like to understand better his reasons for holding that opinion.
(It took me almost a year to come up with a reason that is not related to quantum fault tolerance for why John’s models are not realistic)
(John P (cont.)) Gil says that while he is skeptical of quantum computing he is not skeptical of quantum mechanics. Therefore, I presume he takes for granted that a quantum computer (the “system”) and its environment (the “bath”) can be described by some Hamiltonian, and that the joint evolution of the system and bath is determined by solving the time-dependent Schroedinger equation. If Gil’s conjectures are true, then, no matter how we engineer the system, the Hamiltonian and/or the initial quantum state of the joint system must impose noise correlations that overwhelm fault-tolerant quantum protocols as the system scales up.
(I could not have said it better myself)
(John P) It is useful to formulate the question mathematically. Then we can focus our attention on which assumptions in the mathematical arguments ought to be questioned.
(I like that…)
Boaz Barak
(Boaz) Gil, I understand from this you believe that physically realizable quantum computers offer no superpolynomial speedup over classical computers, and hence there is a polynomial time algorithm to simulate them. Do you have a sense of what this algorithm is?
(Gil) Boaz, … Do you ask if quantum computers that satisfy Conjectures 1-4 can be simulated classically? (The answer is that I don’t know.) Or is your question different?
Scott Aaronson: Whether or not God plays dice, I do
(Scott) The “debate” format makes it seem like we have a conflict between two competing theories: one that says scalable QC is possible and one that says it isn’t. But that’s not the situation at all: this is a conflict between (a) a theory, and (b) attempts to poke holes in that theory, without proposing a replacement.
This can be seen most clearly in the exchange between Gil and Boaz above. In response to Boaz’s extremely-pertinent question, of whether, if FTQC is impossible, that means there’s an efficient classical simulation of realistic quantum systems (and if so, what is it?), Gil basically says that he doesn’t know … This sort of response might be fine in a legal defense (“if not my client, who DID commit the murder? who knows? maybe aliens, maybe the boogeyman. I don’t have to explain it, I just have to cast enough doubt on the prosecution’s case!”). But it’s more problematic in science,
(“Dont call me ‘son.’ I am a lawyer and an officer in the US navy!”)
(Gil) I agree with what Scott writes in the first paragraph about the asymmetry… Just to make it clear: the theory we discuss is *not* quantum mechanics, but the postulate that universal quantum computers are possible…
… 100,000$?, 10%?, something?
(Scott Aaronson: (over his blog)) For better or worse, I’m now offering a US$100,000 award for a demonstration, convincing to me, that scalable quantum computing is impossible in the physical world. This award has no time limit other than my death, and is entirely at my discretion (though if you want to convince me, a good approach would be to convince most of the physics community first).
(I should have said $200,000 )
(Nobody pays such bets, Avi Wigderson still owes me $5000 bets from Princeton 1995. Avi drove me into seven separate 1000 dollars bets, but luckily I won six of them.)
(Scott) Believing quantum mechanics but not accepting the possibility of QC is somewhat like believing Newtonian physics but not accepting the possibility of humans traveling to Mars.
(Somewhat)
(Scott) If you read Gil’s paper, he’s honest enough to admit that many of his conjectures seem “merely” to reduce QC to logarithmic-depth—i.e., still enough to implement Shor’s factoring algorithm!
(Honest enough!, what is that?)
(Scott (cont.)) Not just QC researchers, but chemists, nuclear physicists, high-energy physicists, etc., few of whom think there’s any problem of principle with QC.
(There is a big problem in understanding what “problem of principle” means. Beside that, people tend to tell you what they expect you want to hear, and people tend to hear what they expect and want to hear…)
Changing people’s prior beliefs
(Gil) Let me make one “meta” comment which is simply to repeat what I said here on the blog last June , and on several occasions earlier: Overall, I don’t think that my work and other skeptical works should change people’s a priori beliefs on the feasibility of quantum computers.
Quantum Groundhog Day
A follow-up post by Dick and Ken, February 2 2011
(Gil) One aspect of the discussion that I find puzzling is the following: Some people are much more ready to accept a reality where QC are possible in principle, but it will take a hundred years to build them, or even that they will not be built at all, compared to a reality that there is a 10% chance that a principle explaining why quantum computers are infeasible will be discovered, but otherwise they will be built in a few decades.
Not yet like the standard model
(Aram) The evidence for quantum mechanics is overwhelming, and no one has a physical theory that permits quantum mechanics but not quantum computing. Gil is trying to develop one,
(Yap, this is correct, a theory of noise, within quantum mechanics, of course!)
but it’s not yet the kind of theory like the Standard Model that you can use to make precise physical predictions.
(Yes, I cannot argue with that)
Some commentators started losing their patience for Aram’s reply | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 2 | 9 | http://www.enjoyed.today/Peter_Shor/ | en | Peter Shor Explained | [
"http://www.enjoyed.today/images/brain.gif"
] | [] | [] | [
"peter",
"web",
"prize",
"https",
"quantum",
"site",
"web site",
"1999",
"mit",
"peter shor",
"1998",
"2007",
"award",
"http",
"mathematical",
"mathematics"
] | null | [] | null | What is Peter Shor? Explaining what we could find out about Peter Shor. | null | Peter Williston Shor (born August 14, 1959) is an American professor of applied mathematics at MIT. He is known for his work on quantum computation, in particular for devising Shor's algorithm, a quantum algorithm for factoring exponentially faster than the best currently-known algorithm running on a classical computer.
Early life and education
Shor was born in New York City to Joan Bopp Shor and S. W. Williston Shor.[10] [11] He grew up in Washington, D.C. and Mill Valley, California.[10] While attending Tamalpais High School, he placed third in the 1977 USA Mathematical Olympiad.[12] After graduation that year, he won a silver medal at the International Math Olympiad in Yugoslavia (the U.S. team achieved the most points per country that year).[13] [14] He received his B.S. in Mathematics in 1981 for undergraduate work at Caltech,[15] and was a Putnam Fellow in 1978. He earned his PhD in Applied Mathematics from MIT in 1985.[16] His doctoral advisor was F. Thomson Leighton, and his thesis was on probabilistic analysis of bin-packing algorithms.
Career
After being awarded his PhD by MIT, he spent one year as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, and then accepted a position at Bell Labs in New Providence, New Jersey. It was there he developed Shor's algorithm. This development was inspired by Simon's problem, where he first solved the discrete log problem (which relates point-finding on a hypercube to a torus) and,
"Later that week, I was able to solve the factoring problem as well. There’s a strange relation between discrete log and factoring."[17]
Due to their similarity as HSP problems, Shor discovered a related factoring problem (Shor's algorithm) that same week for which he was awarded the Nevanlinna Prize at the 23rd International Congress of Mathematicians in 1998[18] [19] and the Gödel Prize in 1999.[20] In 1999, he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship.[21] In 2017, he received the Dirac Medal of the ICTP and for 2019 the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Basic Sciences.[22]
Shor began his MIT position in 2003. Currently, he is the Henry Adams Morss and Henry Adams Morss, Jr. Professor of Applied Mathematics in the Department of Mathematics at MIT. He also is affiliated with CSAIL and the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics (CTP).
He received a Distinguished Alumni Award from Caltech in 2007.[15]
On October 1, 2011, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[23] [24] He was elected as an ACM Fellow in 2019 "for contributions to quantum-computing, information theory, and randomized algorithms". He was elected as a member of the National Academy of Sciences in 2002.[25] In 2020, he was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering for pioneering contributions to quantum computation.[26]
In an interview published in Nature on October 30, 2020, Shor said that he considers post-quantum cryptography to be a solution to the quantum threat, although a lot of engineering effort is required to switch from vulnerable algorithms.[27]
Along with three others, Shor was awarded the 2023 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics for "foundational work in the field of quantum information."
See also
Entanglement-assisted classical capacity
Keller's conjecture
Stabilizer code
Quantum capacity
External links
.
Peter Shor's Home Page at MIT.
Quantum Computing Expert Peter Shor Receives Carnegie Mellon's 1998 Dickson Prize in Science.
The story of Shor's algorithm — Youtube.
Lectures and panels
Video of "Harnessing Quantum Physics", Peter Shor's panel discussion with Ignacio Cirac, Michele Mosca, Avi Wigderson, Daniel Gottesman and Dorit Aharonov, at the Quantum to Cosmos festival
Notes and References | |||||||
2453 | dbpedia | 1 | 3 | https://www.edx.org/bio/peter-shor | en | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | ||||||||||
2453 | dbpedia | 3 | 19 | https://perimeterinstitute.ca/news/perimeter-welcomes-new-distinguished-visiting-research-chairs | en | Perimeter welcomes new Distinguished Visiting Research Chairs | https://perimeterinstitute.ca/news/NEWS_DVRC-grid | https://perimeterinstitute.ca/news/NEWS_DVRC-grid | [
"https://perimeterinstitute.ca/themes/custom/pi/logo.svg",
"https://perimeterinstitute.ca/sites/default/files/styles/banner_image/public/2021-01/News.jpg",
"https://perimeterinstitute.ca/sites/default/files/styles/mobile_banner_image/public/2022-08/rubin.jpeg?h=5c8c18b6",
"https://perimeterinstitute.ca/sites/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2013-05-22T12:00:00+00:00 | Perimeter Institute is pleased to announce the appointment of eight more outstanding international scientists as part of its Distinguished Visiting Research Chairs (DVRC) program. | en | /sites/default/files/PI_symbol_48px.ico | https://perimeterinstitute.ca/news/perimeter-welcomes-new-distinguished-visiting-research-chairs | Matthew Fisher (PhD University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1986) is a condensed matter physicist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His research has focused on strongly correlated systems, especially low-dimensional systems, Mott insulators, quantum magnetism, and the quantum Hall effect. Fisher received the Alan T. Waterman Award from the National Science Foundation in 1995 and the National Academy of Sciences Award for Initiatives in Research in 1997. He was elected as a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2003 and to the National Academy in 2012. He has over 160 publications. F. Duncan M. Haldane (PhD University of Cambridge, 1978) is the Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics at Princeton University. His research explores strongly interacting quantum many-body condensed matter systems using non-pertubative methods. In particular, his concerns include the entanglement spectrum of quantum states, topological insulators and Chern insulators, and both the geometry and model wave functions of the fractional quantum Hall effect. Haldane is a former Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow and is currently a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, Institute of Physics (UK), American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Haldane has been awarded the Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Physics Prize of the American Physical Society (1993) and the Dirac Medal of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics (2012). Theodore A. (Ted) Jacobson (PhD University of Texas at Austin, 1983) is a Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is a leading researcher in the field of gravitational physics and a devoted and accomplished educator. Jacobson’s research has focused on quantum gravity, testing the foundations of relativity theory, and the nature of Hawking radiation and black hole entropy. He has authored more than 100 scientific papers, which have received over 6,800 citations. He is a Fellow of both the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In addition, Jacobson has served on the editorial board of Physical Review D and as a Divisional Editor for Physical Review Letters. Peter Shor (PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1985) is the Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics at MIT. In 1994, he formulated a quantum algorithm for factoring, now known as Shor’s algorithm, which is exponentially faster than the best currently-known algorithm for a classical computer. He also showed that quantum error correction was possible and that one can perform fault-tolerant quantum computation on a quantum computer. Shor continues to focus his research on theoretical computer science, specifically on algorithms and quantum computing. Among his many honours, Shor has received the Nevanlinna Prize (1998), the International Quantum Communication Award (1998), the Gödel Prize of the Association of Computing Machinery (1999), and a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship (1999). He is also a member of the National Academy of Science (2002) and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2011). Dam Thanh Son (PhD Institute for Nuclear Research – Moscow, 1995) is a University Professor of Physics at the University of Chicago, a prestigious post that includes appointments at the University’s interdisciplinary research institutes, the Enrico Fermi Institute and the James Franck Institute. Son is renowned for his broad research interests; he gained international prominence for his application of ideas from string theory to the physics of the quark gluon plasma. His work encompasses several areas of theoretical physics, including string theory, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, particle physics, and atomic physics. Among his honours, Son was named an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellow in 2001 and a Fellow of the American Physical Society in 2006. Andrew Strominger (PhD Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982) is the Gwill E. York Professor of Physics at Harvard University and Director of the Center for Fundamental Laws of Nature. His research has encompassed the unification of forces and particles, the origin of the universe, and the quantum structure of black holes and event horizons, using a variety of approaches. Among Strominger’s major contributions, he is the co-discoverer of Calabi-Yau compactifications and the brane solutions of string theory. With collaborators, he gave a microscopic demonstration of how black holes are able to holographically store information. Strominger’s recent research has focused on universal aspects of black holes and horizons, which do not depend on detailed microphysical assumptions. He gave a public lecture on “The Edges of the Universe: Black Holes, Horizons and Strings,” which is available on The Royal Society website. Raman Sundrum (PhD Yale University, 1990) is a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, and the Director of the Maryland Center for Fundamental Physics. His research is in theoretical particle physics and focuses on theoretical mechanisms and observable implications of extra spacetime dimensions, supersymmetry, and strongly coupled dynamics. In 1999, with Lisa Randall, Sundrum proposed a class of models that imagines the real world as a higher-dimensional universe described by warped geometry, which are now known as the Randall-Sundrum models. Sundrum won a Department of Energy Outstanding Junior Investigator Award for 2001-02 and is a Fellow of both the American Physical Society (2003) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011). | |||
2453 | dbpedia | 1 | 16 | https://quantumzeitgeist.com/quantum-technology-luminaries-get-the-2023-breakthrough-prize/ | en | Quantum Technology Luminaries Get The 2023 Breakthrough Prize | [
"https://quantumzeitgeist.com/wp-content/themes/quantumtheme/images/cropped-QuantumZ.png.webp",
"https://quantumzeitgeist.com/wp-content/themes/quantumtheme/images/cropped-QuantumZ.png.webp",
"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5bd011c14c16ddceac2081ea5f53169a?s=50&r=g",
"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5b... | [
"about:blank",
"about:blank"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Inemesit Etim"
] | 2022-09-26T12:01:52+00:00 | The Breakthrough Prize Foundation, the world’s largest science awards, and its founding sponsors -Sergey Brin, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg, Julia and Yuri Milner, and Anne Wojcicki have announced the 2023 Breakthrough Prize laureates recognized for the discoveries in Fundamental Physics, Mathematics, and Life sciences. The Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental physics was awarded to Charles H. Bennet, Grilles Brassard, David Deutsch, and Peter Shor for their foundational work in quantum information. They will share the $3 million Prize. | en | https://quantumzeitgeist.com/wp-content/uploads/favicon.ico | Quantum Zeitgeist | https://quantumzeitgeist.com/quantum-technology-luminaries-get-the-2023-breakthrough-prize/ | The Breakthrough Prize Foundation, the world’s largest science awards, and its founding sponsors -Sergey Brin, Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg, Julia and Yuri Milner, and Anne Wojcicki have announced the 2023 Breakthrough Prize laureates recognized for the discoveries in Fundamental Physics, Mathematics, and Life sciences. The Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental physics was awarded to Charles H. Bennet, Grilles Brassard, David Deutsch, and Peter Shor for their foundational work in quantum information. They will share the $3 million Prize.
Charles Bennet
Charles Henry Bennett is a physicist, information theorist, and IBM Fellow at IBM Research. He has played a major role in elucidating the interconnections between physics and information, particularly in the realm of quantum computation, but also in cellular automata and reversible computing.
After joining IBM Research in 1972, he built on the work of IBM’s Rolf Landauer to show that a logically and thermodynamically reversible apparatus can perform general-purpose computation. He discovered, with Gilles Brassard, the concept of quantum cryptography and is one of the founding fathers of modern quantum information theory.
Bennett is a National Academy of Sciences member and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He received the Technion’s Harvey Prize in 2008 and the Rank Prize in optoelectronics in 2006. He earned the ICTP’s Dirac Medal in 2017, the Wolf Prize in Physics in 2018, and the Shannon Award in 2019.
Gilles Brassard
Gilles Brassard is a faculty member of the Université de Montréal, where he has been a Full Professor since 1988 and Canada Research Chair since 2001. He is best known for his fundamental work in quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, quantum entanglement distillation, quantum pseudo-telepathy, and the classical simulation of quantum entanglement. He is the founder and Scientific Director of the Institut transdisciplinaire d’informatique quantique and was formerly the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cryptology.
Professor Brassard has played a crucial role in changing quantum information science from a minor pursuit to an area of vibrant and dynamic worldwide activity, thanks to his innovative thinking and pioneering research.
In 1984, Charles H. Bennett of IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center and Gilles Brassard of Université de Montréal created the BB84 protocol to introduce quantum cryptography by creating a workable method for sending secret messages between users with no recorded secret information. It cannot be cracked by an eavesdropper with unlimited computing power, unlike techniques used in e-commerce.
The research was based on Stephen Wiesner’s concept of quantum money. Bennett and Brassard used one of the unusual occurrences of the quantum world to build quantum cryptography: superposition, which allows a single particle to be simultaneously in two or more places. According to quantum theory, this dual state is lost as soon as someone observes the particle, which will then appear in one of two positions. If the same particle were being broadcast at the time, any attempted hack would collapse the superposition, alerting the interlocutors.
Charles and Gilles’s 1993 discovery with the collaborators of quantum teleportation demonstrated that entanglement is a useful quantifiable resource despite having no communication capacity. This helped pave the way for the new science of quantum information processing.
David Deutsch
David’s work on quantum algorithms began with a publication in 1985, which he built on with Richard Jozsa in 1992 to generate the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm, one of the first instances of a quantum algorithm that is exponentially faster than any deterministic conventional algorithm.
Oxford University’s David laid the foundations of quantum computation. He described the quantum equivalent of a Turing machine—a universal quantum computer—and demonstrated that it could simulate any physical system that complies with the laws of quantum mechanics with arbitrary accuracy. Using logic gates that leverage entanglement and the quantum superposition of several states simultaneously, he demonstrated how such a computer is equivalent to a network of fewer quantum gates. He was the first to create a quantum algorithm capable of solving a simple problem faster than a classical algorithm.
Peter Shor
Peter Shor worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley for a year before accepting a position at Bell Labs in New Providence, New Jersey. Before then, he had already received his Ph.D. from MIT. At Bell Labs, he created Shor’s algorithm, for which he received the Nevanlinna Prize and the Gödel Prize at the 23rd International Congress of Mathematicians in 1998.
Shor then developed another technique, this time on quantum error correction, which demonstrated that mistakes in a quantum system could be identified and rectified without disrupting the qubit itself, preserving the quantum computation. The dream of a viable quantum computer became a reality very instantly.
The dream came alive when Bennett went to deliver a talk about his new quantum key encryption technology at AT&T Bell Labs at the time, and; Peter Shor was inspired and began to research quantum information. In 1994, Peter Shor, the Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics at MIT, created the first quantum computer algorithm. His algorithm focuses on how a massive quantum computer can easily factorize enormously big numbers – a feat that would take the most powerful classical supercomputer more than the lifetime of the universe to solve.
Additionally, he created methods for quantum computers, which are much more challenging to implement than classical computers, where simple redundancy will do. These concepts have paved the way for today’s rapidly evolving quantum computers. They are also at the cutting edge of fundamental physics, particularly in studying metrology and quantum gravity.
Their aggregate discoveries result from an arcane investigation that began in the early 1980s and evolved into an ambitious and world-changing drive to build commercial-scale quantum computers. Shor is now developing a quantum information theory to define how data can be stored and conveyed using quantum physics principles.
See More | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 2 | 14 | https://nanoexplanations.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/a-mathematical-proof-of-the-church-turing-thesis/ | en | A mathematical proof of the Church-Turing Thesis? | http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb_editors-selection.png | http://www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb_editors-selection.png | [
"https://i0.wp.com/www.researchblogging.org/public/citation_icons/rb_editors-selection.png",
"https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/2408601e9753c798ea623d55655959ac87c73b4c011d3f60a83e50785e147b62?s=48&d=identicon&r=PG",
"https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/a992462f7546f957134c9df1e05040acaba333f429c10f995048a889e93f820f?s=4... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2011-07-04T00:00:00 | The Church-Turing Thesis lies at the junction between computer science, mathematics, physics and philosophy. The Thesis essentially states that everything computable in the "real world" is exactly what is computable within our accepted mathematical abstractions of computation, such as Turing machines. This is a strong statement, and, of course, if one had tried to say the… | en | https://s1.wp.com/i/favicon.ico | Nanoexplanations | https://nanoexplanations.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/a-mathematical-proof-of-the-church-turing-thesis/ | The Church-Turing Thesis lies at the junction between computer science, mathematics, physics and philosophy. The Thesis essentially states that everything computable in the “real world” is exactly what is computable within our accepted mathematical abstractions of computation, such as Turing machines. This is a strong statement, and, of course, if one had tried to say the same thing about natural laws and Newtonian physics, one would have a respectable thesis that turned out to be false. (There is even a theoretical research area, hypercomputation, that attempts to show how “super-Turing” computers could be built in real life by taking advantage on non-Newtonian physics.)
When I learned the Church-Turing Thesis in school, I was told that it was a thesis, not a theorem, precisely because it was not formally provable. The notion of “computable” was intuitive, not mathematically precise, so it was impossible to say whether a particular mathematical abstraction was the ULTIMATELY CORRECT one. Nevertheless, in 2008, two respected researchers — Nachum Dershowitz of Tel Aviv University, and Yuri Gurevich of Microsoft Research — did indeed publish a proof of the Church-Turing Thesis in the Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. How is this possible? They constructed an axiomatization of computation based on abstract state machines, a theoretical notion developed by Gurevich that Microsoft has used to perform practical software tests, and then proved that the Church-Turing Thesis held for that axiomatization of computation. In other words, they managed to formalize the notoriously unformalizable “computation in the real world.”
This impressed me quite a bit — so much so, that when a user named Avinash asked on the theoretical computer science question and answer site, “What would it mean to disprove Church-Turing Thesis?” I answered that the Thesis had been proved for all practical purposes. Not my finest hour, as we will see. Fortunately, Avinash, in a feat of crowdsourcing genius, accepted my answer as correct, in order to encourage discussion. Since then, some of the top theorists in the world have contributed their opinion of the Dershowitz/Gurevich paper, and their philosophy about the thesis overall. I will cover some of the main points in the rest of this blog entry.
First off, the Wikipedia definition of the Church-Turing Thesis is:
Every effectively calculable function is a computable function.
Here, “effectively calculable” means intuitively computable, by rote, in real life; and “computable” means formally computable according to some mathematically defined notion of computation. The history leading up to the formulation of the Thesis is fascinating, and not without controversy. Dershowitz and Gurevich believe, in fact, that Church and Turing put forth two separate Theses, while the computability theorist Robert Soare believes the Thesis should be named simply, “Turing’s Thesis.” I won’t go into any of this here, but for further information, you can look at a video of a presentation Gurevich gave in 2009, or read Computability and Recursion by Soare.
The informal axiomatization of computation provided by Dershowitz and Gurevich is as follows.
I. An algorithm determines a sequence of “computational” states for each input.
II. The states of a computational sequence are structures. And everything is invariant under isomorphism.
III. The transitions from state to state in computational sequences are governable by some fixed, finite description.
IV. Only undeniably computable operations are available in initial states.
Dershowitz and Gurevich formalize these axioms using abstract state machines, and proceed to derive from those axioms the statements they call Church’s Thesis and Turing’s Thesis. Pretty cool. But… what is wrong with this picture? I will quote from the comments and answers generated by Avinash’s question, and my own answer to it.
As normally understood, the Church-Turing thesis is not a formal proposition that can be proved. It is a scientific hypothesis, so it can be “disproved” in the sense that it is falsifiable. Any “proof” must provide a definition of computability with it, and the proof is only as good as that definition. I’m sure Dershowitz-Gurevich have a fine proof, but the real issue is whether the definition really covers everything computable. Answering “can it be disproved?” by saying “it’s been proved” is misleading. It has been proved under a reasonable (falsifiable!) definition of computability. — Ryan Williams
The Dershowitz-Gurevich paper says nothing about probabilistic or quantum computation. It does write down a set of axioms about computation, and prove the Church-Turing thesis assuming those axioms. However, we’re left with justifying these axioms. Neither probabilistic nor quantum computation is covered by these axioms (they admit this for probabilistic computation, and do not mention quantum computation at all), so it’s quite clear to me these axioms are actually false in the real world, even though the Church-Turing thesis is probably true. — Peter Shor
Peter Shor is, of course, a Godel Prize winner for designing the “quantum factoring algorithm” among many other impressive accomplishments; Ryan Williams is on the short list for a future Godel Prize, because of a major breakthrough he recently achieved in the field of circuit complexity.
Other heavy hitters weighed in on the subject as well. Gil Kalai provided several pointers to papers discussing variants of the Church-Turing Thesis, and some thoughts of his own. Andrej Bauer said he thought it was impossible to prove the thesis, but it might be disproved by designing a real-world computational device that was able to compute a function that Turing machines provably could not compute. Timothy Chow responded to that by saying it brought up a philosophical problem: how could we know that the real-world device was actually performing that super-Turing computation? It’s a fascinating conversation, that is still ongoing. I doubt the Dershowitz/Gurevich paper is the last word. | ||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 76 | http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/07/do-we-need-theory-of-everything.html | en | Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Do we need a Theory of Everything? | https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_saYZJMphGDZ203fEUss0ibi2Q1X25DZBnDlnXxewh_ir_HsMWe-1VjzJrcAWaDyClj-Kd5uPr1diQmrwYpzhNkDYFq2W-h90fW501D1d6O3ySo_w=w1200-h630-n-k-no-nu | https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_saYZJMphGDZ203fEUss0ibi2Q1X25DZBnDlnXxewh_ir_HsMWe-1VjzJrcAWaDyClj-Kd5uPr1diQmrwYpzhNkDYFq2W-h90fW501D1d6O3ySo_w=w1200-h630-n-k-no-nu | [
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N9QDX9zz1aE/XGuq12-EKSI/AAAAAAAAEgE/EuyipZCfAW8vKpgNLc1fh744VXTtai6ZQCK4BGAYYCw/s1600/br_banner_new06.jpg",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif",
"http://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisX5yQVWeoIwA1NjBB2sBcnK4x7ChrNu4eTBXBdFVeka8dO4HvpOjy5P3... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Sabine Hossenfelder"
] | null | Science News, Physics, Science, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science | http://backreaction.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/07/do-we-need-theory-of-everything.html | |||||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 21 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Mathematical_Olympiad_participants | en | List of International Mathematical Olympiad participants | https://en.wikipedia.org/static/favicon/wikipedia.ico | https://en.wikipedia.org/static/favicon/wikipedia.ico | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50p... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2008-02-12T01:32:55+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Mathematical_Olympiad_participants | The International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) is an annual international high school mathematics competition focused primarily on pre-collegiate mathematics, and is the oldest of the international science olympiads.[1] The awards for exceptional performance include medals for roughly the top half participants, and honorable mentions for participants who solve at least one problem perfectly.[2]
This is a list of participants who have achieved notability. This includes participants that went on to become notable mathematicians, participants who won medals at an exceptionally young age, or participants who scored highly.
Name Team(s) Year Awards Age (on final day of IMO) Terence Tao Australia 1986 Bronze 10 years, 363 days Raúl Chávez Sarmiento Peru 2009 Bronze 11 years, 271 days Terence Tao Australia 1987 Silver 11 years, 364 days Alex Chui Hong Kong 2020 Silver 12 years, 156 days Akshay Venkatesh Australia 1994 Bronze 12 years, 241 days Yeoh Zi Song Malaysia 2014 Bronze 12 years, 245 days Raúl Chávez Sarmiento Peru 2010 Silver 12 years, 263 days Terence Tao Australia 1988 Gold 13 years, 4 days Warren Bei Canada 2021 Silver 13 years, 78 days Alex Chui Hong Kong 2021 Gold 13 years, 90 days Damjan Davkov North Macedonia 2021 Silver 13 years, 199 days Jeremy Kahn United States 1983 Silver 13 years, 259 days Raúl Chávez Sarmiento Peru 2011 Gold 13 years, 273 days Pawel Kröger East Germany 1972 Perfect Score 13 years, 354 days Pasin Manurangsi Thailand 2007 Silver 13 years, 359 days Warren Bei Canada 2022 Gold 14 years, 66 days Ömer Cerrahoğlu Romania 2009 Gold 14 years, 80 days Pipitchaya Sridam Thailand 2021 Gold 14 years, 136 days William Cheah Australia 2023 Silver 14 years, 181 days Damjan Davkov North Macedonia 2022 Silver 14 years, 187 days Harvey Yau United Kingdom 2014 Silver 14 years, 190 days Jeremy Kahn United States 1984 Silver 14 years, 258 days Lisa Sauermann Germany 2007 Silver 14 years, 309 days Noam Elkies United States 1981 Perfect Score 14 years, 329 days Pasin Manurangsi Thailand 2008 Gold 14 years, 351 days Aleksandr Khazanov United States 1994 Perfect Score 15 years, 77 days Sergei Konyagin Soviet Union 1972 Perfect Score 15 years, 83 days Ethan Yong-Ern Tan Australia 2018 Gold 15 years, 125 days Simon P. Norton United Kingdom 1967 Gold 15 years, 135 days Vladimir Drinfeld Soviet Union 1969 Perfect Score 15 years, 156 days Damjan Davkov North Macedonia 2023 Gold 15 years, 184 days Yuliy Sannikov Ukraine 1994 Perfect Score 15 years, 259 days
The following table lists all IMO Winners who have won at least three gold medals, with corresponding years and non-gold medals received noted (P denotes a perfect score.)
Name Team(s) Years Zhuo Qun Song Canada 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 P Teodor von Burg Serbia 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Lisa Sauermann Germany 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 P Nipun Pitimanaaree Thailand 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Christian Reiher Germany 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Luke Robitaille United States 2019 2020 2021 2022 Reid W. Barton United States 1998 1999 2000 2001 P Alex Chui Hong Kong ('20, '21)
United Kingdom ('22, '23, '24) 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Wolfgang Burmeister East Germany 1967 1968 1969 1970 P 1971 Iurie Boreico Moldova 2003 2004 2005 P 2006 P 2007 Lim Jeck Singapore 2009 2010 2011 2012 P 2013 Martin Härterich West Germany 1985 1986 1987 P 1988 1989 László Lovász Hungary 1963 1964 1965 P 1966 P József Pelikán [hu] Hungary 1963 1964 1965 1966 P Nikolay Nikolov Bulgaria 1992 1993 1994 1995 P Kentaro Nagao Japan 1997 1998 1999 2000 Vladimir Barzov Bulgaria 1999 2000 2001 2002 Peter Scholze Germany 2004 2005 P 2006 2007 Pranjal Srivastava India 2018 2019 2021 2022 Makoto Soejima Japan 2005 2007 2008 2009 P Alex Gunning Australia 2012 2013 2014 P 2015 Andrew Carlotti United Kingdom 2010 2011 2012 2013 Simon Norton United Kingdom 1967 1968 1969 P John Rickard United Kingdom 1975 P 1976 1977 P Sergei Ivanov Soviet Union 1987 P 1988 1989 P Theodor Banica Romania 1989 1990 1991 Eugenia Malinnikova Soviet Union 1989 1990 P 1991 P Sergey Norine Russia 1994 P 1995 P 1996 Yuliy Sannikov Ukraine 1994 P 1995 1996 Ciprian Manolescu Romania 1995 P 1996 P 1997 P Ivan Ivanov Bulgaria 1996 1997 1998 Nikolai Dourov Russia 1996 1997 1998 Tamás Terpai Hungary 1997 1998 1999 Stefan Hornet Romania 1997 1998 1999 Vladimir Dremov Russia 1998 1999 2000 Mihai Manea Romania 1999 2000 2001 Tiankai Liu United States 2001 2002 2004 Oleg Golberg Russia ('02, '03)
United States ('04) 2002 2003 2004 Béla András Rácz Hungary 2002 2003 2004 P Andrey Badzyan Russia 2002 2003 2004 P Rosen Kralev Bulgaria 2003 2004 2005 P Przemysław Mazur Poland 2006 2007 2008 Tak Wing Ching Hong Kong 2009 2010 2011 Chung Song Hong North Korea 2011 2012 2013 Dong Ryul Kim South Korea 2012 2013 2014 Allen Liu United States 2014 2015 2016 P Sheldon Kieren Tan Singapore 2014 2015 2016
A number of IMO participants have gone on to become notable mathematicians. The following IMO participants have either received a Fields Medal, an Abel Prize, a Wolf Prize or a Clay Research Award, awards which recognise groundbreaking research in mathematics; a European Mathematical Society Prize, an award which recognizes young researchers; or one of the American Mathematical Society's awards (a Blumenthal Award in Pure Mathematics, Bôcher Memorial Prize in Analysis, Cole Prize in Algebra, Cole Prize in Number Theory, Fulkerson Prize in Discrete Mathematics, Steele Prize in Mathematics, or Veblen Prize in Geometry and Topology) recognizing research in specific mathematical fields. Grigori Perelman proved the Poincaré conjecture (one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems), and Yuri Matiyasevich gave a negative solution of Hilbert's tenth problem.
G denotes an IMO gold medal, S denotes a silver medal, B denotes a bronze medal, and P denotes a perfect score.
Name Team IMO Fields Medal Wolf Prize EMS Prize AMS research prizes Clay Award Abel Prize Grigory Margulis Soviet Union S 1962 1978 2005 2020 George Lusztig Romania S 1963, S 1962 1985 (Cole algebra) Henryk Iwaniec Poland S 1966, 1965 2002 (Cole number theory) László Lovász Hungary P 1966, P 1965, G 1964, S 1963 1999 1982, 2012 (Fulkerson) 2021 Andrei Suslin Soviet Union G 1967 2000 (Cole algebra) János Pintz Hungary B 1969, P 1968,B 1967 2014 (Cole number theory) Vladimir Drinfeld Soviet Union P 1969 1990 2018 Andrei Zelevinsky Soviet Union S 1969 2018 (Steele) Alexander Merkurjev Soviet Union S 1972 2012 (Cole algebra) Pierre-Louis Lions France 1973 1994 János Kollár Hungary P 1974, G 1973 2006 (Cole algebra) Jean-Christophe Yoccoz France P 1974, S 1973 1994 Sergey Fomin Soviet Union S 1974 2018 (Steele) Paul Vojta United States P 1975 1992 (Cole number theory) Alexander Goncharov Soviet Union G 1976 1992 Richard Borcherds United Kingdom G 1978, S 1977 1998 1992 Timothy Gowers United Kingdom P 1981 1998 1996 Peter Kronheimer United Kingdom S 1981 2007 (Veblen) Michel Goemans Belgium 1981, 1982 2000 (Fulkerson) Gábor Tardos Hungary S 1982, S 1981, 1979 1992 Grigori Perelman Soviet Union P 1982 2006[3] 1996[4] Alexis Bonnet France S 1984, S 1983 1996 Laurent Lafforgue France S 1985, S 1984 2002 2000 Daniel Tătaru Romania P 1985, P 1984 2002 (Bôcher) Zoltán Szabó Hungary S 1985 2007 (Veblen) Jeremy Kahn United States G 1986, G 1985, S 1984, S 1983 2012 Ricardo Pérez-Marco Spain S 1986, 1985 1996 Dominic Joyce United Kingdom S 1986 2000 Stanislav Smirnov Soviet Union P 1987, P 1986 2010 2004 2001 Terence Tao Australia G 1988, S 1987, B 1986 2006 2002 (Bôcher) 2003 Elon Lindenstrauss Israel B 1988 2010 2004 2001 (Blumenthal) Ngô Bảo Châu Vietnam G 1989, P 1988 2010 2004 Emmanuel Grenier France B 1989 2000 Vincent Lafforgue France P 1991, P 1990 2000 Eugenia Malinnikova Soviet Union P 1991, P 1990, G 1989 2017 Akshay Venkatesh Australia B 1994 2018 Artur Avila Brazil G 1995 2014 2008 Emmanuel Breuillard France G 1995 2012 Ben J. Green United Kingdom S 1995, S 1994 2008 2004 Maryam Mirzakhani Iran P 1995, G 1994 2014 2009 (Blumenthal) 2014 Boáz Klartag Israel S 1996 2008 Ciprian Manolescu Romania P 1997, P 1996, P 1995 2012 Adrian Ioana Romania S 1999 2012 Mark Braverman Israel G 2000, B 1999, B 1998 2016 Ana Caraiani Romania G 2003, G 2002, S 2001 2020 Kaisa Matomäki Finland 2003, 2002 2020 Simion Filip Moldova S 2005, B 2004 2020 Peter Scholze Germany G 2007, G 2006, P 2005, S 2004 2018 2016 2015 (Cole algebra) 2014
IMO medalists have also gone on to become notable computer scientists. The following IMO medalists have received a Nevanlinna Prize, a Knuth Prize, or a Gödel Prize; these awards recognise research in theoretical computer science. G denotes an IMO gold medal, S denotes a silver medal, B denotes a bronze medal, and P denotes a perfect score.
Name Team IMO Nevanlinna Prize Knuth Prize Gödel Prize László Lovász Hungary P 1966, P 1965, G 1964, S 1963 1999 2001 László Babai Hungary P 1968, S 1967, S 1966 2015 1993 Johan Håstad Sweden G 1977 1994, 2011 Peter Shor United States S 1977 1998 1999 Alexander Razborov Soviet Union G 1979 1990 2007 Subhash Khot India S 1995, S 1994 2014
Provincial Mathematical Olympiad
List of mathematics competitions
List of International Mathematical Olympiads
Olson, Steve (2004). Count Down: Six Kids Vie for Glory at the World's Toughest Math Competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-25141-3.
Lord, Mary (2001). "Michael Jordans of Math". U.S. News & World Report. | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 2 | 38 | https://mathoverflow.net/questions/53122/mathematical-urban-legends | en | Mathematical "urban legends" | [
"https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/mathoverflow/Img/logo.svg?v=3a674b060adf",
"https://mathoverflow.net/posts/53122/ivc/c2ad?prg=575f0499-aac4-4d25-9e18-3261611516cc"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2011-01-24T20:48:16 | When I was a young and impressionable graduate student at Princeton, we scared each other with the story of a Final Public Oral, where Jack Milnor was dragged in against his will to sit on a commit... | en | https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/mathoverflow/Img/favicon.ico?v=8bbfe38cfc48 | MathOverflow | https://mathoverflow.net/questions/53122/mathematical-urban-legends | When I was a young and impressionable graduate student at Princeton, we scared each other with the story of a Final Public Oral, where Jack Milnor was dragged in against his will to sit on a committee, and noted that the class of topological spaces discussed by the speaker consisted of finite spaces. I had assumed this was an "urban legend", but then at a cocktail party, I mentioned this to a faculty member, who turned crimson and said that this was one of his students, who never talked to him, and then had to write another thesis (in numerical analysis, which was not very highly regarded at Princeton at the time). But now, I have talked to a couple of topologists who should have been there at the time of the event, and they told me that this was an urban legend at their time as well, so maybe the faculty member was pulling my leg.
So, the questions are: (a) any direct evidence for or against this particular disaster? (b) what stories kept you awake at night as a graduate student, and is there any evidence for or against their truth?
EDIT (this is unrelated, but I don't want to answer my own question too many times): At Princeton, there was supposedly an FPO in Physics, on some sort of statistical mechanics, and the constant $k$ appeared many times. The student was asked:
Examiner: What is $k?$
Student: Boltzmann's constant.
Examiner: Yes, but what is the value?
Student: Gee, I don't know...
Examiner: OK, order of magnitude?
Student: Umm, don't know, I just know $k\dots$
The student was failed, since he was obviously not a physicist.
$\begingroup$
Since this has become a free-for-all, allow me to share an anecdote that I wouldn't quite believe if I hadn't seen it myself.
I attended graduate school in Connecticut, where seminars proceeded with New England gentility, very few questions coming from the audience even at the end. But my advisor Fred Linton would take me down to New York each week to attend Eilenberg's category theory seminars at Columbia. These affairs would go on for hours with many interruptions, particularly from Sammy who would object to anything said in less than what he regarded as the optimal way. Now Fred had a tendency to doze off during talks. One particular week a well-known category theorist (but I'll omit his name) was presenting some of his new results, and Sammy was giving him a very hard time. He kept saying "draw the right diagram, draw the right diagram." Sammy didn't know what diagram he wanted and he rejected half a dozen attempts by the speaker, and then at least an equal number from the audience. Finally, when it all seemed a total impasse, Sammy, after a weighty pause said "Someone, wake up Fred." So someone tapped Fred on the shoulder, he blinked his eyes and Sammy said, in more measured tones than before, "Fred, draw the right diagram." Fred looked up at the board, walked up, drew the right diagram, returned to his chair, and promptly went back to sleep. And so the talk continued.
Thank you all for your indulgence - I've always wanted to see that story preserved for posterity and now I have.
$\endgroup$
$\begingroup$
The following story is a bit strange to be true, but we all believed it as students, and I think I still do believe that a somewhat weaker version of events must have indeed occurred.
Michael Maschler (most famous in Israel as author of the standard math textbooks for middle-schools and high-schools) was in the middle of teaching an undergraduate course- I think it was Linear Algebra- when one afternoon he walks into the lecture hall and announces the discovery of a new class of incredible Riemannian symmetric spaces with incredible properties, missed by Elie Cartan. The undergrads have no idea what he is on about; but the faculty all get very excited, and start sitting in on his Linear Algebra course. Ignoring the syllabus, Prof. Maschler begins to give lecture upon lecture about the new incredible symmetric spaces which he discovered. The excitement builds. Will he win a prize? Will he win the Fields Medal?...
And then, 3 lectures in, a student (some say it was Avinoam Mann, about whom many stories are told) gets up and asks, "Excuse me, sir. How can you distinguish your space from a sphere?"
Maschler turns to answer the "stupid question", but he freezes in mid-motion... Gradually, his face turns white. The lecture hall is so silent you can hear a pin drop. Finally, after what seems like an eternity, Prof. Maschler unfreezes. "By golly, a sphere it is," he murmurs in an undertone. And he picked the Linear Algebra textbook up from his desk, and resumed teaching where he had left off. The subject was never broached again.
And so, some Hebrew University students of my generation call spheres "Maschler spaces".
$\endgroup$
$\begingroup$
A wholly different set of "named urban legends" (in order of time):
Allegedly, Jacobi came to show Gauss his cool results on elliptic functions. Gauss' response was to open a drawer, point at a sheaf of papers, and say: that's great you are doing this! I have actually discovered these results a while ago, but did not think they were good enough to publish... To which Jacobi responded: Funny, you have published a lot worse results.
When the logician Carnap was immigrating to the US, he had the usual consular interview, where one of the questions was (and still is, I think): "Would you favor the overthrow of the US government by violence, or force of arms?". He thought for a while, and responded: "I would have to say force of arms..."
Finally, on the graduate experience front, it was rumored at Princeton that Bill Thurston's qualifying exams at Berkeley were held as his wife was in labor with his first child -- the department refused to change the date for such a minor reason! I have just asked him about this, and it's true...
EDIT A certain (now well-known) mathematician was a postdoc at IHES in the late 1980s. Call him R. R comes to lunch, and finds himself across the table from Misha Gromov. Gromov, very charmingly, asks him what he was working on. R tells him, Gromov has some comments, they have a good conversation, lunch is over. The next day R finds himself across from Gromov again. Misha's first question is: so, what are you working on now?
$\endgroup$
$\begingroup$
This one happened - I was there (as an observer, not a principal). Only the names have been changed.
X was Professor A's first doctoral student, and their relations weren't good. Rumor had it that the first time A saw most of X's thesis was when X handed in the final draft.
By the rules, there had to be a non-mathematician on the thesis defense committee - let's call him Professor H. Professor H made a valiant effort to read the thesis, understandably didn't get very far, but decided he was going to ask a question at the defense, to justify his being there in the first place. So he says to X, I notice you didn't provide a proof of your Lemma 2.3.1 - how does it go? X says, well, 2.3.1 isn't my work, it's a well-known result of van der Corput.
This satisfies H, but A says, OK, it's a result of van der Corput - but, how do you prove it? Well, X was prepared to answer questions on his own work, but hadn't brushed up on all the previous work that his thesis rested on. He hummed and hawed, started to give a proof, got stuck - at which point A gave him a hint. Using the hint, X got a little farther, but got stuck again - so A gave him another hint. This went on for an excruciating fifteen minutes (which, I'm sure, felt like 15 years to X), until finally Professor N broke the tension by saying, say, just whose thesis defense is this anyway, X's or van der Corput's?
$\endgroup$ | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 1 | 94 | https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/1168/what-papers-should-everyone-read | en | What papers should everyone read? | [
"https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/cstheory/Img/logo.svg?v=10b092e532a3",
"https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/posts/1168/ivc/0eda?prg=39d2bc55-7d80-4ba1-8026-81480ff43e70"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2010-09-12T00:43:39 | This question is (inspired by)/(shamefully stolen from) a similar question at MathOverflow, but I expect the answers here will be quite different.
We all have favorite papers in our own respective | en | https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/cstheory/Img/favicon.ico?v=b72736ad174d | Theoretical Computer Science Stack Exchange | https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/1168/what-papers-should-everyone-read | What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic
This paper explains and reinforces the notion that floating point isn't magic. It explains overflow, underflow, what denormalized numbers are, what NaNs are, what inf is, and all the things these imply. After reading this paper, you'll know why a == a + 1.0 can be true, why a==a can be false, why running your code on two different machines can give you two different answers, why summing numbers in a different order can give you an order of magnitude difference and all the wacky stuff that happens in the world of mapping an uncountably infinite set of numbers onto a countably finite set.
An edited version is also available on the web.
Hartmanis and Stearns, "On the computational complexity of algorithms", Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 117: 285–306 (1965)
This was the first paper that took the study of time complexity seriously, and surely was the primary impetus for Hartmanis and Stearns' joint Turing award. While their initial definitions are not quite what we use today, the paper remains extremely readable. You really get the feeling of how things were in the old "Wild West" frontier of the 60's.
Quantum Mechanical Computers (PDF) by Richard Feynman.
He introduces the idea of quantum computation, describes quantum circuits, explains how classical circuits can be simulated by quantum circuits, and shows how quantum circuits can compute functions without lots of garbage qubits (using uncomputation).
He then shows how any classical circuit can be encoded into a time-independent Hamiltonian! His proof goes through for quantum circuits too, therefore showing that time evolving Hamiltonians is BQP-hard! His Hamiltonian construction is also used in the proof of the quantum version of the Cook-Levin theorem, proved by Kitaev, which shows that k-local Hamiltonian is QMA-complete.
Expander graphs and their applications, S. Hoory, N. Linial, and A. Wigderson is an extremely nice survey on expander graphs. No surprise that it won the 2008 AMS Conant Prize.
I want to recall that expander graphs are the key ingredient in recent breakthroughs in TCS, eg.
log-space algorithm for undirected connectivity (by Reingold, STOC, 2005)
the alternative proof of the PCP Theorem (by Dinur, ECCC, TR05-046, 2005)
and not so recent:
AKS sorting network, which achieves depth $O(\log n)$ and size $O(n \log n)$ for sorting $n$ inputs (by Ajtai, Komlós and Szemerédi, STOC, 1983)
Linear-time encodable and decodable error-correcting codes (by Spielman, STOC, 1995)
I'm surprised that no one has come up with Hastad's "Some Optimal Inapproximability Results" (JACM 2001; originally STOC 1997). This landmark paper has been written so well, you can come to it with little other than mathematical maturity and it will make you want to learn several things well, such as its Fourier techniques, parallel repetition, gadgets, and whatnot.
Les Valiant's Theory of the Learnable (1984) set the agenda for learning theory for decades, and it's a nice and readable paper!
There's also quite a bit of intuitive explanation in the paper that makes it fun and compelling. Various parts of this paper are still routinely quoted in COLT/ALT talks.
The complexity of theorem-proving procedures by Stephen A. Cook. This paper proves that all the languages decided by polytime nondeterministic Turing machines can be (Cook-)reduced to the set of propositional tautologies.
The importance of this result is (at least) twofold: first, it shows that there exist problems in NP which are at least as hard as the whole class, the NP-complete problems; furthermore, it provides a concrete example of such a problem, which can then be reduced to others in order to prove them complete.
Nowadays Karp reductions are more commonly used than Cook reductions, but the main proof of this paper can be easily adapted to show that SAT is NP-complete with respect to Karp reductions.
C.A.R. Hoare, An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming.
From the abstract: In this paper an attempt is made to explore the logical foundations of computer programming by use of techniques which were first applied in the study of geometry and have later been extended to other branches of mathematics.
It has six pages that are quite easy to follow.
Extractors and Pseudorandom Generators by Luca Trevisan. In this paper good randomness extractor is built by the means of error-correcting codes and combinatorial designs. Construction is quite easy to understand but it is completely stunning, because it is not obvious at all what is the connection between extractors, codes and designs.
After all, it is a good example of a result in TCS that requires some fancy combinatorics.
If I may quote Sarah Palin on this issue: "All of them".
More seriously, I think most papers should not be read in the original. As time passes people figure out better way of understanding and presenting the original problem/solution. Except for the Turing original paper, which is of historical importance, I would not recommend reading most original papers if there is followup work that cleaned it up. In particular, of a lot of stuff is presented much better in books than in the original. | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 2 | 79 | https://serious-science.org/essence-of-quantum-computation-2612 | en | Essence of Quantum Computation | http://serious-science.org/img/2015/06/maxresdefault-2.jpg | http://serious-science.org/img/2015/06/maxresdefault-2.jpg | [
"https://serious-science.org/assets0/style/LogoTop.svg",
"https://serious-science.org/assets0/style/rss.png",
"https://serious-science.org/assets0/soc/shape.png",
"https://serious-science.org/assets0/soc/fb.png",
"https://serious-science.org/assets0/soc/tw.png",
"https://serious-science.org/assets0/soc/ln... | [] | [] | [
"Essence of Quantum Computation",
"videos",
"Serious Science"
] | null | [
"Seth Lloyd"
] | null | Physicist Seth Lloyd on quantum mechanics, classical vs quantum computers and the “universal digital computation” | en | /favicon.ico | Serious Science | https://serious-science.org/essence-of-quantum-computation-2612 | How do atoms, photons and electrons behave? How to build a quantum computer? What is the most powerful thing a classical computer can do? These and other questions are answered by Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT Seth Lloyd.
A quantum computer is a device that stores and processes information at the level of individual atoms and elementary particles. Now, quantum computation has two parts. First of all, it’s quantum-mechanical and secondly, it’s a computation. The quantum mechanic sounds a bit strange and quantum mechanics is weird, technically speaking. In some sense, the quantum part is easier to understand. Quantum mechanics is just a theory of physics that explains how things behave at their smallest and most fundamental level. So it’s the branch of physics that governs how atoms, photons (particles of light), electrons, elementary particles behave. So if we going build a computer at the scale of atoms and elementary particles by its very nature it will use the laws of quantum mechanics to function. And we’ll see that the weirdness of quantum mechanics, the fact that quantum mechanics is strange and counter-intuitive actually helps to allow us to do computations in ways that you couldn’t possibly do with a laptop or an iPhone.
So the second part about quantum computation is computation. So what’s a computer? Actually, in some sense it’s a little hard a question, I mean, I know a computer when I see one, when I type on one or I make phone calls or when I use Google maps on a computer. But in fact, the idea of computation is a deeper and a more general one than just whether you happen to have, like, an Apple or a PC, or an iPhone or a Samsung. It’s the notion of processing information. So what a computer does: a digital computer takes information and breaks it up into the smallest possible chunks of information which are called bits. So a bit is an elementary distinction between two possibilities: yes or no, true or false, zero or one, or, for that matter, inside a computer capacitor at its low energy state or capacitor at its high energy state.
And that’s in fact how bits are physically stored inside an ordinary digital computer. Low-energy is zero, high-energy is one. And then to perform a computation, the computer, having broken up information to its smallest chunks, it flips and manipulates those chunks and bashes them into them and transforms them in very general ways. In fact, there’s a notion called “universal digital computation” that says “what is the most powerful thing that a classical computer can do by taking bits and by flipping them is a systematic fashion?” So a quantum computer is a computer that takes bits and manipulates them in a systematic fashion, but also operates at a level of atoms, elementary particles, photons (particles of light), electrons – where the laws of quantum mechanics hold sway.
Quantum mechanics is weird. This is a technical term – weird. Niels Bohr, one of the inventors of quantum mechanics, said “Anybody who thinks they can understand quantum mechanics without getting dizzy, hasn’t properly understood it”. Actually, he said it in Danish, which is more impressive. But it’s true: the quantum mechanics is strange and counter-intuitive. To get a feeling of this essence of this quantum weirdness think of something called “wave-particle duality”. I know it sounds weird – wave-particle duality – what does that mean? Well, it means that the things that we think of as particles, like atoms or electrons, have waves that are associated with them. Similarly, things that we think of as waves, like light or sound, have particles that are associated with them. This all takes place at the very microscopic level. Now, what this means is that when you store a bit of information on a quantum computer, say, on the position of an electron, this electron has a wave associated with it.
So, in a classical computer the way you could store a bit is – well, in the case of zero it is a low-energy state – a whole bunch of electrons is over here, one is a high energy state – a whole bunch of electrons over here. Now let’s miniaturize this until we have a quantum bit, which is a single electron. So, zero is a single electron over here, one is a single electron over there. Well, that’s fine, you know, electron over here is zero, you move it over there, it flips to one, you move it over here, it flips back to zero. You have two electrons, you move them back and forth, you’re flipping multiple bits – so there’s nothing wrong with storing and processing information at the level of single electrons. The problem is that the electron is a quantum-mechanical thing, and even though it’s a particle, it has a wave that’s associated with the electron. The wave that’s associated with the electron has something to do with where the electron is. So if the wave of the electron is all over here, then the electron is over here and it’s zero. If the wave for the electron is all over here, then the electron is over here and it’s one.
But the funky thing about quantum mechanics is that the waves don’t have to be just here and there, you know, it doesn’t have to be either here or there, waves are extended objects, you could have a wave that’s here and there at the same time. What does it mean – to have a wave for an electron that’s here and there at the same time? It means that this one electron is simultaneously here and there at the same time. So a quantum bit, or a qubit, as it’s sometimes called, has a funny feature that it can be both zero and one simultaneously, because this electron is here and there at once. Now, this is just weird and counter-intuitive. There’s no classical intuition that corresponds to having something like, you know, a soccer ball being here and there simultaneously, even if a mess can make it look like that every now and then. So with electron you really have electron here and there at once, so a quantum bit, or qubit, can be zero and one at the same time.
So this central feature of quantum weirdness, this wave-particle duality, which is strange and counter-intuitive, and hard to grasp with ordinary intuitions, this means that quantum bits can be zero and one at the same time.
And that means that quantum computers can perform computations in ways that classical computers can’t.
A nice way of thinking of this is if a classical computation is a sequence of bit flips for multiple bits flipping back and forth multiple times, you can think of this in wave terms, you can think of this wave for this as just being like a single wave, like a single pitch, like ‘aaaaah’. Or like a single chant, like ‘ahahahaa.’ So, classical computation is just one wave of a series of pure tones. In quantum computation, by contrast, the waves for all the bits can have multiple values at once – so it’s a symphony. I can’t actually sing a symphony on my own, but you can imagine a symphony. And what’s happening in a quantum computation is that the waves corresponding to each of the computations add up in a way that gives you interference and harmony between these different waves. So the possibilities that are available to a quantum computer are much greater than the possibilities available for a classical computer.
In particular, let’s think of what the purpose of bits is inside a computer. So if I have a zero, or one, a bit could be data. Zero and one sounds so prosaic. Suppose that I ask my fiancée, or I ask my girlfriend: “Will you marry me?” and she sends a bit of information with zero for “no” and one for “yes”. Ok, this is a very important bit for me, and maybe she emails it to me, and that’s maybe not the nicest way to accept a marriage proposition. So, for a quantum marriage she could send a quantum superposition of zero and one at the same time meaning she is feeling ambivalent in a very quantum-mechanical fashion. So what happens when I actually look at the answer to the question? Well, these quantum bits have a feature that if you have a bit with zero and one, zero=no and one=yes at the same time and I actually look to see “ok, see electron over here? – No. See electron over here? – Yes. Then half of the time I’ll find the answer “no”, half of the time I’ll find the answer “yes”. So, if my girlfriend were to tell me that, this would be her way of essentially flipping a coin about whether she’s going to marry me or not.
Now, in a computer a bit can just be a bit of data, like zero or one, but a bit can also be an instruction. So, zero could mean, you know, “do this”, and one can mean “do that”. Like, to get away from marriage metaphors that are making me uncomfortable, to get away from metaphors about marriage, let’s go to mathematics. So, zero could tell the computer to add 2+2. And one could be the instruction to the computer that says “add 3+1”. In a classical computer a bit can either be zero – add 2+2 – or one – add 3+1. But in a quantum computer, because a quantum bit can be zero and one simultaneously, then if you take such a quantum bit and give it as an instruction to a quantum computer, the quantum computer will add “2+2” and add “3+1” at the same time – in some funny quantum sense. So these two different computations occurring at the same time are like two different voice parts in a chorus or two different violin parts played simultaneously in a symphony.
And the essence of the quantum computation comes from the interference between these different parts, just as for us if we hear two sounds played at the same time, it has a sound that comes not from just one sound on its own or the other sound on its own, but from the interference of the two sounds together. Now, this may sound kind of strange and esoteric, and indeed, when you build quantum computers, you are building computers with components on the level of individual atoms, they are very-very tiny computers. You want to keep track of them, ‘cause if you lose them, like you’re never going to find them again. We can ask what we can do with this or why should try to do this when we have perfectly good classical computers.
Well, the idea of quantum computation, of storing bits on individual atoms, was proposed in the early 1980-s by Paul Benioff at Argonne National Laboratories, we should find them in Caltech, and David Deutsch at Oxford, in England. Quantum computers weren’t built, the first prototype ones weren’t built until the early 1990-s when I proposed how you could build a simple quantum computer, and indeed, Dave Wineland, the Nobel laureate in physics, received his Nobel Prize in part for building some of the first simple quantum computers. In 1994, however, a real impetus came for building quantum computers when Peter Shor, then at AT&T and now at MIT, showed that if you could build a quantum computer, even a small one, with a few tens of thousands of quantum bits, it’d be able to perform a million operations, which is nothing for a classical computer.
If you get this quantum computer doing this symphonic kind of computation, then it would be able to break all the codes that we use to transmit information secretly over the Internet.
And as you could imagine, at that point a bunch of people’s ears perked up, not just individuals, but agencies who’d like to keep secrets and who would like to find out other people’s secrets, of course. So these agencies and lots of people said “Oh, wow, it would be great if we could build a quantum computer”.
And so, in the early mid 1990-s this entire field of quantum computation took off, I and my colleagues started building quantum computers, everybody around the world, well, not everybody, but hundreds of people around the world started building quantum computers. Now we have quantum computers which, even if they can’t factor large numbers and break codes, all ashore, they can still do all kinds of interesting things. We’re using quantum computers here at MIT to investigate fundamental physical properties of matter, to even program a quantum computer to see what was happening in the Universe at the very first instant of a second. You can use quantum computers to investigate weird and funky effects that go under names like ‘entanglement’, where particles of light know much more about each other than they have any right, classically, to do so. You can use quantum computation and quantum communication to transmit information in a provably secure fashion, where the security is guaranteed by the laws of nature. And even if these are not the good enough reasons for doing quantum computation, there’s another good reason which is – it’s a tremendous fun. I’ve been myself working on these quantum computers over the last 15 or 20 years, have had a fantastic time exploring how nature works at its smallest and most fundamental scales. | ||
2453 | dbpedia | 2 | 4 | https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/07/15/peter-shor-wins-ieee-2025-shannon-award/ | en | Peter Shor Wins IEEE 2025 Shannon Award | [
"https://www.hpcwire.com/wp-content/themes/tci-theme/assets/img/d_favicon.png",
"https://www.hpcwire.com/wp-content/themes/tci-theme/assets/img/eai_favicon.png",
"https://www.hpcwire.com/wp-content/themes/tci-theme/assets/img/hpcwj_favicon.png",
"https://www.hpcwire.com/wp-content/themes/tci-theme/assets/img/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"John Russell"
] | 2024-07-15T00:00:00 | Peter Shor, the MIT mathematician whose ‘Shor’s algorithm’ sent shivers of fear through the encryption community and helped galvanize ongoing efforts to build quantum computers, has been named the 2025 […] | en | HPCwire | https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/07/15/peter-shor-wins-ieee-2025-shannon-award/ | Peter Shor, the MIT mathematician whose ‘Shor’s algorithm’ sent shivers of fear through the encryption community and helped galvanize ongoing efforts to build quantum computers, has been named the 2025 winner of the IEEE Claude Shannon Award for 2025. It’s a fitting honor for Shor, coming as it does on the eve of NIST’s expected issuance of the first Post Quantum Cryptography standards sometime this summer. (Don’t miss Shor’s limerick at the end of this article – I was tempted to lead with it.)
The Shannon Award is given by the IEEE Information Theory Society and was created in reconizes 1972 “to honor consistent and profound contributions to the field of information theory. It is a prestigious prize in information theory, covering technical contributions at the intersection of mathematics, communication engineering, and theoretical computer science.”
Here’s some background on Shannon from Wikipedia: “Claude Elwood Shannon (April 30, 1916 – February 24, 2001) was an American mathematician, electrical engineer, computer scientist and cryptographer known as the “father of information theory” and as the “father of the Information Age”. Shannon was the first to describe the Boolean gates (electronic circuits) that are essential to all digital electronic circuits, and was one of the founding fathers of artificial intelligence. He is credited alongside George Boole for laying the foundations of the Information Age.”
Shor is an applied mathematician perhaps best known for his work on quantum computation. His eponymously named Shor’s algorithm was developed in 1994 and demonstrated how to use an adequately performant quantum computer to to break conventional RSA codes.
Broadly, it’s a factoring algorithm that if run on a “quantum computer with a sufficient number of qubits could operate without succumbing to quantum noise and other quantum-decoherence phenomena, then Shor’s algorithm could be used to break public-key cryptography schemes, such as: the RSA scheme; the Finite Field Diffie-Hellman key exchange; and the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman key exchange.”
RSA is based on the assumption that factoring large integers is computationally intractable and this assumption is generally considered valid for classical (non-quantum) computers.
Shor is an interesting person (brief bio below) who sometimes scribbles more than math. Here’s a pair of limericks (and explanation) he has posted on his website:
“My wife and I wrote the following for a poetry contest by Science News. It didn’t win, so I posted it on my web page. (Editor’s note – he doesn’t give the submission date)
If computers that you build are quantum,
Then spies of all factions will want ’em.
Our codes will all fail,
And they’ll read our email,
Till we’ve crypto that’s quantum, and daunt ’em.
Jennifer and Peter Shor
“When he introduced me at the 1998 International Congress of Mathematicians, Prof. Volker Strassen recited my limerick, and added a reply:
To read our E-mail, how mean
of the spies and their quantum machine;
Be comforted though,
they do not yet know
how to factorize twelve or fifteen. (Volker Strassen)
Gotta love it.
Brief Shor Bio
Peter Shor is Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics since 2003. He received the B.A. in mathematics from Caltech in 1981, and the Ph.D. in applied mathematics from MIT in 1985, under the direction of Tom Leighton. Following a postdoctoral fellowship at MSRI, he joined AT&T. He was a member of its Research staff, 1986-2003. He joined the MIT faculty in applied mathematics as full professor in 2003. Professor Shor’s research interests are in theoretical computer science: currently on algorithms, quantum computing, computational geometry and combinatorics. In 1998, Peter Shor received the Nevanlinna Prize and the International Quantum Communication Award. He also received the Dickson Prize in Science from Carnegie-Mellon in 1998. He was awarded the Gödel Prize of the ACM and a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship in 1999. He received the King Faisal International Prize in Science in 2002, and was named one of Caltech’s Distinguished Alumni in 2007. He is a member of the National Academy of Science (2002), and fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2011). In 2017, Professor Shor received the Dirac Medal of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics. He also received the 2017 IEEE Information Theory Society Paper Award, jointly with Charles Bennett, Igor Devetak, Aram Harrow, and Andreas Winter for the paper “The Quantum Reverse Shannon Theorem and Resource Tradeoffs for Simulating Quantum Channels” which appeared in the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 2926–2959, May 2014. In 2018, Shor received the IEEE Eric E. Sumner Award, for Outstanding Contributions to Communications Technology. He also received the 2018 Micius Quantum Prize in April 2019. In May 2022, Shor was named the recipient of MIT’s 2022-2023 James R. Killian Jr. Faculty Achievement Award, the highest honor the Institute faculty can bestow upon one of its members each academic year. The award citation credits Peter’s “seminal contributions that have forever shaped the foundations of quantum computing. Indeed, quantum computing exists today, in practice, because of Peter Shor.” As of 2020, Shor is a Member of the National Academy of Engineering, and in 2022 Fellow of the AMS.
Photo credit: Christopher Harting, MIT News | |||||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 17 | https://dabacon.org/pontiff/category/computer-science/ | en | Computer Science – The Quantum Pontiff | [
"https://dabacon.org/pontiff/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/01/cropped-The_Solemn_Mock_Procession_of_the_Pope_1829.jpg",
"https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=N&bg=ffffff&fg=000&s=0&c=20201002",
"https://dabacon.org/pontiff/category/computer-science/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAhoAAADhCAIAAAABEYuCAAA... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2014-11-20T21:13:36+00:00 | en | The Quantum Pontiff | https://dabacon.org/pontiff/category/computer-science/ | Happy New Year! To celebrate let’s talk about error correcting codes and….aliens.
The universe, as many have noted, is kind of like a computer. Or at least our best description of the universe is given by equations that prescribe how various quantities change in time, a lot like a computer program describes how data in a computer changes in time. Of course, this ignores one of the fundamental differences between our universe and our computers: our computers tend to be able to persist information over long periods of time. In contrast, the quantities describing our universe tend to have a hard time being recoverable after even a short amount of time: the location (wave function) of an atom, unless carefully controlled, is impacted by an environment that quickly makes it impossible to recover the initial bits (qubits) of the location of the atom.
Computers, then, are special objects in our universe, ones that persist and allow manipulation of long lived bits of information. A lot like life. The bits describing me, the structural stuff of my bones, skin, and muscles, the more concretely information theoretic bits of my grumbly personality and memories, the DNA describing how to build a new version of me, are all pieces of information that persist over what we call a lifetime, despite the constant gnaw of second law armed foes that would transform me into unliving goo. Maintaining my bits in the face of phase transitions, viruses, bowel obstructions, cardiac arrest, car accidents, and bears is what human life is all about, and we increasingly do it well, with life expectancy now approaching 80 years in many parts of the world.
But 80 years is not that long. Our universe is 13.8ish billion years old, or about 170ish million current lucky human’s life expectancies. Most of us would, all things equal, like to live even longer. We’re not big fans of death. So what obstacles are there toward life extension? Yadda yadda biology squishy stuff, yes. Not qualified to go there so I won’t. But since life is like a computer in regards to maintaining information, we can look toward our understanding of what allows computers to preserve information…and extrapolate!
Enter error correction. If bits are subject to processes that flip the values of the bits, then you’ll lose information. If, however, we give up storing information in each individual bit and instead store single bits across multiple individual noisy bits, we can make this spread out bit live much longer. Instead of saying 0, and watching it decay to unknown value, say 000…00, 0 many times, and ask if the majority of these values remain 0. Viola you’ve got an error correcting code. Your smeared out information will be preserved longer, but, and here is the important point, at the cost of using more bits.
Formalizing this a bit, there are a class of beautiful theorems, due originally to von Neumann, classically, and a host of others, quantumly, called the threshold theorems for fault-tolerant computing which tell you, given an model for how errors occur, how fast they occur, and how fast you can compute, whether you can reliably compute. Roughly these theorems all say something like: if your error rate is below some threshold, then if you want to compute while failing at a particular better rate, then you can do this using a complicated larger construction that is larger proportional to a polynomial in the log of inverse of the error rate you wish to achieve. What I’d like to pull out of these theorems for talking about life are two things: 1) there is an overhead to reliably compute, this overhead is both larger, in size, and takes longer, in time, to compute and 2) the scaling of this overhead depends crucially on the error model assumed.
Which leads back to life. If it is a crucial part of life to preserve information, to keep your bits moving down the timeline, then it seems that the threshold theorems will have something, ultimately, to say about extending your lifespan. What are the error models and what are the fundamental error rates of current human life? Is there a threshold theorem for life? I’m not sure we understand biology well enough to pin this down yet, but I do believe we can use the above discussion to extrapolate about our future evolution.
Or, because witnessing evolution of humans out of their present state seemingly requires waiting a really long time, or technology we currently don’t have, let’s apply this to…aliens. 13.8 billion years is a long time. It now looks like there are lots of planets. If intelligent life arose on those planets billions of years ago, then it is likely that it has also had billions of years to evolve past the level of intelligence that infects our current human era. Which is to say it seems like any such hypothetical aliens would have had time to push the boundaries of the threshold theorem for life. They would have manipulated and technologically engineered themselves into beings that live for a long period of time. They would have applied the constructions of the threshold theorem for life to themselves, lengthening their life by apply principles of fault-tolerant computing.
As we’ve witnessed over the last century, intelligent life seems to hit a point in its life where rapid technological change occurs. Supposing that the period of time in which life spends going from reproducing, not intelligent stuff, to megalords of technological magic in which the life can modify itself and apply the constructions of the threshold theorem for life, is fast, then it seems that most life will be found at the two ends of the spectrum, unthinking goo, or creatures who have climbed the threshold theorem for life to extend their lifespans to extremely long lifetimes. Which lets us think about what alien intelligent life would look like: it will be pushing the boundaries of using the threshold theorem for life.
Which lets us make predictions about what this advanced alien life would look life. First, and probably most importantly, it would be slow. We know that our own biology operates at an error rate that ends up being about 80 years. If we want to extend this further, then taking our guidance from the threshold theorems of computation, we will have to use larger constructions and slower constructions in order to extend this lifetime. And, another important point, we have to do this for each new error model which comes to dominate our death rate. That is, today, cardiac arrest kills the highest percentage of people. This is one error model, so to speak. Once you’ve conquered it, you can go down the line, thinking about error models like earthquakes, falls off cliffs, etc. So, likely, if you want to live a long time, you won’t just be slightly slow compared to our current biological life, but instead extremely slow. And large.
And now you can see my resolution to the Fermi paradox. The Fermi paradox is a fancy way of saying “where are the (intelligent) aliens?” Perhaps we have not found intelligent life because the natural fixed point of intelligent evolution is to produce entities for which our 80 year lifespans is not even a fraction of one of their basic clock cycles. Perhaps we don’t see aliens because, unless you catch life in the short transition from unthinking goo to masters of the universe, the aliens are just operating on too slow a timescale. To discover aliens, we must correlate observations over a long timespan, something we have not yet had the tools and time to do. Even more interesting the threshold theorems also have you spread your information out across a large number of individually erring sub-systems. So not only do you have to look at longer time scales, you also need to make correlated observations over larger and larger systems. Individual bits in error correcting codes look as noisy as before, it is only in the aggregate that information is preserved over longer timespans. So not only do we have too look slower, we need to do so over larger chunks of space. We don’t see aliens, dear Fermi, because we are young and impatient.
And about those error models. Our medical technology is valiantly tackling a long list of human concerns. But those advanced aliens, what kind of error models are they most concerned with? Might I suggest that among those error models, on the long list of things that might not have been fixed by their current setup, the things that end up limiting their error rate, might not we be on that list? So quick, up the ladder of threshold theorems for life, before we end up an error model in some more advanced creatures slow intelligent mind!
(An earlier version of this post appeared in the latest newsletter of the American Physical Society’s special interest group on Quantum Information.)
One of the most grandly pessimistic ideas from the 19th century is that of “heat death” according to which a closed system, or one coupled to a single heat bath at thermal equilibrium, eventually inevitably settles into an uninteresting state devoid of life or macroscopic motion. Conversely, in an idea dating back to Darwin and Spencer, nonequilibrium boundary conditions are thought to have caused or allowed the biosphere to self-organize over geological time. Such godless creation, the bright flip side of the godless hell of heat death, nowadays seems to worry creationists more than Darwin’s initially more inflammatory idea that people are descended from apes. They have fought back, using superficially scientific arguments, in their masterful peanut butter video.
Much simpler kinds of complexity generation occur in toy models with well-defined dynamics, such as this one-dimensional reversible cellular automaton. Started from a simple initial condition at the left edge (periodic, but with a symmetry-breaking defect) it generates a deterministic wake-like history of growing size and complexity. (The automaton obeys a second order transition rule, with a site’s future differing from its past iff exactly two of its first and second neighbors in the current time slice, not counting the site itself, are black and the other two are white.)
Time →
But just what is it that increases when a self-organizing system organizes itself?
Such organized complexity is not a thermodynamic potential like entropy or free energy. To see this, consider transitions between a flask of sterile nutrient solution and the bacterial culture it would become if inoculated by a single seed bacterium. Without the seed bacterium, the transition from sterile nutrient to bacterial culture is allowed by the Second Law, but prohibited by a putative “slow growth law”, which prohibits organized complexity from increasing quickly, except with low probability.
The same example shows that organized complexity is not an extensive quantity like free energy. The free energy of a flask of sterile nutrient would be little altered by adding a single seed bacterium, but its organized complexity must have been greatly increased by this small change. The subsequent growth of many bacteria is accompanied by a macroscopic drop in free energy, but little change in organized complexity.
The relation between universal computer programs and their outputs has long been viewed as a formal analog of the relation between theory and phenomenology in science, with the various programs generating a particular output x being analogous to alternative explanations of the phenomenon x. This analogy draws its authority from the ability of universal computers to execute all formal deductive processes and their presumed ability to simulate all processes of physical causation.
