|
Post by Admin on May 24, 2021 0:40:59 GMT
The Flower of Life Informs All Possible Right Triangle Configurations of Factorization www.robertedwardgrant.com/post/the-flower-of-life-informs-all-possible-right-triangle-configurations-of-factorizationNEW DISCOVERY: The Flower of Life informs all possible right triangle configurations of factorization as a inherency of its wave intersections. Just as we saw in a prior (Instagram) post regarding Nature's Ruler formed solely from the Flower of Life, we are now seeing that the wave intersections of the Flower of Life are also informing the precise location of Pythagorean Right Triangles comprised of whole integers for sides A and C. This therefore allows for yet ANOTHER entirely NEW Prime Factorization methodology using only ONE circle whose Diameter is the Square Root value of the number whose prime factors you wish to identify. In the above case, the number we wish to find the prime factors of is 253, therefore the height of the Right Triangle (and our ONE Circle Flower of Life Circle Diameter) is 253^.5 (which is the square root of 253 = 15.90597372 = ONE Circle Diameter). The only Right Triangle that will possess TWO WHOLE number values for both the Base and the Hypotenuse will have the following proportional dimensions: Side A (Base) = 6 and Side C (Hypotenuse) = 17. The two prime factors are derived simply as follows: Side C - Side A = x (=11); AND Side C + Side A = y (=23). And 11 x 23 = 253. Note the small circles signifying at least two circular intersections thus informing the precise line segment placement of the Hypotenuse (and, as an extension, the relevant angular measures for both θ 7.662°; and β degree values 82.338°) --again, all of this information was obtaining using only ONE equal diameter (circle) value (informing the length of Side B) to locate the relevant wave intersections and identify the other two sides of the Right Triangle and by extension identify its two prime factors (in a deterministic manner). It is quite astounding that all current Public Key encryptions (both RSA and ECC) rely on this formerly exponential time complexity equation (called a discrete logarithm). PS: Please try this out on a Right Triangle Calculator (at calculator.net) at home....and don't forget your compass and ruler.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 26, 2021 21:37:50 GMT
What is quantum engineering? www.bristol.ac.uk/quantum-engineering/about/Quantum engineering is a revolutionary approach to quantum technology. It encompasses both fundamental physics and the broad engineering skill-set necessary to meet the practical challenges of the future. A quantum engineer will be trained to use the tools and language from quantum mechanics, electrical and electronic engineering, systems engineering and computer science as well as other physical sciences. Through world-leading academic research, as well as partnering with some of industry's most important companies, the Quantum Engineering CDT in Bristol has created an environment that delivers a unique training and development experience. Underpinned by world-class research and industrial expertise, our four-year doctoral programme offers a stimulating experience for those seeking academic excellence and a route into the growing quantum technologies industry.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 29, 2021 3:15:39 GMT
“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” – Albert Einsteiz
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 2, 2021 18:36:44 GMT
"Last year our mathematical/physics research team came to the conclusion (after reviewing some very complex and startlingly patterned ‘large number’ mathematics) that in fact, we are all simply divisions of the number ONE. x*(1/x) = 1.00–where x = any non-zero value. This works for negative and positive integers, fractions, positive, negative and even the complex and imaginary numbers. This mathematical understanding explains wave particle duality, the double slit experiment (including the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment), quantum entanglement (Einstein-Rosen Bridge), of particles, waves and even TIME itself. It has been a long time in coming for us but we finally landed on the analysis that we believe proves this highly compelling theory. From this, we can posit that All the ANSWERS ARE FOUND WITHIN THE NUMBER: A literal and very poignant METAPHOR for our lives manifesting numerically. I find it fascinating that we are now learning the ABSORPTION of Numbers through their Reciprocal Value (1/x). Since we have not looked generally beyond 10 decimal places in mathematics, we have MISSED the “Shadow” of Numbers. Analyzing 1/x strings requires a DEEP analysis into a number. A dive into its DNA. What patterns exist within it and what elements might be causing certain repetitions and cyclic behavior.
