Bit from it. Mathematical Clarification by Michael Alexeevich Popov

Peter,

I agree that your hypothetical quantum computer (HQC) requires a set of coupled quantum bits ( IQbits ) with control gates to manipulate them. You predicted also that such HQC can test some theorems of quantum theory and philosophy.May be.

Today, however, the most promising candidates for the role of quantum bits come from the field of solid state superconducting qubits ( phase, flux and transmon qubits ). 2000-2013 experiments have shown how to entangle and operate these qubits in lab. In fact, my lemmas of mysterious "complex algebra of qubits " attempt to construct new kinds of qubits ( in particular, lemma 11 has exact correspondence with so-called " the flux qubit " ( superconducting qubit) which is based on idea of the cycle in laboratories of Jale,Santa-Barbara,Karlsruhe and Skolkovo.

I believe that mathematical construction of new kinds of qubits and superposition experiments ( in my lab ) may open ways to future quantum computations, having some unexpected applications even in astrophysics.

Respectfully

Michael

mchlpopov@yahoo.co.uk

Vladimir,

Thank You. Vitaly Ginzburg published my article in Uspekhi Physics ( Dec 2003 :173,1382-1384 )I await new website for my lab soon.

Michael

mchlpopov@yahoo.co.uk

Vladimir,

General.

I consider Ludwig D.Faddeev as an anthropologist of science, investigated cross-cultural differences between physical and mathematical research cultures. Indeed, Physics is not Mathematics, but their dialogue contains metaheuristics and moreover it is very important for human progress. After Einstein's historical attempts to produce a new kind of "true" physical mathematics for scientists, some physicists, nevertheless, realized that correct mathematics is very important in theoretical physics. Schrodinger and Heisenberg attempted to introduce correct imaginary numbers in 1920s. It was, may be, the beginning of quantum revolution and Ludwig Faddeev in his "intuitive " Mathematical Physics tries to continue such sort of non-Einstein tradition.

Of course, Einstein tradition had own destructive development in XX century as well ( as is known, Landau suggested that true place of mathematics is merely just sport ( "The Hamiltonian is dead " ), and, even recently, David Deutsch suggests that Kurt Godel discovered that " almost all mathematical truths have no proofs. They are unprovable truths"["The Beginning of Infinity. Explanations that Transform the World" ( Allen Lane 2011)p.184]

It is not surprisingly, hence, that some authors of FQXi 2013 contest try to reproduce similar ( Einstein- Landau like ) ideas in different forms for different readers ( mathe- matics has dramatic limits , logarithmic nature of bit is not important, primitive binary arithmetic is foundation of Future Everything theory, " modern definition of information is exactly this : the information content of an event is proportional to the log of its inverse probability of occurrence I = log 1/p ", "we can apply this definition to every event", " information underlies every process we see in nature " etc etc.

Special.

Indeed, because all chemical properties can be derived from the Schrodinger equation for a system of electrons and nuclei, we may say that the fundamental

laws of chemistry in a narrow sense are "already known". Thus, hence, similar future could be expected for fundamental physics as well. In this context, Ludwig Faddeev is probably exact, but problem is what kind of equations , what kind of mathematics, what kind of numbers we await to discover in future?. Generally speaking, Faddeev's

Mathematical Physics is based mainly on geometry and mathematics of quantum theory ( functional analysis, spectral theory of operators in Hilbert space, math theory of scattering, theory of Lie groups and Lie representations, theory of Schrodinger operator, etc ). In comparison with F'MP my modest experience in number theory suggests that we can await that new discoveries in pure mathematics of complex numbers ( solution of Riemann problem, understanding of Schrodinger-Heisenberg intuitive complex algebra, quantum understanding of dilogarithms , etc ) can provide true heuristics for future development of mathematical physics.

Particular.

My idealism is inspired by HRM number theory, and in Uspekhi Physics article ( 2003 ) I assumed that only Humans and post - Humans are able to activate some pure mathematical ideas, architectures, patterns, theorems and objects of Nature ( similar conclusion could be made for mathematical physics also ). In this sense, future development of the Universe is observer-dependent.

Michael

SOME DEFINITIONS.

Dear professor Corda,

Because FQXi contest is not pure scientific forum, I'd like to introduce some common definitions on BHIP ( may be, for readers - poets and philosophers if You agree )

Following Hawking, the black hole (BH) information paradox started in 1967 when Werner Israel showed that the Schwarzschild metric was the only static vacuum black hole solution. Later generalizations showed that all information ( i.e. hypothetical quantities about the collapsing body , which we can define as "pseudo-bits of BH information ") ) was lost from the outside region apart from three conserved quantities: the mass, the angular momentum, and the electric charge. This loss of pseudo-bits of information wasn't a problem in the classical theory ( A classical black hole would exist for ever and the information could be thought of as preserved inside it, but just not very accessible ). However, the situation changed when Hawking discovered that quantum effects would cause a black hole to radiate at a steady rate Such sort of the radiation from the black hole would be completely thermal and would carry no pseudo-bits of information. Hence, as is known,

BHI PARADOX : What would happen to all that pseudo-bits of information locked inside a black hole that evaporated away and disappeared completely? It seemed the only way the information could come out would be if the radiation was not exactly thermal but had subtle correlations. No one has found a mechanism to produce correlations but most physicists believe one must exist.