In algorithmic information theory the Kolmogorov complexity, of a bit string x as defined as the size in bits of its minimal program x*, the smallest (and lexicographically first, in case of ties) program causing a standard universal computer U to produce exactly x as output and then halt.
x* = min{p: U(p)=x}
Because of the ability of universal machines to simulate one another, a string’s Kolmogorov complexity is machine-independent up to a machine-dependent additive constant, and similarly is equal to within an additive constant to the string’s algorithmic entropy HU(x), the negative log of the probability that U would output exactly x and halt if its program were supplied by coin tossing. Bit strings whose minimal programs are no smaller than the string itself are called incompressible, or algorithmically random, because they lack internal structure or correlations that would allow them to be specified more concisely than by a verbatim listing. Minimal programs themselves are incompressible to within O(1), since otherwise their minimality would be undercut by a still shorter program. By contrast to minimal programs, any program p that is significantly compressible is intrinsically implausible as an explanation for its output, because it contains internal redundancy that could be removed by deriving it from the more economical hypothesis p*. In terms of Occam’s razor, a program that is compressible by s bits deprecated as an explanation of its output because it suffers from s bits worth of ad-hoc assumptions.
Though closely related[1] to statistical entropy, Kolmogorov complexity itself is not a good measure of organized complexity because it assigns high complexity to typical random strings generated by coin tossing, which intuitively are trivial and unorganized. Accordingly many authors have considered modified versions of Kolmogorov complexity—also measured in entropic units like bits—hoping thereby to quantify the nontrivial part of a string’s information content, as opposed to its mere randomness. A recent example is Scott Aaronson’s notion of complextropy, defined roughly as the number of bits in the smallest program for a universal computer to efficiently generate a probability distribution relative to which x cannot efficiently be recognized as atypical.
However, I believe that entropic measures of complexity are generally unsatisfactory for formalizing the kind of complexity found in intuitively complex objects found in nature or gradually produced from simple initial conditions by simple dynamical processes, and that a better approach is to characterize an object’s complexity by the amount of number-crunching (i.e. computation time, measured in machine cycles, or more generally other dynamic computational resources such as time, memory, and parallelism) required to produce the object from a near-minimal-sized description.
This approach, which I have called logical depth, is motivated by a common feature of intuitively organized objects found in nature: the internal evidence they contain of a nontrivial causal history. If one accepts that an object’s minimal program represents its most plausible explanation, then the minimal program’s run time represents the number of steps in its most plausible history. To make depth stable with respect to small variations in x or U, it is necessary also to consider programs other than the minimal one, appropriately weighted according to their compressibility, resulting in the following two-parameter definition.
An object x is called d-deep with s bits significance iff every program for U to compute x in time <d is compressible by at least s bits. This formalizes the idea that every hypothesis for x to have originated more quickly than in time d contains s bits worth of ad-hoc assumptions.
Dynamic and static resources, in the form of the parameters d and s, play complementary roles in this definition: d as the quantifier and s as the certifier of the object’s nontriviality. Invoking the two parameters in this way not only stabilizes depth with respect to small variations of x and U, but also makes it possible to prove that depth obeys a slow growth law, without which any mathematically definition of organized complexity would seem problematic.
A fast deterministic process cannot convert shallow objects to deep ones, and a fast stochastic process can only do so with low probability. (For details see Bennett88.)
Logical depth addresses many infelicities and problems associated with entropic measures of complexity.
It does not impose an arbitrary rate of exchange between the independent variables of strength of evidence and degree of nontriviality of what the evidence points to, nor an arbitrary maximum complexity that an object can have, relative to its size. Just as a microscopic fossil can validate an arbitrarily long evolutionary process, so a small fragment of a large system, one that has evolved over a long time to a deep state, can contain evidence of entire depth of the large system, which may be more than exponential in the size of the fragment.
It helps explain the increase of complexity at early times and its decrease at late times by providing different mechanisms for these processes. In figure 2, for example, depth increases steadily at first because it reflects the duration of the system’s actual history so far. At late times, when the cellular automaton has run for a generic time comparable to its Poincare recurrence time, the state becomes shallow again, not because the actual history was uneventful, but because evidence of that history has become degraded to the point of statistical insignificance, allowing the final state to be generated quickly from a near-incompressible program that short-circuits the system’s actual history.
It helps explain while some systems, despite being far from thermal equilibrium, never self-organize. For example in figure 1, the gaseous sun, unlike the solid earth, appears to lack means of remembering many details about its distant past. Thus while it contains evidence of its age (e.g. in its hydrogen/helium ratio) almost all evidence of particular details of its past, e.g. the locations of sunspots, are probably obliterated fairly quickly by the sun’s hot, turbulent dynamics. On the other hand, systems with less disruptive dynamics, like our earth, could continue increasing in depth for as long as their nonequilibrium boundary conditions persisted, up to an exponential maximum imposed by Poincare recurrence.
Finally, depth is robust with respect to transformations that greatly alter an object’s size and Kolmogorov complexity, and many other entropic quantities, provided the transformation leaves intact significant evidence of a nontrivial history. Even a small sample of the biosphere, such as a single DNA molecule, contains such evidence. Mathematically speaking, the depth of a string x is not much altered by replicating it (like the bacteria in the flask), padding it with zeros or random digits, or passing it though a noisy channel (although the latter treatment decreases the significance parameter s). If the whole history of the earth were derandomized, by substituting deterministic pseudorandom choices for all its stochastic accidents, the complex objects in this substitute world would have very little Kolmogorov complexity, yet their depth would be about the same as if they had resulted from a stochastic evolution.
The remaining infelicities of logical depth as a complexity measure are those afflicting computational complexity and algorithmic entropy theories generally.
Lack of tight lower bounds: because of open P=PSPACE question one cannot exhibit a system that provably generates depth more than polynomial in the space used.
Semicomputability: deep objects can be proved deep (with exponential effort) but shallow ones can’t be proved shallow. The semicomputability of depth, like that of Kolmogorov complexity, is an unavoidable consequence of the unsolvability of the halting problem.
The following observations can be made partially mitigating these infelicities.
Using the theory of cryptographically strong pseudorandom functions one can argue (if such functions exist) that deep objects can be produced efficiently, in time polynomial and space polylogarithmic in their depth, and indeed that they are produced efficiently by some physical processes.
Semicomputability does not render a complexity measure entirely useless. Even though a particular string cannot be proved shallow, and requires an exponential amount of effort to prove it deep, the depth-producing properties of stochastic processes can be established, assuming the existence of cryptographically strong pseudorandom functions. This parallels the fact that while no particular string can be proved to be algorithmically random (incompressible), it can be proved that the statistically random process of coin tossing produces algorithmically random strings with high probability.
Granting that a logically deep object is one plausibly requiring a lot of computation to produce, one can consider various related notions:
An object y is deep relative to x if all near-minimal sized programs for computing y from x are slow-running. Two shallow objects may be deep relative to one another, for example a random string and its XOR with a deep string.
An object can be called cryptic if it is computationally difficult to obtain a near- minimal sized program for the object from the object itself, in other words if any near-minimal sized program for x is deep relative to x. One-way functions, if they exist, can be used to define cryptic objects; for example, in a computationally secure but information theoretically insecure cryptosystem, plaintexts should be cryptic relative to their ciphertexts.
An object can be called ambitious if, when presented to a universal computer as input, it causes the computer to embark on a long but terminating computation. Such objects, though they determine a long computation, do not contain evidence of it actually having been done. Indeed they may be shallow and even algorithmically random.
An object can be called wise if it is deep and a large and interesting family of other deep objects are shallow relative to it. Efficient oracles for hard problems, such as the characteristic function of an NP-complete set, or the characteristic set K of the halting problem, are examples of wise objects. Interestingly, Chaitin’s omega is an exponentially more compact oracle for the halting problem than K is, but it is so inefficient to use that it is shallow and indeed algorithmically random.
Further details about these notions can be found in Bennett88. K.W. Regan in Dick Lipton’s blog discusses the logical depth of Bill Gasarch’s recently discovered solutions to the 17-17 and 18×18 four-coloring problem
I close with some comments on the relation between organized complexity and thermal disequilibrium, which since the 19th century has been viewed as an important, perhaps essential, prerequisite for self-organization. Broadly speaking, locally interacting systems at thermal equilibrium obey the Gibbs phase rule, and its generalization in which the set of independent parameters is enlarged to include not only intensive variables like temperature, pressure and magnetic field, but also all parameters of the system’s Hamiltonian, such as local coupling constants. A consequence of the Gibbs phase rule is that for generic values of the independent parameters, i.e. at a generic point in the system’s phase diagram, only one phase is thermodynamically stable. This means that if a system’s independent parameters are set to generic values, and the system is allowed to come to equilibrium, its structure will be that of this unique stable Gibbs phase, with spatially uniform properties and typically short-range correlations. Thus for generic parameter values, when a system is allowed to relax to thermal equilibrium, it entirely forgets its initial condition and history and exists in a state whose structure can be adequately approximated by stochastically sampling the distribution of microstates characteristic of that stable Gibbs phase. Dissipative systems—those whose dynamics is not microscopically reversible or whose boundary conditions prevent them from ever attaining thermal equilibrium—are exempt from the Gibbs phase rule for reasons discussed in BG85, and so are capable, other conditions being favorable, of producing structures of unbounded depth and complexity in the long time limit. For further discussion and a comparison of logical depth with other proposed measures of organized complexity, see B90.
[1] An elementary result of algorithmic information theory is that for any probability ensemble of bit strings (representing e.g. physical microstates), the ensemble’s Shannon entropy differs from the expectation of its members’ algorithmic entropy by at most of the number of bits required to describe a good approximation to the ensemble.
Recently computer scientist Leslie Valliant won the ACM’s Turing Award, considered one of the most prestigious prizes in computer science. Valliant is famous for many results, not the least of which are his results on the Permanent of a matrix. Over at the Godel’s Lost Letter, the iced tea man has a nice collection of interesting permanent related complexity facts. Recall that the permanent of a n by n matrix is given by
where is the symmetric group on n elements and similarly the determinant of a n by n matrix is given by
where is 0 if the permutation is made up of an even number of transpositions and 1 if the permutation is made up of an odd number of transpositions. One day I was sitting in my office when a physics undergraduate came by (a former ex-sailor from Alaska) and said…”Hey Dave, what if we replace the function in front of each term in the permanent and determinant by a character of a symmetric group irrep?” Which of course knocked me off my chair, first because what undergrad physics major knows about symmetric group irreps and second because I had never thought about this interesting twist on the permanent and determinant.
After a little google foo later, we quickly found the answer. For an n by n matrix the immanant of a matrix is given by
where labels the irrep of and is the character of the irrep at group element . Recall that the irreps of the symmetric group are labeled by partitions of . A partition of is a series of decreasing positive integers that sums to n, with such that . The partition corresponding to corresponds to the trivial irrep in which , and on the opposite end of the spectrum, the partition corresponding to corresponds to the alternating irrep where . Thus we see that the permanent and determinant are at the end of a spectrum of polynomials known as the immanants.
One of Valiant’s most well known results is that evaluating the permanent of a matrix with 0 and 1 as its possible matrix entries is #P complete, a.k.a really hard. On the other hand evaluating the determinant is not computationally difficult at all. At first this seems odd because a determinant has those minus signs which you would think would make it easier and not hard, but alas this is not so. So what about the computational complexity of the immanant? The Computational Complexity of Immanants by Peter Bürgisser (sorry I could only find a paywalled version) shows that there is a since in which certain immanants are also #P complete to evaluate. Rough the idea is that if one defines a class of immanants that have partitions that have a “step” in them that grows polynomially in (the step for the permanent is ) then these will be #P complete to evaluate.
So what good are immanants? Well I’m sure mathematicians have some fine uses for them. One interesting thing to note is that immanantal polynomials of adjacency matrices of graphs give you graph invariants (for the determinant this is the same as saying that the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix are a graph invariant.) However it is known that this, like the eigenvalues, is not a complete set of graph invariants and so is not a route towards efficiently solving graph isomorphism. So no real use there, but I’m sure an object so symmetric must be of some use, no? | ||||||
2453 | dbpedia | 3 | 15 | https://www.math.utu.fi/icalp04/godel2004.html | en | Gödel Prize 2004 | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | 2004 Gödel Prize
Maurice Herlihy, Nir Shavit and Michael Saks, Fotios Zaharoglou
The 2004 Gödel Prize for outstanding journal articles in theoretical computer science is shared between the papers:
"The Topological Structure of Asynchronous Computation"
by Maurice Herlihy and Nir Shavit,
Journal of the ACM, Vol. 46 (1999), 858-923,
and
"Wait-Free k-Set Agreement Is Impossible: The Topology of Public Knowledge"
by Michael Saks and Fotios Zaharoglou,
SIAM J. on Computing, Vol. 29 (2000), 1449-1483.
The two papers recognized by the 2004 Gödel Prize offer one of the most important breakthroughs in the theory of distributed computing.
The problem attacked is the complete understanding of asynchronous wait-free deterministic computation in the basic shared memory model. These papers demonstrate that one can avoid the inherent difficulty of analyzing a dynamic model, transforming it into a static one by associating computational tasks with simplicial complexes and translating the question of existence of a wait-free protocol into (distinct but related) topological questions about the complexes. This reformulation allows the introduction of powerful topological invariants, such as homologies, to show the impossibility of numerous tasks, including set-agreement and renaming.
The discovery of the topological nature of distributed computing provides a new perspective on the area and represents one of the most striking examples, possibly in all of applied mathematics, of the use of topological structures to quantify natural computational phenomena.
Call for Nominations
Call for Nominations in pdf-format
The Gödel Prize for outstanding papers in the area of theoretical computer science is sponsored jointly by the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science (EATCS) and the Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computing Theory of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM-SIGACT). This award is presented annually, with the presentation taking place alternately at the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP) and ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC). The twelfth presentation will take place during the 2004 ICALP, July 2004 in Turku, Finland. The Prize is named in honor of Kurt Gödel in recognition of his major contributions to mathematical logic and of his recently discovered interest in what has become the famous "P versus NP" question. The Prize includes an award of $5000 (US).
AWARD COMMITTEE: The winner of the Prize is selected by a committee of six members. The EATCS President and the SIGACT Chair each appoint three members to the committee, to serve staggered three-year terms. The committee is chaired alternately by representatives of EATCS and SIGACT, with the 2004 Chair being an EATCS representative. The 2004 Award Committee consists of Giorgio Ausiello (University of Rome "La Sapienza"), László Babai (University of Chigaco), Pierre-Louis Curien (CNRS, Paris 7), Zvi Galil (Columbia University), Juhani Karhumäki (Chair, University of Turku) and Jeff Ullman (Stanford University).
ELIGIBILITY: Any research paper or a series of papers published (not reprinted) in a recognized refereed journal by a single author or a team of authors in the period 1997-2003 is eligible. This extended period is in recognition of the fact that the value of fundamental work cannot always be immediately assessed. The research nominated for the award should be in the area of theoretical computer science. The term "theoretical computer science" is meant in a broad sense, and encompasses, but is not restricted to, those areas covered by ICALP and STOC. The Award Committee shall have the ultimate authority to decide whether a particular paper is eligible for the Prize.
NOMINATIONS: Nominations for the award should be submitted to the Award Committee Chair at the following address:
Professor Juhani Karhumäki
Department of Mathematics & Turku Centre for Computer Science
University of Turku
20014 University of Turku, FINLAND
email: karhumak@cs.utu.fi
tel.: 358-2-333 5613
fax: 358-2-333 6595
To be considered, nominations for the 2004 prize must be received by January 10, 2004. Nominations may be made by any member of the scientific community. A nomination should contain a brief summary of the technical content of the paper and a brief explanation of its significance. A copy of the research paper or papers should accompany the nomination. The work may be in any language. However, if it is not in English, a more extended summary written in English should be enclosed. Additional recommendations in favor of the nominated work may also be enclosed. To be considered for the award, the paper or series of papers must be recommended by at least two individuals, either in the form of two distinct nominations or one nomination including recommendations from two different people.
It is the duty of the Award Committee to actively solicit nominations from as broad a spectrum of the theoretical computer science community as possible, so as to ensure that potential award-winning papers are not overlooked. To this end, the Award Committee will accept informal proposals of potential nominees, as well as tentative offers to prepare formal nominations, should they be needed to fulfill the requirements that the paper have two separate recommendations.
SELECTION PROCESS: Although the Award Committee is encouraged to consult with the theoretical computer science community at large, the Award Committee is solely responsible for the selection of the winner of the award. In the case that the Award Committee cannot agree on a recipient, the prize may be shared by more than one paper or series of papers, and the Award Committee reserves the right to declare no winner at all. All matters relating to the selection process that are not specified here are left to the discretion of the Award Committee.
PAST WINNERS:
1993:
László Babai and Shlomo Moran, "Arthur-Merlin games: a randomized proof system and a hierarchy of complexity classes," Journal of Computer and System Sciences 36 (1988), 254-276.
Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali and Charles Rackoff, "The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems," SIAM Journal on Computing 18 (1989), 186-208.
1994:
Johan Håstad, "Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits," Advances in Computing Research 5 (1989), 143-170.
1995:
Neil Immerman, "Nondeterministic space is closed under complementation," SIAM Journal on Computing 17 (1988), 935-938.
Róbert Szelepcsényi, "The method of forced enumeration for nondeterministic automata," Acta Informatica 26 (1988), 279-284.
1996:
Alistair Sinclair and Mark Jerrum, "Approximate counting unform generation and rapidly mixing Markov chains," Information and Computation 82 (1989), 93-133.
Mark Jerrum and Alistair Sinclair, "Approximating the permanent," SIAM Journal on Computing 18 (1989), 1149-1178.
1997:
Joseph Halpern and Yoram Moses, "Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment," Journal of the ACM 37 (1990), 549-587.
1998:
Seinosuke Toda, "PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy," SIAM Journal on Computing 20 (1991), 865-877.
1999:
Peter W. Shor, "Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer," SIAM Journal on Computing26 (1997), 1484-1509.
2000:
Moshe Y. Vardi and Pierre Wolper, "Reasoning about infinite computations," Information and Computation 115 (1994), 1-37.
2001:
Uriel Feige, Shafi Goldwasser, László Lovász, Shmuel Safra, and Mario Szegedy, "Interactive proofs and the hardness of approximating cliques," Journal of the ACM 43 (1996), 268-292.
Sanjeev Arora and Shmuel Safra, "Probabilistic checking of proofs: a new characterization of NP," Journal of the ACM 45 (1998), 70-122.
Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy, "Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems," Journal of the ACM 45 (1998), 501-555.
2002:
Géraud Sénizergues, "L(A)=L(B)? Decidability results from complete formal systems," Theoretical Computer Science 251 (2001), 1-166.
2003: | ||||||||
2453 | dbpedia | 2 | 18 | https://mathoverflow.net/questions/44244/what-recent-discoveries-have-amateur-mathematicians-made | en | What recent discoveries have amateur mathematicians made? | [
"https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/mathoverflow/Img/logo.svg?v=3a674b060adf",
"https://i.sstatic.net/lg0bO.png",
"https://mathoverflow.net/posts/44244/ivc/c2ad?prg=2ac53ad7-6957-4692-8b6b-816dd795299f"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2010-10-30T14:20:24 | E.T. Bell called Fermat the Prince of Amateurs. One hundred years ago Ramanujan amazed the mathematical world. In between were many important amateurs and mathematicians off the beaten path, but what | en | https://cdn.sstatic.net/Sites/mathoverflow/Img/favicon.ico?v=8bbfe38cfc48 | MathOverflow | https://mathoverflow.net/questions/44244/what-recent-discoveries-have-amateur-mathematicians-made | About ten years ago Ahcène Lamari and Nicholas Buchdahl independently proved that all compact complex surfaces with even first Betti number are Kahler. This was known since 1983, but earlier proofs made use of the classification of surfaces to reduce to hard case-by-case verification.
At the time, Lamari was a teacher at a high school in Paris. Apparently he announced his result by crashing a conference in Paris and going up to Siu (who had proved the last case in the earlier proof in 1983) with a copy of his proof. Lamari's proof was published in the Annales de l'Institut Fourier in 1999 (Courants kählériens et surfaces compactes, Annales de l'institut Fourier, 49 no. 1 (1999), p. 263-285, doi:10.5802/aif.1673), next to Buchdahl's (On compact Kähler surfaces, Annales de l'institut Fourier, 49 no. 1 (1999), p. 287-302, doi: 10.5802/aif.1674)
Greg Egan. He's a very renowned science fiction writer who holds a bachelor degree in mathematics. He wrote, as a coauthor, 2 articles which were published in peer-reviewed journals, one of them is with John Baez. The first one was written when he was approximately 40 years old.
There's also more eccentric example of Andrew Beal, which is much more known in the world of poker. He made however one minor conjecture in number theory for whose proof or disproof he offers $100,000.
And there's also a list on wikipedia which might be worth going through.
Edit: (nov-2018) Some recent progress by G. Egan has been made with an anonymous 4chan-member, on a problem on permutations.
The complete graph on $n$ vertices $K_n$ is not planar for $n \geq 5.$ One may ask: what is the maximum Euler characteristic $\gamma(K_n)$ among all compact orientable surfaces into which $K_n$ may be embedded? It is a nice exercise to embed $K_5,$ $K_6,$ and $K_7$ into the torus. The final result was that $\gamma(K_n) = 2 \lfloor \frac{n (7 - n)}{12} \rfloor.$ In 1968 this theorem had been proven for "all cases except $n = 18,20,$ and $23.$ The proof was completed, at the end of the sixties, by Jean Mayer, a professor of French literature (!), when he found embeddings for these three values." (Surface topology, Firby and Gardiner, p. 111).
Kenneth A. Perko Jr. is a lawyer and an amateur topologist (with graduate-level training). In 1974 he found that two knots that were listed as separate knots in C. N. Little's "On knots, with a census for order 10" (1885) and similar tables, were actually identical.
Mathoverflow-user Daniel Moskovich recounted earlier on this site:
Little (with Tait and Kirkman) compiled his tables combinatorially. He drew all possible 4-valent graphs with some number of vertices (in this case 10), and resolved 4-valent vertices into crossings in all possible ways. He ended up with 210 knots. Then he worked BY HAND to eliminate doubles, by making physical models with string. He failed to bring these two knots to the same position, and concluded that they must be different. It took almost 100 years to find the ambient isotopy which shows that there are the same knot.
The book "Knots and Links" by Dale Rolfsen, published two years after Perko's publication, still lists the knots as different, they are knots [; 10_{161} ;] and [; 10_{162} ;] in Appendix C.
An anonymous poster of a 4chan messaging board, in thinking about how long it would take to watch a 14-episode nonlinear anime program in any order, improved the lower bound for a length of a superpermutation. A superpermutation is a string that contains each permutation of $n$ elements as a substring. See OEIS A180632. Superpermutations are somewhat similar to De Bruijn sequences.
Whether the anonymous poster meets the definition of "amateur" may never be known, but the posting was from 2011, and apparently was noted by a handful of other mathematicians who think about these things not long afterwards.
The story has taken off in the public recently in part because Greg Egan, who was previously mentioned, has also in October 2018 improved the upper bound on the length of a minimal superpermutation.
Quanta Magazine has a nice article as well.
Eugène Ehrhart was a high school teacher when he discovered the so-called Ehrhart polynomial, at the age of 55. He got his PhD at the age of 60.
Let $\Delta$ be a polytope with integral vertices in $\bf R^d$. Then there exists a polynomial $P$ such that for every integer $n$, $P(n)$ is the number of integral points in $n\Delta $. This polynomial satisfies a duality property: $(-1)^dP(-n)$ is the number of integral vertices in the interior of $P$. This duality property has been interpreted as Serre duality on toric varieties by Khovanskii in the 80's. The geometric interpretation of the coefficients of $P$ is still an open problem despite a huge literature. See http://icps.u-strasbg.fr/~clauss/Ehrhart.html for a short bibliography, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrhart_polynomial for an introduction to the subject.
Bill Gates co-authored the following paper in the 1970s with Christos Papadimitriou:
"Bounds for sorting by prefix reversal," Discrete Mathematics 27 (1979), no. 1, 47–57, MR0534952.
Not sure if Gates counts as an amateur, but he is at least a college dropout. :)
The only reason I know this is because once I ran across a book or article that discusses the results in this paper and then says something like, "Yes, this is THE Bill Gates." I was almost certain the book or article was by Knuth, but now I can't find the reference in any of my Knuth books. If someone else knows the reference I'm talking about, I would be grateful if they would post it as a comment to my answer. (It now bothers me that I can't find that reference. :) )
Kurt Heegner was a radio engineer by trade, but gave (essentially) the first proof of the Gauss class number one problem in 1952: namely that $\mathbb{Q}\sqrt{d}$ has class number $1$ if and only if $d \in \{-1, -2, -3, -7, -11, -19, -43, -67, -163\}$. Unfortunately, his work was largely ignored until around 1967, two years after his death.
His ideas also led to the development of Heegner points, which are very influential in modern number theory.
I was hoping that someone would add David Smith to this list. But a few days has passed and no one has brought this up. So please allow me to kick this thread a bit.
As discussed in another answer, it is recently discovered that the “einstein” tiling exists, settling a long-standing open problem. This discovery is primarily credited to David Smith, who describes himself as a shape hobbyist.
The story is also featured in QuantaMagazine.
Richard Friedberg, then an undergraduate pre-medical student, independently solved Post's problem (of whether there are intermediate Turing degrees) by the priority-injury method. This was a significant open problem at the time, so the result made news:
1956 news article "Senior solves logic problem, astounds mathematicians"
In Gödel's now famous letter to von Neumann that introduced the P vs NP problem, Gödel wrote
I do not know if you have heard that “Post’s problem”, whether there are degrees of unsolvability among problems of the form (∃y)φ(y, x), where φ is recursive, has been solved in the positive sense by a very young man by the name of Richard Friedberg. The solution is very elegant. Unfortunately, Friedberg does not intend to study mathematics, but rather medicine (apparently under the influence of his father).
Friedberg ended up becoming a physicist (Wikipedia biography).
How about Saul Kripke?
Kripke-Platek set theory "is used all over the place, in recursion theory and set theory, [b]oth in classical results, and in fairly recent ones."
Modern philosophers (of science, mathematics, language etc. -- analytical philosophers) are probably a rich source of the list you seek. many do not have above-undergrad training in math, although I would use the definition of 'amateur' that we think of when we think of the ancients. that is, people who are distinctly in another field but make contributions to mathematics as part of their work or hobby.
As for other philosophers/logicians (off the top):
Putnam
Frank Ramsey (I don't have the rep to post more links--had a bunch for this question)
I know that by the time we get to someone like Ramsey, everyone's like: "surely that's not an amateur mathematician" but by the definition given in the question, i think he fits.
At any rate, you can probably find the names you're looking for in analytical philosophy, (mathematical/computational) economics/biology/linguistics, and so on.
The problem, I suspect, will be (in addition to the definition of 'amateur' which is not too difficult in my opinion, as long as you are satisfied with it for your list) the definitions of 'important' and 'discovery'. For example, I've known about Kripke's contributions for a while but I don't know, even now, whether this community considers them as important.
In 2002, Manindra Agrawal, Neeraj Kayal, and Nitin Saxena proved the amazing result "PRIMES is in P," i.e., there is a deterministic, polynomial time algorithm for determining whether a given number is prime or not. The resulting paper was published in the Annals in 2004. The story was covered in the New York Times. The trio won the 2006 Fulkerson Prize, and the 2006 Gödel Prize.
In 2002, Kayal and Saxena were undergraduate students. I'd say that counts as "amateur." | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 1 | 36 | http://www.enjoyed.today/Peter_Shor/ | en | Peter Shor Explained | [
"http://www.enjoyed.today/images/brain.gif"
] | [] | [] | [
"peter",
"web",
"prize",
"https",
"quantum",
"site",
"web site",
"1999",
"mit",
"peter shor",
"1998",
"2007",
"award",
"http",
"mathematical",
"mathematics"
] | null | [] | null | What is Peter Shor? Explaining what we could find out about Peter Shor. | null | Peter Williston Shor (born August 14, 1959) is an American professor of applied mathematics at MIT. He is known for his work on quantum computation, in particular for devising Shor's algorithm, a quantum algorithm for factoring exponentially faster than the best currently-known algorithm running on a classical computer.
Early life and education
Shor was born in New York City to Joan Bopp Shor and S. W. Williston Shor.[10] [11] He grew up in Washington, D.C. and Mill Valley, California.[10] While attending Tamalpais High School, he placed third in the 1977 USA Mathematical Olympiad.[12] After graduation that year, he won a silver medal at the International Math Olympiad in Yugoslavia (the U.S. team achieved the most points per country that year).[13] [14] He received his B.S. in Mathematics in 1981 for undergraduate work at Caltech,[15] and was a Putnam Fellow in 1978. He earned his PhD in Applied Mathematics from MIT in 1985.[16] His doctoral advisor was F. Thomson Leighton, and his thesis was on probabilistic analysis of bin-packing algorithms.
Career
After being awarded his PhD by MIT, he spent one year as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, and then accepted a position at Bell Labs in New Providence, New Jersey. It was there he developed Shor's algorithm. This development was inspired by Simon's problem, where he first solved the discrete log problem (which relates point-finding on a hypercube to a torus) and,
"Later that week, I was able to solve the factoring problem as well. There’s a strange relation between discrete log and factoring."[17]
Due to their similarity as HSP problems, Shor discovered a related factoring problem (Shor's algorithm) that same week for which he was awarded the Nevanlinna Prize at the 23rd International Congress of Mathematicians in 1998[18] [19] and the Gödel Prize in 1999.[20] In 1999, he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship.[21] In 2017, he received the Dirac Medal of the ICTP and for 2019 the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in Basic Sciences.[22]
Shor began his MIT position in 2003. Currently, he is the Henry Adams Morss and Henry Adams Morss, Jr. Professor of Applied Mathematics in the Department of Mathematics at MIT. He also is affiliated with CSAIL and the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics (CTP).
He received a Distinguished Alumni Award from Caltech in 2007.[15]
On October 1, 2011, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[23] [24] He was elected as an ACM Fellow in 2019 "for contributions to quantum-computing, information theory, and randomized algorithms". He was elected as a member of the National Academy of Sciences in 2002.[25] In 2020, he was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering for pioneering contributions to quantum computation.[26]
In an interview published in Nature on October 30, 2020, Shor said that he considers post-quantum cryptography to be a solution to the quantum threat, although a lot of engineering effort is required to switch from vulnerable algorithms.[27]
Along with three others, Shor was awarded the 2023 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics for "foundational work in the field of quantum information."
See also
Entanglement-assisted classical capacity
Keller's conjecture
Stabilizer code
Quantum capacity
External links
.
Peter Shor's Home Page at MIT.
Quantum Computing Expert Peter Shor Receives Carnegie Mellon's 1998 Dickson Prize in Science.
The story of Shor's algorithm — Youtube.
Lectures and panels
Video of "Harnessing Quantum Physics", Peter Shor's panel discussion with Ignacio Cirac, Michele Mosca, Avi Wigderson, Daniel Gottesman and Dorit Aharonov, at the Quantum to Cosmos festival
Notes and References | |||||||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 6 | http://dmatheorynet.blogspot.com/2010/09/2011-godel-prize-call-for-nominations.html | en | Theory Announcements: 2011 Gödel Prize: Call for Nominations | http://dmatheorynet.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://dmatheorynet.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | [
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/widgets/arrow_dropdown.gif",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon_feed12.png",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/widgets/subscribe-netvibes.png",
"h... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | The Gödel Prize for outstanding papers in the area of theoretical computer science is sponsored jointly by the European Association for Theo... | http://dmatheorynet.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://dmatheorynet.blogspot.com/2010/09/2011-godel-prize-call-for-nominations.html | The Gödel Prize for outstanding papers in the area of theoretical computer science is sponsored jointly by the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science (EATCS) and the Association for Computing Machinery, Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory (ACM-SIGACT). The award is presented annually, with the presentation taking place alternately at the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP) and the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). The nineteenth prize will be awarded at the 43rd ACM symposium on the Theory of Computingto be held as part of FCRC in San Jose, California, in June 2011. The Prize is named in honor of Kurt Gödel in recognition of his major contributions to mathematical logic and of his interest, discovered in a letter he wrote to John von Neumann shortly before von Neumann’s death, in what has become the famous “P versus NP” question. The Prize includes an award of USD 5000.
AWARD COMMITTEE : The winner of the Prize is selected by a committee of six members. The EATCS President and the SIGACT Chair each appoint three members to the committee, to serve staggered three-year terms. The committee is chaired alternately by representatives of EATCS and SIGACT. The 2011 Award Committee consists of Sanjeev Arora (Princeton), Josep Diaz (Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya), Cynthia Dwork (Microsoft Research), Mogens Nielsen (University of Aarhus), Mike Paterson (University of Warwick) and Eli Upfal (Brown University).
ELIGIBILITY : The last change of rules goes back to the 2005 Prize. The (parametric) rule can be found on websites of both SIGACT and EATCS. The rule for the 2011 Prize is given below and supersedes any different interpretation of the parametric rule. Any research paper or series of papers by a single author or by a team of authors is deemed eligible if
(i)the paper was published in a recognized refereed journal no later than December 10, 2010;
(ii)the main results were not published (in either preliminary or final form) in a journal or conference proceedings before January 1st, 1998.
The research work nominated for the award should be in the area of theoretical computer science. The term “theoretical computer science” is meant to encompass, but is not restricted to, those areas covered by ICALP and STOC. Nominations are encouraged from the broadest spectrum of the theoretical computer science community so as to ensure that potential award winning papers are not overlooked. The Award Committee shall have the ultimate authority to decide whether a particular paper is eligible for the Prize.
NOMINATIONS : Nominations for the award should be submitted by email to the Award Committee Chair : Eli Upfal eli@cs.brown.edu . To be considered, nominations for the 2011 Prize must be received by December 10, 2010. Nominations may be made by any member of the scientific community. It is the duty of the Award Committee to actively solicit nominations. A nomination should contain a brief summary of the technical content of the paper(s) and a brief explanation of its significance. A printable copy of the research paper or papers should accompany the nomination. The nomination must state the date and venue of the first conference or workshop publication or state that no such publication has occurred. The work may be in any language. However, if it is not in English, a more extended summary written in English should be enclosed. Additional recommendations in favor of the nominated work may also be enclosed. To be considered for the award, the paper or series of papers must be recommended by at least two individuals, either in the form of two distinct nominations or one nomination including recommendations from two different people. Those intending to submit a nomination are encouraged to contact the Award Committee Chair by email well in advance. The Award Committee will accept informal proposals of potential nominees, as well as tentative offers to prepare formal nominations. The “Subject” line of all related messages should begin with
“Gödel 2011”.
SELECTION PROCESS: Although the Award Committee is encouraged to consult with the theoretical computer science community at large, the Award Committee is solely responsible for the selection of the winner of the award. The Prize may be shared by more than one paper or series of papers, and the Award Committee reserves the right to declare no winner at all. All matters relating to the selection process that are not specified here are left to the discretion of the Award Committee.
PAST WINNERS:
2010: S. Arora. Polynomial-time approximation schemes for Euclidean TSP and other geometric problems, Journal ACM 45(5), (1998), 753-782. J.S.B. Mitchell. Guillotine subdivisions approximate polygonal subdivisions: A simple polynomial-time approximation scheme for geometric TSP, k-MST, and related problems, SIAM J. Computing 28(4), (1999), 1298-1309.
2009: Omer Reingold, Salil Vadhan, and Avi Wigderson, “Entropywaves, the zig-zag graph product, and new constant-degree expanders”, Annals of Mathematics, 155 (2002), 157–187.
Omer Reingold, “Undirected connectivity in log-space”, Journal of the ACM 55
(2008), 1–24.
2008: Daniel A. Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng, “Smoothed analysis of algorithms : Why the simplex algorithm usually takes polynomial time”, Journal of the ACM, 51 (2004), 385–463.
2007: Alexander A. Razborov and Steven Rudich, “Natural Proofs”, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 55 (1997), 24–35.
2006: Manindra Agrawal, Neeraj Kayal, and Nitin Saxena, “PRIMES is in P”, Annals of
Mathematics, 160 (2004), 1–13.
2005: Noga Alon, Yossi Matias and Mario Szegedy, “The space complexity of approximating
the frequency moments”, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 58 (1999), 137– 147.
2004: Maurice Herlihy and Nir Shavit, “The Topological Structure of Asynchronous Computation”, Journal of the ACM, 46 (1999), 858–923.
Michael Saks and Fotios Zaharoglou, “Wait-Free k-Set Agreement Is Impossible :
The Topology of Public Knowledge”, SIAM Journal of Computing, 29 (2000), 1449–1483.
2003: Yoav Freund and Robert Schapire, “A Decision Theoretic Generalization of On-Line Learning and an Application to Boosting”, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 55 (1997), 119–139.
2002: Géraud Sénizergues, “L(A)=L(B) ? Decidaility results from complete formal systems”, Theoretical Computer Science 251 (2001), 1–166.
2001: Uriel Feige, Shafi Goldwasser, László Lovász, Shmuel Safra, and Mario Szegedy, “Interactive proofs and the hardness of approximating cliques”, Journal of the ACM 43 (1996), 268–292.
Sanjeev Arora and Shmuel Safra, “Probabilistic checking of proofs : a new characterization of NP”, Journal of the ACM 45 (1998), 70–122.
Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy,
“Proof verification and the hardness of approximation problems”, Journal of the ACM 45 (1998), 501–555.
2000: Moshe Y. Vardi and Pierre Wolper, “Reasoning about infinite computations”, Information and Computation 115 (1994), 1–37.
1999: Peter W. Shor, “Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer”, SIAM Journal on Computing 26 (1997), 1484–1509.
1998: Seinosuke Toda, “PP is as hard as the polynomial-time hierarchy”, SIAM Journal on Computing 20 (1991), 865–877.
1997: Joseph Halpern and Yoram Moses, “Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment”, Journal of the ACM 37 (1990), 549–587.
1996: Alistair Sinclair and Mark Jerrum, “Approximate counting unform generation and rapidly mixing Markov chains”, Information and Computation 82 (1989), 93–133.
Mark Jerrum and Alistair Sinclair, “Approximating the permanent”, SIAM Journal
on Computing 18 (1989), 1149–1178.
1995: Neil Immerman, “Nondeterministic space is closed under complementation”, SIAM Journal on Computing 17 (1988), 935–938.
Róbert Szelepcsényi, “The method of forced enumeration for nondeterministic automata”, Acta Informatica 26 (1988), 279–284.
1994: Johan Håstad, “Almost optimal lower bounds for small depth circuits”, Advances in Computing Research 5 (1989), 143–170.
1993 László Babai and Shlomo Moran, “Arthur-Merlin games : a randomized proof system and a hierarchy of complexity classes”, Journal of Computer and System Sciences 36 (1988), 254–276.
Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali and Charles Rackoff, “The knowledge complexity | ||||
2453 | dbpedia | 0 | 95 | https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum-supremacy-dr-michio-kaku-juan-carlos-zambrano | en | Quantum Supremacy by Dr Michio Kaku | https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D4E12AQGsqeAlS9MvbA/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1684091869156?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=oldOd9vszp2WvHjjXAFlQFK3v6aEQwuButxkPucOLg4 | https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D4E12AQGsqeAlS9MvbA/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1684091869156?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=oldOd9vszp2WvHjjXAFlQFK3v6aEQwuButxkPucOLg4 | [
"https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D4E12AQGsqeAlS9MvbA/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1684091869156?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=oldOd9vszp2WvHjjXAFlQFK3v6aEQwuButxkPucOLg4"
] | [
"https://www.linkedin.com/embeds/publishingEmbed.html?articleId=9012283262977252420"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Juan Carlos Zambrano"
] | 2023-05-17T00:00:01+00:00 | Quantum Supremacy by Dr Michio Kaku Chapter 1 END OF THE AGE OF SILICON A revolution is coming. In 2019 and 2020, two bombshells rocked the world of science. | en | https://static.licdn.com/aero-v1/sc/h/al2o9zrvru7aqj8e1x2rzsrca | https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum-supremacy-dr-michio-kaku-juan-carlos-zambrano | Chapter 1 END OF THE AGE OF SILICON
A revolution is coming.
In 2019 and 2020, two bombshells rocked the world of science. Two groups announced that they had achieved quantum supremacy, the fabled point at which a radically new type of computer, called a quantum computer, could decisively outperform an ordinary digital supercomputer on specific tasks. This heralded an upheaval that can change the entire computing landscape and overturn every aspect of our daily life
First, Google revealed that their Sycamore quantum computer could solve a mathematical problem in 200 seconds that would take 10,000 years on the world’s fastest supercomputer. According to MIT’s Technology Review, Google called this a major breakthrough. They likened it to the launch of Sputnik or the Wright brothers’ first flight. It was the threshold of a new era of machines that would make today’s mightiest computer look like an abacus.
Quantum computers have been called the Ultimate Computer, a decisive leap in technology with profound implications for the entire world. Instead of computing on tiny transistors, they compute on the tiniest possible object, the atoms themselves, and hence can easily surpass the power of our greatest supercomputer. Quantum computers might usher in an entirely new age for the economy, society, and our way of life
But quantum computers are more than just another powerful computer. They are a new type of computer that can tackle problems that digital computers can never solve, even with an infinite amount of time. For example, digital computers can never accurately calculate how atoms combine to create crucial chemical reactions, especially those that make life possible. Digital computers can only compute on digital tape, consisting of a series of 0s and 1s, which are too crude to describe the delicate waves of electrons dancing deep inside a molecule. For example, when tediously computing the paths taken by a mouse in a maze, a digital computer has to painfully analyze each possible path, one after the other. A quantum computer, however, simultaneously analyzes all possible paths at the same time, with lightning speed
Given the profound implications of this revolution, it is not surprising that many of the world’s leading corporations have invested heavily in this new technology. Google, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Rigetti, and Honeywell are all building quantum computer prototypes. The leaders of Silicon Valley realize that they must keep pace with this revolution or be left in the dust
Many scientists believe that we are now entering an entirely new era, with shock waves comparable to those created by the introduction of the transistor and the microchip. Companies without direct ties to computer production, like the automotive giant Daimler, which owns Mercedes-Benz, are already investing in this new technology, sensing that quantum computers may pave the way for new developments in their own industries. Julius Marcea, an executive with rival BMW, has written, We are excited to investigate the transformative potential of quantum computing on the automotive industry and are committed to extending the limits of engineering performance. Other large companies, like Volkswagen and Airbus, have set up quantum computing divisions of their own to explore how this may revolutionize their business.
Quantum Supremacy
Back in 2012, when physicist John Preskill of the California Institute of Technology first coined the term quantum supremacy, many scientists shook their heads. It would take decades, if not centuries, they thought, before quantum computers could outperform a digital computer. After all, computing on individual atoms, rather than wafers of silicon chips, was considered fiendishly difficult
Quantum computer. But these stunning announcements of quantum supremacy have so far shredded naysayers’ gloomy predictions. Now the concern is shifting to how fast the field is developing
End of Moore’s Law
What is driving all this turmoil and controversy?
The rise of quantum computers is a sign that the Age of Silicon is gradually coming to a close. For the past half-century, the explosion of computer power has been described by Moore’s law, named after Intel founder Gordon Moore. Moore’s law states that computer power doubles every eighteen months. This deceptively simple law has tracked the remarkable exponential increase in computer power, which is unprecedented in human history. There is no other invention which has had such a pervasive impact in such a brief period of time.
As Intel’s Sanjay Natarajan has said, We’ve squeezed, we believe, everything you can squeeze out of that architecture.
Silicon Valley may eventually become the next Rust Belt
Although things seem calm now, sooner or later this new future will dawn. As Hartmut Neven, director of Google’s AI lab, says, It looks like nothing is happening, nothing is happening, and then whoops, suddenly you’re in a different world.
Why Are They So Powerful?
What makes quantum computers so powerful that the nations of the world are rushing to master this new technology?
Essentially, all modern computers are based on digital information, which can be encoded in a series of 0s and 1s. The smallest unit of information, a single digit, is called a bit. This sequence of 0s and 1s is fed into a digital processor, which performs the calculation, and then produces an output
However, Nobel laureate Richard Feynman in 1959 saw a different approach to digital information. In a prophetic, pathbreaking essay titled There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom and subsequent articles, he asked: Why not replace this sequence of 0s and 1s with states of atoms, making an atomic computer? Why not replace transistors with the smallest possible object, the atom?
Atoms are like spinning tops. In a magnetic field, they can align either up or down with respect to the magnetic field, which can correspond to a 0 or a 1. The power of a digital computer is related to the number of states (the 0s or 1s) you have in your computer.
But due to the weird rules of the subatomic world, atoms can also spin in any combination of the two. For example, you can have a state in which the atom spins up 10 percent of the time and spins down 90 percent of the time. Or it spins up 65 percent of the time and spins down 35 percent of the time. In fact, there are an infinite number of ways that you can have an atom spin. This vastly increases the number of states that are possible. So the atom can carry much more information, not just in a bit, but a qubit, i.e., a simultaneous mixture of the up and down states. Digital bits can only carry one bit of information at a time, which limits their power, but qubits, or quantum bits, have almost unlimited power. The fact that, at the atomic level, objects can exist simultaneously in multiple states is called superposition. (This also means the familiar laws of common sense are routinely violated at the atomic level. At that scale, electrons can be in two places at the same time, which is not true for large objects.)
In addition, these qubits can interact with each other, which is not possible for ordinary bits. This is called entanglement. Whereas digital bits have independent states, each time you add another qubit, it interacts with all the previous qubits, so you double the number of possible interactions. Hence, quantum computers are inherently exponentially more powerful than digital computers, because you double the number of interactions every time you add an additional qubit
Google’s Sycamore quantum computer, which was the first to achieve quantum supremacy, has the power to process 72 billion billion bytes of memory with its fifty-three qubits. So a quantum computer like Sycamore dwarfs any conventional computer
The commercial and scientific implications of this are enormous. As we transition from a digital world economy to a quantum economy, the stakes are extraordinarily high
Speed Bumps to Quantum Computers
The problem facing quantum computers was also foreseen by Richard Feynman when he first proposed the concept. In order for quantum computers to work, atoms have to be arranged precisely so that they vibrate in unison. This is called coherence. But atoms are incredibly small and sensitive objects. The smallest impurity or disturbance from the outside world can cause this array of atoms to fall out of coherence, ruining the entire calculation. This fragility is the main problem facing quantum computers. So the trillion-dollar question is: Can we control decoherence?
In order to minimize the contamination coming from the outside world, scientists use special equipment to drop the temperature to near absolute zero, where unwanted vibrations are at a minimum. But this requires expensive, special pumps and tubing to reach those temperatures
But we are faced with a mystery. Mother Nature uses quantum mechanics at room temperature without a problem. For example, the miracle of photosynthesis, one of the most important processes on earth, is a quantum process, yet it takes place at normal temperatures. Mother Nature does not use a roomful of exotic devices operating at near absolute zero to execute photosynthesis. For reasons that are not well understood, in the natural world coherence can be maintained even on a warm, sunny day, when disturbances from the outside world should create chaos at the atomic level. If we could one day figure out how Mother Nature performs her magic at room temperature, then we might become masters of the quantum and even life itself
Revolutionizing the Economy
Although quantum computers pose a threat to the cybersecurity of nations in the short term, they also have vast practical implications in the long term, with the power to revolutionize the world economy, create a more sustainable future, and usher in an era of quantum medicine to help cure previously incurable diseases
There are many areas where quantum computers can overtake conventional digital computers:
Search engines
Now, increasingly it is measured in data. Companies used to throw their own financial data away, but now this information is being recognized as more valuable than precious metals. But sifting through mountains of data may overwhelm a conventional digital computer. This is where quantum computers come in, by finding the needle in the haystack. Quantum computers may be able to analyze a company’s finances in order to isolate the handful of factors that are preventing it from growing
Optimization
Once quantum computers have used search engines to identify the key factors in the data, the next question is how to adjust them to maximize certain factors, such as profit. At the very least, large corporations, universities, and government agencies will use quantum computers to minimize their expenses and maximize their efficiency and profit
Simulation
Quantum computers might also solve complex equations that are beyond the ability of digital computers. For example, engineering firms may use quantum computers to calculate the aerodynamics of jets, airplanes, and cars, to find the ideal shape that reduces friction, minimizes cost, and maximizes efficiency
But perhaps the greatest benefit is to use quantum computers to simulate hundreds of vital chemical processes. The dream would be to predict the outcome of any chemical reaction at the atomic level without using chemicals at all, only quantum computers
Merger of AI and Quantum Computers
Artificial intelligence (AI) excels at being able to learn from mistakes, so that it can perform increasingly difficult tasks. It has already proven its worth in industry and medicine. However, one limitation of AI is that the vast amount of data that it must process can easily overwhelm a conventional digital computer. But the ability to sift through mountains of data is one of the strong points of quantum computers. So the cross-fertilization of AI and quantum computers can significantly increase their power to solve problems of all kinds
Further Applications of Quantum Computers
Quantum computers have the power to change entire industries. For example, quantum computers may finally usher in the long-awaited Solar Age
Every new technology has to confront the bottom line: costs. After decades of singing the praises of solar and wind power, boosters have to face the fact that it is still a bit more expensive than fossil fuels on average. The reason is clear. When the sun does not shine and the winds don’t blow, renewable energy technology sits there unused, gathering dust.
The key bottleneck for the Solar Age is often overlooked; it is the battery. We have been spoiled by the fact that computer power grows exponentially fast, and we unconsciously assume that the same pace of improvement applies for all electronic technology
Computer power has exploded in part because we can use shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation to etch tiny transistors on a silicon chip. But batteries are different; they are messy, using a collection of exotic chemicals in complex interplay. Battery power grows slowly and tediously, by trial and error, not by systematically etching with shorter wavelengths of UV light. Furthermore, the energy stored in a battery is a tiny fraction of the energy stored in gasoline.
Quantum computers could change that. They may be able to model thousands of possible chemical reactions without having to perform them in the laboratory in order to find the most efficient process for a super battery, thereby ushering in the Solar Age
Already, utilities and car companies are using first-generation quantum computers from IBM to attack the battery problem. They are trying to increase the capacity and recharging speed for the next generation of lithium-sulfur batteries
Feeding the Planet
Another crucial application of quantum computers might be to feed the world’s growing population. Certain bacteria can effortlessly take nitrogen from the air and convert it into ammonia, which is then turned into chemicals that become fertilizer. This nitrogen-fixing process is the reason why life flourishes on earth, allowing for the growth of lush vegetation that feeds humans and animals. The Green Revolution was unleashed when chemists duplicated this feat with the Haber-Bosch process. However, this process requires a vast amount of energy. In fact, an astounding 2 percent of the entire energy production of the world goes into this process
So that is the irony. Bacteria can do something for free that consumes a huge fraction of the world’s energy
The question is: Can quantum computers solve this problem of efficient fertilizer production, creating a second Green Revolution? Without another revolution in food production, some futurists have predicted an ecological catastrophe as an ever-expanding world population becomes more and more difficult to feed, which could lead to mass starvation and food riots around the globe
Already, scientists at Microsoft have made some of the first attempts to use quantum computers to increase the yields from fertilizers and unlock the secret of nitrogen fixing
Scientists have spent decades trying to tease apart all the steps behind this process, molecule for molecule. But the problem of converting light into sugar is a quantum mechanical process. After years of effort, scientists have isolated where quantum effects dominate this process, and all are beyond the reach of digital computers. Therefore, to create a synthetic photosynthesis that could potentially be more efficient than the natural one still eludes our finest chemists.
Quantum computers may be able to help create a more efficient synthetic photosynthesis or perhaps entirely new ways of capturing the power of sunlight. The future of our food supply may depend on this
Birth of Quantum Medicine
So quantum computers have the power to rejuvenate the environment and plant life. But they can also heal the sick and dying. Not only can quantum computers simultaneously analyze the efficacy of millions of potential drugs faster than any conventional computer, they can also unravel the nature of disease itself
Quantum computers may answer questions like: What causes healthy cells to suddenly become cancerous, and how can they be stopped? What causes Alzheimer’s disease? Why are Parkinson’s and ALS incurable? More recently, the coronavirus has been known to mutate, but how dangerous are each of these mutant viruses and how will they respond to treatment?
Two of the greatest discoveries in all of medicine are antibiotics and vaccines. But new antibiotics are found largely by trial and error, without understanding precisely how they work at the molecular level, and vaccines only stimulate the human body to produce chemicals to attack an invading virus. In both cases, the precise molecular mechanisms are still a mystery, and quantum computers may offer insight into how we might develop better vaccines and antibiotics
When it comes to understanding the body, the first giant step was the Human Genome Project, which listed all of the 3 billion base pairs and 20,000 genes that form a blueprint for the human body. But this is just the beginning. The problem is that digital computers are used mainly to search through vast databases of known genetic codes, but they are helpless when it comes to explaining precisely how DNA and proteins perform their miracles inside the body. Proteins are complex objects, often consisting of thousands of atoms, which fold up into a small ball in specific and unexplainable ways when they do their molecular magic. At its most fundamental level, all life is quantum mechanical, and so beyond the reach of digital computers
But quantum computers will lead the way into the next stage, when we decipher the mechanisms at the molecular level that tell us how they work, allowing scientists to create new genetic pathways, new therapies, new cures to conquer previously incurable diseases.
In addition, the aforementioned merger of AI and quantum computers may turn out to be the future of medicine. Already, AI programs like AlphaFold have been able to map the detailed atomic structure of an astounding 350,000 different types of proteins, including the complete set of proteins that make up the human body. The next step is to use the unique methods of quantum computers to find out how these proteins do their magic, and to use them to create the next generation of drugs and therapies.
Quantum computers are already being connected to neural networks, to create the next generation of learning machines that can literally reinvent themselves. The laptop sitting on your desk, by contrast, never learns. It is no more powerful today than it was last year. Only recently, with new advances in deep learning, are computers taking the first steps to recognizing mistakes and learning. Quantum computers could exponentially accelerate this process and have singular impacts on medicine and biology
Google CEO Sundar Pichai compares the arrival of quantum computers to the Wright brothers’ historic 1903 flight. The original test was not so amazing by itself, because the flight lasted only a modest twelve seconds. But this short flight was the trigger that initiated modern aviation, which in turn has changed the course of human civilization.
What is at stake is nothing less than our future. It’s up for grabs for whoever is able to build and use a quantum computer. But to truly understand the impact this revolution might have on our daily lives, it is useful to retrace some of the valiant attempts made in the past to fulfill our dream of using computers to simulate and understand the world around us.
And it all began with a mysterious, 2,000-year-old relic found at the bottom of the Mediterranean
Chapter 2 END OF THE DIGITAL AGE
From the bottom of the Aegean Sea came one of the most intriguing, captivating puzzles of the ancient world. In 1901, divers were able to salvage a strange curiosity near the island of Antikythera. Among the scattered pieces of broken pottery, coins, jewelry, and statues in a shipwreck, divers found one object that was oddly different. At first, it looked like a worthless piece of coral-encrusted rock.
But when layers of debris were cleaned off, archaeologists began to realize that they were staring at an exceedingly rare, one-of-a-kind treasure. It was full of gears, wheels, and strange inscriptions, a machine of intricate and exquisite design.
Nowhere in the ancient record was there any mention of a mechanism this sophisticated. It dawned on them that this magnificent machine must have been the pinnacle of scientific knowledge of the ancient world. It was a supernova of brilliance staring at them from millennia past. This was the world’s oldest computer, a device that would not be duplicated for another two thousand years.
So the purpose of the world’s first computer was to simulate heavenly bodies, to reproduce the mysteries of the cosmos in a device you could hold in your hands. Instead of just staring in awe at the night sky, these ancient scientists wanted to understand its detailed workings, allowing them unprecedented insight into the motion of celestial bodies in the heavens.
Quantum Computers: The Ultimate Simulation
Archaeologists found that the Antikythera represented the pinnacle of our ancient attempts to simulate the cosmos
Simulation is one of our deepest human desires. Children use simulation with toy figures to understand human behavior. When children play cops and robbers, teacher and student, or doctor and patient, they are simulating a piece of adult society in order to understand complex human relations
Sadly, it would take many centuries before scientists could build machines of sufficient complexity to simulate our world as well as the Antikythera could
Babbage and the Difference Machine
Charles Babbage, who is often called the Father of the Computer. He dabbled in a number of disparate fields, including art and even politics, but was always fascinated by numbers. Fortunately, he was born into a wealthy family, so his banker father could help him pursue many of his diverse interests.
His dream was to create the most advanced computing machine of his time, which could be used by bankers, engineers, sailors, and the military to unerringly perform tedious but essential calculations
He was quite persuasive in recruiting eager followers to help him advance his ambitious project. One of them was Lady Ada Lovelace, a member of the aristocracy and daughter of Lord Byron. She was also a serious student of mathematics, which was rare for women of that time. When she saw a small working model of Babbage’s project, she became intrigued by this exciting program
Lovelace is known for helping Babbage introduce several new concepts in computing. Usually, a mechanical computer required a set of gears and cogs to slowly and painstakingly calculate numbers, one by one
Lovelace was, in a sense, the world’s first programmer. Historians agree that Babbage was probably aware of the importance of software and programming, but her detailed notes written up in 1843 represented the first published account of a computer program.
But about a century after his death, engineers at the London Science Museum, by following his designs on paper, were able to finish one of his models and put it on display. And it worked, just as Babbage had predicted in the previous century.
Is Mathematics Complete?
In 1900, the great German mathematician David Hilbert listed the most important unproven mathematical questions of the time, challenging the world’s greatest mathematicians. This remarkable set of unsolved questions would then guide the agenda of mathematics for the next century as, one by one, each unproven theorem would be proven. Over the decades, young mathematicians would find fame and glory as they conquered one of Hilbert’s unfinished theorems
Alan Turing: Computer Science Pioneer
A few years later, one young English mathematician, who was intrigued by Gödel’s famous incompleteness theorem, found an ingenious way to reframe the entire question. It
would forever change the direction of computer science.
Alan Turing’s exceptional ability was recognized early in his life. The headmistress of his elementary school would write that, among her students, she has clever boys and hardworking boys, but Alan is a genius. He would later be known as the father of computer science and artificial intelligence
Instead of building increasingly complex adding machines like Babbage’s difference engine, Alan Turing eventually asked himself a different question: Is there a mathematical limit to what a mechanical computer can perform?
Turing imagined an infinitely long tape, which contained a series of squares or cells. Inside each square, you could put a 0 or a 1, or you could leave it blank
Then a processor read the tape, and was allowed to make just six simple operations on it. Basically, you could replace a 0 with a 1, or vice versa, and move the processor one square to the left or right:
You can read the number in the square, You can write a number in the square, You can move one square to the left, You can move one square to the right, You can change the number in the square, You can stop
The Turing machine is written in binary language, rather than base 10. In binary language, the number one is represented by 1, the number two is represented by 10, the number three is represented by 11, the number four by 100, and so on. There is also a memory where numbers can be stored.) Then the final numerical result emerges from the processor as output.
In other words, the Turing machine can take one number and turn it into another according to precise commands in the software. So Turing reduced mathematics to a game: by systematically replacing 0 with 1 and vice versa, one could encode all of mathematics.
Computers in Warfare
Clearly, Turing had proved himself to be a mathematical genius of the highest caliber. But his research was interrupted by World War II. To aid in the war effort, Turing was recruited to perform top secret work at the British military installation at Bletchley Park outside London. There they were tasked with decoding secret Nazi codes
But Turing was also involved with another project, Colossus, with an even more ingenious design. Historians believe it was the world’s first programmable digital electronic computer. Instead of mechanical parts like the difference engine or the bombe, they used vacuum tubes, which can send electrical signals near the speed of light. Vacuum tubes can be compared to valves controlling the flow of water. By turning a small valve, one can shut off the water flowing in a much larger pipe, or let it flow unimpeded. This, in turn, can represent the number 0 or 1. So a system of water pipes and valves can represent a digital computer, where the water is like the flow of electricity. In the machines at Bletchley Park, a large array of vacuum tubes could perform digital calculations at enormous speeds by turning the flow of electricity on or off in the vacuum tubes. Thus, the work of Turing and others replaced the analog computer with a digital computer. One version of Colossus contained 2,400 vacuum tubes and filled up an entire room
Under the enormous pressure of wartime, Turing and his team were able to finally break the Nazi code around 1942, which helped defeat the Nazi naval fleet in the Atlantic. Soon, the Allies were able to penetrate the deepest secret plans of the Nazi military. The Allies were able to eavesdrop on Nazi instructions to their troops and anticipate their war plans. Colossus was finished in 1944, in time for the final invasion of Normandy, which the Nazis did not adequately prepare for. This sealed the fate of the Nazi empire.
Turing and the Creation of AI
After the war, Turing returned to an age-old problem that had intrigued him as a youth: artificial intelligence. In 1950, he opened his landmark paper on the subject by stating, I propose to consider the question: Can machines think?
Or to put it another way, is the brain a Turing machine of some sort?
He was tired of all the philosophical discussions that stretched back centuries about the meaning of consciousness, the soul, and what makes us human. Ultimately, all this discussion was pointless, he thought, because there was no definitive test or benchmark for consciousness.
So Turing came up with the celebrated Turing test. Put a human in a sealed room and a robot in another room. You are allowed to ask each one any written question and read their responses. The challenge is: Can you determine which room held the human? He called this test the imitation game.
The Turing test replaces endless philosophical debate with a simple reproducible test, to which there is a simple yes-or-no answer. Unlike a philosophical question, for which there is often no answer, this test is decidable
It is a tragedy that one of the creators of the computer revolution, who helped save the lives of millions and defeat fascism, was in some sense destroyed by his own country.
But another revolution in our understanding of the world would overturn this idea. Determinism would be overthrown. In the same way that Gödel and Turing helped show that mathematics is incomplete, perhaps computers of the future would have to deal with the fundamental uncertainty introduced by physics.
So mathematicians would focus on a different question: Is it possible to build a quantum Turing machine?
Chapter 3 RISE OF THE QUANTUM
Max Planck, the creator of the quantum theory, was a man of many contradictions. On one hand, he was the ultimate conservative. It might be because his father was a professor of law at the University of Kiel, and his family had a long, distinguished tradition of integrity and public service. Both his grandfather and great-grandfather were theology professors, and one of his uncles was a judge.
He was cautious in his work, ever precise in his manners, and a pillar of the establishment. Judging by appearances, this mild-mannered man would be the last person you would think would become one of the greatest revolutionaries of all time, shattering all the cherished notions of previous centuries by opening up the quantum floodgates. But that is exactly what he did.
According to Newton, the universe was a clock. It was ticking away following his three laws of motion in a precise and predetermined way. This was called Newtonian determinism, which held sway for several centuries
But there was a nagging problem. There were a few loose strings, and by pulling on them, this elaborate Newtonian architecture would eventually unravel
Birth of the Quantum Theory
It was the first step in a long process that would eventually create the quantum computer.
Planck’s revolutionary insight meant that Newtonian mechanics was incomplete, and a new physics must emerge. Everything we thought we knew about the universe would have to be completely rewritten.
But being a proper conservative, he proposed his idea cautiously, diplomatically claiming that if you introduce this trick of packets of energy as an exercise, then you can precisely reproduce the actual energy curve found in nature.
To do the calculation, he had to introduce a number representing the size of the quantum of energy. He called it h (otherwise known as Planck’s constant, 6.62…x 10-34 joule-seconds), which is an incredibly small number. In our world, we never see quantum effects because h is so small. But if you could somehow vary h, one could continuously move from the quantum world to our everyday world. Almost like tuning a radio dial, one could turn it all the way down, so h = 0, and we have the commonsense world of Newton, where there are no quantum effects. But turn it the other way, and we have the bizarre subatomic world of the quantum, a world that, as physicists would shortly find out, resembled the Twilight Zone.
We can also apply this to a computer. If we let h go to zero, we arrive at the classical Turing machine. But if we let h get larger, then quantum effects begin to emerge, and we slowly turn the classical Turing machine into a quantum computer
Although his theory indisputably fit the experimental data and opened up an entirely new branch of physics, he was hounded for years by stubborn, die-hard believers in the classical, Newtonian idea. Describing this blizzard of opposition, Planck wrote: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
But no matter how fierce the opposition was, more and more evidence began to pile up confirming the quantum theory. It was indisputably correct
The man who explained the photoelectric effect was Albert Einstein, and he did it using Planck’s theory. Following Planck, Einstein claimed that light energy could occur in discrete packets or quanta of energy (later called photons) that could knock electrons out of a metal
One day, Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger was discussing the idea of matter as a wave with a colleague. But if matter can act like a wave, his friend asked, then what is the equation that it must obey?
Schrödinger was intrigued by that question. Physicists were familiar with waves, since they were useful in studying the optical properties of light, and were often analyzed in the form of ocean waves or sound waves in music. So Schrödinger set out to find the wave equation for electrons. It was an equation that would completely overturn our understanding of the universe. In some sense, the entire universe, with all its chemical elements, including you and me, are solutions of Schrödinger’s wave equation
Birth of the Wave Equation
Today, Schrödinger’s wave equation is the bedrock of the quantum theory, taught in any graduate course in advanced physics. It forms the heart and soul of the quantum theory. I sometimes spend an entire semester at the City University of New York teaching the implications of this one equation
Schrödinger’s equation was a bombshell. It was an immediate, overwhelming success. Previously, physicists like Ernest Rutherford thought that the atom was like a solar system, with tiny pointlike electrons circling around a nucleus. This picture, however, was much too simplistic because it said nothing about the structure of the atom and why there were so many elements
But if the electron was a wave, then the wave should form discrete resonances of definite frequencies as it circled around the nucleus. When one catalogued the resonances that an electron could make, one found a wave pattern that fit the description of the hydrogen atom perfectly.
How does this work? When we sing in the shower, only some of the waves from our voice can resonate between the walls, making a pleasing sound. We suddenly become great opera singers while in the shower. Other frequencies that don’t fit correctly inside the shower eventually die out and fade away. Similarly, if we beat on a drum, or blow on a trumpet, only certain frequencies are allowed to vibrate on its surface or in its pipes. This is the basis of music
The Quantum Atom
The periodic table of elements, which was painstakingly assembled by chemists over centuries, could now be explained using a simple equation, by solving for the resonances of electron waves as they whirl around the nucleus of the atom
It was breathtaking to realize that a single equation could explain the elements that make up the entire universe, including life itself. Suddenly, the universe was simpler than anyone thought
Chemistry has been reduced to physics
Waves of Probability
As spectacular and powerful as the Schrödinger equation was, there was still one important, but embarrassing, question. If the electron was a wave, then what is waving?
The solution would divide the physics community right down the middle, pitting physicists against one another for decades to come. It would spark one of the most controversial debates in the entire history of science, challenging our very notion of existence. Even today, there are conferences debating all the mathematical nuances and philosophical implications of this split. And one by-product of this debate, as it would turn out, is the quantum computer
Physicist Max Born lit the fuse of this explosion by postulating that matter consists of particles, but the probability of finding that particle is given by a wave
This immediately cleaved the physics community in two, with the founders of the old guard on one side (including Planck, Einstein, de Broglie, and Schrödinger, all denouncing this new interpretation), and Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr on the other, creating the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics.
So with this new interpretation, the principles of quantum theory could now finally be expressed. Here is a (very simplified) summary of the basics of quantum mechanics:
Start with the wave function Ψ(x), which describes an electron located at the point x.
Insert the wave into the Schrödinger equation HΨ(x) = i(h/2π) ∂tΨ(x). (H, which is known as the Hamiltonian, corresponds to the energy of the system.)
Each solution of this equation is labeled an index n, so in general, Ψ(x) is a sum or superposition of all these multiple states.
When a measurement is made, the wave function collapses, leaving only one state Ψ(x)n, i.e., all the other waves are set to zero. The probability of finding the electron in this state is given by the absolute value of Ψ(x)n
But the most crucial and outrageous statement is number four, which holds that only after a measurement is made will the wave finally collapse and yield the correct answer, giving the probability of finding the electron in that state. One cannot know which state the electron is in until a measurement is made.
This is called the measurement problem
It is precisely postulates 3 and 4 that make quantum computers possible. The electron is now described as the simultaneous sum over different quantum states, which gives quantum computers their calculational power.
Ironically, Schrödinger, whose equations started the whole quantum mechanics bandwagon in the first place, began to denounce this version of his own theory
Schrödinger’s Cat
Schrödinger’s cat is the most famous animal in all of physics. Schrödinger believed it would demolish this heresy once and for all. Imagine, he wrote, there is a cat in a sealed box, which contains a vial of poison gas. This vial is connected to a hammer, which is attached to a Geiger counter next to a quantity of uranium. If an atom of the uranium decays, it activates the Geiger counter, which sets off the hammer, thus releasing the poison and killing the cat
Now here is the question that has baffled the world’s top physicists for the past century: Before you open the box, is the cat dead or alive?
A Newtonian would say that the answer is obvious: common sense says that the cat is either dead or alive, but not both. You can only be in one state at a time. Even before you opened the box, the cat’s fate was already predetermined.
However, Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr had a radically different interpretation.
They said that the cat is best represented by the sum of two waves: the wave of the live cat and the dead cat. When the box is still sealed, the cat can only exist as the superposition or sum of two waves simultaneously representing a dead and a live cat.
But is the cat dead or alive? As long as the box is sealed, this question makes no sense. In the microworld, things do not exist in definite states, but only as the sum of all possible states. Finally, when the box is opened and you observe the cat, the wave miraculously collapses and reveals the cat as being either dead or alive, but not both. So the process of measurement connects the microworld and the macroworld.
This has deep philosophical implications. Scientists spent many centuries arguing against something called solipsism, the idea that philosophers like George Berkeley believed that objects do not really exist unless you observe them
Microworld Versus Macroworld
But no matter how crazy the quantum theory appeared to be, its experimental success was indisputable. Many of its predictions (when predicting the properties of electrons and photons in what is called
For example, if we can hypothetically live in a completely quantum world, it means that everything we know about common sense is wrong. For example:
We can be two places at the same time.
We can disappear and reappear somewhere else.
We can walk through walls and penetrate barriers effortlessly, which is called tunneling.
People who have died in our universe might be alive in another.
When we walk across a room, we actually simultaneously take all the infinite number of possible paths across the room, no matter how bizarre.
Entanglement
In 1930, Einstein had had enough. At the Sixth Solvay Conference in Brussels, Einstein decided he would go head-to-head and challenge Niels Bohr, the leading proponent of quantum mechanics. It was to be the Clash of Titans, with the greatest physicists of the age debating the very destiny of physics and the nature of reality. What was at stake was the very meaning of existence. Physicist Paul Ehrenfest would write, I will never forget the sight of the two opponents leaving the university club. Einstein, a majestic figure, walking calmly with a faint ironical smile, and Bohr trotting along by his side, extremely upset. Later, Bohr was so shaken that he could be seen muttering to himself, Einstein…Einstein…Einstein…
Physicist John Archibald Wheeler recalled, It was the greatest debate in intellectual history that I know about. In thirty years, I never heard of a debate between two greater men over a longer period of time on a deeper issue with deeper consequences for understanding this strange world of ours.
Five years later, Einstein mounted his final counterattack. With his students Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, they made one last valiant attempt to smash the quantum theory once and for all. The EPR paper, named after its authors, was to be the final blow against the quantum theory.
One unforeseen by-product of this fateful challenge would be the quantum computer
Imagine, they said, two electrons that are coherent with each other, meaning they are vibrating in unison, i.e., with the same frequency but shifted by a constant phase. It is well known that electrons have spin (which is the reason why we have magnets). If we have two electrons with a total spin of zero, and if we let one electron spin, say, clockwise, then the other electron spins counterclockwise because the net spin is zero.
Now separate the two electrons. The sum of the spins of the two electrons must still be zero, even if one electron is now on the other side of the galaxy. But you cannot know how it is spinning before you take a measurement. But strangely, if you measure the spin of one electron and find it is spinning clockwise, then you instantly know that its partner on the other side of the galaxy must be spinning counterclockwise. This information traveled instantaneously between the two electrons, faster than the speed of light. In other words, as you separate these two electrons, an invisible umbilical cord emerges between them, allowing communication to travel through the cord faster than the speed of light
But, claimed Einstein, since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, this was in violation of special relativity, and hence quantum mechanics is incorrect. This was the killer argument that disproved the quantum theory, Einstein thought. He rested his case
Today, this principle is called entanglement, the idea that when two objects are coherent with each other (vibrating in the same way), then they remain coherent, even if separated by vast distances
This has major implications for quantum computers. It means that, even if the qubits in a quantum computer are separated, they can still interact with each other, which is responsible for the fantastic computational ability of quantum computers
This gets at the essence of why quantum computers are so unique and useful. An ordinary digital computer, in a sense, is like several accountants toiling away independently in an office, each doing one calculation separately, and handing off their answers from one to another. But a quantum computer is like a roomful of interacting accountants, each one simultaneously computing, and, importantly, communicating with each other via entanglement. So we say that they are coherently solving this problem together
Tragedy of War
Unfortunately, this vibrant intellectual debate was interrupted by the rising tide of world war. Suddenly, the scholarly discussions about the quantum theory became deadly serious, as both Nazi Germany and the U.S. instituted crash programs to develop the atomic bomb. The Second World War would have devastating consequences for the physics community.
Planck, witnessing the wholesale migration of Jewish physicists from Germany, personally met with Adolf Hitler, pleading him to stop the persecution of Jewish physicists, which was destroying German physics. However, Hitler became enraged at Planck and screamed at him.