Through an integration of the Shadow by making it CONSCIOUS, we can decompose the number for must higher understanding of its fundamental properties. The same can be said for us as Human Beings, we build up our Persona/Ego (incidentally, Persona is the Latin word for 😷 MASK!) but the Subconscious can also be called the DNA of the Personality. We live our lives searching incessantly outside ourselves for answers to life’s most complex problems and so often fail to look WITHIN ourselves. By embracing and ACCEPTING our Shadow Subconscious and Unconscious Mind, we can achieve much higher awareness of ourselves and our own higher purpose and life meaning...
But wait, x*(1/x) = ONE (1.00) is an 'OBVIOUS' Equation right? Continuing the discussion of the Universal ‘Unity’ Equation from my prior post this morning: x*(1/x) = Unity (1.00), where x = any non-zero value. — Well, mathematically, YES, this appears to be OBVIOUS (and is intended to be so), but the implications of this understanding to physics and our daily experience are NOT at all obvious. Analyzing spectral analysis of Hydrogen (both reflection and absorption spectrometry), Hydrogen’s Spectral Lines (measured in nanometers (measured in ‘λ’ —wavelength) can be calculated through the Rydburg Formula (see illustration above), which is based on energy differences between levels in the Bohr Atom Model (this is a very valuable component of the Atomic Model by Niels Bohr which has otherwise been discounted, which I strongly believe deserves further and deeper investigation), and hence the wavelengths of emitted vs absorbed photons. The result yields 1/x where 'x' = λ (wavelength) and matches perfectly the spectral lines of the emission of Hydrogen when observed through a prism. This fits nicely into the model I propose of the Universal ‘Unity’ Equation: x*(1/x) = Unity (1.00) as, in this case (Hyrdogen) x = λ. And therefore it’s reciprocal (1/x) = 1/λ representing all spectral lines in the EM spectrum (visible and invisible) in the Universe that is NOT hydrogen, therefore Hydrogen’s Absorption. Hydrogen’s reflection spectra is therefore defined as “x” and it’s absorption spectra as “1/x”. As a direct metaphor, x = the Conscious Mind (the egoic 'separated' and 'finite' self--or reflected spectral lines) and 1/x = Subconscious Mind (the collective mind, 'infinite' self--absorption spectral lines). And, ONE is the Superconscious Mind, The Whole (Holy) SELF."
Could it really be this simple?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 7, 2021 11:51:35 GMT
The Dürehedron Mystery, Solved A 500-Year MYSTERY SOLVED TODAY: Albrecht Dürer's mysterious and unnamed Polyhedron (represented in his renaissance masterpiece 'Melencholia' which also conceals a MASK on one of the pentagonal faces) made up of SIX irregular Pentagons along side two equilateral triangles (8 sides in total). Albrecht Dürer, a Polymath, is often referred to as the Leonardo Da Vinci of the north--Germany. He was known to be an expert in perspective Geometry, a mentee of Luca Pacioli (also in direct contact with Leonardo Da Vinci); Pacioli co-authored the masterpiece work in perspective geometry called "Divine Proportione" with Leonardo. Durer's structure integrates elements of both 'Five-ness' (Pentagon) and 'Six-ness' (Hexagon) into one very unique Polyhedron has been the subject of centuries of investigation, it has been widely believed to be an encryption for the Philosopher's Stone--Attainment of the 34th Degree (Magic Square pictured), The Philosopher's Stone: The God-Man/Ideal Human (Vitruvian Hu-man). Like Da Vinci, Dürer was a Rosicruscian....the Dürehedron encodes the Great Pyramid Slope (51.84°) in the inner angles of its SIX irregular Pentagonal sides yielding two perfect Pyramid side faces within the the Pentagons (alongside two equilateral triangles). It also hides the "Heart" within its irregular Pentagons which also uniquely encode Pythagorean Just Tuning frequencies (A: 54hz (126--recall VM upper right corner "126"), C#: 540hz, D: 288hz, and C: 63hz, the 'α' mathematical constant, the Ω constant, φ^2, and the prime-number related ratio of 1.24x. Among the many similarities: the 'Hexapentakis' related hidden message of expanded awareness. In addition to the decryption above, I also found the Dürehedron as an inherent structure within Metatron's Cube/The Flower of Life. Dürer's ultimate symbolism and meaning behind the encryption? 'Raise the Heart/Pathos/Feminine (Pentagon)-Brain/Logos/Masculine (Hexagon) Consciousness to achieve the Alchemical Philosopher's Stone-The next evolution in Human Awareness. www.robertedwardgrant.com/post/the-du-rehedron-mystery-solved
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 9, 2021 17:42:37 GMT