Hawking predicted that if information were lost in black holes, pure quantum states would decay into mixed states and quantum gravity wouldn't be unitary.(1975)

In other words, any information that falls in a black hole ( in anti de Sitter space ) must come out again. But it still wasn't clear how information could get out of a black hole. Later Hawking (and Hartle ) showed that the radiation could be thought of as tunnelling out from inside the black hole." It was therefore not unreasonable to suppose that it could carry information out of the black hole.

As the next step, as is known, Hawking invented new

LAW OF INFORMATION CONSERVATION:"The information remains firmly in our universe. Thus, If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which contains the information about what you were like but in a state where it can not be easily recognized. It is like burning an encyclopaedia. Information is not lost, if one keeps the smoke and the ashes. But it is difficult to read. In practice, it would be too difficult to re-build a macroscopic object like an encyclopaedia that fell inside a black hole from information in the radiation, but the information preserving result is important for microscopic processes involving virtual black holes. If these had not been unitary, there would have been observable effects, like the decay of baryons" ( 2005 )

Let us take here initial definition of Shannon's foundational principle : "One device with two stable positions can store one bit of information, correspondingly, n such devices can store n bits, since the total number of possible states is 2ⁿ and log 2 2ⁿ = n " (1948). Thus, using Shannon-like association between bit and "one device with two stable positions" ( transistor), we can make global generalizations on entity Information in theoretical physics and philosophy of physics. For example,

we always can translate Hawking law of information conservation in the following form :

Universe could be considered as a set of transistors with two at least stable positions which can store n bit of information. Because it is based on analogy, we can say that the Universe as a set of transistors can store n pseudo-bit of information. Pseudo-bit information remains firmly in our universe. Thus, If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which contains the pseudo-bits of information about what you were like but in a state where it can not be easily recognized. It is like burning an encyclopaedia ( another poetical metaphor ) Information is not lost, if one keeps the smoke and the ashes. But it is difficult to read because there is no such thing as physical measurement of pseudo-bits of BH thermal radiation ( thermal information ). Hence, thus, BHIP could be understood also as pseudo-problem, indeed.

As a consequence, your mathematical solution of BHIP based on non-Weyl solution of Schrodinger equation cannot provide final resolution of this kind of pseudo-problem.

(copy of the comment to Ch Corda)

Gennady,

Doubters may suggest that in comparison with energy conservation law, Hawking's law of information conservation (The information remains firmly in our universe. Thus, If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which contains the information about what you were like but in a state where it can not be easily recognized( 2005 )) can be violated ? Moreover, there is no such thing as physical measurement of bits of thermal information in physics .

( copy of comment for Gennady Gorelik )

Dear Helmut,

I have some doubts on 'In physics everything is basically bi-polar energy '? As is known, Levi-Strauss, founder of French structuralism ,showed that the whole structure of primitive thought is binary as well. However, tendency to operate with binary counters in all situations in physics could be understood also as taking simplification seriously ?

( copy of comment for H.A.von Schweizer )

Dear Jan,

my remark :

Shannon and Other Structuralisms

In comparison with Wheeler Structuralism ( 0-1 structure underpins all of our data and all our sciences ) and Category Structuralism ( by Roman Jakobson, Levi-Strauss, Burbaki, Abramsky and Coecke ) where the universals of human culture exist only at the level of structure,'culinary triangles' or other intuitive ordered things ; Shannon bits mathematics is pure mathematics. Shannon mathematical assumption is based on elementary algebra of common logarithm logax, where the logarithm of x to the base 2 is defined by the equation y = log2 x. This definition is of course applicable only when y is RATIONAL NUMBER. Beyond Shannon rational bits there exists new world of real, irrational, imaginary and complex bits, the world of Weierstrass theorem and the world of real lines contained infinitely many imaginary bits.

Thus, it could be difficult to find real differences between Wheeler binarism and Alternative Gospel of structures , indeed. In fact, similarity between Wheeler and Topos Gospel by Doring & Isham philosophies are obvious.

(Copy of comment for Jan Durham ).

Michel,

I count myself fortunate to find your recent arXiv articles on Riemann conjecture and its quantum simulations.I try to make something similar but merely in the context of post - quantum cryptology. My initial result ( published in 1999 in France )is connected with introduction of periodic perfect numbers(Bull Sci math 1999,123,29-31),hence, new definitions of prime number theorem, cubic groups and quantum one-way function( Cryptology ePrint Archive, 653/2010 ) are arising. I had found that your attempt to formulate Riemann hypothesis as a property of the low temperature Kubo-Martin-Schwinger states is very original. Your last articles also suggest that beyond very popular Wheeler delusion there exist new world of unknown mathematics and unexpected physics.

best

Michael