Erwin Schrödinger, who witnessed a Jewish man being beaten by the Nazis in the streets in Berlin, tried to stop the attack, only to be beaten himself by the SS.
Chapter 4 DAWN OF QUANTUM COMPUTERS
The transistor is a paradox.
Usually, the larger an invention, the more powerful it is. Huge double-decker jetliners can carry loads of passengers halfway around the world in a matter of hours. Rockets today are towering inventions able to send multiton payloads to Mars. The nearly seventeen-mile-long Large Hadron Collider cost over $10 billion and may one day unravel the secret of the Big Bang. Its circumference is so big that much of the city of Geneva can be put inside the perimeter of the machine
Yet the transistor, perhaps the most important invention of the twentieth century, is so small that billions of them can fit on your fingernail. It is not an exaggeration to say that it has revolutionized every aspect of human society.
So sometimes smaller is better. For example, sitting on your shoulders is the most complex object in the known universe, the human brain. Consisting of 100 billion neurons, each connected to about 10,000 other neurons, the human brain in its complexity exceeds anything known to science
So both a microchip made of billions of transistors and the human brain can be held in your hand, yet they are the most sophisticated objects that we know about
Why is that? Their incredibly small size hides the fact that you can store and manipulate vast amounts of information within them. Furthermore, the way that this information is stored resembles a Turing machine, giving them tremendous calculational power. A microchip is the heart of a digital computer with a finite input tape (though Turing machines in principle can have an infinite tape). And the brain is a learning machine or neural network that constantly modifies itself as it learns new things. A Turing machine can be modified so it too can learn like a neural network.
But if the power of the transistor comes from being microscopic, then the next question is: How small can you make a computer? What is the smallest transistor?
Genius in Action
Richard Feynman was one of a kind. There will probably never be another physicist like him.
On one hand, Feynman was a charismatic showman, fond of amusing audiences with outrageous stories of his past and his crazy antics. In his rough accent, he sounded like a truck driver as he told colorful tales about his life.
Always interested in new, quirky experiences, he once sealed himself in a hyperbaric chamber to find out if he could leave his body and see himself floating from a distance. And he would love to play his bongos at all hours of the day.
Birth of Nanotech
Above all, Feynman was a visionary
Feynman realized that computers were becoming smaller and smaller. So he asked himself a simple question: How small can you make a computer?
He realized that in the future, transistors would become so small they would eventually become the size of atoms. In fact, he conjectured, the next frontier for physics could be to create machines as small as atoms, pioneering a growing field now called nanotechnology.
He realized that in the atomic realm, new fantastic inventions are possible. The current laws of physics that we use on the macroscale become obsolete at the atomic scale, and we have to open our minds to entirely new possibilities. His ideas were first expressed in a speech he gave to the American Physical Society at Caltech in 1959, titled There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom, anticipating the birth of a new science.
His basic idea was simple: to create tiny machines that could arrange the atoms the way we want. Any tool that we use in our workshop would be miniaturized to the size of fundamental particles. Mother Nature manipulates atoms all the time. Why can’t we?
He summarized his idea for quantum computers by saying, Nature isn’t classical, dammit, and if you want to make a simulation of nature, you’d better make it quantum mechanical.
This is a profound observation. Classical digital computers, no matter how powerful, can never successfully simulate a quantum process
Quantum Sum Over Paths
He realized that in a quantum computer this would have tremendous calculational power. Think of a maze. If a classical mouse were put in a maze, it would tediously try out many possible paths, one after the other, in sequence, which is extremely slow. But if you put a quantum mouse in a maze, it simultaneously sniffs out all possible paths at the same time. When applied to a quantum computer, this principle exponentially increases its power
So Feynman rewrote the quantum theory in terms of the principle of least action. In this view, subatomic particles sniff out all possible paths. On each path he put a factor related to the action and Planck’s constant. Then he summed or integrated over all possible paths. This is now called the path integral approach, because you are adding up contributions from all the paths an object can take
Much to his shock, he found he could derive the Schrödinger equation. In fact, he found that he could summarize all of quantum physics in terms of this simple principle. So decades after Schrödinger introduced his wave equation by magic, with no derivation, Feynman was able to unify the entirety of quantum mechanics, including the Schrödinger equation, using this path integral approach
As a physicist, I work with relativistic versions of Schrödinger’s equation, which is called quantum field theory, i.e., the quantum theory of subatomic particles at high energies. The very first thing I do when calculating with quantum field theory is to follow Feynman and start with the action. I then calculate over all possible paths to get the equations of motion. So Feynman’s path integral approach, in some sense, has swallowed up all of quantum field theory
But this formalism is not just a trick; it also has some profound implications for life on earth. We saw earlier that quantum computers have to be kept at near absolute zero. But Mother Nature can perform marvelous quantum reactions at room temperature (such as photosynthesis and the fixing of nitrogen for fertilizers). Under classical physics, there is so much noise and jostling of atoms at room temperature that many chemical processes should be impossible in those conditions. In other words, photosynthesis violates the laws of Newton
So how does Mother Nature solve the problem of decoherence, the most difficult problem in quantum computers, to enable photosynthesis at room temperature?
By summing over all paths. As Feynman showed, electrons can sniff out all possible paths to do their miraculous work. In other words, photosynthesis, and hence life itself, may be a by-product of Feynman’s path integral approach
Quantum Turing Machine
In 1981, Feynman emphasized that only a quantum computer can truly simulate a quantum process. But Feynman did not elaborate on precisely how a quantum computer might be built. The next person who picked up the torch was David Deutsch of Oxford University. Among other achievements, he was able to answer the question: Can you apply quantum mechanics to a Turing machine? Feynman had hinted at this problem, but never wrote down the equations for a quantum Turing machine. Deutsch went on to fill in all the details. He even designed an algorithm that could run on this hypothetical quantum Turing machine
In the same way that Turing was able to make the field of digital computers rigorous by introducing the precise rules of Turing machines, Deutsch helped make the foundation of quantum computers rigorous. By isolating the essence of how qubits are manipulated, he helped standardize work on quantum computers
Perhaps the most outrageous of these proposals was made in 1956 by graduate student Hugh Everett. We recall that the quantum theory can be summarized in roughly four broad principles. The last one is the sticking point, where we collapse the wave function to decide what state the system is in. Everett’s proposal was daring and controversial: his theory says simply to drop the last statement that says the wave collapses so it never does at all. Each possible solution continues to exist in its own reality, producing, as the theory is known, many worlds.
Parallel Universes
But not only is Deutsch well known for developing the concept of quantum computers, he also takes seriously the deep philosophical questions raised by them. In the usual Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, one has to make an observation to finally determine where an electron is. Before an observation is made, the electron is in a fuzzy mixture of several states. But when the state of the electron is measured, the wave function magically collapses down to one physical state. This is how one extracts numerical answers from a quantum computer.
Many Worlds
However, Everett’s and Deutsch’s theories challenge the very nature of reality. The many worlds theory is one that overturns our conception of existence itself. Its consequences are staggering
Unfortunately, Everett’s idea was so radical, so out of this world, that it was uniformly ignored by physicists for decades. Only recently has it experienced a revival as physicists rediscover his work
Rebirth of Parallel Universes
Meanwhile, during the years he was working on nuclear warfare, his ideas began to slowly percolate in the physics community. One problem arose when physicists tried to apply quantum mechanics to the entire universe, i.e., to create a quantum theory of gravity
In quantum mechanics, we start with a wave that describes how an electron can be in many parallel states at the same time. At the end, the observer makes a measurement from the outside and collapses the wave function. But we encounter problems when applying this process to the entire universe
So if you try to apply superposition to the entire universe, then you necessarily wind up with parallel universes, just as Everett predicted. In other words, the starting point of quantum mechanics is that the electron can be in two states at the same time. When we apply quantum mechanics to the entire universe, it means that the universe must also exist in parallel states, i.e., in parallel universes. So parallel universes are unavoidable.
Parallel Universes in Your Living Room
Nobel laureate Steve Weinberg once explained to me how to mentally get your head around the many worlds theory so your mind doesn’t explode. Imagine, he said, sitting quietly in your living room, with radio waves from various radio stations around the world filling the air. In principle, there are hundreds of signals from various radio stations in your living room. But your radio is only tuned to one frequency; it can only pick up one station, because you are no longer vibrating in sync with other radio stations. In other words, your radio has decohered from the other radio waves filling up your living room. Your living room is full of different radio stations, but you cannot hear them because you are not tuned into them, or coherent with them
Now, he told me, replace the radio waves with quantum waves of electrons and atoms. In your very living room, there are the waves of parallel universes, i.e., the waves of dinosaurs, aliens, pirates, volcanoes
David Deutsch takes these mind-boggling concepts seriously. Why are quantum computers so powerful? he asks. Because the electrons are simultaneously calculating in parallel universes. They are interacting and interfering with each other via entanglement. So they can quickly outrace a traditional computer that computes in only one universe
To demonstrate this, he takes out a portable laser experiment that he keeps in his office. It simply consists of a sheet of paper with two holes in it. He shines a laser beam through both holes and finds a beautiful interference pattern on the other side. This is because the wave has passed through both holes simultaneously, and has interfered with itself on the other side, giving rise to an interference pattern
This is nothing new
But now, he says, gradually reduce the intensity of the laser beam to almost zero. Eventually you have not a wave front, but just a single photon passing through both holes. But how can a single photon of light pass through both holes simultaneously?
In the usual Copenhagen interpretation, before you measure the photon, it actually exists as the sum of two waves, one for each hole. Isolating a single photon has no meaning until you measure it. Once you measure it, then you know which hole it went through.
Everett did not like this picture, because it meant that you could never answer the question: Which hole did the photon enter before we measured it? Now apply this to electrons. In Everett’s many worlds theory, the electron is a point particle that indeed went through just one hole, but there was another twin electron in a parallel universe that went through the other hole. These two electrons, in two different universes, then interacted with each other via entanglement to alter the trajectory of the electron to create the interference pattern.
In conclusion, a single photon can pass through only one slit, but it can still create an interference pattern because the photon can interact with its counterpart moving in a parallel universe
Summary of Quantum Theory
Let’s now summarize all the bizarre features of the quantum theory that make quantum computers possible.
Superposition. Before you observe an object, it exists in many possible states. So an electron can be in two places at the same time. This vastly increases the power of a computer, since you have more states to calculate with
Entanglement. When two particles are coherent and you separate them, they can still influence each other. This interaction takes place instantly. This allows atoms to communicate with each other, even when separated. This means that computer power grows exponentially as more and more qubits are added that can interact with each other, far faster than ordinary computers.
Sum over paths. When a particle moves between two points, it sums over all possible paths connecting these two points. The most likely path is the classical, nonquantum path, but all these other paths also contribute to the final quantum path of the particle. This means that even paths which are extremely unlikely may become real. Perhaps the paths of molecules that created life became real because of this effect, making life possible
Tunneling. When faced with a large energy barrier, normally a particle fails to penetrate it. But in quantum mechanics, there is a small but finite probability that you can tunnel or penetrate through the barrier. This might be why the complex chemical reactions of life can proceed at room temperature, even without vast amounts of energy
Shor’s Breakthrough
Up until the 1990s, quantum computers were still largely a plaything for theoreticians. They existed in the minds of a small but brilliant core of scientists, true believers, and academics
But the work of Peter Shor at AT&T in the early 1990s changed everything. Far from being a minor footnote talked about casually at water coolers, quantum computers suddenly were on the agenda of major governments around the world. Security analysts, who may have little need for a physics background, were now being asked to decipher the mysteries of the quantum theory.
Everyone who watches a James Bond movie knows that the world, with so many competing and even hostile national interests, is full of spies and secret codes. This may be a Hollywood exaggeration, but the crown jewels of these security agencies are the codes they use to protect their most valuable national secrets. We recall that Turing’s success breaking the Nazi Enigma code was a historic turning point, helping shorten the length of the war and altering the course of human history
Up to then, work on quantum computers was highly speculative and was the domain of the most esoteric electrical engineers. But Shor showed that it is possible for a quantum computer to break any digital code currently in use, thereby jeopardizing the world economy, which requires absolute secrecy when sending billions of dollars over the internet.
The key advantage of a quantum computer is time. Although both classical and quantum computers can perform certain tasks, the time it takes classical computers to crack a difficult problem may make it totally impractical
In other words, both a classical computer and quantum computer factorize in much the same way, except the quantum computer computes over many states simultaneously, which greatly speeds up the process.
So the calculation time can rapidly rise to astronomical heights, comparable to the age of the universe. This makes the factorization of a large number possible but highly impractical on a conventional computer.
But if we do the same calculation using a quantum computer, the time to factorize only grows like t ~ Nn, i.e., like a polynomial, because quantum computers are astronomically faster than a digital computer
Laser Internet
In the future, top secret messages may be sent on a separate internet channel carried by laser beams, not electrical cables. Laser beams are polarized, meaning that the waves vibrate in only one plane. When a criminal tries to tap into the laser beam, this changes the direction of polarization of the laser, which is immediately detected by a monitor. In this way, you know, by the laws of the quantum theory, that someone has tapped into your communication.
So if a criminal tries to intercept a transmission, it will inevitably set alarm bells ringing. It does require, however, a separate internet based on lasers to carry the most important national secrets, which would be an expensive solution
Chapter 5 THE RACE IS ON
Some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley are now placing their bets on which horse will win this race. It’s too early to tell at this point who that might be, but what is at stake is nothing less than the future of the world economy
Similarly, quantum computers can also have a wide range of possible designs. Basically, any quantum system that can superimpose states of 0s and 1s and entangle them so that they can process this information can become a quantum computer. Electrons and ions that spin up or down could serve this purpose, or polarized photons that spin clockwise or counterclockwise. Since the quantum theory governs all matter and energy in the universe, there are potentially thousands of ways to build a quantum computer. In a lazy afternoon, a physicist may dream up scores of ways of representing the superposition of 0s and 1s to create an entirely new quantum computer.
So what do those various designs look like, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each? As we saw, companies and governments are investing billions in this technology, and their choice of design may influence who will come to dominate this race. So far, IBM is leading the pack with 433 qubits, but like a horse race, the exact rankings can change at any time.
As we go to press, IBM released the 433-qubit Osprey quantum computer and will deploy the 1,121-qubit Condor quantum computer in 2023. Dario Gil, IBM senior vice president and head of its research division, says, We believe that we will be able to reach a demonstration of quantum advantage—something that can have practical value—within the next couple of years. That is our quest. In fact, IBM has publicly stated that its goal is to eventually build a million-qubit quantum computer.
Superconducting Quantum Computer
At present, the superconducting quantum computer has set the bar for computing power. Back in 2019, Google was first out of the gate, announcing that it had achieved quantum supremacy with its Sycamore superconducting quantum computer
However, IBM was not far behind, and later surged ahead with its Eagle quantum processor, which broke the 100-qubit barrier in 2021 and has since developed the 433-qubit Osprey processor
The superconducting quantum computer relies on this technology as well. By bringing the temperature down to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, the circuits become quantum mechanical, i.e., they become coherent, so the superposition of electrons is undisturbed. Then, by bringing various circuits together, one can entangle them so that quantum calculations are possible
However, because it is impossible to actually reach absolute zero, errors will inevitably creep into the calculation. While an ordinary digital computer does not have to worry about this, it becomes a major headache for the quantum computer. It means that you cannot entirely trust the results. This could be a serious problem if billions of dollars in transactions are at stake.
Ion Trap Quantum Computer
Yet another contender is the ion trap quantum computer. When you take an electrically neutral atom and strip off some electrons, you get a positively charged ion. An ion can be suspended in a trap consisting of a series of electric and magnetic fields, and when multiple ions are introduced they vibrate as coherent qubits
Photonic Quantum Computers
Soon after Google made its claim of achieving quantum supremacy, the Chinese announced that they broke an even larger barrier, performing a calculation in 200 seconds that would take a digital computer half a billion years
When quantum physicist Fabio Sciarrino of Sapienza University in Rome heard the news, he recalled, My first impression was, Wow! Their quantum computer, instead of computing on electrons, computes on laser light beams
Because photonic computers operate at room temperature, their coherence time is quite short. But this is compensated for by the fact that the laser beams can have high energy, so the calculations can be done much faster than the coherence time, so the molecules in the environment appear as if they were moving in slow motion
More recently, a Canadian start-up called Xanadu has introduced its photonic quantum computer, which has a distinct edge. It is based on a tiny chip (not a tabletopful of optical hardware) that manipulates infrared laser light through a microscopic maze of beam splitters. Unlike the Chinese design, the Xanadu chip is programmable and its computer is available on the internet. However, it only has eight qubits, and still requires some superconducting freezers
Silicon Photonic Computers
The big advantage of silicon photonic computers would be that they can use the tried-and-true methods perfected by the semiconductor industry.
One of the keys to their program is the dual nature of silicon. Not only can silicon be used to make transistors and hence control the flow of electrons, it can also be used to transmit light, since it is transparent to certain frequencies of infrared radiation. This dual nature is crucial to entangling photons
One big selling point is that they can address the problem of error correction. Since errors creep into any calculation because of interactions with the environment, you want redundancy built into the system by creating redundant qubits. With a million qubits, they feel that they can begin to control these errors, so that real practical calculations can be done on the computer.
Topological Quantum Computers
The dark horse in this race is the Microsoft design, which uses topological processors
As we’ve seen, one major problem facing several of the previous designs is that the temperature must be kept near absolute zero. But according to quantum theory, there is another way besides ion traps and photonic systems to create a quantum computer. A system can remain stable at room temperature if it maintains some special topological properties that are always preserved. Think of a circular piece of rope with a knot in it. If you are not allowed to cut the rope, then no matter how hard you try, the knot cannot be removed
D-Wave Quantum Computers
There is currently one last type of quantum computing called quantum annealing, being pursued by the D-Wave company, based in Canada. Though it does not use the full power of quantum computers, D-Wave claims it can produce machines that can reach 5,600 qubits, far beyond the number found in other competing designs, and has plans to offer computers with more than 7,000 qubits in a few years
In summary, there is intense competition among corporations and even governments to get a head start on this new technology. The rate of progress in this field has been astounding. Every major computer company has their own quantum computer program. Prototypes are already proving their worth and are even being sold on the marketplace.
But the next big challenge is for quantum computers to solve real-world practical problems that can alter the trajectory of entire industries. Scientists and engineers are focusing on problems that are far beyond the reach of digital computers. The goal is to apply quantum computers to solve the biggest problems in science and technology
One focus of research is to uncover the quantum mechanics behind the origin of life, which will help unravel the mystery of photosynthesis, feed the planet, provide society with energy, and cure incurable diseases.
PART II QUANTUM COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY
Chapter 6 THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
Every culture has its cherished mythology about the beginning of life. People have often wondered what could possibly explain the glorious richness and diversity on earth. In the Bible, for example, God created the heavens and earth in six days. He created man in His image out of dust, and then breathed life into him. He created all the plants and animals to be ruled by us.
The origin of life is perhaps one of the greatest mysteries of all time. This question has dominated religious, philosophical, and scientific discussions like no other. Throughout history, many of the deepest thinkers believed that there was a mysterious life force that could animate the inanimate. Many scientists, in fact, believed in something called spontaneous generation, that life could magically arise by itself out of inanimate matter.
Even today, there are many gaps in our understanding of how life first originated on the earth almost 4 billion years ago. In fact, digital computers are useless when analyzing the fundamental biological and chemical processes at the atomic level that might shed light on this problem. Even the simplest molecular process can quickly overwhelm the capacity of a digital computer. However, quantum mechanics may help explain many of these gaps and unravel the mysteries of life. Quantum computers are ideally suited for this problem and are now beginning to uncover some of the deepest secrets of life at the molecular level.
Two Breakthroughs
Two monumental breakthroughs occurred in the 1950s that have set the agenda for further research in the origins of life. The first occurred in 1952, when a graduate student, Stanley Miller, working under Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, did a simple experiment
Since then, this simple experiment has been repeated and modified hundreds of times, giving scientists a revealing look into the ancient chemical reactions that may have spawned life. One can imagine, for example, that toxic chemicals found in hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the oceans might have provided the basic elements needed to create the first chemicals of life and that these volcanic vents might have then supplied the energy to turn those chemicals into the amino acids necessary for life. Indeed, some of the most primitive cells on earth are found near these underwater volcano vents
Today, we realize how easy it is to create the building blocks of life. Amino acids have been found in distant gas clouds many light-years away, or in the interior of meteorites from outer space. Carbon-based amino acids may form the seeds of life throughout the universe. And all of this because of the simple bonding properties of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, as predicted by the Schrödinger equation.
Thus, it should be possible to apply quantum mechanics to find, step by step, the quantum processes that originated life on earth. Elementary quantum theory helps us understand why the Miller experiment was so successful, and it may point the way toward deeper discoveries in the future.
What Is Life?
The second breakthrough came directly from quantum mechanics. In 1944, Erwin Schrödinger, already famous for his wave equation, wrote a seminal book, What Is Life? In it, he made the astonishing claim that life itself is a by-product of quantum mechanics, and that the blueprint of life is encoded in an unknown molecule. In an era when many scientists still believed that a mysterious life force animated all living matter, he made the assertion that life can be explained by an application of quantum physics. By examining solutions of his wave equation, he conjectured, life could arise from pure mathematics, in the form of a code handed down through this mystery molecule
It was an outrageous idea. But two young scientists, physicist Francis Crick and biologist James Watson, saw this as a challenge. If the basis of life could be found in a molecule, then their task would be to find this molecule and prove that it carried the code of life.
From the moment I read Schrödinger’s What Is Life?, I became polarized towards finding out the secret of the gene, recalls Watson.
They reasoned that the molecule of life, as envisioned by Schrödinger, must be hidden in the genetic material of the nucleus of the cell, much of which is composed of a chemical called DNA
Physics and Biotechnology
One person who spearheaded this effort to sequence all our genes was Harvard biochemist and Nobel laureate Walter Gilbert. When I interviewed him, he admitted to me that this field was not in his original game plan. In fact, he started working at Harvard as a professor of physics, studying the behavior of subatomic particles created in powerful accelerators. Working on biology was the furthest thing from his mind
So he made the biggest gamble of his career
As a professor of physics, he made a huge jump, switching from theoretical elementary particle physics to biology. But the gamble paid off, because in 1980 he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Among other achievements, he was one of the first to develop a rapid technique to read the DNA molecule, gene for gene.
He then helped build momentum for the Human Genome Project. In 1986, when speaking at Cold Spring Harbor in New York, he gave an estimate for the cost of this ambitious, unprecedented endeavor: $3 billion. The audience was stunned, recalled Robert Cook-Deegan, author of The Gene Wars. Gilbert’s projections provoked an uproar. This, many people felt, was an impossibly low number. When he made that startling prediction, only a handful of genes had been sequenced. Many scientists even thought that the human genome would forever be beyond reach.
One person who was deeply influenced by all this is Francis Collins, the former director of the National Institutes of Health. He is one of the most influential doctors in medicine today. Millions of people have seen him on TV talking about the latest developments with the Covid-19 pandemic.
I asked Collins how he became interested in biology, despite starting out as a chemistry major. He confessed to me that biology always seemed so messy, with so many arbitrary names for so many animals and plants. There was no rhyme or reason, he thought. In chemistry, he saw order, discipline, and patterns that could be studied and duplicated. So he taught physical chemistry, using the Schrödinger equation to explain the inner workings of molecules
Very quickly, Collins made a name for himself. In 1989, he uncovered the gene mutation responsible for cystic fibrosis. He found that it is caused by the deletion of just three base pairs in your DNA (from ATCTTT to ATT).
Eventually, he became the top medical administrator in the country. But he brought his own personal style to Washington. He rode to work on his motorcycle. And he has never shied away from his personal religious beliefs. He even wrote a best-seller: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Three Stages in Biotechnology
Gilbert and Collins, in some sense, represent some of the stages in the development of this field
Stage One: Mapping the Genome
In Stage One, Walter Gilbert and others were able to complete the Human Genome Project, one of the most important scientific ventures of all time. However, the catalogue of the human genome is like a dictionary with 20,000 entries and no definitions. By itself, it is a monumental accomplishment, but also a useless one
Stage Two: Determining the Function of the Genes
In Stage Two, Francis Collins and others have tried to fill in the definitions for these genes. By sequencing diseases, tissues, organs, etc., one is able to tediously compile the way in which these genes operate. It is a painfully slow process, but gradually the dictionary is being filled up
Stage Three: Modifying and Improving the Genome
But now we are gradually entering Stage Three, when we can use this dictionary to become writers ourselves. This means using quantum computers to decipher how these genes operate at the molecular level, so that we can devise new therapies and create new tools to attack incurable diseases. Once we understand how they inflict their damage at the molecular level, we may be able to use that knowledge to devise new techniques to neutralize or cure these diseases
Computational Chemistry and Quantum Biology
Whirlwind advances in quantum computers are giving birth to new sciences called computational chemistry and quantum biology. Finally, quantum computers are making it possible to create realistic models of molecules, allowing scientists the ability to see, atom for atom, nanosecond by nanosecond, how chemical reactions take place
Now imagine you could analyze all the ingredients at the molecular level. In principle it might be possible to create new, delicious recipes from first principles, knowing how the molecules all interact with each other. This is the hope of quantum computers, to be able to understand the interaction of genes, proteins, and chemicals at the molecular level.
Researcher Jeannette M. Garcia of IBM says, As molecules get larger, they very quickly get out of the realm of what you can simulate with classical computers.
Elsewhere, Garcia has written that predicting the behavior of even simple molecules with total accuracy is beyond the capabilities of the most powerful computers. This is where quantum computing offers the possibility of significant advances in the coming years. She points out that digital computers can only reliably calculate the behavior of just a couple of electrons. Beyond that, the calculation overwhelms any classical computer, unless drastic approximations are made.
Linghua Zhu at Virginia Tech says, The atoms are quantum, the computer is quantum, we’re using quantum to simulate quantum. When we use classical methods, we always use approximations, but with a quantum computer, it’s possible to exactly know how each atom is interacting with the others.
Chapter 7 GREENING THE WORLD
When I walk in a dense forest on a bright spring day, I can’t help but be overwhelmed by the lush, vibrant green vegetation that surrounds me and the explosion of delicate blossoms everywhere I look. Wherever I gaze, I see this rainbow of vivid colors. I see life bursting out in all directions, with plants eagerly soaking up the sunlight and somehow converting that energy into all this abundance
What drives life on this planet is photosynthesis, the deceptively simple process by which plants convert carbon dioxide, sunlight, and water into sugar and oxygen. It’s staggering to realize that photosynthesis creates 15,000 tons of biomass per second, which is responsible for covering the earth with green vegetation.
Life would be unimaginable without photosynthesis, yet remarkably, with all our advances in science, biologists are still not precisely sure how this vital process occurs. Some biologists believe that, because the capture of a photon of energy by photosynthesis is nearly 100 percent efficient, it must be quantum mechanical
We sometimes forget that photosynthesis is the end product of billions of years of totally random, chaotic chemical processes, and it developed these remarkable properties purely by chance. Hence, once quantum computers unravel the mystery of photosynthesis at the quantum level, we might be able to improve and modify the way plants grow. Billions of years of plant evolution might be squeezed into a few months on a quantum computer.
Photosynthesis is so vital to the earth that it has literally reshaped the planet’s atmosphere
But when photosynthesis emerged on earth, it converted the carbon dioxide into the oxygen we now breathe. So with every breath, I am reminded of this momentous transition that occurred billions of years ago.
Through these means biologists were able to slowly understand the life history of plants. But one step always eluded them. How do plants capture the energy of photons of light in the first place? What starts this long chain of events, beginning with the capture of the energy of sunlight? It remains a mystery to this day. But quantum computers may help unravel it
Quantum Mechanics of Photosynthesis
Many scientists believe photosynthesis is a quantum process. It begins when photons, the discrete packets of light, hit a leaf that contains chlorophyll. This special molecule absorbs red and blue light, but not green, which is scattered back into the environment. Hence, the green color of plants is due to the fact that green is not absorbed by them
When light hits a leaf, you would expect it to be scattered in all directions and lost forever. But here is where quantum magic occurs The photon of light impacts chlorophyll, and this creates energy vibrations on the leaf, called excitons, which somehow travel along the surface of the leaf. Eventually, these excitations enter what is called a collection center on the surface of the leaf, where the energy of the exciton is used to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when energy is transformed from one form to another, much of that energy is lost into the environment. So one expects that much of the energy of the photon should dissipate when hitting the chlorophyll molecule and therefore become lost during this process as waste heat
Instead, miraculously, the energy of the exciton is carried to the collection center with almost no energy loss at all. For reasons that are still not understood, this process is almost 100 percent efficient
This phenomenon by which photons create excitons that pool in collection centers would be like a golf tournament where each golfer fires a ball randomly in all directions. Then, as if by magic, all these balls would somehow change direction and score a hole in one each time. This should not be happening, but it can actually be measured in the laboratory
One theory is that this journey of the exciton is made possible by path integrals, which we saw earlier were introduced by Richard Feynman. We recall that Feynman rewrote the laws of the quantum theory in terms of paths. When an electron moves from one point or another, it somehow sniffs out all possible paths between these two points. Then it calculates a probability for each route. Hence, the electron is somehow aware of all possible paths connecting these points. This means that the electron chooses the path with the most efficiency
There is also a second mystery here. The process of photosynthesis happens at room temperature, where random motions of atoms in the environment should destroy any coherence among the excitons. Normally, quantum computers have to be cooled down to near absolute zero in order to minimize these chaotic motions, yet plants function perfectly well at normal temperatures. How is that possible?
Artificial Photosynthesis
One way to experimentally prove or disprove the existence of quantum effects is to look for indications of coherence, the telltale sign of quantum effects when atoms vibrate in unison. Normally, one would expect to find a chaotic jumble of individual vibrations, without any rhyme or reason, but if one detects some vibrations in phase with each other, this would immediately signal the presence of quantum effects
It might also explain how photosynthesis could operate at room temperature, without all the pipes and tubing found in a physics laboratory.
Quantum computers are ideally suited to making these quantum calculations. If this approach using path integrals is valid, then it means that we can now alter the dynamics of photosynthesis to solve a variety of problems. Instead of conducting thousands of experiments with plants, which takes an inordinate amount of time, these experiments could be done virtually.
Artificial Leaf
When we discuss the world’s biggest problems, CO2 is usually described as one of the villains of the story. CO2 captures energy from the sun and causes the earth to heat up. But what if we could recycle this greenhouse gas so it would become harmless? We might then also be able to create commercially valuable chemicals from recycled CO2. Scientists propose that sunlight may be able to do exactly that. This new technology would take CO2 from the air and combine it with sunlight and water to create fuel and other valuable chemicals, not unlike a leaf, but made artificially. Burning this fuel would create more CO2, which could then recombine with sunlight and water to create more fuel, in a ceaseless process of recycling with no net gain of CO2. In this way CO2, which has been cast as the villain, becomes a useful resource
For this recycling to work, it would proceed in two steps
First, sunlight would be used to break apart water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen produced could then be used in fuel cells to power clean hydrogen cars. One problem with electric cars is that they use batteries, which, in turn, get their energy mainly from coal- and oil-fired plants
Second, the hydrogen produced by splitting apart water can be combined with CO2 to produce fuel and valuable hydrocarbons. This fuel, in turn, can be burned, and CO2 is again produced, but it can be recombined with hydrogen and hence recycled. This could create a new cycle in which CO2 could be continually reused so it doesn’t build up in the atmosphere, stabilizing the amount of this greenhouse gas while providing energy at the same time.
The hard part is now to complete the final step and find a cheap way to combine hydrogen with CO2 to create fuel. This is difficult because CO2 is a remarkably stable molecule. Harvard chemist Daniel Nocera thinks he has found a viable way to accomplish this. He uses a bacterium, Ralstonia eutropha, which can combine hydrogen with CO2 to create fuel and biomass, with an efficiency of 11 percent.
Quantum computers can take the technology to the next level. So far, much of the progress in this area is done by trial and error, requiring hundreds of experiments with exotic chemicals
If quantum computers provide the final step to creating artificial photosynthesis and the artificial leaf, it may open up entirely new industries that can provide new forms of efficient solar cells, alternate forms of crops, and new forms of photosynthesis. In the process, it might be possible to use quantum computers to find ways to recycle CO2, which would go a long way in the effort to combat climate change.
Chapter 8 FEEDING THE PLANET
In modern history, one man is responsible for saving more lives than any other person on earth, yet his name is largely unknown to the general public. It is reliably estimated that about half of humanity is alive today because of this man’s discoveries, yet there are no biographies or documentaries singing his praises. Fritz Haber, a German chemist, touched the lives of every human on the planet. Haber was the man who discovered how to make artificial fertilizers. Fifty percent of all the food we eat is directly related to his pioneering research, yet his contribution is rarely celebrated by historians.
He unleashed the Green Revolution, breaking open nature’s secrets to manufacture almost unlimited quantities of fertilizer that help feed the planet today. He changed world history when he discovered the crucial chemical process by which nitrogen could be taken from the air to create fertilizers. Where once peasants had to toil in the harsh soil to eke out a miserable living, today we have miles of green crops, as far as the eye can see. Instead of starving nations with barren, lifeless fields, we have lush farms yielding tremendous bounty.
But his role in history is tarnished by the fact that his stunning breakthrough can also be used to create devastating chemical weapons, including high-energy explosives as well as poison gas. Although billions of people on this planet owe their very existence to this man, his work also killed thousands who perished because of the havoc his discoveries unleashed on the battlefield
Furthermore, we have to live with the fact that the Haber-Bosch process, as the technique he developed is known, is so power-hungry that it puts an enormous strain on the energy supply, exacerbating pollution and even climate change
But to appreciate the pioneering work of Haber, and the importance of quantum computers improving on his discoveries, one has to first appreciate his enormous contribution to escape the dismal destiny once predicted by Malthus
Overpopulation and Famine
Today, the world’s food supply is heavily dependent on fertilizers. The essential ingredient of fertilizer is nitrogen, which is found in our protein and DNA molecules. Nitrogen, ironically, is the most plentiful chemical in the air we breathe, making up about 80 percent of it. For some mysterious reason, simple bacteria that can grow along the roots of legumes (e.g., in peanuts and beans) are able to extract nitrogen from the air and fix it with molecules of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen to create ammonia, the essential ingredient needed to make fertilizer.
These bacteria have somehow mastered a puzzling chemical process. Although common bacteria can effortlessly extract nitrogen from the air to create life-giving fertilizers, chemists are still at a loss to duplicate Mother Nature so efficiently.
The reason is that the nitrogen we breathe in the air is actually N2, i.e., two nitrogen atoms stuck together extremely tightly with three covalent chemical bonds. These bonds are so strong that normal chemical processes cannot break them. So chemists are saddled with this stubborn dilemma. The air we breathe is full of life-giving nitrogen, which in principle makes fertilizer possible, but it is of the wrong form, and hence useless
It is like the proverbial man dying of thirst in an ocean full of salt water. You are surrounded by water but there’s not a drop to drink.
Science for War and Peace
This is where the work of Fritz Haber comes in. Even as a child, he was fascinated by chemistry, often performing experiments by himself. His father was a prosperous merchant importing dyes and pigments, and he would sometimes help in his father’s chemical factory. He was part of a rising generation of European Jews who were successful in business and science, but he eventually converted to Christianity. But above all, he was a nationalist, with a firm desire to help Germany with his knowledge of chemistry
He focused on a number of chemical mysteries, including how to harness the nitrogen found in the air into useful products, such as fertilizer as well as explosives. He realized that the only way to split the two nitrogen atoms apart was to apply enormous pressure and temperature. By brute force, the nitrogen bonds could be broken, he theorized. He made history by finding the right magical combination in the laboratory. If you heated the nitrogen gas found in air to 300 degrees C and compressed it with the pressure of 200 to 300 times atmospheric pressure, then it was possible to finally break the nitrogen molecule apart and have it recombine with hydrogen to form ammonia, which is NH3. For the first time in history, chemistry could be used to feed the world’s rising population
He would win the Nobel Prize in 1918 for this pioneering work. Today, about half the nitrogen molecules in your body are a direct consequence of Haber’s discovery, so his enduring legacy is imprinted in your atoms. The world population today is over 8 billion people, and we could not feed this population without his work
Fertilizers were not the only thing on Haber’s mind. Being a German nationalist, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the German army during World War I, and the energy stored in the nitrogen molecule could be harnessed to create life-giving fertilizer as well as fatal explosives.
So, ironically, the man whose mastery of chemistry expanded the world population also doomed the lives of thousands of innocents. He is also known as the Father of Chemical Warfare
But there is also a tragic aspect to his life. His wife, a pacifist, would commit suicide, perhaps due to her opposition to his research in chemical warfare and poison gas.
ATP: Nature’s Battery
Scientists who are anxious to apply quantum computers to the problem of replacing the inefficient Haber-Bosch process realize that they have to understand how nitrogen fixing is performed by Mother Nature
In order to break the nitrogen bond, Haber’s method was to apply high temperatures and enormous pressure from the outside. This is what makes it so inefficient. But nature does it at room temperature, without high-temperature furnaces and compressors. How can a lowly peanut plant do what usually takes a huge chemical plant?
In nature, the fundamental energy source is found in a molecule called ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which is the workhorse of life, nature’s battery. Whenever you flex your muscles, take a breath, or digest food, you are using the energy from ATP to fuel your tissues. The ATP molecule is so elemental that it is found in almost all forms of life, indicating that it evolved billions of years ago. Without ATP, most of life on earth would die.
In nature, harnessing energy from twelve ATP molecules from random collisions might take years. Clearly this is too slow to make life possible. So a series of shortcuts are necessary to greatly accelerate this process.
Quantum computers may be able to help solve this riddle. They could unravel this process at the molecular level, and perhaps improve the nitrogen-fixing process or find an alternative process
Catalysis: Nature’s Shortcut
The key, scientists believe, is something called catalysis, which may be analyzed with quantum computers. A catalyst is like a bystander. It does not participate directly in a chemical process, but somehow by its presence it facilitates a reaction
Normally, chemical reactions found in the body are quite slow, sometimes taking place over long periods of time. Sometimes, something magical happens to speed up these processes so they can take place in a fraction of a second. This is where catalysts come in. For the nitrogen-fixing process, there is a catalyst called nitrogenase. Like a conductor, its purpose is to orchestrate the many steps necessary to combine twelve ATP molecules with nitrogen to break the triple bond. So nitrogenase is the key to creating a Second Green Revolution. But unfortunately our digital computers are too primitive to unravel its secrets. A quantum computer, however, may be perfectly suited for this important task.
Microsoft is one company that cannot wait to solve the nitrogen-fixing problem. It already is using first-generation quantum computers to see if the mystery of this process can be uncovered. The implications are profound, with the potential to create a Second Green Revolution and feed an exploding world population with lower energy costs. Failure to do so could have disastrous side effects, as we’ve seen, perhaps leading to riots, famine, and wars.
Recently, Microsoft had a setback when some experimental results on topological qubits did not turn out correctly, but for the true believers in quantum computers, that is just a speed bump
In fact, Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, recently claimed that he thinks that quantum computers may be able to improve on the Haber process within a decade
Quantum computers will be essential to analyzing this important chemical process, in several ways:
Quantum computers can help elucidate this complex process, atom for atom, by solving the wave equation for the various components within nitrogenase. This will help illuminate all the many missing steps in nitrogen fixing.
They may virtually test different ways to break the N2 bond, other than by brute force or by catalysis.
They can model what would happen if we replaced various atoms and proteins with substitutes, to see if one can make the process of nitrogen fixing more efficient, less energy intensive, and less pollutive, with different chemicals.
Quantum computers can test various new catalysts to see if they can speed up the process.
Quantum computers may test different versions of nitrogenase, with different arrangements of protein chains, to see if one can improve on its catalytic properties.
Chapter 9 ENERGIZING THE WORLD
Edison and Ford would pass the time by making wagers, betting on which energy source would power the future. Edison favored the electric battery, while Ford believed in gasoline. For anyone listening to this wager, it was a no-brainer. One would surely conclude that Edison would win handily. Electric batteries were quiet and safe. Oil, by contrast, was noisy, noxious, and even dangerous. The idea of having a gas station every few blocks was considered preposterous
In many ways, the critics of oil were all correct. The fumes emitted by the internal combustion engine can cause respiratory illnesses and accelerate global warming, and gasoline-powered cars are still noisy
But it was Ford who eventually won the bet
People b | |||
2453 | dbpedia | 3 | 97 | https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view%3FdocId%3Dft338nb20q%3Bchunk.id%3D0%3Bdoc.view%3Dprint | en | Books Collection, 1982 | [
"https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/images/ucpress_rebrand.png",
"https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/images/cdl_logo_small.gif",
"https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/images/arrow.gif",
"https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/images/spacer.gif",
"https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpres... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | null | ||||||||
2453 | dbpedia | 2 | 22 | https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/47147 | en | American Institute of Physics | https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/favicon_1.ico | https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/favicon_1.ico | [
"https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/aip-logo-180.png",
"https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/2022-03/Preskill%20Credit%20Lance%20Hayashida%20-%20Caltech.jpg?itok=zmESsFP0",
"https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/aipcorp/images/sitewide/aip-logo-fullname-400.png",
"https://www.aip... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2022-03-29T10:05:23-04:00 | Zierler: OK, this is David Zierler, Oral Historian for the American Institute of Physics. It is February 26, 2021. I am so happy to be here with Professor John Preskill. John, it's great to see you. Thank you so much for joining me. Preskill: Well, I'm glad to do it, David. Zierler: To start, would you please tell me your titles and institutional affiliations? And you'll notice I pluralize everything because I know you have more than one. | en | /sites/default/files/favicon_1.ico | https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/47147 | Zierler:
OK, this is David Zierler, Oral Historian for the American Institute of Physics. It is February 26, 2021. I am so happy to be here with Professor John Preskill. John, it's great to see you. Thank you so much for joining me.
Preskill:
Well, I'm glad to do it, David.
Zierler:
To start, would you please tell me your titles and institutional affiliations? And you'll notice I pluralize everything because I know you have more than one.
Preskill:
Oh, OK. Well, I am the Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology, and I'm the Director of the Institute for Quantum Information and Matter at Caltech. And we can leave it at that.
Zierler:
When were you named to the Feynman Chair?
Preskill:
Well, when Kip [Thorne] retired. Actually, the background on that is interesting because the donor endowed the chair around 1990. So there was a lot of discussion at Caltech about how we would make use of the leverage of being able to offer the Feynman Chair in Theoretical Physics to someone. And Kip and I actually went on a secret mission to Cambridge to offer it to Stephen Hawking in 1991.
Zierler:
Oh, wow. I did not know that.
Preskill:
Yeah. And so, he was very polite. Of course, he already was the Lucasian Professor obviously. So, the upshot of that was that Stephen didn't accept the Feynman Chair, but he did agree to make regular visits to Caltech. Which he did for many years. He would come for a variable amount of time, typically a month or six weeks in the depths of the Cambridge winter and enjoy the California sunshine. But then, Kip wound up being the Feynman Chair. And I guess I'd have to look up when he retired. It was probably about ten years ago. And I became the Feynman Chair at that point.
Zierler:
Is it known who the donor was back in 1990? Or is that anonymous?
Preskill:
I think I can say. Actually, it's an interesting fellow who's still with us. Mike Scott is his name. And he was, at one time in the early days, the CEO of Apple Computer. When Steve Jobs and Wozniak founded Apple Computer, and they wanted to produce the Apple II, they needed to raise capital, and their investors insisted that they bring in someone with business experience to help manage the company, and that was Mike Scott, who was at Apple for just a few years and had other interesting experiences in his career. But the connection with Feynman is that Mike Scott was a Caltech alum who was among the class that attended the Feynman lectures at ‘61-‘62, ‘62-‘63, the whole two-year sequence. And like many of the students who attended, he was profoundly impressed by that experience. And I think that's what induced him to endow a chair in Feynman's honor.
Zierler:
John, you knew Feynman, and Feynman being who he was, what did it mean for you when you were named with this honor?
Preskill:
Well, it gives you a sense of impostor syndrome, right? Who can live up to that title? But I guess I just shrug it off and carry on.
Zierler:
[laugh] Tell me about the origins of IQIM, the Institute.
Preskill:
Well, of course, I started out my career doing particle physics and with occasional forays into cosmology. So the backstory of IQIM is, I made a mid-career shift in research interests in the mid-1990s. And that happened around 1994, when I learned about Peter Shor's factoring algorithm. But I was primed, I think, to get interested in the subject of quantum information and quantum computing for a couple of reasons. One was that just the previous year, the SSC had been canceled. And for my generation of particle physicists, this was really a terrible blow because we had come along a little bit too late to participate in erecting the Standard Model. I started graduate school in 1975, and so, there was still controversy about what the right electroweak model was at that stage. But the J/psi had been discovered the year before, all the great stuff had been done. Not that there wasn't still a lot of interesting particle physics to do.
But our big hope for beyond the Standard Model physics, we were going to be the generation that would unravel the origin of electroweak symmetry breaking and all the new physics associated with it, and the SSC was going to be the source of the rich phenomenology that we thought we were going to mine as theorists to probe more deeply into nature's secrets. And when the SSC was canceled for complicated political reasons, even though they had already been digging the tunnel in Texas and had sunk a couple of billion dollars in it, one realized it was going to be quite a while before we were going to have the experimental input that we needed to really understand what was going on with physics beyond the Standard Model, which it was generally believed would be discovered when we got up to those energies. And so, I was sort of in a mood to think about different things.
And in fact, while I was sort of waiting, as many of us were, for the SSC to come along, I had already been doing things which were not very phenomenological, like thinking about black holes and how they process information. So, I had sort of become acquainted with principles of quantum information—which were not so widely known by physicists except for a small community—just because I thought that might be useful for understanding what's going on with black holes. And when Shor discovered this factoring algorithm, about a month later Artur Ekert, who was a pioneer of quantum cryptography, visited Caltech and gave a talk. And he mentioned this recent breakthrough that Shor had discovered that you could efficiently factor with quantum computers. And it's possible I've embellished the memory in hindsight, but I was quite amazed by this.
Feynman had been interested in quantum computing, and I knew that. And I wasn't very impressed by the whole subject. I didn't quite see the point of it. But I realized with the discovery of Shor's algorithm that it really meant there was a big difference between what problems we'd be able to solve and which ones we'd never be able to solve with computing technology because it's a quantum world instead of a classical one. Things became possible thanks to quantum mechanics that just wouldn't be possible in a different type of physical world. And I still think that's one of the most amazing things we've ever learned about quantum physics, the difference between quantum and classical. Sorry, I'm giving a rather longwinded answer to your question.
Zierler:
No, this is the intellectual origins of the Institute.
Preskill:
Correct. And so, I had a colleague at Caltech, Jeff Kimble, still at Caltech, and he was also quite excited about this surge of interest in quantum computing. He was a quantum optics guy. And he had made experimental advances in squeezing states of light and using them for metrology and stuff. But it's different now. Atomic Molecular Optic physics is widely recognized by most physicists as an intellectually rich and exciting field. And that's happened largely, I think, in the last 25 years, because of the connections with quantum computing and because of the connections with condensed matter, the possibility of simulating interesting states of quantum matter using these AMO systems. But back then, there was sort of a feeling in the quantum optics community that they didn't get respect because, from the perspective or somebody like me, what was the point, you know? As a particle physicist, I was trying to understand new laws of nature. But what can you do with quantum optics in the lab that you couldn't just figure out with pencil and paper what was going to happen?
And quantum computing, at least in principle, kind of changed that. Because I think it drove home that you should be able to do experiments where you're learning something from the experiment that you couldn't just simulate or calculate. And so, Jeff would have to say himself what got him excited, but I think he realized he had experimental tools that were very relevant to exploring quantum information. And I got excited from the theory perspective and wanted to learn more about what was experimentally possible. So, we formed what we called the Quantum Computing Club at the time, and we started having joint group meetings. And so, I learned some things. I've never been deeply knowledgeable, really, about how experiments work, but I learned a lot more than I had known about what you could do with quantum optics tools. And meanwhile, I was trying to understand whether you could protect quantum computers from noise, which led to the development of the idea of quantum error correction.
But actually, we wound up getting a DARPA grant. This was kind of interesting. The Department of Defense agencies had an immediate interest in quantum computing after Shor's algorithm because of the applications to cryptology. And they were the early supporters of the research in the field. Including the development of experimental tools. And DARPA, in particular, put out a call, and we submitted a proposal, and we got funded for a project which we called QUIC. I guess it was Quantum Information and Computation, but QUIC for short. And there were five PIs, and that helped Jeff do his first teleportation experiment in the lab, and I worked on quantum error correction ideas, and stuff like that. It was a five-year award, and after two years, they cut it. There was a new program manager. This was, I learned, not unprecedented for DARPA --- a new program manager comes in, and what you think is a multi-year commitment turns out not to be.
But I had learned something under Jeff's tutelage, that with money, you can do things. As a theorist and particle physicist, I had it pretty easy as far as funding a group because at Caltech, we had this big DOE high energy physics umbrella grant, which was mostly for experimentalists, and the theorists were a little pimple on it. And that was enough for us to support post-docs and so on. And we also had Caltech funding for theoretical physics post-docs, which helped a lot. But when we had this DARPA funding, I was, for example, able to bring in Alexei Kitaev as a year-long visitor and pay him a salary. I'd never had the resources to do that sort of thing. So that was kind of an eye opener for me.
In my naivete, I'd never worried much about raising money, and applying for grants, and stuff because I sort of had it made with this DOE grant, which was always renewed time after time. But then, with Jeff's encouragement, we applied for a quantum computing center. Actually, NSF started to show an interest in quantum information in the late ‘90s, and they asked a group of us, including me, to organize a workshop because that's how they do things, which took place in the fall of 1999. These were the waning days of the Clinton Administration. And the conventional wisdom at the time was that, partly due to Al Gore's influence, NSF got a surge of funding for a program they called Information Technology Research, which included a lot of practical things, but also sort of a lunatic fringe of blue sky research. And that's what we were part of.
We applied to this ITR program, and we asked for a big center, which would encompass experiment and theory. And the NSF program manager involved, a guy named Mike Foster, said he wasn't interested in the experiment, only in the theory. So we wound up getting a million dollars a year just for a theory institute. This was in the fall of 2000, which was the Institute for Quantum Information. There was no Matter then, just a theory institute. But the timing was great because there were all these young people who were excited about the field, who were getting PhDs. We were able to build a group of really strong post-docs and attract Caltech students into research in that area. And we could pretty much get any outstanding post-doc we wanted because there wasn't so much competition then. There's a lot more now. So, we had an amazing group of young people in the early 2000s who came through, many of whom are leaders of research in quantum information now, like Patrick Hayden, and Guifré Vidal, and Frank Verstraete, and quite a few others.
Zierler:
Today, of course, there are several centers that have a similar research focus. But at the time, there were not, of course. You were really at the vanguard of all of this. So, the question is, what was your model? What other centers were out there that you might have used to base your ideas on…on where this ultimately would develop?
Preskill:
Well, actually, my model was the experience that I had with the particle theory group, which I didn't appreciate immediately was a bit culturally different than most research efforts in AMO physics and what was then the nascent interest in quantum information—which was I wanted to bring in the best young scientists and give them a lot of freedom, to create a community of people who had some common interests, but also complementary backgrounds. So, I deliberately would put a computer scientist in the same office with a physicist so those guys would talk. And I guess that was the model. Now, the Institute, the next one which had a big investment, was the Perimeter Institute. When it was founded, they saw quantum information as a core part of their mission. And then, later, there was another institute at Waterloo, The Institute for Quantum Computing, which had a lot of resources, all thanks to Mike Lazaridis, and the Canadian government, and government of Ontario.
But we got off to such a quick start, and we already had a track record of bringing in great people who did great research while they were at Caltech, and then went on to later career success. And we were able to continue to recruit the best young people very successfully. The first thing I did with the IQI funding is, we hired Alexei Kitaev. This is interesting, too. When I got that DARPA money, I thought, “Hey, I could bring in a long-term visitor with this funding. So, who should that be?” And so, I asked a few colleagues for suggestions. And indirectly, I heard from Richard Joza that he had met this amazing young Russian at a conference. The conference was in Japan. That was Kitaev. And I didn't know much about Kitaev, but he had a paper on the arXiv, which I then read and was blown away by. He had sort of reformulated Shor's algorithm in a more general and powerful way.
And so, I arranged to have him visit in 1997. Actually, the legend about that paper that he wrote is, in 1994 he heard about Shor having discovered that you could factor with a quantum computer. He was at the Landau Institute in Russia. And he wasn't in the in-group that had access to the preprint. It wasn't posted on the arXiv, although the arXiv existed at that time. But it was just kind of circulating around by email. And he wasn't able to get it. So he had to figure it out for himself. Now, it's a huge advantage to know that it's possible, so he had it on good authority that Peter Shor had discovered an algorithm for factoring large numbers efficiently on a quantum computer, and then he figured it out. His approach was different and more general than Shor's. That was the paper I read, his version of what we now call the Hidden Subgroup Problem. He called it the Abelian Stabilizer Problem, and Shor's algorithm fit into that framework.
So, this guy is clearly very interesting. And I arranged it for him to first come for a shorter visit. It was his first time in the US, I think. And the first day that we met and sat down for coffee, he started telling me about this idea he had to use non-Abelian anyons for quantum computing. And here's something funny. I was very interested in non-Abelian anyons. That was one of the things I was fooling around with waiting for the SSC to turn on. Non-Abelian anyons are particles in a two-dimensional medium which have exotic statistics, more general than bosons or fermions. And non-Abelian means that you can actually have a state of many of these particles be modified just by braiding them around one another.
And what Kitaev had realized is that this was an approach to quantum computing that would be resistant to noise because it was topological. The effect of exchanging a pair of these anyons, because the information is encoded in a very, very nonlocal way, the environment buffeting the system locally doesn't interfere with it. This was a very brilliant idea. And I understood it immediately after 15 minutes of taking about it over coffee because I knew about non-Abelian anyons, and I was very interested in quantum error correction. And it had never occurred to me that these two things that I was very interested in were related. And I guess that shows that I'm not Kitaev.
Zierler:
But you can spot a Kitaev when you see one.
Preskill:
Well, that's true, and I was ahead of my time in that regard. He was underappreciated for sure in 1997. And so, he came back the next year supported by this DARPA grant as a visiting professor. And we actually jointly taught a course on quantum computing. And then, when we got the NSF award in 2000, the first thing I tried to do was hire him. Of course, I couldn't hire him as a professor by myself. That had to go through the usual Caltech hiring process. But I could hire him, although it had to be approved by a committee, as what we called at the time a senior research associate. Now, we call it a research professor. It's a position that we have at Caltech for people who are world-leading researchers with stature comparable to a tenured professor, but it's a soft money position, and it's paid out of a grant. No teaching responsibilities.
Zierler:
This is what Sean Carroll has, for example.
Preskill:
That's what Sean has. And that's what John Schwarz had, actually, when I first came to Caltech. That's another story, speaking of someone who was underappreciated for a while. Yeah. And so, we had Kitaev, and we had this amazing group of young people. And then, a lot of students came through and trained. I think probably in terms of impact on science, leading the IQI and establishing it is the most impactful thing I've done when you look at all the people who came through and how they've become scientific leaders. But anyway, to come around to answering your question, for ten years, we were just the IQI, and we went through several cycles of renewal at NSF. And Jeff spearheaded this. I wouldn't have thought to request a grant to start a theory institute if Jeff Kimble hadn't been pushing me, so I'm grateful to him for that.
And in 2010, we applied for the Physics Frontier Center program at NSF, very competitive thing. There are ten of them in the country in different areas of physics. And that turned out to be successful, and as a result, what had been the IQI expanded to a larger center that did encompass both theory and experiment, pretty much as we had envisioned back when we originally proposed it in 2000. We had something like that in mind, but NSF at that time said, “We only want the theory.” But in 2011 we became the Institute for Quantum Information and Matter. And now, that's been around for almost ten years, since 2011, and has been very successful.
Zierler:
John, that's a great overview of your current titles and affiliations. So before we take it all the way back and develop your personal history, I'd like to ask a very in-the-moment question. As you say, of course, we're all working from our home offices now. As a theoretical physicist, I wonder if in some ways, these past 11 months have been more productive for you because the social and physical isolation perhaps has given you a bit more headspace or bandwidth to work on some equations or problems that you might otherwise not have. On the other hand, I wonder if your style as a scientist really depends on in-person, interpersonal interaction, and in many ways, your research agenda has suffered as a result.
Preskill:
Well, as the question suggests, it's a complicated issue with tradeoffs. One big change for me is I was traveling a lot. And I get, of course, as we all do, lots of invitations, most of which I turn down. But for opportunities to lecture, attend conferences, and things like that, there were a certain number of them which I really thought I had to accept. So the last couple of years, I had been making lots of trips. And it was really a bit of a relief to put a stop to that for a while and not be chasing around so much.
On the other hand, the kinds of interactions you have when you visit other places to attend a conference or give a talk and so on, the kinds of informal interactions, those are not very well simulated in the Zoom era, although there are various attempts to do that. And so, you do miss that kind of thing where you go to dinner or lunch and just chat. And sometimes, that's a good way of probing questions and coming up with ideas. So, I think we've all suffered a bit from missing that kind of interaction.
In my group, it hasn't been too bad. We have our group meetings on Zoom, and I'm able to keep up with what students and post-docs are doing, and so on. But I think it's hard for the new students. They can attend meetings and stuff like that, but it's hard to become sort of integrated into the community in our online existence compared to when we're able to hang around and chat in our offices or at a coffee break. But in response to your question, yeah, I think I have had a bit more time for reflection than was the case, say, in the previous couple of years, and that has been helpful. And it's also given me a little more time, maybe, for reading and catching up on things.
One thing that I had been increasingly feeling was missing from my education or knowledge base was the students are more and more interested in machine learning, and I really just didn't know much about it. And I still know only a limited amount about it. But I did take some time to read textbooks and papers, and I also am collaborating with some students who know a lot more about machine learning than I do. And so, that's been a plus over the last year.
It's interesting with the experimentalists. They seem to be much more challenged than we are as theorists. Some of the labs were closed down for a while. Now, they're operating under socially distanced protocols, and that slows things down. But I've also had several experimentalists tell me that they're getting the best data ever because the lab is so quiet. There's nobody walking around, people aren't opening and shutting doors. And a lot of experiments are operating remotely or with minimal physical presence in the lab of group members, and that's had some benefits. So, it's not all bad, even for the experimentalists.
Zierler:
The big question going forward, what are the best aspects of the current dynamic that you plan to continue using once we're out of the pandemic?
Preskill:
Well, I don't know. I think the model of doing seminars and conferences online will have a place going forward. Like I said, it's not really the same in terms of the personal interactions as a face-to-face conference. But it's still pretty effective. So, I've attended workshops, and, of course, things get recorded, so you can watch them later. That was happening anyway. Usually, when there was an event, people were making videos. But since it's just not feasible to travel to all the things that one wants to attend, having that option of participating in a meeting with people all over the world is something we'll probably take advantage of more than we have in the past, going forward.
Zierler:
Well, let's take it all the way back to the beginning. Tell me about your parents and where they're from.
Preskill:
I grew up in Chicago. My dad, Alfred Preskill, his parents were Eastern European Jews, his mom from Latvia, his dad from Lithuania. And like many Jews, they came to the United States in the 1880s or 1890s. In the case of my grandfather, he and his brothers would've been drafted into the Tsar's army if they had stuck around in Lithuania. That was one of the incentives for leaving. And they all came to Chicago. And that's where my grandfather met my grandmother.
Zierler:
I assume Preskill is an Anglicized name.
Preskill:
Well, according to family folklore, in Lithuania, it had a similar sound. And I've sometimes pondered whether it's related to names like Peskin and Peshkin. But we think in Lithuania, they were saying it more or less the way I do as Preskill. And there are several alternative spellings that were adopted when people immigrated. So, there are some Preskills still around the Chicago area, but there are also other spellings, like Preaskil. So anyway, my grandfather's business that he started was a harness shop. He would make the rig that you would use to attach your horse to your buggy. But when automobiles came in, he realized that wasn't a good business model, so he opened a hardware store. And when my dad was a kid, he used to work in the hardware store. So even in later life, he considered himself to be an expert on tools.
And my mom has a rather different origin story. She actually converted to Judaism when she married my father, and then later in life, she actually got bat mitzvahed. Much later in life. But she did not grow up Jewish. She grew up in Cleveland. Her father was a lawyer, and his family had been, for many generations, farmers. And my mom's mother also came from a family that had been farming in Pennsylvania and Ohio for many generations. We think they go back to before the American Revolution in Pennsylvania. But when my mom was a kid, she would work in my grandfather's law office. He was a probate lawyer, did wills. And very successful in the sense that he was very highly regarded in his profession. He wrote a textbook on Ohio probate law that was widely used and had some high-level connections.
One of the famous family stories is my mom, as a teenage girl, was working the switchboard in the office, and she cut off the Vice President of the United States by pulling the plug while he was talking to my grandfather. She wound up going to law school, and it was pretty unusual for women to attend law school. She was the only one in her class at what was then called Western Reserve, now Case Western Reserve in Cleveland. And I think she might've gone into practice with my grandfather. But then, World War II came.
And going back to my dad for a minute, he wound up going to the University of Chicago. He was very good student. He graduated high school at 16, and he graduated law school at 20. At the University of Chicago, he was able to get a bachelor's degree and a law degree more or less concurrently. And that was 1932. It was the Depression. Nobody wanted to hang around in school. Everybody had to go out and earn a living if you could get a job. So, he was in a big hurry. Because he was 20, he couldn't take the bar exam because he was still a minor. He had to wait til he was 21. And he passed the bar exam and worked for a law firm for a while. But when the war came, he was 4F because of a medical condition. He was about 30 then, but he couldn't enlist.
So, the way he did public service was he became a federal employee. He moved to Baltimore and worked for what was then called the Federal Security Agency, which was setting the legal foundations for the Social Security system, which was still sort of being fleshed out. And that's where he met my mom. When the war came, she also thought she should work for the government, and they wound up in Baltimore. The reason they were in Baltimore is a lot of the federal agencies moved out of DC because that was being taken over for military purposes. And that's where they met. They were both lawyers in the same office, and they got married 1944 and moved back to Chicago.
My mom did give up the law when she had her first child, my older brother David, in 1947. But she was really a remarkably capable woman. And so, she volunteered for everything. She was the President of the PTA, the League of Women Voters, and a local philanthropic organization. And she learned Sign Language so she could work with the deaf, and she worked with kids with Cerebral Palsy, and she volunteered in the hospital, and as a tutor at the high school. She was really a dynamo and has a very different personality than me—I'm quite introverted, she was very extroverted.
Zierler:
I wonder, as a product of her generation, if her decision to leave law was because that was sort of externally expected of her. In other words, in latter generations, the same person would not have done that.
Preskill:
I think that's right.
Zierler:
Did she ever express regret or frustration with that?
Preskill:
Not to me. And like I said, she managed to have a lot of impact outside the home in quite a number of ways. She was pretty amazing in that respect. My dad started to think the law was boring, so he joined a business called Allied Radio, which my uncle was involved in. And he worked there for over 20 years in marketing, became the VP of marketing. So one of the ways that impacted me was he would bring home these kits. Allied Radio made what were called Knight Kits you could assemble yourself with a soldering iron—radios, and walkie-talkies, a photoelectric relay, and things like that. So that was my introduction to electronics, starting when I was around 10. I really enjoyed putting those things together. And I was surprisingly uncurious about how they worked, actually. I built radios, and I was very proud that I was able to break the iron curtain and hear a broadcast in Russia on a shortwave radio, but I didn't really understand what the tuning coil, and the capacitors, and the resistors were doing. I just thought it was fun to put them together.
Zierler:
Growing up, how Jewishly connected was your family? Particularly with your mom, was she more interested in doing stuff than your dad in certain regards?
Preskill:
My dad was the more interested one, and we belonged to a reform congregation on the North Shore of Chicago. We moved to Highland Park, one of the northern suburbs. Or they did, before the first child was born. And we belonged to this huge congregation called North Shore Congregation Israel with over 1,000 families. And he was involved in the temple one way or another at various times in his life. He was the Chair of the Board of Religious Education there for a while.
And later, actually, after he retired he was very interested in studying Torah, and Talmud, and stuff like that with classes that the rabbi would lead. My dad was quite scholarly—I think he might have been an academic if he hadn’t come of age during the Depression. And my brothers and I went to religious school. It was usually on Sunday, actually. Reform Judaism. And you could be bar mitzvahed. I chose not to be 'cause I wasn't too keen on the idea of having to go to Hebrew school after school from 3rd grade through 7th grade. And my parents said that was OK if I didn't want to.
But I did get involved. I became, actually, when I was in high school, the audio-visual supervisor at the Temple. And so, one of my responsibilities was to make sure that the rabbi's sermons were recorded at every Friday night service. I had a crew of volunteers who would sign up. And if something went wrong, and we failed to record the sermon, the rabbi was not pleased. So, there was a little pressure there. And then, at the religious school, as the supervisor of audio-visual activities, we used to show movies sometimes, so we had to thread the projector. And that was also a bit stressful because every once in a while, the film would break, and you'd have to do emergency film repair with some magic tape or something. But that was my most active role in my youth at the Temple.
Zierler:
John, you went to public schools throughout your childhood?
Preskill:
Highland Park High School. Highland Park public school all the way in the town we lived in. It was a good school system. And there were a lot of Jewish kids in the community. We had a tracking system, which was a pretty common practice back then, where for each discipline, they would put the kids in—I don't actually know how they decided this—level 1 English, level 2, and level 3. And the level 1 would feed into the AP classes. And so, even though it was a big school, there were over 2,000 students, if you were in those level 1 classes, it was the same kids you'd see in most of your classes year after year.
Zierler:
Was stuff like the space race, the moon landing, formative to your development as a kid?
Preskill:
Hugely, yes. I still remember vividly, or at least I think I do, my dad bringing home a newspaper in early 1961. It was the Daily News, the afternoon newspaper in Chicago, with this huge headline, a couple inches high: “Russian First Space Man.” Yuri Gagarin was orbiting the Earth. And it was a huge deal. Of course, the US had a space program, too. The Mercury astronauts had been chosen, and they were training, and the Russians kind of beat us to the punch with Yuri Gagarin's first flight. And Alan Shepard's first flight was a month later or so, I don't remember exactly. But those Mercury astronauts were heroes. Whenever there was a flight, Alan Shepard, Gus Grissom, John Glenn, Scott Carpenter, and so on, it was a huge national event. And it seemed like the world came to a standstill, and we were holding our breath while these guys were flying into space and managing to return to the Earth.
And, of course, in those days, there were three TV networks, and they all had news organizations. And they'd all stop regular programming so they could cover these missions. And so, I ate everything up. I read everything I could. So [in] 1961, I was 8 years old. But I could go to the library and get a book about rockets. And there'd be a feature story in TIME magazine or whatever, lots of newspaper coverage, and I'd read all that stuff. I wanted to know everything about how Mercury was going to lead to Gemini, which was going to lead to Apollo. And so, I very avidly followed all that, and I think it did have a significant role in awakening my interest in science.
Zierler:
John, were politics a topic of discussion at the dinner table as a kid? Would you have known if your parents were voting for Nixon or Kennedy?
Preskill:
I remember watching the Kennedy-Nixon debate, as a matter of fact. I don't remember my dad being there, but my mom was. And they were Democrats. Well, I shouldn't say that. My mom always identified as an independent. She always said she'd vote for the best candidate. Usually, it was a Democrat, but not always. And things were a little less polarized then than now. So the idea that you could, in a given year, prefer the candidate of one party, which was different than that of the previous election, did not seem wildly unlikely.
Zierler:
In middle school or high school, were there any standout math or science teachers who exerted a real influence on you?
Preskill:
Well, there was one in high school. His name was Donald Ens. He was a math teacher. He was a young guy. There was an English teacher, too, who I admired a lot. But the thing about Mr. Ens was he really loved math. And at that time—after a few years of being very interested in space, and rockets, and then chemistry—I had a chemistry lab, and building the radios and stuff, I decided really, the coolest thing was math. And the thing I loved the most in the reading I did was Gödel's Theorem. The idea that there were limits to what we could prove or what we could know is true in mathematics. That really impressed me. And Mr. Ens loved that kind of stuff, too. So, I had somebody I could talk to about those sorts of things.
And in fact, when I was thinking about where to go to college, I had some rather funny notions, and one was that if you wanted to do math, Princeton was the place to be. And I'm not sure what that was based on, maybe because Einstein had been there or something. But that was firmly implanted in my head. And another idea I had was that you shouldn't go to Harvard. Because I had a friend whose older brother went to Harvard and majored in biochemistry. And when he'd come back from college, he'd always complain that all the classes were taught by graduate students. And they had all these famous professors, but you never saw them. So I thought, “Well, that doesn't sound good.”
At least Princeton claimed to be a more undergraduate-focused institution. So that's where I decided I wanted to go, and indeed, where I went. And when I went to Princeton, I was thinking I'd major in math. I talked my way into a graduate-level course on Set Theory and Logic my freshman year taught by a guy named Dana Scott, who was a distinguished logician and philosopher. And I had to get permission from the guidance office, and I had to pass out of freshman English, and stuff. I was very insistent that I had to take this class because this was going to be my future, Set Theory and Logic. And I wasn't sure if Dana Scott would be teaching it again. And it was a fun class.
Zierler:
John, this was a pure math environment, not an applied math environment?
Preskill:
That's right. But I realized, by the end of my freshman year, several things. One of them, I think, I'd known all along. I'm just not cut out intellectually to be a mathematician. I'm just not good enough at that kind of thing. Meanwhile, I was taking freshman physics, and in the spring term, we used this book by Purcell, Electricity and Magnetism, which is a great book, and it's still used in some places. And that really impressed me because I was learning in my math class calculus on manifolds, and about differential forms, and things like that. It was all very abstract, and very beautiful and fun. But no hint of what it was good for.
Well, maybe I'm exaggerating. But certainly, the emphasis was not on what you do with this stuff. But then, in Electricity and Magnetism, learning Maxwell's equations, and why you would want to take the curl or divergence of a vector field for some useful purpose, the fact that I could piece those two things together, this very abstract math and then this physics class, which was making use of those concepts, that made me appreciate that maybe physics was a more natural home for me.
Zierler:
Did you sense, even as an undergraduate, the hierarchy of theory above experimentation in those days?
Preskill:
Yeah, and in fact, even back in high school, I had this very snooty attitude that theorists were somehow superior. I was terrible, looking back. I thought that the intellectual pinnacle was to do theory, and that experiment just didn't appeal to me personally, let's put it that way. And so, maybe I had a perspective, which, of course, is completely wrong, that experiment was not the best route to a deep understanding of the secrets of nature, that thinking would do that. It's completely wrong. But I really did have that attitude.
Zierler:
Can you either affirm or deny the famous quote attributed to Wightman that he referred to the experimentalists as “the help?”
Preskill:
Arthur Wightman said that?
Zierler:
Allegedly.
Preskill:
He was my senior thesis advisor.
Zierler:
That's right.
Preskill:
“The help.” Well, I'm not sure I knew that. He was a wonderful man, but I'm surprised he would say that.
Zierler:
It may be apocryphal, I don't know.
Preskill:
Although, of course, he was a mathematical physicist and proved theorems, when he was young he did more practical things. He worked out details like how ionizing radiation deposits energy in materials and things like that. So, he had some appreciation for that type of knowledge building. Actually, another college teacher who had a big impact on me was John Wheeler. My sophomore year, he taught a class that I took for the whole year, covered everything in physics. We called it Honors Physics. And we did classical mechanics, and E&M, and stat mech, and quantum physics, and waves all in one year. And it was a very idiosyncratic course, to put it mildly.
Of course, to us undergraduates, there was something kind of god-like about Wheeler. So, this was 1972. The thought that he had worked with Niels Bohr seemed unimaginable --- that anyone could be that old. He was 61 at the time. Here, I'm 68, so it doesn't seem so old now, but at the time, it sure did. And he always came to class in a suit and tie, and that also made him seem like a denizen from another generation. And, of course, he had this marvelous ability to use the blackboard to draw intricate illustrations on the spot. But the thing that was most memorable is–here's what he did on the first day of class, or at least how I remember it. We're going to do classical mechanics. We're going to use Goldstein. We're going to learn Lagrangian Mechanics. And we're going to learn Hamiltonian Mechanics from this book. And I'd already dipped into the book a little, I was excited.
And so, I figured he was going to tell us about the calculus of variations, and the Euler-Lagrange Equations, and stuff. I kind of had a hint what that was about. But he comes in, and he goes up to the board, and he draws A on the board and B. And then, he draws a line going from A to B. And he said, “An electron is going to travel from A to B. How does it know how to go? What path should it take? Well, of course, it takes all the paths. It adds them all together with an E to the iS …” “What?” He was trying to explain that what we were learning was the classical limit of quantum theory. Although Goldstein wasn't saying it that way, he thought it was important for us to know right from the start that that was the context, and that you could understand why this calculus of variations stuff was relevant by thinking about how the phase when it's stationary would add up constructively.
Of course, this is a wonderful insight coming from Feynman, who was Wheeler's student. And I thought this was great. I just was dazzled. And a lot of students, understandably, were a bit upset because then, we had to do the homework problems in Goldstein, which said, “Here's a couple of springs and a mass. Write down the Lagrangian.” What were we supposed to say? “Well, the mass is going to follow all the paths. Add them up with an E to the iS.” That didn't really help you do the homework. But Wheeler was inspiring.
Zierler:
This obviously planted a seed in you later on.