Crab nebula blasted out some of highest-energy gamma rays ever seen www.newscientist.com/article/2283604-crab-nebula-blasted-out-some-of-highest-energy-gamma-rays-ever-seen/The Crab nebula is blasting high-energy gamma rays at us. Researchers using the Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO) in China have found the second highest-energy gamma ray, or photon, ever spotted coming from this region, thousands of light years away. It may help us explain how particles in space can be accelerated to such high energies. The photon that they detected had an energy of 1.1 petaelectronvolts (PeV) – that is, 1.1 million billion electronvolts. The highest was 1.4 PeV, but researchers aren’t exactly sure of its origin. The Crab nebula photon probably came from a high-energy electron in the nebula smashing into a background photon and blasting it to its extreme energy level. “The gamma rays are nothing special on their own – they are messengers carrying information about the parent electrons that are accelerated,” says Felix Aharonian at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Germany. “We can make so many important conclusions from just one gamma ray.” One of those conclusions is that the original electron had an energy around 2.3 PeV. That is more than 15 per cent above the theoretical limit of how much energy the electromagnetic fields in the Crab nebula could possibly impart to an electron. It is also more than 20,000 times higher-energy than any human-made electron accelerator has been able to reach. “Particle accelerators are the most sophisticated, complex machines we have ever made. But here, in this chaotic environment, somehow it is an ideal machine reaching the edge of what fundamental physics allows,” says Aharonian. In combination with other gamma rays with slightly lower energies, this finding indicates that the Crab nebula – the remnants of a supernova which contains a neutron star – may be accelerating more particles to ultra-high energies than our current ideas can explain. If we find more gamma rays like this, it may challenge our ideas of how these objects accelerate particles. Journal reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.abg5137
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 9, 2021 18:56:53 GMT
China plans mass rocket launch to divert asteroid that could wipe out life on Earth www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techandscience/china-plans-mass-rocket-launch-to-divert-asteroid-that-could-wipe-out-life-on-earth/ar-AALSeCIChinese researchers want to send more than 20 rockets from the country to practise diverting asteroids away from Earth. Scientists at China’s National Space Science Centre found in simulations that 23 Long March 5 rockets, which weigh 900 tonnes when they leave the planet, hitting simultaneously could divert an asteroid from its original path by nearly 9,000 kilometres – 1.4 times the Earth’s radius. The Long March 5B rocket was also the type that was infamously left free-falling by China in May this year, traveling around the world every 90 minutes – too fast for space agencies to tell where it is going to land. Fortunately, it disintegrated over the Indian Ocean. The probability of an asteroid colliding with Earth is low but one, the 78 billion kilogram Bennu, has been targeted for investigation. Bennu is classified as a B-type asteroid, which means it contains a lot of carbon along with various other minerals, formed over 4.5 billion years ago. As a primordial artefact that has been preserved by the vacuum of space, the asteroid could contain molecules that developed when life was first evolving on Earth. It might also, ironically, be the end of life on Earth. Between 2175 and 2199, Bennu will come within 7.5 million kilometres of Earth’s orbit and will be classified as potentially hazardous. Although the chance that Bennu will impact Earth is only 1-in-2700, that risk is still enough to concern scientists due to the amount of destruction the asteroid could cause. A huge amount of kinetic energy would be needed in order to divert the asteroid, but nuclear power risks breaking an asteroid like Bennu apart into chunks that could still hit the Earth. This makes sending multiple rockets, which would have to travel for three years before reaching their target, a more practical option. “[It is] possible to defend against large asteroids with a nuclear-free technique within 10 years,” said researcher Li Mingtao, quoted in the South China Morning Post. Fuel that is not used during the rocket launch could give extra thrust, as well as increasing the total mass of the rocket – making deflection more efficient. The researchers suggest that existing rockets would only require a few minor modifications, such as adding thrusters, to be ready for the mission. The United States is planning a similar endeavour called HAMMER (Hypervelocity Asteroid Mitigation Mission for Emergency Response), which would send more material - 400 tonnes of rocket material - to Bennu; it would also make the trip faster, only taking two years to reach the asteroid. However, that plan is more expensive, and would take longer to prepare. The United States would need to discover the asteroid 25 years before a potential collision, while the Chinese plan would only need a decade’s warning. Nasa also sent a spacecraft chasing after Bennu in order to collect samples from the asteroid. Osiris-Rex hovered above the asteroid before its three meter-long arm descended and collects loose particles from the rock. Nasa expects Osiris-Rex to return to Earth, with its samples, in 2023.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 10, 2021 7:25:10 GMT
