My understanding (as a data engineer with a MSc in experimental particle physics a long time a ago), is that the math representation is structurally relatively similar, with the exception that while ML tensors are discrete, QM tensors are multi-dimensional arrays locally but are defined as a field over continous space.
Tensors in Physics are also subject to various "gauge" symmetries. That means that physical outcomes should not change if you rotate them in various ways. The most obvious is that you should be able to rotate or translate the space representation without changing the physics. (This leads to things like energy/momentum conservation).
The fundamental forces are consequences of some more abstract (at the surface) symmetries (U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3)). These are just constrains on the tensors, though. Maybe these constraints can be in the same family as backprop, though I don't know how far that analogy goes.
In terms of representation, the spacetime part of Physics Tensors is also treated as continous. Meaning that when, after doing all the matrix multiplication, you come to some aggregation step of calculations, you aggregate by integrating instead of summing over spacetime (you sum over the discrete dimensions). Obviously though, for when doing the computation in a computer, even integration reduces to summing if you don't have an exact solution.
In other words, it seems to me that what I originally replied to, namely the marvel about how much of ML is just linear algebra / matrix multiplication IS relatively analogous to how brute force numerical calculations over quantum fields would be done. (Theoretical Physicists generally want analytic solutions, though, so generally look for integrals that are analytically solvable).
Both domains have steps that are not just matrix multiplication. Specifically, Physics tend to need a sum/integral when there is an interaction or the wave function collapses (which may be the same thing). Though even sums can be expressed as dot products, I suppose.
As mentioned, Physics will try to solve a lot of the steps in calculations analytically. Often this involves decomposing integrals that cannot be solved into a sum of integrals where the lowest order ones are solvable and also tend to carry most of the probability density. This is called perturbation theory and is what gives rise to Feynmann diagrams.
One might say that for instance a convolution layer is a similar mechanic. While fully connected nets of similar depth MIGHT theoretically be able to find patterns that convolutions couldn't, they would require an impossibly large amount of compute to do so, and also make regularization harder.
Anyway, this may be a bit hand-wavy from someone who is a novice at both quantum field theory and neural nets. I'm sure there are others out there that know both fields much better than me.
Btw, while writing this, I found the following link that seems to take the analogy between quantum field theory and CNN nets quite far (I haven't had time to read it)
I browsed the linked book/article above a bit, and it's a really close analogy to how physics is presented.
That includes how it uses Group Theory (especially Lie Algebra) to describe symmetries, and to use that to explain why convolutional networks work as well as they do for problems like vision.
The notation (down to what latin and greek letters are used) makes it obvious that this was taken directly from Quantum Mechanics.
Tensors in Physics are also subject to various "gauge" symmetries. That means that physical outcomes should not change if you rotate them in various ways. The most obvious is that you should be able to rotate or translate the space representation without changing the physics. (This leads to things like energy/momentum conservation).
The fundamental forces are consequences of some more abstract (at the surface) symmetries (U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3)). These are just constrains on the tensors, though. Maybe these constraints can be in the same family as backprop, though I don't know how far that analogy goes.
In terms of representation, the spacetime part of Physics Tensors is also treated as continous. Meaning that when, after doing all the matrix multiplication, you come to some aggregation step of calculations, you aggregate by integrating instead of summing over spacetime (you sum over the discrete dimensions). Obviously though, for when doing the computation in a computer, even integration reduces to summing if you don't have an exact solution.
In other words, it seems to me that what I originally replied to, namely the marvel about how much of ML is just linear algebra / matrix multiplication IS relatively analogous to how brute force numerical calculations over quantum fields would be done. (Theoretical Physicists generally want analytic solutions, though, so generally look for integrals that are analytically solvable).
Both domains have steps that are not just matrix multiplication. Specifically, Physics tend to need a sum/integral when there is an interaction or the wave function collapses (which may be the same thing). Though even sums can be expressed as dot products, I suppose.
As mentioned, Physics will try to solve a lot of the steps in calculations analytically. Often this involves decomposing integrals that cannot be solved into a sum of integrals where the lowest order ones are solvable and also tend to carry most of the probability density. This is called perturbation theory and is what gives rise to Feynmann diagrams.
One might say that for instance a convolution layer is a similar mechanic. While fully connected nets of similar depth MIGHT theoretically be able to find patterns that convolutions couldn't, they would require an impossibly large amount of compute to do so, and also make regularization harder.
Anyway, this may be a bit hand-wavy from someone who is a novice at both quantum field theory and neural nets. I'm sure there are others out there that know both fields much better than me.
Btw, while writing this, I found the following link that seems to take the analogy between quantum field theory and CNN nets quite far (I haven't had time to read it)
https://maurice-weiler.gitlab.io/cnn_book/EquivariantAndCoor...