Preskill:
It did. And here's another thing he said, which I never forgot. And this was later in the year. He came into class, and he told everyone to take out a piece of paper. He said, “I want you to write down, on your piece of paper, all of the equations of physics. Everything that one needs to know in order to derive everything else in the world.” I don't know how much time we had, a few minutes. You could write down the Maxwell Equation and the Schrödinger Equation. Fluid mechanics. Maybe the definition of entropy, and so on. And then, he collected all the papers. And he put them on a table in the front of the room, and he said, “Here on the table are all the equations of physics.” And then, he said, “Fly.” And he's talking to the equations. “Fly.” Nothing happened. The papers just sat there. And he said, “What went wrong? Here are all the equations of physics, but they won't fly. Yet, the universe flies.” That was Wheeler. [laugh]
Zierler:
On the social side of things, you may have heard the quip that at Princeton, the 60s came in the early 1970s. It was a little later to the game than places like Harvard or Berkeley. Were you political at all? Were you involved in any of the anti-war protests or Civil Rights things that were going on at campus in those days?
Preskill:
I participated, but rather passively. I guess it was before I was in college in 1970 was when a lot of campuses shut down after the invasion of Cambodia. I was in high school then. When I was at Princeton, there were some anti-war protests, and I would attend, sometimes with my friends. But it was not something that I devoted much of my time or my mindfulness to. I was pretty focused.
Zierler:
Was the draft something you needed to contend with?
Preskill:
Well, yeah. So, by that time, there was a lottery. And there would be an event where they would, on national television, take balls out of an urn, and it was based on your birthday. So, you would get a number for each date of the calendar year, and if you had a high number attached to your birthdate, then you were unlikely to be called. And if you had a low number, there was a serious possibility of being called. And I had a high number, January 19. My number was over 300. So, I knew it was pretty clear I didn't have to worry about being drafted.
Zierler:
Was a senior thesis at Princeton standard? Or was that an above and beyond kind of thing for you?
Preskill:
Every Princeton student does it. So, it's a big deal. You spend a lot of your senior year doing it. Actually, there were junior papers as well that I think everyone had to do. In physics, we had to do one the first term and second term. And actually, looking back, maybe this was sort of formative as well. So, you're a junior, you don't have any idea what to do for a research project. You're supposed to knock on doors and talk to faculty, see if they have suggestions, say you're interested in working on something. “What do you propose?” And so, I don't know why, I guess maybe I was assigned to him, I went to see Marc Davis who's a cosmologist, he's been at Berkeley for many years now, but he was at Princeton then. And so, he asked me what I was interested in. And what I said was, I was interested in the interpretation of quantum theory. And he said, “Well, you know what --- you might be interested in is the EPR Paradox,” which I had never heard of.
And so, he explained a little about what it was. He didn't really know. But that piqued my curiosity, and it turned out that there was a new instructor who had just arrived at Princeton that year named Stuart Freedman, and he had just done an experiment with John Clauser to test the Bell Inequality. And so, I went to him and asked him to fill me in a little bit about that. And he said something that stuck, which I thought was really weird. He had done the experiment with Clauser, which seemed to confirm violation of the Bell Inequality. But there was a competing experiment that had found a different result, that the Bell Inequality was satisfied, so the idea of local realism seemed to be confirmed by that competing experiment, which was done by a Russian group. And I said, “Well, how do you account for the discrepancy?” And he didn't give a scientific answer, he gave a political one, which was, “Well, it has to do with dialectical materialism. So, there's a bias in favor of local realism.” I thought, “Boy, could that really be it?” Anyway, it just kind of shocked me that he said that.
So I wound up reading up on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper and other papers, and I wrote my JP on that. That's what we called junior paper, JP. And I didn't really think much more about that stuff for some time. But then, when I came back to quantum information, of course, a lot of it was about entanglement. So maybe having had that experience in my formative years helped make me receptive to those kinds of ideas, I don't know.
But in the case of the senior thesis, again, the onus is on the student to find an advisor. And I had had an experience I guess late in my junior year. I used to go to the bookstore, the Princeton U Store, where there were various physics books on display, and I'd browse through them. Every once in a while, I'd buy one. And I found this book by Streater and Wightman, which was called PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That. And I thought that was a very charming title. And so, I started browsing through it, and having still a sort of mathematical predilection, it appealed to me that there was rigorous mathematics about Quantum Field Theory. And I thought, “Boy, if I really want to understand Quantum Field Theory, I should understand what all this is about.”
And I decided I would ask Arthur Wightman to be my thesis advisor. But then, a kind of really embarrassing thing happened. I won an award that fall at the beginning of my senior year because I had the highest academic standing in my class. And the President of Princeton in the opening ceremony presented this award, and we chatted a little. And he asked me, “Who are you going to do your thesis with?” And I said, “Oh, I'm planning to do it with Arthur Wightman.” But at this point, I'd never spoken to Wightman, he had no idea who I was. You know how it is with professors, they're hard to catch. So I went to his class, and I went up to talk to him after class. And I told him who I was, and he says, “Oh, yeah, I've heard about you from a surprising source.” He had talked to President Bowen who had said, “Oh, I talked to this guy Preskill who's going to do a thesis with you,” and Wightman had said, “What?” So that was pretty humiliating. But because Arthur Wightman was such a sweet man, I didn't stay embarrassed for long.
And looking back, he spent an extraordinary amount of time with me that year. And I had sort of a typical undergraduate’s sense of entitlement. Whenever I saw him in his office, I figured I could barge in and start asking questions. And he never turned me away that I recall. He had sort of a gift for making you feel at ease, like he was really enjoying talking to you. At least I always felt that way. You know how sometimes people wish you'd go away, you can tell, even if they don't come right out and say it. But he was never like that.
Zierler:
In many ways, a senior thesis is a tryout for real scholarship later on. And so, with that in mind, I'm curious how parochial your worldview was, or not, given the extraordinary excitement and advance in particle physics in the early 1970s. Were you aware of what Sam Ting was doing? Were you aware of Grand Unification with Glashow and Georgi? Were these things on your radar? Or was your world of physics really confined to Princeton?
Preskill:
Well, I guess it was a little insular. Of course, at Princeton, asymptotic freedom was discovered by Gross and Wilczek while I was there, and also by Politzer at Harvard. But I was not so aware of that. I do remember the J/psi, the so-called November Revolution. I was a senior, and we had a speaker from the SLAC experiment actually, from SPEAR, who, not long after the discovery was announced, described the event. So even the undergraduates, the excitement bubbled down to us about the discovery of the J/psi and a lot of discussion of what it could mean, what it could be. And so, I was aware of that excitement, but I wasn't clued into the latest developments the way you are when you're a graduate student. Not as an undergraduate. I did read, under the tutelage of Arthur Wightman, a paper by Sidney Coleman that I found very remarkable, and that was part of the reason I wanted to go to Harvard. It was the paper by Coleman and Erick Weinberg.
Erick Weinberg had been Sidney's student at Harvard. And this was the paper about spontaneous symmetry breaking driven by radiative corrections. Very beautiful paper, which I studied in detail as an undergraduate and made use of ideas from it in my senior thesis. So that was fairly current. I guess that paper came out in '73, and I was reading it the next year. And I went into that particular paper in some depth. But I don't think I was aware of Grand Unification until I got to Harvard. Although, the original papers appeared when I was a senior in college.
Zierler:
In terms of Wightman's mentorship, did he essentially hand you a thesis problem to work on? Or you more or less came up with it on your own?
Preskill:
He handed it to me, and it was way too hard. Way too hard. It was to prove that spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs in the Yukawa Theory. And I mean prove it in the sense of rigorous mathematics. That’s a problem about one plus one dimensional field theory, but the tools that he wanted me to use had just been developed that year, the Osterwalder-Schrader Axioms for Euclidian Quantum Field Theory. And he believed that those tools would enable one to show that this theory of fermions and scalars would have a phase in which a discrete symmetry was spontaneously broken. And I tried to do that, and I kind of nibbled around the edges but didn't really make much headway towards a proof. The problem wasn't solved for quite some time. Maybe it took another 15 years before it was solved by real mathematicians. So, I really was not very well equipped for it either intellectually or by background, but I learned a lot. And I think most senior theses turned out that way.
Zierler:
What kind of advice did you get, or not, in terms of choosing graduate programs, particular professors to work with?
Preskill:
Well, I did talk to Wightman about that, I recall. Actually, here's something else, though, which maybe is worth mentioning. At that time, the attitude was widespread that if you tried to get a PhD in physics, you'd never get a job. In the ‘60s, there was a surge of hiring sort of in the post-Sputnik building of science. And so, all these young people got hired as professors in theoretical physics in particular, and all the jobs were filled. And it wouldn't be until the late 1990s that they'd start to retire and there'd be an opportunity to get a faculty job again. I heard this all the time, including from faculty when I was an undergraduate of Princeton. “If your goal is to get a PhD in physics and go on in academia, think again. Because there aren't any jobs.” But somehow, although that should've been very discouraging, it wasn't. I'm not really that conceited of a person, I'm well-aware of my limitations, but somehow, I thought, “Well, for me, it'll be different. And if you don't try, how are you going to know?” Didn't bother me so much.
But anyway, Wightman was quite positive about Sidney Coleman in particular as a potential mentor. The other thing, which I got more from talking to other students, was there was this kind of cultural divide at the time between so-called East Coast and West Coast physics. And at least the buzz with the students was, “The exciting stuff is happening at Princeton and Harvard, and Caltech and Berkeley are still doing what they were doing in the ‘60s, and they haven't caught up. What's exciting is gauge theories. And they're still doing S-matrix theory at Berkeley, so you better not go there.”
Zierler:
What about the theory group at SLAC? Was that something you considered?
Preskill:
No, not so much. Who would I have been aware of? Of course, I knew Sid Drell because I had read his textbook.
Zierler:
Bjorken, for example?
Preskill:
Yeah. I don't know. I wasn't too excited about Stanford or SLAC. And at Caltech, the feeling was the glory days were behind. That's what the students were saying in the mid-70s, that Gell-Mann and Feynman were in their declining years. I had one friend who graduated a year ahead of me, good friend, Orlando Alvarez, who had been a Princeton undergrad. And he went to Harvard. I talked to him a lot, and I figured, “Well, if it's good enough for Orlando, that's probably where I should go.” And I was aware of Steve Weinberg. He had been hired at Harvard relatively recently, I think in '73 he had moved from MIT. He was sort of supposed to fill Schwinger's shoes. And I was aware of the Weinberg-Salam Model, so I knew he was supposed to be a big deal.
But to the extent that I did it, reading papers to get an idea of what people were doing or what would be interesting that faculty members at Harvard, for example, were working on-- I was very impressed by Coleman's papers at the time, less so by Weinberg's. A lot of that had to do with Coleman’s style, which was extremely clear and clever. He would use methods that he would explain very brilliantly, and which you might not have thought of yourself.
Zierler:
So Coleman was really the primary motivation for you wanting to go to Harvard?
Preskill:
That's how I recall it. It didn't turn out quite that way because I became Steve Weinberg's student.
Zierler:
Did you have any interactions with Coleman before you got to Harvard? Did he ever come to Princeton? Did you know him personally?
Preskill:
It's funny because he was at Princeton on leave at the time asymptotic freedom was being discovered. But at that time, I guess I was a sophomore. I don't remember interacting with him at all or even being aware he was there. So, I had not met him. I knew him by reputation and by reading his papers. And getting an assurance from Arthur Wightman that he was doing extremely interesting things. And like I said, I was aware that Weinberg was a big shot. I don't know if I was so aware of Glashow when I was an undergrad. But yeah, I decided I wanted to go Harvard, and that's how it turned out. And as a first-year graduate student, I took Sidney's Field Theory course, which was very popular, and the room would be filled to the rafters. In fact, that was the year that videos were made of all the lectures. And those videos were later used as part of the basis for a version of Coleman's Field Theory lectures that were recently published.
And so, those lectures were beautiful. Coleman was a legendary lecturer, always extremely clear and entertaining. But it was the kind of thing where while you were listening, you thought everything was perfectly clear, but then afterward, it would be very hard to remember why it had been so clear. So, I would go over my notes at great length afterwards and try to re-derive everything. Sometimes I would go and watch the videos, actually, with another friend from the class. And I was determined to master whatever he talked about.
So, that was a very memorable experience. There wasn't any other course I took at Harvard that was taught nearly as well, even though they were taught by distinguished people. That same year, I took Weinberg's gravity course based on his book, Gravitation and Cosmology. General Relativity course. I liked the book, but his lectures weren’t very good. It seemed like he would come in unprepared, and then he'd open the book and start copying equations out of it. It was very uninspiring. And Shelly Glashow was not a very good lecturer, either. And you kind of got the impression he was winging it. I remember taking group theory from Shelly. It was fun, but it always seemed like very little preparation had gone into the lecture.
Zierler:
It's been said that pedagogy is much more prized at Princeton than it is at Harvard. I wonder if you had that experience, even though those are very different perspectives as an undergraduate to a graduate student.
Preskill:
Well, no, I've never really thought about it that way. But I guess that does align with my experience. I thought there were some very well-taught classes when I was an undergrad. Actually, I'd mentioned taking that freshman course on electricity and magnetism. I didn't mention the instructor. It was Val Fitch. And, of course, he won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of CP-violation, which I didn't know at the time. But he was an inspiring teacher. And I took another course from him on more advanced so-called modern physics, in which he discussed at great length the K-Kbar system, and flavor mixing, and CP-violation. And I wasn't aware until told by another one of the students that that was his research bread and butter. But he sure seemed to know a lot about it. [laugh] And so, that was another very memorable class.
Zierler:
If Steve Weinberg didn't give you a great impression as a student in his class, how did you end up becoming his student?
Preskill:
Well, everybody wanted to work with Sidney because he could explain things so clearly, and he was receptive to a certain degree to supervising students. But in a way which was only half-joking, I rather vividly remember him saying, “I have graduate students like a dog has fleas.” And, of course, he meant it as a joke, and I actually thought it was funny. But he really had a lot of students, and his personal habits were different than they were in later years. This was before he was married and before he'd been diagnosed with adult-onset diabetes. And he was a very heavy smoker and kept unconventional hours. He'd stay up all night and then go to sleep at dawn, and he'd come in in the afternoon. He always insisted that his lectures be scheduled for the afternoon because he would be sleeping in the morning. And when he would arrive in mid-afternoon, sometimes late afternoon, students would be queued up outside his office because they wanted a moment with Sidney. And I just thought, “Who needs it? I've got to stand in line to get a few minutes with my advisor?” So that was part of it.
But meanwhile, I guess I became more acquainted with some of the things Weinberg was doing, and I realized, although I wasn't that impressed by the quality of the instruction in his cosmology class, I thought cosmology was really interesting, and the idea of someone who was pursuing research that was relevant to both particle physics and cosmology appealed to me. And even more so, when the idea started to bubble up that we could learn things about particle physics by studying cosmology. Grand Unification had a lot to do with that. Of course, I did learn about Grand Unification. I would say that was one of the obvious exciting things going on in my early years in graduate school. And it became more exciting when Georgi, Quinn, and Weinberg computed, from the running of the couplings, the Grand Unification scale. Originally, Georgi and Glashow had just noted the scale had to be high, or else the proton would be too short-lived.
But by actually calculating the coupling unification scale, that seemed to indicate at first that proton decay might be right on the edge of observability, and that helped to stimulate the early experiments to detect proton decay, which wound up detecting neutrinos from Supernova 1987A and all that. But the idea that you could observationally learn something about these incredibly high-energy scales by doing the right kinds of observations was exciting to me. And then, the idea came along that baryogenesis, the origin of the excess of matter over antimatter in the universe, had an explanation coming from Grand Unification, where there would be baryon-number-violating interactions, and the history of the very early universe, I thought that was very exciting.
And Steve jumped on that, too. The first paper I remember about that was by a guy named Yoshimura. And I thought that was a really cool idea right away. Actually, around the same time, Dimopoulis and Susskind were working on this, though I wasn't as keenly aware of what they were doing, but the idea that you could understand the excess of matter over antimatter using Grand Unification and early universe cosmology, I thought that was really exciting. There was a bit of a courtship in getting to know Steve. Steve was really only interested in talking about what he was interested in generally. And I didn't spend all that much time talking to him. And when I did, he was usually pumping me for information. But the way I managed to get his attention is I thought at the time that the other really exciting thing going on in theoretical particle physics was the connection of topology with particle physics.
And the two main aspects of that that were intriguing were that 't Hooft and Polyakov had pointed out that in unified theories, there could be magnetic monopoles. And also the idea of instantons, which came around the same time—again, with Polyakov and 't Hooft having a key role. These were quantum tunneling events that occur in Yang-Mills Theory, and they had consequences for QCD, in particular, providing a way of solving what people were calling at the time the U1 problem. There seemed to be a symmetry that QCD should have, which wasn't really a good symmetry.
And it turned out that was due to a so-called anomaly, that the symmetry was good at the classical level but broken by quantum effects. And to understand how that worked, you had to use these topological ideas, or at least that's how people understood it at the time, having to do with instantons. And Steve got interested in instantons at some point, and I had been actually working on a problem relating to instantons, so I knew a lot about it. And so, I was always able to answer his questions. He would ask me technical questions about instantons, which he was trying to learn, and I actually knew.
So that's how he learned my name. But yeah, he was certainly inspiring in many ways, but he never gave me much guidance, and I didn't really mind that so much. But I got guidance from other people, most of all, from the post-docs. And, of course, you learn a lot from your other students. But there were remarkable post-docs at Harvard at the time. The two who I was most inspired by were Ed Witten and Michael Peskin. And Peskin, really, was the closest thing I had to a mentor in graduate school.
Zierler:
What was Peskin working on at that point?
Preskill:
Well, we worked together on a project, actually, which had to do with instantons. And also, with my friend Orlando Alvarez, who I'd mentioned had come to Harvard from Princeton a year ahead of me. We were trying to use these instanton ideas to compute contributions to electroproduction, high-energy inelastic scattering. And we did, we worked on that a lot. It was the first serious research project I worked on. Orlando and I did most of the calculations, but Michael kind of got us started. And we had some pretty interesting results. So that was sort of how I came up to speed on these instanton methods. And my first seminars were about that work, which I'm ashamed to say, and I find a little bit inexplicable, we never published, never wrote it up, although we really did have some good results. We all sort of got distracted by other things. Not long after, Misha Shifman, and Vainshtein, and Zakharov covered some similar ideas in their papers.
The key thing that we realized is that when you do these instanton calculations, they have infrared divergences, and they show up as the instanton has a size, and you have to integrate overall the possible sizes. And if nothing cuts off that integral, it looks like you get infinite results. But what we realized is those infrared-sensitive pieces could be factored into matrix elements, and so there were other short-distance pieces that you really could compute. It was really pretty nice work. We should've written a paper. We didn't. But it still helped me get going because it gave me some confidence that I could do research that people were interested in. Howard Georgi was interested in what we were doing.
And also, Ed Witten seemed to be interested. And my first talk at a conference was actually at Caltech. That was in early 1979, there was a meeting where students were encouraged to attend, and some of us went from Harvard, and I met other students there for the first time from Princeton and other places. But there was a session in which students could volunteer to give 20-minute talks, so I signed up for that. And I was quite excited because it was an evening session, but Feynman came, and he was in the audience. He was sort of listening to the talks. Every once in a while, he'd go out in the hallway and just have informal conversations with people.
But anyway, this session went on, and on, and on. It started at 7:00, and I didn't get to talk until 10 pm. Feynman was long gone. I had a terrible cold. I could barely speak audibly because I was so hoarse. But I gave the talk, and it went well. And again, that also helped to build confidence. And I gave similar talks at Harvard. And so, then I started to feel like I was ready to do serious research.
Zierler:
In what ways did this work feed into what ultimately would be your thesis research?
Preskill:
Well, what you might be surprised to hear is that the work I did in graduate school, which became well-known, which was about magnetic monopoles produced in the early universe, was not in my thesis at all. I wrote my thesis on something different. Actually, I think it's interesting that I drew on what I learned from Sidney Coleman and from Steve Weinberg to find my problem having to do with monopoles in the early universe. I was very interested in this idea that magnetic monopoles could be understood using topological ideas applied to unified gauge theories, and that Grand Unified theories should have these magnetic monopoles. But the question I remember discussing with some of the other students, Steve Parke was one of them, was, “Who cares? Because these things are so heavy, you'll never see them experimentally. They're completely irrelevant to any physics we'll be able to do in our lifetimes. So why are you even bothering to learn about these magnetic monopoles?”
Zierler:
This is the very early beginnings of Henry Tye’s and Alan Guth's collaboration. Were you aware of what they were doing? Did you know either of them?
Preskill:
Well, I knew Alan Guth, but I wasn't aware what they were doing until later. Alan Guth was an instructor at Princeton when I was an undergrad. And speaking of great instruction at Princeton, he taught a beautiful class on classical mechanics, which I took as a junior, Goldstein Classical Mechanics. And, really, he's one of the best lecturers. He was Coleman-caliber. And he was clearly working very, very hard on that class. He told me later he was putting an enormous amount of time into it, as I'm sure he must've been. And so, I knew him for that reason. He remembered me later as a student in that class.
But no, I didn't know that Guth and Tye were interested in the issue of production of magnetic monopoles in the early universe. And there were other things that I didn't know and found out later, which preceded my work. One was Kibble had written this paper in 1976 on topological defects that could be produced in a cosmological setting. His focus was mostly on cosmic strings. I didn't know about that at the time.
And there was also a paper by Zeldovich and Khlopov about magnetic monopoles produced in the early universe. I didn't know about their work, either. But I started working on it myself. And Steve was not interested. I tried to explain it to him. “Look, there's something really interesting here,” speaking to Steve Weinberg. Grand Unified theories, we have reasons to believe they're the truth. They make this prediction, these very heavy magnetic monopoles. If there's a phase transition in the early universe, these could be created in such a phase transition, and they should still be around. In fact, there should be so many of them around that the universe would've been closed by monopoles, and it wouldn't look anything like the universe we inhabit. And first of all, he said, “Well, I'm not really sure about the magnetic monopoles existing, and I'm not really sure why I should believe you that they were produced in the early universe. This is all so speculative.”
And it was a little discouraging that my PhD advisor thought I was barking up the wrong tree. But there were other people who did encourage me. Michael Peskin was one. And some people, I actually got some technical advice from. One was Bert Halperin, a condensed matter physicist, but he knew a lot about topological defects in the condensed matter setting. And he helped me to set up a calculation of how many of these monopoles would be created in a phase transition. And another was Ed Purcell, who was, of course, a wonderful man. And I knew Ed because I was TA for his quantum mechanics class. And he was very interested in magnetic monopoles, and in fact, had been involved in searches for them some years earlier, and followed subsequent efforts to detect magnetic monopoles or put limits on their abundance. And actually, there had been a little bit of a false alarm around the time I was entering graduate school. Price claimed to have detected a magnetic monopole in a cosmic ray event, which was later debunked by Luis Alvarez and others as just a misinterpretation of something that could be explained by more conventional phenomena.
Zierler:
It's almost too delicious to think of how, in some ways, Bert Halperin, as a condensed matter theorist, was more helpful in developing your dissertation idea than Steve Weinberg. Can you explain a little bit the science for how Bert's background might've actually been useful? Because at first glance, it's hard to see how condensed matter theory would be relevant for this line of inquiry.
Preskill:
Well, as I mentioned, what I thought was the most exciting thing in my first few years of graduate school that was happening was these topological ideas coming into particle physics, particularly in the theory of magnetic monopoles and instantons. But topological ideas were also becoming increasingly useful in condensed matter, where in different materials, there can be topological defects associated with spontaneous breaking of symmetries. Not usually gauge symmetries in the case of the magnetic monopoles. Well, actually, in the case of a superconductor, a vortex in a superconductor is an example of a topological defect in a gauge theory. That is sort of a prototypical example of such a topological defect. Bert knew everything about superconductors. He knew all about vortices. But also, there were point-like defects that occurred in three-dimensional materials like liquid crystals. And Bert knew about that, too.
Furthermore, what I was interested in is what would happen if there was a phase transition in the early universe. If it's SU5, for example—which is the gauge group—it had been understood in the previous few years that at high temperature, even if the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken—if the Higgs phenomenon occurs at low temperature, at high temperature that symmetry would be restored. So, you would expect very early in the universe that the SU5 symmetry was still intact, but as the universe cooled, the symmetry breaking would occur. There might be a sequence of phase transitions, but there should at least at some point be a transition to the phase in which SU3 cross SU2 cross U1, the symmetry of the Standard Model, is the unbroken remaining gauge symmetry. And one could show that the breakdown of SU5 to the Standard Model would give rise to stable magnetic monopoles. The question was, how abundantly would they be created?
And there were a couple of ways of looking at that, one of which was really the idea that Kibble had discussed, although I didn't know his paper at the time, which is that there's an order parameter, which is fluctuating around, you're in the symmetric phase, but then it freezes out. Like, for example, if you're cooling a material, and it goes from paramagnetic phase to a ferromagnetic phase, the magnetization locks in, and all the spins line up. And that is the same kind of phenomenon where the symmetry is restored at high temperature and then becomes spontaneously broken at a critical point.
And I thought the same thing would happen in a unified gauge theory. And that that would give rise to the possibility of magnetic monopoles, for one thing, just because of relativistic causality. When the magnetization turns on, the magnetization at one point in space has no way of knowing to line up with the magnetization of another point in space because there hasn't been time for a light signal to travel between this domain and that domain. And so, as the spins start to line up, there will be knots that get locked in. Those are the topological defects. And that's how magnetic monopoles can form.
I had that idea, but Bert told me a different idea, which was that even if the phase transition were a smooth phase transition, if it were second order, that because the order parameters would be fluctuating, you would expect to get a lot of defects, even not taking into account the effects of relativistic causality, and that's what he showed me how to calculate. Which, because I wound up writing a very short letter-length article, got squeezed down to, like, a paragraph or something without many details. That was another thing. Steve did give me one piece of advice. I asked him where I should publish the result that he didn't find very interesting, and he made a suggestion which really surprised me. He said Nature. The particle physics students didn't read Nature. That was where there were papers about astronomy and stuff like that, or biology. But Steve at least had the notion that there was something of broad interest about what I was doing because it related to cosmology, to particle physics, and even to condensed matter ideas.
Zierler:
It was of broad interest, but not particularly interesting to him.
Preskill:
Not interesting enough, but broad. [laugh] But Bert said, “No, Physical Review Letters would be better.” So that's where I submitted it, and it was rejected because first of all, it wasn't novel enough. It'd actually be interesting for me to dig up that referee report. I think I still have it. But also, that it didn't seem to be right because I had overestimated the abundance of the monopoles for some reason which the reviewer didn't explain. But the editors, to their credit, said, “Well, we'll give you a chance to respond and resubmit.” But it was a very bad day because I was already in my fourth year of graduate school. I had no papers. And this was my first one. And it got rejected. And I was pretty depressed. So, I remember my wife thought this would cheer me up—we went shopping, and we bought a color TV set. Up until then, our TV set was this little black and white TV set. And it did cheer me up a little to have a color TV. But anyway, I resubmitted the single-author paper, and it did get accepted.
But what really seems funny and odd to me, looking back, is that when I was applying for post-docs, I had no publications. I had this one preprint, the one about magnetic monopole production in the early universe. And nothing had been published, and that was it. And yet, that didn't seem to be too big an impediment to getting good post-doc offers because that one paper was getting a fair amount of attention. Now, coming back to Henry Tye and Alan Guth, after my preprint came out, Alan invited me to visit Cornell. I don't think Henry was there. I think he was traveling. It was during the summer.
Zierler:
He was probably in China at that point.
Preskill:
Yeah, I think that's probably right. But Alan was there, and, of course, like I said, I knew him from my undergraduate days. And by that time, Michael Peskin was at Cornell. And I think Steve Shenker was there. Yeah, I think he was still a student there. Steve Shenker was there. And Ken Wilson. That was the first time I had a chance to sit-- Ken Wilson is one of my heroes. And although I had met him during his visit to Harvard, I'm sure he didn't know me. But during that visit, I got a chance to sit down with Ken and chat. I think that may be really the only time that we ever had a serious talk about physics, so that was memorable.
Zierler:
Do you remember what you talked about?
Preskill:
Yeah, magnetic monopoles. And actually, he thought my paper was wrong. And he thought it was wrong because he thought the magnetic monopoles would be confined. And he was wrong. And I'm not sure I convinced him.
Zierler:
You were confident at this point though.
Preskill:
I knew a lot about magnetic monopoles. Yeah. But anyway, I talked to Alan a lot. I don't remember, was their paper out yet? Not sure. But they had some of the same ideas, and I guess you've already talked to Alan. But I'd been pretty careful in analyzing if a significant number of monopoles were produced, how many of them would survive. And I had an argument, which I thought was pretty convincing, that unless something nonstandard happened in the cosmology, it just couldn't work, that the production of the monopoles was unavoidable. It would be copious, they wouldn't annihilate fast enough, and the universe would be closed by them many times over, and that couldn't be our cosmology, so there had to be some way out.
And during the following fall, I probably should've thought about that more. Because I figured there had to be something about the phase transition that was unconventional. But by that time, I had gotten interested in a different topic, which is what I did end up writing my thesis on, which was technicolor, as we called it at the time. The breaking of electroweak symmetry by strong interaction. So, of course, Alan famously continued thinking about it and had the insight that inflation could blow the monopoles away, but he also, to his credit, realized that that could explain the flatness and isotropy of the universe. And, of course, that idea was very explosive when it came out. That paper had a lot of impact right away. I remember him coming to Harvard and giving a talk about it, which was received with a lot of excitement.
Zierler:
Did you see the transition to technicolor as switching gears? Was it related?
Preskill:
It wasn't that closely related, but I thought the ideas were quite exciting. I was particularly inspired by a paper by Lenny Susskind, which is actually a little ironic because Steve Weinberg had written a related paper. He didn't call it technicolor, but he did call it dynamical breaking of electroweak symmetry, which is what it is. And his paper was, in a way, sort of typical Weinberg style. He calculated everything, and he correctly discussed all the issues. It was a little dry.
And Lenny Susskind is also one of my heroes because of his creativity as a scientist, but also he's a very charismatic communicator in writing and in person. And this was an inspiring paper. And what he realized, which Weinberg had not, was something quite simple, which was, in the Weinberg-Salam Model, the so-called rho parameter, which basically says that the ratio of the W to Z mass is determined by the Weinberg mixing angle theta-W. Steve, by the way, always claimed the W in theta-W stood for weak, and he wouldn't call it the Weinberg angle. He called it the weak mixing angle, in a burst of modesty.
But at any rate, Murray Gell-Mann always liked to say in his snide way, “Oh, we call this angle theta-W because W stands for the last letter in the word Glashow.” [laugh] Anyway, Murray and Steve were not fans of one another. So what Lenny said in his paper was that you could understand how the Weinberg angle was related to the W of Z masses just from a symmetry consideration, and that in the dynamical symmetry breaking scenario, that symmetry would naturally be present, and that the dynamics that you needed was dynamics that we already understood fairly well from QCD—the breaking of chiral symmetry in QCD, which is responsible for the pion being much lighter than other hadrons. That could occur with this new strong interaction with a similar structure to QCD, but which becomes strong at a higher scale, at the weak scale like a TeV, or a few hundred GeV rather than a few hundred MeV, as in QCD. That could account for how the electroweak symmetries get broken. And Lenny called this new strong interaction “technicolor.”
And what I found so appealing about this was that because it was dynamical, it should be highly constrained. One thing I found very curious and was very interested in, for some years, starting when I was in graduate school is, where do the quark and lepton masses come from? In the Standard Model, they're just free parameters. You write down Yukawa couplings, they can be anything, and those determine the mixing angles like the Cabibbo angle and the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, it's all free parameters. Same thing for all the masses. And what fun is that? You'd like to be able to explain where those masses come from. And I thought in a dynamical scenario, we'd be able to do that much better.
I was very interested in those ideas for a couple of years, and it turned out that these dynamical scenarios are so constrained that it was very hard to come up with a viable phenomenology. Because you didn't have the same kind of freedom you do when you have Higgs fields, where you can choose Yukawa couplings to be whatever you want. Explaining the masses of the quarks, and leptons, and all that became very challenging. Actually, I'll tell you something funny. When I first came to Caltech, that was in 1983, I thought the important problem in particle physics was to explain those quark and lepton masses. I thought, “If we could do that, if we could understand what that hint was telling us, that would be a good path to understanding what's beyond the Standard Model.”
And so, to remind myself that was important, I made a chart which showed all the masses, the spectrum of quarks and leptons, and I posted it in my office on the bulletin board so I'd see it every day to remind me, “This is the important thing to think about.” And then, a couple of years went by, and one day, I was talking to Mark Wise in my office, who occupied the office next door, and we looked at that chart, which had been on the bulletin board, roasting in the sun every afternoon, and the masses had all faded away. They'd been bleached by the sun. And we took that to be some kind of metaphor for how this problem somehow was too elusive to admit an easy solution. And by that time, I wasn't thinking about it anymore.
Zierler:
I want to ask, at this point, when you're really starting to solidify your identity in theoretical physics, going from magnetic monopoles to technicolor, did you feel at the time that you dipped a toe into cosmology, and then went sort of back to your home intellectual environment of particle theory?
Preskill:
Well, yeah. I don't know if I looked at it that way. But because I got excited about technicolor, I sort of dropped the cosmology ball for a while and focused on technicolor. My interest in cosmology got reactivated partly because of another experimental false alarm. In 1982, Blas Cabrera thought he saw a magnetic monopole. It was on Valentine's Day, 1982. I was still at Harvard. By then, I was on the faculty. And that seemed incredible and really exciting. And hard to explain. He had this little loop of superconducting wire and saw the flux jump, which he interpreted as evidence that a magnetic monopole had passed through the loop. And so, one needed to understand why magnetic monopoles would be plentiful enough for Blas Cabrera to detect one, and at the same time, not do other things, which the astrophysicists told us would be bad. Parker, in particular, had gotten a bound on the abundance of monopoles from observing that if there's a magnetic monopole plasma in the galaxy, it'll short out the galactic magnetic field on some time scale short compared to the galactic rotation time, which cranks up the dynamo.
And so, was there something wrong with that argument? Guess that wasn't really cosmology. But at any rate, we did realize that if the monopoles were very heavy, the story was changed because Parker had assumed they got relativistic velocities, which for the types of monopoles predicted by grand unified theories, needn't be the case. They'd more likely have typical virial velocities in the galaxy like 10 to the minus 3 c. Of course, it turned out Blas Cabrera never saw another magnetic monopole. But it was exciting for a while. And actually, that helped to elevate my star a little bit maybe because now everybody was excited about magnetic monopoles and where they came from. And I was asked to give talks about that and things like that.
Zierler:
To clarify, when you say that Cabrera never saw another one, is that to suggest it's possible that what he saw was a magnetic monopole?
Preskill:
Well, it seems extremely unlikely, right? Because he would've had to be incredibly lucky to see that one and be consistent with other bounds we have on the flux. So no, I don't think he ever explained, or at least never publicly explained, what went wrong or what the right interpretation was of the event he saw. But no, it wasn't a magnetic monopole, sad to say.
Yeah, so then, the next foray into cosmology which had some impact concerned axions and predicting that they could potentially be the dark matter. And probably Alan Guth told you about this workshop, the Nuffield Workshop in 1982 in Cambridge. I was there. It was organized by Stephen Hawking and Gary Gibbons. It was a pretty exciting event. And the big topic there was whether inflation could explain the origin of galaxies by seeding the density perturbations from which galaxies grew. And there was a lot of disagreement at the beginning of that three-week workshop about what inflation predicted.
And I'm sure you discussed this with Alan, but after the idea of inflation, which seemed very exciting, trouble was brewing because how inflation ended was unclear. And Alan and others had done computations of how as bubbles of true vacuum appeared in the false vacuum in a phase transition, whether those bubbles would succeed in filling up the universe and giving rise to a reheated universe that would then be described by Big Bang cosmology, and he couldn't get this to work. But then, around I guess it must've been the end of 1981, the idea by Andrei Linde, and Albrecht and Steinhardt, that instead of having to go through a barrier, the universe could sort of roll off the table to end inflation. The energy density would be high because you'd be on a plateau of a potential function, but rolling along, and then you'd start to oscillate in the potential after you roll off this flat part. And that would give rise to reheating.
So, what everybody was interested in was what kind of perturbations of density would be produced in that transition from the inflationary phase to the more standard radiation-dominated phase. And so, Alan, and Starobinsky, and Turner, Steinhardt, and Bardeen, and Hawking, they were all trying to calculate those things. So that was sort of the focal point of excitement. But I went there to talk about magnetic monopoles and to think about what axions might have to do with cosmology. And Frank Wilczek was there, too, who had an interest in axions, as the founder of them—
Actually, just to backpedal for a second, this is sort of a funny story. Or maybe, I don't know, sort of a typical experience of a graduate student. In the fall of 1977, I crank up my courage, and I go to see Steve Weinberg. I'd like suggestions for a research problem to work on. And so, he responded immediately with the thing that he was thinking about that day. What was it? Well, he had just read this paper by Peccei and Quinn that would explain potentially the solution to the strong CP problem, why CP is a very good symmetry of the strong interactions. And their idea has something to do with the Higgs sector, and how you can introduce another Higgs field, and that can help. “So what might be interesting to work out is, what's the phenomenology of this type of model with more than one Higgs field?”
So, I thought that sounded interesting. So, like any graduate student would, I spent the next couple of weeks reading everything I could find on Higgs phenomenology. But then, Steve, after a few weeks, announced he was giving a seminar, and he explained the idea, which we now called the axion. He actually called it the Higglet, because it was a little Higgs, a light Higgs, at the time.
Zierler:
The Higglet never caught on.
Preskill:
[laugh] Higglet didn't catch on. And Frank's good at names, isn't he?
Zierler:
Yeah, yeah.
Preskill:
And so, Steve was trying to figure out at that point whether the Higglet was ruled out by experiments that had already been done. But I was a little miffed because I thought, “Boy, Steve suggested this problem. Why didn't he tell me that he was making progress? And here I am, spending every waking hour learning about Higgs phenomenology, so I'll be ready to dive in.” But, of course, I'm sure Steve didn't give it another thought. I doubt he remembered that he had even mentioned it to me. I just happened to walk into his office at the time he was looking at the paper or something. Anyway, I was reminded of that. [laugh]
Zierler:
While we're still on graduate school, who was on your committee?
Preskill:
Weinberg, Coleman, Georgi, and Estia Eichten, who was junior faculty at Harvard at that time. I do have a very disturbing memory of my exam, actually. You're not going to believe it when I tell you this, probably. Well, here's the thing. I didn't understand what a PhD defense was. Somehow, I didn't realize I was expected to give a presentation. How could I have not known this? All the other students seemed to know it. So, I thought, “Well, they've all read my thesis, and they'll come in, and they'll ask me questions about it.” I had nothing prepared. My thesis was related to technicolor. Didn't have anything to do with cosmology and magnetic monopoles. But actually, it was something Steve was very interested in.
I'll tell you something funny about that, too. It was very Weinbergian, what I did. I studied what's called the vacuum alignment problem. And what that means is, you have spontaneous symmetry breaking, but you also have some explicit breaking of the symmetry. And the explicit breaking of the symmetry determines which of the degenerate vacua will actually get preferred. If you have a ferromagnet, and you turn on a small magnetic field, then the lower energy vacuum will be the true vacuum. And so, in this case, I had some global symmetries, but then because I also introduced gauge interactions, that explicitly broke some of those symmetries. And the interesting thing was that the way that the symmetry breaking aligned with the gauge symmetry gave rise to some phenomenological predictions, that there would be light mesons coming from the technicolor sector that you might be able to see in collider experiments and stuff like that.
And I gave a talk about this in early 1980 at Harvard. And Steve was there, and he seemed enthusiastic about it. And then, maybe a month or two later. Now, I mentioned Michael Peskin earlier. Michael, that year, the 1979-1980 academic year, was spending the year in France at Saclay as a visitor, and he had written a paper on a very similar topic with very similar conclusions while he was in France, and I hadn't been communicating with him. And he sent it to Weinberg. And so, I don't remember exactly why, but I came into Steve's office, and he said, “I have this paper from Peskin. It's very interesting, and he does blah, blah, blah.” And I said, “But, Steve, that's what I talked about at that seminar two months ago.” He didn't remember that at all. Later, maybe he recollected, he was apologetic about expressing that enthusiasm about Peskin's paper without realizing that much of it overlapped with the content of my thesis.
So anyway, that's what was in the thesis, so I figured I had a receptive audience because I knew Howard was also quite interested, and Estia, too. But I didn't prepare anything. And Arthur Jaffe also came, and he brought Cliff Taubes, who was his graduate student and was actually my officemate. And Cliff became a famous topologist. He’s won many awards, and he's a great mathematician now. They thought I was going to talk about magnetic monopoles, which they were both interested in, so they came in to hear my talk. And I just got up there, and Steve said, “OK, now you can begin.” And I thought, “What”" I had nothing prepared. So I just started mumbling about what was in my thesis very stream-of-consciousness. It must've been excruciating to listen to. And that was my PhD exam.
Zierler:
But you survived. You lived to tell the tale.
Preskill:
I lived, yeah. But I try not to think about it. But that's what really happened.
Zierler:
Was the game plan to stay at Harvard already buttoned up before your defense?
Preskill:
Yes. So, I became a junior fellow after my PhD in the Harvard Society of Fellows. The Society of Fellows, at least in those days, would appoint eight new fellows every year, and they were in all fields. Not just science, in fact, humanities as well. But it was kind of typical to have one or two theoretical physicists in a class, and pretty often, they were Harvard graduate students, not always, who became junior fellows. Some of my predecessors the previous year or two were Paul Steinhardt, who got a Harvard PhD and became a junior fellow, and also Ian Affleck, who later became a very distinguished condensed matter theorist, though he was doing particle theory at the time. So, in my year, I became a junior fellow, and also in that same year was Mark Wise, who became a good friend. He had been a graduate student with Fred Gilman at Stanford. And Cliff Taubes, who was doing topology. We were all junior fellows together.
Zierler:
Was your sense that the Society was essentially finishing school to see if you could elevate to become a Harvard professor?
Preskill:
I didn't really look at it that way because it was so rare for junior fellows, or even Harvard junior faculty, to become tenured professors.
Zierler:
So as naive as you were about what a thesis defense was, you clearly understood the culture of not promoting from within at Harvard.
Preskill:
Oh, that was well-known. Although, actually, we used to joke about it, the students, because we were aware that there had been, in recent years, strong assistant professors doing excellent research who had not gotten tenure at Harvard. Tom Applequist was one who was a couple years ahead of when I arrived. And actually, I had two collaborators who were junior faculty while I was in graduate school, Estia Eichten and Ken Lane. And there was not any serious expectation that they would become tenured professors at Harvard, and they didn't. But, of course, they both went on to good careers. And that was the typical pattern with the Harvard junior faculty, and with the junior fellows, that they would usually go elsewhere and be successful. Now, I did something unusual. I was a junior fellow for only one year, even though it was a three-year appointment. I became an assistant professor and then an associate professor in the following two years.
Zierler:
And, of course, the associate professor is not tenured.
Preskill:
No, and I didn't really think it was likely that I would get tenure, and I wound up going to Caltech.
Zierler:
But to be promoted to associate is an indication that it's a step in the right direction.
Preskill:
Well, maybe so. But actually, what happened was this. My wife had just gotten her business degree at MIT at the Sloan School, what everybody else calls an MBA, but they call a Master's of Science in Management, and she was working at a company that seemed like a real up-and-coming company, Digital Equipment Corporation, which made the VAX minicomputer and other products. And it looked like she was off to a great start in her career, and we wanted to have the flexibility of staying in the Boston area longer. And I thought if I transitioned into the junior faculty slot, although it would mean I'd have to teach and other stuff, we would at least have the flexibility to stick around longer. As it turned out, I didn't do that. I was only at Harvard for three years.
Actually, I remember I was visiting Santa Barbara. This was at the very beginnings of what was then the Institute for Theoretical Phy | |||
2453 | dbpedia | 1 | 20 | https://rjlipton.com/2012/01/30/perpetual-motion-of-the-21st-century/ | en | Perpetual Motion of The 21st Century? | [
"https://i0.wp.com/rjlipton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gilandaram.png?resize=297%2C169&ssl=1",
"https://i0.wp.com/rjlipton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/perpetualcollage.png?resize=300%2C225&ssl=1",
"https://i0.wp.com/rjlipton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/baak.png?resize=400%2C298&ssl=1",
"https://s0.w... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2012-01-30T00:00:00 | Are quantum errors incorrigible? Discussion between Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow are world experts on mathematical frameworks for quantum computation. They hold opposing opinions on whether or not quantum computers are possible. Today and in at least one succeeding post, Gil and Aram will discuss the possibility of building large-scale… | en | Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP | https://rjlipton.com/2012/01/30/perpetual-motion-of-the-21st-century/ | Are quantum errors incorrigible? Discussion between Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow
Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow are world experts on mathematical frameworks for quantum computation. They hold opposing opinions on whether or not quantum computers are possible.
Today and in at least one succeeding post, Gil and Aram will discuss the possibility of building large-scale quantum computers.
Quantum computers provide a 21st Century field for the kind of debate first led by Albert Einstein about the reach of quantum theory. One thought experiment by which Einstein tried to contravene the Uncertainty Principle can be described as having asserted that quantum theory implies the creation of perpetual motion machines, which are impossible machines. In a later attempt, after initial puzzlement, Niels Bohr pointed out that Einstein himself had neglected to correct for gravity’s effect on time in general relativity.
Perpetual motion machines were the dream of many inventors over the centuries—and why not? Having a machine that could create useful work but consume no fuel would change the world. Alas advances in our understanding of physics have ruled them out: there is indeed no free lunch. The designs at right look like birds-of-a-feather, but the rightmost was designed in 1960 by Hermann Bondi to illustrate Bohr’s correction above.
The guest discussions here between Gil Kalai and Aram Harrow address the fundamental question:
Are quantum computers feasible? Or are their underlying models defeated by some fundamental physical laws?
Those like Royal Society co-founder John Wilkins who in 1670 wrote of perpetual motion machines did not know of the second law of thermodynamics. We, Dick and Ken, would like to think that if blogs like GLL were around centuries ago there might have been a more penetrating discussion than even the Royal Society could foster. We are here now, and we are very honored that Gil and Aram wish to use GLL as a location to discuss this interesting, important, and wonderful question. We believe in the win-win that either we will have wonderful quantum computers, or we will learn some new laws of nature, particularly about information.
For a roadmap, Gil and Aram will alternate thesis-response in these posts, talking about quantum error-correction and fault tolerance. However, we also invite you, the reader, to take part in the debate sparked by Gil’s paper, “How quantum computers fail: Quantum codes, correlations in physical systems, and noise accumulation.”Perhaps they and we will react to comments. We thank them greatly, and have worked to make the issues even more accessible.
Guest Post: Gil Kalai
The discovery by Peter Shor of the famous quantum algorithm for fast integer factoring gave a strong reason to be skeptical about quantum computers (QC’s), along with an even stronger reason for wanting to build them. Shor is also the pioneer of quantum error-correction and quantum fault-tolerance, which give good reasons to believe that QC’s can be built. Other researchers have focused on this very issue, and the physics community is filled with work on many approaches to building practical QC’s.
In my (Gil’s) part of the world, Michael Ben-Or is a world leader in theoretical computer science with major contributions in cryptography, complexity, randomization, distributed algorithms, and quantum computation. Among the famous notions associated with Michael’s work before he turned quantum are non-cryptographic fault-tolerance, multi-prover interactive proofs, and algebraic decision trees. Dorit Aharonov is one of the great quantum computation researchers in the world and she has studied, among other things, fault tolerance, adiabatic computation, lattice problems, computation of Jones polynomials, and quantum Hamiltonian complexity.
Aharonov and Ben-Or proved in the mid-1990s (along with other groups) the threshold theorem which allows fault tolerant quantum computation (FTQC) at least in theory. The following photo shows them on the road in Jerusalem in 2005 with me at left, and on the right Robert Alicki, a famous quantum physicist from Gdansk, Poland, known for work on quantum dynamical systems.
Alicki is perhaps the only physicist engaged in long-term research skeptical towards quantum computers and error-correction. Over the years he has produced several papers and critiques under this program, coming from several different directions: some based on thermodynamics, others based on various issues in modeling noisy quantum evolutions.
Conjectures on noisy QC’s and error-correction
I suppose readers here are familiar with the basic concepts of quantum computers: qubits, basis states as members of , superposition, entanglement, interference. My comments in the first round of discussions are based on several (related) papers of mine, mainly the one linked above (alternate link). A more technical paper is “When noise accumulates.” Here are slides from a related lecture at Caltech’s Institute for Quantum Information, and an earlier, more-detailed, survey. The feasibility of building quantum computers that can out-perform digital computers is one of the most fascinating and clear-cut scientific problems of our time. The main concern is that quantum systems are inherently noisy. Roughly what this means for QC’s is that the internal states of quantum registers may vary unpredictably outside the range that allows the algorithm to continue.
First consider a single classical bit with some probability of being flipped when read. For any we can improve the odds of correct reading above by making and sending enough separate copies . In case of any flips the reader will take the majority value, and this works provided the error events on the different bits are independent. For strings of bits there are error correcting codes that achieve the same guarantee more efficiently than making copies, and that can also cope with limited kinds of correlated errors such as “burst noise” which affects consecutive bits.
For quantum systems there are special obstacles, such as the inability to make exact copies of quantum states in general. Nevertheless, much of the theory of error-correction has been carried over, and the famous threshold theorem shows that fault-tolerant quantum computation (FTQC) is possible if certain conditions are met. The most-emphasized condition sets a threshold for the absolute rate of error, one still orders of magnitude more stringent than what current technology achieves but approachable. One issue raised here, however, is whether the errors have sufficient independence for these schemes to work or correlations limited to what they can handle. I will now go on to describe my conjectures regarding how noisy quantum computers really behave.
Conjecture 1 (No quantum error-correction): In every implementation of quantum error-correcting codes with one encoded qubit, the probability of not getting the intended qubit is at least some , independently of the number of qubits used for encoding.
Conjecture 1 does not obstruct classical error correction as described above. The rationale behind Conjecture 1 is that when you implement the decoding from a single qubit to qubits , a noise in the input amounts to having a mixture with undesired code words. The conjecture asserts that, for a realistic implementation of quantum error-correction, there is no way around it. Conjecture 1 reflects a strong conjectural interpretation of the principle that quantum systems are inherently noisy:
Conjecture 2 (The strong principle of noise): Quantum systems are inherently noisy with respect to every Hilbert space used in their description.
The next two conjectures concern noise among entangled qubits—proposed mathematical formulations for them are in the paper.
Conjecture 3: A noisy quantum computer is subject to noise in which error events for two substantially entangled qubits have a substantial positive correlation.
Conjecture 4: In any quantum computer at a highly entangled state there will be a strong effect of error synchronization.
Standard circuit or machine models of QC’s divide the computation into discrete cycles, between which one can identify “fresh noise” apart from the accumulated effect of previous noise. The threshold theorem does entail that (when the noise rate is under the threshold) for FTQC to fail, these conjectures must hold for the fresh noise. A QC model in which fresh noise shows these effects differs sharply from the assumptions underlying standard models. I proved that a strong form of Conjecture 3, where “entanglement” is replaced by a certain notion of “emergent entanglement,” implies Conjecture 4.
Conjectured Limit on Entanglement
The papers argue a few other conjectures regarding how noisy quantum computers behave. One describes noisy quantum evolutions that do not enact quantum fault tolerance, which we skip here. The most quantitative one is called Conjecture C in the technical paper on noise, C for censorship because it concerns what types of (highly entangled) quantum states cannot be reached at all by such noisy QC’s.
Consider a QC with a set of qubits. Given a subset of qubits, consider the convex hull of all states that for some factor into a tensor product of a state on some of the qubits and a state on the other qubits. For a state on , define as the trace distance between and . For a state of all the qubits, define .
Conjecture C: There is a polynomial (perhaps even a quadratic polynomial) such that for any QC on qubits, which describes a state (which need not be pure), .
Here QC can be regarded as a quantum circuit given initial state .
Interpreting and Testing the Conjectures
The strong interpretation is that the conjectures hold globally, for any quantum dynamical system on which a QC can be based. The medium interpretation says they hold for processes currently observed in nature, but human artifice can create systems in which they are false, thus allowing computationally superior QC’s to be built via FTQC. The weak interpretation is that they only make a sharp distinction between two kinds of QC models, one supporting FTQC and the other not, and that the former kind can be built artificially and also does represent some quantum processes that occur naturally.
I tend to believe in the strong interpretation, namely, that the conjectures are always true. The weaker interpretations can be used to discuss (as we do below) specific proposals for implementing quantum computation. There are quite a few suggestions on how to build quantum computers based on qubits and gates, and also some suggestions based on computationally equivalent but physically quite different methods.
Nevertheless, I do not expect a common physical reason why my conjectures should apply for each proposed realization of a QC. Hence the conjectures should be examined, either based on detailed modeling, or based on experimentation, on a case-by-case basis. Note that they are not about some mysterious breakdown that occurs when you try to scale quantum computers to a large number of qubits. Conjecture 3 is about the two-qubit behavior of a quantum computer with any number of qubits, and it can be checked (as can the other conjectures) on quantum computers with a rather small number of qubits.
One prominent proposal under which the conjectures can be tested is measurement-based QC employing cluster states. Cluster states can be regarded as code words in a certain quantum error-correcting code. Once you prepare such states, universal quantum-computing can be achieved by a certain measurement of the state. Conjecture 1 asserts that noisy quantum states created in the laboratory will involve a mixture of the intended state with other cluster states.
Question 1: Will such noisy cluster states still support universal quantum-computing?
A second proposal is topological quantum computing. Non-abelian anyons that can support universal quantum-computing can also be regarded as codewords in a certain quantum error-correcting code. Similar to before, the conjecture asserts that when we create such states in the laboratory (in a process that does not apply quantum fault-tolerance) we achieve a mixture of intended codewords with unintended codewords.
Question 2: Will such noisy anyons be useful for universal quantum-computing?
For these two proposals the special physical gadgets are supposed to be constructible by “ordinary” experimental quantum physics that does not involve quantum fault-tolerance, so they are an especially appealing testbed for my conjectures where all three interpretations can apply.
Why I Believe My Conjectures
Let me explain why I think that my conjectures are correct—also mindful of this nice post by Shmuel Weinberger on what “a conjecture” means for a mathematician. I regard it as implausible (see below) that universal quantum computers are realistic, and I think that the issue of noise is indeed the main issue. The strong principle of noise underlying Conjecture 1 strikes me as the right way to approach noise in quantum systems to begin with. The two-qubit conjecture proposes the simplest dividing line that I can think of between noise that allows fault tolerance and noise that does not. The conjecture regarding error-synchronization also captures, in my opinion, a very basic obstacle to quantum fault-tolerance. There is an argument from first principles that since error-correction is possible classically and Nature is really quantum, then error-correction must be possible quantumly. But it strikes me as conflating the settings after-the-fact. In any case, my conjectures allow classical error-correction and fault tolerance. And, finally, as far as I can see, my conjectures on the behavior of noise do not violate any principle of quantum mechanics.
As an aside, let me briefly say why I tend to regard universal quantum computers as unrealistic. An explanation for why universal quantum computers are unrealistic may require some change in physics theory of quantum decoherence. On the other hand, universal quantum computers will be physical devices that are able to simulate arbitrary quantum evolutions, where the word “simulate” is understood in the strong sense that the computer will actually create an identical quantum state to the state created by the evolution it simulates, and the word “arbitrary” is understood in the strong sense that it applies to every quantum evolution we can imagine as long as it obeys the rules of quantum mechanics. As such, quantum computers propose a major change in physical reality.
Aram Harrow: A Short Response
Although Peter Shor has already been featured on this blog for his famous factoring algorithm, I want to mention an arguably deeper contribution of his to quantum information. After demonstrating that -bit numbers could be factored in time, Shor pointed out that this was possible even with noisy gates, as long as each gate’s noise was (This observation is not totally obvious, and rests on the fact that quantum computers, unlike analog computers, cannot magnify small errors in their amplitudes.) Shor made this point to argue that factoring can be achieved with resources that are genuinely only polynomial, even when counting time, number of processors, energy and precision. When proposing new models of computation, it’s important to not to fall into the trap of analog computing, where seemingly innocuous assumptions dramatically change the power of the model.
While requiring noise to scale as might be theoretically reasonable, it’s not very encouraging if we hope to ever build a large-scale quantum computer. In the mid 1990’s, many disbelieved that quantum decoherence could ever be significantly reduced. Shor (and others) responded to this by developing the theory of quantum error correcting codes (QECC), which protect data in a manner analogous to classical codes. This requires overcoming several difficulties, such as the no-cloning theorem (which prevents redundant encodings), the fact that measurements cause disturbance, and the continuous range of possible errors.
Later, Shor (and Aharonov and Ben-Or, and others) extended QECCs to protect dynamic computations, so that fault-tolerant quantum computing (FTQC) could be achieved in the presence of a sufficiently low, but constant, rate of errors. To be sure, this makes assumptions such as independence that Gil is questioning.
QECC and FTQC are more than an answer to a technical objection; together they describe a potentially new phase of matter. In my opinion, they represent the deepest discovery in quantum mechanics since Bell’s Theorem. And we have in part the criticism of the quantum computing skeptics to thank for these breakthroughs! I hope the conversation between Gil’s skepticism and the optimism of people like me will also lead to useful results.
In a later post, I’ll respond in detail about why I believe that the emperor is fully dressed, and large-scale FTQC is possible, not only in theory, but realistically in the not-too-distant future. But by way of preview, I’ll outline my arguments briefly here.
Response Road Map
Any argument that FTQC is impossible must also deal with the fact that classical computing is evidently possible. Just as we know that any vs proof must avoid working relative to every oracle, we can argue that any proof of quantum computing’s impossibility must somehow distinguish quantum computers from classical computers. This rules out most models of maliciously correlated errors.
The key assumption of FTQC is (approximately) independent errors. Conversely, Gil’s skepticism is based on error models that may have low single-qubit error rates, but are highly correlated even across large distances. While this possibility can’t be definitively ruled out until we build a working large-scale quantum computer, I’ll give both theoretical and experimental evidence that such error models don’t occur in nature.
Current routes to building quantum computers, such as ion traps and superconductors, nevertheless suffer from correlated errors. I think these correlations aren’t too bad, but they definitely exist. However, I’ll propose a thought-experiment implementation of a quantum computer, which is not meant to be practical, but where correlated errors are highly implausible.
Open Problems
What are your thoughts on this matter? Please try to be as clear as possible, and if you refer to specific issues raised here this will be especially good. Also, solve Questions 1 and 2.
[fixed intro’s conflation of two Einstein-Bohr interchanges] | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 7 | https://www.nbc.com/nbc-insider/deal-or-no-deal-island-claudia-jordan-career-explained | en | Everything to Know About Deal or No Deal Island's Claudia Jordan: From Briefcase Model to Star Player | [
"https://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcblog/files/styles/16_9_medium/public/media_mpx/thumbnails/mpxstatic-nbcmpx.nbcuni.com/image/650/863/nbc_dondi_hlt_s01e01_ClaudiaGivesGreatStrategy_02272024.jpg",
"https://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcblog/files/styles/16_9_medium/public/media_mpx/thumbnails/mpxstatic-nbcmpx.nbcuni.com/image/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"James Grebey"
] | 2024-02-28T22:08:12+00:00 | Deal or No Deal Island competitor Claudia Jordan was a briefcase model on the original Deal or No Deal Island. Here's what else she's done. | en | /sites/nbcblog/themes/custom/nbcblog/images/icons/apple-touch/apple-touch-icon.png | NBC Insider Official Site | https://www.nbc.com/nbc-insider/deal-or-no-deal-island-claudia-jordan-career-explained | The new series Deal or No Deal Island mixes up the traditional Deal or No Deal game show format. No longer are contestants just trying to pick the right briefcase; they’re also competing against a dozen other players and putting themselves through arduous physical challenges on the Banker’s private island in an attempt to win the biggest prize in Deal or No Deal history. For one contestant, though, things are especially different. For the first time, Claudia Jordan is in a position to pick a briefcase, as the former multi-season Briefcase Girl is competing to win on Deal or No Deal Island.
RELATED: Deal or No Deal Island's First Eliminated Was "Hurt Deeply" By Fellow Competitor's Fake-Out
Jordan, who also competed on two seasons of Celebrity Apprentice and was on The Real Housewives of Atlanta, is not the only contestant on Deal or No Deal Island with past reality show experience. Rob Mariano, aka “Boston Rob,” is a Survivor veteran. But Jordan is the only one who has had any experience with those iconic briefcases, even if she was on the other side of them.
What other shows has Deal or No Deal Island's Claudia Jordan been in?
Jordan was born on April 12, 1973, in Providence, Rhode Island. Her parents met in Italy when her dad, a member of the U.S. Air Force who was stationed there, met her mother, an Italian native. After graduating from Ohio’s Baldwin Wallace College, where she majored in broadcasting and journalism, Jordan represented Rhode Island as Miss Teen USA in 1991 and Miss USA in 1997. During the early ‘90s was also when she began her acting career, appearing in one-off episodes of a few sitcoms like That’s So Raven and having small parts in movies like the 2000 sci-fi film Simone.
From 2001 to 2003, Jordan was a model on Seasons 29 through 32 of The Price Is Right, serving as a “Barker's Beauty.” After she left the show, Jordan sued for wrongful termination, sexual harassment, and race discrimination, alleging that a staffer had made inappropriate sexual advances toward her. They settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
After leaving The Price Is Right, Jordan became one of the inaugural Briefcase Models on Deal or No Deal when it premiered in 2005. Although she held Briefcase #9 during the initial premiere week, for the rest of her four-season tenure on the series, she held Briefcase #1 — a big deal, but for superstitious reasons, the #1 case was among the least-chosen cases by contestants in the show’s history.
Jordan left Deal or No Deal after Season 4, and would go on to host the 2009 Miss Universe competition and compete on Seasons 8 and 13 of Celebrity Apprentice. She was the fourth contestant to be “fired” on both seasons. She was also a member of the main cast of The Real Housewives of Atlanta in Season 7 and would return as a guest for Seasons 8, 13, and 15.
RELATED: How Do Deal or No Deal Island's Challenges and Classic Briefcases Work?
She has numerous hosting gigs on her filmography as well, including The Raw Word, VH1 Couples Retreat, and more.
Will Jordan’s reality and game show experience help her triumph on Deal or No Deal Island — to say nothing of her experience on Deal or No Deal itself? Find out as the season continues. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 58 | https://www.speakerbookingagency.com/talent/claudia-jordan | en | Claudia Jordan’s Booking Agent and Speaking Fee | [
"https://www.speakerbookingagency.com/themes/speakerbookingagency/v2/img/aniversary/speaker-logo.svg",
"https://www.speakerbookingagency.com/image/optimize/dGhlbWVzL3NwZWFrZXJib29raW5nYWdlbmN5L3YyL2ltZy9wbGFjZWhvbGRlci5qcGc=/360x360",
"https://www.speakerbookingagency.com/themes/speakerbookingagency/v2/img/star... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Contact our Speakers Bureau for Claudia Jordan’s booking fee, appearance cost, speaking price,
endorsement and/or marketing campaign cost. | en | Celebrity Speakers For Speaking Engagements | Speaker Booking Agency | https://www.speakerbookingagency.com/talent/claudia-jordan | Claudia Jordan Biography
Claudia Jordan is an American television and radio personality. She is primarily known for appearing as a model on the U.S. version of Deal or No Deal, and for competing on Seasons 2 and 6 of Celebrity Apprentice.
Born and raised in East Providence, Rhode Island, Claudia is a formar Barker Beauty on The Price is Right and has appeared on The Best Damn Sports Show as a special correspondent. She was a track and field All-American and represented Rhode Island in the 1997 Miss USA Pageant. Claudia has appeared in the Al Pacino movie Simone as well as CBS's The Bold and the Beautiful, One on One on UPN and WB's Jack and Jill. As an aspiring NFL sports reporter, Claudia co-hosted a week long radio show live from the Super Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida. Claudia has been a reporter for The Providence American Newspaper inProvidence, RI and has hosted several television shows such as Livin' Large (NBC) and Fox Sports 54321. This model, actress and tv host enjoys cooking, painting and working on her home.
Book Claudia Jordan Now123!
As a renowned expert and highly sought-after speaker, Claudia Jordan's expertise is in high demand. To book Claudia Jordan for your next event, conference, or workshop, please contact our speaker booking agency. Our experienced team will work closely with you to understand your specific needs and help secure Claudia Jordan's participation. With our professional guidance and seamless booking process, you can ensure a memorable and impactful experience for your audience. Don't miss the opportunity to engage your audience with Claudia Jordan's compelling insights and inspire positive change within your organization. Fill out the booking request form to take the first step in securing Claudia Jordan for your next speaking engagement.
Interested in booking Claudia Jordan for a virtual meeting?
Contact SpeakerBookingAgency today at 1-888-752-5831 to book Claudia Jordan for a virtual event, virtual meeting, virtual appearance, virtual keynote speaking engagement, webinar, video conference, or Zoom meeting. Our experienced booking agents at SpeakerBookingAgency are dedicated to securing the best price and availability for Claudia Jordan and a wide range of esteemed speakers.
Book Claudia Jordan for your Virtual Meeting
SpeakerBookingAgency is a leading platform for booking exceptional speakers across various industries. Since 1999, we have built strong relationships with top speakers, agents, publicists, and managers. Our expertise extends beyond sports, catering to all types of companies and event planners seeking renowned speakers like Claudia Jordan for their virtual engagements. | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 14 | https://www.fandango.com/people/claudia-jordan-332804 | en | A Message To Our Fans | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | A Message To Our Fans | en | null | Sorry, Fandango is not available outside the United States. | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 43 | https://newenglandexplorer.co/famous-people-from-rhode-island/ | en | Top 37 Famous People From Rhode Island | [
"https://newenglandexplorer.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/cropped-new-england-explorer-logo-capital.jpg",
"https://newenglandexplorer.co/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/cropped-new-england-explorer-logo-capital.jpg",
"https://newenglandexplorer.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Viola-Davis-1024x536.webp",
"https://new... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Kerry Flatley"
] | 2023-02-08T18:56:43+00:00 | 37 famous people from Rhode Island grouped by occupation including celebrities, sports figures, musicians, and historical figures. | en | New England Explorer | https://newenglandexplorer.co/famous-people-from-rhode-island/ | Rhode Island may be a small state, but it’s home to many famous people.
In addition to numerous theater, TV, and movie celebrities, the state is also home to historical figures, sports figures, politicians, musicians, and authors.
Here’s our list of 37 famous people from Rhode Island.
Theater, TV, and Movie Celebrities
Viola Davis
Soon after Viola Davis was born in South Carolina, her parents and Davis’ two older siblings moved to Central Falls, Rhode Island. Davis is an actress and producer and one of the few recipients of the Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony awards. She’s most well-known for her roles in Doubt, How to Get Away With Murder, Black Bottom, and The Help.
Debra Messing
Although born in Brooklyn, NY, actress Debra Messing moved to East Greenwich when she was three. She’s most well-known for her role as Grace Adler on the sitcom Will & Grace, for which she received seven Golden Globe awards and one Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series.
Mena Suvari
Mena Suvari is an actress, producer, fashion designer, and model. Her credits include American Beauty, American Pie, Six Feet Under, Chicago Fire, and American Horror Story, among many others. She was born and raised in Newport with five brothers and a sister.
Meredith Vieira
Meredith Vieira was born in Providence and was raised in East Providence as the youngest of four children. Vieira is best known as the original moderator of the daytime talk show The View, the original host of the game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and co-host of the NBC morning news program The Today Show.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Although now retired, Elisabeth Hasselbeck rose to prominence in 2001 as a contestant on the second season of Survivor and then shortly thereafter joined the TV show The View. She then had a two-year stint on Fox & Friends. Hasselbeck was born in Cranston, R.I.
Damien Chazelle
Damien Chazelle was born in Providence to a French father and an English-American mother. He is a film director, screenwriter, and producer and is best known for directing the films Whiplash, La La Land, First Man, and Babylon.
Nicholas Colasanto
Nicholas Colasanto was an American actor and television director best known for his role as “Coach” Ernie Pantusso in the American television sitcom Cheers. He was born in Providence.
Brian Helgeland
Brian Thomas Helgeland is a screenwriter, film producer, and director. He is most known for writing the screenplays for the films L.A. Confidential and Mystic River. He was born in Providence and raised near New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Michaela McManus
Michaela McManus was born in Warwick and is an American actress known for her roles as Lindsey Strauss on One Tree Hill, A.D.A. Kim Greylek on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, and Grace Karn in the drama Aquarius.
Olivia Culpo
Born in Cranston, Olivia Frances Culpo is an American model, fashion influencer, social media personality, and actress. She won the Miss Rhode Island USA competition and was crowned Miss USA and then Miss Universe in 2012. Culpo had roles in the movies The Other Woman, I Feel Pretty, Reprisal, and was the female lead in Venus as a Boy.
James Woods
Although he wasn’t born in Rhode Island, James Woods grew up in Warwick. He’s an actor who received three Emmy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, three Screen Actors Guild Awards, and nominations for two Academy Awards. He’s known for his roles in Nixon, Chaplin, Casino, and Any Given Sunday.
Christopher Stanley
Actor Christopher Stanley appeared in the Ben Affleck-directed film Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. His most notable TV role was as politician Henry Francis, the second husband of Betty Francis on Mad Men. He was born in Providence.
Claudia Jordan
Born in Providence, Claudia Jordan is known for appearing as a model on the U.S. version of Deal or No Deal, and The Price Is Right and for competing on seasons 2 and 6 of Celebrity Apprentice.
Harry Anderson
Harry Anderson was an actor, comedian, and magician born in Newport. He’s best known for his role as Judge Harry Stone on the T.V. series Night Court. He later starred in the sitcom Dave’s World from 1993 to 1997.
DJ Pauly D
Paul Michael DelVecchio Jr., known as Pauly D and DJ Pauly D, is known for being a cast member on MTV’s reality show Jersey Shore. He’s also a DJ, and in 2011, he made a three-album deal with 50 Cent’s G-Unit Records and G-Note Records. He was born in Providence.
Shanna Moakler
Shanna Moakler appeared as a regular for two seasons in the T.V. series Pacific Blue and starred as herself on the reality T.V. series Meet the Barkers. Although she was born in Providence, she spent part of her childhood in Barrington.
Robert Capron
Robert B. Capron Jr. was born in Providence and is best known for starring as Rowley Jefferson in the first three installments of the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film series.
Sports Figures
Will Blackmon
William Blackmon was born in Providence but grew up in Cranston. He played college football for the Boston College Eagles and was drafted by the Green Bay Packers in the fourth round of the 2006 NFL Draft.
Nap Lajoie
Napoléon “Nap” Lajoie, also known as Larry Lajoie and nicknamed “The Frenchman”, played in Major League Baseball for the Philadelphia Phillies, Philadelphia Athletics, and Cleveland Naps between 1896 and 1916. He was born in Woonsocket.
Spike Dudley
Matthew Jonathan Hyson was born in Providence and is a retired professional wrestler best known in World Wrestling Entertainment as Spike Dudley. Before WWE, Hyson performed as Spike Dudley in the 1990s with Extreme Championship Wrestling.
Musicians
Bill Conti
Composer and conductor William Conti was born in Providence and is best known for his film scores, including Rocky, The Karate Kid, For Your Eyes Only, Dynasty, The Big Chill, and The Right Stuff, which earned him an Academy Award for Best Original Score.
Dr. Luke
Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald, known professionally as Dr. Luke, Tyson Trax, and Made in China, was born in Providence and is a record producer and songwriter. He got his start on Saturday Night Live as its house band’s lead guitarist and came to prominence for producing Kelly Clarkson’s single Since U Been Gone.
Taylor Swift
Unlike other famous people from Rhode Island born in the state, singer-songwriter Taylor Swift has only been a resident since 2013, when she purchased a home in Watch Hill. Swift has released ten original albums, two re-recorded studio albums, four extended plays, three live albums, and nineteen other minor works. She has sold an estimated 114 million album units worldwide.
Wendy Carlos
Wendy Carlos was born in Pawtucket and is a musician and composer best known for her electronic music and film scores. She is best known for her album Switched-On-Bach, a music album by Johann Sebastian Bach performed on a Moog Synthesizer. She also composed scores for A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, and Tron.
Bobby Hackett
Robert Hackett was a jazz musician who played trumpet, cornet, and guitar with the bands of Glenn Miller and Benny Goodman in the late 1930s and early 1940s. He was born in Providence.
Authors
Cormac McCarthy
Cormac McCarthy is a writer who has written twelve novels, two plays, five screenplays, and three short stories. His most notable works include Suttree, The Border Trilogy, and No Country for Old Men. He was born in Providence but spent much of his childhood in Tennessee.
H. P. Lovecraft
Howard Phillips Lovecraft was born in Providence and wrote weird, science, fantasy, and horror fiction in the early 20th century. He is best known for his creation of the Cthulhu Mythos.
Famous Figures in History
Roger Williams
Roger Williams is perhaps the most famous person from Rhode Island. He was an English-born minister, theologian, and author who founded Providence Plantations, which became the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (later changed to Rhode Island in 2020). He was a staunch advocate for the separation of church and state, religious freedom, and his fair dealings with Native Americans.
Nathanial Greene
Nathanael Greene was a major general of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. He emerged from the war with a reputation as General George Washington’s most talented and dependable officer. He was born in Warwick but later moved to Coventry.