CHINA SECRETLY DEVELOPED AUTONOMOUS KILLER ROBOT SUBMARINES THE AUTONOMOUS DRONE REPORTEDLY TOOK DOWN A TARGET ALL THE WAY BACK IN 2010. futurism.com/the-byte/china-developed-autonomous-killer-robot-submarinesKiller Sub The Chinese military recently declassified a decades-old program to develop robotic, uncrewed submarines that can target and fire at targets without human input. The revelation that autonomous killer drones already exist is alarming enough, but most shocking about the secret program is its timeline. The robotic submarines were reportedly built back in the 1990s, the South China Morning Post reports. The Chinese military also reportedly conducted a successful field test back in 2010. That may feel recent, but it’s essentially ancient history when it comes to progress toward autonomous, AI-driven military robots. For now, the drones are apparently solitary killers, but researchers told SCMP that they could be programmed to hunt in packs down the road. “The needs of future underwater warfare bring new development opportunities for unmanned platforms,” reads a research paper on the program, published last week in the Journal of Harbin Engineering University. Going Rogue There’s no evidence that the robot submarines were ever used in a real combat scenario, according to SCMP. But the way that they identify and attack perceived threats does make the tech susceptible to error, the outlet notes. ADVERTISEMENT In a 2010 field test, the drone immediately switched to combat mode when it picked up on the sonar signal of a mock submarine target. It then circled around to figure out the target’s exact location before bullseyeing it with a torpedo — all without human oversight, control, or intervention. Data Dump The real question is “why now?” If China started developing these autonomous killer drones in the 1990s and conducted field tests back in 2010, why did the military suddenly decide to declassify the program in the middle of 2021? The answer isn’t immediately clear. However, SCMP points to increasing tensions between China, the US, Japan, and other countries in the Taiwan Strait, where China conducted its 2010 field test. There is a real chance of international conflict if China decides to try and claim Taiwan by force — so the declassification may have been a coincidence, but it’s also possible it was meant to be a display of military might. ADVERTISEMENT Of course, we could also learn that these reports of what would otherwise be an incredible technological achievement were exaggerated — but these are the facts that we have today. READ MORE: China reveals secret programme of unmanned drone submarines dating back to 1990s [South China Morning Post] More on killer robots: Academics: Ban the Killer “Slaughterbots” Before We All Die
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 10, 2021 7:32:43 GMT
This chart links together the harmonic relationships between notes in the chromatic scale. For example, a B(5) note following an A(5) is 1.0833 x 432hz = 468hz, which lands on 300 degrees (0.8333 of 360 degrees) on a circle. Whereby 360-60 degrees = 300 degrees, and 360/3 = 120 degrees and 180-120 = 60 degrees. Therefore, the B(5) 468hz creates a beautiful equilateral triangle (see angles in chart at 360 degrees, 300 degrees converging at Circle Center). All other regular polygonal geometry follows with again perfect symmetry. See the regular polygons inscribed both in the circle and off to the upper right side in their colors. Again, the placement of each of these is incredibly accurate in its placement despite the incredible complexity. You will also note that the seminal note of the Flower of Life (F#: 720hz) lands perfectly on the circle at 186.32 degrees, an astounding 0.0001 accurate to light speed as measured in a vacuum 186.28 x 10^3 miles per second. Whereas F# is a perfect 5th of C#. Read more in the blog post... www.robertedwardgrant.com/post/geometry-of-sound
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 10, 2021 22:07:52 GMT
