Essay Abstract

Can one distinguish in principle between the results of quantum computing based on the idea of quantum entanglement, and those of any other oracle? We examine the role of physical information in computation and computability, and whether the most popular idea of quantum computing is compatible with the physical principle of thermodynamics.

Author Bio

A technical writer and editor by trade, Tom Ray is an independent researcher with a primary interest in the mathematics of complex systems.

Download Essay PDF File

I second that..

Welcome Tom! It is good to see you made it into the contest. I'll have to read and see what refinements were added in the final draft.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thomas,

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

I can see that you, as most others, have, unfortunately, been 'baptized' by a score of one: I can tell you that this time this practice came back with a vengeance (which is only to be expected).

Hi all,

Lev, Jonathan, James Lee ... thanks for the moral support -- I'm sure we'll have a great dialogue.

Who *is* that jerk? I can make a good guess. Well, I suppose if we agree to enter, we have to suck up the bad with the good.

All best,

Tom

Dear Tom

Congratulations for your essay. You tackled so many subjects, but all somehow related to probability. I could not comment with any confidence on your conception of orthogonal continuity/discreteness and other ideas, but your approach is sufficiently different from mine - a bottom-up modelling based on ordered transfer of angular momentum in a lattice, that I will simply and sincerely wish you the best in this contest.

Oh and I know that "Time after Time" song - someone should write an essay about the connections between physics and music - Newton's color scale, Einstein's violin playing, Pythagoros' scale, The Itsy Bitsy 'connection' Feynman's discovery of Tuvan throat singing, etc!

Vladimir

    Hi Vladimir,

    Thanks for reading, and for being old enough to remember that silly song. I tried without success to find a reference to it.

    My essay is not about probability per se. It's about the hazards of applying probability theory to the computation of deterministic measures. We would probably all agree that 2 2 = 4, right? Could we agree so confidently on the representation of the outcome -- {1,3}, {2,2}, {3,1}, {0,4}, {4,0}, {1,1,1,1}? Maybe if we all got together and compared our simple sets we might conclude that they are identical; would we likewise agree that *War and Peace* is identical to *Slaughterhouse Five*? (see my technical note.)

    The overreach of quantum computing based on wavefunction collapse and superposition dramatizes how little we know of numerical implementation of linearly superposed quantities. That's one reason I have such high regard for Lev Goldfarb's program, which differentiates sets of characteristics by a time-structured order which is not accommodated in a static mathematical model.

    Looking forward to reading your paper as always!

    All best,

    Tom

    Dear Tom,

    Thank you for such a thought provoking essay here. It is an unknown possibility to combine Quantum computing with classical thermodynamics, quite interesting.

    But why are you entangling your excellent essay with 'SPACETIME'. Why don't you consider taking space as space and time as time..........

    Mean while...

    I am requesting you to go through my essay also and give your blessings. 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.

      SNP,

      Thank you for reading and commenting. You ask, "Why don't you consider taking space as space and time as time ..."

      Quantum mechanics in the Hilbert space already takes space as space, by 2-dimensional complex analysis, without a time parameter. That is, in the complex plane where points are analyzed as lines, any representation of time is necessarily unitary, a point where t = 1 for every discrete measurement.

      Classical mechanics of continuous measurement functions must include a simple time parameter of reversible trajectory (so that the equations of motion are as valid in reverse as forward in time). Equations of motion in quantum mechanics are replaced by evolution of the state vector and classical time drops out of the equations altogether.

      Hermann Minkowski showed mathematically, and Einstein co-opted for physical applications, the model of a continuous spacetime -- IOW, neither space nor time by themselves are physically real (Galilean-Newtonian physics); the physically real entity is spacetime (relativistic physics), a theoretical fact which is experimentally valid and not falsified.

      Just as I question whether quantum computing (at least, a quantum computation model that depends on entanglement and superposition) can overcome thermodynamic decoherence, I question whether any complete physical theory can be non-relativistic.

      I'll read and comment in your forum when I can.

      Best,

      Tom

      Lev, am I missing something? The link says no such page exists. The date (1947) could be right. I don't know, it was just a silly thing, a fleeting novelty I think.

      Here it is again:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_(1947_song)

      Hello Tom,

      Just to share a few words of encouragement essay...