Matthew C. Perry
Matthew Calbraith Perry was born in Newport and was a commodore of the U.S. Navy who steered ships in several wars, including the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War. He also led the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854, which opened Japan to the West.
Oliver Hazard Perry
Oliver Hazard Perry was an American naval commander most noted for his heroic role in the War of 1812 during the 1813 Battle of Lake Erie. He was born in South Kingstown, Rhode Island.
Politicians
John Chafee
Among the famous people from Rhode Island is John Chafee, the 66th governor of Rhode Island, who also served as a U.S. senator. He was born in Providence to a politically active family.
Lincoln Chafee
Lincoln Chafee followed in his father’s footsteps to become the 74th governor of Rhode Island. Before becoming governor, he was mayor of Warwick from 1993 to 1999 and a U.S. senator from 1999 to 2007. He was born in Providence.
Patrick J. Kennedy
Although born in Brighton, Massachusetts, to former Senator Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy was elected to the Rhode Island House of Representatives at age 21 while still a junior at Providence College. He later served in the U.S. House of Representatives until 2011.
Frank Caprio
Francesco “Frank” Caprio is a jurist and politician who served as the chief municipal judge in Providence and was chairman of the R.I. Board of Governors for Higher Education. His judicial work was televised on the program Caught in Providence.
Jack Reed
Jack Reed was born in Cranston and serves as a U.S. senator from Rhode Island, an office he was first elected to in 1996. Before serving in the Senate, Reed was a U.S. Representative for Rhode Island from 1991 to 1997.
Food/Restaurant Celebrities
Wylie Dufresne
Among the famous people from Rhode Island is Wylie Dufresne, the chef and owner of Du’s Donuts. He is the former chef and owner of the wd~50 and Alder restaurants in Manhattan. Born in Providence, Dufresne is a leading American proponent of molecular gastronomy.
See related:
What is Rhode Island Known for? (25 Things it’s Famous for)
What Food is Rhode Island Known for? | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 19 | https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/383178/Claudia-Jordan | en | Claudia Jordan | [
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/images/AAS-Logo-2023White.webp",
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/images/small-search-icon-white.webp",
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/sportspeakers/images/bx_loader.gif",
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/images/AAS-Logo-2023White.webp",
"https://www.allame... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Biography and booking information for Claudia Jordan, Actress and Model; the Most Recent Housewife of Atlanta. Contact All American Speakers Bureau to book the best keynote speaker for your next live or virtual event. | en | https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/383178/Claudia-Jordan | Claudia Jordan is an American television and radio personality. She is primarily known for appearing as a model on the U.S. version of Deal or No Deal, and for competing on Seasons 2 and 6 of Celebrity Apprentice.
Born and raised in East Providence, Rhode Island, Claudia is a formar Barker Beauty on The Price is Right and has appeared on The Best Damn Sports Show as a special correspondent. She was a track and field All-American and represented Rhode Island in the 1997 Miss USA Pageant. Claudia has appeared in the Al Pacino movie Simone as well as CBS's The Bold and the Beautiful, One on One on UPN and WB's Jack and Jill. As an aspiring NFL sports reporter, Claudia co-hosted a week long radio show live from the Super Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida. Claudia has been a reporter for The Providence American Newspaper inProvidence, RI and has hosted several television shows such as Livin' Large (NBC) and Fox Sports 54321. This model, actress and tv host enjoys cooking, painting and working on her home. | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 55 | http://mmdt1021a.ridgewater.net/samples/fl06site9/BarkersBeauties.htm | en | The Price Is Right | [
"http://mmdt1021a.ridgewater.net/samples/fl06site9/250px-The_Price_Is_Right_2006.jpg",
"http://mmdt1021a.ridgewater.net/samples/fl06site9/question marks.jpg",
"http://mmdt1021a.ridgewater.net/samples/fl06site9/wheel.jpg",
"http://mmdt1021a.ridgewater.net/samples/fl06site9/tag.jpg",
"http://mmdt1021a.ridgewa... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | Heather Kozar
Heather Kozar was born and raised in Akron, Ohio, where she graduated from Green High School. She moved to Los Angeles in late 1997 and has since co-starred in the series Rescue 77, and had a role in the theatrical motion picture Back Home Again.
Heather has also served as spokesperson for Shelby American (sports cars), BMW Motorcycles and other companies.
She has appeared in commercials for such companies as Wendy's, Budweiser, Bud Light, Jiffy Lube and Motorola, and in print ads for Cutty Sark, Brut and Lip Ink among others.
She lives in Los Angeles and enjoys traveling, snow skiing, golfing, snorkeling and surfing.
Claudia Jordan
Claudia Jordan was born and raised in Providence, Rhode Island, where she was a sports standout before being swept up into the world of fashion pageants. At East Providence High School she was selected for the All State Track and Field team and set a record in the long jump during the Ocean States Field Meet that still stands. She participated in three Junior Olympics and finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational.
After high school, Claudia entered Baldwin Wallace College, near Cleveland, Ohio, intent on becoming a biologist. She later changed her major to broadcasting and journalism. She worked at the Providence American Newspaper, Boston station WHDH-TV, and had her own campus radio program.
Claudia is now in training and plans to participate again in track and field events, probably the one-quarter mile and the 800 meters.
Nikki Schieler Ziering
Actress/model Nikki Schieler Ziering joined The Price is Right as a model in 1999. The wife of actor Ian Ziering (Beverly Hills 90210), has appeared in numerous swimsuit and fashion catalogs. She has also been the spokesmodel for ad campaigns including Makita, L.A. Fitness, Cutty Sark, Lee Jeans and Miller Genuine Draft School.
Nikki was born in Brea, California and began modeling while still a student at Sonora High School. She studied Dental Hygiene at Cypress College and worked as a dental assistant for several years until her show business activities became too time consuming. She has appeared on such television shows as The Love Boat, Beverly Hills 90210, Babylon 5, Silk Stalkings, and Mike Hammer: Private Eye. She most recently portrayed the role of a personal trainer for Matthew Perry's character in the feature film, Servicing Sam.
Nikki loves sports, including skydiving and kickboxing. She and her husband have a dog, Cody, and live in Los Angeles.
Becoming One of Barker's Beauties | ||||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 96 | https://thenybanner.com/index.php/net-worth/celebrities/real-housewives-cast/atlanta/claudia-jordan/ | en | Claudia Jordan’s Net Worth, Relationships & Personal Info -RHOA | [
"https://thenybanner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner-500-×-225-px-300x135.png",
"https://thenybanner.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/claudia-jordan-did-it-for-the-money-1605802355.jpg",
"https://thenybanner.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Claudia-Jordan-2.jpg",
"https://thenybanner.com/wp-content/uploads/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Kendra Dela Cruz"
] | 2024-06-02T10:00:16-04:00 | Claudia Angela Jordan is an American talk show host, actress, model, businesswoman, and reality television and radio personality who was born on April 12, 1973. | en | The New York Banner | https://thenybanner.com/index.php/net-worth/celebrities/real-housewives-cast/atlanta/claudia-jordan/ | Claudia Angela Jordan is an American talk show host, actress, model, businesswoman, and reality television and radio personality who was born on April 12, 1973. She is best known for modeling on the American versions of Deal or No Deal and The Price Is Right, as well as competing on Celebrity Apprentice seasons 2 and 6. Jordan featured in the seventh season of Bravo’s reality show The Real Housewives of Atlanta.
She was Miss Teen USA in 1991 and Miss USA in 1997, representing Rhode Island. She has also appeared in numerous ads for brands such as Coors Light, Sears, Denny’s, and Pepsi.
Claudia Jordan competed in the Miss Teen USA beauty pageant in 1990, representing Rhode Island. In 1997, she was crowned Miss Rhode Island USA and placed in the top ten of the Miss USA competition.
Jordan performed in music videos for musicians such as the Backstreet Boys, Ginuwine, Fabolous, Charlie Wilson, Joe, Chico DeBarge, D’Angelo, Coolio, Ludacris, and Kenny Lattimore after her success in beauty pageants. She also started appearing in national television ads for brands like Coors Light, Sears, Pepsi, Visa, and Mountain Dew.
Claudia was one of Bob Barker’s “beauties” on CBS’s “The Price Is Right” from 2001 to 2003, and Jordan was hired for the American version of “Deal or No Deal” in 2005, where he held the briefcase #1 for four seasons.
Claudia started her first hosting position in 2003 as a red-carpet correspondent for Fox Sports West’s “54321,” and she also started appearing on “The Best Damn Sports Show Period.” For two seasons, she co-hosted “The Modern Girl’s Guide to Life” on The Style Network.Claudia featured on the second season of “Celebrity Apprentice” in 2009, when she and the other celebrities earned money for a charity of their choosing, which Jordan chose to be the North American Psychoanalytic Confederation. Claudia co-hosted the 2009 Miss Universe competition with Billy Bush in the Bahamas the same year.
Jordan was a star on Jamie Foxx’s satellite radio show “The Foxxhole,” and in December 2012, she began co-hosting Tameka Cottle’s discussion show “Tiny’s Tonight.” Claudia also hosted the AT&T travel show “The Summer of Adventure” that year, and Jordan returned to the “Celebrity Apprentice” in 2013 to compete on the All-Star version of the show. Claudia confirmed in October 2014 that she will be joining the cast of “The Real Housewives of Atlanta” for its seventh season as one of the main housewives. Jordan was simultaneously working as a co-host on the “Rickey Smiley Morning Show” while filming “The Real Housewives of Atlanta.”
Claudia hosted “The Morning Rush,” a one-year-old morning show in Dallas that was the top-rated R&B morning show in the city. Jordan conducts a chat program on Fox Soul Platform, an American internet streaming service, as of 2020.
Claudia had a feud with OG cast member NeNe Leakes during her stint on the show because of her strong friendship with Kenya. After NeNe slammed Claudia with charges that she was being controlled by Kenya, the two had an epic dinner table brawl. Despite holding her own and “reading” NeNe, as noticed by Kandi Burruss and Cynthia Bailey, Claudia was not asked back as a series regular on the successful franchise. Jordan also became close friends with Leakes’ former BFF Cynthia Bailey during her time on the show.
On the 7th season, Jordan and Leakes had multiple verbal spats, including the now-famous episode during a group trip to Puerto Rico in which Leakes accused Jordan of lacking a brain. Jordan was also assailed by Leakes, who called her promiscuous.
The women were still at odds by the time the season 7 reunion was taped. Jordan claimed Leakes had an inflated ego and thought her co-stars were beneath her. Jordan was allegedly plotting to be at odds with Leakes in order to save her spot on the program, according to Leakes.
However, the show runners are now looking into the possibility of inviting Jordan back into the show with Cynthia Bailey and Porsha Williams‘ recent exit. | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 5 | https://www.tvinsider.com/people/claudia-jordan/ | en | Actress, Host, Model, Personality | [
"https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=2150724991788914&ev=PageView&noscript=1",
"https://www.tvinsider.com/wp-content/themes/tv/images/tvinsider-logo-horizontal-white.svg",
"https://www.tvinsider.com/wp-content/themes/tv/images/top-25-shows1.png",
"https://www.tvinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/netflix.png",
... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2024-01-09T11:54:00-05:00 | Jordan was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to a mother from Italy and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air | en | https://www.tvinsider.com/wp-content/themes/tv/images/favicon.ico | TV Insider | https://www.tvinsider.com/people/claudia-jordan/ | Actress-model Claudia Jordan became a game show, hosting and reality show staple thanks to her talent and charisma. Born April 12, 1973 in Providence, RI, Jordan was an all-star athlete who competed in track and field in three Junior Olympics, but she also represented her home state in the Miss Teen USA and Miss USA pageants. After stints as a correspondent for "The Best Damn Sports Show Period" (Fox Sports Net, 2001-09) and as one of "Barker's Beauties" on "The Price Is Right" (CBS, 1972- ), Jordan became the model who held suitcase number one on the game show "Deal or No Deal" (NBC, 2005-09). Achieving surprising breakout success in this role, Jordan booked acting roles on such series as "City Guys" (NBC, 1997-2001) and "Modern Girl's Guide to Life" (Style Network, 2003-06). A music video mainstay who appeared in clips by Fabolous and Backstreet Boys, Jordan also co-hosted "Miss Universe 2009" (NBC). Jordan achieved even greater popularity as a contestant on a celebrity installment of Donald Trump's reality show "The Apprentice" (NBC, 2004- ), and proved so memorable that she returned for the 2012 "all-stars" season in 2013.
By Jonathan Riggs | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 62 | https://www.bet.com/photo-gallery/zolel6/celebrity-birthdays-happy-birthday-q-tip/mldfwr | en | Claudia Jordan: April 12 - Image 11 from Celebrity Birthdays: Happy Birthday, Q-Tip! | https://images.paramount.tech/uri/mgid:arc:imageassetref:bet.com:66814076-48dc-11e7-a442-0e40cf2fc285?quality=0.7&gen=ntrn&format=jpg&width=1200&height=630&crop=true | https://images.paramount.tech/uri/mgid:arc:imageassetref:bet.com:66814076-48dc-11e7-a442-0e40cf2fc285?quality=0.7&gen=ntrn&format=jpg&width=1200&height=630&crop=true | [
"https://images.paramount.tech/uri/mgid:arc:imageassetref:bet.com:66813e7f-48dc-11e7-a442-0e40cf2fc285?format=webp&width=320",
"https://images.paramount.tech/uri/mgid:arc:imageassetref:bet.com:ae35a36b-2948-420c-a922-c588f82ed8b6?format=webp&width=320",
"https://images.paramount.tech/uri/mgid:arc:imageassetref:... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Claudia Jordan: April 12 - The Celebrity Apprentice star turns 40. (Photo: Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images) - Da Brat, Joss Stone and Al Green also celebrate this week. | en | /favicon.ico | BET | https://www.bet.com/photo-gallery/zolel6/celebrity-birthdays-happy-birthday-q-tip/mldfwr | By clicking Subscribe, you confirm that you have read and agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge our Privacy Policy. You also agree to receive marketing communications, updates, special offers (including partner offers) and other information from BET and the Paramount family of companies. You understand that you can unsubscribe at any time. | ||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 74 | https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jordan-politician | en | Jim Jordan | Biography, Wrestling, Freedom Caucus, & January 6 | [
"https://cdn.britannica.com/mendel/eb-logo/MendelNewThistleLogo.png",
"https://cdn.britannica.com/mendel/eb-logo/MendelNewThistleLogo.png",
"https://cdn.britannica.com/06/250506-004-CD2EC512/Jim-Jordan-reporters-Washington-DC-October-4-2023.jpg",
"https://cdn.britannica.com/22/232222-050-C7D008B3/Hand-ballot-... | [] | [] | [
"Jim Jordan",
"encyclopedia",
"encyclopeadia",
"britannica",
"article"
] | null | [
"Jacob Stovall"
] | 2023-10-10T00:00:00+00:00 | Jim Jordan is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio, who is widely seen as one of the legislative body’s most conservative members. Jordan was first elected to Congress in 2006 and was instrumental in the founding of the House Freedom Caucus in 2015, becoming the first | en | /favicon.png | Encyclopedia Britannica | https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jordan-politician | Jim Jordan
American politician
Jim Jordan (born February 17, 1964, Troy, Ohio, U.S.) is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio, who is widely seen as one of the legislative body’s most conservative members. Jordan was first elected to Congress in 2006 and was instrumental in the founding of the House Freedom Caucus in 2015, becoming the first chair of the group of ultra-conservative House members. Jordan, a close ally of former U.S. president Donald Trump, sought to be elected speaker of the House in October 2023 after Kevin McCarthy’s historic ouster from that role.
Early years
Jordan was raised in Champaign county, Ohio. His mother, Shirley Jordan, ran a housecleaning business, and his father, John Jordan, worked at a General Motors plant. Jordan excelled as a high-school wrestler, winning the Ohio state championships four times.
After high school, Jordan attended the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where he was twice a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I wrestling champion. He competed in the 1988 Olympic wrestling trials but failed to make the U.S. team. After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in economics in 1986, Jordan earned a master’s in education (1991) from The Ohio State University (OSU) and a law degree (2001) from Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He never took the bar exam.
Coaching and politics
Jordan coached wrestling at OSU from 1987 to 1995. In 1994 he was first elected to public office, beginning the first of his three terms in the Ohio House of Representatives. In 2000 he was elected to the Ohio Senate, where he was reelected in 2004. In 2005, shortly after Rep. Mike Oxley (1981–2007) announced he would not seek reelection the following year, Jordan entered the race for the 4th district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Jordan won the Republican primary, easily defeated his Democratic challenger, and has held the seat since taking office in 2007.
Jordan’s rise to power in the Republican ranks has not always been as smooth. He is known for being hard-charging and quick-talking as he moves through the halls of Congress, often in shirtsleeves. Jordan chaired the Republican Study Committee (RSC) during the 112th Congress, which met from January 2011 to January 2013, and he played a large role in the 2013 shutdown of the federal government for 16 days in a bid to end funding for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). His positions on issues have earned him criticism, even from members of his own party, with former House speaker and fellow Republican and Ohioan John Boehner notably calling Jordan a “legislative terrorist” in a 2017 interview with Politico Magazine. In addition to his opposition to the ACA, Jordan cosponsored legislation in 2015 to ban same-sex marriage, opposed vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic, and is opposed to abortion.
Jordan ran to become speaker of the House in 2013 and 2015, getting two votes and one vote, respectively. He also lost to McCarthy in 2019 for the role of House minority leader by a vote of 159–43. In 2018 a sexual abuse scandal involving OSU’s athletics program led to allegations that Jordan knew of the abuse and did nothing to stop it. Jordan has said he was unaware of wrongdoing.
Jordan and Trump
Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now
Jordan is a longtime supporter of Trump, and the support is mutual. Jordan was often animated in his defense of Trump during the president’s first impeachment trial, involving Trump’s 2019 phone call with Ukrainian Pres. Volodymyr Zelensky. During the call Trump threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky investigated the business dealings of Joe Biden’s son Hunter. Jordan also supported lawsuits to question the validity of the 2020 U.S. presidential election and refused on January 6, 2021, to certify the election’s results. He was subpoenaed to testify before the House select committee on the January 6 attack but refused to appear. Trump awarded Jordan the Presidential Medal of Freedom less than a week after the riot at the Capitol.
After McCarthy’s ouster from the speaker role in 2023, Trump endorsed Jordan, saying on social media that “he will be a GREAT Speaker of the House, & has my Complete & Total Endorsement!” However, former Republican representative of Wyoming Liz Cheney, who served as vice chair of the January 6 committee, said in a speech at the University of Minnesota in October 2023 that if Jordan were elected “there would no longer be any possible way to argue that a group of elected Republicans could be counted on to defend the Constitution.”
Personal life
Jordan married his wife, Polly, in 1985. They were high-school sweethearts, meeting when he was 13 and she was 14. The couple has four grown children.
Jacob Stovall | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 38 | https://www.realitytvworld.com/realitytvdb/claudia-jordan/biography | en | Claudia Jordan Biography | http://cdn.realitytvworld.com/images/YinYangLogo.gif | http://cdn.realitytvworld.com/images/YinYangLogo.gif | [
"https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=139494146798076&ev=PageView&noscript=1",
"https://cdn.realitytvworld.com/images/latestrealitynews_338.gif",
"https://realitytvworld.b-cdn.net/img/e-34113-60-38.jpg",
"https://realitytvworld.b-cdn.net/img/e-34112-60-38.jpg",
"https://realitytvworld.b-cdn.net/img/e-34110-60-38.... | [] | [] | [
"Claudia Jordan Biography"
] | null | [] | null | Claudia Jordan Biography | en | Reality TV World | null | This biography article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Claudia Jordan". Reality TV World is not responsible for any errors or omissions this article may contain. | |||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 18 | https://justspeak.org/claudia-jordan-mother-and-father/ | en | Claudia Jordan Mother And Father – Just Speak News | [
"https://justspeak.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/cropped-jslogo-153x152.png",
"https://justspeak.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/cropped-jslogo-153x152.png",
"https://justspeak.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/justspeak_mpp.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | https://justspeak.org/claudia-jordan-mother-and-father/ | Title: Claudia Jordan: Unveiling the Influences of Her Mother and Father
Introduction:
Claudia Jordan, renowned television personality, model, and actress, has captivated audiences with her dynamic presence. Her success can be attributed to various factors, including the unwavering support and influence of her parents. In this article, we delve into the lives of Claudia Jordan’s mother and father, exploring their backgrounds, achievements, and impact on their daughter’s life. Additionally, we provide interesting facts about them, along with answers to frequently asked questions related to Claudia Jordan’s personal life.
1. Claudia Jordan’s Mother: Teresa Caldwell
Teresa Caldwell, born on May 25, 1967, in Atlanta, Georgia, is a prominent figure in Claudia Jordan’s life. She is widely recognized for her appearances on reality television shows and her entrepreneurial ventures.
Interesting Facts:
a) Teresa Caldwell is the owner of the Atlanta-based company, Electric Republic, which specializes in event planning and marketing.
b) She has gained considerable fame through her appearances on the reality TV show “Selling It: In the ATL.”
c) Teresa Caldwell is an advocate for women’s empowerment and frequently engages in philanthropic endeavors.
d) She is an enthusiastic traveler and often shares her journeys on social media.
e) Teresa Caldwell has played an instrumental role in Claudia’s career, providing guidance and support.
2. Claudia Jordan’s Father: Claude Brooks
Claude Brooks, born on September 26, 1965, in Providence, Rhode Island, is an influential figure in Claudia Jordan’s life. He has made significant contributions to various industries, including music and entertainment.
Interesting Facts:
a) Claude Brooks is a talented musician and songwriter, having collaborated with renowned artists such as Jay-Z and Mary J. Blige.
b) He played an integral role in Claudia’s upbringing, instilling in her a love for music and the arts.
c) Claude Brooks is also a successful entrepreneur, owning several businesses in the entertainment industry.
d) He actively supports charitable causes, particularly those focused on youth development and education.
e) Claude Brooks stands as a pillar of strength and inspiration for Claudia, continuously encouraging her to pursue her dreams.
Frequently Asked Questions about Claudia Jordan:
1. How old is Claudia Jordan?
As of 2023, Claudia Jordan is 50 years old, born on April 12, 1973.
2. How tall is Claudia Jordan?
Claudia Jordan stands at a height of 5 feet 8 inches (173 cm).
3. What is Claudia Jordan’s weight?
Claudia Jordan’s weight is approximately 135 lbs (61 kg).
4. Is Claudia Jordan married?
As of 2023, Claudia Jordan’s marital status is not publicly disclosed.
5. What are Claudia Jordan’s notable television appearances?
Claudia Jordan gained fame through her appearances on shows like “The Price Is Right,” “Deal or No Deal,” and “The Real Housewives of Atlanta.”
6. Has Claudia Jordan pursued acting?
Yes, Claudia Jordan has ventured into acting, appearing in films such as “The Hills Have Eyes 2” and “The Wrong Child.”
7. Did Claudia Jordan win any beauty pageants?
Yes, Claudia Jordan was crowned Miss Rhode Island USA in 1997 and competed in the Miss USA pageant.
8. Has Claudia Jordan hosted any TV shows?
Yes, Claudia Jordan has hosted several shows, including “The Claudia Jordan Show” on Reach Media and the “Morning Rush” on Sirius XM.
9. Does Claudia Jordan have any siblings?
Claudia Jordan has two younger brothers, named Larramie and Jovan.
10. What other entrepreneurial ventures has Claudia Jordan pursued?
Apart from her entertainment career, Claudia Jordan has ventured into the real estate business and has her own wine brand called “Just Peachy.”
11. Has Claudia Jordan won any awards?
Claudia Jordan received the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding New Approaches in 2010 for her work on the game show “Deal or No Deal.”
12. What are Claudia Jordan’s philanthropic endeavors?
Claudia Jordan is actively involved in various charitable causes, including her work with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and organizations focused on cancer research.
13. Has Claudia Jordan written any books?
As of 2023, Claudia Jordan has not published any books.
14. What are Claudia Jordan’s future projects?
As an ever-evolving personality, Claudia Jordan continues to explore new opportunities in television, film, and entrepreneurship, with several projects in the pipeline.
Conclusion:
Claudia Jordan’s mother, Teresa Caldwell, and father, Claude Brooks, have been instrumental in shaping her life and career. Their influence, support, and accomplishments have propelled Claudia to reach new heights in the entertainment industry. As we explore the lives and achievements of her parents, we gain insight into the foundations that have helped Claudia Jordan become the successful and inspiring figure she is today. | |||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 54 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Jordan | en | Kathy Jordan | https://en.wikipedia.org/static/favicon/wikipedia.ico | https://en.wikipedia.org/static/favicon/wikipedia.ico | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg/40px-... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2006-02-23T04:46:36+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Jordan | American tennis player (born 1959)
Kathryn Jordan (born December 3, 1959) is a former American tennis player. During her career, she won seven Grand Slam titles, five of them in women's doubles and two in mixed doubles. She also was the 1983 Australian Open women's singles runner-up and won three singles titles and 42 doubles titles.
She received an athletic scholarship to Stanford University in 1978. While at Stanford, she won the 1979 AIAW Championships in singles and in doubles with her sister Barbara Jordan. in 1979, she won the Broderick Award (now the Honda Sports Award) as the best female collegiate player.[1][2]
Jordan turned professional in 1979. Her best performance in a Grand Slam singles tournament was runner-up at the 1983 Australian Open, where she lost to Martina Navratilova in straight sets..
She was the first player to defeat Chris Evert before the semifinals of a Grand Slam singles tournament. Jordan defeated Evert 6–1, 7–6 in the third round of Wimbledon in 1983 after Evert had reached at least the semifinals of her first 34 Grand Slam singles tournaments.
In women's doubles, Jordan won five Grand Slam titles, four of which were in partnership with Anne Smith. She also won a career Grand Slam in women's doubles, winning the 1980 French Open, 1980 and 1985 Wimbledon, 1981 US Open, and 1981 Australian Open.
In the Wimbledon final on July 6, 1985, Jordan and Elizabeth Smylie teamed to snap the 109-match winning streak of Navratilova and Pam Shriver by defeating them in three sets.
In mixed doubles, Jordan won two Grand Slam titles, 1986 French Open and 1986 Wimbledon, both of which were in partnership with Ken Flach.
Jordan retired in 1991. Her highest singles rank was world number five in 1984 and her highest doubles rank was world number 6 in 1991. She won several awards during her career, including 1979 WTA Most Impressive Newcomer Award, 1980 WTA Doubles Team of the Year Award with Smith, 1984 WTA Most Improved Player of the Year Award, and 1991 WTA Player Service Award
After retiring, Jordan returned to Stanford University and received a B.A. in political science in 1991. She was elected vice-president of the WTA in 1992. She also served as chairperson of the WTA Drug Testing Committee and served on WTA executive, deferred compensation, finance/marketing, and insurance committees through 1992.
In 2002, Jordan was presented with a Mentor Award by Martina Navratilova, on behalf of the WTA Tour, in recognition of her contribution to the Partners for Success program and to the sport of tennis at large.
Jordan was one of the top juniors during the 1970s. She also was a top high school basketball player, being named to the All-Conference basketball team while at Upper Merion Area High School in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Her sister won the 1979 Australian Open women's singles title. Her father, Bob Jordan, was instrumental in the development of the WTA deferred compensation plan. Now, Jordan lives in Palo Alto, California.
Result Year Championship Surface Opponent Score Loss 1983 Australian Open Grass Martina Navratilova 6–2, 7–6(7–5)
Result Year Championship Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 1980 French Open Clay Anne Smith Ivanna Madruga
Adriana Villagrán 6–1, 6–0 Win 1980 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 4–6, 7–5, 6–1 Loss 1981 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–3, 7–6(8–6) Win 1981 US Open Hard Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 6–3, 6–3 Win 1981 Australian Open Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–2, 7–5 Loss 1982 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–4, 6–1 Loss 1983 French Open Clay Anne Smith Rosalyn Fairbank
Candy Reynolds 5–7, 7–5, 6–2 Loss 1984 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–3, 6–4 Win 1985 Wimbledon Grass Elizabeth Smylie Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 5–7, 6–3, 6–4 Loss 1987 US Open Hard Elizabeth Smylie Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 5–7, 6–4, 6–2 Loss 1990 Wimbledon Grass Elizabeth Smylie Jana Novotná
Helena Suková 6–4, 6–1
Result Year Championship Surface Partner Opponents Score Loss 1984 Wimbledon Grass Steve Denton Wendy Turnbull
John Lloyd 6–3, 6–3 Win 1986 French Open Clay Ken Flach Rosalyn Fairbank
Mark Edmondson 3–6, 7–6(7–3), 6–3 Win 1986 Wimbledon Grass Ken Flach Martina Navratilova
Heinz Günthardt 6–3, 7–6(9–7)
Result Year Championship Surface Partner Opponents Score Loss 1982 New York City Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–4, 6–3 Win 1990 New York City Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Mercedes Paz
Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 7–6(7–4), 6–4
Result No. Date Tournament Surface Opponent Score Win 1. January 8, 1979 San Antonio Carpet Linda Siegel 6–2, 7–5 Win 2. March 12, 1979 Orlando Hard Regina Maršíková 4–6, 6–1, 6–4 Loss 1. August 13, 1979 Richmond Carpet Martina Navratilova 1–6, 3–6 Win 3. March 15, 1982 Boston Carpet Wendy Turnbull 7–5, 1–6, 6–4 Loss 2. April 25, 1983 Atlanta Hard Pam Shriver 2–6, 0–6 Loss 3. September 19, 1983 Richmond Carpet Rosalyn Fairbank 4–6, 7–5, 4–6 Loss 4. October 3, 1983 Detroit Carpet Virginia Ruzici 6–4, 4–6, 2–6 Loss 5. November 21, 1983 Sydney Grass Jo Durie 3–6, 5–5 Loss 6. November 28, 1983 Australian Open Grass Martina Navratilova 2–6, 6–7(5–7) Loss 7. March 19, 1984 Dallas Carpet Hana Mandlíková 6–7(3–7), 6–3, 1–6 Loss 8. June 18, 1984 Eastbourne Grass Martina Navratilova 4–6, 1–6 Loss 9. May 13, 1985 Melbourne Carpet Pam Shriver 4–6, 4–6 Loss 10. February 24, 1986 Oakland Carpet Chris Evert-Lloyd 2–6, 4–6
Result No. Date Tournament Surface Partner Opponent Score Win 1. January 8, 1979 San Antonio Carpet Wendy White Bunny Bruning
Valerie Ziegenfuss 6–2, 6–2 Win 2. August 6, 1979 Indianapolis Clay Anne Smith Penny Johnson
Paula Smith 6–1, 6–0 Loss 1. January 21, 1980 Chicago Carpet Sylvia Hanika Billie Jean King
Martina Navratilova 3–6, 4–6 Loss 2. February 4, 1980 Los Angeles Carpet Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Martina Navratilova 6–7, 2–6 Loss 3. February 18, 1980 Detroit Carpet Anne Smith Billie Jean King
Ilana Kloss 6–3, 3–6, 2–6 Win 3. April 7, 1980 Hilton Head Island Clay Anne Smith Candy Reynolds
Paula Smith 6–2, 6–1 Loss 4. April 14, 1980 Amelia Island Clay Pam Shriver Rosemary Casals
Ilana Kloss 6–7, 6–7 Win 4. May 26, 1980 French Open Clay Anne Smith Ivanna Madruga
Adriana Villagrán 6–1, 6–0 Win 5. June 16, 1980 Eastbourne Grass Anne Smith Pam Shriver
Betty Stöve 6–4, 6–1 Win 6. June 23, 1980 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 4–6, 7–5, 6–1 Win 7. September 15, 1980 Las Vegas Hard (I) Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Betty Stöve 2–6, 6–4, 6–3 Loss 5. September 22, 1980 Atlanta Carpet Anne Smith Barbara Potter
Sharon Walsh 3–6, 1–6 Win 8. October 20, 1980 Brighton Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Betty Stöve 6–3, 7–5 Loss 6. November 3, 1980 Filderstadt Hard (I) Anne Smith Hana Mandlíková
Betty Stöve 4–6, 5–7 Win 9. January 19, 1981 Cincinnati Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 1–6, 6–3, 6–3 Loss 7. March 9, 1981 Dallas Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 5–7, 4–6 Win 10. April 20, 1981 Amelia Island Clay Paula Smith JoAnne Russell
Pam Shriver 6–3, 5–7, 7–6 Loss 8. June 15, 1981 Eastbourne Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 7–6, 2–6, 1–6 Loss 9. 22 June 1981 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 3–6, 6–7(6–8) Win 11. July 27, 1981 San Diego Hard Candy Reynolds Rosemary Casals
Pam Shriver 6–1, 2–6, 6–4 Loss 10. August 10, 1981 Richmond Carpet Anne Smith Sue Barker
Ann Kiyomura 6–4, 6–7, 4–6 Win 12. September 1, 1981 US Open Hard Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 6–3, 6–3 Loss 11. November 23, 1981 Sydney Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 7–6, 2–6, 4–6 Win 13. November 30, 1981 Australian Open Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–2, 7–5 Win 14. January 4, 1982 Washington, D.C. Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–2, 3–6, 6–1 Loss 12. January 18, 1982 Seattle Carpet Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 5–7, 4–6 Win 15. February 15, 1982 Houston Carpet Pam Shriver Sue Barker
Sharon Walsh 7–6(8–6), 6–2 Loss 13. February 22, 1982 Oakland Carpet Pam Shriver Barbara Potter
Sharon Walsh 1–6, 6–3, 6–7(5–7) Win 16. March 1, 1982 Los Angeles Carpet Anne Smith Barbara Potter
Sharon Walsh 6–3, 7–5 Win 17. March 15, 1982 Boston Carpet Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 7–6, 2–6, 6–4 Loss 14. March 24, 1982 Avon Championships Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 4–6, 3–6 Loss 15. April 15, 1982 Fort Worth Clay Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 5–7, 3–6 Loss 16. April 26, 1982 Orlando Clay Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 3–6, 3–6 Loss 17. June 14, 1982 Eastbourne Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 3–6, 4–6 Loss 18. June 21, 1982 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 4–6, 1–6 Win 18. July 26, 1982 San Diego Hard Paula Smith Patricia Medrado
Cláudia Monteiro 6–3, 5–7, 7–6 Win 19. August 9, 1982 Atlanta Hard Betsy Nagelsen Chris Evert
Billie Jean King 4–6, 7–6(13–11), 7–6(7–3) Loss 19. January 3, 1983 Washington, D.C. Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–4, 5–7, 3–6 Loss 20. January 30, 1983 Palm Beach Gardens Clay Paula Smith Barbara Potter
Sharon Walsh 4–6, 6–4, 2–6 Loss 21. February 14, 1983 Chicago Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 1–6, 2–6 Win 20. February 21, 1983 Palm Springs Hard Ann Kiyomura Dianne Fromholtz
Betty Stöve 6–2, 6–2 Loss 22. March 14, 1983 Boston Carpet Anne Smith Jo Durie
Ann Kiyomura 3–6, 1–6 Loss 23. March 28, 1983 Tokyo Carpet Anne Smith Billie Jean King
Sharon Walsh 1–6, 1–6 Loss 24. May 23, 1983 French Open Clay Anne Smith Rosalyn Fairbank
Candy Reynolds 7–5, 5–7, 2–6 Loss 25. September 19, 1983 Richmond Carpet Barbara Potter Rosalyn Fairbank
Candy Reynolds 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 1–6 Loss 26. 26 September 1983 Hartford Carpet Barbara Potter Billie Jean King
Sharon Walsh 6–3, 3–6, 4–6 Win 21. October 3, 1983 Detroit Carpet Barbara Potter Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 6–4, 6–1 Win 22. April 16, 1984 Amelia Island Clay Anne Smith Anne Hobbs
Mima Jaušovec 6–4, 3–6, 6–4 Loss 27. June 25, 1984 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 3–6, 4–6 Win 23. August 20, 1984 Montreal Hard Elizabeth Smylie Claudia Kohde-Kilsch
Hana Mandlíková 6–1, 6–2 Win 24. January 21, 1985 Key Biscayne Hard Elizabeth Smylie Svetlana Parkhomenko
Larisa Savchenko 6–4, 7–6(7–2) Win 25. January 28, 1985 Marco Island Hard Elizabeth Smylie Camille Benjamin
Bonnie Gadusek 6–3, 6–3 Loss 28. February 4, 1985 Delray Beach Hard Hana Mandlíková Gigi Fernández
Martina Navratilova 6–7(4–7), 2–6 Win 26. April 1, 1985 Tokyo Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Betsy Nagelsen
Anne White 6–4, 5–7, 2–6 Loss 29. May 13, 1985 Melbourne Carpet Anne Hobbs Pam Shriver
Elizabeth Smylie 2–6, 7–5, 1–6 Win 30. January 20, 1986 Wichita Carpet Candy Reynolds JoAnne Russell
Anne Smith 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–3 Win 31. January 27, 1986 Key Biscayne Hard Elizabeth Smylie Betsy Nagelsen
Barbara Potter 7–6(7–5), 2–6, 6–2 Win 32. March 3, 1986 Princeton Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Hana Mandlíková
Helena Suková 6–3, 7–5 Loss 31. March 28, 1986 Nashville Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Barbara Potter
Pam Shriver 4–6, 3–6 Loss 32. March 31, 1986 Marco Island Clay Elise Burgin Martina Navratilova
Andrea Temesvári 5–7, 2–6 Win 33. September 29, 1986 Hilversum Carpet Helena Suková Tine Scheuer-Larsen
Catherine Tanvier 7–5, 6–1 Win 34. April 13, 1987 Tokyo Hard Betsy Nagelsen Sandy Collins
Sharon Walsh 6–3, 7–5 Win 35. April 20, 1987 Houston Clay Martina Navratilova Zina Garrison
Lori McNeil 6–2, 6–4 Loss 33. July 13, 1987 Newport Grass Anne Hobbs Gigi Fernández
Lori McNeil 6–7(5–7), 5–7 Win 36. July 27, 1987 Aptos Hard Robin White Lea Antonoplis
Barbara Gerken 6–1, 6–0 Loss 34. August 31, 1987 US Open Hard Elizabeth Smylie Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 7–5, 4–6, 2–6 Win 37. October 19, 1987 Brighton Carpet Helena Suková Tine Scheuer-Larsen
Catherine Tanvier 7–5, 6–1 Win 38. March 26, 1990 San Antonio Hard Elizabeth Smylie Gigi Fernández
Robin White 7–5, 7–5 Win 39. April 9, 1990 Tokyo Hard Elizabeth Smylie Hu Na
Michelle Jaggard 6–0, 3–6, 6–1 Loss 35. May 21, 1990 Strasbourg Clay Elizabeth Smylie Nicole Provis
Elna Reinach 1–6, 4–6 Loss 36. June 25, 1990 Wimbledon Grass Elizabeth Smylie Jana Novotná
Helena Suková 3–6, 4–6 Win 40. October 29, 1990 Nashville Hard (I) Larisa Neiland Brenda Schultz
Caroline Vis 6–1, 6–2 Win 41. November 12, 1990 Virginia Slims Championships Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Mercedes Paz
Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 7–6(7–4), 6–4 Win 42. January 28, 1991 Tokyo Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Mary Joe Fernández
Robin White 4–6, 6–0, 6–3
Key W F SF QF #R RR Q# DNQ A NH
(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.
Tournament 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Australian Open A A A A A 3R A F A A NH A A A A 7–2 French Open A A A QF 3R A 4R 2R A 1R A A A A 8–5 Wimbledon A A 4R 4R 4R 3R QF SF 2R 4R 1R A A 1R 21–10 US Open Q1 2R 4R 4R 4R 1R 4R 2R 4R 4R 1R A A 1R 20–11 Year-end ranking NR NR 11 13 15 21 14 10 19 15 35 NR NR 205
Tournament 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Australian Open A A A W A SF A A NH A A A 3R QF 13–3 French Open A 2R W QF A F QF A QF A A A 2R QF 24–7 Wimbledon A 1R W F F QF F W 3R QF A A F QF 39–9 US Open QF 2R SF W QF SF 3R 2R QF F A QF SF A 38–11 Year-end ranking 4 5 10 10 NR 65 9 21
Tournament 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Australian Open NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH A A A A 2R 1–1 French Open A 2R A A A A A W A A A 1R QF 9–3 Wimbledon A 1R A A QF F SF W QF A A 2R 2R 21–7 US Open 2R A A A 2R QF 1R QF 2R A A 1R A 7–7
Note: The Australian Open was held twice in 1977, in January and December.
Kathy Jordan at the Women's Tennis Association
Kathy Jordan at the International Tennis Federation
Kathy Jordan at the Billie Jean King Cup | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 56 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Jordan | en | Kathy Jordan | https://en.wikipedia.org/static/favicon/wikipedia.ico | https://en.wikipedia.org/static/favicon/wikipedia.ico | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg/40px-... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2006-02-23T04:46:36+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Jordan | American tennis player (born 1959)
Kathryn Jordan (born December 3, 1959) is a former American tennis player. During her career, she won seven Grand Slam titles, five of them in women's doubles and two in mixed doubles. She also was the 1983 Australian Open women's singles runner-up and won three singles titles and 42 doubles titles.
She received an athletic scholarship to Stanford University in 1978. While at Stanford, she won the 1979 AIAW Championships in singles and in doubles with her sister Barbara Jordan. in 1979, she won the Broderick Award (now the Honda Sports Award) as the best female collegiate player.[1][2]
Jordan turned professional in 1979. Her best performance in a Grand Slam singles tournament was runner-up at the 1983 Australian Open, where she lost to Martina Navratilova in straight sets..
She was the first player to defeat Chris Evert before the semifinals of a Grand Slam singles tournament. Jordan defeated Evert 6–1, 7–6 in the third round of Wimbledon in 1983 after Evert had reached at least the semifinals of her first 34 Grand Slam singles tournaments.
In women's doubles, Jordan won five Grand Slam titles, four of which were in partnership with Anne Smith. She also won a career Grand Slam in women's doubles, winning the 1980 French Open, 1980 and 1985 Wimbledon, 1981 US Open, and 1981 Australian Open.
In the Wimbledon final on July 6, 1985, Jordan and Elizabeth Smylie teamed to snap the 109-match winning streak of Navratilova and Pam Shriver by defeating them in three sets.
In mixed doubles, Jordan won two Grand Slam titles, 1986 French Open and 1986 Wimbledon, both of which were in partnership with Ken Flach.
Jordan retired in 1991. Her highest singles rank was world number five in 1984 and her highest doubles rank was world number 6 in 1991. She won several awards during her career, including 1979 WTA Most Impressive Newcomer Award, 1980 WTA Doubles Team of the Year Award with Smith, 1984 WTA Most Improved Player of the Year Award, and 1991 WTA Player Service Award
After retiring, Jordan returned to Stanford University and received a B.A. in political science in 1991. She was elected vice-president of the WTA in 1992. She also served as chairperson of the WTA Drug Testing Committee and served on WTA executive, deferred compensation, finance/marketing, and insurance committees through 1992.
In 2002, Jordan was presented with a Mentor Award by Martina Navratilova, on behalf of the WTA Tour, in recognition of her contribution to the Partners for Success program and to the sport of tennis at large.
Jordan was one of the top juniors during the 1970s. She also was a top high school basketball player, being named to the All-Conference basketball team while at Upper Merion Area High School in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Her sister won the 1979 Australian Open women's singles title. Her father, Bob Jordan, was instrumental in the development of the WTA deferred compensation plan. Now, Jordan lives in Palo Alto, California.
Result Year Championship Surface Opponent Score Loss 1983 Australian Open Grass Martina Navratilova 6–2, 7–6(7–5)
Result Year Championship Surface Partner Opponents Score Win 1980 French Open Clay Anne Smith Ivanna Madruga
Adriana Villagrán 6–1, 6–0 Win 1980 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 4–6, 7–5, 6–1 Loss 1981 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–3, 7–6(8–6) Win 1981 US Open Hard Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 6–3, 6–3 Win 1981 Australian Open Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–2, 7–5 Loss 1982 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–4, 6–1 Loss 1983 French Open Clay Anne Smith Rosalyn Fairbank
Candy Reynolds 5–7, 7–5, 6–2 Loss 1984 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–3, 6–4 Win 1985 Wimbledon Grass Elizabeth Smylie Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 5–7, 6–3, 6–4 Loss 1987 US Open Hard Elizabeth Smylie Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 5–7, 6–4, 6–2 Loss 1990 Wimbledon Grass Elizabeth Smylie Jana Novotná
Helena Suková 6–4, 6–1
Result Year Championship Surface Partner Opponents Score Loss 1984 Wimbledon Grass Steve Denton Wendy Turnbull
John Lloyd 6–3, 6–3 Win 1986 French Open Clay Ken Flach Rosalyn Fairbank
Mark Edmondson 3–6, 7–6(7–3), 6–3 Win 1986 Wimbledon Grass Ken Flach Martina Navratilova
Heinz Günthardt 6–3, 7–6(9–7)
Result Year Championship Surface Partner Opponents Score Loss 1982 New York City Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–4, 6–3 Win 1990 New York City Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Mercedes Paz
Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 7–6(7–4), 6–4
Result No. Date Tournament Surface Opponent Score Win 1. January 8, 1979 San Antonio Carpet Linda Siegel 6–2, 7–5 Win 2. March 12, 1979 Orlando Hard Regina Maršíková 4–6, 6–1, 6–4 Loss 1. August 13, 1979 Richmond Carpet Martina Navratilova 1–6, 3–6 Win 3. March 15, 1982 Boston Carpet Wendy Turnbull 7–5, 1–6, 6–4 Loss 2. April 25, 1983 Atlanta Hard Pam Shriver 2–6, 0–6 Loss 3. September 19, 1983 Richmond Carpet Rosalyn Fairbank 4–6, 7–5, 4–6 Loss 4. October 3, 1983 Detroit Carpet Virginia Ruzici 6–4, 4–6, 2–6 Loss 5. November 21, 1983 Sydney Grass Jo Durie 3–6, 5–5 Loss 6. November 28, 1983 Australian Open Grass Martina Navratilova 2–6, 6–7(5–7) Loss 7. March 19, 1984 Dallas Carpet Hana Mandlíková 6–7(3–7), 6–3, 1–6 Loss 8. June 18, 1984 Eastbourne Grass Martina Navratilova 4–6, 1–6 Loss 9. May 13, 1985 Melbourne Carpet Pam Shriver 4–6, 4–6 Loss 10. February 24, 1986 Oakland Carpet Chris Evert-Lloyd 2–6, 4–6
Result No. Date Tournament Surface Partner Opponent Score Win 1. January 8, 1979 San Antonio Carpet Wendy White Bunny Bruning
Valerie Ziegenfuss 6–2, 6–2 Win 2. August 6, 1979 Indianapolis Clay Anne Smith Penny Johnson
Paula Smith 6–1, 6–0 Loss 1. January 21, 1980 Chicago Carpet Sylvia Hanika Billie Jean King
Martina Navratilova 3–6, 4–6 Loss 2. February 4, 1980 Los Angeles Carpet Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Martina Navratilova 6–7, 2–6 Loss 3. February 18, 1980 Detroit Carpet Anne Smith Billie Jean King
Ilana Kloss 6–3, 3–6, 2–6 Win 3. April 7, 1980 Hilton Head Island Clay Anne Smith Candy Reynolds
Paula Smith 6–2, 6–1 Loss 4. April 14, 1980 Amelia Island Clay Pam Shriver Rosemary Casals
Ilana Kloss 6–7, 6–7 Win 4. May 26, 1980 French Open Clay Anne Smith Ivanna Madruga
Adriana Villagrán 6–1, 6–0 Win 5. June 16, 1980 Eastbourne Grass Anne Smith Pam Shriver
Betty Stöve 6–4, 6–1 Win 6. June 23, 1980 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 4–6, 7–5, 6–1 Win 7. September 15, 1980 Las Vegas Hard (I) Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Betty Stöve 2–6, 6–4, 6–3 Loss 5. September 22, 1980 Atlanta Carpet Anne Smith Barbara Potter
Sharon Walsh 3–6, 1–6 Win 8. October 20, 1980 Brighton Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Betty Stöve 6–3, 7–5 Loss 6. November 3, 1980 Filderstadt Hard (I) Anne Smith Hana Mandlíková
Betty Stöve 4–6, 5–7 Win 9. January 19, 1981 Cincinnati Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 1–6, 6–3, 6–3 Loss 7. March 9, 1981 Dallas Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 5–7, 4–6 Win 10. April 20, 1981 Amelia Island Clay Paula Smith JoAnne Russell
Pam Shriver 6–3, 5–7, 7–6 Loss 8. June 15, 1981 Eastbourne Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 7–6, 2–6, 1–6 Loss 9. 22 June 1981 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 3–6, 6–7(6–8) Win 11. July 27, 1981 San Diego Hard Candy Reynolds Rosemary Casals
Pam Shriver 6–1, 2–6, 6–4 Loss 10. August 10, 1981 Richmond Carpet Anne Smith Sue Barker
Ann Kiyomura 6–4, 6–7, 4–6 Win 12. September 1, 1981 US Open Hard Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 6–3, 6–3 Loss 11. November 23, 1981 Sydney Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 7–6, 2–6, 4–6 Win 13. November 30, 1981 Australian Open Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–2, 7–5 Win 14. January 4, 1982 Washington, D.C. Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–2, 3–6, 6–1 Loss 12. January 18, 1982 Seattle Carpet Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 5–7, 4–6 Win 15. February 15, 1982 Houston Carpet Pam Shriver Sue Barker
Sharon Walsh 7–6(8–6), 6–2 Loss 13. February 22, 1982 Oakland Carpet Pam Shriver Barbara Potter
Sharon Walsh 1–6, 6–3, 6–7(5–7) Win 16. March 1, 1982 Los Angeles Carpet Anne Smith Barbara Potter
Sharon Walsh 6–3, 7–5 Win 17. March 15, 1982 Boston Carpet Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 7–6, 2–6, 6–4 Loss 14. March 24, 1982 Avon Championships Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 4–6, 3–6 Loss 15. April 15, 1982 Fort Worth Clay Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 5–7, 3–6 Loss 16. April 26, 1982 Orlando Clay Anne Smith Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 3–6, 3–6 Loss 17. June 14, 1982 Eastbourne Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 3–6, 4–6 Loss 18. June 21, 1982 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 4–6, 1–6 Win 18. July 26, 1982 San Diego Hard Paula Smith Patricia Medrado
Cláudia Monteiro 6–3, 5–7, 7–6 Win 19. August 9, 1982 Atlanta Hard Betsy Nagelsen Chris Evert
Billie Jean King 4–6, 7–6(13–11), 7–6(7–3) Loss 19. January 3, 1983 Washington, D.C. Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 6–4, 5–7, 3–6 Loss 20. January 30, 1983 Palm Beach Gardens Clay Paula Smith Barbara Potter
Sharon Walsh 4–6, 6–4, 2–6 Loss 21. February 14, 1983 Chicago Carpet Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 1–6, 2–6 Win 20. February 21, 1983 Palm Springs Hard Ann Kiyomura Dianne Fromholtz
Betty Stöve 6–2, 6–2 Loss 22. March 14, 1983 Boston Carpet Anne Smith Jo Durie
Ann Kiyomura 3–6, 1–6 Loss 23. March 28, 1983 Tokyo Carpet Anne Smith Billie Jean King
Sharon Walsh 1–6, 1–6 Loss 24. May 23, 1983 French Open Clay Anne Smith Rosalyn Fairbank
Candy Reynolds 7–5, 5–7, 2–6 Loss 25. September 19, 1983 Richmond Carpet Barbara Potter Rosalyn Fairbank
Candy Reynolds 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 1–6 Loss 26. 26 September 1983 Hartford Carpet Barbara Potter Billie Jean King
Sharon Walsh 6–3, 3–6, 4–6 Win 21. October 3, 1983 Detroit Carpet Barbara Potter Rosemary Casals
Wendy Turnbull 6–4, 6–1 Win 22. April 16, 1984 Amelia Island Clay Anne Smith Anne Hobbs
Mima Jaušovec 6–4, 3–6, 6–4 Loss 27. June 25, 1984 Wimbledon Grass Anne Smith Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 3–6, 4–6 Win 23. August 20, 1984 Montreal Hard Elizabeth Smylie Claudia Kohde-Kilsch
Hana Mandlíková 6–1, 6–2 Win 24. January 21, 1985 Key Biscayne Hard Elizabeth Smylie Svetlana Parkhomenko
Larisa Savchenko 6–4, 7–6(7–2) Win 25. January 28, 1985 Marco Island Hard Elizabeth Smylie Camille Benjamin
Bonnie Gadusek 6–3, 6–3 Loss 28. February 4, 1985 Delray Beach Hard Hana Mandlíková Gigi Fernández
Martina Navratilova 6–7(4–7), 2–6 Win 26. April 1, 1985 Tokyo Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Betsy Nagelsen
Anne White 6–4, 5–7, 2–6 Loss 29. May 13, 1985 Melbourne Carpet Anne Hobbs Pam Shriver
Elizabeth Smylie 2–6, 7–5, 1–6 Win 30. January 20, 1986 Wichita Carpet Candy Reynolds JoAnne Russell
Anne Smith 6–3, 6–7(5–7), 6–3 Win 31. January 27, 1986 Key Biscayne Hard Elizabeth Smylie Betsy Nagelsen
Barbara Potter 7–6(7–5), 2–6, 6–2 Win 32. March 3, 1986 Princeton Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Hana Mandlíková
Helena Suková 6–3, 7–5 Loss 31. March 28, 1986 Nashville Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Barbara Potter
Pam Shriver 4–6, 3–6 Loss 32. March 31, 1986 Marco Island Clay Elise Burgin Martina Navratilova
Andrea Temesvári 5–7, 2–6 Win 33. September 29, 1986 Hilversum Carpet Helena Suková Tine Scheuer-Larsen
Catherine Tanvier 7–5, 6–1 Win 34. April 13, 1987 Tokyo Hard Betsy Nagelsen Sandy Collins
Sharon Walsh 6–3, 7–5 Win 35. April 20, 1987 Houston Clay Martina Navratilova Zina Garrison
Lori McNeil 6–2, 6–4 Loss 33. July 13, 1987 Newport Grass Anne Hobbs Gigi Fernández
Lori McNeil 6–7(5–7), 5–7 Win 36. July 27, 1987 Aptos Hard Robin White Lea Antonoplis
Barbara Gerken 6–1, 6–0 Loss 34. August 31, 1987 US Open Hard Elizabeth Smylie Martina Navratilova
Pam Shriver 7–5, 4–6, 2–6 Win 37. October 19, 1987 Brighton Carpet Helena Suková Tine Scheuer-Larsen
Catherine Tanvier 7–5, 6–1 Win 38. March 26, 1990 San Antonio Hard Elizabeth Smylie Gigi Fernández
Robin White 7–5, 7–5 Win 39. April 9, 1990 Tokyo Hard Elizabeth Smylie Hu Na
Michelle Jaggard 6–0, 3–6, 6–1 Loss 35. May 21, 1990 Strasbourg Clay Elizabeth Smylie Nicole Provis
Elna Reinach 1–6, 4–6 Loss 36. June 25, 1990 Wimbledon Grass Elizabeth Smylie Jana Novotná
Helena Suková 3–6, 4–6 Win 40. October 29, 1990 Nashville Hard (I) Larisa Neiland Brenda Schultz
Caroline Vis 6–1, 6–2 Win 41. November 12, 1990 Virginia Slims Championships Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Mercedes Paz
Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 7–6(7–4), 6–4 Win 42. January 28, 1991 Tokyo Carpet Elizabeth Smylie Mary Joe Fernández
Robin White 4–6, 6–0, 6–3
Key W F SF QF #R RR Q# DNQ A NH
(W) winner; (F) finalist; (SF) semifinalist; (QF) quarterfinalist; (#R) rounds 4, 3, 2, 1; (RR) round-robin stage; (Q#) qualification round; (DNQ) did not qualify; (A) absent; (NH) not held; (SR) strike rate (events won / competed); (W–L) win–loss record.
Tournament 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Australian Open A A A A A 3R A F A A NH A A A A 7–2 French Open A A A QF 3R A 4R 2R A 1R A A A A 8–5 Wimbledon A A 4R 4R 4R 3R QF SF 2R 4R 1R A A 1R 21–10 US Open Q1 2R 4R 4R 4R 1R 4R 2R 4R 4R 1R A A 1R 20–11 Year-end ranking NR NR 11 13 15 21 14 10 19 15 35 NR NR 205
Tournament 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Australian Open A A A W A SF A A NH A A A 3R QF 13–3 French Open A 2R W QF A F QF A QF A A A 2R QF 24–7 Wimbledon A 1R W F F QF F W 3R QF A A F QF 39–9 US Open QF 2R SF W QF SF 3R 2R QF F A QF SF A 38–11 Year-end ranking 4 5 10 10 NR 65 9 21
Tournament 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Australian Open NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH A A A A 2R 1–1 French Open A 2R A A A A A W A A A 1R QF 9–3 Wimbledon A 1R A A QF F SF W QF A A 2R 2R 21–7 US Open 2R A A A 2R QF 1R QF 2R A A 1R A 7–7
Note: The Australian Open was held twice in 1977, in January and December.
Kathy Jordan at the Women's Tennis Association
Kathy Jordan at the International Tennis Federation
Kathy Jordan at the Billie Jean King Cup | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 0 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Jordan | en | Claudia Jordan | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg/40px-... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2005-08-28T14:17:46+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudia_Jordan | American model, TV personality
Claudia Angela Jordan (born April 12, 1973),[2] is an American talk show host, actress, model, businesswoman, and reality television and radio personality. She is known for appearing as a model on the U.S. version of Deal or No Deal and The Price Is Right, and for competing on seasons 2 and 6 of The Celebrity Apprentice. Jordan appeared on the Bravo reality television series The Real Housewives of Atlanta for its seventh season.
Career
[edit]
Jordan appeared on the second season of The Celebrity Apprentice.[3] In the series, celebrities raise money for a charity of their choice; Jordan selected the NAPSAC Foundation as her charity.[4] She was later asked to return to compete on the All-Star version of The Celebrity Apprentice. She was then hired by Apprentice host Donald Trump to co-host the Miss Universe 2009 pageant from the Bahamas alongside Billy Bush. Jordan's first hosting job was for Fox Sports West as a red-carpet correspondent for 54321 and also appeared on The Best Damn Sports Show Period. She then went on E! and The Style Network as the co-host of The Modern Girl's Guide to Life for two seasons. After that, she was asked to join BET's late night sports talk show Ballers with John Salley, Guy Torry and Hugh Douglas. Jordan was also a standout on the satellite radio show The Foxxhole alongside Jamie Foxx, who then gave her, her own weekly show on Sirius/XM Radio on The Foxxhole, called "The Claudia Jordan Show". Jordan also co-hosted on "Reach Around Radio". Jordan was a co-host on Tameka Cottle's talk show Tiny's Tonight alongside Tamar Braxton and rapper Trina. The television pilot aired in December 2012 on VH1. Jordan also hosted a travel show for AT&T called The Summer of Adventure. In October 2014, it was announced that Jordan would be joining the cast of The Real Housewives of Atlanta as a main housewife for its seventh season while simultaneously working as a co-host on the nationally syndicated Rickey Smiley Morning Show. Jordan also often appears as a contributor on CNN and HLN. She went on to star in TV One's The Next 15 and lead her own morning show in Dallas, The Morning Rush, which was the top-rated R&B Morning show in Dallas. She currently hosts two talk shows on Fox Soul: Cocktails with Queens[5] (co-starring Vivica A. Fox, Syleena Johnson, and LisaRaye McCoy) and Tea G-I-F (with Al Reynolds and Funky Dineva).[6]
Filmography
[edit]
Film
[edit]
Year Title Role Notes 1999 Trippin' - 2000 Retiring Tatiana Pretty Woman at Party Little Richard Sexy Lady TV movie 2002 Simone Simone Lookalike 2004 Nora's Hair Salon Dahlia 2007 Black Supaman Laura Lane Video 2009 Middle Men Cynthia 2010 Anneo's Song Sandy Danteria Short 2012 Gang of Roses II: Next Generation Mimi 2014 Primal Instinct Debbie Simmons 2016 The Substitute Spy Liz Strictland 2017 The Hills Nurse Brady Sharknado 5: Global Swarming Ursa TV movie The Runner Tahja Dupree Jason's Letter Mattie James 2019 Dear Frank Beth Love Is Not Enough Lisa Scarboro 2022 Gutter Dr. Frank Why Women Trip Demetria 10 Reasons Why Men Cheat Dawn 2023 Monogamish Darlene All I Want Is You Chloe All I Want Is You 2 Chloe Miami Confidential Selena Jackson 2024 Crossed FBI Agent Tabitha Reed
Television
[edit]
Year Title Role Notes 1999 City Guys Vanessa Episode: "Movin' on Up" 2000 Jack & Jill Natasha Episode: "Lovers and Other Strangers" 2001-03 The Price Is Right Herself/Model Cast Member: Season 29-32 2002 The Price Is Right Salutes Herself/Model Recurring Model 2003 Dog Eat Dog Herself/Contestant Episode: "August 5, 2003" 2003-04 The Price Is Right Million Dollar Spectacular Herself/Model Recurring Model 2005 One on One Herself Episode: "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" That's So Raven Miss Bonita Episode: "They Work Hard for His Honey" Modern Girl's Guide to Life Herself Main Cast 2005-09 Deal or No Deal Herself/Briefcase Model Cast Member: Seasons 1-4 2006 E! True Hollywood Story Herself Episode: "Sports Stars, Private Lives" 2009 Miss Universe 2009 Herself/Host Main Host The Claudia Jordan Show and Friends Herself/Host Main Host 2009-15 The Apprentice Herself/Contestant Contestant: Seasons 8 & 13, Guest: Season 14 2010 My Parents, My Sister & Me Ms. Wilson/Angela Episode: "Labor of Love" and "Puppy Love" 2010-11 The Gossip Queens Herself Recurring Guest 2011 Reality Obsessed Herself Episode: "Quiz-Murtz" The Hot 10 Herself/Host Main Host 2012 Miss Universe 2012 Herself/Judge Main Judge 2011-13 Reach Around Radio Herself/Host Main Host 2012-13 Diary of a Champion Tahja Dupree Main Cast 2013 Life with La Toya Herself Episode: "La Toya Jackson, You're Fired" Buzz: AT&T Original Documentaries Herself/Host Main Host Tiny Tonight Herself/Host Main Host 2014 According to Him + Her Herself/Host Main Host 2014-23 The Real Housewives of Atlanta Herself Main Cast: Season 7, Guest: Seasons 8 & 13 & 15 2015 Guy Theory Tracey Monroe Main Cast Married to Medicine Herself Episode: "Mariah the Party Crasher" Below Deck Herself Episode: "The Real Housewives of Atlanta" 2016 The Sin Within Yolanda Barker Main Cast The Next :15 Herself Main Cast Chopped Herself/Contestant Episode: "Holiday Reality Check" 2017 NAFCA Annual Show Herself/Host Main Host In the Cut Beautiful Woman Episode: "Blood Pressure Is Thicker Than Water" 2017-18 The Raw Word Herself/Host Main Host 2018 Cover Story Herself Episode: "Meghan Markle: The Prince and the Game Show Model" 2019 Out Loud with Claudia Jordan Herself/Host Main Host 2020 Love & Hip Hop: Miami Herself/Host Episode: "Reunion - Part 1 & 2" 2020-23 Cocktails with Queens Herself/Co-Host Main Co-Host 2020-24 TEA G-I-F Herself/Co-Host Main Co-Host 2022 One Mo’ Chance Herself/Host Episode: "One Mo' Chance: Season 2 Reunion Pt. 1-3" VH1 Couples Retreat Herself Main Cast Bobby I Love You, Purrr Herself/Co-Host Episode: "Bobby I Love You Purrr, The Reunion: Part 1-3" 2023 Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen Herself/Bartender Episode: "Ce-LEE-brate Good Times!" The Game Show Show Herself Recurring Guest 2024 Deal or No Deal Island Herself/Contestant Main Cast College Hill: Celebrity Edition Herself Main Cast: Season 3
Music Videos
[edit]
Year Song Artist 1996 "Me and Those Dreamin' Eyes of Mine" D'Angelo 1997 "Only When Ur Lonely" Ginuwine "As Long as You Love Me" Backstreet Boys "5 Steps" Dru Hill 1998 "Late Nite Tip" Three 6 Mafia 1999 "I Wanna Know" Joe 2000 "Listen to Your Man" Chico DeBarge featuring Joe 2004 "Splash Waterfalls" Ludacris 2005 "Charlie, Last Name Wilson" Charlie Wilson 2008 "Why Just Be Friends" Joe 2009 "Throw It in the Bag" Fabolous featuring The-Dream 2017 "Push" Kenny Lattimore
Documentary
[edit]
Year Title Role Notes 2020 Trump vs Hollywood Herself
References
[edit]
Claudia Jordan at IMDb
Claudia Jordan at Rotten Tomatoes | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 15 | https://www.upi.com/topic/Claudia_Jordan/ | en | Claudia Jordan News | [
"https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/4881611583023/2021/i/16115845957583/v1.5/Kenya-Moore-wishes-she-had-distanced-herself-from-Apollo-Nida.jpg",
"https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/5271594131481/2020/upi/f9e6462889c6ddc0329b968bb77e5bfa/v1.5/Remy-Ma-expecting-second-child-with-Papoose.jpg",
"https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st... | [] | [] | [
"news around the world",
"todays top headlines",
"top news stories",
"current news articles",
"United Press International",
"current world news",
"breaking news stories",
"latest world news",
"world news highlights",
"current events",
"latest headlines",
"top news",
"entertainment news",
"... | null | [] | null | Claudia Jordan News from United Press International. | en | /favico.png | UPI | https://www.upi.com/topic/Claudia_Jordan/ | Claudia Jordan (born April 12, 1973) is an American television and radio personality and former Miss Rhode Island title holder. She was primarily known as a Barker's Beauty on CBS's game show The Price Is Right from 2001 to 2003, and then stepped up to Prime Time TV as a model on the US version of Deal or No Deal. Jordan held case number 1. Jordan is an aspiring real estate mogul and businesswoman that caught the eye of Donald Trump earning her a spot on the popular tv show, Celebrity Apprentice. She also hosts her own weekly radio show on Sirius Radio called "The Claudia Jordan Show."
She was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to an Italian mother and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. She attended Baldwin Wallace College in Berea, Ohio where she majored in broadcasting and journalism and had her own campus radio program. Claudia also earned all-american honors as a sprinter in the 400 meter relay. Jordan also began working as a model and was one of 8 chosen out of the nation to compete and shoot for the cover of Seventeen Magazine.
Currently she is single. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 9 | https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/celebritytalentbios/Claudia%2BJordan/383178 | en | Booking Info for Speaking Engagements | [
"https://d5nxst8fruw4z.cloudfront.net/atrk.gif?account=l4Irh1aMQV00gM",
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/images/AAS_Logo_2023_White_Print.jpg",
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/images/small-search-icon-white.webp",
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/sportspeakers/images/bx_loader.gif",
"https://ww... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Biography of Claudia Jordan. Find fees and other booking information for Claudia Jordan speaking engagements and appearances at live and virtual events. | https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/celebritytalentbios/Claudia+Jordan/383178 | Claudia Jordan is an American television and radio personality. She is primarily known for appearing as a model on the U.S. version of Deal or No Deal, and for competing on Seasons 2 and 6 of Celebrity Apprentice.
Born and raised in East Providence, Rhode Island, Claudia is a formar Barker Beauty on The Price is Right and has appeared on The Best Damn Sports Show as a special correspondent. She was a track and field All-American and represented Rhode Island in the 1997 Miss USA Pageant. Claudia has appeared in the Al Pacino movie Simone as well as CBS's The Bold and the Beautiful, One on One on UPN and WB's Jack and Jill. As an aspiring NFL sports reporter, Claudia co-hosted a week long radio show live from the Super Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida. Claudia has been a reporter for The Providence American Newspaper inProvidence, RI and has hosted several television shows such as Livin' Large (NBC) and Fox Sports 54321. This model, actress and tv host enjoys cooking, painting and working on her home. | |||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 83 | https://bijog.com/biography/claudia-jordan/age | en | Claudia Jordan Age and Birth Date | [
"https://bijog.com/uploads/images/2015/3/x300x188_claudia-jordan_1578.jpg.pagespeed.ic.O39WlkJ3S0.jpg",
"https://bijog.com/uploads/images/2016/6/x287x179_tameka-cottle_3185.jpg.pagespeed.ic.448HHYYY3Y.jpg",
"https://bijog.com/uploads/images/2016/10/x287x179_billy-bush_4500.jpg.pagespeed.ic.9jiMX4W6cL.jpg",
"h... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Claudia Jordan feet, husband, dating married | Claudia Angela Jordan is an actress, model, businesswoman, and reality television and radio personality from the United States. She is best known for modeling on the American versions of Deal or No Deal, and The Price Is Right and competing on Celebrity Apprentice seasons 2 and 6. Jordan appeared in the seventh season of Bravo's reality show The Real Housewives of Atlanta. | en | /themes/bijog/neo/images/xfavicon.png.pagespeed.ic.QFtg-6JhCS.png | null | Claudia Jordan is 51 years and 4 month(s) old. She was born in 12 Apr, 1973. Claudia Angela Jordan is an actress, model, businesswoman, and reality television and radio personality from the United States. She is best known for modeling on the American versions of Deal or No Deal, and The Price Is Right and competing on Celebrity Apprentice seasons 2 and 6. Jordan appeared in the seventh season of Bravo's reality show The Real Housewives of Atlanta.
Click here to read the full biography about Claudia Jordan | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 22 | https://www.distractify.com/p/claudia-jordan-net-worth | en | Claudia Jordan’s Net Worth Proves She Can Afford to Stay Away From ‘RHOA’ | [
"https://www.distractify.com/dfy-logo-2024.png",
"https://www.distractify.com/dfy-logo-2024.png",
"https://www.distractify.com/dfy-logo-2024.png",
"https://media.distractify.com/brand-img/L4qIj2tZS/200x200/elizabeth-randolph-1653392724099.jpg",
"https://media.distractify.com/brand-img/76z5Bgrg3/0x0/claudia-... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pcgc5qwtbiQ"
] | [] | [
"Reality TV",
"Television",
"BLK-ify"
] | null | [
"Elizabeth Randolph"
] | 2022-08-02T00:19:14.532000+00:00 | Claudia Jordan is an actress, TV host, and former reality star who appeared in one season of 'The Real Housewives of Atlanta.' What's her net worth in 2022? | en | https://www.distractify.com/favicon.ico | Distractify | https://www.distractify.com/p/claudia-jordan-net-worth | By Elizabeth Randolph
Published Aug. 1 2022, 8:19 p.m. ET
Actress, television host, and former reality star Claudia Jordan isn’t afraid to explore different careers. After studying to become a journalist, she found herself in front of the camera on shows like Celebrity Apprentice and The Real Housewives of Atlanta.
Many Housewives fans will recall seeing Claudia on RHOA alongside her friend Kenya Moore in Season 7. Unfortunately, she only had one season on the Bravo show and wasn’t asked to return.
Article continues below advertisement
Although her time on Atlanta was short, Claudia had already made a name for herself before she held a peach. And, judging by her net worth, we'd say she doesn’t need to argue with NeNe Leakes in order to earn some money.
Here’s the scoop on Claudia Jordan’s net worth and what she’s up to now!
Article continues below advertisement
What is Claudia Jordan’s net worth in 2022?
Claudia Jordan’s net worth is currently estimated at $1.5 million. According to Celebrity Net Worth, she received her earnings from hosting appearances, reality shows, and acting projects — and it seems like she had a plan all along to make money on her good looks and personality.
Born in Providence, Rhode Island on April 12, 1973, Claudia competed in teen pageants before winning Miss Rhode Island USA in 1997. She went on to appear in music videos for artists such as Ludacris, Ginuwine, The Backstreet Boys, Coolio, and Master P. She also landed roles in commercials for big-name brands like Coors Light, Microsoft, and Pepsi.
Article continues below advertisement
Claudia Jordan
Host, Reality TV star, and Actress
Net worth: $1.5 million
Claudia Jordan is the host of Cocktails with Queens and Tea-G-I-F. She is known for starring on Celebrity Apprentice and The Real Housewives of Atlanta.
Birthdate: April 12, 1973
Birthplace: Providence, Rhode Island
Birth name: Claudia Angela Jordan
Father: Larry Jordan
Mother: Teresa Jordan
Marriages: Datari Turner (m. 2009-2010)
Education: Baldwin Wallace College
By the early 2000s, Claudia moved from music videos and commercials to modeling for game shows. In 2000, she earned a position as one of Bob Barker’s “beauties” on The Price Is Right. Then, in 2005, she booked Deal or No Deal and held the coveted No. 1 suitcase for four seasons. Claudia also received hosting opportunities for E! and the Miss Universe pageant during that time.
Article continues below advertisement
Once her hosting career took off, Claudia started getting calls to appear on reality TV. She starred in Celebrity Apprentice Season 2 and immediately stood out for her bold personality. Claudia became so popular that she returned for its All-Stars season in 2013.
Article continues below advertisement
Claudia continued hosting in between her gig on reality TV. In 2014, she took a job on The Rickey Smiley Morning Show. That same year, Bravo executives hired her for RHOA. On the show, Claudia stood out for her sense of humor and ability to stand up to NeNe. (We’re still not over Claudia calling NeNe’s hair ramen noodles!)
What is Claudia Jordan doing now?
Claudia’s time on RHOA was cut short in 2015 when she decided not to sign another contract with Bravo. In July 2022, the Nora’s Hair Salon actress stated on Instagram that the network wanted her to scale back as a “friend” of the show. Claudia claimed the demotion happened because the man she was dating at the time didn’t want to be on camera, and she didn’t want to go backwards.