AI feat helps machines learn at speed of light without supervision Researchers discover how to use light instead of electricity to advance artificial intelligence. PAUL RATNER 25 July, 2020 bigthink.com/surprising-science/ai-feat-helps-machines-learn-at-speed-of-light-without-supervisionResearchers at George Washington University discover how to supercharge AI machine learning. Their method uses photons instead of electricity. The approach allows artificial intelligence to learn independently, without needing as much power. A breakthrough in artificial intelligence promises to take machine learning to the next level. Researchers figured out how to use light rather than electricity to carry out computations. This new method, devised by researchers from George Washington University, can lead to substantial advancements in the speed and efficiency of the neural networks involved in machine learning. The approach also allows the AI to teach itself independently, without supervision. When a neural network becomes trained, it can use inference to figure out classifications for objects and patterns, finding signatures in the data. The main advantage of this method is that normally cranking large amounts of data requires a tremendous amount of power for the processors. There are also limitations on transmission rates for the data flowing from the processor to the memory. The scientists found a way to get around such issues by utilizing photons in neural network (tensor) processing units (TPUs), leading to efficient and powerful AI. The photon TPU they built outperformed an electric TPU by 2-3 orders of magnitude. Mario Miscuglio, the paper's co-author from GWU's department of electrical and computer engineering, shared their conclusions: "We found that integrated photonic platforms that integrate efficient optical memory can obtain the same operations as a tensor processing unit, but they consume a fraction of the power and have higher throughput," he explained. "When opportunely trained, [the platforms] can be used for performing interference at the speed of light." What good is all this speed? Possible applications of the technology include super-fast processors for 5G and 6G networks and huge data centers, where "photonic specialised processors can save a tremendous amount of energy, improve response time and reduce data centre traffic," shared Dr. Miscuglio. Check out the new paper by him and co-author Volker Sorger in Applied Physics Reviews. RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB Real-Time AR Self-Expression with Machine Learning - Google AI Blog › Robots aren't taking our jobs — they're becoming our bosses - The ... › Photon-based processing units enable more complex machine ... ›
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 11, 2021 20:47:02 GMT
The Strange Numbers That Birthed Modern Algebra The 19th-century discovery of numbers called “quaternions” gave mathematicians a way to describe rotations in space, forever changing physics and math. www.quantamagazine.org/the-strange-numbers-that-birthed-modern-algebra-20180906/Imagine winding the hour hand of a clock back from 3 o’clock to noon. Mathematicians have long known how to describe this rotation as a simple multiplication: A number representing the initial position of the hour hand on the plane is multiplied by another constant number. But is a similar trick possible for describing rotations through space? Common sense says yes, but William Hamilton, one of the most prolific mathematicians of the 19th century, struggled for more than a decade to find the math for describing rotations in three dimensions. The unlikely solution led him to the third of just four number systems that abide by a close analog of standard arithmetic and helped spur the rise of modern algebra. The real numbers form the first such number system. A sequence of numbers that can be ordered from least to greatest, the reals include all the familiar characters we learn in school, like –3.7, 5–√ and 42. Renaissance algebraists stumbled upon the second system of numbers that can be added, subtracted, multiplied and divided when they realized that solving certain equations demanded a new number, i, that didn’t fit anywhere on the real number line. They took the first steps off that line and into the “complex plane,” where misleadingly named “imaginary” numbers couple with real numbers like capital letters pair with numerals in the game of Battleship. In this planar world, “complex numbers” represent arrows that you can slide around with addition and subtraction or turn and stretch with multiplication and division. Hamilton, the Irish mathematician and namesake of the “Hamiltonian” operator in classical and quantum mechanics, hoped to climb out of the complex plane by adding an imaginary j axis. This would be like Milton Bradley turning “Battleship” into “Battlesubmarine” with a column of lower case letters. But there was something off about three dimensions that broke every system Hamilton could think of. “He must have tried millions of things and none of them worked,” said John Baez, a mathematician at the University of California, Riverside. The problem was multiplication. In the complex plane, multiplication produces rotations. No matter how Hamilton tried to define multiplication in 3-D, he couldn’t find an opposing division that always returned meaningful answers. To see what makes 3-D rotation so much harder, compare turning a steering wheel with spinning a globe. All the points on the wheel move