      And I like that part of starting Schrödinger's experiment with a

      dead cat! Never had that before.

      Since superposition of a dead/alive cat has been advocated, I wonder whether dead cats can also be resurrected by Quantum measurement and Participatory observers since the probability of 'wave function' collapsing and cat in alive state is not zero.

      Certainly, a riddle/ gedanken experimenten for Quantum mechanics and Quantum computing with Qbits to resolve.

      You may wish to evaluate my essay, if you get the time. Criticism and disproof of my arguments are particularly welcome.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

        Hi Akinbo,

        Thanks for reading and commenting. You write, " ... I wonder whether dead cats can also be resurrected by Quantum measurement and Participatory observers ..."

        Sure they can, in infinite time. Frank Tipler examined this consequence thoroughly in *The Physics of Immortality.* All experiments, however, are conducted in finite time. Without the ability to make closed judgments, we really know nothing at all in any objective way.

        "... since the probability of 'wave function' collapsing and cat in alive state is not zero."

        If the probability of wave function collapse is zero, however, there is also zero probability that the cat exists either in superposition or in a perpetual state of "death." This is the principle (noncollapse) that supports Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum theory -- I agree with Hawking's purported opinion that Everett's interpretation is trivially true, because it follows from what we do know, objectively, of quantum mechanical results, without adding the mysticism of entanglement, superposition and nonlocality.

        I'll read and comment on your essay when I can.

        Best,

        Tom

        4 days later

        Tom,

        The density and regularity of pleasant surprises was shocking and far greater than expectations, but I commend your deep and careful thought and logic as much as the consistent conclusions and clarity of style.

        But is it you whose evolved your views or just me Tom? Or perhaps it's 'just my magination running away with me', but the consistency of our conclusions, if from entirely different approaches, is not something I expected at all. There were a few nice original surprises of content too. 'It' was even a 'bit' like opening presents for all at Christmas, but with some for me too. Ever played Santa before?

        I also found the content eminently more readable than in previous years, but the nicest part, though I know we shouldn't be judging on such grounds, is that I could find nothing to actually dispute. Details perhaps, ..but life's far too short! (I was even blogging recently in APS (Theo.Phys) suggesting annihilation without radiation!)

        I do hope you find you can say the same of my essay, a little more (too?) dense perhaps in constructing an ontology to derive the same result. It's certainly written in a different dialect, but the world is locally real. You'll find Bill McHarris also agrees. I look forward to your always critical review and comment. Mind you, ..I'm now far less sure you'll object and reject so much!

        Congratulations on yours, and the genuinely important 'findings' you present. I hope and expect you to achieve a far higher place this year which, unless I've horribly misread it, will be richly deserved.

        very best wishes

        Peter

          Hi Peter,

          You silver tongued devil! :-)

          Actually, it's Lucien Hardy who's responsible for the idea of particle-antiparticle interaction without annihilation.

          The reason I didn't reference him in my essay is that Hardy's is a probabilistic argument, and I don't grok the measurement process. However, it seems to assume discrete particles, while my continuous function model (it from bit in one direction and bit from it in the orthogonal direction) assumes no particles in a discrete state, only conservation of angular momentum potentially scalable to infinity.

          Of course, I will read and comment on your essay as soon as I can. It will be fun, as always.

          Best,

          Tom

          Lev,

          Okay, I got to the link. No, the song I'm talking about is not the famous standard. It's just a continuous repeating of

          Time after time after time after time after time after time after time ...

          After time after time after time.

          (refrain)

          Time after time

          After time after time after time.

          :-)

          Hi Tom,

          I found the essay excellent, and I will have some comments. But since you talk about a condensate in the primordial universe I wanted to alert you to the essay of Royce Haynes, whose Zero K Big Bang model deserves inspection. Of course; he treats the bosonic case, where you are talking about a fermionic condensate.

          I first heard about a fermionic condensate from Phil Mannheim at CCC-2, in relation to his conformal quantum gravity, and Gerard 't Hooft commented about this work, in his recent F of P article calling for theories of particle Physics with no adjusting parameters put in by hand. Tony Smith also likes the idea of a fermionic condensate, but his reasoning is somewhat unclear to me. Your paper, on the other hand, makes a good case for why a fermionic condensate is a good spacetime model.

          More later,

          Jonathan