Essay Abstract

It is shown that there exists a mapping between the fermions of the Standard Model (SM) represented as braids in the Bilson-Thompson model, and a set of gates which can perform Universal Quantum Computation (UQC). This leads us to conjecture that the ``Computational Universe Hypothesis'' (CUH) can be given a concrete implementation in a new physical framework where elementary particles and the gauge bosons (which intermediate interactions between fermions) are interpreted as the components of a quantum computational network, with the particles serving as quantum computational gates and the gauge fields as the information carrying entities.

Author Bio

Deepak Vaid has a PhD in theoretical physics from the Pennsylvania State University. His interests are in quantum gravity, quantum computation and many-body phenomena. He has been recently appointed to the post of assistant professor in the department of physics at the National Institute of Technology, Karnataka (NITK), India.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Deepak

How your theory connected with anyons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon

Thank you

Yuri

    Dear Yuri,

    The connection with anyons is quite direct. Braiding statistics and anyonic statistics are identical. When you move two anyons (particles living in 2+1 dimensions) around each other you braid their corresponding world-lines and vice-versa.

    Deepak

    Dear Deepak

    Your essay title including "universal quantum computation" attaracted me because in my present fqxi essay I conclude that It=Qubit. This is based on my Beautiful Universe Theory BU also found here. My qualitative and preliminary theory describes how particles, radiation, dark energy and matter and the vacuum is built out of a Matrix-array of such quibits exchanging angular momentum in Planck units.

    Your essay is restricted to particles, and it is much too technical for me, but I was interested how you underlined braids and preons as possible models. In (BU) only one preon is needed, and its spin could be the 'mechanism' which makes chirality and hence braids possible.

    With best wishes,

    Vladimir

    Dear Deepak,

    It is good to see that you are from Karnataka, my home state.

    I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

    Regards and good luck in the contest.

    Sreenath BN.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

    Dear Deepak,

    Thank you for such nice essay, You concluded particle are fundamental building blocks. Here 95% 0f essays are propagating the contrary, cool, you don't like to go with the masses? I also did the same. By the way my children have houses in Bangalore.

    I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

    I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

    Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

    Best

    =snp

    snp.gupta@gmail.com

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

    Pdf download:

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

    Part of abstract:

    - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

    Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

    A

    Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

    ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

    . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

    B.

    Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

    Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

    C

    Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

    "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

    1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

    2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

    3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

    4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

    D

    Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

    It from bit - where are bit come from?

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

    ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

    Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

    E

    Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

    .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

    I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

    Dear Deepak,

    Interesting essay with a lot of references that partially support the view of the universe as a universal quantum computer.

    In

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0912.0172

    and related writings, I found a relation between three-qubit gates, E8 and the algebra of the standard model.

    The quantum computer paradigm is interesting but I work now at more exotic peculiarities of quantum computing (non-locality and contextuality). You have a preliminary account of them in my essay. Feel free to give me your opinion.

    Best wishes,

    Michel

      Deepak,

      If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

      Jim

        Dear Hong,

        Thank you for your kind words. I wish you all the best.

        Cheers,

        Deepak

        Dear Michel,

        One of your co-authors is P. Levay. Presumably this is the same Levay who has also worked with Duff on the black-hole-qubit correspondence?

        Your work and that of Duff and collaborators critically utilizes three-qubit entanglement. That is also a central-element of my essay. I am presently reading your essay and will post my comments soon.

        Thank you for taking the time to read through my work.

        Best wishes,

        Deepak

        Dear Jim or should I say Your Highness,

        From this humble subject's perspective you need not read all 120 of them, but only the one written by yours truly :D

        Deepak

        Dear Deepak,

        Yes Peter Levay is one of my collaborators. You can see a recent preprint on ArXiv with him, Metod Saniga and me. One of our current questions concern the 12096 three-qubit pentagrams.

        Best wishes,

        Michel

        Dear Deepak,

        I liked your essay. The braid operations are something I touch upon in my essay . The thrust of my argument is that this is generalized into a form of quantum homotopy with associators.

        The Bilson-Thompson model and the use of braid groups in LQG seems to have an overlap with the Seiberg-Witten theory with string theory. I have been interested in whether there is some relationship between string theory and LQG. Either they "cooperate" in some way or they are formally contradictory and one (which ever ends up with empirical support) in effect falsifies the other.

        Cheers LC

          Hi Lawrence,

          Thank you for the compliment. I haven't yet read your essay, but the abstract is certainly interesting. Your statement 'a model of the physical universe encoded by algorithmic means will not compute reality' is something I agree with. That does not, however, mean that one cannot provide a computational interpretation of physics at the level of elementary particles. Whether or not the resulting processes (or "programs") which describe macroscopic physical reality are undecidable is something we have to investigate further.

          I also agree with your assertion regarding the relationship between strings and loops. To a lay person, arguing between "strings" and "loops" must sound like an argument between "pots" and "pans". It is inconceivable, to me, that string theory and lqg have no connection. They are like fraternal twins separated at birth. One day they will have to meet and reunite!

          I'm not sure what Seiberg-Witten theory is, exactly. Witten has his name attached to so many discoveries, it can be hard to keep track of all of them. I'm looking it up. Hopefully I will learn something new :-D

          Cheers,

          Deepak

          Dear Deepak,

          Where I think things go awry is with black holes and gravity in general. We seem to have no end of trouble making gravitation work with quantum mechanics. There are a number of reasons for this. It is standard to regard QFT as an infinite set of harmonic oscillators in space. If the oscillators pertain to gravity a propagator for that field propagates that field on spacetime, which is the field. As a result there is no general diffeomorphism invariant way to assign amplitudes for quantum gravity. String theory goes somewhat in this direction with a perturbative series in a Lagrangian

          L = sqrt{-g}(R α'^2R^{abcd}R_{abcd} O(α'^4)),

          where in the end this really is a low energy form of quantum gravity. It is background dependent, giving it a certain WKB quality. With LQG the Wilson loops are over SL(2,C), which is noncompact and then gives difficulties with finding a UV finite theory.

          The incompleteness I am thinking about is with gravitation and horizons. My argument is rather heuristic, for working up explicit forms of Godel's incompleteness is a daunting problem and there are only a few cases known --- one of them by Godel in his original paper.

          Cheers LC

          Dear Deepak,

          What an excellent approach using Braiding statistics. If fermions are the gates and bosonic fields carry the information, can either be more fundamental than the other? I like anything based around dimensionality, which you will guess if you get chance to look at my essay.

          I really think you are onto something here - well done!

          Best wishes,

          Antony

          Dear Antony,

          Thanks for your kind comments. I read your essay. You present some very interesting ideas.

          Best,

          Deepak

            Hello Deepak,

            Thanks very much & glad I read your super essay. So many still to go.

            All the best for the contest,

            Antony :)

            5 days later

            Hi Deepak,

            A very interesting proposal for a computational substrate. I think it has a great deal more flexibility than the cellular automata models that are rigid with respect to space, and indeed our current computer technology with fixed circuitry.

            And that flexibility may be a problem if you try to imagine how you might "program" such a piece of hardware. As particles interact, the circuitry changes, yielding a most unruly piece of hardware. I am not sure the "software" could be expressed in a formal language as we know them, but perhaps consciousness IS the software. Essayist Stephen Lee has suggested an analogy between consciousness and a software agent in the computational model.

            In my Software Cosmos essay I take a detailed look at the computational model and simulation paradigm from the top down. Perhaps there is a way to link the top down picture with your bottom up picture.

            Hugh

              Dear Deepak. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

              Vladimir