together in the same way, so they’re being multiplied by the same (complex) number. But points on the globe move fastest around the equator and slower as you move north or south. Crucially, the poles don’t change at all. If 3-D rotations worked like 2-D rotations, Baez explained, every point would move. The solution, which a giddy Hamilton famously carved into Dublin’s Broome Bridge when it finally hit him on October 16, 1843, was to stick the globe into a larger space where rotations behave more like they do in two dimensions. With not two but three imaginary axes, i, j and k, plus the real number line a, Hamilton could define new numbers that are like arrows in 4-D space. He named them “quaternions.” By nightfall, Hamilton had already sketched out a scheme for rotating 3-D arrows: He showed that these could be thought of as simplified quaternions created by setting a, the real part, equal to zero and keeping just the imaginary components i, j and k — a trio for which Hamilton invented the word “vector.” Rotating a 3-D vector meant multiplying it by a pair of full 4-D quaternions containing information about the direction and degree of rotation. To see quaternion multiplication in action, watch the newly released video below by the popular math animator 3Blue1Brown. Everything you could do with the real and complex numbers, you could do with the quaternions, except for one jarring difference. Whereas 2 × 3 and 3 × 2 both equal 6, order matters for quaternion multiplication. Mathematicians had never encountered this behavior in numbers before, even though it reflects how everyday objects rotate. Place your phone face-up on a flat surface, for example. Spin it 90 degrees to the left, and then flip it away from you. Note which way the camera points. Returning to the original position, flip it away from you first and then turn it to the left second. See how the camera points to the right instead? This initially alarming property, known as non-commutativity, turns out to be a feature the quaternions share with reality. But a bug lurked within the new number system too. While a phone or arrow turns all the way around in 360 degrees, the quaternion describing this 360-degree rotation only turns 180 degrees up in four-dimensional space. You need two full rotations of the phone or arrow to bring the associated quaternion back to its initial state. (Stopping after one turn leaves the quaternion inverted, because of the way imaginary numbers square to –1.) For a bit of intuition about how this works, take a look at the rotating cube above. One turn puts a twist in the attached belts while the second smooths them out again. Quaternions behave somewhat similarly. Upside-down arrows produce spurious negative signs that can wreak havoc in physics, so nearly 40 years after Hamilton’s bridge vandalism, physicists went to war with one another to keep the quaternion system from becoming standard. Hostilities broke out when a Yale professor named Josiah Gibbs defined the modern vector. Deciding the fourth dimension was entirely too much trouble, Gibbs decapitated Hamilton’s creation by lopping off the a term altogether: Gibbs’ quaternion-spinoff kept the i, j, k notation, but split the unwieldy rule for multiplying quaternions into separate operations for multiplying vectors that every math and physics undergraduate learns today: the dot product and the cross product. Hamilton’s disciples labeled the new system a “monster,” while vector fans disparaged the quaternions as “vexatious” and an “unmixed evil.” The debate raged for years in the pages of journals and pamphlets, but ease of use eventually carried vectors to victory. Quaternions would languish in the shadow of vectors until quantum mechanics revealed their true identity in the 1920s. While the normal 360 degrees suffice to fully rotate photons and other force particles, electrons and all other matter particles take two turns to return to their initial state. Hamilton’s number system had been describing these as-yet undiscovered entities, now known as “spinors,” all along. Still, physicists never adopted quaternions in their day-to-day calculations, because an alternative scheme for dealing with spinors was found based on matrices. Only in the last few decades have quaternions experienced a revival. In addition to their adoption in computer graphics, where they serve as efficient tools for calculating rotations, quaternions live on in the geometry of higher-dimensional surfaces. One surface in particular, called a hyperkähler manifold, has the intriguing feature that it allows you to translate back and forth between groups of vectors and groups of spinors — uniting the two sides of the vector-algebra war. Since vectors describe force particles while spinors describe matter particles, this property holds extreme interest to physicists who wonder if a symmetry between matter and forces, called supersymmetry, exists in nature. (However, if it does, the symmetry would have to be