A Universe Programmed with Strings of Qubits by Philip Gibbs

In 2006, I predicted the perfect fluid based on my C-field theory. It is beyond me why most physicists would rather speculate on unseen entities based on unreal mathematics instead of examining real fields with real Yang-Mills non-linearities that account for most of the real mysteries of current physics, while not requiring any new particles. I suspect it has to do with both education/brainwashing and with the remark made below that "[one] wonders if theories get shot down for contradicting some minor tenet of a rival theory, and not for contradicting its own premises or experimental results?"

I am also puzzled that so many focus on speculative physics while literally ignoring known facts that are clearly telling us real non-speculative physics. There is clearly as much psychology as physics at play here.

As for science being "not so much about coming to know everything, but knowing about something relatively well" that may be a technologist's perspective but it is certainly not that of all physicists.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Phil "...the expert consensus is right, but not always"

A consensus could be very wrong - vide a whole gamut of ideas from the phlogiston to you name it . And what about now - is there an expert consensus? From all that I gathers physics is like the Tower of Babel, people talking in different language. Nature cannot be that multilingual, I think it acts in a simple direct way - like your qubits for example.

The geometry and the algebras are purely linked in the sphere.

Steve

Excellent paper, a work of science and not science fiction. It is nice to read a paper written by someone with a full grasp of current theory that is intended for a general audience and is sufficiently technical to justify its statements, but not so technical as to lose its dramatic story.

My question is whether you think one could see the appearance of effects analogous to gravity for quantum computers with 4N qubits?

It's certainly an interesting question. I agree that if P=NP the implications for computational algorithms are huge. I am not so sure that it would affect physics in a profound way. The P=NP question is about algorithms which search a large space of possible solutions, so that a solution may take a long time to find, but once found it can be checked quickly. If the universe operates like a computer or quantum computer it is unlikely to be running an algorthim of that type. More likely it will be just constructing solutions to some kind of evolution equation. This could take a lot of computation, but the only way to check the answer is to rerun the whole thing in full. P=NP does not tell you anything about that kind of algorithm.

In any case, most people believe that N!=NP. It is just too much to hope that a discovery could be made that would make us "almost like gods". It is a question that will be very hard to settle because it says so much about so many different things.

Dear Sir,

Let us make a one US Dollar bet. LHC will not repeat not find Higg's Boson even after 100 years and hundred upgradations.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

Your post does not address the point raised by us. How do you define "sound mathematics?" What we meant to say is that the "mathematics" of physicists is unmathematical. It is more of a manipulation of numbers to suit one's convenience. A proof of this is the plethora of theories and interpretations that go in the name of Quantum Theory. Most of what is called as "mathematics" in modern science fails the test of logical consistency that is a corner stone for judging the truth content of a mathematical statement. For example, you do not define infinity - it is not a big number. All mathematical operations involving infinity is void. Thus, renormalization is not mathematical.

The Schrödinger equation was devised to find the probability of finding the particle in the narrow region between x and x+dx, which is denoted by P(x) dx. The function P(x) is the probability distribution function or probability density, which is found from the wave function ψ(x) in the equation P(x) = [ψ(x)]2. The wave function is determined by solving the Schrödinger's differential equation: d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0, where E is the total energy of the system and V(x) is the potential energy of the system. By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The equation is also written as iħ ∂/∂t|ψ› = H|ψ›, where the left hand side represents iħ times the rate of change with time of a state vector. The right hand side equates this with the effect of an operator, the Hamiltonian, which is the observable corresponding to the energy of the system under consideration. The symbol ψ indicates that it is a generalization of Schrödinger's wave-function. The way the equation has been written, it appears to be an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation to the three spatial dimensions does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A third order equation implies volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume and neither x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z) nor x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z). Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation.

