# Is it conceivable at all that the standard model of physics can outperform a quantum computer in any sense?

The Standard Model of physics (the mathematical model which predicts the Higg's boson) is, as far as I understand, our most complete model of the universe. That is to say, it is the best description of the mathematical game to be played to make predictions on the outcome of experiments performed in our Universe.

As I understand it, quantum physics, used to create models of quantum computation (as used, for example, in the construction of Shor's algorithm) is a mathematical game contained within the Standard Model. Thus, in this sense the Standard Model is a generalization of quantum physics.

Is it at all conceivable that the Standard Model can allow for the construction of more general Standard Model computers? Or is there an obvious reason why quantum physics extracts all the benefit modern physics brings over classical models of computation and thus computer scientists should only reason according to quantum physics? Has any fundamental work been done on this? Is my question even well posed? Supposing that a Standard Model of physics computer could be a well-posed mathematical object more general than quantum computers, is there any reason at all to think that there could be any use to reasoning about that? Has there been any work done related to this question?

More informally, you might think of this question as something of the form "could we make a 'Higg's Boson' computer?" a rather natural justification for research in particle physics. Note that I know very little of the Standard Model (but a good deal about quantum physics) so this question might be ill posed, and if so, knowing that would be a clarification of my understanding.

• @Chris: Where did you get $O(n^{1000})$ from in your last comment? There's going to be some polynomial penalty for simulating quantum field theory, but I very much doubt it is $O(n^{1000})$. And nothing is proved for the Standard Model; just for much simpler quantum field theories. – Peter Shor Jun 1 '15 at 19:50