severely broken in our universe.) For mathematicians, meanwhile, quaternions never really lost their shine. “As soon as Hamilton invented the quaternions, everyone and his brother decided to make up their own number system,” Baez said. “Most were completely useless, but eventually … they led to what we now think of as modern algebra.” Today, abstract algebraists study a vast array of number systems in any number of dimensions and with all manner of exotic properties. One not-so-useless construction turned out to be the fourth and final number system that permits a multiplication analog and an associated division, discovered shortly after the quaternions by Hamilton’s friend, John Graves. Some physicists suspect that these peculiar, eight-dimensional “octonions” may play a deep role in fundamental physics. “I think there’s still a lot more to discover about geometry based on the quaternions,” said Nigel Hitchin, a geometer at the University of Oxford, “but if you want a new frontier, then it’s the octonions.”
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 12, 2021 18:50:57 GMT
Quantum computers are revealing an unexpected new theory of reality A powerful new idea about how the laws of physics work could bring breakthroughs on everything from quantum gravity to consciousness, says researcher Chiara Marletto www.newscientist.com/article/mg25033300-300-quantum-computers-are-revealing-an-unexpected-new-theory-of-reality/“QUANTUM supremacy” is a phrase that has been in the news a lot lately. Several labs worldwide have already claimed to have reached this milestone, at which computers exploiting the wondrous features of the quantum world solve a problem faster than a conventional classical computer feasibly could. Although we aren’t quite there yet, a general-purpose “universal” quantum computer seems closer than ever – a revolutionary development for how we communicate and encrypt data, for virtual reality, artificial intelligence and much more. These prospects excite me as a theoretical physicist too, but my colleagues and I are captivated by an even bigger picture. The quantum theory of computation originated as a way to deepen our understanding of quantum theory, our fundamental theory of physical reality. By applying the principles we have learned more broadly, we think we are beginning to see the outline of a radical new way to construct laws of nature. It means abandoning the idea of physics as the science of what’s actually happening, and embracing it as the science of what might or might not happen. This “science of can and can’t” could help us tackle some of the big questions that conventional physics has tried and failed to get to grips with, from delivering an exact, unifying theory of thermodynamics and information to getting round conceptual barriers that stop us merging quantum theory with general relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity. It might go even further and help us to understand how intelligent thought works, and kick-start a technological revolution that would make quantum supremacy look modest by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 12, 2021 19:55:56 GMT
Chinese achieve new milestone with 56 qubit computer by Bob Yirka , Phys.org phys.org/news/2021-07-chinese-milestone-qubit.htmlA team of researchers affiliated with multiple institutions in China, working at the University of Science and Technology of China, has achieved another milestone in the development of a usable quantum computer. The group has written a paper describing its latest efforts and have uploaded it to the arXiv preprint server. Back in 2019, a team at Google announced that they had achieved "quantum supremacy" with their Sycamore machine—a 54 qubit processor that carried out a calculation that would have taken a traditional computer approximately 10,000 years to complete. But that achievement was soon surpassed by other teams from Honeywell and a team in China. The team in China used a different technique, one that involved the use of photonic qubits—but it was also a one-trick pony. In this new effort, the new team in China, which has been led by Jian-Wei Pan, who also led the prior team at the University of Science and Technology has achieved another milestone. The new effort was conducted with a 2D programable computer called Zuchongzhi—one equipped to run with 66 qubits. In their demonstration, the researchers used only 56 of those qubits to tackle a well-known computer problem—sampling the output distribution of random quantum circuits. The task requires a variety of computer abilities that involve mathematical analysis, matrix theory, the complexity of certain computations and probability theory—a task approximately 100 times more challenging than the one carried out by Sycamore just two years ago. Prior research has suggested the task set before the Chinese machine would take a conventional computer approximately eight years to complete. Zuchongzhi completed the task in less than an hour and a half. The achievement by the team showed that the Zuchongzhi machine is capable of tackling more than just one kind of task. It also showed that adding just two more qubits than that used by Sycamore could increase the power of a quantum computer exponentially. But perhaps more importantly, it demonstrates that computer scientists are moving ever closer to the real prize—the development of a generalized quantum computer that can be used for a host of real-world applications that traditional computers will never be able to handle.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 14, 2021 19:24:49 GMT