The probability calculations needed to work out the chance of finding an electron (say) in a particular place at a particular time actually depend on calculating the square of the complex number corresponding to that particular state of the electron. But calculating the square of a complex variable does not simply mean multiplying it by itself since it is not the same as a real number. Instead, another variable, a mirror image version called the complex conjugate is considered, by changing the sign in front of the imaginary part (if it was + it becomes - and vice versa). The two complex numbers are then multiplied together to give the probability. This shows that, truly it is not squaring, but a mathematical manipulation as the negative sign implies physical non-existence of the second term like the physical non-existence of a mirror image. If A has 5 apples and he gives it to B, then only B has those five apples and A is said to have -5 apples to signify his ownership of the five apples physically with B. Similarly, the mirror image does not make two objects, but only one real object and the other physically non-existent image. This is not mathematics, as mathematics deals with numbers, which is a characteristic of physical objects. Similarly, mathematically all operations involving infinity are void. Hence renormalization is not mathematical. The brute force approach where several parameters are arbitrarily reduced to zero or unity is again not mathematical, as the special conditions that govern the equality sign for balancing cause and effect are ignored. The arbitrary changes change the characteristic of the system. If we treat the length of all fingers as unity, then we cannot hold an object properly. There are innumerable instances of un-mathematical manipulation in the name of mathematics.

The requirement that all fundamental theories be presented within a concise mathematical framework virtually prevented serious theoretician from ever considering a non-field theory because of its mathematical complexities. The "mathematics" involved in field theories to describe events are simple and concise when compared with the "mathematics" of the same event in non-field terminology. Non-field theories are denied serious consideration because they cannot be given a precise mathematical description. Even if someone was able to develop a precise set of non-field equations, they would likely be so complex, mystifying and un-mathematical that only few mathematicians would be able to understand them.

Kindly clarify the points raised above.

Regards, basudeba

You are not alone in being skeptical about the Higgs Boson, some high profile physicists are too. Stephen Hawking has predicted its non-existence and Veltman whose Nobel prize was given for work related to the Higgs Boson is said to not believe in it.

If the Higgs boson is not there then the LHC will still tell us that because there are limits to how high its mass cam be. Not finding the Higgs Boson therefore still counts as finding "something new". It would tell us that the Standard Model is wrong in a way we least expected. There are a few theories for how that might happen but none of them are very good.

I don't think it is a very likely outcome but I am not one for making bets.

Dear Sir,

Please pardon us for telling so. But your post is highly optimistic while side-stepping the main issues.

We do not subscribe to string theory in its present form. We do not believe Higg's boson or graviton will ever be discovered. But as we have hinted in our essay, we have developed an alternative model from fundamental principles, which give the following testable predictions:

1. The accepted value of the electric charge of quarks contains an error element of 3%. In stead of +⅔ and -⅓, it should be +7/11 and -4/11. Thus, taking the measured charge of electrons as the unit, the value of the electric charge of protons is +10/11 and that of neutrons -1/11. The residual negative charge is not apparent as negative charge always confines positive charge and flows towards the concentration of positive charge - nucleus. Hence it is not felt outside. It is not revealed in measurement due to the nature of calibration of the measuring instruments. This excess negative charge confines the positive charge (nearly 2000 times in magnitude) which is revealed in atomic explosions. Charge neutral only means the number of protons and electrons are equal.

2. The value of the gravitational constant G is not the same for all systems. Just like the value for acceleration due to gravity g varies from position to position, the value of G also varies between systems. Gravity is not a single force, but a composite force of seven that act together separately on micro and the macro systems. Only this can explain the Pioneer Anomaly, which even MOND has failed to explain. Similarly, it can explain the sudden change of direction of the Voyager space crafts after the orbit of Saturn and the Fly-by anomalies.