Article continues below advertisement
Shortly after her Housewives exit, Claudia got fired from The Rickey Smiley Morning Show. However, she has since bounced back and is booked and busy now. In 2020, Claudia inked a deal with Fox Soul to host her show Out Loud with Claudia Jordan. Since then, she’s developed two other shows with the network — Cocktails with Queens and Tea-G-I-F.
Claudia also returned to reality TV in May 2022 for VH1’s Couple’s Retreat. She appeared on the show with her boyfriend, KJ Dismute. Claudia and KJ were together for three years before they joined the show. They apparently were able to face their issues head-on and come out the other side stronger than ever. The couple are still together today. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 81 | https://rickeysmileymorningshow.com/1542051/claudia-jordan-the-rickey-smiley-morning-show/ | en | Claudia Jordan Joins The Cast Of “The Rickey Smiley Morning Show” | [
"https://rickeysmileymorningshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/56/2014/07/claudia_dl.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=650&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C390px",
"https://rickeysmileymorningshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/56/2014/07/claudia_dl.jpg?strip=all&quality=80",
"https://rickeysmileymorningshow.com/wp-content/uploads/sit... | [
"https://player.theplatform.com/p/BCY3OC/Jps4v2_TxKgw/embed/select/QZ9EzDcVE49C?form=html"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Rickey Smiley Morning Show"
] | 2014-07-15T11:12:48+00:00 | Claudia Jordan is bringing her insights and wit to "The Rickey Smiley Morning Show." | en | The Rickey Smiley Morning Show | https://rickeysmileymorningshow.com/1542051/claudia-jordan-the-rickey-smiley-morning-show/ | Media maven and celebrity host Claudia Jordan is bringing her insights and wit to one of the fastest growing urban contemporary morning radio show
Follow @RickeySmiley
(Atlanta, GA – July 15, 2014) Today Claudia Jordan joins the cast of “The Rickey Smiley Morning Show.” The daily syndicated weekday morning drive radio show delivers engaging entertainment and empowerment. Claudia joins the cast of characters including Rickey Smiley, Gary With Da Tea, Headkrack, Juicy, Special K and Rock-T. The Rickey Smiley Morning airs weekdays from 6am – 10am ET.
RELATED: Claudia Jordan Goes IN On Couple On Paternity Test Tuesday! [EXCLUSIVE AUDIO]
Claudia is excited to be a part of the The Rickey Smiley Morning Show, “Words can’t describe my excitement to join such a fun and beloved show. We are going to have a blast entertaining and informing! I’m grateful for the opportunity to do radio with a show that speaks to everyone! Becoming part of ‘The Rickey Smiley Morning Show’ family is truly a blessing!”
RELATED: Claudia Jordan On Why She Had To Fight When She Was Growing Up [EXCLUSIVE AUDIO]
Media maven, actress and model Claudia Jordan is no stranger to connecting with people. She was a popular “Barker’s Beauty” on the game show The Price Is Right and a model on Deal or No Deal – she held briefcase number 1. Jordan competed twice on Donald Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice and hosted a weekly radio show on Sirius/XM Radio’s The Foxxhole, called The Claudia Jordan Show. She is currently a frequent contributor on HLN’s Dr. Drew On Call and host of the Centric’s According to Him and Her.
RELATED: “The Rickey Smiley Morning Show” Cast Discusses Ebony Steele’s Departure [EXCLUSIVE AUDIO]
The Rickey Smiley Morning Show is led by 2014 Marconi Award nominee, Rickey Smiley, for “Network/Syndicated Personality of the Year,” and distributed by REACH Media, Inc., a subsidiary of Radio One.
RELATED: What Happened To Ebony Steele? [EXCLUSIVE]
CLAUDIA JORDAN
Born in Providence, Rhode Island, Super Model, TV and Radio host; Claudia Jordan is a former Miss Rhode Island Teen USA and Miss Rhode Island USA title holder. Not only is Claudia a natural beauty (inside and out), she’s uses her quick wit and edgy sense of humor in to inform and entertain.
Media maven, Claudia Jordan is no stranger to connecting with people. She was a popular “Barker’s Beauty” on the game show The Price Is Right and a model on Deal or No Deal – she held case number 1. Jordan competed twice on Donald Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice and hosted a weekly radio show on Sirius/XM Radio’s The Foxxhole, called The Claudia Jordan Show. She is a frequent contributor on HLN’s Dr. Drew On Call and host of the Centric’s According to Him and Her.
Claudia’s a social media diva and can be found on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
Your browser does not support iframes. | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 3 | 98 | https://americanstudies.columbian.gwu.edu/undergraduate-semester-course-offerings | en | Undergraduate Semester Course Offerings | [
"https://americanstudies.columbian.gwu.edu/modules/custom/gwu_blocks/images/gw-header-image-53.png",
"https://americanstudies.columbian.gwu.edu/modules/custom/gwu_content_types/img/gw_mono_0_0.png",
"https://americanstudies.columbian.gwu.edu/themes/custom/vartheme_bs4/logo-print.png",
"https://centraldata.gwu... | [] | [] | [
"columbian college of arts & sciences",
"ccas",
"george washington university",
"gwu",
"gw",
"gw university",
"george washington",
"dc universities",
"dc colleges",
"education",
"higher education"
] | null | [] | null | You can find the complete American Studies Department course slate on the Registrar's Schedule of Classes. | en | /sites/g/files/zaxdzs4756/files/favicon.ico | Department of American Studies | Columbian College of Arts & Sciences | https://americanstudies.columbian.gwu.edu/undergraduate-semester-course-offerings | AMST 1000.10: Zombie Capitalism
CRN: 86864 // D. Orenstein
W 12:45-3:15 PM
The Walking Dead. World War Z. “Zombie Banks.” Why does the specter of the living dead loom so largely in contemporary U.S. culture? How is it useful? What does it illuminate about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that might otherwise remain inscrutable? And how has it served in this allegorical manner throughout modern U.S. history? How did it haunt the rise of mass production, or the growth of suburbs, or the eruption of a social movement like Occupy Wall Street? To answer such questions, in this seminar we will screen one film per week, supplemented by brief readings in primary sources, to track the figure of the zombie from the Great Depression to the Great Recession (or, now, the Great Depression 2.0), and from the sugar plantations of Haiti to the tents of Zuccotti Park and the COVID-19 morgues of Detroit.
AMST 1050.10: National Bodies
CRN: 86784 // N. Ivy
MW 11:10-12:25 PM
Who makes up the body politic? How have discussions of citizenship and belonging been mapped onto ideas about biology and difference? To approach these questions, this course explores of how representations of the physical form as well as ideas about what constitutes appropriate bodies are shaped by U.S. cultural, political, social, and economic discourse. Assigned texts will present specific theoretical emphasis on race, gender, sexuality, labor, ability, and class.
AMST 1050.11: Gender & Environmental Politics
CRN: TBA // M. Henderson
TR 2:20-3:35 PM
This interdisciplinary seminar addresses major questions at the intersection of gender and the environment, tracking developments in feminist, queer, and environmental theory and activism. Throughout the course, we will attend to gender’s relationship to race, sexuality, nationality, class, and disability. The course will focus on topics including environmental health, colonialism and empire, and environmental and climate (in)justice, and will include readings by Rachel Carson, Naomi Klein, and Octavia Butler. Alongside academic scholarship, we will explore these ideas through film, podcasts and literature.
AMST 1100.10: Politics & Film
CRN: 82329 // E. Anker
M 12:45-2:00 PM & 7:10-9:40 PM
This class addresses the relationship between politics and film by examining how American films interpret and challenge political power in America. We pair film analysis with readings in political theory to interrogate the operations of power in political life. Exploring films thematically, first we examine those that shape conventional interpretations of political power in America, including concepts of limited government, popular sovereignty, and liberal individualism. Next, we consider films that challenge these ideas by offering alternate conceptions of how power functions, while addressing questions of ideology, surveillance, domination, and biopolitics. The last section investigates particular genres—melodrama, the western, and film noir—that reshape and rearticulate these themes within American political culture. Throughout, we will focus on how to read the visual language of film and the written texts of political theory. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement.
AMST 2010.80: Early American Cultural History
CRN: 81723 // N. Ivy
MW 2:20-3:10 PM
This course starts with the argument that understanding culture is key to understanding American history. Culture can refer to art and literature—some of which we will explore in class. However, culture can also refer to popular forms of expression, including the way people act. With this broader perspective, we will study some of the major scholarship addressing the evolution of American culture—from the Colonial period through Reconstruction. For example, we will look at what scholars have to say about why minstrel shows were popular and about how Indian captivity narratives were used to justify the conquest of the West. To shape our analyses, we will examine old newspapers, read popular literature, and explore the museums here in Washington, DC—then develop our own opinions and arguments as we engage in small group discussions and complete class assignments. This is an upper division course, but it is geared toward freshmen and sophomores who are looking for a challenge. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement. Same as HIST 2010.
AMST 2440W.80: The American City
CRN: 87182 // S. Osman
TR 9:35-10:25 AM
This introduces students to the exciting field of urban studies. Students will explore the political, architectural and cultural history of American cities, with a particular focus on Washington DC. Students will tackle urban planning and policy debates about topics such as urban renewal, sprawl, public housing, policing and gentrification. The course will include works by a range of urban writers such as Jane Jacobs, Mike Davis, Neil Smith, William Julius Wilson and clips from the TV show “The Wire.”
AMST 2490.10: The Politics of Care
CRN: 87189 // J. McMaster
TR 3:45-5:00 PM
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, people everywhere seem to be talking about care: self-care, collective care, care for the environment and nonhuman others. The reality is that everyone requires care to live. But what exactly is care? How is it distributed in our households, our city, our country, and across the globe? Who tends to receive it and who is disproportionately tasked with the undervalued work of providing it to others? This course will turn to critical theories of race, feminist philosophy, disability studies, and queer/trans scholarship for answers to these questions and others pertaining to the politics of care.
AMST 2490.11: Dinner with Marx
CRN: 87190 // D. Orenstein
W 5:00-7:30 PM
Some have called it the greatest novel of the nineteenth century. It has been translated into hundreds of languages, from Amharic and Bengali to Yiddish and Zulu; this September it is appearing in a new English translation. Published in 1867 (in German), Karl Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital: A Critique of Political Economy—the only volume of the three that Marx himself completed before his death—remains an inescapable and prescient text, for its mode of analysis as much as for its historical materialist account of the world system of capitalism. In this seminar we will read Volume One cover to cover, two to three chapters per week, over dinner for those who feel so inclined. No prior knowledge is required! But instructor approval is, because space is limited. Go to https://dinnerwithmarx.paperform.co to fill out an enrollment form.
AMST 2710.80: The United States in the World
CRN: 87191 // M. McAlister
TR 12:45-1:35 PM
This course examines US history from 1898-present in terms of its cultural and political relationships with the world beyond US borders. We will consider, among other things, US state and military power, globalizing cultures, transnational ideas and social movements, travel and tourism, and the impact of media in the context of US global power.
AMST 2730W.80: World War II in History and Memory
CRN: 87196 // T. Guglielmo
MW 9:35-10:25 AM
This course examines Americans’ World War II experiences and how those experiences have been studied, debated, understood, and “remembered”—officially, culturally, and personally. Through a mix of reading, writing, and discussion, it focuses on six overlapping topics: GIs, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese American internment, African Americans, the Holocaust, and women.
AMST 3600.30: Popular Music & Politics
CRN: 87199 // G. Wald
TR 2:20-3:10 PM
This interdisciplinary course explores the interactions and intersections of music and politics, focusing on the 20th-century United States. It has units on music and the U.S. state, music and social protest movements, and music and freedom. For spring 2021, there will be new course material on music and #BLM and music and queer/trans/non-binary identities.
AMST 3900.10: Critiquing Culture
CRN: 82930 // G. Wald
TR 11:10-12:25 PM
This course provides an introduction to the major theories and methods that define the field of American studies. In particular, we seek to understand the elusive yet omnipresent world of “culture”—the values, symbols, myths, ideas, ways of life, and systems of meaning that shape our identities and worldviews.
AMST 3950.80: Democracy and American Political Culture
CRN: 87658 // E. Anker
M 3:30-6:00 PM
This class will examine major concepts, practices, and cultural visions of democracy in the United States (and in a transnational context). Democracy is one of the most widely-valued systems for organizing politics and political culture, yet there is significant disagreement about the core ideals and practices that comprise it. This class will examine a variety of cultural, literary, and theoretical texts on the promises and perils of democracy in the US. As this is an election year, we will also explore visions of presidential power.
AMST 3950W.81: Black Women in 21st Century
CRN: 87860 // AK Wright
T 12:45-3:15 PM
An interdisciplinary approach to critical inquiry into the scholarship on, and status of, Black women in North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, and Africa in the twenty-first century; historical, national, and transnational linkages between Black women; responses to intersectionality; analyses, strategies, and actions being deployed by and about Black women in action and scholarship. Includes a significant engagement in writing as a form of critical inquiry and scholarly expression to satisfy the WID requirement.
AMST 4500W.10: Proseminar in American Studies
CRN: 83722 // E. Bock
TR 5:15-6:30 PM
Directed research and writing on special topics. May be repeated for credit provided the topic differs. Includes a significant engagement in writing as a form of critical inquiry and scholarly expression to satisfy the WID requirement.
AMST 4500W.11: Proseminar in American Studies
CRN: 87660 // E. Bock
TR 12:45-2:00 PM
Directed research and writing on special topics. May be repeated for credit provided the topic differs. Includes a significant engagement in writing as a form of critical inquiry and scholarly expression to satisfy the WID requirement.
AMST 1000.10: Entertainment Nation
CRN: 98635 // S. Silver
T 12:45-3:15 PM
In 2023, the Smithsonian National Museum of American History unveiled its new exhibit “Entertainment Nation,” just blocks from GW’s campus. This seminar invites students to engage critically with this exhibit, which includes artifacts from Dorothy’s ruby slippers to Ali Wong’s “Baby Cobra” dress, covering a wide range of entertainment forms in theater, television, film, music, stand-up comedy, and sports. We will examine how history is written, how historians present their ideas to the public, and how the arrangement of those ideas and artifacts make an argument. Students who are fans of music, comedy, and television will be introduced to scholarship on these topics, as we learn to think critically about the role entertainment has played in U.S. history, engaging in questions of empire, citizenship, and national identity. This seminar will introduce students to some of the major questions in American Studies—How can we think globally about “American” history? What is the relationship between the individual and the popular? How does media technology shape popular culture? What are the politics of spectatorship and display? How have U.S. entertainment cultures perpetuated white supremacy and racial subjugation? And, in contrast, how have racialized performers mobilized entertainment to demand freedom? In analyzing the exhibit’s contents and interpretation, we will examine how studies in LGBT/queer history, Black history, Latine history, and Indigenous histories have shaped the exhibit, while engaging theories in media studies, performance studies, popular music studies, and public history to interpret U.S. entertainment cultures.
AMST 1000.11: Zombie Capitalism
CRN: TBA // D. Orenstein
W 12:45-3:15 PM
The Walking Dead. World War Z. “Zombie Banks.” Why does the specter of the living dead loom so largely in contemporary U.S. culture? How is it useful? What does it illuminate about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that might otherwise remain inscrutable? And how has it served in this allegorical manner throughout modern U.S. history? How did it haunt the rise of mass production, or the growth of suburbs, or the eruption of a social movement like Occupy Wall Street? To answer such questions, in this seminar we will screen one film per week, supplemented by brief readings in primary sources, to track the figure of the zombie from the Great Depression to the Great Recession (or, now, the Great Depression 2.0), and from the sugar plantations of Haiti to the tents of Zuccotti Park and the COVID-19 morgues of Detroit.
AMST 1050.11: National Bodies
CRN: 96622 // N. Ivy
TR 11:10-12:25 PM
Who makes up the body politic? How have discussions of citizenship and belonging been mapped onto ideas about biology and difference? To approach these questions, this course explores of how representations of the physical form as well as ideas about what constitutes appropriate bodies are shaped by U.S. cultural, political, social, and economic discourse. Assigned texts will present specific theoretical emphasis on race, gender, sexuality, labor, ability, and class.
AMST 2011.80: Modern American Cultural History
CRN: 95456 // G. Wald
MW 12:45-1:35 PM
This course examines the history of the United States from World War I to the present using culture as its central organizing concept. We will define culture broadly to encompass customs, beliefs, and everyday practices, as well as forms of literary and artistic expression. Central themes of the course include: the role of mass media in shaping a national culture; the intersections of culture and technology; changes in racial formations and ethnic affiliations; cultural dynamics within neighborhoods and cities; cultural meanings of gender and sexual identities; and the political consequences of cultural conflict. We will also consider transnational influences on American culture and, conversely, the effects of American culture abroad.
AMST 2120W.80: Freedom in American Thought and Popular Culture
CRN: 96623 // E. Anker
MW 11:10-12:00 PM
America was founded on the premise of providing freedom to its people. But what, exactly, is―”freedom”? Is it doing what you want or is it participation in politics? Is it about escaping domination or does it require sharing power? These questions have been debated in America since its founding. The course will examine varied answers to these questions provided by American thought and popular culture. We will intertwine the study of theoretical texts with cultural analysis to examine authors from Jefferson to Thoreau, speeches from Martin Luther King to George W. Bush, films from High Noon to Minority Report, and the video art of Jeremy Blake. Together, we will explore how concepts of freedom and anxieties over freedom’s possibility to take cultural form. While we may not settle the question of what freedom is or how to produce it, we will learn both to appreciate its complexity and to critically engage its operations in American public life. This course satisfies a WID requirement. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirements.
AMST 2490.10: American Contagions
CRN: 96915 // N. Ivy
TR 2:20-3:35 PM
This course examines how national ideas about health, disease, cleanliness, and contamination have concurrently informed and been shaped by notions of difference. Together, we will think through how forms of human difference have been historically medicalized—as unhealthy, as in need of repair or management. We will seriously consider how gender, sexuality, race, and ability to continue to shape U.S. health care policy and practice. To do this, assigned course materials and class discussions will explore difficult-to-answer questions about the legacies of contagion narratives in American culture and politics. How have fears of outbreak influenced American military and economic actions? How do evolving understandings of the transmission and treatment of disease create and sustain moral panics? We will place primary sources such as political cartoons, plantation manuals, and printed broadsides in conversation with readings in social theory, feminist theory, and cultural studies. Across the semester, we will study and practice the essential skills of research, critical thinking, and textual analysis.
AMST 2490.11: US Political Culture, 1960-Present
CRN: 98474 // M. Dallek
MW 2:20-3:10 PM
This course traces the impact of cultural divisions on American politics from 1960 to the present. Students will examine how novels, films, plays, TV shows, art exhibits, and other cultural materials influenced the ideas and contexts that inform American political development. The course explores how a variety of cultural “texts” have framed debates about topics ranging from race, gender, and sexuality to social issues such as abortion and book bans, stirred public conversations about the meaning of “morality,” and dissented from mainstream thinking to upend traditional norms and behaviors. Students will be asked to think critically about manifestos (the Port Huron Statement), concert films (Altamont), conspiracy theories (Birtherism), “Be-Ins,” and the iconography of movements for social justice, among other cultural documents, in order to understand the interconnectedness of ideas, culture, and politics. Finally, the course will consider how cultural divisions since 1960 have contributed to politics in the 2020s; and how this past differs from controversies in our own times.
AMST 2490.80: Sex, Gender, Citizenship
CRN: 97824 // E. Bock
TR 12:45-1:35 PM
This course offers an examination of how sex, sexuality, and gender influence our understandings (and feelings) of what it means to be a citizen of a nation, a community, and the world. Through encounters with texts, podcasts, films, and art, we will investigate a series of important questions relating to the regulation of bodies, desires, and public/private life, paying particular attention to how these questions influence what it means to belong to a social body and to ourselves.
AMST 3901.10: Examining America
CRN: 93416 // E. Anker
M 3:30-6:00 PM
This course offers students an introduction to the history, debates, and methodologies that are central to the field of American Studies. Students will be introduced to key texts in American Studies scholarship from foundational primary sources to contemporary secondary scholarship. Registration restricted to American Studies majors.
AMST 3950.10: Performing America
CRN: 97018 // E. Bock
R 3:30-6:00 PM
When we think of the word “performance,” we most commonly think of a stage, lights, costumes, and props, but we rarely consider how performances find their way into the most ordinary events that shape everyday life in the United States. From social media and local school board meetings to the security line at the airport and the waiting room in the doctor’s office, American life is diffused with different genres of performance that are easily dismissed and/or reproduced without question. This course asks how performance both shapes and reinforces narratives of belonging to the American social body and how people have pushed against and and complicated those very narratives through history. Taking both large and small cultural productions as our primary objects of study, we will attend to the ways that performance—on the stage, in the streets, and in the intimate spaces of the private sphere—becomes an important lens through which to understand social, political, and economic life in America.
AMST 1000.10: Consuming Asian America
CRN: 48283 // GJ Sevillano
W 12:45-3:15 PM
“Did you eat yet?” Cut fruit apologies. Dogeaters. Mukbang and kamayan. Dhaba and Chinese take-out.
Interested in the diversity of Asian American life, this course introduces students to the differentiated yet intersecting experiences of Asian racialization in the United States from the 19th century to the present by examining the complexities of Asian/American food, foodways, and food systems. Surveying critical themes in the interdisciplinary fields of Asian American studies and critical food studies, this course utilizes novels, film, television, cookbooks, recipes, archival documents, and popular culture to better understand categories such as race, gender and sexuality, family and kinship, class, empire and nationhood, and the body. Students will adopt theoretically informed reading practices to begin exploring how “consumption” informs our understanding of “Asian America.” This course tackles a series of questions such as: Who or what is considered an “Asian American”? Who or what constitutes “Asian America”? How can we understand the Asian American diaspora through the contexts of food and foodways? How are Asian American foodways represented in writing, film, and popular culture? How have these conceptions changed over time? Readings and viewings may include Elaine Castillo, Bich Minh Nguyen, Milton Murayama, David Chang, Padma Lakshmi, Ang Lee, Bong Joon-ho, Jon M. Chu, BLACKPINK, or others.
AMST 1050.11: Asian American Feelings
CRN: 48182 // J. McMaster
TR 11:10-12:25 PM
This course takes a feminist, queer, and crip approach to the study of Asian American emotional life. It asks questions like, How do those held and hailed by the category “Asian American” feel about themselves and the world? How do others in the world feel about them in turn? Why do all of these people feel this way? And what historical, political, economic, and social circumstances have given rise to those feelings? Over the course of the past few decades, affect theory —basically, the study of feelings, their ontology, their causes, and their effects—has emerged as a key explanatory framework for understanding what it is to affect and to be affected, to move and to be moved, to feel and to be felt.
With attention to historical specificity, students will spend the semester analyzing the arguments theorists have made in relation to racialized and gendered structures of feeling ranging from "racial melancholia" and "racist love" to "national abjection" and "model minority masochism." Students will also be asked to examine how racial feelings such as these are rendered across a range of media beyond academic theory, including creative nonfiction, live performance, visual art, television, material culture, and film. Taking seriously the political stakes of studying affect and emotion, the ultimate aim of this course is to provide students with the tools to attune to Asian American feeling and to imagine how the world might be remade so that Asian Americans might feel otherwise.
AMST 1100.10: Politics & Film
CRN: 42482 // E. Anker
M 12:45-2:00 PM; M 7:10-9:40 PM
This class addresses the relationship between politics and film by examining how American films interpret and challenge political power in America. We pair film analysis with readings in political theory to interrogate the operations of power in political life. Exploring films thematically, first we examine those that shape conventional interpretations of political power in America, including concepts of limited government, popular sovereignty, and liberal individualism. Next, we consider films that challenge these ideas by offering alternate conceptions of how power functions, while addressing questions of ideology, surveillance, domination, and biopolitics. The last section investigates particular genres—melodrama, the western, and film noir—that reshape and rearticulate these themes within American political culture. Throughout, we will focus on how to read the visual language of film and the written texts of political theory. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement.
AMST 2010.80: Early American Cultural History
CRN: 41825 // N. Ivy
MW 2:20-3:10 PM
This course starts with the argument that understanding culture is key to understanding American history. Culture can refer to art and literature—some of which we will explore in class. However, culture can also refer to popular forms of expression, including the way people act. With this broader perspective, we will study some of the major scholarship addressing the evolution of American culture—from the Colonial period through Reconstruction. For example, we will look at what scholars have to say about why minstrel shows were popular and about how Indian captivity narratives were used to justify the conquest of the West. To shape our analyses, we will examine old newspapers, read popular literature, and explore the museums here in Washington, DC—then develop our own opinions and arguments as we engage in small group discussions and complete class assignments. This is an upper division course, but it is geared toward freshmen and sophomores who are looking for a challenge. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement. Same as HIST 2010.
AMST 2410W.80: Modern US Immigration
CRN: 47450 // T. Guglielmo
MW 9:35-10:25 AM
This class will investigate immigration patterns, immigration policy, and immigrants’ lives in the United States from the turn of the twentieth century to the present. Which immigrant groups have come to the United States? When and why have they come? And what have their lives been like once they got here? How has the federal government, and Americans more generally, responded to immigrants and immigration? Why have we welcomed some newcomers as good future Americans and scorned others as “forever foreigners” or “illegal aliens”? The course will explore these questions through a mix of reading, writing, lecture, and discussion. This course will satisfy a WID requirement.
AMST 2490.80: Sex, Gender, Citizenship
CRN: 47947 // E. Bock
TR 12:45-1:35 PM
This course offers an examination of how sex, sexuality, and gender influence our understandings (and feelings) of what it means to be a citizen of a nation, a community, and the world. Through encounters with texts, podcasts, films, and art, we will investigate a series of important questions relating to the regulation of bodies, desires, and public/private life, paying particular attention to how these questions influence what it means to belong to a social body and to ourselves.
AMST 3625.80: Ethnographic and Historical Perspectives on Data Ethics
CRN: 46523 // J. Cohen-Cole
T 12:45-3:15 PM
This class is an introduction to ethics of data sciences from two disparate perspectives: historical and ethnographic. The course focuses on the ethical and moral dilemmas posed by the collection and use of large data sets, by artificial intelligence, and by our increasingly on-line lives. Issues we will examine include the erosion of public life in the face of mediated remote communication, government and corporate surveillance; loss of privacy; the interaction of social media and democratic norms; and the substitution of artificial algorithmic and automatic processes for human judgment in policy making and practices of everyday life. The course is open to students from all fields. It is designed as an interdisciplinary meeting ground for students interested in humanistic inquiry and those in the data science major and other STEM fields. It will be useful to students in social sciences involved in the generation, recording, curation, processing, sharing and use of data; While it is a stand-alone course, it provides a “front door” for further research into the study of ethical life in an electronically mediated world through the methods of historical methods and digital ethnography. While it is a stand-alone course, it provides a “front door” for further research into the study of ethical life in an electronically mediated world through social scientific or humanistic methods. Those wishing further studies in these areas may consider continuing on with courses such as AMST 2610 Science, Technology and Politics in Modern America, AMST 2620 Human Minds and Artificial Intelligence, and AMST 2680 Hashtag America.
AMST 3900.10: Critiquing Culture
CRN: 43153 // E. Bock
TR 3:45-5:00 PM
This course provides an introduction to the major theories and methods that define the field of American studies. In particular, we seek to understand the elusive yet omnipresent world of “culture”—the values, symbols, myths, ideas, ways of life, and systems of meaning that shape our identities and worldviews.
AMST 4500W.10: Interrogating Education: GW & Beyond
CRN: 44035 // J. Cohne-Cole
W 12:45-3:15 PM
Course Description Provided Soon
AMST 1050.11: National Bodies
CRN: 67856 // N. Ivy
TR 11:10-12:25 PM
Who makes up the body politic? How have discussions of citizenship and belonging been mapped onto ideas about biology and difference? To approach these questions, this course explores of how representations of the physical form as well as ideas about what constitutes appropriate bodies are shaped by U.S. cultural, political, social, and economic discourse. Assigned texts will present specific theoretical emphasis on race, gender, sexuality, labor, ability, and class.
AMST 1050.12: What is Democracy?
CRN: 68227 // E. Anker
W 12:45-3:15 PM
This class will examine the various concepts and experiences that make up democracy in the United States (and in a transnational context). Democracy is one of the most widely-valued systems of political power, but there is little agreement about its core ideals, and it is often defined and exercised in divergent ways. We will read a variety of texts that examine the promises and perils of democracy, and also focus on sharpening our own political values and investments.
AMST 2011.80: Modern American Cultural History
CRN: 66137 // D. Orenstein
MW 9:35-10:25 AM
This course examines the history of the United States from World War I to the present using culture as its central organizing concept. We will define culture broadly to encompass customs, beliefs, and everyday practices, as well as forms of literary and artistic expression. Central themes of the course include: the role of mass media in shaping a national culture; the intersections of culture and technology; changes in racial formations and ethnic affiliations; cultural dynamics within neighborhoods and cities; cultural meanings of gender and sexual identities; and the political consequences of cultural conflict. We will also consider transnational influences on American culture and, conversely, the effects of American culture abroad.
AMST 2120W.80: Freedom in American Thought and Popular Culture
CRN: 67857 // E. Anker
MW 11:10-12:00 PM
America was founded on the premise of providing freedom to its people. But what, exactly, is―”freedom”? Is it doing what you want or is it participation in politics? Is it about escaping domination or does it require sharing power? These questions have been debated in America since its founding. The course will examine varied answers to these questions provided by American thought and popular culture. We will intertwine the study of theoretical texts with cultural analysis to examine authors from Jefferson to Thoreau, speeches from Martin Luther King to George W. Bush, films from High Noon to Minority Report, and the video art of Jeremy Blake. Together, we will explore how concepts of freedom and anxieties over freedom’s possibility to take cultural form. While we may not settle the question of what freedom is or how to produce it, we will learn both to appreciate its complexity and to critically engage its operations in American public life. This course satisfies a WID requirement. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirements.
AMST 2490.10: American Contagions
CRN: 68228 // N. Ivy
TR 2:20-3:35 PM
This course examines how national ideas about health, disease, cleanliness, and contamination have concurrently informed and been shaped by notions of difference. Together, we will think through how forms of human difference have been historically medicalized—as unhealthy, as in need of repair or management. We will seriously consider how gender, sexuality, race, and ability to continue to shape U.S. health care policy and practice. To do this, assigned course materials and class discussions will explore difficult-to-answer questions about the legacies of contagion narratives in American culture and politics. How have fears of outbreak influenced American military and economic actions? How do evolving understandings of the transmission and treatment of disease create and sustain moral panics? We will place primary sources such as political cartoons, plantation manuals, and printed broadsides in conversation with readings in social theory, feminist theory, and cultural studies. Across the semester, we will study and practice the essential skills of research, critical thinking, and textual analysis.
AMST 2490.11: NYC in the 1970s
CRN: 68229 // D. Orenstein
W 3:30-6:00 PM
AMST 2710.80: The US in the World
CRN: 66153 // M. McAlister
MW 12:45-1:35 PM
This course examines US history from 1898-present in terms of its cultural and political relationships with the world beyond US borders. We will consider, among other things, US state and military power, globalizing cultures, transnational ideas and social movements, travel and tourism, and the impact of media in the context of US global power.
AMST 2750.80: Latinos in the US
CRN: 65003 // E. Peña
TR 3:45-5:00 PM
The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the Hispanic population will reach 111 million by 2060. But who are Hispanics? What does that term mean and how does it relate to Latino and Latinx? Can those terms accurately reflect the various communities they seek to represent? Returning to those questions throughout the semester, we will critically analyze the evolution of the term “Hispanic” and its impact on discussions of race, identity, and citizenship expectations in the United States. We will engage ethnographic and historical analyses, legal perspectives, and films that explore Hispanic, Latino, and Latinx identity formation in geographic regions across the United States and in transnational/hemispheric contexts. One of the goals of this course is to not only identify how historical, political, and economic shifts have shaped the terms Hispanic and Latino in the United States but also connect those processes to ongoing discussions of immigration reform and border security. This course fulfills critical thinking and cross-cultural perspective learning goals.
AMST 3900.10: Critiquing Culture
CRN: 64622 // D. Orenstein
MW 12:45-2:00 PM
This course provides an introduction to the major theories and methods that define the field of American studies. In particular, we seek to understand the elusive yet omnipresent world of “culture”—the values, symbols, myths, ideas, ways of life, and systems of meaning that shape our identities and world views.
AMST 3901.10: Examining America
CRN: 63726 // E. Bock
TR 2:20-3:35 PM
What does it mean to examine “America” as a nation, concept, or field of study? And how does the way we examine (the methods, archives, and artifacts) affect what we can and cannot see? This course acquaints students to key theoretical and ethnographic texts on race, gender, and sexuality as important sites for asking questions about nationalism, citizenship, belonging, and sovereignty. Instead of being a chronological history of America, the course is organized around a series of questions and concepts essential to the study of migration, slavery, and struggles for emancipation so that we might reframe our teleological investments in narratives of progress. Through the readings, our goal is to explore the various technologies, strategies, and discourses that have built particular systems of power and those which have sought to disrupt those same systems. Assigned readings will be paired with poetry, visual and performance art, films, and music so that the rarified questions of the texts might be posed anew with reference to more familiar media.
AMST 3950.11: Filipinx American History
CRN: 68353 // T. Gonzalves
MW 2:20-3:35 PM
This interdisciplinary course offers a survey of Filipinx American experiences, including, but not limited to, analyses of labor migration from the Philippines to various locations in the diaspora; creative and artistic uses of expressive forms of culture; participation in various of social movements; and settlement in the United States as part of the nation’s fastest growing racial group.
AMST 4701.80: Epidemics in American History
CRN: 63770 // V. Gamble
MW 12:45-2:00 PM
This course surveys the history of infectious disease epidemics in the United States from the late nineteenth century to today, including the Covid-19 pandemic. It examines the development of the medical and public health responses to epidemics and the social, political, cultural and economic impact of epidemics on American history and culture. We will use primary documents, historical accounts, memoirs, and films to understand the history of epidemic disease.
AMST 1000.10: Bodies of Work
Nicole Ivy
MW 4:45 - 6:00
CRN: 77313
The National Gallery of Art’s ongoing exhibition, Bodies of Work, explores how American painters and sculptors across the last fifty years have “reimagine[d] the human form as a site of fantasy, fear, and travail.” Taking its title from this show, this course will examine how the human body has figured in cultural and historical narratives, not simply as a physical fact but as a site of social and political meaning-making. Using an interdisciplinary approach that highlights visual culture analysis, we will trace how historical perspectives on the body and embodiment have shaped American culture. Our texts for this class will include both written works and visual objects. We will explore how artists and intellectuals have engaged embodiment over an expansive period of time, considering works by a diverse array of thinkers including: Thomas Jefferson, Donna Haraway, Kerry James Marshall, and Andy Warhol.
AMST 1000.11: Zombie Capitalism
Dara Orenstein
T 3:30-6:00
CRN: 78432
The Walking Dead. World War Z. “Zombie Banks.” Why does the specter of the living dead loom so largely in contemporary U.S. culture? How is it useful? What does it illuminate about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that might otherwise remain inscrutable? And how has it served in this allegorical manner throughout modern U.S. history? How did it haunt the rise of mass production, or the growth of suburbs, or the eruption of a social movement like Occupy Wall Street? To answer such questions, in this seminar we will screen one film per week, supplemented by brief readings in primary sources, to track the figure of the zombie from the Great Depression to the Great Recession (or, now, the Great Depression 2.0), and from the sugar plantations of Haiti to the tents of Zuccotti Park and the COVID-19 morgues of Detroit.
AMST 1100.10: Politics and Film
Elisabeth Anker
M 2:20 -3:35 and 7:10 - 9:40
CRN: 72628
This class addresses the relationship between politics and film by examining how American films interpret and challenge political power in America. We pair film analysis with readings in political theory to interrogate the operations of power in political life. Exploring films thematically, first we examine those that shape conventional interpretations of political power in America, including concepts of limited government, popular sovereignty, and liberal individualism. Next, we consider films that challenge these ideas by offering alternate conceptions of how power functions, while addressing questions of ideology, surveillance, domination, and biopolitics. The last section investigates particular genres—melodrama, the western, and film noir—that reshape and rearticulate these themes within American political culture. Throughout, we will focus on how to read the visual language of film and the written texts of political theory. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement.
AMST 2010.80: Early American Cultural History
Nicole Ivy
MW 2:20 - 3:10
CRN: 71919
This course starts with the argument that understanding culture is key to understanding American history. Culture can refer to art and literature—some of which we will explore in class. However, culture can also refer to popular forms of expression, including the way people act. With this broader perspective, we will study some of the major scholarship addressing the evolution of American culture—from the Colonial period through Reconstruction. For example, we will look at what scholars have to say about why minstrel shows were popular and about how Indian captivity narratives were used to justify the conquest of the West. To shape our analyses, we will examine old newspapers, read popular literature, and explore the museums here in Washington, DC—then develop our own opinions and arguments as we engage in small group discussions and complete class assignments. This is an upper division course, but it is geared toward freshmen and sophomores who are looking for a challenge. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement. Same as HIST 2010.
AMST 2320.80: U.S. Media and Cultural History
Melani McAlister
TR 11:10 - 12:00
CRN: 77314
This course will examine mass culture – film, radio, music, television, internet – and its role in US history from the turn of the 20th century to the present. Focusing on cultural production, consumption, and reception, this course will consider the historical contexts in which popular culture has emerged and developed. The cultural texts we will study range from silent films to 1950s sitcoms and twenty-first century new media. Students will learn to consider media histories in light of theoretical debates about ideology, media effects, national identity, ethnic and racial identity, gender roles, and imperialism. Reading and viewing requirements are extensive. In addition to other course requirements, student work includes a final paper in which students analyze a media artifact in its historical and cultural context.
AMST 2430.10: Capitalism and Culture
Dara Orenstein
TR 2:20 - 3:10
CRN: 74829
What is capitalism, exactly? The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted this deceptively simple question in a way not seen in generations. Why were supermarket shelves empty of toilet paper in 2020? Who is an "essential" worker? When Amazon offers "free shipping," what happens in its warehouses? And, across the board, what does culture have to do with it? How might TikTok yield more answers than the New York Times? Our aim in this reading-intensive lecture course will be to tackle such riddles with the methods and insights of the arts and humanities. Each week we will take up an aspect of the real abstraction of capitalism. Surveying the histories of the crises that surround us, we will investigate how, in a capitalist society, concepts like “productivity,” “growth,” and “value” are, increasingly, threats to life itself.
AMST 2440W.80: The American City
Suleiman Osman
MW 11:10 - 12:00
CRN: 76677
This introduces students to the exciting field of urban studies. Students will explore the political, architectural and cultural history of American cities, with a particular focus on Washington DC. Students will tackle urban planning and policy debates about topics such as urban renewal, sprawl, public housing, policing and gentrification. The course will include works by a range of urban writers such as Jane Jacobs, Mike Davis, Neil Smith, William Julius Wilson and clips from the TV show “The Wire.”
AMST 3900.10: Critiquing Culture
Dara Orenstein
TR 9:35 - 10:50
CRN: 73335
This course provides an introduction to the major theories and methods that define the field of American studies. In particular, we seek to understand the elusive yet omnipresent world of “culture”—the values, symbols, myths, ideas, ways of life, and systems of meaning that shape our identities and worldviews.
AMST 3901.10: Examining America
Emily Bock
TR 2:20 - 3:35
CRN: 74830
What does it mean to examine “America” as a nation, concept, or field of study? And how does the way we examine (the methods, archives, and artifacts) affect what we can and cannot see? This course acquaints students to key theoretical and ethnographic texts on race, gender, and sexuality as important sites for asking questions about nationalism, citizenship, belonging, and sovereignty. Instead of being a chronological history of America, the course is organized around a series of questions and concepts essential to the study of migration, slavery, and struggles for emancipation so that we might reframe our teleological investments in narratives of progress. Through the readings, our goal is to explore the various technologies, strategies, and discourses that have built particular systems of power and those which have sought to disrupt those same systems. Assigned readings will be paired with poetry, visual and performance art, films, and music so that the rarified questions of the texts might be posed anew with reference to more familiar media.
AMST 4500W.10: History of Washington, D.C.
Suleiman Osman
MW 9:35 - 10:50
CRN: 74306
This is an advanced research seminar for American Studies majors. Seminar participants will spend the semester researching and writing a paper on a topic of their choice related to the history of the District of Columbia. Students may choose a topic in any time period, including the very recent past. Students will be encouraged to explore Gelman's D.C. History collection and other archives in the D.C. metropolitan area. The seminar will be conducted as a workshop during which students will have the opportunity to give supportive feedback to one another as they develop their projects.
AMST 4500W.11: “Interrogating GW”
Thomas Guglielmo
T 12:45 - 3:15
CRN: 75089
This is an advanced research seminar for American Studies majors on the topic of George Washington University. Each student will spend the semester writing a substantial research paper on some aspect of the university -- its student culture or activism; its race, class, or gender politics; its staff; its faculty; its leadership; its donors; its real estate holdings; its relationship with DC or Foggy Bottom; its cultural representation; its labor struggles; its “corporatization,” and so forth.
AMST 4702W.80: Race, Medicine, and Public Health
Vanessa Northington Gamble
MW 12:45 - 2:00
CRN: 72717
This course focuses on the role of race and racism in the development of American medicine and public health by examining the experiences of African Americans from slavery to today. It will emphasize the importance of understanding the historical roots of contemporary policy dilemmas such as racial and ethnic inequalities and inequities in health and health care. The course will challenge students to synthesize materials from several disciplines to gain a broad understanding of the relationship between race, medicine, and public health in the United States.It includes a significant engagement in writing as a form of critical inquiry and scholarly expression to satisfy the WID requirement.
AMST 1000.11: Zombie Capitalism
Dara Orenstein
M 12:45-3:15
CRN: 36116
The Walking Dead. World War Z. “Zombie Banks.” Why does the specter of the living dead loom so largely in contemporary U.S. culture? How is it useful? What does it illuminate about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that might otherwise remain inscrutable? And how has it served in this allegorical manner throughout modern U.S. history? How did it haunt the rise of mass production, or the growth of suburbs, or the eruption of a social movement like Occupy Wall Street? To answer such questions, in this seminar we will screen one film per week, supplemented by brief readings in primary sources, to track the figure of the zombie from the Great Depression to the Great Recession (or, now, the Great Depression 2.0), and from the sugar plantations of Haiti to the tents of Zuccotti Park and the COVID-19 morgues of Detroit.
AMST 1200.10: The Sixties in America
Suleiman Osman
TR 12:45-1:35
CRN: 36290
This course will examine American society, culture, and politics during the dramatic decade of the 1960s. Students will examine topics that include the civil rights movement, the student movement, the Vietnam War and antiwar movement, the counterculture, the women’s movement, the environmentalist movement, and the conservative movement.
AMST 2011.80: Modern American Cultural History
Gayle Wald
MW 2:20-3:10
CRN: 37289
This course surveys US history from 1912-2020 through the lens of culture and cultural change. Instead of trying to be exhaustive, it is organized around historical moments and phenomena that reflect the course theme of “culture wars.” We are living through a moment when talk of culture wars is everywhere, and yet culture has long been a site of political struggle and social change. While lectures lay a broad groundwork, students engage with primary texts, primarily literature, film, and music, but also theater, radio, and television. Student learning is assessed through writing assignments and a final exam, as well as through participation in weekly breakout sessions. There are no prerequisites for this course.
AMST 2410.80: Modern US Immigration History
Tom Guglielmo
MW 9:35-10:25
CRN: 17948
This class will investigate immigration patterns, immigration policy, and immigrants’ lives in the United States from the turn of the twentieth century to the present. Which immigrant groups have come to the United States? When and why have they come? And what have their lives been like once they got here? How has the federal government, and Americans more generally, responded to immigrants and immigration? Why have we welcomed some newcomers as good future Americans and scorned others as “forever foreigners” or “illegal aliens”? The course will explore these questions through a mix of reading, writing, lecture, and discussion. This course will satisfy a WID requirement.
AMST 2490.10: American Contagions
Nicole Ivy
TR 2:20-3:35
CRN: 34503
This course examines how national ideas about health, disease, cleanliness, and contamination have concurrently informed and been shaped by notions of difference. Together, we will think through how forms of human difference have been historically medicalized—as unhealthy, as in need of repair or management. We will seriously consider how gender, sexuality, race, and ability to continue to shape U.S. health care policy and practice. To do this, assigned course materials and class discussions will explore difficult-to-answer questions about the legacies of contagion narratives in American culture and politics. How have fears of outbreak influenced American military and economic actions? How do evolving understandings of the transmission and treatment of disease create and sustain moral panics? We will place primary sources such as political cartoons, plantation manuals, and printed broadsides in conversation with readings in social theory, feminist theory, and cultural studies. Across the semester, we will study and practice the essential skills of research, critical thinking, and textual analysis.
AMST 2490.11: Borders and Boundaries
Elaine Pena
TR 12:45-2:00
CRN: 36117
International borders affect you every day. In the United States and elsewhere, they play a role in determining whether you are a birthright citizen or an unauthorized migrant. They showcase a nation’s ability or inability to guarantee your wellbeing. They factor into comprehensive immigration reform and national security debates, including wall construction plans, that reinforce party lines and determine elections. Those who live in close proximity to an international border often deal with a particular set of issues. Living in an either/or environment can impel border residents to strategically recognize or deny cultural forms—to be hyper patriotic, for example, or to speak one language at home and another at school. This course will draw from the work of anthropologists, political scientists, historians, geographers, and documentary filmmakers to establish a strong base in border theory and to shine light on ground up dynamics. It will use the U.S.-Mexico border as its primary reference point, but it will also draw our attention to boundary lines around the globe including places like Ceuta and Melilla in Northern Africa and the Guatemala-Mexico border.
AMST 2610W.80: Science, Tech, and Politics in Modern America
Jamie Cohen-Cole
TR 9:35-10:25
CRN: 37302
This course examines the history of science and technology and their role in political and social life. Among the questions we will consider are: how has society, culture, and politics developed and changed because of technical developments ranging from electricity to the automobile, nuclear weapons, the internet, biotechnology and social sciences from SAT tests to economic modeling? How have struggles over science and technology over issues including evolution, global warming, GMOs, and vaccines shaped our culture? How have citizens and the government resolved conflicts over the truth or uses of science and technology? This course will satisfy a WID requirement.
AMST 2710.80: US in the World
Melani McAlister
TR 11:10-12:00
CRN: 37305
This course examines US history from 1898-present in terms of its cultural and political relationships with the world beyond US borders. We will consider, among other things, US state and military power, globalizing cultures, transnational ideas and social movements, travel and tourism, and the impact of media in the context of US global power.
AMST 2750.80: Latinos in the US
Elaine Peña
TR 3:45-5:00
CRN: 35589
The U.S. Census Bureau projects that the Hispanic population will reach 111 million by 2060. But who are Hispanics? What does that term mean and how does it relate to Latino and Latinx? Can those terms accurately reflect the various communities they seek to represent? Returning to those questions throughout the semester, we will critically analyze the evolution of the term “Hispanic” and its impact on discussions of race, identity, and citizenship expectations in the United States. We will engage ethnographic and historical analyses, legal perspectives, and films that explore Hispanic, Latino, and Latinx identity formation in geographic regions across the United States and in transnational/hemispheric contexts. One of the goals of this course is to not only identify how historical, political, and economic shifts have shaped the terms Hispanic and Latino in the United States but also connect those processes to ongoing discussions of immigration reform and border security. This course fulfills critical thinking and cross-cultural perspective learning goals.
AMST 3900.10: Critiquing Culture
Dara Orenstein
MW 9:35-10:50
CRN: 35100
This course provides an introduction to the major theories and methods that define the field of American studies. In particular, we seek to understand the elusive yet omnipresent world of “culture”—the values, symbols, myths, ideas, ways of life, and systems of meaning that shape our identities and worldviews.
AMST 3901.10: Examining America
Suleiman Osman
TR 2:20-3:10
CRN: 34021
This course offers students an introduction to the history, debates, and methodologies that are central to the field of American Studies. Students will be introduced to key texts in American Studies scholarship from foundational primary sources to contemporary secondary scholarship. Registration restricted to American Studies majors.
AMST 4701.80: Epidemics in American History
Vanessa Northington Gamble
MW 12:45-2:00
CRN: 34076
This course surveys the history of infectious disease epidemics in the United States from the late nineteenth century to today, including the Covid-19 pandemic. It examines the development of the medical and public health responses to epidemics and the social, political, cultural and economic impact of epidemics on American history and culture. We will use primary documents, historical accounts, memoirs, and films to understand the history of epidemic disease.
AMST 1050.10 – What is Democracy?
Libby Anker
T 12:45-3:15
CRN: 68061
AMST 1100.10 – Politics and Film
Elisabeth Anker
M 12:45-2:00 and M 7:10-9:40
CRN: 62945
This class addresses the relationship between politics and film by examining how American films interpret and challenge political power in America. We pair film analysis with readings in political theory to interrogate the operations of power in political life. Exploring films thematically, first we examine those that shape conventional interpretations of political power in America, including concepts of limited government, popular sovereignty, and liberal individualism. Next, we consider films that challenge these ideas by offering alternate conceptions of how power functions, while addressing questions of ideology, surveillance, domination, and biopolitics. The last section investigates particular genres—melodrama, the western, and film noir—that reshape and rearticulate these themes within American political culture. Throughout, we will focus on how to read the visual language of film and the written texts of political theory. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement.
AMST 2010.80 – Early American Cultural History
Teresa Murphy
MW 2:20-3:10
CRN: 62122
This course starts with the argument that understanding culture is key to understanding American history. Culture can refer to art and literature—some of which we will explore in class. However, culture can also refer to popular forms of expression, including the way people act. With this broader perspective, we will study some of the major scholarship addressing the evolution of American culture—from the Colonial period through Reconstruction. For example, we will look at what scholars have to say about why minstrel shows were popular and about how Indian captivity narratives were used to justify the conquest of the West. To shape our analyses, we will examine old newspapers, read popular literature, and explore the museums here in Washington, DC—then develop our own opinions and arguments as we engage in small group discussions and complete class assignments. This is an upper division course, but it is geared toward freshman and sophomores who are looking for a challenge. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement. Same as HIST 2010.
AMST 2071.80 – Introduction to the Arts in America
Katherine Markowski
TR 9:35-10:50
CRN: 67687
This is a lecture survey of American art from the colonial period to the postmodern present. Primarily focused upon painting, the course also covers sculpture, architecture, printmaking and photography within the broader visual and material culture of United States history. Art works are analyzed in relation to issues of religion, nationalism, ethnicity, race, class and gender.
AMST 2430.10 – Capitalism and Culture
Dara Orenstein
TR 9:35-10:25AM
CRN: 65596
As of this writing, in April, GW is online. Most of the nation is under quarantine. And the world as we knew it is over. Why are the shelves empty of toilet paper? Why are ventilators in short supply? Why are hospitals laying off doctors and nurses? Why is Congress bailing out the airline industry, the cruise industry, the oil industry? Why are the people who are now recognized as “essential workers”—the food-service workers, the healthcare workers, the transit workers, the warehouse workers—also the same people who are most vulnerable, structurally speaking, to premature death? (And why, by the way, is GW online?) Any answer to these questions must contend with one word: capitalism. And it is not “capitalism” merely in terms of the dollars and cents that needs to be examined (or, autopsied). It is equally the culture of capitalism that is at the root of the pandemic of COVID-19. This reading-intensive, discussion-based course is an introduction to scholarship in the arts, humanities, and social sciences on the culture of capitalism. Organized thematically, and with a historical sensibility, it investigates how, in a capitalist framework, concepts like “productivity,” “growth,” and “value” are, increasingly, threats to life itself.
AMST 2440W.80 – The American City
Suleiman Osman
TR, 2:20-3:10
CRN: 68094
This introduces students to the exciting field of urban studies. Students will explore the political, architectural and cultural history of American cities, with a particular focus on Washington DC. Students will tackle urban planning and policy debates about topics such as urban renewal, sprawl, racial inequality, policing, public housing, immigration and gentrification. The course will include works by a range of urban writers such as Jane Jacobs, Mike Davis, Neil Smith, Anne Petry and clips from the TV show “The Wire.”
AMST 2450.10 – History and Meaning of Higher Education in the United States
Teresa Murphy
MW 11:10-12:00PM
CRN: 67688
Interest in, and support for universities as well as the academic training they provide is longstanding and complicated. Community and state support have been rooted in civic aspirations while students and their families have generally focused on the economic and cultural benefits that students derive. This course will analyze the ways in which these two different sets of expectations have evolved, intersected, and sometimes collided over the past two centuries. Students will analyze how college experiences were reflective of competing social, economic, and cultural goals. Students also will explore how colleges provided social mobility for some students at the same time that they reinscribed inequality in other ways. We will pay particular attention to how student life has changed over the last two hundred years, how college curricula have been modified, and how professional standards have evolved. Finally, students will examine how universities have been and continue to be deeply tied to governmental goals and needs. Students will be expected not only to analyze these issues but to suggest interventions for improving higher education in the 21 st century.
AMST 2730W.80: World War II in History and Memory
Tom Guglielmo
MW 9:35-10:25AM
CRN: 66951
This course examines Americans’ World War II experiences and how those experiences have been studied, debated, understood, and “remembered”—officially, culturally, and personally. Through a mix of reading, writing, and discussion, it focuses on six overlapping topics: GIs, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese American internment, African Americans, the Holocaust, and women.
AMST 3362.80 – African American Women's History
Erin Chapman
TR 2:20-3:35
CRN: 66952
In this course, we will explore the history of African American women’s labor, leisure, institution-building, and activism from the antebellum period through the early 1980s. In addition, we will investigate the complexities of gender, sexuality, and class as they have shaped African American women’s experiences, the idea of race, racial identity and racism, and U.S. society. We will cover slavery, abolitionism, Reconstruction, the Women’s Era, the great migration, the New Negro Era, Civil Rights, Black Power, and Black Feminism, with an eye toward both African American women’s participation and the gender politics of racial advancement efforts. Readings will include biography and histories of specific moments and movements. Requirements will include reading responses and a final examination.
AMST 3625.80 – Ethnographic and Historical Perspectives on Data Ethics
Jamie Cohen-Cole and Joel Kuipers
T 12:45-3:15
CRN: 66238
This class is an introduction to ethics of data sciences from two disparate perspectives: historical and ethnographic. The course focuses on the ethical and moral dilemmas posed by the collection and use of large data sets, by artificial intelligence, and by our increasingly on-line lives. Issues we will examine include the erosion of public life in the face of mediated remote communication, government and corporate surveillance; loss of privacy; the interaction of social media and democratic norms; and the substitution of artificial algorithmic and automatic processes for human judgment in policy making and practices of everyday life. The course is open to students from all fields. It is designed as an interdisciplinary meeting ground for students interested in humanistic inquiry and those in the data science major and other STEM fields. It will be useful to students in social sciences involved in the generation, recording, curation, processing, sharing and use of data; While it is a stand-alone course, it provides a “front door” for further research into the study of ethical life in an electronically mediated world through the methods of historical methods and digital ethnography. While it is a stand-alone course, it provides a “front door” for further research into the study of ethical life in an electronically mediated world through social scientific or humanistic methods. Those wishing further studies in these areas may consider continuing on with courses such as AMST 2610 Science, Technology and Politics in Modern America, AMST 2620 Human Minds and Artificial Intelligence, and AMST 2680 Hashtag America.
AMST 3900.10 – Critiquing Culture
Dara Orenstein
TR 9:35-10:50
CRN: 63740
This course provides an introduction to the major theories and methods that define the field of American studies. In particular, we seek to understand the elusive yet omnipresent world of “culture”—the values, symbols, myths, ideas, ways of life, and systems of meaning that shape our identities and worldviews.
AMST 3901.10 - Examining America
Elaine Peña
T 12:45-3:15
CRN: 65603
A wide array of itineraries, exchanges, networks, and social movements have shaped America and have created dynamic variations of the American experience. Yet, the field of American Studies has not always captured those complexities. This course invites AMST majors to think critically about the institutional history of the discipline using a variety of interpretive tools. We will examine how scholarly debates around interdisciplinarity and methodology have changed over time to contemplate where to take AMST moving forward.
AMST 3950W.80 – American Slavery and Its Legacies
Erin Chapman
R 11:10-1:00
CRN: 67696
AMST 4500W.10 – STEM and its Cultures
Jamie Cohen-Cole
R 12:45-3:15
CRN: 64928
This is an advanced seminar for American Studies majors in which students will write original research papers on an aspect of the cultural role of science, technology and/or medicine (STM) in America. STM has been, variously, a repository of truth and political authority, a source of values, and site of conflict. In the face of wars, climate change, and epidemics, STM provides means of imagining or modeling scenarios and of shaping possible futures. Yet these interventions are not frictionless. Scientific and technological changes sometimes reinforce and at others challenge existing social categories and hierarchies. If STM fields and their products have loomed large in American culture – even, to some, defining it – these fields have not been unmoved movers. The fields are subject to cultural and political forces and themselves have internal subcultures that are accessible to cultural critique just as much as any other aspect of American life. Thus, a premise of the class is that STM and other aspects of American culture, society, and politics mutually constitute one another. We will begin with by developing the fundamental skills for writing a research paper and reading exemplary articles. Students will then engage in individual research projects of their own choosing that are based in primary sources and address important scholarly issues related to the cultural analysis of Science, Technology, and Medicine.
AMST 4500W.11 – Transnational America
Melani McAlister
W 12:45-3:15
CRN: 66025
In this advanced research seminar for American Studies majors, students write an original research paper that considers some aspect of how transnational connections and frictions among the world’s peoples have functioned both within and outside U.S. borders. =. Students should expect to combine archival research (using a range of possible archives) and cultural analysis that examines state and/or non-state actors as sources of international relations, broadly conceived. Research topics might cover issues such as the role culture or religion has played in the histories of the U.S. Empire. Or how have activists or actors of various types (the alt-right, nineteenth century missionaries, hip hop artists) worked across borders to construct networks. We will read theoretical materials on the state, transnationalism, and actor-network theory, as well as works of cultural analysis, to establish frameworks for individual research projects.
AMST 4702W.80 – Race, Medicine, and Public Health
Vanessa Gamble
MW 12:45-2:00PM
CRN: 63044
This course focuses on the role of race and racism in the development of American medicine and public health by examining the experiences of African Americans from slavery to today. It will emphasize the importance of understanding the historical roots of contemporary policy dilemmas such as racial and ethnic inequalities and inequities in health and health care. The course will challenge students to synthesize materials from several disciplines to gain a broad understanding of the relationship between race, medicine, and public health in the United States. Among the questions that will be addressed are: How have race and racism influenced, and continue to influence, American medicine and public health? What is race? How have concepts of race evolved? What have been some of the historical vulnerabilities of black bodies within the medical system? How has medical thought and practices contributed to the political and social status of African Americans? What are racial inequalities and inequities in health and health care? What is the history of these inequalities and inequities and what factors have contributed to their existence and persistence? How have African Americans, the medical and public health professions, and governmental agencies addressed these inequalities and inequities in health and health care? What have been the experiences of African Americans as patients and health care providers and how have they challenged racism in medicine. This course will satisfy a WID requirement.
AMST 1000.10 – Bodies of Work
Nicole Ivy
M 12:45-3:15
CRN: 15114
The National Gallery of Art’s ongoing exhibition, Bodies of Work, explores how American painters and sculptors across the last fifty years have “reimagine[d] the human form as a site of fantasy, fear, and travail.” Taking its title from this show, this course will examine how the human body has figured in cultural and historical narratives, not simply as a physical fact but as site of social and political meaning-making. Using an interdisciplinary approach that highlights visual culture analysis, we will trace how historical perspectives on the body and embodiment have shaped American culture. Our texts for this class will include both written works and visual objects. We will explore how artists and intellectuals have engaged embodiment over an expansive period of time, considering works by a diverse array of thinkers including: Thomas Jefferson, Donna Haraway, Kerry James Marshall, and Andy Warhol.
AMST 1000.11 – Media Culture & COVID
Melani McAlister
MW 2:20-3:35
CRN: 17707
This is a research seminar in which students will document and analyze cultural and political responses to the COVID crisis. Our final product will be a jointly produced webpage that will serve as a public digital humanities resource. Students will read some theoretical and historical materials on how US and global cultures have responded to previous contagions. But our primary work will be independent projects. Participants draw on their own experiences, using diaries, photographs, interviews, etc. Or they may analyze news media coverage, popular culture, or social media to unpack ideologies, cultural meanings, and the responses of ordinary people. Our project will include local, national, and transnational analyses, and formats will likely range from written essays to short videos to podcasts to photographic essays. This course satisfies GPAC requirements in the Arts and Global/Cross-Cultural perspectives.
AMST 1000.12 – The Nature & Culture of Children
Jamie Cohen-Cole
W, 3:30-6:00
CRN: 18875
The sciences and philosophy ask hard questions: What is the nature of knowledge? What characteristics define humanity? How much does culture matter? It turns out that these questions have provoked fierce disagreements for how we understand, raise, and educate children. They are tied to our visions of morality, politics, education, and the shape we want the future to take. This seminar adopts a historical approach to see how these questions and the debates about children have been approached by philosophers, biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists. Registration restricted to CCAS freshman only.
AMST 1200.10 – The Sixties in America
Suleiman Osman
TR 11:10-12:00
CRN: 17949
This course will examine American society, culture, and politics during the dynamic and contentious decade of the 1960s. Students will examine topics such as the civil rights movement, the student movement, the Vietnam War and anti-war movement, black power, the counterculture, feminism, the environmental movement, and the New Right. Students will also examine how the memory of the 1960s continues to shape debates about political activism, foreign policy, and cultural consumption today. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement.
AMST 1050.10 – Race and Racism in US History
Tom Guglielmo
MW 9:35-10:50
CRN: 17948
This class will examine the history of race and racism in the United States from the turn of the twentieth century to the present day. Through a mixture of reading, writing, lecture, in-class discussion, film viewings, and trips around DC, we’ll explore the evolving social boundaries of race and their significance in shaping our lives, livelihoods, thoughts, and dreams. Class topics will include Jim Crow and mass incarceration, colonialism and immigration, Chinese exclusion and Japanese-American internment, civil rights and Black Lives Matter.
AMST 2120W.80 – Freedom in American Thought and Popular Culture
Elisabeth Anker
MW 11:10-12:00
CRN: 13389
America was founded on the premise of providing freedom to its people. But what, exactly, is―”freedom”? Is it doing what you want or is it participation in politics? Is it about escaping domination or does it require sharing power? These questions have been debated in America since its founding. The course will examine varied answers to these questions provided by American thought and popular culture. We will intertwine the study of theoretical texts with cultural analysis to examine authors from Jefferson to Thoreau, speeches from Martin Luther King to George W. Bush, films from High Noon to Minority Report, and the video art of Jeremy Blake. Together, we will explore how concepts of freedom and anxieties over freedom’s possibility to take cultural form. While we may not settle the question of what freedom is or how to produce it, we will learn both to appreciate its complexity and to critically engage its operations in American public life. This course satisfies a WID requirement. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirements
AMST 2210.10 – African American Experience
Amber Musser
TR 12:45-1:35
CRN: 15177
Much of what we think about in relation to the African American experience begins with the central question: what does it mean to have been treated as a commodity? This course uses that question as the central point for examining African American life from slavery to the present by focusing specifically on how gender and sexuality have been part of commodification and central to resisting it. Students will gain historical contexts for this question in addition to learning to analyze contemporary portrayals of African American experience in literature, film, television, and music.
AMST 2490.10 – American Contagions
Nicole Ivy
MW 4:45-6:00
CRN: 15180
This course examines how national ideas about health, disease, cleanliness, and contamination have concurrently informed and been shaped by notions of difference. Together, we will think through how forms of human difference have been historically medicalized—as unhealthy, as in need of repair or management. We will seriously consider how gender, sexuality, race, and ability to continue to shape U.S. health care policy and practice. To do this, assigned course materials and class discussions will explore difficult-to-answer questions about the legacies of contagion narratives in American culture and politics. How have fears of outbreak influenced American military and economic actions? How do evolving understandings of the transmission and treatment of disease create and sustain moral panics? We will place primary sources such as political cartoons, plantation manuals, and printed broadsides in conversation with readings in social theory, feminist theory, and cultural studies. Across the semester, we will study and practice the essential skills of research, critical thinking, and textual analysis.
AMST 2490.11 – COVID: Race, Gender & Uprisings
Amber Musser
TR 3:45-5:00
CRN: 17708
The Covid-19 pandemic has upended so many aspects of American Culture. This seminar will focus specifically on the reorientations to intimacy, work, and leisure in several ways. We will position this moment in relation to previous public health emergencies; we will look at the way inequalities have been made visible by this crisis; and we will look at emergent solutions to these social problems. This seminar will require critical self-reflection and a willingness to engage with theory. There will be a weekly writing assignment in addition to a final project.
AMST 2750.80 – Latinos in the U.S.
Elaine Peña
TR 12:45-2:00
CRN: 16925
The U.S. Census Bureau projects that Latinos will make up the majority in the United States by 2050. But who are Latinos? What does that term mean now and how has it changed over time? Can the term accurately reflect the various communities it seeks to represent? Returning to those questions throughout the semester, we will critically analyze the evolution of the term “Latino” and its impact on discussions of race, identity, and citizenship expectations in the United States. We will engage ethnographic and historical analyses, legal perspectives, and films that explore Latino identity formation in geographic regions across the United States as well as hemispherically. One of the goals of this course is to not only identify how historical, political, and economic shifts have shaped the term Latino in the United States but also connect those processes to ongoing discussions of immigration reform and border security. This course fulfills critical thinking and cross-cultural perspective learning goals.
AMST 3600.10 – Popular Music and Politics
Gayle Wald
MW, 2:20-3:10
CRN: 17709
This interdisciplinary course explores the interactions and intersections of music and politics, focusing on the 20th-century United States. It has units on music and the U.S. state, music and social protest movements, and music and freedom. For spring 2021, there will be new course material on music and #BLM and music and queer/trans/non-binary identities.
AMST 3900.10 – Critiquing Culture
Melani McAlister
MW 12:45-2:00
CRN: 16111
This course provides an introduction to the major theories and methods that define the field of American studies. In particular, we seek to understand the elusive yet omnipresent world of “culture”—the values, symbols, myths, ideas, ways of life, and systems of meaning that shape our identities and worldviews.
AMST 3901.10 – Examining America
Elaine Pena
T 3:30-6:00
CRN: 14583
This course invites students to examine America using international, transnational, and cross-border processes as optics. A wide array of itineraries, exchanges, networks, and social movements have shaped America and have created dynamic variations of the American experience. Using key works in American Studies, this course shows that the United States is deeply invested in maintaining those long-standing strategies of social reproduction and economic development. But does the cross-border flow of capital, people, ideas, and values weaken or strengthen national character? Do those processes make the category of “nation” obsolete? Do they change the way we think about American racial politics, American citizenship, or what constitutes American religion? We will consider those questions using a variety of interpretive tools. We will also situate those discussions within the development of American Studies as a field of study to understand how scholarly debates have changed over time.
AMST 3950.10 – The Iraq Wars
Zaynab Quadri
TR, 9:35-10:50
CRN: 18466
Nearly twenty years after the “shock and awe” invasion of Baghdad, the Iraq War remains a contested subject in the United States— sharply criticized by some, generally misunderstood by most, if remembered publicly at all. This writing-intensive, interdisciplinary seminar seeks to remedy the knowledge gap by building a multimedia archive with which to study the war, utilizing memoirs, films, news reporting, and government documents to lay a historical foundation. Further, the course will contextualize the 2003-2011 conflict in a longer trajectory of American foreign policy in Iraq and the Middle East from the 1980s to the present. Finally, the course will consider the legacies of the war in U.S. politics and culture, from the changing nature of security and surveillance to popular Hollywood memory. Students will be challenged to analyze the long origins and impacts of the Iraq War(s); survey the deployment of American power in the world; and critically evaluate an array of primary sources and perspectives.
AMST 3950.80 – Freemasonry and American Art
David Bjelajac
T 3:30-6:00
CRN: 18167
During the eighteenth-century, English, Scottish, Irish and continental European stonemasons’ medieval guild traditions inspired the modern cultural formation of Freemasonry and competing international networks of masonic lodges. Freemasonry attracted men from a wide socio- economic spectrum and found support from both radical revolutionaries and counter- revolutionary conservatives. Barred from membership in White lodges, free African Americans created their own fraternal network of Prince Hall Freemasons. Ever since the Age of Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions, Freemasonry’s secretive lodge meetings, mysterious initiation rituals and esoteric visual symbols have fostered orthodox Christian opposition and anti-masonic conspiracy theories charging a varying host of purported vices, blasphemies and subversive misdeeds. This course critically examines these conspiracy theories, popularized in a variety of media, while also exploring Freemasonry’s racial, gender and class exclusions/divisions. Freemasonry’s global networking assisted American imperialism and helped shape the nation’s capital. Washington, D.C.’s urban design, historic-revival architecture, monumental sculpture and large-scale history paintings will be subjects for lectures, readings, and class discussions. The seminar will consider the manner in which George Washington himself came to personify American Freemasonry, becoming a model for later United States presidents who joined the fraternity. Students will read both primary and secondary sources and will be required to write papers critically analyzing visual objects and architectural spaces while also evaluating the literature of Freemasonry, anti-masonry and secret-society conspiracies. Contemporary artists such as Matthew Barney, Bill Traylor and Jim Shaw have appropriated masonic emblems and themes.
AMST 4701W.80 – Epidemics in American History
Vanessa Northington Gamble
MW 12:45-2:00
CRN: 14663
This course surveys the history of infectious disease epidemics in the United States from the late nineteenth century to today, including the Covid-19 pandemic. It examines the development of the medical and public health responses to epidemics and the social, political, cultural and economic impact of epidemics on American history and culture. We will use primary documents, historical accounts, memoirs, and films to understand the history of epidemic disease.
AMST 1000.10: Zombie Capitalism
Dara Orenstein
T 3:30-6:00
CRN: 56078
The Walking Dead. World War Z. “Zombie Banks.” Why does the specter of the living dead loom so largely in contemporary U.S. culture? How is it useful? What does it illuminate about the relationship between capitalism and democracy that might otherwise remain inscrutable? And how has it served in this allegorical manner throughout modern U.S. history? How did it haunt the rise of mass production, or the growth of suburbs, or the eruption of a social movement like Occupy Wall Street? To answer such questions, in this seminar we will screen one film per week, supplemented by brief readings in primary sources, to track the figure of the zombie from the Great Depression to the Great Recession (or, now, the Great Depression 2.0), and from the sugar plantations of Haiti to the tents of Zuccotti Park and the COVID-19 morgues of Detroit.
AMST 1000.11 – World of Bob Dylan
Gayle Wald
TR, 9:35-10:50AM
CRN: 58235
This dean’s seminar investigates the life and art of Bob Dylan, placing Dylan in the context of the wider social, cultural, and political forces have shaped and influenced him. We’ll investigate Dylan’s own creative work (primarily music, but also writing and visual art) as well as creative and scholarly work that Dylan’s persona and music have inspired. We’ll also pay attention to figures that are sometimes relegated to the margins of the Dylan story, especially the women and people of color with whom Dylan has long engaged in a complex dance of love and theft. This course is not meant as an uncritical love letter to Bob Dylan or an exercise in hagiography (although we’ll briefly delve into the domain of Dylanologists). It is rather about Dylan the person/artist and “Dylan” as a lens into American history and culture. No previous Dylan experience necessary!
**This course satisfies a GPAC requirement in Creative Thinking**
AMST 1100.10 Politics and Film
Elisabeth Anker
M 3:45-5:00 and M 7:10-9:40
CRN: 53373
This class addresses the relationship between politics and film by examining how American films interpret and challenge political power in America. We pair film analysis with readings in political theory to interrogate the operations of power in political life. Exploring films thematically, first we examine those that shape conventional interpretations of political power in America, including concepts of limited government, popular sovereignty, and liberal individualism. Next, we consider films that challenge these ideas by offering alternate conceptions of how power functions, while addressing questions of ideology, surveillance, domination, and biopolitics. The last section investigates particular genres—melodrama, the western, and film noir—that reshape and rearticulate these themes within American political culture. Throughout, we will focus on how to read the visual language of film and the written texts of political theory. Students must also register for a discussion section to satisfy the course requirement.
AMST 2010.80: Early American Cultural History
Nicole Ivy
MW 2:20-3:10
CRN: 52329
This course explores how people’s efforts to make meaning of natural landscapes, built environments, social worlds, and encounters of difference influenced the formation of the United States. We track the development of national ideas about freedom and democracy alongside the evolution of everyday beliefs and practices in order to explore what culture might mean as a category of study-- and what difference the study of culture makes. Same as HIST 2010.
AMST 2071.80: Introduction to the Arts in America
David Bjelajac
MW 12:45-2:00
CRN: 54009
This is a lecture survey of American art from the colonial period to the postmodern present. Primarily focused upon painting, the course also covers sculpture, architecture, printmaking and photography within the broader visual and material culture of United States history. Art works are analyzed in relation to issues of religion, nationalism, ethnicity, race, class and gender.
AMST 2320.80: U.S. Media and Cultural History
Melani McAlister
TR 12:45-1:35PM
CRN: 54972
This course will examine mass culture – film, radio, music, television, internet – and its role in US history from the turn of the 20th century to the present. Focusing on cultural production, consumption, and reception, this course will consider the historical contexts in which popular culture has emerged and developed. The cultural texts we will study range from silent films to 1950s sitcoms and twenty-first century new media. Students will learn to consider media histories in light of theoretical debates about ideology, media effects, national identity, ethnic and racial identity, gender roles, and imperialism. Reading and viewing requirements are extensive. In addition to other course requirements, student work includes a final paper in which students analyze a media artifact in its historical and cultural context.
