Dave Bacon
@dabacon.tachyon.institute
Theoretical ski bum. Former pseudo professor. Quantum bridge builder. Will math for food.
mastodon: @[email protected]
https://dabacon.org
mastodon: @[email protected]
https://dabacon.org
Reposted by Dave Bacon
If you or your organisation is interested in sponsoring QEC26, please reach out to me as well and we can discuss the different sponsorship levels and opportunities we’ve set up!
January 23, 2026 at 7:10 PM
If you or your organisation is interested in sponsoring QEC26, please reach out to me as well and we can discuss the different sponsorship levels and opportunities we’ve set up!
Reposted by Dave Bacon
If anyone wants some follow-up reading, here's a link to my popular-science-level essay on the topic that Daniel mentioned in the podcast: arxiv.org/abs/1211.7081
The Universe is not a Computer
When we want to predict the future, we compute it from what we know about the present. Specifically, we take a mathematical representation of observed reality, plug it into some dynamical equations, a...
arxiv.org
January 23, 2026 at 2:25 AM
If anyone wants some follow-up reading, here's a link to my popular-science-level essay on the topic that Daniel mentioned in the podcast: arxiv.org/abs/1211.7081
“What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter as if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?” Feynman
January 22, 2026 at 2:55 AM
“What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter as if he were like a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?” Feynman
Sadly no. Enjoy the cold :)
January 21, 2026 at 5:56 PM
Sadly no. Enjoy the cold :)
Warning that it is a deep rabbit hole! But not many have spent much time working on this angle. Somewhat in a similar vein is Kedlaya’s algorithm for Zeta functions of curves link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Quantum computation of zeta functions of curves - computational complexity
We exhibit a quantum algorithm for determining the zeta function of a genus g curve over a finite field $$ \mathbb{F}_{q} $$ , which is polynomial in g and log(q). This amounts to giving an algorithm ...
link.springer.com
January 21, 2026 at 3:49 PM
Warning that it is a deep rabbit hole! But not many have spent much time working on this angle. Somewhat in a similar vein is Kedlaya’s algorithm for Zeta functions of curves link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Reposted by Dave Bacon
An abelian variety is a variety that's an abelian group. Varieties are sets of solutions of polynomial equations, and they're the main focus of algebraic geometry. I was scared of algebraic geometry until my 50s - and I wrote about getting over my fear.
nautil.us/the-math-tha...
nautil.us/the-math-tha...
The Math That Takes Newton Into the Quantum World
How a math professor learned to stop worrying and love algebraic geometry.
nautil.us
January 19, 2026 at 4:56 PM
An abelian variety is a variety that's an abelian group. Varieties are sets of solutions of polynomial equations, and they're the main focus of algebraic geometry. I was scared of algebraic geometry until my 50s - and I wrote about getting over my fear.
nautil.us/the-math-tha...
nautil.us/the-math-tha...
Your teaching a course on causal sets? Oh I’d stake that!
January 9, 2026 at 3:13 AM
Your teaching a course on causal sets? Oh I’d stake that!
Reminds me of Philip L Dick’s famous quote “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away” I’d be ok for observers to be invoked as part of what can be known in a theory of reality. But I don’t like the typical adhoc measurement = observer
January 5, 2026 at 2:53 PM
Reminds me of Philip L Dick’s famous quote “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away” I’d be ok for observers to be invoked as part of what can be known in a theory of reality. But I don’t like the typical adhoc measurement = observer
Damn internet hard to pull rhetorical from non. Apologies
January 5, 2026 at 2:45 PM
Damn internet hard to pull rhetorical from non. Apologies
It’s ok for people to want more.
January 5, 2026 at 6:03 AM
It’s ok for people to want more.