3. The value of the fine-structure constant α that determines the electromagnetic field strength as calculated by us theoretically from our atomic orbital theory is 7/960 (1/137) when correlated to the strong interaction (so-called zero energy level) and 7/900 (1/128) when correlated to the weak interaction (80 GeV level). There are 5 more values that determine the structure of the orbitals in the atomic spectra. Hence the physically available values of the s orbitals (principal quantum number) are restricted to n = 7, though theoretically, it can have any positive integer value.

4. There is nothing like Lorentz variant inertial mass. It has never been proved.

5. We do not subscribe to the modern view of fields. We believe in only two types of fields hinted in our essay.

Regards,

basudeba.

Many Thanks Sir,

basudeba

Part of the problem for me is that you're "going inside" the qubit and assuming (because the mathematics of ST encourages one to do so) layers of information and information processing which we simply cannot detect in physical reality.

A guy I profoundly respect, Hans C. von Baeyer, gets rhapsodic about the qubit. He sees a peeled grape, translucent, shimmering, pregnant with mystery, possibly comprising a literal microcosm. It's all there! Then you measure the thing and, as he says, "All you get is one lousy bit. It's such a waste."

Of course it is. But he's of the IQOQI school and realizes that what you get is what you get.

It is likely that the landscape problem is NP. The possible configurations on the landscape determine different actions, and the Euclideanized path integral or partition function e^S is similar to the problem of ordering the set of possible microstates uniquely instead of coarse graining them up. The attempt at a proof P!=NP by Deolalikar uses thermodynamic or stat mech arguments. I am not aware of the status of this proof at this time, though I think people did find problems with it.

The quantum computer does not make P = NP, but rather quantum computers solve bounded polynomial problems in PSPACE that most likely do not intersect the NP set of problems. I have thought that generalizations such as the Tsirelson bound and the PR box would maybe solve NP complete problems. However, this is a problematic structure --- though it might play a role in quantum gravity. Quantum mechanics has this Fubini-Study metric for the fibration of the Hilbert space with the projective Hilbert space. This results in the Berry phase and the uncertainty principle, which gives rise to the nonlocal properties of QM.

With respect to the landscape problem, which might be NP, the grand quantum computer is probably some pure state with a very small summation of eigenmodes. After all string theory has far few degrees of freedom than LQG, and strings as quantum bits means the actual computation space is very small. So while we may observe from some local perspective that these problems seem immense, in fact the total number of degrees of freedom is actually very small and only appears large because we are observing nature partially in some entanglement. By T-duality the number of modes corresponds to winding numbers on compactified spaces, such as Calabi-Yau manifolds. However, the singular points or cusps on those spaces may just be entangled states within a quantum computation which transforms between these spaces as conifold maps --- quantum conifolds!

There is a hierarchy of problems, which leads all the way to the undecidability problems of Turing's Halting problem and Godel's proofs. The matter of P != NP are lower on that hierarchy. The matter of "being as gods" would to my mind be a time where there is some unification of mathematics which removes the barriers to Hilbert's 23 problems presented by Godel. I doubt that will happen.

Cheers LC

"The quantum computer does not make P = NP, but rather quantum computers solve bounded polynomial problems in PSPACE that most likely do not intersect the NP set of problems."

Those would be resource-intensive problems that classical computers could in theory solve also but not efficiently. So I believe you're right. The consensus is that a quantum computer is (or would be) a seriously souped-up classical computer. The fact that NP is in PSPACE means (I think) that individual NP problems are "solvable" by brute force iteration, oracular relativization, magic coins, processes that can yield recognizable solutions but not specific compressed information in the sense of algorithms that you can apply to the next problems you confront, much less use to reverse engineer the universe. The fact that P is in NP is trivial, one is told, but surely nothing is more interesting or important or nontrivial than whether or not NP might be P. If that's the case then all information is (or ought to be) compressible. We WOULD be almost like gods. (Aaronson's point there is that he doesn't believe it'll happen ... that's the NP-hardness assumption. Which frankly seems only reasonable.)