AMST 2410W.80: 20th Century US Immigration
Tom Guglielmo
MW 9:35-10:25AM
CRN: 57718
This class will investigate immigration patterns, immigration policy, and immigrants’ lives in the United States from the turn of the twentieth century to the present. Which immigrant groups have come to the United States? When and why have they come? And what have their lives been like once they got here? How has the federal government, and Americans more generally, responded to immigrants and immigration? Why have we welcomed some newcomers as good future Americans and scorned others as “forever foreigners” or “illegal aliens”? The course will explore these questions through a mix of reading, writing, lecture, and discussion. This course will satisfy a WID requirement.
AMST 2430.10: Capitalism and Culture
Dara Orenstein
TR 9:35-10:25AM
CRN: 57097
As of this writing, in April, GW is online. Most of the nation is under quarantine. And the world as we knew it is over. Why are the shelves empty of toilet paper? Why are ventilators in short supply? Why are hospitals laying off doctors and nurses? Why is Congress bailing out the airline industry, the cruise industry, the oil industry? Why are the people who are now recognized as “essential workers”—the food-service workers, the healthcare workers, the transit workers, the warehouse workers—also the same people who are most vulnerable, structurally speaking, to premature death? (And why, by the way, is GW online?) Any answer to these questions must contend with one word: capitalism. And it is not “capitalism” merely in terms of the dollars and cents that needs to be examined (or, autopsied). It is equally the culture of capitalism that is at the root of the pandemic of COVID-19. This reading-intensive, discussion-based course is an introduction to scholarship in the arts, humanities, and social sciences on the culture of capitalism. Organized thematically, and with a historical sensibility, it investigates how, in a capitalist framework, concepts like “productivity,” “growth,” and “value” are, increasingly, threats to life itself.
AMST 2620.10: Human Mind and Artificial Intelligence
Jamie Cohen-Cole
TR 11:10-12:00
CRN: 57099
Where is the boundary between humans and robots? Is it that humans can bleed and robots can rust? Or is there something more important that gets to what is distinctive about humanity? Is it how we think, our intelligence, or our language? If so, then what happens when computers or robots or robots speak and perform intelligent tasks? Focusing on questions such as these this class looks at the history of computers, robots, and artificial intelligence. In tracking this history we will see how the line between humans and machines has been in constant motion as what we believe, and imagine about machines had affected what we know, imagine, and believe about the human mind. We will examine these themes by reading about computers, robots, and artificial intelligence in history and through the visions of the future given in science fiction stories and movies from Frankenstein to AI and I Robot. Topics covered in this course include Charles Babbage's analytical engine, the Turing Machine, cyberspace, and the origins, development, and criticism of research in artificial intelligence.
AMST 3625.80: Ethnographic and Historical Perspectives on Data Ethics
Jamie Cohen-Cole and Joel Kuipers
T 12:45-3:15
CRN: 58013
This class is an introduction to ethics of data sciences from two disparate perspectives: historical and ethnographic. The course focuses on the ethical and moral dilemmas posed by the collection and use of large data sets, by artificial intelligence, and by our increasingly on-line lives. Issues we will examine include the erosion of public life in the face of mediated remote communication, government and corporate surveillance; loss of privacy; the interaction of social media and democratic norms; and the substitution of artificial algorithmic and automatic processes for human judgment in policy making and practices of everyday life. The course is open to students from all fields. It is designed as an interdisciplinary meeting ground for students interested in humanistic inquiry and those in the data science major and other STEM fields. It will be useful to students in social sciences involved in the generation, recording, curation, processing, sharing and use of data; While it is a stand-alone course, it provides a “front door” for further research into the study of ethical life in an electronically mediated world through the methods of historical methods and digital ethnography. While it is a stand-alone course, it provides a “front door” for further research into the study of ethical life in an electronically mediated world through social scientific or humanistic methods. Those wishing further studies in these areas may consider continuing on with courses such as AMST 2610 Science, Technology and Politics in Modern America, AMST 2620 Human Minds and Artificial Intelligence, and AMST 2680 Hashtag America.
AMST 3900.10: Critiquing Culture
Melani McAlister
T 3:30-6:00
CRN: 54362
This course provides an introduction to the major theories and methods that define the field of American studies. In particular, we seek to understand the elusive yet omnipresent world of “culture”—the values, symbols, myths, ideas, ways of life, and systems of meaning that shape our identities and worldviews.
AMST 3901.10: Examining America
Elisabeth Anker
T 12:45-3:15
CRN: 57106
This course offers students an introduction to the history, debates, and methodologies that are central to the field of American Studies. Students will analyze key texts in American Studies scholarship from the foundational ―Myth and Symbol school to contemporary transnational works. Students will also be introduced to different approaches to interdisciplinary research. Registration restricted to American Studies majors.
AMST 4500W.10: STEM and its Cultures
Jamie Cohen-Cole
R 12:45-3:15
CRN: 56079
This is an advanced seminar for American Studies majors in which students will write original research papers on an aspect of the cultural role of science, technology and/or medicine (STM) in America. STM has been, variously, a repository of truth and political authority, a source of values, and site of conflict. In the face of wars, climate change, and epidemics, STM provides means of imagining or modeling scenarios and of shaping possible futures. Yet these interventions are not frictionless. Scientific and technological changes sometimes reinforce and at others challenge existing social categories and hierarchies.
If STM fields and their products have loomed large in American culture – even, to some, defining it – these fields have not been unmoved movers. The fields are subject to cultural and political forces and themselves have internal subcultures that are accessible to cultural critique just as much as any other aspect of American life. Thus, a premise of the class is that STM and other aspects of American culture, society, and politics mutually constitute one another. We will begin with by developing the fundamental skills for writing a research paper and reading exemplary articles. Students will then engage in individual research projects of their own choosing that are based in primary sources and address important scholarly issues related to the cultural analysis of Science, Technology, and Medicine.
AMST 4500W.11: DC Immigration Histories
Elaine Peña
W 3:30-6:00
CRN: 57730
This is an advanced research seminar for American Studies majors. Seminar participants will spend the semester focusing on immigration histories and narratives that are specific to the District of Columbia. Key goals of this course include: choosing an aspect of DC immigration history that you would like to know more about, conceptualizing an original project, undertaking independent research, making connections between individual research agendas and scholarly sources, and producing a substantial research paper. Various methods-- ranging from archival, ethnographic, to built environment-focused or any approach you feel most comfortable with-- may be combined to produce your research paper.
AMST 4702W.80 – Race, Medicine, and Public Health
Vanessa Gamble
MW 12:45-2:00PM
CRN: 53489
This course focuses on the role of race and racism in the development of American medicine and public health by examining the experiences of African Americans from slavery to today. It will emphasize the importance of understanding the historical roots of contemporary policy dilemmas such as racial and ethnic inequalities and inequities in health and health care. The course will challenge students to synthesize materials from several disciplines to gain a broad
understanding of the relationship between race, medicine, and public health in the United States. Among the questions that will be addressed are: How have race and racism influenced, and continue to influence, American medicine and public health? What is race? How have concepts of race evolved? What have been some of the historical vulnerabilities of black bodies within the medical system? How has medical thought and practices contributed to the political and soc | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 3 | 61 | https://www.pinterest.com/pin/where-is-jordan-belforts-exwife-nadine-caridi-now-wiki-bio-net-worth--454441418658342930/ | en | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2021-01-23T01:07:34+00:00 | Contents1 Who is Nadine Caridi?2 Early life and education3 Career4 Personal life5 Jordan Belfort6 Nadine’s hobbies and favorite things7 Appearance and net worth8 Social media presence Who is Nadine Caridi? Nadine Caridi, known to many as Duchess of Bay Ridge, was born in London, England on 24 December 1967 under the zodiac sign of Capricorn, … | en | Pinterest | https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/nadine-caridi--814799757587617686/ | |||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 78 | http://caribbean.loopnews.com/content/claudia-jordan-celebrates-50th-birthday-aruba | en | Claudia Jordan celebrates 50th birthday in Aruba | [
"https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=249150960314330&ev=PageView&noscript=1",
"http://caribbean.loopnews.com/themes/loopnews/logo.svg",
"http://caribbean.loopnews.com/themes/loopnews/assets/image/search.png",
"http://caribbean.loopnews.com/themes/loopnews/assets/image/market/loopnewscaribbean.png",
"http://carib... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Dillon De Shong"
] | 2023-04-17T11:15:55 | Turning 50 is a milestone that many people would like to achieve and celebrate in style.
Aruba was the place that American actress and model Claudia Jordan and a group of her closest friends and relatives chose to celebrate her golden birthday. | en | /themes/loopnews/logo.svg | Loop News | http://caribbean.loopnews.com/content/claudia-jordan-celebrates-50th-birthday-aruba | Turning 50 is a milestone that many people would like to achieve and celebrate in style.
Aruba was the place that American actress and model Claudia Jordan and a group of her closest friends and relatives chose to celebrate her golden birthday.
Jordan shared photos and videos of her crew ‘turning up’ and enjoying all that Aruba has to offer as they rang in her 50th birthday.
In one photo, the “Tea-G-I-F” host donned a shimmering bikini as she encouraged her fans not to be afraid of ageing.
“This is 50. Don’t be afraid or look down upon aging. And it’s dumb to call someone ‘old’ (as an insult) that’s actually doing what they’re supposed to be doing in this world. Aging means you’re still here and you made it thru some things. The alternative to NOT aging is no longer existing, no longer growing and no longer LIVING. Live your life loud and unapologetically,” she wrote on Instagram. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 95 | https://www.memorialutah.com/obituaries | en | Most Recent Obituaries | [
"https://lirp.cdn-website.com/7709ec7d/dms3rep/multi/opt/Memorial+LOGOS-01-1920w.png",
"https://lirp.cdn-website.com/7709ec7d/dms3rep/multi/opt/Memorial+LOGOS-01-1920w.png",
"https://irp.cdn-website.com/7709ec7d/dms3rep/multi/GriefStepsWhite_result-0f9dbfe3.webp",
"https://lirp.cdn-website.com/7709ec7d/dms3re... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Honor and remember your loved ones in West Jordan, UT. Browse Memorial Mortuaries' obituaries, send flowers, and schedule services 24/7 | en | https://www.memorialutah.com/obituaries | About Memorial Mortuaries & Cemeteries Obituaries
Memorial Mortuaries & Cemeteries offers a collection of obituaries for Davis and Salt Lake Counties & along the Wasatch Front in UT . With services throughout Davis & Salt Lake County & Utah County that are updated regularly. Find local Utah obituaries and join us in celebrating memories and honoring their lives and legacies.
Obituary Notifications
Subscribe to get new obituary notifications as Memorial Mortuaries & Cemeteries posts obituaries & tributes | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 3 | 36 | https://www.nvusd.org/about/our-superintendent | en | Napa Valley Unified School District | https://resources.finalsite.net/images/f_auto,q_auto/v1683820187/nvusdk12caus/lvz34au9xyj8hebuvw3o/favicon.ico | https://resources.finalsite.net/images/f_auto,q_auto/v1683820187/nvusdk12caus/lvz34au9xyj8hebuvw3o/favicon.ico | [] | [] | [] | [
"Our Superintendent",
"Napa Valley Unified School District"
] | null | [] | null | Meet our dedicated Superintendent and District Leadership team at Napa Valley Unified School District. Guiding excellence in education for over 16,000 students. | en | https://resources.finalsite.net/images/f_auto,q_auto/v1683820187/nvusdk12caus/lvz34au9xyj8hebuvw3o/favicon.ico | https://www.nvusd.org/about/our-superintendent | The Napa Valley School District is committed to equal opportunity for all individuals and does not allow discrimination, intimidation, harassment, including sexual harassment, or bullying based on a person’s actual or perceived race, color, ancestry, nationality/national origin, immigration status, ethnic group identification/ethnicity, age, religion, marital status/ pregnancy/ parental status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, medical information or association with a person or group with one of more of these actual or perceived characteristics. For questions or complaints, contact our District Equity Officer and District Compliance Officer and Title IX Coordinator for Employee Affairs: Dana Page, Assistant Superintendent Human Resources, 2425 Jefferson St., Napa CA 94558, 707-253-3571, dpage@nvusd.org, HR@nvusd.org; and/or District Compliance Officer and Title IX Coordinator for Student Affairs: District Section 504/ADA Coordinator: Maryanne Christoffersen, Director of Student Services, 2425 Jefferson St., Napa CA 94558, mchristoffersen@nvusd.org, studentservices@nvusd.org, 707-253-3815. | |||
8169 | dbpedia | 3 | 37 | https://www.capitalfm.com/news/tv-film/bridgerton/eloise-bridgerton-actor-claudia-jessie-age-tv-roles/ | en | Bridgerton's Claudia Jessie Fact File | https://imgs.capitalfm.com/images/297735?width=1000&crop=16_9&signature=OmsfXO8HGOUeJOkAolF5DCT2uE8= | https://imgs.capitalfm.com/images/297735?width=1000&crop=16_9&signature=OmsfXO8HGOUeJOkAolF5DCT2uE8= | [
"https://mediaweb.musicradio.com/player/image.aspx?i=///mediaweb.musicradio.com/artwork/ses/4b5adc4a-c28e-41fa-84b4-d78f3bf5b6fd&h=144",
"https://images.musicrad.io/resizer/?image=aHR0cHM6Ly9pczEtc3NsLm16c3RhdGljLmNvbS9pbWFnZS90aHVtYi9NdXNpYzIxMS92NC81ZC9mYi9kMC81ZGZiZDBkMC01NjBmLWNhM2QtM2EzNi02ZTFjMDI4NTEzZGYvMj... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Capital FM",
"Savannah Roberts"
] | 2024-05-20T15:00:22+01:00 | Who plays the role of Eloise Bridgerton in the hit Netflix drama Bridgerton? Here's everything you need to know about Claudia Jessie from her age and her boyfriend to her back tattoo and other shows she's been in. | en | /assets_v4r/capital/img/favicon-16x16.png | Capital | https://www.capitalfm.com/news/tv-film/bridgerton/eloise-bridgerton-actor-claudia-jessie-age-tv-roles/ | Bridgerton's Claudia Jessie Fact File - Age, TV Roles, Boyfriend & More
Who plays the role of Eloise Bridgerton in the hit Netflix drama? Here's everything you need to know about Claudia Jessie from her age, Instagram, her back tattoo, previous roles and more.
Season three of Netflix's Bridgerton is all anyone can talk about with the first part having been released in May 2024. With the press tour full steam ahead fans are growing even more fond of actress Claudia Jessie, who plays Eloise Bridgerton in the regency-era drama.
Eloise is the fifth child and second eldest daughter of the Bridgerton clan and is probably the most unruly of them all. She doesn't like to conform to society's standards and makes for a brilliant contrast to her elder sister Daphne who strives to be perfect in every way.
Read more: Is Francesca Bridgerton Autistic? Hannah Dodd Explains The Introvert Character
Read more: Why Is Daphne Not In Bridgerton Season 3? Phoebe Dynevor's Absence Explained
Read on to find out more about one of Bridgerton's breakout stars - here are all the details, from Claudia Jessie's age to her impressive television career.
How old is Claudia Jessie?
Despite playing a fresh-faced 18-year-old coming out to society in Bridgerton, Claudia is actually 34 years old. Born 30 October 1989 she's a Scorpio.
Where is Claudia Jessie from?
The talented star hails from Moseley – a suburb in south Birmingham – and began acting in productions based in the West Midlands in 2012. However, she spent a lot of her childhood in North London too.
In conversation with The Guardian she revealed that she lived in a houseboat between Birmingham and London. She said: "When my dad was still about, we spent a lot of time on the canal, but we were always on and off the boat. And I was also raised in a big old council estate in north London."
She went on to describe her childhood as "rough", saying: "All I ever knew was things being really hard. Dad was off, Mum worked as a cleaner. It was just difficult. I’ve got good memories of Mum and my brother, but we had no money, there were bailiffs at the door, it was horrible.”
What TV shows and films has Claudia Jessie been in?
The talented actress had a long and impressive filmography even before signing onto the Netflix mega-hit Bridgerton.
Claudia began her acting career at 23 years old with an appearance on the medical soap opera Doctors. She soon racked up more television credits; such as Nickelodeon's Hosue of Anubis, Casualty, and Call The Midwife.
In 2015 she bagged the lead role of WPC Annie Taylor on the third season of WPC 56, a police drama on BBC One. Claudia has made other notable appearances in Line Of Duty, Vanity Fair (another Regency-era drama) and even Doctor Who.
The Bridgerton star has also acted in serval short films and indie projects – she's been very busy since she started acting a decade ago!
Does Claudia Jessie have a back tattoo?
Yes, the makeup artist for Bridgerton revealed she has a large paisley tattoo on her back that they have to cover with makeup when she wears any dresses that are low cut on the back. Claudia herself described the tattoo to The Guardian as “ginormous”.
Does Claudia Jessie have a boyfriend?
Yes, although her character Eloise is pretty against any kind of relationship, Claudia is currently dating one of Bridgerton's casting director Cole Edwards.
Speaking to The Guardian about her audition for Eloise, she said: "I got a job and a fella on the same day.” “It was a great day for me, wasn’t it?” she jested. Previously, Claudia had been romantically linked to a sound engineer called Joseph.
But she's now happy with Cole who she was seen with on a wholesome dog walk back in 2022 - yep a while ago now! Claudia keeps her private life understandably private.
Does Bridgerton's Claudia Jessie have Instagram?
Surprisingly, no!
The 34-year-old star steers clear from social media and doesn't have a public profile on the platform. However, there are multiple fan pages dedicated to the Bridgeton babe, some of which have amassed over a whopping 244k followers. | ||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 96 | https://www.memorialutah.com/obituaries | en | Most Recent Obituaries | [
"https://lirp.cdn-website.com/7709ec7d/dms3rep/multi/opt/Memorial+LOGOS-01-1920w.png",
"https://lirp.cdn-website.com/7709ec7d/dms3rep/multi/opt/Memorial+LOGOS-01-1920w.png",
"https://irp.cdn-website.com/7709ec7d/dms3rep/multi/GriefStepsWhite_result-0f9dbfe3.webp",
"https://lirp.cdn-website.com/7709ec7d/dms3re... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Honor and remember your loved ones in West Jordan, UT. Browse Memorial Mortuaries' obituaries, send flowers, and schedule services 24/7 | en | https://www.memorialutah.com/obituaries | About Memorial Mortuaries & Cemeteries Obituaries
Memorial Mortuaries & Cemeteries offers a collection of obituaries for Davis and Salt Lake Counties & along the Wasatch Front in UT . With services throughout Davis & Salt Lake County & Utah County that are updated regularly. Find local Utah obituaries and join us in celebrating memories and honoring their lives and legacies.
Obituary Notifications
Subscribe to get new obituary notifications as Memorial Mortuaries & Cemeteries posts obituaries & tributes | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 79 | https://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/claudia-jordan | en | Who is Claudia Jordan dating? Claudia Jordan boyfriend, husband | [
"https://static.whosdatedwho.com/img/logos/wdw_bubble.png",
"https://img4.bdbphotos.com/images/700x350/l/g/lg1ntzq63ac77zq.jpg?skj2io4l",
"https://img4.bdbphotos.com/images/230x300/q/g/qgpdabbzrymsyzmr.jpg?skj2io4l",
"https://img4.bdbphotos.com/images/230x300/6/b/6b766e0wkxv3vk3x.jpg?skj2io4l",
"https://img... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | 18 August 2024... Claudia Jordan news, gossip, photos of Claudia Jordan, biography, Claudia Jordan boyfriend list 2024. Relationship history. Claudia Jordan relationship list. Claudia Jordan dating history, 2024, 2023, list of Claudia Jordan relationships. | //pts1.whosdatedwho.com/img/wdw/favicon.ico | Who's Dated Who? | https://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/claudia-jordan | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 35 | https://www.talkzone.com/episodes/242/42.html | en | Talkzone: Contestant To Co | [
"https://www.talkzone.com/episodes/242/images/logo.gif",
"https://www.talkzone.com/episodes/242/images/leftgroove.gif",
"https://www.talkzone.com/episodes/242/images/LeftOfTopButtons.gif",
"https://www.talkzone.com/episodes/242/images/btnHomeUP.gif",
"https://www.talkzone.com/episodes/242/images/btnShowGuid... | [] | [] | [
"Claudia Jordan",
"Miss Rhode Island Teen USA",
"Miss Rhode Island USA 1997",
"Celebrity Apprentice",
"Deal or No Deal",
"2009 Miss Universe Pageant",
"Mario Lopez"
] | null | [] | null | oin Valerie as she talks with Claudia Jordan about her path from contestant to co-host and how you can follow the same steps to create pageant fab success in your own life! | images/favicon.ico | null | Episode Segments: Claudia Jordan Part One
Valerie talks to Claudia about her impressive bio, and how she made the transition from student athlete to pageant contestant, and from pageants to the world of LA Stardom. Claudia also talks about the differences between the Teen and Miss Divisions, and why you should be proud to have pageants on your personal bio.
Embed Code Claudia Jordan Part Two
Claudia tells us how she landed a spot on the Celebrity Apprentice, and how that led to her co-hosting duties on this year's Miss Universe Pageant. She also talks about her radio show, Deal or No Deal, and how she manages to balance such a busy schedule. She also has some advice for contestants looking to transition from pageantry into modeling.
Embed Code Ask Valerie!
You can find pageant skills in the strangest places... including a wedding. Valerie explains, and also has advice on getting your gown scores up, doing your own makeup, and if you can make that short hairstyle work.
Embed Code
Guest(s) Appearing on this Episode
Claudia Jordan
Born and raised in East Providence, Rhode Island, Claudia is a former Barker Beauty on The Price is Right and has appeared on The Best Damn Sports Show as a special correspondent. She was a track and field All-American and represented Rhode Island in the 1997 Miss USA Pageant. Claudia has appeared in the Al Pacino movie Simone as well as CBS\'s The Bold and the Beautiful, One on One on UPN and WB\'s Jack and Jill. As an aspiring NFL sports reporter, Claudia co-hosted a week long radio show live from the Super Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida. Claudia has been a reporter for The Providence American Newspaper in Providence, RI and has hosted several television shows such as Livin\' Large (NBC) and Fox Sports 54321. She also appeared on the second season of the Celebrity Apprentice (NBC), and is currently a model on the US version of \"Deal or No Deal, and one of the co-hosts on the Jamie Foxx Sirius talk radio show The Foxxhole.
Click here to visit Claudia's Website | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 80 | https://www.sunjournal.com/2021/03/06/obituaryclaudia-jordan/ | en | Obituary: Claudia Jordan | [
"https://www.sunjournal.com/wp-content/themes/mainetoday/assets/images/pph-icon.png",
"https://www.sunjournal.com/wp-content/themes/mainetoday/assets/images/close-icon.png",
"https://www.sunjournal.com/wp-content/themes/mainetoday/assets/svg/masthead-sunjournal.svg",
"https://www.sunjournal.com/wp-content/the... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"obituaries"
] | 2021-03-06T00:00:00 | TURNER - On Feb. 17 2021, Claudia Jordan unexpectedly passed away in her home in Turner, Maine.
Claudia was born March ... | Lewiston Sun Journal | https://www.sunjournal.com/2021/03/06/obituaryclaudia-jordan/ | TURNER – On Feb. 17 2021, Claudia Jordan unexpectedly passed away in her home in Turner, Maine.
Claudia was born March 25, 1946, to parents Madeline and Harold Jordan. The oldest of four siblings, she grew up in a loving and busy household in Auburn. Claudia would go on to graduate from Edward Little High School before continuing her education at UMF. Through a varied career, she would eventually spend 15 years with Geiger Brothers, after which she would go onto another eight years with Mardens before finally retiring.
A very active person, even in retirement, Claudia loved the company of others and to stay busy by playing cards with friends, going off for a drive, enjoying her love of Native American culture at a Pow Wow, making new friends at the gym or in her cardio group, or even enjoying a family cookout at her favorite lake, Range Pond. A quiet night at home was often spent filling her love of reading with another good book, while a purring cat sat in her lap. She loved to spending time with her grandsons.
She will be deeply missed by her siblings, Joanne Charpentier, Lynn Ross, Scott Jordan and his wife Ragena Jordan; her son and his wife, Leigh and Hayley Jordan; her grandchildren, Gabriel, Wyatt, and Elijah Jordan; nieces and nephews, Sara Needham, Travis and Erin Ross, Tyler and Rebecca Ross, Jessica Jordan, and Jeremy Jordan; her cousins, and many grandnieces and grandnephews.
In lieu of flowers, please consider making a donation to one of her favorite charities, The Greater Androscoggin Humane Society.
Send questions/comments to the editors. | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 23 | https://www.instagram.com/claudiajordan/p/CAL3F5dj16B/ | en | Instagram | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | null | ||||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 8 | https://priceisright.fandom.com/wiki/Claudia_Jordan | en | Claudia Jordan | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/priceisright/images/6/6e/Claudiajordan2.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20181222225451 | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/priceisright/images/6/6e/Claudiajordan2.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20181222225451 | [
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/priceisright/images/e/e6/Site-logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20230502094506",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/priceisright/images/e/e6/Site-logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20230502094506",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/priceisright/images/6/6e/Claudiajordan2.jpg/revision/late... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to The Price Is Right Wiki"
] | null | Claudia Angela Jordan (born April 12, 1973 in Providence, Rhode Island) is an Italian African-American Model, Actress, former Beauty Queen & Radio Show Host. To Game Show fans, she is best known for appearing as one of Barker's Beauties models on The Price is Right (2001-2003) as well as a... | en | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/priceisright/images/4/4a/Site-favicon.ico/revision/latest?cb=20230502094527 | The Price Is Right Wiki | https://priceisright.fandom.com/wiki/Claudia_Jordan | Claudia Angela Jordan (born April 12, 1973 in Providence, Rhode Island) is an Italian African-American Model, Actress, former Beauty Queen & Radio Show Host. To Game Show fans, she is best known for appearing as one of Barker's Beauties models on The Price is Right (2001-2003) as well as a Briefcase model on Deal or No Deal (for the entire run, 2005-2009).
Early Life, Modeling Career & Beauty Pageantry[]
Native of Providence, Rhode Island, Claudia was born to an Italian mother and an African-American father. Her parents met during her father's time in the US Air Force in Brindisi, Italy. She attended East Providence High School and proved to be a team player. She was very athletic and was selected for the All State Track and Field team. Claudia participated in three Junior Olympics and finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational.
After she graduated from high school, Claudia moved to Berea, Ohio, there she attended Baldwin Wallace College where she majored in broadcasting and journalism and while there, she hosted her own campus radio program in addition to working at the Providence American Newspaper and at the Boston television station WHDH-TV. Jordan also continued with her athletic skills, a star athlete and a sprinter and even earned all-American honors in the 400 meter relay race.
Aside from her college credentials and impressive athletic skills, Claudia also developed a passion for modeling with high hopes of becoming successful up-and-coming model and began auditioning for modeling gigs. A short time later, she was one of eight young up-and-coming models selected to compete for the cover of an upcoming issue of Seventeen magazine. In 1990, in addition to modeling, Jordan began competing in local beauty pageants. She first competed in and won the title of Miss Teen Rhode Island, followed by competing in the 1990 Miss Teen USA pageant but lost.
She has also appeared in a number of commercials for such companies as Coor's Light, Sears, Denny's and Pepsi.
Fast forward to 1997, Claudia made a return to the pageant world as she competed for and won the title of Miss Rhode Island and then competed in the 1997 Miss USA pageant (hosted by George Hamilton & Marla Maples Trump), in which future Price is Right model Brandi Sherwood-Cochran as Miss Idaho, also competed in. Claudia & Brandi both made it to the Top Ten but lost the Miss USA title to Miss Hawaii Brook Lee (Brandi was the first runner-up).
The Price is Right[]
In 2000, after her long-running stints in the pageant background as well as modeling and acting, Claudia was ready to take on a new challenge. The gorgeous, dark-haired beauty learned that the television game show The Price is Right began a nationwide model search to find two new Barker’s Beauties, permanently replacing longtime veteran models Kathleen Bradley & Janice Pennington, both of whom were dismissed unacceptably from the series as their unannounced final appearances aired on the 13th of December, with high hopes and confidence, Claudia decided to audition.
She made her tryout debut on the 21st (along with a blonde model named Katherine, also making her nationwide debut) and made a strong first impression on the show’s producers and she immediately became a favorite among the fans. Just a few short weeks later come February 2001, Claudia was already signed to a permanent basis as she was basically the only African-American tryout model (after other potential candidates Rosie Tenison and Enya Flack failed to impress) whom the show’s producers were impressed by, with her grace, style and enthusiasm in her modeling as well as being a favorite among Price is Right fans. With Claudia now on-board on a permanent basis (as the second permanent African-American model), the producers continued the model search to fill the other spot.
At the start of the 30th Season Premiere episode of The Price is Right, (airdate: September 24, 2001, originally scheduled for the 17th) Jordan and Heather Kozar, who first auditioned back in March and signed on permanently in May, were announced as the newest, permanent Barker's Beauties (officially replacing Kathleen & Janice). Heather and Nikki Ziering both exited the program in 2002, leaving Claudia as the only permanent model on the series. Instead of finding yet two more permanent replacements, she was joined by a series of rotating models which included fellow Miss USA competitor Brandi Sherwood-Cochran (who also auditioned back in 2001), Shane Stirling, future Deal or No Deal model Lisa Gleave and newcomer Rachel Reynolds (Reynolds continues to appear on the series to this present day as she is the last person from the Bob Barker era to remain).
Beginning on February 28, 2003 (airdate), Claudia took a leave of absence from The Price is Right and it was during this time period, Lanisha Cole stepped in (rumored to have been selected by Claudia herself or the two have met prior to Cole filling in) as Claudia's temporary replacement and continued on until March 6th, followed by two additional appearances on April 7th-8th one solo appearance on June 20th. Lanisha continued to substitute for Jordan coming into Price's 32nd season, beginning with the season premiere opener (airdate: September 22, 2003 and the 24th) plus two solo more solo appearances on November 3rd and December 12th (the daytime episode of Bob Barker's 80th Birthday Bash). On the 23rd, Lanisha's role on the series expanded from substitute to rotation as Claudia left the show for good.
Price is Right Departure & Lawsuit[]
Claudia's 4-year stint on The Price is Right came to an end as her final daytime appearance aired on December 22nd (and w/ Lanisha returning the next day, now on a rotation status) but her very last ever appearance was the $1,000,000 Spectacular saluting Colleges & Universities, the episode was taped in sometime in late October-early November 2003 but for reasons unknown, the episode didn't air until March 27, 2004 (Claudia was seen onstage wiping tears from her eyes during the closing credits).
She was dismissed from the show after filing a formal complaint with FremantleMedia's human resources against producer Phil Wayne Rossi for wrongful termination, sexual harassment and race discrimination. In her court statements, Claudia revealed that Rossi often referred to her as "the butt model" as he constantly made sexual advances towards her and touching her inappropriately (including one time where she stood in front of a mirror while wearing a bathing suit). She also stated that Rossi would also yell and scream profanities (and even spat) at her for "being late" when the truth was that Phil ordered someone to move the clocks up a few notches to MAKE it look like Claudia showed up at the studio late.
Looking for help, Jordan reported Rossi to producer Roger Dobkowitz, who in turn, reported the incidents to Bob Barker, who then issued a stern warning to Claudia, that if she continued to be "late", she would be given the pink slip. Although she made very clear in her court statements that Barker himself has never sexually harassed her, Claudia included him in her lawsuit because she felt that he had some responsibility to her as he was the executive producer of the show but failed to help her when being harassed by Rossi. Another reason behind Claudia's departure from Price, is that she reportedly disliked having to work with different models each week (as the model rotation began at the start of the then-31st season following the departures of Nikki Ziering & Heather Kozar). Claudia eventually settled out of the courts and received an undisclosed amount.
Deal or No Deal[]
In 2005, Claudia made a comeback to the game show world. She was now appearing as one of the 26 beautiful briefcase models on the newly NBC Primetime Game Show Deal or No Deal (hosted by Comedian and Actor Howie Mandel) based on the Dutch format Miljoenenjacht (Hunt for Millions), first premiering during the week of Dec. 19th-23rd. Prior to the show's one week trial run, Claudia also appeared as one of the briefcase models in the original 2004 ABC pilot (hosted by Irish comedian & television personality Patrick Kielty), holding case #19.
It was here that she had reunited with Lisa Gleave (and later Lanisha Cole), as they remained close friends after Lisa’s departure from The Price is Right back in September 2003 (and three months before Claudia herself departed in December). While Lisa stood beside briefcase #3 for the show’s entire run, Claudia first stood beside briefcase #9 during the one week trial run and when the show returned to the airwaves in February 2006, now as a Primetime regular (after been given the green light by NBC) she moved down to briefcase #1 where she would remain until the show’s end in May 2009.
In April 2006, Claudia & Lisa, along with the other Deal or No Deal models, were featured in People magazine as they were listed as the “100 Most Beautiful People”. They have also appeared together (alongside their fellow briefcase models Patricia Kara, Leyla Milani & Megan Abrigo) at the 2009 Game Show Awards on the Game Show Network, representing Deal or No Deal as they won the award for Favorite Game Show Models. Claudia & Lisa are also featured on the Deal or No Deal slot machine as they appear alongside host Howie Mandel and fellow briefcase models Keltie Martin & Ursula Meyes.
Deal or No Deal Island[]
On January 8, 2024; it was announced that Claudia[1]will appear as a contestant on the upcoming rebooted spinoff Deal or No Deal Island hosted by Joe Manganiello of True Blood and Magic Mike fame. Its said to be a mixture of the original 2005-09 series along with the long-running reality competition series Survivor. Although former host Howie Mandel is one the executive producers of the spinoff, however, he is not returning as host here.
Acting & Music Videos[]
Aside from being a Barker’s Beauty on The Price is Right and a briefcase model on Deal or No Deal, Claudia has also appeared in a number of guest starring roles on various TV shows and cameo appearances in movies.
In 2002, she appeared alongside Bob Barker and Nikki Ziering as they played themselves in an episode of the CBS soap The Bold and The Beautiful (which tapes next door to Price). Other guest starring roles include shows such as One on One, Jack & Jill, That’s So Raven and the NBC soap opera Days or Our Lives.
Some of her movie credits include appearances in Little Richard in 2000, S1m0ne in 2002, Nora’s Hair Salon in 2004, Black Supaman in 2007, and Middle Men in 2009. Claudia was also seen briefly in the 1998 film How Stella Got Her Groove Back where she played (uncredited) a flight attendant escorting a young man to the plane.
Jordan was also a familiar face in several music videos. She appeared in the music video for R&B singer Joe's 2000 hit single I Wanna Know. In the video, Claudia plays a woman who breaks up with her boyfriend after an argument and meets and spends a lot of time together with Joe as their relationship grows stronger. Other music video appearances include Ginuwine's Only When UR Lonely, Charlie Wilson's Charlie, Last Name, Wilson, Backstreet Boys' As Long As You Love Me, Dru Hill's 5 Steps, and two more music videos for Joe: Why Just Be Friends and Listen to Your Man with Chico DeBarge.
Other TV Appearances & Hosting Gigs in TV & Radio[]
Also while appearing as one of Barker’s Beauties on The Price is Right, Jordan appeared as a competitor on a 2003 episode of the NBC primetime reality show Dog Eat Dog. During this appearance, she won her challenge but ended up in the "Dog Pound" after losing the head-to-head competition. The episode ended with Claudia and the four other "Dog Pound" members splitting the $25,000 cash prize.
In 2009, Claudia competed on the second season of Celebrity Apprentice in 2009 but was “fired” from the series in the fourth episode after she lost the task at hand. She later returned as a competitor for (after being hand-chosen by the then-host & creator, now FORMER disgraced one-term, twice impeached President of the United States Donald J. Trump) Celebrity Apprentice: All-Stars in 2013 and was again the fourth person "fired" from the competition. She also made a couple of appearances on the 14th season of Celebrity Apprentice. Also in 2009, Claudia co-hosted the 2009 Miss USA pageant alongside Billy Bush, then current host of Access Hollywood and in 2012, she served as a celebrity judge in the 2012 Miss Universe Pageant.
Jordan is also very well known for her background in radio. From 2007 (while still modeling on Deal or No Deal) to 2010, she hosted of her own self-titled radio show on The Foxxhole. She also served as co-host on "Reach Around Radio" with TDP, Comedian Speedy, Comedian RT and The Poetess.
She has also appeared as a commentator on various talk and informative shows such as HLN’s Dr. Drew On Call, The Maury Povich Show, CNBC’s The Big Idea With Donny Detusch and Dish Nation. Claudia has also appeared on several BET and Soul Train Music Awards as a guest presenter and hosting behind-the-scenes segments.
In 2012, she starred in an online TV series titled Diary of A Champion, playing the lead character named Tahja Dupree. The following year, Jordan appeared as one of four co-hostesses on the short-lived VH1 talk show Tiny Tonight, alongside singer/actress Tameka "Tiny" Cottie, rap artist Trina, and reality TV star veteran legend Tami Roman (singer Tamar Braxton on the first two episodes, prior to becoming one of the co-hostesses for a new talk show titled The Real).
Claudia also hosted a dating relationship show titled According to Him & Her alongside Finesse Mitchell for the BET Network.
Current Career[]
As of Today, the ex-Barker's Beauty/Briefcase Model previously resided in Atlanta, Georgia, where she, for one year, served as co-host on The Rickey Smiley Morning Show as well as appearing as a series regular for one season of Bravo TV's reality series The Real Housewives of Atlanta (season 7) although she did become a fan favorite, she was asked to return to the series for another season but she refused. She did however made a cameo appearance the following season (season 8).
After refusing to return for another season of Bravo TV's The Real Housewives of Atlanta, Claudia announced on Twitter and Facebook that she also decided to part ways with The Rickey Smiley Morning Show after one year and that she wanted to focus on other future career opportunities and has since then relocated to Los Angeles. She was seen on a short-lived reality TV series titled The Next 15, a show about a group of reality stars looking for to reinvent themselves in the entertainment world. The series aired on the TVOne network.
She has also tackled the Business World as she launched a very successful lipstick and handbag collection. Her handbag collection can be viewed and ordered at www.claudiajordan.com and her lipstick collection can be ordered at www.theclaudiajordancollection.com Jordan has also launched her very own wine collection titled Just Peachy.
Claudia is also the co-hostess of the new syndicated talk show titled The Raw Word. She is also appearing in a number of upcoming movies and was recently seen in the TV movie Sharknado 5: Global Swarming. Other upcoming movies that she's appearing in include The Regiment, Love is Not Enough, Jason's Letter, and Steele Justice.
Today, Claudia originally hosted her own series for the Fox Soul network titled Out Loud with Claudia Jordan. She now co-hosts a series for Fox Soul titled Cocktails with Oueens, alongside actresses Vivica A. Fox & LisaRaye McCoy and singer Syleena Johnson. In addition, she also co-hosts a series titled Tea G-I-F alongside television personality Al Reynolds and social media commentator Funky Dineva.
Gallery[]
(on The Price is Right)
(on Deal or No Deal)
[]
Her Facebook Page
Her Twitter page
[] | ||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 82 | https://thenybanner.com/index.php/net-worth/celebrities/real-housewives-cast/atlanta/claudia-jordan/ | en | Claudia Jordan’s Net Worth, Relationships & Personal Info -RHOA | [
"https://thenybanner.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Banner-500-×-225-px-300x135.png",
"https://thenybanner.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/claudia-jordan-did-it-for-the-money-1605802355.jpg",
"https://thenybanner.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Claudia-Jordan-2.jpg",
"https://thenybanner.com/wp-content/uploads/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Kendra Dela Cruz"
] | 2024-06-02T10:00:16-04:00 | Claudia Angela Jordan is an American talk show host, actress, model, businesswoman, and reality television and radio personality who was born on April 12, 1973. | en | The New York Banner | https://thenybanner.com/index.php/net-worth/celebrities/real-housewives-cast/atlanta/claudia-jordan/ | Claudia Angela Jordan is an American talk show host, actress, model, businesswoman, and reality television and radio personality who was born on April 12, 1973. She is best known for modeling on the American versions of Deal or No Deal and The Price Is Right, as well as competing on Celebrity Apprentice seasons 2 and 6. Jordan featured in the seventh season of Bravo’s reality show The Real Housewives of Atlanta.
She was Miss Teen USA in 1991 and Miss USA in 1997, representing Rhode Island. She has also appeared in numerous ads for brands such as Coors Light, Sears, Denny’s, and Pepsi.
Claudia Jordan competed in the Miss Teen USA beauty pageant in 1990, representing Rhode Island. In 1997, she was crowned Miss Rhode Island USA and placed in the top ten of the Miss USA competition.
Jordan performed in music videos for musicians such as the Backstreet Boys, Ginuwine, Fabolous, Charlie Wilson, Joe, Chico DeBarge, D’Angelo, Coolio, Ludacris, and Kenny Lattimore after her success in beauty pageants. She also started appearing in national television ads for brands like Coors Light, Sears, Pepsi, Visa, and Mountain Dew.
Claudia was one of Bob Barker’s “beauties” on CBS’s “The Price Is Right” from 2001 to 2003, and Jordan was hired for the American version of “Deal or No Deal” in 2005, where he held the briefcase #1 for four seasons.
Claudia started her first hosting position in 2003 as a red-carpet correspondent for Fox Sports West’s “54321,” and she also started appearing on “The Best Damn Sports Show Period.” For two seasons, she co-hosted “The Modern Girl’s Guide to Life” on The Style Network.Claudia featured on the second season of “Celebrity Apprentice” in 2009, when she and the other celebrities earned money for a charity of their choosing, which Jordan chose to be the North American Psychoanalytic Confederation. Claudia co-hosted the 2009 Miss Universe competition with Billy Bush in the Bahamas the same year.
Jordan was a star on Jamie Foxx’s satellite radio show “The Foxxhole,” and in December 2012, she began co-hosting Tameka Cottle’s discussion show “Tiny’s Tonight.” Claudia also hosted the AT&T travel show “The Summer of Adventure” that year, and Jordan returned to the “Celebrity Apprentice” in 2013 to compete on the All-Star version of the show. Claudia confirmed in October 2014 that she will be joining the cast of “The Real Housewives of Atlanta” for its seventh season as one of the main housewives. Jordan was simultaneously working as a co-host on the “Rickey Smiley Morning Show” while filming “The Real Housewives of Atlanta.”
Claudia hosted “The Morning Rush,” a one-year-old morning show in Dallas that was the top-rated R&B morning show in the city. Jordan conducts a chat program on Fox Soul Platform, an American internet streaming service, as of 2020.
Claudia had a feud with OG cast member NeNe Leakes during her stint on the show because of her strong friendship with Kenya. After NeNe slammed Claudia with charges that she was being controlled by Kenya, the two had an epic dinner table brawl. Despite holding her own and “reading” NeNe, as noticed by Kandi Burruss and Cynthia Bailey, Claudia was not asked back as a series regular on the successful franchise. Jordan also became close friends with Leakes’ former BFF Cynthia Bailey during her time on the show.
On the 7th season, Jordan and Leakes had multiple verbal spats, including the now-famous episode during a group trip to Puerto Rico in which Leakes accused Jordan of lacking a brain. Jordan was also assailed by Leakes, who called her promiscuous.
The women were still at odds by the time the season 7 reunion was taped. Jordan claimed Leakes had an inflated ego and thought her co-stars were beneath her. Jordan was allegedly plotting to be at odds with Leakes in order to save her spot on the program, according to Leakes.
However, the show runners are now looking into the possibility of inviting Jordan back into the show with Cynthia Bailey and Porsha Williams‘ recent exit. | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 14 | https://amy-movie.com/blog/daughters-appreciation-claudia-jordans-ode-to-her-parents/ | en | Daughter’s Appreciation: Claudia Jordan’s Ode to Her Parents | [
"https://amy-movie.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/black_white_clean_movie_logo-removebg-preview-1.png",
"https://amy-movie.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/black_white_clean_movie_logo-removebg-preview-1.png"
] | [
"https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Flarry.jordan.5264%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0378BGo5mLP3FFfacEYzBfaN3SZdQNdzTYsaz12PNe5C99KCLJR6uM6AM2tUDmZT4gl&show_text=true&width=500&is_preview=true",
"https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fphoto%2F... | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Rovik Parajuli"
] | 2024-05-13T06:24:25+00:00 | Claudia Angela Jordan was born to her parents, mother Teresa Fiore Jordan and father, Larry Jordan. Learn more! | en | amy-movie.com | https://amy-movie.com/blog/daughters-appreciation-claudia-jordans-ode-to-her-parents/ | Hollywood: Claudia Angela Jordan was born on April 12, 1973, in Providence, Rhode Island, to her parents, mother Teresa Fiore Jordan and father, Larry Jordan Sr.
They met when Larry was stationed in the Air Force at Brindisi, Italy, where Fiore is from.
In addition to being in the service, her father is a drummer in a band called “NOT JUST ANOTHER SOUND” and often gets busy with stage shows and performances.
Before retiring, he also worked at Lowe’s Home Improvement and Buten Paints.
Key Takeaways
Claudia Jordan grew up with her partner-in-crime brother, Larry Jr., under the care of her mother, Teresa Fiore Jordan, and father, Larry Jordan.
Her parents are divorced; since 2005, her dad has been married to her stepmother, Lynda Jordan.
Claudia has two step-siblings (Alex and Erica) from her dad’s second marriage.
Claudia Jordan’s Family Dynamics
“Deal or No Deal Island” contestant is grateful to her mother and often mentions the struggle and sacrifices she endured while raising her and her brother.
While giving flowers to her mom on the occasion of Mother’s Day, she said,
Jordan continued,
Her parents are divorced, but they still have a healthy relationship, which is often mentioned by the actress,
In fact, her dad re-married in 2005 to Lynda Jordan from Reading, Pennsylvania.
Moreover, the couple have two children: a son, Alex Jordan, and a daughter, Erica Jordan.
Not A Single Child
The star of the upcoming reality show, “College Hill,” Claudia Jordan, was raised alongside her brother, Larry Jordan Jr.
Larry is a married man who shares two daughters (Camille and Sofia) with his wife, Myechia Minter-Jordan.
In Case You Didn’t Know | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 57 | https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/directory/queen-raina-of-jordan/ | en | Queen Rania of Jordan - | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Rania Al Abdullah is the Queen consort of Jordan and an international advocate for education, health, community empowerment, youth, cross-cultural dialogue and micro-finance. Queen Rania was born August 31, 1970, in Kuwait to Palestinian parents. She obtained a bachelor's degree in business administration from the American University of Cairo in 1991, then worked briefly in… | en | https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/wp-content/themes/las/favicon.ico | Archives of Women's Political Communication | https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/directory/queen-raina-of-jordan/ | Rania Al Abdullah is the Queen consort of Jordan and an international advocate for education, health, community empowerment, youth, cross-cultural dialogue and micro-finance.
Queen Rania was born August 31, 1970, in Kuwait to Palestinian parents. She obtained a bachelor's degree in business administration from the American University of Cairo in 1991, then worked briefly in marketing for Citibank and Apple Inc. On June 10, 1991, she married Prince Abdullah bin Al Hussein of Jordan, who assumed power as king on February 7, 1999.
Sources:
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2009, October 6). “Rania al-Abdullah” Britannica. Retrieved November 28, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rania-al-Abdullah
Hello! Magazine (n.d.). “Queen Rania of Jordan - Biography” Hello! Magazine. Retrieved November 28, 2022. https://www.hellomagazine.com/profiles/queen-rania-of-jordan/
Queen Rania (n.d.). “Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah” Queen Rania. Retrieved November 28, 2022. https://www.queenrania.jo/en/rania | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 1 | https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0429886/bio/ | en | Claudia Jordan | [
"https://fls-na.amazon.com/1/batch/1/OP/A1EVAM02EL8SFB:137-5874053-2554942:XGTBX3EET1RRE6R9VBFP$uedata=s:%2Fuedata%2Fuedata%3Fstaticb%26id%3DXGTBX3EET1RRE6R9VBFP:0",
"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BY2YwMzk4ZGYtNzViMi00OWJlLWFkNTItNjc2OWEwZDgzMTNiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQyMzQxOA@@._V1_QL75_UY133_CR5,0,90,133_.j... | [] | [] | [
"Claudia Jordan",
"Biography"
] | null | [
"IMDb"
] | null | Claudia Jordan. Actress: Middle Men. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the Air Force, stationed at Brindisi, Italy where he met her mother, an Italian native. She was born and raised in Providence, Rhode Island where as an East Providence High School student, she was selected for the All State Track and Field team. She participated in three Junior Olympics and finished third in the long jump at... | en | IMDb | https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0429886/bio/ | Claudia's parents met when her father was in the Air Force, stationed at Brindisi, Italy where he met her mother, an Italian native. She was born and raised in Providence, Rhode Island where as an East Providence High School student, she was selected for the All State Track and Field team. She participated in three Junior Olympics and finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational.
After high school, she attended Baldwin Wallace College in Ohio where she majored in broadcasting and journalism. She had her own campus radio program, worked at the Providence American Newspaper and at the Boston television station WHDH-TV.
She represented Rhode Island as Miss Teen USA in 1991 and Miss USA in 1997. In addition, she has done many commercials for such companies as Coor's Light, Sears, Denny's and Pepsi. | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 55 | https://ew.com/deal-or-no-deal-island-cast-boston-rob-claudia-jordan-exclusive-8423235 | en | Deal or No Deal Island cast includes Boston Rob and Claudia Jordan | [
"https://ew.com/thmb/w8qqWqipTaHGshUo12fYSnW_pnk=/40x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/dalton-ross-image-ce83ff53fa3441edb1acee0e04702dfc.png 40w, https://ew.com/thmb/xf-GyYS88AjiQldYeM0bqEZ5Ufk=/58x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/dalton-ross-image-ce83ff53fa3441edb1acee0e047... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Dalton Ross",
"www.facebook.com"
] | 2024-01-08T15:00:00-05:00 | 'Deal or No Deal Island' cast includes Boston Rob and Claudia Jordan, and EW has the exclusive news, photos, and trailer for the NBC reboot. | en | /favicon.ico | EW.com | https://ew.com/deal-or-no-deal-island-cast-boston-rob-claudia-jordan-exclusive-8423235 | Okay, here’s the deal…
Deal or No Deal is back. But it’s now taking place on an island. So naturally, it only makes sense that one of reality television’s most famous island dwellers be a part of it.
EW has the exclusive on the new cast of 13 contestants competing on Deal or No Deal Island — which will kick-off on NBC with a 30-minute preview after the NFL wildcard playoff game on Jan. 13.
This sneak peek comes before the series premieres at 9:30 p.m. on Feb. 26 and then moves into its regular timeslot on March 4 at 10 p.m. — and one of those contestants is none other than Survivor star Boston Rob Mariano.
Originally competing on Survivor: Marquesas back in 2002, Boston Rob returned for Survivor: All-Stars (where he made it to the end with future wife Amber Brkich), Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, Survivor: Redemption Island (which he won), and Survivor: Winners at War. He also appeared as a mentor on Survivor: Island of the Idols and competed twice with Amber on The Amazing Race. Suffice it to say, he knows his way around a competition show. And he’s not the only famous reality TV face in the cast.
Claudia Jordan — who starred on two seasons of The Celebrity Apprentice as well as The Real Housewives of Atlanta — will be returning to the franchise where she got her start. Originally a briefcase model on Deal or No Deal, Claudia will be back, and this time playing for the loot.
Both can be seen in action in the exclusive trailer for the completely revamped show above, in which host Joe Manganiello explains how, “The game you know and love is back — this time on the Banker’s private island.”
As for Boston Rob, he promises that “I want to figure out a way to control the game,” and judging by his résumé, he just may be able to do it.
In this new version of the show, cases filled with over $200 million in cash are hidden across the island — some in mud, others up in the air, and yes, one surrounded by snakes.
In each episode, players will compete in challenges to retrieve the briefcase with the most money that will grant them immunity and the ability to choose another contestant to enter the Temple, where that person will play a round of Deal or No Deal.
If the player chosen to enter the Temple accepts a deal worth less than their selected briefcase, they are eliminated. If they make a good deal, they get to eliminate someone else who does not have immunity. Eventually, the last contestant standing will compete against the Banker for the group pot of money.
Below are the exclusive first photos of the contestants as well as host Joe Manganiello and Banker’s Assistants Ben Crofchick and Kamari Love.
'Deal or No Deal Island' cast
Boston Rob Mariano
Perdido Keys, FL
Age: 47
Claudia Jordan
Dallas, TX
Age: 50
Dawson Addis
Muskego, WI
Age: 25
Aron Barbell
Champaign, IL
Age: 26
Jordan Fowler
Nashville, TN
Age; 29
Nick Grasso
Brooklyn, NY
Age: 29
Miranda Harrison
Fort Myers, FL
Age: 30
Alyssa Klinzing
Kansas City, MO
Age: 26
Kim Mattina
Anthem, AZ
Age: 63
Amy McCoy
Oklahoma City, OK
Age: 42
Dr. Stephanie Mitchell
Gainesville, AL
Age: 41
Jamil Sipes
Grand Prairie, TX
Age: 47
Brantzen Wong
Tustin, CA
Age: 31
Host Joe Manganiello
Banker’s Assistants Ben Crofchick and Kamari Love
Sign up for Entertainment Weekly's free daily newsletter to get breaking TV news, exclusive first looks, recaps, reviews, interviews with your favorite stars, and more.
Related content: | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 19 | https://tvone.tv/27254/claudia-jordan/ | en | Claudia Jordan | [
"https://tvone.tv/wp-content/uploads/sites/103/2016/01/tn15_Claudia_featuredimage_768x432_New.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=768&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C432px",
"https://tvone.tv/wp-content/uploads/sites/103/2019/11/Michelle-Thomas.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=600&crop=0,0,100,400px",
"https://tvone.tv/wp-content/uploads/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"ioneanalytics"
] | 2016-01-31T01:30:51+00:00 | Born in Providence, Rhode Island, the former Miss Rhode Island Teen USA and Miss Rhode Island USA is a television personality, on-air host and entrepreneur. Her credits include The Price Is Right, Deal or No Deal, Celebrity Apprentice and The Real Housewives of Atlanta. Claudia has also hosted and judged several national awards shows, including […] | en | TV One | https://tvone.tv/27254/claudia-jordan/ | Born in Providence, Rhode Island, the former Miss Rhode Island Teen USA and Miss Rhode Island USA is a television personality, on-air host and entrepreneur. Her credits include The Price Is Right, Deal or No Deal, Celebrity Apprentice and The Real Housewives of Atlanta. Claudia has also hosted and judged several national awards shows, including Miss Universe, Miss USA and the Soul Train Awards. She is also a popular radio personality who has co-hosted on Jamie Foxx’s radio show, The Foxxhole, The Rickey Smiley Show, and her own SiriusXM radio show, The Claudia Jordan Show.
Claudia also works as a recurring panelist on HLN and co-hosts the Atlanta-based radio show, The Next Generation Old School Show, alongside Carl Payne and Shanga Hankerson. Newly venturing into entrepreneurial opportunities, Claudia has recently launched a series of lip glosses, Italian handbags, and mixed drinks. She is also honing her acting chops and will appear alongside Jasmine Guy in The Substitute Spy and romantic comedy, Love Is Not Enough. | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 39 | http://globaltalentbooking.com/claudia-jordan.php | en | Claudia Jordan Event Booking | http://www.globaltalentbooking.com/images/stories/biopics-celebs/claudia_jordan_01.jpg | http://www.globaltalentbooking.com/images/stories/biopics-celebs/claudia_jordan_01.jpg | [
"http://globaltalentbooking.com/images/logo.png",
"http://globaltalentbooking.com/images/stories/biopics-celebs/aubreyoday.jpg",
"http://globaltalentbooking.com/images/stories/biopics-celebs/hasslehoff.jpg",
"http://globaltalentbooking.com/images/stories/biopics/hiphopbios/ed-sheeran.jpg",
"http://globaltal... | [] | [] | [
"booking Claudia Jordan",
"book Claudia Jordan",
"Claudia Jordan agent",
"gtb",
"book",
"event",
"concert",
"show",
"agent",
"agency",
"price",
"cost",
"fee",
"hire Claudia Jordan"
] | null | [] | null | Booking celebrities like Claudia Jordan for your private party, concert or corporate event with Global Talent Booking. Claudia Jordan will make your event shine with beauty and charm. | en | null | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 63 | https://justspeak.org/who-was-claudia-jordan-married-to/ | en | Who Was Claudia Jordan Married To – Just Speak News | [
"https://justspeak.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/cropped-jslogo-153x152.png",
"https://justspeak.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/cropped-jslogo-153x152.png",
"https://justspeak.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/justspeak_mpp.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | https://justspeak.org/who-was-claudia-jordan-married-to/ | Claudia Jordan is a well-known television personality, model, and actress who has made a name for herself in the entertainment industry. Over the years, she has become a familiar face on television screens and has captured the hearts of many fans. One aspect of her personal life that has often sparked curiosity among her fans is her romantic relationships, particularly her marriage. In this article, we will delve into the question of who Claudia Jordan was married to, as well as explore some interesting facts about her life and career.
Who Was Claudia Jordan Married To?
Claudia Jordan was briefly married to Datari Turner, an American film and television producer. The couple tied the knot in 2009 but unfortunately, their marriage was short-lived and they eventually got divorced.
Interesting Facts About Claudia Jordan:
1. Early Career: Claudia Jordan began her career as a beauty pageant contestant, winning the title of Miss Rhode Island Teen USA in 1990. This propelled her into the world of modeling and acting, where she found success.
2. Reality TV Star: Claudia Jordan gained widespread fame as a contestant on the popular reality TV show “The Apprentice” hosted by Donald Trump. Her competitive spirit and strong personality made her a fan favorite on the show.
3. Radio Host: In addition to her television career, Claudia Jordan has also made a name for herself as a radio host. She has hosted a number of radio shows, including “The Claudia Jordan Show” on SiriusXM Radio.
4. Acting Career: Claudia Jordan has appeared in a number of films and television shows throughout her career. Some of her notable acting credits include roles in “The Price Is Right,” “Celebrity Apprentice,” and “Real Housewives of Atlanta.”
5. Philanthropy: Claudia Jordan is actively involved in charitable work and has supported various causes over the years. She is passionate about giving back to her community and using her platform to make a positive impact.
6. Personal Life: Claudia Jordan has been open about her struggles with relationships and has been candid about her experiences with love and heartbreak. Despite facing challenges in her personal life, she remains resilient and optimistic about the future.
7. Net Worth: As of 2024, Claudia Jordan’s net worth is estimated to be around $2 million. She has built a successful career in the entertainment industry and continues to pursue new opportunities and projects.
Common Questions About Claudia Jordan:
1. How old is Claudia Jordan?
Claudia Jordan was born on April 12, 1973, making her 51 years old as of 2024.
2. What is Claudia Jordan’s height and weight?
Claudia Jordan stands at 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighs around 135 pounds.
3. How did Claudia Jordan become famous?
Claudia Jordan rose to fame as a beauty pageant contestant and later gained widespread recognition as a reality TV star and actress.
4. Is Claudia Jordan currently married?
No, Claudia Jordan is not currently married. She was previously married to Datari Turner but the couple divorced.
5. What TV shows has Claudia Jordan appeared on?
Claudia Jordan has appeared on a number of TV shows, including “The Apprentice,” “The Price Is Right,” and “Real Housewives of Atlanta.”
6. Does Claudia Jordan have any children?
No, Claudia Jordan does not have any children.
7. What is Claudia Jordan’s net worth?
As of 2024, Claudia Jordan’s net worth is estimated to be around $2 million.
8. Where is Claudia Jordan from?
Claudia Jordan was born in Providence, Rhode Island, and raised in East Providence.
9. What is Claudia Jordan’s ethnicity?
Claudia Jordan is of Italian and African-American descent.
10. Is Claudia Jordan still hosting radio shows?
Yes, Claudia Jordan continues to host radio shows, including “The Claudia Jordan Show” on SiriusXM Radio.
11. What charities does Claudia Jordan support?
Claudia Jordan is involved in various charitable causes, including organizations that support women’s empowerment and youth education.
12. Has Claudia Jordan won any awards for her work?
Claudia Jordan has not won any major awards, but she has been recognized for her contributions to the entertainment industry.
13. Does Claudia Jordan have any upcoming projects?
Claudia Jordan is constantly working on new projects and opportunities in the entertainment industry.
14. What is Claudia Jordan’s favorite aspect of her career?
Claudia Jordan has stated that her favorite aspect of her career is being able to connect with her fans and make a positive impact through her work.
15. How does Claudia Jordan stay grounded in the entertainment industry?
Claudia Jordan stays grounded by surrounding herself with supportive friends and family, practicing self-care, and staying true to her values and beliefs.
In summary, Claudia Jordan is a talented and resilient entertainer who has made a mark in the industry through her hard work and determination. Despite facing challenges in her personal life, she remains committed to her craft and continues to inspire fans with her authenticity and grace. Her marriage to Datari Turner may have come to an end, but Claudia Jordan’s career and influence continue to flourish as she embarks on new adventures and endeavors in the entertainment world. | |||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 61 | https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-people-whose-last-name-is-jordan/chris-abraham | en | Who Is The Most Famous Jordan In The World? | https://imgix.ranker.com/list_img_v2/689/2320689/original/2320689-u1 | https://imgix.ranker.com/list_img_v2/689/2320689/original/2320689-u1 | [
"https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=10600724&cv=3.6&cj=1",
"https://static.ranker.com/img/brand/ranker-logo.svg?v=1&auto=format&q=60&fit=crop&fm=png&dpr=2&w=104",
"https://static.ranker.com/img/brand/wordmark.svg?v=1&auto=format&q=60&fit=crop&fm=png&dpr=2&w=210",
"https://imgix.ranker.com/img/brand/22... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Anime Chris"
] | 2017-02-23T00:00:00 | The Who Is The Most Famous Jordan In The World?, as voted on by fans. Current Top 3: Michael Jordan, Ola Jordan, Tina Marie Jordan | en | /img/icons/touch-icon-iphone.png | Ranker | https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-people-whose-last-name-is-jordan/chris-abraham | When considering the famous people with the last name Jordan, it's hard not to be impressed by the diversity and impact of these individuals. The name Jordan has been significant across various entertainment and sports fields, with more than a few talented and noteworthy figures. From athletes to actors, each individual has contributed to the cultural zeitgeist. This piece focuses on those with the surname Jordan who have made a lasting impression on the world with their talent and accomplishments.
Topping the list of famous Jordans is Michael Jordan, the basketball player widely regarded as one of the greatest athletes of all time. His career with the Chicago Bulls includes six NBA championships and five MVP awards, associating his name synonymous with excellence in sports. Alongside him is Ola Jordan, a professional ballroom dancer and model known for her tenure on Strictly Come Dancing. Her dynamic performances and role as judge on Dancing with the Stars: Taniec z gwiazdami have solidified her position in the dance world. Equally noteworthy is Michael B. Jordan, whose compelling roles in films like Black Panther and Creed have earned critical acclaim. These figures demonstrate the exceptional talent found among famous people with the last name Jordan, showcasing their contributions across various domains.
The relevance and broad appeal of these individuals with the surname Jordan cannot be overstated. The famous Jordans discussed above - and many others on the list - highlight the breadth of talent associated with this name. | ||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 97 | https://kids.kiddle.co/East_Providence,_Rhode_Island | en | East Providence, Rhode Island facts for kids | [
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/wk/kids-robot.svg",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/wk/kids-search-engine.svg",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/thumb/e/e8/World_War_I_Memorial_and_Taunton_Plaza%2C_East_Providence_RI.jpg/300px-World_War_I_Memorial_and_Taunton_Plaza%2C_East_Providence_RI.jpg",
"https://kids.kiddle... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Learn East Providence, Rhode Island facts for kids | en | /images/wk/favicon-16x16.png | https://kids.kiddle.co/East_Providence,_Rhode_Island | East Providence is a city in Providence County, Rhode Island, United States. The population was 47,139 at the 2020 census, making it the fifth-largest city in the state.
Geography
East Providence is located between the Providence and Seekonk Rivers on the west and the Seekonk area of Massachusetts on the east. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 16.6 square miles (43 km2), of which, 13.4 square miles (35 km2) of it is land and 3.2 square miles (8.3 km2) of it (19.33%) is water.
The following villages are located in East Providence:
East Providence Center
Riverside
Rumford
Governance
The city of East Providence is governed by an elected mayor and a five-member city council, with the mayor and counselors elected every four years. City council members are elected one each from four wards and one elected at-large.
Executive branch
The mayor is both the ceremonial leader of the city and the chief executive officer. The mayor runs the daily operations of the city, enforces the charter and ordinances of the city and appoints all department heads except the city clerk. The current mayor of East Providence is Roberto DaSilva, who took office on January 9, 2019.
Until January 9, 2019, the day-to-day operations were managed by a professional city manager appointed by the city council, and the mayor was the president of the city council, acting ceremonially.
Legislative branch
The city council sets all city ordinances, sets the budget of the city (with recommendation from the mayor) and provides legislative oversight for city operations.
The city council elects a council president and council vice-president to preside over meetings. The city council also appoints the city clerk.
Up until 2019, The city council served two-year terms, and the city council oversaw the entire city government under a council-manager system.
As of 2019 , the members of the East Providence City Council are:
Robert Rodericks—At-Large (council vice-president)
Robert Britto—Ward 1 (council president)
Anna Sousa—Ward 2
Nathan Cahoon—Ward 3
Ricardo Mourato—Ward 4
Judicial branch
The city of East Providence has a municipal court, which hears cases regarding violations of municipal ordinances, housing code violations and minor traffic violations. The city also has a probate court, which handles estates, name changes, guardianships and related matters. Judges for both courts are appointed by the mayor with confirmation by the city council for a term of two years.
Education governance
The city also has an elected school committee, elected for two-year terms by the same ward system as the city council. The school committee has broad authority to manage the school system, including setting all school system policies, setting the school system budget (within the general appropriation by the city, state and federal government) as well as selecting and overseeing the Superintendent of Schools.
Other boards and commissions
The city has an appointed library board of trustees which governs the city's library system and various other appointed governing and advisory boards and commissions.
Demographics
Historical population Census Pop. %± 1870 2,668 — 1880 5,056 89.5% 1890 8,422 66.6% 1900 12,138 44.1% 1910 15,808 30.2% 1920 21,793 37.9% 1930 29,995 37.6% 1940 32,165 7.2% 1950 35,871 11.5% 1960 41,955 17.0% 1970 48,207 14.9% 1980 50,980 5.8% 1990 50,380 −1.2% 2000 48,688 −3.4% 2010 47,037 −3.4% 2020 47,139 0.2% U.S. Decennial Census
2020 census
The 2020 United States census counted 47,139 people, 21,050 households, and 11,510 families in East Providence. The population density was 3,548.6 per square mile (1,370.1/km2). There were 22,196 housing units at an average density of 1,670.9 per square mile (645.1/km2). The racial makeup was 77.38% (36,474) white or European American (75.66% non-Hispanic white), 5.4% (2,547) black or African-American, 0.42% (199) Native American or Alaska Native, 2.11% (996) Asian, 0.04% (17) Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, 4.83% (2,277) from other races, and 9.82% (4,629) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race was 7.06% (3,328) of the population.
Of the 21,050 households, 23.0% had children under the age of 18; 39.0% were married couples living together; 33.8% had a female householder with no spouse or partner present. 35.5% of households consisted of individuals and 16.1% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.3 and the average family size was 3.1. The percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher was estimated to be 25.3% of the population.
16.7% of the population was under the age of 18, 6.7% from 18 to 24, 26.7% from 25 to 44, 27.6% from 45 to 64, and 22.3% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 44.9 years. For every 100 females, the population had 112.5 males. For every 100 females ages 18 and older, there were 116.4 males.
The 2016-2020 5-year American Community Survey estimates show that the median household income was $63,158 (with a margin of error of +/- $3,857) and the median family income was $88,973 (+/- $7,921). Males had a median income of $47,414 (+/- $3,540) versus $37,833 (+/- $2,442) for females. The median income for those above 16 years old was $42,543 (+/- $2,745). Approximately, 5.9% of families and 9.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 9.3% of those under the age of 18 and 11.4% of those ages 65 or over.
Ancestry
The population has large immigrant communities from Portugal, the Azores, Madeira and Cape Verde. Approximately 24% of East Providence residents report Portuguese ancestry, followed by Irish at 18%, and Italian with 11%.
Education
East Providence has 13 public and 5 non-public schools:
Public schools
Elementary
Agnes B. "Hennessey"
Alice M. "Waddington" – built 1954
Emma G. "Whiteknact"
James R.D. "Oldham"
Kent Heights
Myron J. "Francis" - built 1989
Orlo Avenue School
Silver Spring
Middle schools
Edward R. Martin Middle School – built 1977
Riverside Middle School
High school
Grove Ave. Educational Development Center
East Providence High School – built 2021
East Providence Career & Technical Center
Non-public elementary and junior-high schools
St. Mary "Bayview" Academy
Sacred Heart School
St. Margaret School
Ocean State Montessori School
The Gordon School
Providence Country Day (P.C.D.).
Non-public high schools
St. Mary "Bayview" Academy
Providence Country Day (P.C.D.).
Music and Arts
On September 2, 1977, The Beach Boys performed before an audience of 40,000 at Narragansett Park in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, which remains the largest concert audience in Rhode Island history. The City of East Providence provided parking in the area next to Narragansett Park. On August 9, 2017, a commemoration ceremony produced by Al Gomes and Connie Watrous of Big Noise took place in East Providence with The Beach Boys, along with East Providence Mayor James Briden and Assistant Mayor Robert Britto, who gave The Beach Boys the coveted Key to the City. The street where the concert stage formerly stood at 510 Narragansett Park Drive in Pawtucket, RI was officially renamed to "Beach Boys Way".
National Register of Historic Places listings in East Providence
Media
Newspaper
Weekly
The East Providence Post
Monthly
The East Providence Reporter
Radio
AM
1110/WPMZ: Spanish-language “Poder”.
Notable people
Arunah Shepherdson Abell (1806–1888), philanthropist and newspaper publisher (Philadelphia Public Ledger and The Baltimore Sun); born in East Providence
Ben Sears, baseball pitcher drafted by the Kansas City Royals; attended East Providence High School
Rebecca DiPietro, model and WWE Diva; lives in East Providence
John Michael Greer, author and former Archdruid; lives in East Providence
Elisabeth Hasselbeck, TV personality on Fox & Friends and The View; attended and graduated from St. Mary Academy – Bay View in 1995
Jimmy Hatlo, cartoonist, was born in East Providence
Claudia Jordan, model and reality TV personality (Deal or No Deal, Celebrity Apprentice); Miss Rhode Island USA (1997); grew up in East Providence
Jennifer Lee, co-writer of screenplay for Wreck-It Ralph; writer of screenplay for and co-director of Frozen; born in East Providence
Davey Lopes, second baseman and coach for several Major League Baseball teams; born in East Providence
Jamie Silva, football safety for the Indianapolis Colts; born in East Providence
Meredith Vieira, hostess of Millionaire, co-host of Today and The View; born in East Providence
Ron Wilson, hockey defenseman and coach for the US Olympic hockey team and several National Hockey League teams; attended East Providence High School
See also | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 4 | https://amy-movie.com/blog/daughters-appreciation-claudia-jordans-ode-to-her-parents/ | en | Daughter’s Appreciation: Claudia Jordan’s Ode to Her Parents | [
"https://amy-movie.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/black_white_clean_movie_logo-removebg-preview-1.png",
"https://amy-movie.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/black_white_clean_movie_logo-removebg-preview-1.png"
] | [
"https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Flarry.jordan.5264%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0378BGo5mLP3FFfacEYzBfaN3SZdQNdzTYsaz12PNe5C99KCLJR6uM6AM2tUDmZT4gl&show_text=true&width=500&is_preview=true",
"https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fphoto%2F... | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Rovik Parajuli"
] | 2024-05-13T06:24:25+00:00 | Claudia Angela Jordan was born to her parents, mother Teresa Fiore Jordan and father, Larry Jordan. Learn more! | en | amy-movie.com | https://amy-movie.com/blog/daughters-appreciation-claudia-jordans-ode-to-her-parents/ | Hollywood: Claudia Angela Jordan was born on April 12, 1973, in Providence, Rhode Island, to her parents, mother Teresa Fiore Jordan and father, Larry Jordan Sr.
They met when Larry was stationed in the Air Force at Brindisi, Italy, where Fiore is from.
In addition to being in the service, her father is a drummer in a band called “NOT JUST ANOTHER SOUND” and often gets busy with stage shows and performances.
Before retiring, he also worked at Lowe’s Home Improvement and Buten Paints.
Key Takeaways
Claudia Jordan grew up with her partner-in-crime brother, Larry Jr., under the care of her mother, Teresa Fiore Jordan, and father, Larry Jordan.
Her parents are divorced; since 2005, her dad has been married to her stepmother, Lynda Jordan.
Claudia has two step-siblings (Alex and Erica) from her dad’s second marriage.
Claudia Jordan’s Family Dynamics
“Deal or No Deal Island” contestant is grateful to her mother and often mentions the struggle and sacrifices she endured while raising her and her brother.
While giving flowers to her mom on the occasion of Mother’s Day, she said,
Jordan continued,
Her parents are divorced, but they still have a healthy relationship, which is often mentioned by the actress,
In fact, her dad re-married in 2005 to Lynda Jordan from Reading, Pennsylvania.
