Q&A with Nobel Prize winner David J. Wineland

NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, sits nestled in the shadow of the Rockies. The scientists here work on problems that focus on the microscopic and minute yet which have far-reaching impacts on advanced technologies, such as the atomic clock and the direction and pace of scientific innovation. One of these dedicated thinkers, David Wineland, was recently recognized for his work in the field of quantum measurements and manipulation with the 2012 Nobel Prize in physics. He shares the distinction with French scientist Serge Haroche. While quantum anything can make some feel faint, his work may have a significant impact on the atomic clock as well as quantum computing, which may have serious implications on the future of encryption software and code-cracking. Wineland has worked at NIST for 37 years and continues his groundbreaking research with a team of fellow physicists, including a handful of CU grad students. YS recently had the opportunity to speak with Wineland about his research, as well as the scientific community’s unique vibe.

YS: What do you think contributed to the recent rise in popularity of the more heavy-duty sciences such as quantum physics?

DW: Well, first off, I haven’t noticed any big increase in popularity, but I think there’s something about the subject that I’m recognized for that it’s always been a bizarre thing that made people interested in the microscopic level and certainly raised people’s interest. I think even for physicists there are some puzzling things that we can’t quite get our minds around either. So I think it’s interesting for both us and other non-scientists out there.

YS: Let’s talk about computers—as I’m sure with the mention of “quantum computing” everyone’s starting to think about R2D2; so where does this go from here—what’s the limit?

DW: Well, this idea of the quantum computer, it’s based on paper; it potentially has power for certain problems where it could out-perform classical computers—PCs for example. One thing to say is that it’s extremely doubtful that even if we can solve all of the technical problems in making a quantum computer, it isn’t going to replace our classical computers. It tends to be for some specialized problems, but nevertheless, there are certain classes of important problems that it would help us with.

YS: What sorts of important problems would they help solve?

DW: One that’s kind of interesting and fueled the support for this kind of work is that in early 1995, computer theorist Peter Shores came up with the idea and showed that if we could make this kind of computer that we could efficiently factorize large numbers. What that means is that if you have a large number, that’s the product of two smaller numbers then you can solve that problem. As the numbers get very large—hundreds of digits long—this becomes intractable on a normal computer. While that sounds like a bit of an esoteric problem, in fact the security of nearly all encryption systems, such as your credit card, and of course the secret coding that goes on in the government, derives its security from the inability to factorize large numbers. So if we could make this device, obviously it has important implications in that way. This is one thing that got certain people interested and certainly turned this into something for us and a lot of other groups. But most physicists—most scientists—look at how, if we can make this device, it can solve certain problems that are intractable on a normal computer. For example, it’ll let us solve certain problems in physics that we can’t solve now on a more far-reaching scale; it’ll help us solve how certain molecules behave and this is certainly important in the case of drugs and medicine and things like that. So I think we’re hoping in the near-term with problems like that.

YS: At NIST, you have CU grad students working with you. Looking back at your own career—following that straight arrow on your own path—what is it that makes a great scientist.

DW: Honestly, I don’t know whether I’d put myself in the category of great. I’ve been lucky to work with a lot of really good colleagues and you don’t have to be Albert Einstein—I certainly wouldn’t put myself in his category. You don’t have to be some genius like that. It’s just a matter of spending enough time working at it and just persevering until you solve the problem that you’re working on. It often doesn’t come easy, but if you just keep working at it, you’ll generally find success that way. Often I’m asked what advice I can give to young people and I don’t think there’s any magic potion here; if you just find something you like, you can usually have success – you just gotta work hard at it. … You just have to put your mind to it and things will generally fall together.

YS: Speaking of great colleagues, you’re accepting this Nobel Prize along with Serge Haroche. You’ve mentioned there’s a bit of a friendly competition between the two of you.

DW: I suppose I should qualify that a little: I wouldn’t say that there has really been direct competition with him. Although we’re working on similar problems, the techniques we use are different enough that I wouldn’t call it a direct competition. Maybe I did mention that in the press conference that there are groups – probably over 30 groups – throughout the world that are doing very similar things as what we’re working on. And you know there is a competition between these groups, but I would say that by and large it’s kept at a friendly level—we don’t try to kill each other off. For example, two of the larger groups in the world right now working on this, I am good friends and remain good friends with the leaders of those groups. So sure it is competitive and we can’t always be the winner. They are certainly better at some things than we are, but I think it’s been a friendly competition that helps things
go forward.