Of course the P/NP problem has a precise mathematical formulation and could only be resolved mathematically. Some math that would be. But that doesn't mean it carries no ontological implications. Gödel inferentially touched on that in his letter to von Neumann in the 1950's (unearthed in the 90's after the problem had already been stated). It's worth reading, and Gödel explicitly notes the Entscheidungsproblem:

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/the-gdel-letter/

Most readers could probably spot the space, but:

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/the-gdel-letter/

I must confess that I wasn't thinking about a "Theory of Theories". My only thought at the time of the question was whether we would expect a quantum computer to produce results that include effects of gravity as an intrinsic output. For instance, if we were able to have sufficient precision, would a simulation of H2 using a quantum computer have gravity effects including into output even if the specific quantum algorithm was not designed to include those effects? It would seem that if we are to link spacetime to entanglement then we can not remove effects of QG without an appropriate correction (not sure if that is simular to the correction codes you are referring too).

Theory of Theories idea is interesting, and I would offer that one unifying concept in a theory of theories is that of ordering. Any non constant variable using any set of values that can correspond to numbers can be placed in some order. A cumulative sum of the values of the variables will always have some curvature (possibly none).

I think the idea of understanding vacua as programs is interesting. The notion that there is a code for the vacua is also interesting. I have to admit I didn't think about it along those lines until reading your article. I agree that a 200 byte program is not particularly complex, and certainly the set of meaningful programs can only be addressed by understanding the language or semantic problem associated with communication theory. To that end I can only offer the suggestion that its a question of the effectiveness of the information in the program. In that sense, we should think that there should be some language that maximizes the effect of the program in question, and it would seem that if we know that language, we could understand better what choices of programs are possible. In some sense we may need to look at approaches that maximize redundancy. I am not sure how far that treads into anthropic notions, where the observer in effect is somehow choosing the language and program that makes themselves possible, but again, we have to remember that the universe is what is ultimately observing itself, so it isn't really a question of human perception.

Just my thoughts.

I have to confess that I am no expert on these matters. I honestly have what might be called an introductory knowledge. To clarify things a bit the bounded quantum polynomial (BQP) algorithms a quantum computer can solve contain P-problems and BPQ is contained in NP, but probably not NP-complete = NP ∩ NP-hard.

I tend to think that P != NP. The reason is that an NP problem will run for a finite time, though it could be enormously large, and if P = NP it would seem to imply that there exists a P-Turing machine which could access the problem and determine the space/time bound of the problem in P. The only way I think this could be done is if there is an oracle input which feeds the solution to the P-TM.

The P = NP problem is important for physics, but it may not be crucial. The reason is that one can largely capture the important elements of physics in ways similar to coarse graining. Statistical mechanics involves a measure over Ω, S = log(Ω). The course graining invokes a "log" which washes out the intractable problem of computing every microstate.

Again I am rather inexperienced with algorithmic complexity theory. So these musings are at best proximal to the subject.

Cheers LC

Phil

Kilgore

When you reach the last Theory and the last smallest byte in the chain one can paraphrase the phrase

[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message_(phrase)]"the medium is the message"[/link] to read "nature is the theory". Does this help?

Oops sorry I sent a post with html tags by mistake and it was garbled.I meant to say:

Phil "...Theory of Theories"

Kilgore ".. the universe is what is ultimately observing itself, so it isn't really a question of human perception."

When you reach the last theory and the 'last' byte in the chain one can paraphrase McLuhan's phrase "the medium is the message" to read "nature is the theory". It has to be that simple.

HIHI a Theory of Theories.you say dear scientists I have an idea,wait ..I know Let's name it"THE THEORY"

Here is its real name ...THE THEORY OF SPHERIZATION A GUT OF SPINNING SPHERES....EUREKA also of course .

FROM BELGIUM

A simple gauge quantum spheres....cosmological spheres ....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.

I make a little pub for my little theory of evolution.

and of course a string is divisible,a sphere no!!!!

Regards

Steve