Moreover, the couple have two children: a son, Alex Jordan, and a daughter, Erica Jordan.
Not A Single Child
The star of the upcoming reality show, “College Hill,” Claudia Jordan, was raised alongside her brother, Larry Jordan Jr.
Larry is a married man who shares two daughters (Camille and Sofia) with his wife, Myechia Minter-Jordan.
In Case You Didn’t Know | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 3 | 56 | https://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/claudia-jordan-and-maurice-greene | en | Claudia Jordan and Maurice Greene | [
"https://static.whosdatedwho.com/img/logos/wdw_bubble.png",
"https://img5.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/y/1/y1lb8wbjxmt51ybm.jpg?skj2io4l",
"https://img4.bdbphotos.com/images/120x156/c/b/cbdpeuwr807887.jpg?skj2io4l",
"https://img4.bdbphotos.com/images/120x156/c/3/c3412rifkteckrt2.jpg?skj2io4l",
"https://static.... | [] | [] | [
"Claudia Jordan and Maurice Greene",
"Claudia Jordan and Maurice Greene photos",
"Claudia Jordan and Maurice Greene news",
"Claudia Jordan and Maurice Greene gossip",
"wedding",
"baby",
"engagement"
] | null | [] | null | 18 August 2024... Claudia Jordan and Maurice Greene photos, news and gossip. Find out more about... | //pts1.whosdatedwho.com/img/wdw/favicon.ico | Who's Dated Who? | https://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/claudia-jordan-and-maurice-greene | Maurice Greene and Claudia Jordan had a relationship from Nov 2005 to May 2007.
About
Maurice Greene is a 50 year old American Track and Field. Born on 23rd July, 1974 in Kansas City, Kansas, USA, he is famous for Olympic champion, World champion. His zodiac sign is Cancer.
Claudia Jordan is a 51 year old American TV Personality. Born Claudia Angela Jordan on 12th April, 1973 in Providence, Rhode Island, USA, she is famous for Being cast in the 7th season of the reality TV series, The Real Housewives of Atlanta, Having appeared as a model on the popular TV game shows, Deal or No Deal and The Price Is Right in a career that spans 1989–present. Her zodiac sign is Aries.
Contribute
Claudia Jordan and Maurice Greene - Dating, Gossip, News, Photos list. Help us build our profile of Claudia Jordan and Maurice Greene! Login to add information, pictures and relationships, join in discussions and get credit for your contributions.
Relationship Statistics | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 54 | https://www.thenewportbuzz.com/claudia-jordan-credits-local-photographer-peter-mellekas-with-her-big-break/1322 | en | Claudia Jordan credits local photographer Peter Mellekas with her big break | [
"https://newportbuzz.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2015/08/buzz-header-logo-e1618709539107.png",
"https://newportbuzz.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2015/08/BUZZ-LOGO-final.png",
"https://i0.wp.com/newportbuzz.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2015/08/WetStone_728x180-e1714092801861.png?ssl=1!",
"https://i0.wp.com/newportbuzz.s3... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Christian Winthrop"
] | 2015-05-31T22:55:08+00:00 | The Best of Newport, RI. Newport Buzz is the leading News Source for Breaking News, What's New and To-Do in Newport, RI. | en | Newport Buzz | https://www.thenewportbuzz.com/claudia-jordan-credits-local-photographer-peter-mellekas-with-her-big-break/1322 | Claudia Jordan, the actress, model, reality television and radio personality born in East Providence, RI, took to Instagram today to pay homage to Newport’s own Peter Mellekas, giving him credit for her start in the entertainment industry.
Claudia is known for appearing as a model on Deal or No Deal and The Price Is Right, and for competing on seasons 2 and 6 of Celebrity Apprentice. Jordan currently stars as one of six main series regulars on the Bravo reality television series The Real Housewives of Atlanta.
Peter Mellekas is the best photographer in all of Rhode Island, bar none. Simply, he is just an all-around terrific human being and Newport is lucky to have him.
Keep up the great work, Peter!
Via Instagram – Ok time to pay homage. When I was about 19 years old I met this photographer- Peter Mellekas. He was not only amazing with his camera but his personality was just sooooo fun! He gave me my first real model photos/ not like this Instagram stuff we see today. I mean no filters and photo shop and sorcery like we’re subject to today. And those same photos got me into 17 Magazines Cover Model contest where I was chosen out of 35,000 girls to grace the pages of that magazine and in the running for the cover. I was too stoked! He also took my pictures to a Boston modeling agency called The Models Group and they signed me and I started my career doing catalogs for Filenes, Macy’s and many many others. I remember my first check and I couldn’t believe I was getting $150/hour for 8 hours to take pictures! He believed in me and is the person I can credit for getting me started in this very tough industry. I don’t model anymore but this certainly got me in the door! And here we are 23 years later!! I just wanted to publicly acknowledge what this guy has done for me and give him his props because he deserves it! Peter M—- thank you so much! 💚💚💚💚📷📷 | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 18 | https://gameshows.fandom.com/wiki/Claudia_Jordan | en | Claudia Jordan | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gameshows/images/b/ba/Claudia_Jordan.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120918154800 | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gameshows/images/b/ba/Claudia_Jordan.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120918154800 | [
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gameshows/images/b/ba/Claudia_Jordan.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/200?cb=20120918154800",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/6a181c72-e8bf-419b-b4db-18fd56a0eb60",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/6c42ce6a-b205-41f5-82c6-5011721932e7",
"https://static.wikia.noco... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Game Shows Wiki"
] | null | Claudia Jordan (born on April 12, 1973 in Providence, Rhode Island) is an Italian African-American model, actress, beauty queen & radio show host best known for being one of the models on The Price is Right & Deal or No Deal. Claudia was born to an Italian mother and an African-American father... | en | /skins-ucp/mw139/common/favicon.ico | Game Shows Wiki | https://gameshows.fandom.com/wiki/Claudia_Jordan | Claudia Jordan Name: Claudia Jordan Born: April 12, 1973 Occupation: Host, Actress, Model, Radio Personality Years active: 1990-present Known for: Modeling career for The Price is Right & Deal or No Deal
Claudia Jordan (born on April 12, 1973 in Providence, Rhode Island) is an Italian African-American model, actress, beauty queen & radio show host best known for being one of the models on The Price is Right & Deal or No Deal.
Claudia was born to an Italian mother and an African-American father. Her parents met during her father's time in the US Air Force in Brindisi, Italy. When she was older, Claudia attended Baldwin Wallace College in Berea, Ohio where she majored in broadcasting and journalism; while there, she had her own campus radio program. Claudia was also sprinter, in fact she earned all-American honors in the 400 meter relay race.
Claudia soon became a model, and was one of eight young ladies selected to compete for the cover of Seventeen magazine. Later starting in 1990, Claudia Jordan competed in beauty pageants. Her first was for the title of Miss Teen Rhode Island in she won, then competed but didn't win in the 1990 Miss Teen USA pageant. Years later in 1997, she won the title of Miss Rhode Island, and then competed but didn't win in the 1997 Miss USA pageant. In 2009, Claudia hosted alongside Access Hollywood host Billy Bush
Starting in 2001, Claudia made the jump to the game show world. She was one of Barker's Beauties on CBS's The Price is Right from 2001 to 2003. During that time, she was once a contestant on the prime-time TV show Dog Eat Dog. Later in 2006, she was called upon to become case model #1 on TV's Deal or No Deal.
Claudia Jordan once competed on the second season of Celebrity Apprentice in 2009.
For three years from 2007-2010, Claudia Jordan was the host of her own radio show on The Foxxhole.
Shows appeared[]
The Price is Right
Deal or No Deal
Dog Eat Dog
Celebrity Apprentice
Link[] | ||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 42 | https://astro-charts.com/persons/chart/claudia-jordan/ | en | Astrology birth chart for Claudia Jordan | [
"https://astro-charts.com/client/common/images/site/logo.539cf2ab8541.png",
"https://astro-charts.com/client/common/images/site/logo-mobile.d88047e2a142.png",
"https://assets.astro-charts.com/people/claudia-jordan.png",
"https://assets.astro-charts.com/site/illustration-form.png",
"https://assets.astro-char... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2023-10-11T00:00:00 | Astrology birth chart for Claudia Jordan, born at April 12, 1973. | en | /client/common/images/site/apple-touch-icon.295a64db8994.png | https://astro-charts.com/persons/chart/claudia-jordan/ | Claudia Angela Jordan (born April 12, 1973) is an American actress, model, reality television and radio personality. She is known for appearing as a model on the U.S. version of Deal or No Deal and The Price Is Right, and for competing on seasons 2 and 6 of Celebrity Apprentice. Jordan appeared on the Bravo reality television series The Real Housewives of Atlanta for its seventh season.
image credit
Claudia Jordan by Glenn Francis, is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.5, resized from the original.
You can think of the planets as symbolizing core parts of the human personality, and the signs as different colors of consciousness through which they filter.* Sidereal Planetary Positions enabled in settings.* Because the birth time information is missing for this chart, the Moon may range up to 6° before or after this position.
Create Your Astrology Birth Chart
Create your free, personalized, and highly customizable birth chart (natal chart) by filling in the form below. Using our tools you can hide/show planets and asteroids, choose a house system, customize orbs, show declinations, sidereal charts and more...
Fill in your details
My name is:
I was born in:
The section describes some additional features of this chart. Note the inner planets refer to Sun to Jupiter, as well as the Ascendant and MC, and represent the core parts of the personality.
Parallels occur when two planets are at the same declination, both in the north or south. They are considered to have the same effect as conjunctions. Contraparallels are when one star in the north and another in the south are at the same declination. They are considered to have the same effect as oppositions.
Daylight Savings Time:
Our system detects whether DST was applied using the Olson timezone database. However, DST was not applied consistently before the 70s. Manually set DST if you believe it is not applied correctly.
Auto-detect Apply Don't Apply | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 15 | https://www.upi.com/topic/Claudia_Jordan/ | en | Claudia Jordan News | [
"https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/4881611583023/2021/i/16115845957583/v1.5/Kenya-Moore-wishes-she-had-distanced-herself-from-Apollo-Nida.jpg",
"https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/5271594131481/2020/upi/f9e6462889c6ddc0329b968bb77e5bfa/v1.5/Remy-Ma-expecting-second-child-with-Papoose.jpg",
"https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st... | [] | [] | [
"news around the world",
"todays top headlines",
"top news stories",
"current news articles",
"United Press International",
"current world news",
"breaking news stories",
"latest world news",
"world news highlights",
"current events",
"latest headlines",
"top news",
"entertainment news",
"... | null | [] | null | Claudia Jordan News from United Press International. | en | /favico.png | UPI | https://www.upi.com/topic/Claudia_Jordan/ | Claudia Jordan (born April 12, 1973) is an American television and radio personality and former Miss Rhode Island title holder. She was primarily known as a Barker's Beauty on CBS's game show The Price Is Right from 2001 to 2003, and then stepped up to Prime Time TV as a model on the US version of Deal or No Deal. Jordan held case number 1. Jordan is an aspiring real estate mogul and businesswoman that caught the eye of Donald Trump earning her a spot on the popular tv show, Celebrity Apprentice. She also hosts her own weekly radio show on Sirius Radio called "The Claudia Jordan Show."
She was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to an Italian mother and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. She attended Baldwin Wallace College in Berea, Ohio where she majored in broadcasting and journalism and had her own campus radio program. Claudia also earned all-american honors as a sprinter in the 400 meter relay. Jordan also began working as a model and was one of 8 chosen out of the nation to compete and shoot for the cover of Seventeen Magazine.
Currently she is single. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 59 | https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Claudia-Jordan/photos | en | Claudia Jordan Photos | https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/icons/etfavicon.ico | https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/icons/etfavicon.ico | [
"https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/msid-110400541,imgsize-135996,width-166,height-124/110400541.jpg",
"https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/msid-110398872,imgsize-87740,width-166,height-124/110398872.jpg",
"https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/msid-110390491,imgsize-96646,width-166,height-124/110390491.jpg",
"https://sta... | [] | [] | [
"Claudia Jordan",
"Claudia Jordan Photos"
] | null | [] | null | Claudia Jordan Photos: Check out the latest Photos of Claudia Jordan along with Claudia Jordan images, Claudia Jordan pictures, Claudia Jordan wallpapers and more on Times of India Entertainment. | https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/icons/etfavicon.ico | https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Claudia-Jordan/photos | Check out the latest photos of your favourite celebrity Claudia Jordan to find out the latest happenings in her life. We have the high quality photos of Claudia Jordan. Here are the latest and premium quality picture gallery of Claudia Jordan. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 52 | https://www.mycast.io/talent/claudia-jordan | en | Claudia Jordan Fan Casting | [
"https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=314124969281770&ev=PageView&noscript=1",
"https://assets.mycast.io/assets/mycast/images/mycast-fan-casting_1x.png",
"https://assets.mycast.io/assets/mycast/images/help.png",
"https://assets.mycast.io/actor_images/actor-claudia-jordan-126220_large.jpg?1600270481",
"https://ass... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | View casting suggestions for Claudia Jordan, and make your own suggestions for roles you think they should play in upcoming films! | myCast - Fan Casting Your Favorite Stories | https://www.mycast.io/talent/claudia-jordan | Join myCast
Do you love movies? Fan casting? myCast is the place for you!
Join thousands of other users in fan casting your favorite stories. Take 30 seconds to create a completely free profile, which will allow you to:
Add your own stories and characters
Make casting suggestions
Vote and comment on casting suggestions
Add and edit talent profiles
Post to the forums
Need an account?
Create a free account
Join myCast
Do you love movies? Fan casting? myCast is the place for you!
Join thousands of other users in fan casting your favorite stories. Take 30 seconds to create a completely free profile, which will allow you to:
Add your own stories and characters
Make casting suggestions
Vote and comment on casting suggestions
Add and edit talent profiles
Post to the forums
Already have an account?
Login to an existing account | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 6 | https://www.themoviedb.org/person/157427-claudia-jordan%3Flanguage%3Den-US | en | Claudia Jordan | [
"https://www.themoviedb.org/assets/2/v4/logos/v2/blue_short-8e7b30f73a4020692ccca9c88bafe5dcb6f8a62a4c6bc55cd9ba82bb2cd95f6c.svg",
"https://media.themoviedb.org/t/p/w300_and_h450_bestv2/p7evXwsBm0hhni0ntAsIFmgx31b.jpg",
"https://media.themoviedb.org/t/p/w150_and_h225_bestv2/h5HYOsyc1sJQYjqevaWEaLRjd6E.jpg",
"... | [] | [] | [
"Movies",
"TV Shows",
"Streaming",
"Reviews",
"API",
"Actors",
"Actresses",
"Photos",
"User Ratings",
"Synopsis",
"Trailers",
"Teasers",
"Credits",
"Cast"
] | null | [] | null | Jordan was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to a mother from Italy and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. Claudia Jordan was a sprinter and earned all-state honors in track and field while in high school in Rhode Island. Claudia Jordan competed in three Junior Olympics and in college became an All-American sprinter in the 400-meter relay. In addition to the sprints she finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational. | de | /assets/2/apple-touch-icon-57ed4b3b0450fd5e9a0c20f34e814b82adaa1085c79bdde2f00ca8787b63d2c4.png | The Movie Database | https://www.themoviedb.org/person/157427-claudia-jordan | Jordan was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to a mother from Italy and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. Claudia Jordan was a sprinter and earned all-state honors in track and field while in high school in Rhode Island. Claudia Jordan competed in three Junior Olympics and in college became an All-American sprinter in the 400-meter relay. In addition to the sprints she finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational.
Jordan was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to a mother from Italy and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. Claudia Jordan was a sprinter and earned all-state honors in track and field while in high school in Rhode Island. Claudia Jordan competed in three Junior Olympics and in college became an All-American sprinter in the 400-meter relay. In addition to the sprints she finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 11 | https://www.upi.com/topic/Claudia_Jordan/ | en | Claudia Jordan News | [
"https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/4881611583023/2021/i/16115845957583/v1.5/Kenya-Moore-wishes-she-had-distanced-herself-from-Apollo-Nida.jpg",
"https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st/th/5271594131481/2020/upi/f9e6462889c6ddc0329b968bb77e5bfa/v1.5/Remy-Ma-expecting-second-child-with-Papoose.jpg",
"https://cdnph.upi.com/ph/st... | [] | [] | [
"news around the world",
"todays top headlines",
"top news stories",
"current news articles",
"United Press International",
"current world news",
"breaking news stories",
"latest world news",
"world news highlights",
"current events",
"latest headlines",
"top news",
"entertainment news",
"... | null | [] | null | Claudia Jordan News from United Press International. | en | /favico.png | UPI | https://www.upi.com/topic/Claudia_Jordan/ | Claudia Jordan (born April 12, 1973) is an American television and radio personality and former Miss Rhode Island title holder. She was primarily known as a Barker's Beauty on CBS's game show The Price Is Right from 2001 to 2003, and then stepped up to Prime Time TV as a model on the US version of Deal or No Deal. Jordan held case number 1. Jordan is an aspiring real estate mogul and businesswoman that caught the eye of Donald Trump earning her a spot on the popular tv show, Celebrity Apprentice. She also hosts her own weekly radio show on Sirius Radio called "The Claudia Jordan Show."
She was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to an Italian mother and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. She attended Baldwin Wallace College in Berea, Ohio where she majored in broadcasting and journalism and had her own campus radio program. Claudia also earned all-american honors as a sprinter in the 400 meter relay. Jordan also began working as a model and was one of 8 chosen out of the nation to compete and shoot for the cover of Seventeen Magazine.
Currently she is single. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 85 | https://alchetron.com/Claudia-Jordan | en | Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia | [
"https://alchetron.com/cdn/private_file_1517239952900eaa7af56-1e91-4a1f-99a7-83a80c00bac.jpg",
"https://alchetron.com/cdn/claudia-jordan-fa55c97a-e8d3-45a0-bc12-b4cb698e9ae-resize-750.jpeg",
"https://alchetron.com/cdn/claudia-jordan-7edd0190-5a42-4786-a0bf-4151df4ae8c-resize-750.jpeg",
"https://alchetron.com/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2017-08-18T08:30:48+00:00 | Claudia Angela Jordan (born April 12, 1973) is an American actress, model, reality television and radio personality. She is known for appearing as a model on the U.S. version of Deal or No Deal and The Price Is Right, and for competing on seasons 2 and 6 of Celebrity Apprentice. Jordan appeared on t | en | /favicon.ico | Alchetron.com | https://alchetron.com/Claudia-Jordan | Nisha Rathode
(Editor)
I love writing and learning new things in order to better educate those in need. I also enjoy hackathons and adventures around the world.
Claudia Jordan
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Sign in
Claudia jordan s feet
Claudia Angela Jordan (born April 12, 1973) is an American actress, model, reality television and radio personality. She is known for appearing as a model on the U.S. version of Deal or No Deal and The Price Is Right, and for competing on seasons 2 and 6 of Celebrity Apprentice. Jordan appeared on the Bravo reality television series The Real Housewives of Atlanta for its seventh season.
Contents
Claudia jordan s feet
Claudia jordan wears tiny string bikini while frolicking in the miami surf march 2015
Early life
Career
Filmography
References
Claudia jordan wears tiny string bikini while frolicking in the miami surf march 2015
Early life
Jordan was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to a mother from Italy and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. Claudia Jordan was a sprinter and earned all-state honors in track and field while in high school in Rhode Island. Claudia Jordan competed in three Junior Olympics and in college became an All-American sprinter in the 400-meter relay. In addition to the sprints she finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational.
Career
Jordan held the Miss Rhode Island Teen USA 1990 title and represented Rhode Island at the Miss Teen USA 1997 pageant. In 1990, she won the Miss Rhode Island USA title, becoming the second African-American woman ever to hold that title. She competed at Miss USA 1997 where she placed in the top 10. She has worked at the Providence American newspaper and at the Boston television station WHDH-TV. She has appeared in television commercials for Coors Light, Sears, Pepsi and Visa. She appeared as a contestant on Dog Eat Dog and in Joe's music video for "I Wanna Know". Prior to appearing on Deal or No Deal, Jordan was known as a former Barker's Beauty on the CBS game show The Price Is Right from 2001 to 2003.
Jordan appeared on the second season of Celebrity Apprentice. In the series, celebrities raise money for a charity of their choice; Jordan selected the NAPSAC Foundation as her charity. She was "fired" by Donald Trump on the episode of Celebrity Apprentice that first aired March 22, 2009. She was later selected to compete on the All-Star version of Celebrity Apprentice, being "fired" in the fourth episode of the show. She co-hosted the Miss Universe 2009 pageant from the Bahamas alongside Billy Bush. She also played the thief in the Fabolous music video "Throw It In the Bag". Jordan hosted her own weekly show on Sirius/XM Radio on The Foxxhole, called "The Claudia Jordan Show". Jordan also co-hosted on "Reach Around Radio". Jordan was a co-host on Tameka Cottle's talk show Tiny's Tonight alongside Tamar Braxton and rapper Trina. The television pilot aired in December 2012 on VH1. In October 2014, it was announced that Jordan would be joining the cast of The Real Housewives of Atlanta as a main housewife for its seventh season.
Filmography
Actress
-
Daisy's Dive 2021 (TV Series) (pre-production) as
Gizelle
-
Sindustry (TV Movie) (pre-production) as
Imara Stone
-
The Regiment (filming)
-
Abused (post-production) as
Nina
-
The Culture Club (TV Series) (post-production) as
Claudia Jordan
-
Trope (post-production) as
Shelly
-
Fell in Love with a Fed as
Campbell
-
Mafietta: A House Divided as
Clarke Williams
2024
Crossed as
FBI Agent Tabitha Reed
2023
Miami Confidential as
Selena Jackson
2023
All I Want Is You 2 as
Chloe
2023
All I Want Is You as
Chloe
2023
The Game Show Show (TV Mini Series)
2023
Monogamish as
Darlene
2022
10 Reasons Why Men Cheat as
Dawn
2022
5 Star Chef (TV Movie) as
Host and Judge
2022
Why Women Trip as
Demetria
2022
Gutter as
Dr. Frank
2020
Steele Justice as
Maggie
2019
Love Is Not Enough as
Lisa Scarboro
2019
Dear Frank as
Beth
2017
Jason's Letter as
Mattie James
2017
Kenny Lattimore: Push (Music Video) as
Claudia Jordan
2017
Hollywood Unlocked with Jason Lee Uncensored (TV Series)
- Floyd Mayweather Talks How McGregor Fight Happened & Philipp Plein Fight Outfit (2017)
- Melyssa, Claudia & Annie Talk Kevin Hart Cheating Allegations (2017)
- Relationships in T.V. Show Power & Racism Around Mayweather Fight (2017)
- Amber Rose Talks Owning the Word Slut (2017)
- Amber Rose Talks Nude IG Photo & I Am Not a Model (2017)
- Dating Outside Your Religion & D*ck Preference (2017)
- Talking Lala & Carmelo Anthony Separating (2017)
- Shaun Ross Talks Racial Confusion in Public (2017)
- Claudia Jordan Talks Snapchat of Ginuwine (2017)
- Claudia Jordan & David McIntosh Guest Host (2017)
2017
The Runner as
Tahja Dupree
2017
Sharknado 5: Global Swarming (TV Movie) as
Ursa
2017
The Hills as
Nurse Brady
2016
In the Cut (TV Series) as
Beautiful Woman
- Blood Pressure Is Thicker Than Water (2016) - Beautiful Woman
2016
The Sin Within (TV Mini Series) as
Yolanda Barker
- Revelations in Real Time (2016) - Yolanda Barker
- If You Build It, They Will Come (2016) - Yolanda Barker
- Layers and Players (2016) - Yolanda Barker
- In the Beginning (2016) - Yolanda Barker
2016
The Substitute Spy as
Liz Strictland
2016
Just Love (TV Movie)
2015
Demetria McKinney featuring Kandi: Unnecessary Trouble (Music Video) as
Claudia
2015
Guy Theory (TV Series) as
Tracey Monroe
2014
Primal Instinct as
Debbie Simmons
2012
Diary of a Champion (TV Series) as
Tahja Dupree
- Level Playing Field (2013) - Tahja Dupree
- Prey or Predator (2013) - Tahja Dupree
- Split Second Decisions (2013) - Tahja Dupree
- The Deception (2013) - Tahja Dupree
- Veterans vs. Rookies (2013) - Tahja Dupree
- Who's Looking Out for Who (2012) - Tahja Dupree
- Let the Media Games Begin (2012) - Tahja Dupree
2012
Reach Around Radio (TV Series) as
Self Co-Host
- Episode dated 17 September 2012 (2012) - Self Co-Host
2012
Gang of Roses II: Next Generation as
Mimi
2010
My Parents, My Sister & Me (TV Series) as
Ms. Wilson / Angela
- Puppy Love (2010) - Ms. Wilson
- Labor of Love (2010) - Angela
2010
Anneo's Song (Short) as
Sandy Danteria
2009
Middle Men as
Cynthia
2007
Black Supaman (Video) as
Laura Lane
2005
Modern Girl's Guide to Life (TV Series) as
Talent
- Bootylicious (2005) - Talent
- Fountain of Youth (2005) - Talent
- Gifts (2005) - Talent
- I'm All That (2005) - Talent
- Be Your Own Man (2005) - Talent
2005
That's So Raven (TV Series) as
Miss Bonita
- They Work Hard for His Honey (2005) - Miss Bonita
2005
One on One (TV Series) as
Claudia Jordan
- Goodbye, Mr. Chips (2005) - Claudia Jordan
2004
Nora's Hair Salon as
Dahlia
2002
S1m0ne as
Simone Lookalike
2000
Jack & Jill (TV Series) as
Natasha
- Lovers and Other Strangers (2000) - Natasha
2000
Joe: I Wanna Know (Music Video) as
Woman
2000
Little Richard (TV Movie) as
Sexy Lady
2000
Retiring Tatiana as
Pretty Woman at Party
1999
City Guys (TV Series) as
Vanessa
- Movin' on Up (1999) - Vanessa
1999
Trippin'
1998
Backstreet Boys: All Access Video (Video) as
Nina (segment "As Long As You Love Me")
1997
Backstreet Boys: As Long as You Love Me (Music Video) as
Nina
Producer
-
Mafietta: A House Divided (producer)
2022
Turnt Out with TS Madison (TV Series) (co-executive producer)
2020
Steele Justice (producer)
2019
Love Is Not Enough (producer)
2019
Dear Frank (co-producer)
2017
Unarmed (TV Short) (executive producer)
2015
Guy Theory (TV Series) (executive producer)
2014
Treachery (Short) (executive producer)
-
Diary of a Champion (TV Series) (associate producer - 2 episodes, 2013) (executive producer - 1 episode, 2013)
- Level Playing Field (2013) - (executive producer)
- Prey or Predator (2013) - (associate producer)
- Split Second Decisions (2013) - (associate producer)
2009
The Claudia Jordan Show and Friends (TV Series) (executive producer - 32 episodes)
- Why Do Women Stay in Toxic Relationships (2009) - (executive producer)
- Can a Cheater Change (2009) - (executive producer)
- Love Lie and Rumors Can a Rumor Ruin Your Relationship (2009) - (executive producer)
- Woman to Woman; Why Do We Hate on Each Other (2009) - (executive producer)
- To Tell or Not to Tell; Relationship Secrets (2009) - (executive producer)
- Love Your Boobs (2009) - (executive producer)
- Chemical Reactions of Love (2009) - (executive producer)
- How to Communicate with Your Mate (2009) - (executive producer)
- Where's Your Daddy and Does It Affect Your Relationship (2009) - (executive producer)
- Do Real Men Cry (2009) - (executive producer)
- Relationship Double Standards (2009) - (executive producer)
- Dating Your Friend's Ex-Lover (2009) - (executive producer)
- Thin Line Between Love and Hate (2009) - (executive producer)
- Biological Clocks and When Do You Panic (2009) - (executive producer)
- Ride or Die Relationships (2009) - (executive producer)
- Can a Relationship Last with Bad Sex (2009) - (executive producer)
- Dangerously in Love When Love Triangles Go Bad (2009) - (executive producer)
- What Is Cheating? (2009) - (executive producer)
- Shades of Love; What's Your Preference (2009) - (executive producer)
- Soulmates: Reality or Fantasy (2009) - (executive producer)
- Can Sex Too Soon Ruin the Relationship (2009) - (executive producer)
- First Date Do's and Don'ts' (2009) - (executive producer)
- Has Something Your Past Came Back to Hurt Personally or Professionally (2009) - (executive producer)
- Sexual Fantasies (2009) - (executive producer)
- Bromances; Is Your Man's Friend Ruining Your Relationship (2009) - (executive producer)
- Why Men Lose Interest (2009) - (executive producer)
- Can Men and Women Be Friends (2009) - (executive producer)
- Breaking the Family Ties (2009) - (executive producer)
- Aggressive Women Turnon or Turnoff (2009) - (executive producer)
- When Your Ex Moves On (2009) - (executive producer)
- To Wed or Not to Wed (2009) - (executive producer)
- Baby Madness: When Is Enough; Enough (2009) - (executive producer)
Writer
2009
The Claudia Jordan Show and Friends (TV Series) (creator - 32 episodes)
- Why Do Women Stay in Toxic Relationships (2009) - (creator)
- Can a Cheater Change (2009) - (creator)
- Love Lie and Rumors Can a Rumor Ruin Your Relationship (2009) - (creator)
- Woman to Woman; Why Do We Hate on Each Other (2009) - (creator)
- To Tell or Not to Tell; Relationship Secrets (2009) - (creator)
- Love Your Boobs (2009) - (creator)
- Chemical Reactions of Love (2009) - (creator)
- How to Communicate with Your Mate (2009) - (creator)
- Where's Your Daddy and Does It Affect Your Relationship (2009) - (creator)
- Do Real Men Cry (2009) - (creator)
- Relationship Double Standards (2009) - (creator)
- Dating Your Friend's Ex-Lover (2009) - (creator)
- Thin Line Between Love and Hate (2009) - (creator)
- Biological Clocks and When Do You Panic (2009) - (creator)
- Ride or Die Relationships (2009) - (creator)
- Can a Relationship Last with Bad Sex (2009) - (creator)
- Dangerously in Love When Love Triangles Go Bad (2009) - (creator)
- What Is Cheating? (2009) - (creator)
- Shades of Love; What's Your Preference (2009) - (creator)
- Soulmates: Reality or Fantasy (2009) - (creator)
- Can Sex Too Soon Ruin the Relationship (2009) - (creator)
- First Date Do's and Don'ts' (2009) - (creator)
- Has Something Your Past Came Back to Hurt Personally or Professionally (2009) - (creator)
- Sexual Fantasies (2009) - (creator)
- Bromances; Is Your Man's Friend Ruining Your Relationship (2009) - (creator)
- Why Men Lose Interest (2009) - (creator)
- Can Men and Women Be Friends (2009) - (creator)
- Breaking the Family Ties (2009) - (creator)
- Aggressive Women Turnon or Turnoff (2009) - (creator)
- When Your Ex Moves On (2009) - (creator)
- To Wed or Not to Wed (2009) - (creator)
- Baby Madness: When Is Enough; Enough (2009) - (creator)
Self
-
The Social Experiment (TV Series) (pre-production) as
Self
- The Arrival - Self
2024
Deal or No Deal Island (TV Series) as
Self - Contestant
- Are You Fearless? (2024) - Self - Contestant
- Are You Calculating? (2024) - Self - Contestant
- Are You a Gambler? (2024) - Self - Contestant
2015
Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen (TV Series) as
Self / Self - Guest / Self - Bartender
- Robyn Dixon & Claudia Jordan (2024) - Self - Guest
- Ce-LEE-brate Good Times! (2023) - Self - Bartender
- Claudia Jordan & Tituss Burgess (2015) - Self
- Claudia Jordan & Willie Geist (2015) - Self
2014
The Real Housewives of Atlanta (TV Series) as
Self
- Art Imitates Life (2023) - Self
- 10.10.20 (2021) - Self
- Party in a Sweatbox (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Reunion: Part 3 (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Reunion Part 2 (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Reunion: Part 1 (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Atlanta Twirls On (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Chasing Nay-Nay (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- From Zen to Sin (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Drama Detox (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Housewife Interrupted (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Fix It Therapy (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Southern Discomfort (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Chocolate Does a Body Good (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Hello Mr. Chocolate (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- The Countdown Begins (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Beauties in the Fast Lane (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Divide and Ki-Ki (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Puerto Read-Co! (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- 50 Shades of Shade (2015) - Self (as Claudia)
- Tea with a Side of Squashed Beef (2014) - Self (as Claudia)
- Nice to Metria (2014) - Self (as Claudia)
- Make-Ups and Breakdowns (2014) - Self (as Claudia)
- Friend or Faux (2014) - Self (as Claudia)
- Bury the Ratchet (2014) - Self (as Claudia)
- All Tea All Shade (2014) - Self (as Claudia)
- No Moore Apollogies (2014) - Self
2023
The Breakfast Club on BET (TV Series) as
Self - Guest Host / Self - Guest Co-Host / Self
- Episode dated 7 August 2023 (2023) - Self - Guest Co-Host
- Episode dated 23 June 2023 (2023) - Self - Guest Co-Host
- Episode dated 7 June 2023 (2023) - Self - Guest Host
- Episode dated 6 June 2023 (2023) - Self
- Episode dated 5 June 2023 (2023) - Self - Guest Host
- Episode dated 12 May 2023 (2023) - Self - Guest Host
- Episode dated 11 May 2023 (2023) - Self - Guest Host
2023
The Game Show Show (TV Mini Series) as
Self
- Show Me The Money (2023) - Self
- The Answer Is- (2023) - Self
2023
The Jason Lee Show (TV Series) as
Self
- Claudia Jordan & Luenell (2023) - Self
2022
Bobby I Love You Purrr: The Reunion (TV Series) as
Self
- Bobby I Love You Purrr, the Reunion: Part 3 (2022) - Self
- Bobby I Love You Purrr, the Reunion: Part 2 (2022) - Self
- Bobby I Love You Purrr, The Reunion: Part 1 (2022) - Self
2022
Symone (TV Series) as
Self
- Episode dated 24 July 2022 (2022) - Self
2022
VH1 Couples Retreat (TV Series) as
Self
- Hit It or Quit It (2022) - Self
- Secrets Revealed (2022) - Self
- The Truth Hurts (2022) - Self
- Build the Wall (2022) - Self
- Dig a Little Deeper (2022) - Self
2022
Ok! TV (TV Series) as
Self
- Episode #9.75 (2022) - Self
2022
Sidewalks Entertainment (TV Series) as
Self - Guest
- Claudia, Kj and AJ (2022) - Self - Guest
2022
One Mo' Chance: The Reunion (TV Series) as
Self
- One Mo' Chance: Season 2 Reunion Pt. 3 (2022) - Self
- One Mo' Chance: Season 2 Reunion Pt. 2 (2022) - Self
- One Mo' Chance: Season 2 Reunion Pt. 1 (2022) - Self
2022
Brandi Glanville Unfiltered (Podcast Series) as
Self - Guest
- Supposedly Allegedly Supposedly w/ Claudia Jordan (2022) - Self - Guest
2021
Hollywood and African Prestigious Awards (Hapawards) 2021 5th Edition (Video) as
Self - Co-Host
2021
DeAna Fai presents Kings & Queens of Entertainment (TV Series) as
Self - Guest
- DeAna Fai presents Kings & Queens of Entertainment Reunion Recap and Giveback! (2021) - Self - Guest
- Kings & Queens 4 (2021) - Self - Guest (as 'Claudia Jordan')
2021
The Domenick Nati Show (TV Series short) as
Guest
- Claudia Jordan (2021) - Guest
2020
Trump vs Hollywood (Documentary)
2020
Love & Hip Hop: Miami (TV Series) as
Self - Host
- Reunion - Part 2 (2020) - Self - Host
- Reunion - Part 1 (2020) - Self - Host
2019
2019 Soul Train Awards: Red Carpet Special (TV Special) as
Self - Co-Host
2019
Out Loud with Claudia Jordan (TV Series) as
Self - Host
2017
The Raw Word (TV Series) as
Self - Co-Host / Self - Host
- Pilot (2017) - Self - Co-Host
2018
Cover Story (TV Series documentary) as
Self
- Meghan Markle - The Prince and the Game Show Model (2018) - Self
2017
Celebrities in the Basement (TV Series) as
Self - interviewee
- Jason's Letter (2017) - Self - interviewee
2017
6th NAFCA Annual Show (TV Special) as
Self - Host
2016
Chopped (TV Series) as
Self - Contestant
- Holiday Reality Check (2016) - Self - Contestant
2016
Hollywood Unlocked with Jason Lee Uncensored (TV Series) as
Self
- Claudia Jordan talks Jamie Foxx and Katie Holmes relationship with Hollywood Unlocked Uncensored (2016) - Self
2016
Apollo Night LA (TV Series) as
Self - Celebrity Guest
- ANLA 147 (2016) - Self - Celebrity Guest
2016
Hollywood Today Live (TV Series) as
Self
- Episode dated 6 April 2016 (2016) - Self
2016
The Next 15 (TV Series) as
Self
- Reunion Part 2 (2016) - Self
- Reunion Part 1 (2016) - Self
- That's a Wrap! (2016) - Self
- Boo Hoo Kitty (2016) - Self
- NY Goes MIA (2016) - Self
- Second Chance at First Impression (2016) - Self
- You're Fired (2016) - Self
- New York State of Mind (2016) - Self
- Jordan vs. Williams (2016) - Self
- Who You Calling a B-? (2016) - Self
2015
2015 Soul Train Awards (TV Special) as
Self
2015
Below Deck (TV Series) as
Self
- The Real Housewives of Atlanta (2015) - Self
2015
Married to Medicine (TV Series) as
Self
- Mariah the Party Crasher (2015) - Self
2015
Maury (TV Series) as
Self
- Your Profile Pic Makes Me Sick- Social Media Makeovers! (2015) - Self
2015
The Dr. Oz Show (TV Series) as
Self
- Real Housewife of Atlanta Claudia Jordan on Her Embarrassing Condition (2015) - Self
2015
Steve Harvey (TV Series) as
Self
- Steve Tries to Find a Man for Claudia Jordan/Cancer Survivor/New Book (2015) - Self
2009
The Apprentice (TV Series) as
Self - Model: Deal or No Deal / Self - Contestant / Self - Pie Customer / ...
- May the Gods of Good Pies Be with Us (2015) - Self - Pie Customer
- One of Us Will Win, But Not by Much (2013) - Self
- May the Spoon Be with You (2013) - Self - Contestant (credit only)
- The Mayor of Stress Town (2013) - Self - Contestant (credit only)
- Ahab's in Charge, and He's Gone Mad (2013) - Self - Contestant (credit only)
- Are You My Zulu Dancing Man? (2013) - Self - Contestant (credit only)
- The First Leaf That Hits the Ground (2013) - Self - Contestant (credit only)
- Lightning Strikes Mr. Hang Brain (2013) - Self - Contestant (credit only)
- Men in Black Are Gonna Come Get Him (2013) - Self - Contestant
- I'm Being Punked by a Jackson (2013) - Self - Contestant
- Just as Simple as Making Soup (2013) - Self - Contestant
- The Wolf in Charge of the Hen House (2013) - Self - Contestant
- The Final Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal
- Ad Jingle Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal (credit only)
- Deodorant Ad Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal (credit only)
- Jewelry Auction Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal (credit only)
- Life Lock and Jewelry Challenges (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal (credit only)
- Viral Video Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal (credit only)
- Hotel Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal (credit only)
- Video Camera Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal
- Wedding Dress Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal
- Comic Book Character Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal
- Cupcake Challenge (2009) - Self - Model: Deal or No Deal
2014
Dish Nation (TV Series) as
Self
- Episode #2.223 (2014) - Self
2014
BET Awards 2014 (TV Special) as
Self
2014
According to Him + Her (TV Series) as
Self - Co-Host
- Dating 101 (2014) - Self - Co-Host
2014
Deal or No Deal: Make a Wish - Hannah Whitaker (Video short) as
Self - Briefcase Model #1
2013
Home with Michelle Attoh (TV Series) as
Guest (2017)
2011
Reach Around Radio (TV Series) as
Self - Co-Host
2013
Tiny Tonight (TV Series) as
Self - Co Hostess (2013)
- Ladies Guide to the Holidays (2013) - Self - Co Hostess (2013)
- ATL Ladies Night Special (2013) - Self - Co Hostess (2013)
2013
Buzz: at&T Original Documentaries (TV Series documentary) as
Self - Host
- Inside Discovery's "Gold Rush" (2013) - Self - Host
- Summer of Adventure - Las Vegas (2013) - Self - Host
- Summer of Adventure - Rocky Mountains (2013) - Self - Host
- Summer of Adventure - LA - Showtime "Dexter" & "Ray Donovan" (2013) - Self - Host
- Summer of Adventure - Miami - Starz "Magic City" (2013) - Self - Host
2013
BET Awards 2013 (TV Special) as
Self
2013
Life with La Toya (TV Series) as
Self
- La Toya Jackson, You're Fired (2013) - Self
2013
The Wendy Williams Show (TV Series) as
Self - Guest
- Episode dated 26 March 2013 (2013) - Self - Guest
2013
44th NAACP Image Awards (TV Special) as
Self
2012
Miss Universe 2012 (TV Special) as
Self - Judge
2012
2012 Soul Train Awards (TV Special) as
Self
2011
The Hot 10 (TV Series) as
Self - Host
- The Soul Train Awards Tune-In Show (2011) - Self - Host
- The Original 7 (2011) - Self - Host
- The Hot 10: 50 to 1 Countdown (50-41) (2011) - Self - Host
2010
The Gossip Queens (TV Series) as
Self
- Episode #1.60 (2011) - Self
- Episode #1.53 (2011) - Self
- Episode #1.34 (2010) - Self
- Episode #1.27 (2010) - Self
2011
Reality Obsessed (TV Series) as
Self
- Quiz-Murtz (2011) - Self
2011
Mic Check Live: Ms. Lauryn Hill & Tyrese Gibson (TV Special) as
Self - Guest
2009
The Claudia Jordan Show and Friends (TV Series) as
Self - Co-Hostess
- Why Do Women Stay in Toxic Relationships (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Can a Cheater Change (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Love Lie and Rumors Can a Rumor Ruin Your Relationship (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Woman to Woman; Why Do We Hate on Each Other (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- To Tell or Not to Tell; Relationship Secrets (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Love Your Boobs (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Chemical Reactions of Love (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- How to Communicate with Your Mate (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Where's Your Daddy and Does It Affect Your Relationship (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Do Real Men Cry (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Relationship Double Standards (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Dating Your Friend's Ex-Lover (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Thin Line Between Love and Hate (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Biological Clocks and When Do You Panic (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Ride or Die Relationships (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Can a Relationship Last with Bad Sex (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Dangerously in Love When Love Triangles Go Bad (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- What Is Cheating? (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Shades of Love; What's Your Preference (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Soulmates: Reality or Fantasy (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Can Sex Too Soon Ruin the Relationship (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- First Date Do's and Don'ts' (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Has Something Your Past Came Back to Hurt Personally or Professionally (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Sexual Fantasies (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Bromances; Is Your Man's Friend Ruining Your Relationship (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Why Men Lose Interest (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Can Men and Women Be Friends (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Breaking the Family Ties (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Aggressive Women Turnon or Turnoff (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- When Your Ex Moves On (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- To Wed or Not to Wed (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
- Baby Madness: When Is Enough; Enough (2009) - Self - Co-Hostess
2009
2009 Soul Train Awards (TV Special) as
Self
2009
Miss Universe Pageant (TV Special) as
Self - Hostess
2009
2009 Game Show Awards (TV Special) as
Self - Case Model #1
2005
Deal or No Deal (TV Series) as
Self - Briefcase Model #1 / Self - Briefcase Model #9
- NFL Edition (2007) - Self - Briefcase Model #1
- Orange (2005) - Self - Briefcase Model #9
- Traci-ng a Venus (2005) - Self - Briefcase Model #9
- Uptown Luck (2005) - Self - Briefcase Model #9
- Turn 2 The Right (2005) - Self - Briefcase Model #9
- She Was Number 1! (2005) - Self - Briefcase Model #9
2009
23rd Annual Genesis Awards (TV Special) as
Self
2008
Entertainment Tonight (TV Series) as
Self
- Episode dated 29 January 2008 (2008) - Self
2007
BET Awards 2007 (TV Special) as
Self
2006
The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch (TV Series) as
Self - Model / Self
- Episode dated 1 March 2007 (2007) - Self - Model
- Episode dated 27 February 2006 (2006) - Self
2006
Deal or No Deal (Video Game) as
Self - Model
2006
E! True Hollywood Story (TV Series documentary) as
Self
- Sports Stars, Private Lives (2006) - Self
2003
The Price Is Right Million Dollar Spectacular (TV Series) as
Self - Model
- Saluting Colleges & Universites (2004) - Self - Model
- Saluting Armed Forces & Veterans (2003) - Self - Model
- Bob's Birthday Party (2003) - Self - Model
- Episode #1.6 (2003) - Self - Model
- Episode #1.5 (2003) - Self - Model
- Episode #1.4 (2003) - Self - Model
- Episode #1.3 (2003) - Self - Model
- Episode #1.2 (2003) - Self - Model
- Episode #1.1 (2003) - Self - Model
2003
54321 (TV Series) as
Self - Entertainment Reporter
2000
The Price is Right (TV Series) as
Self - Model / Self - Try-Out Model
2003
9th Annual Soul Train Lady of Soul Awards (TV Special) as
Self - Presenter
2003
Dog Eat Dog (TV Series) as
Self - Contestant
- Episode dated 5 August 2003 (2003) - Self - Contestant
2002
The Price Is Right Salutes (TV Mini Series) as
Self - Model
- The U.S. Coast Guard (2002) - Self - Model
- The Firefighters & Police (2002) - Self - Model
- The U.S. Marine Corps (2002) - Self - Model
- The U.S. Army (2002) - Self - Model
- The U.S. Air Force (2002) - Self - Model
- The U.S. Navy (2002) - Self - Model
2002
The Price Is Right 30th Anniversary Special (TV Special) as
Self - Model (uncredited)
2001
The Best Damn Sports Show Period (TV Series) as
Self - Guest Correspondent
Archive Footage
2017
The Real Housewives of Atlanta (TV Series) as
Self
- Reunion Part 1 (2023) - Self
- Peach Passion (2023) - Self
- Reunion Part 1 (2020) - Self
- Livin' La Villa Loca (2018) - Self
- Lei It All on the Table (2017) - Self
2022
Entertainment Tonight (TV Series) as
Self
- Episode #42.36 (2022) - Self
- Episode #42.34 (2022) - Self
2021
For Real: The Story of Reality TV (TV Mini Series documentary) as
Self
- How the Other Half Lives (2021) - Self
References
Claudia Jordan Wikipedia
(Text) CC BY-SA
Similar Topics | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 24 | https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0429886/faq/ | en | Claudia Jordan | [
"https://fls-na.amazon.com/1/batch/1/OP/A1EVAM02EL8SFB:134-4439291-6246906:DWEN8PTZZYW3NYHENAAV$uedata=s:%2Fuedata%2Fuedata%3Fstaticb%26id%3DDWEN8PTZZYW3NYHENAAV:0",
"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BY2YwMzk4ZGYtNzViMi00OWJlLWFkNTItNjc2OWEwZDgzMTNiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQyMzQxOA@@._V1_QL75_UY133_CR5,0,90,133_.j... | [] | [] | [
"Claudia Jordan",
"FAQ"
] | null | [] | null | Claudia Jordan - FAQ - IMDb - Top questions and answers about Claudia Jordan | en | IMDb | https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0429886/faq/ | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 87 | https://thatgrapejuice.net/entertainment/2024/07/exclusive-claudia-jordan-addresses-tea-g-i-f-drama-the-future-of-fox-soul-show/ | en | Exclusive: Claudia Jordan Addresses ‘Tea-G-I-F’ Drama & the Future of Fox Soul Show | [
"https://thatgrapejuice.net/wp-content/themes/tgj17july17/images/logo.png",
"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/054f337aadee04ab1d5e0f3dbe62d513?s=50&d=wavatar&r=pg",
"https://thatgrapejuice.net/wp-content/themes/tgj17july17/images/subscribe-rss.jpg?2",
"https://thatgrapejuice.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/s... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/NkU63BBFbQ0?enablejsapi=1&autoplay=0&cc_load_policy=0&iv_load_policy=1&loop=0&modestbranding=0&fs=1&playsinline=0&controls=1&color=red&cc_lang_pref=&rel=1&autohide=2&theme=dark&"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Sam"
] | 2024-07-03T00:58:58+00:00 | https://youtu.be/NkU63BBFbQ0 Fox Soul show 'Tea-G-I-F' typically sees hot topics addressed by its anchors. However, recent times have seen the show and | en | ..::That Grape Juice.net::.. - Thirsty? | https://thatgrapejuice.net/entertainment/2024/07/exclusive-claudia-jordan-addresses-tea-g-i-f-drama-the-future-of-fox-soul-show/ | Fox Soul show ‘Tea-G-I-F’ typically sees hot topics addressed by its anchors. However, recent times have seen the show and its anchors become the hot topics themselves. Largely in part due to the drama that has erupted in-house.
The show’s creator and lead panelist Claudia Jordan was on-hand at the BET Awards 2024.
That Grape Juice‘s Shar Jossell caught up with the multihyphenate and quizzed her about the status of ‘Tea-G-I-F’ and its future. She also spilled on her experience starring in BET’s ‘College Hill: Celebrity Edition.’
Watch above and be sure to let us know…
Your thoughts? | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 3 | 4 | https://www.nbc.com/nbc-insider/deal-or-no-deal-island-claudia-jordan-career-explained | en | Everything to Know About Deal or No Deal Island's Claudia Jordan: From Briefcase Model to Star Player | [
"https://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcblog/files/styles/16_9_medium/public/media_mpx/thumbnails/mpxstatic-nbcmpx.nbcuni.com/image/650/863/nbc_dondi_hlt_s01e01_ClaudiaGivesGreatStrategy_02272024.jpg",
"https://www.nbc.com/sites/nbcblog/files/styles/16_9_medium/public/media_mpx/thumbnails/mpxstatic-nbcmpx.nbcuni.com/image/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"James Grebey"
] | 2024-02-28T22:08:12+00:00 | Deal or No Deal Island competitor Claudia Jordan was a briefcase model on the original Deal or No Deal Island. Here's what else she's done. | en | /sites/nbcblog/themes/custom/nbcblog/images/icons/apple-touch/apple-touch-icon.png | NBC Insider Official Site | https://www.nbc.com/nbc-insider/deal-or-no-deal-island-claudia-jordan-career-explained | The new series Deal or No Deal Island mixes up the traditional Deal or No Deal game show format. No longer are contestants just trying to pick the right briefcase; they’re also competing against a dozen other players and putting themselves through arduous physical challenges on the Banker’s private island in an attempt to win the biggest prize in Deal or No Deal history. For one contestant, though, things are especially different. For the first time, Claudia Jordan is in a position to pick a briefcase, as the former multi-season Briefcase Girl is competing to win on Deal or No Deal Island.
RELATED: Deal or No Deal Island's First Eliminated Was "Hurt Deeply" By Fellow Competitor's Fake-Out
Jordan, who also competed on two seasons of Celebrity Apprentice and was on The Real Housewives of Atlanta, is not the only contestant on Deal or No Deal Island with past reality show experience. Rob Mariano, aka “Boston Rob,” is a Survivor veteran. But Jordan is the only one who has had any experience with those iconic briefcases, even if she was on the other side of them.
What other shows has Deal or No Deal Island's Claudia Jordan been in?
Jordan was born on April 12, 1973, in Providence, Rhode Island. Her parents met in Italy when her dad, a member of the U.S. Air Force who was stationed there, met her mother, an Italian native. After graduating from Ohio’s Baldwin Wallace College, where she majored in broadcasting and journalism, Jordan represented Rhode Island as Miss Teen USA in 1991 and Miss USA in 1997. During the early ‘90s was also when she began her acting career, appearing in one-off episodes of a few sitcoms like That’s So Raven and having small parts in movies like the 2000 sci-fi film Simone.
From 2001 to 2003, Jordan was a model on Seasons 29 through 32 of The Price Is Right, serving as a “Barker's Beauty.” After she left the show, Jordan sued for wrongful termination, sexual harassment, and race discrimination, alleging that a staffer had made inappropriate sexual advances toward her. They settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
After leaving The Price Is Right, Jordan became one of the inaugural Briefcase Models on Deal or No Deal when it premiered in 2005. Although she held Briefcase #9 during the initial premiere week, for the rest of her four-season tenure on the series, she held Briefcase #1 — a big deal, but for superstitious reasons, the #1 case was among the least-chosen cases by contestants in the show’s history.
Jordan left Deal or No Deal after Season 4, and would go on to host the 2009 Miss Universe competition and compete on Seasons 8 and 13 of Celebrity Apprentice. She was the fourth contestant to be “fired” on both seasons. She was also a member of the main cast of The Real Housewives of Atlanta in Season 7 and would return as a guest for Seasons 8, 13, and 15.
RELATED: How Do Deal or No Deal Island's Challenges and Classic Briefcases Work?
She has numerous hosting gigs on her filmography as well, including The Raw Word, VH1 Couples Retreat, and more.
Will Jordan’s reality and game show experience help her triumph on Deal or No Deal Island — to say nothing of her experience on Deal or No Deal itself? Find out as the season continues. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 68 | https://www.tiktok.com/%40thekempire/video/7386867657322073375 | en | Make Your Day | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | null | ||||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 32 | https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/383178/Claudia-Jordan | en | Claudia Jordan | [
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/images/AAS-Logo-2023White.webp",
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/images/small-search-icon-white.webp",
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/sportspeakers/images/bx_loader.gif",
"https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/images/AAS-Logo-2023White.webp",
"https://www.allame... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Biography and booking information for Claudia Jordan, Actress and Model; the Most Recent Housewife of Atlanta. Contact All American Speakers Bureau to book the best keynote speaker for your next live or virtual event. | en | https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/383178/Claudia-Jordan | Claudia Jordan is an American television and radio personality. She is primarily known for appearing as a model on the U.S. version of Deal or No Deal, and for competing on Seasons 2 and 6 of Celebrity Apprentice.
Born and raised in East Providence, Rhode Island, Claudia is a formar Barker Beauty on The Price is Right and has appeared on The Best Damn Sports Show as a special correspondent. She was a track and field All-American and represented Rhode Island in the 1997 Miss USA Pageant. Claudia has appeared in the Al Pacino movie Simone as well as CBS's The Bold and the Beautiful, One on One on UPN and WB's Jack and Jill. As an aspiring NFL sports reporter, Claudia co-hosted a week long radio show live from the Super Bowl in Jacksonville, Florida. Claudia has been a reporter for The Providence American Newspaper inProvidence, RI and has hosted several television shows such as Livin' Large (NBC) and Fox Sports 54321. This model, actress and tv host enjoys cooking, painting and working on her home. | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 93 | https://www.eonline.com/news/1366465/larsa-pippen-has-the-best-response-when-asked-about-16-year-age-difference-with-boyfriend-marcus-jordan | en | Year Age Difference With BF Marcus Jordan | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Brett Malec"
] | 2023-03-01T16:58:00+00:00 | The Real Housewives of Miami's Larsa Pippen, 48, addressed her age difference with boyfriend Marcus Jordan, 32, and revealed what his dad, Michael Jordan, thinks of their relationship. | /images/icon.png | E! Online | https://www.eonline.com/news/1366465/larsa-pippen-has-the-best-response-when-asked-about-16-year-age-difference-with-boyfriend-marcus-jordan | Larsa Pippen has officially found love again.
The Real Housewives of Miami star recently shared new insight into her relationship with boyfriend Marcus Jordan—the 32-year-old son of NBA legend Michael Jordan—and even revealed how they first got together.
"We're in a really good place," Larsa stated on The Tamron Hall Show Feb. 28. "I feel like a lot of people think that we've known each other our whole lives, which we have not. We literally just met at a party four years ago and we were just friends."
Since the two are both from Chicago, Larsa added they have a lot of mutual friends and "a lot in common"—especially since Marcus' dad and Larsa's ex-husband Scottie Pippen were teammates on the Chicago Bulls for years.
As for Larsa, 48, and Marcus' 16-year age difference, the star isn't bothered by chatter about her dating a younger man.
"I can't basically explain how someone else feels," she said of Scottie, with whom she shares four kids. "I feel like I live my truth, I'm happy. I feel like we get along, he's my best friend."
At the end of the day, Larsa just wants people to be happy for her.
"For me being someone who was married to an athlete, it's really hard. You get scrutinized a lot," she explained. "People don't think you should have a life once you get divorced. They think once you're divorced, you're done. And I feel like I've overcome so many different obstacles because I feel like I should have love, I should be able to date who I want. I should be able to live happy and go wherever I want to go and not be judged every time I'm with someone." | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 1 | https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/claudia-jordan.html | en | Claudia Jordan - Age, Family, Bio | [
"https://www.famousbirthdays.com/faces/jordan-claudia-image.jpg",
"https://www.famousbirthdays.com/headshots/claudia-jordan-9.jpg",
"https://www.famousbirthdays.com/headshots/claudia-jordan-8.jpg",
"https://www.famousbirthdays.com/headshots/claudia-jordan-6.jpg",
"https://www.famousbirthdays.com/headshots/c... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Claudia Jordan: her birthday, what she did before fame, her family life, fun trivia facts, popularity rankings, and more. | en | /favicon.ico | Famous Birthdays | https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/claudia-jordan.html | About
Former Miss Teen USA 1990 and contestant on The Apprentice who modeled for Deal or No Deal. She joined The Real Housewives of Atlanta in 2014 and The Next :15 in 2016.
Before Fame
She was named Miss Teen USA in 1990.
Trivia
She began her television career as a model on Deal or No Deal.
Family Life
She married Datari Turner in 2009, but the marriage was later annulled.
Associated With
She and Tiffany Pollard were both cast in The Next :15.
Video | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 12 | https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/models/claudia-jordan-net-worth/ | en | Claudia Jordan Net Worth | [
"https://vz.cnwimg.com/wp-content/themes/cnw_2023/svg/logo.svg",
"https://vz.cnwimg.com/thumb-600x300/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Claudia-Jordan.jpg",
"https://vz.cnwimg.com/thumb-132x132/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Crystle-Stewart-1-e1585697101581.jpg",
"https://vz.cnwimg.com/thumb-132x132/wp-content/uploads/2... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Brian Warner"
] | 2021-01-04T19:05:32+00:00 | Claudia Jordan Net Worth and Salary: Claudia Jordan is an American actress, model, television, and radio personality with a net worth of $1.5 million. Known | en | Celebrity Net Worth | https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/models/claudia-jordan-net-worth/ | What is Claudia Jordan's Net Worth and Salary?
Claudia Jordan is an American actress, model, television, and radio personality with a net worth of $1.5 million. Known for her appearances as a model in the US version of "Deal or No Deal" and "The Price Is Right," Claudia Jordan has also competed on season two and six of "Celebrity Apprentice." She held the Miss Rhode Island Teen USA title in 1990 and represented Rhode Island at the 1997 Miss USA beauty pageant.
Early Life
Claudia Jordan was born on April 12th of 1973, in Providence, Rhode Island. She was born to an Italian mother and an American father. Claudia's parents met while her father served in the US Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. Jordan went to high school in Providence and was a sprinter, earning all-state honors in track and field. Claudia attended University in Ohio, majoring in broadcasting and journalism and obtaining All-American status as a 400-meter sprinter.
In 1990, Claudia Jordan represented Rhode Island in the Miss Teen USA beauty pageant. She won the title of Miss Rhode Island USA in 1997, placing in the top 10 of the Miss USA pageant that year.
Career
Following her success in beauty pageants, Jordan appeared in multiple music videos for artists such as the Backstreet Boys, Ginuwine, Fabolous, Charlie Wilson, Joe, Chico DeBarge, D'Angelo, Coolio, Ludacris, and Kenny Lattimore. She also began to appear in national television commercials for Coors Light, Sears, Pepsi, Visa, and Mountain Dew.
From 2001 to 2003, Claudia was one of Bob Barker's "beauties" on the CBS game show "The Price Is Right." In 2005, Jordan was hired for the American version of "Deal or no Deal," holding the briefcase #1 for four seasons.
In 2003, Claudia began her first hosting job as a red-carpet correspondent for the Fox Sports West show, "54321." She also began to appear on "The Best Damn Sports Show Period." From there, Jordan joined E! and The Style Network for two seasons as the co-host of "The Modern Girl's Guide to Life."
In 2009, Claudia appeared on the second season of "Celebrity Apprentice." During the series, Jordan and the other celebrities raised money for a charity of their choice, and Jordan selected the North American Psychoanalytic Confederation as her charity. That same year, in the Bahamas, Claudia co-hosted the 2009 Miss Universe pageant alongside Billy Bush.
Jordan was a standout on Jamie Foxx's satellite radio show "The Foxxhole," and she began to co-host on Tameka Cottle's talk show "Tiny's Tonight," aired in December of 2012. That year, Claudia also hosted the AT&T travel show "The Summer of Adventure." In 2013, Jordan returned to the "Celebrity Apprentice" to compete on the show's All-Star version. In October of 2014, Claudia announced she was joining the cast of "The Real Housewives of Atlanta" for the seventh season as one of the primary housewives. During the filming of "The Real Housewives of Atlanta," Jordan was simultaneously working as a co-host on the "Rickey Smiley Morning Show."
In 2018, Claudia led her morning show in Dallas called "The Morning Rush," which ran for one year and was the top-rated R&B Morning show in Dallas. Jordan hosts a talk show on the American internet streaming service Fox Soul Platform. The show, entitled "Out Loud," features Jordan and a rotating cast of Black Americans whom she invites to speak on a wide range of topics, to empower men and women in the Black community. Her show airs every Tuesday through Friday.
Additionally, Claudia has worked as a journalist for the Providence American newspaper and in television production. | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 3 | 10 | https://www.realitytea.com/person/claudia-jordan/ | en | Claudia Jordan | [
"https://www.realitytea.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/11/GettyImages-1505139637.jpg?w=771",
"https://www.realitytea.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/07/GettyImages-144010104.jpg?w=282&h=188&crop=1",
"https://www.realitytea.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/03/GettyImages-1501959064-1.jpg?w=282&h=188&... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Koyel Sardar"
] | 2024-02-23T13:29:10+00:00 | Claudia Jordan, a vibrant personality in entertainment, has left a significant mark as a TV and radio personality, model, and actress. | en | Reality Tea | https://www.realitytea.com/person/claudia-jordan/ | ||||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 53 | https://videospace.fi/person/claudia_jordan_1 | en | Home of Physical media | https://videospace.fi/favicon.ico | https://videospace.fi/favicon.ico | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | /favicon.ico | null | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 1 | 48 | https://thekoalition.com/2024/claudia-jordan-is-her-own-competition-in-nbcs-deal-or-no-deal-island | en | Claudia Jordan Is Her Own Competition in NBC's Deal or No Deal Island | [
"https://i0.wp.com/thekoalition.com/images/2023/01/cropped-tklogo2022.png?fit=161%2C46&ssl=1",
"https://i0.wp.com/thekoalition.com/images/2023/01/cropped-tklogo2022.png?fit=161%2C46&ssl=1",
"https://i0.wp.com/thekoalition.com/images/2024/02/NUP_202314_02574.jpg?resize=1000%2C667&ssl=1",
"https://i0.wp.com/the... | [] | [] | [
"Data Protection",
"Copyright Data"
] | null | [
"Dana Abercrombie"
] | 2024-02-27T00:44:49+00:00 | The iconic NBC game of Deal or No Deal is back and it's unlike anything you've ever seen before. A new spin on the game takes the beloves series to new | en | The Koalition | https://thekoalition.com/2024/claudia-jordan-is-her-own-competition-in-nbcs-deal-or-no-deal-island | The iconic NBC game of Deal or No Deal is back and it’s unlike anything you’ve ever seen before. A new spin on the game takes the beloves series to new heights as host Joe Manganiello prepares viewers (and contestants) for a journey to unexpected. In this new format of Deal of No Deal Island, 13 players are transported to the elusive Banker’s private island where the Banker makes the rules where secrets and twists hide behind every palm tree.
To celebrate this exciting new series, The Koalition spoke with contestant Claudia Jordan about joining the competition series, her strategy behind the game, balancing her strength and intelligence, competitors she had to lookout for, digital isolation and more.
From the pilot to the finale, Claudia had a front row seat to every episode of the original Deal or No Deal. As the model of case #1, and she took her placement seriously and watched as contestants made countless bad deals. Even though she left the many years ago to star on The Real Housewives of Atlanta and The Celebrity Apprentice, hosts her own talk show, Tea-G-I-F, five days a week; despite all of her TV appearances, she has always wanted to return to play the game.
“I definitely felt I had an advantage going in as far as the knowledge of the game and I actually love Deal or No Deal. When I was a model on the show, standing there on my 19-hour days I was like, ‘Damn, I got this good job, but I wish I was a contestant. I would love to see how I would do.’ Sometimes we think things are easy from the outside looking in or we think we could do a better job and I got the chance to finally go see and put that theory to a test. It was such a good experience; it really was wonderful.”
Just like the title states Deal or No Deal Island isn’t filmed in the luxury and comfortability of the studio but on an island where the iconic briefcases are hidden around the island and worth over $200 million in prize money split between them.
The chosen competitor must then play a high-stakes game of “Deal or No Deal.” If the player makes a bad deal and accepts an offer that is a lesser value than what is in their chosen case, they are immediately eliminated. If the player makes a good deal and accepts an offer that is a higher value than what is in their case, the power is in their hands, and they get to select who to eliminate.
The chosen competitor must then play a high-stakes game of “Deal or No Deal.” If the player makes a bad deal and accepts an offer that is a lesser value than what is in their chosen case, they are immediately eliminated. If the player makes a good deal and accepts an offer that is a higher value than what is in their case, the power is in their hands, and they get to select who to eliminate.
However, the devious Banker is always watching and raising the stakes with tests of strategy and greed. Manganiello will serve as the gaming liaison – an intermediary between the Banker and contestants – overseeing gameplay and helping to navigate them through tough, life-changing decisions.
“We didn’t know what to expect before we get out there. We knew there’d be challenges but we didn’t know exactly what they be. I decided to try to work out a little bit more and step on my cardio a little bit. I didn’t need to freshen up on the game because that’s what I feel I’m an expert in. I was just open to whatever they were going to throw at us. I knew I’d be an asset for the game because I know when not to go an extra step and when to kind of call it a day. I’ve seen a lot of people lose out on a lot of money being too greedy. If anything, I would be more on the conservative side. I want to go for it but I’m not going to blow it all when the odds are not in my favor.”
When agreeing to do the show, all the producers’ told Jordan was, “what kind of clothes we need to bring and that there would be some physical challenges [where] we [would] have to be able to swim and there may or may not be some critters around there. We were pretty much walking into like uncharted territory. You may open up a door and you don’t know what’s on the other side.”
In each episode, players compete in daring challenges to secure the briefcases that will be used in that night’s game of “Deal or No Deal.” The player who snags the highest-value case gains immunity and gets to choose a fellow player to enter “The Temple.”
While Jordan couldn’t spill all the secrets about the challenges, she was rather shocked at how intense the first challenge was and how the environment (and bugs) really impacted her. [I was not prepared for the] snakes in the bathroom and scorpions we had to kill. [It] was the biggest I ever seen in my life in this jungle. It was a foot tall. There was this big a bug just hanging out.”
“There’s no preparing for a one-foot bug, there’s nothing I’ve ever seen that before in my life and we had to just deal with it. There are people walking around our camp catching snakes to make sure they don’t get into our tents. There’s no way to prepare for that. It definitely made me appreciate what I had back home and being in a bug-free house. It adds to the stress. Plus, we had to turn our cell phone and our computer in, so we’re not even communicating with our people back home. You can’t even cry to your mama or your boyfriend or your girlfriend, you just had to just deal with it and just lean on each other during this experience. [Not having these devices] made it harder. I just wanted to talk to a friendly voice, just someone I didn’t have to worry if they were scheming on me or not. I was missing that a lot.”
“We have to go find some cases within a minute I am waste deep in some mud and there were centipedes in that mud and there were briefcases with a whole lot of money in that mud. We had to figure it out and it was so hard. It’s day one and I want to go home already. My hair was all pretty then five minutes later, I’m covered in mud but after doing this show, there’s a lot of things I think I could do more of [in my life]. I didn’t think I could do what I did on this show, and I did it.”
Unlike the original show, the contestants must learn how to work together to earn more money. The winnings from each game of “Deal or No Deal” will be added to a group pot that will grow to an exponential value throughout the season. At the end of the season, the last player standing will face the Banker to potentially win the biggest prize in the show’s history.
“On the regular Deal or No Deal, you’re playing with yourself. You have your friends there, your family to support you, but this is a little bit different, there’s a twist. You got to build the pot up with your team and then the last man or woman standing is the one that gets to play for the entire bag. [For me], the strongest competition would be myself because I am physically fit, I know the game, I look good in the bathing suit, and I am down to help other people, but I also want to get the money for myself.”
Jordan has to rely on the fine balance of think about herself and helping others in her team in order to secure both her team winnings and her outlasting everyone in the competition. Finding this balance was not an easy task, which only became harder when her competition became her friends. “It’s hard because you want to build a pot up, but you also don’t want to get yourself out the game and you want to stick around. You have to make some really difficult decisions sometimes and then as the longer you’re there, the more you get to really like some of these people. Then you’re like, ‘Well I don’t want to throw someone else under the bus, but I don’t want to lose myself.’
“But you’ll see from episode one my expertise in the game and you’ll see my skills or lack of when it comes to picking the briefcases and if I’m not playing the game I’m going to be a coach if I’m in the game. I know what I’m doing, so if someone comes to me for answers, I got [them] covered.” | |||||
8169 | dbpedia | 0 | 3 | https://www.themoviedb.org/person/157427-claudia-jordan%3Flanguage%3Den-US | en | Claudia Jordan | [
"https://www.themoviedb.org/assets/2/v4/logos/v2/blue_short-8e7b30f73a4020692ccca9c88bafe5dcb6f8a62a4c6bc55cd9ba82bb2cd95f6c.svg",
"https://media.themoviedb.org/t/p/w300_and_h450_bestv2/p7evXwsBm0hhni0ntAsIFmgx31b.jpg",
"https://media.themoviedb.org/t/p/w150_and_h225_bestv2/h5HYOsyc1sJQYjqevaWEaLRjd6E.jpg",
"... | [] | [] | [
"Movies",
"TV Shows",
"Streaming",
"Reviews",
"API",
"Actors",
"Actresses",
"Photos",
"User Ratings",
"Synopsis",
"Trailers",
"Teasers",
"Credits",
"Cast"
] | null | [] | null | Jordan was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to a mother from Italy and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. Claudia Jordan was a sprinter and earned all-state honors in track and field while in high school in Rhode Island. Claudia Jordan competed in three Junior Olympics and in college became an All-American sprinter in the 400-meter relay. In addition to the sprints she finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational. | de | /assets/2/apple-touch-icon-57ed4b3b0450fd5e9a0c20f34e814b82adaa1085c79bdde2f00ca8787b63d2c4.png | The Movie Database | https://www.themoviedb.org/person/157427-claudia-jordan | Jordan was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to a mother from Italy and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. Claudia Jordan was a sprinter and earned all-state honors in track and field while in high school in Rhode Island. Claudia Jordan competed in three Junior Olympics and in college became an All-American sprinter in the 400-meter relay. In addition to the sprints she finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational.
Jordan was born in Providence, Rhode Island, to a mother from Italy and an African-American father. Claudia's parents met when her father was in the U.S. Air Force, stationed in Brindisi, Italy. Claudia Jordan was a sprinter and earned all-state honors in track and field while in high school in Rhode Island. Claudia Jordan competed in three Junior Olympics and in college became an All-American sprinter in the 400-meter relay. In addition to the sprints she finished third in the long jump at the East Coast Invitational. | ||||
8169 | dbpedia | 2 | 89 | https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-people-named-claudia/celebrity-lists | en | Who Is The Most Famous Claudia In The World? | https://imgix.ranker.com/list_img_v2/18530/2298530/original/2298530-u2 | https://imgix.ranker.com/list_img_v2/18530/2298530/original/2298530-u2 | [
"https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=10600724&cv=3.6&cj=1",
"https://static.ranker.com/img/brand/ranker-logo.svg?v=1&auto=format&q=60&fit=crop&fm=png&dpr=2&w=104",
"https://static.ranker.com/img/brand/wordmark.svg?v=1&auto=format&q=60&fit=crop&fm=png&dpr=2&w=210",
"https://imgix.ranker.com/img/brand/20... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Celebrity Lists"
] | 2017-02-13T00:00:00 | The Who Is The Most Famous Claudia In The World?, as voted on by fans. Current Top 3: Claudia Winkleman, Claudia Nystad, Claudia Pechstein | en | /img/icons/touch-icon-iphone.png | Ranker | https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-people-named-claudia/celebrity-lists | How many celebrities named Claudia can you think of? The famous Claudias below have many different professions, including notable actors named Claudia, famous musicians named Claudia, and even athletes named Claudia.
Claudia Schiffer is certainly one of the most famous Claudias on this list. One of the famous models named Claudia, she holds the record for appearing on the most magazine covers. She has worked with Guess?, Chanel, and Louis Vuitton.
Another of the famous people with the first name Claudia is Claudia Cardinale. She is an Italian actress. Goha, 81/2, and Girl with a Suitcase are among her notable projects.
Did we forget one of your favorite famous people named Claudia? Just add them to the list! |