Humans could merge with AI through this specialized polymer Scientists are seeking ways to safely connect computers to the brain. STEPHEN JOHNSON 18 August, 2020 bigthink.com/technology-innovation/brain-machine-interfaceCompanies are developing brain-machine interfaces that aim to connect humans to computers. One major challenge is finding materials that can accomplish this without damaging human tissue. At a recent event, a team of researchers presented a specialized version of a polymer that could someday make brain-machine interfaces safer and more effective. Elon Musk's Neuralink has a straightforward outlook on artificial intelligence: "If you can't beat em, join em." The company means that quite literally — it's building a device that aims to connect our brains with electronics, which would enable us, in theory, to control computers with our thoughts. But how? What material would companies like Neuralink use to connect electronics with human tissue? One potential solution was recently revealed at the American Chemical Society's Fall 2020 Virtual Meeting & Expo. A team of researchers from the University of Delaware presented a new biocompatible polymer coating that could help devices better fuse with the brain. One major problem with implanting any kind of device into the body is scarring. Materials like gold, silicon, and steel tend to damage tissue when implanted. That's why David Martin, an associate dean at the University of Delaware's College of Engineering, and his colleagues have spent years studying a polymer called poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), or PEDOT. "We started looking at organic electronic materials like conjugated polymers that were being used in non-biological devices," Martin said in a press release. "We found a chemically stable example that was sold commercially as an antistatic coating for electronic displays." PEDOT has already helped to improve the performance of medical implants, by lowering impedance without causing excessive scarring. Martin and his colleagues have been working on specializing PEDOT to allow for unique functions. Recently, the team added an antibody to the polymer that can detect when blood vessel growth hormones are attacked by a tumor — a technology that could serve as a breakthrough diagnostic tool in the future. "Name your favorite biomolecule, and you can in principle make a PEDOT film that has whatever biofunctional group you might be interested in," Martin told Inverse.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 18, 2021 16:15:47 GMT
This ‘zero-worlds’ theory might just be crazy enough to be true Reading | Physics Hans Busstra | 2021-07-18 www.essentiafoundation.org/reading/this-zero-worlds-theory-might-just-be-crazy-enough-to-be-true/Physicist Markus Müller developed a mathematical probability theory that can solve some fundamental puzzles of physics better than current theories. Journalist Hans Busstra interviewed Müller on his so-called ‘zero-worlds’ theory, which was not meant as a proof of an idealistic worldview, but does ‘give you idealism for free.’ His own quantum theory made Werner Heisenberg ponder deeply on the nature of reality: “I think modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. Physical objects are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” Just like all of us mortals, physicists are somehow stuck in Plato’s cave, never being able to see the actual flames outside the cave that cast shadows on the walls inside. At the end of the day physics cannot answer metaphysical questions for us about what matter is, or if it exists independent of our observation. When I first realized this, I found it deeply unsettling, but thought to myself: at least physics can give us the laws of nature that govern the shadows in the cave, the laws governing what we call matter. But it only took me a surface reading of modern physics to realize that things are a bit more complicated still. For instance, there is a pretty good chance that a modern physicist sitting beside you in Plato’s cave could say something like: ‘let go of the idea of one outside of the cave, there is an infinitely large amount of different ‘outsides’ that exist simultaneously, you only get to see one of them.’ Or, put differently: ‘let go of the idea that there are deterministic laws governing the flames and shadows, there are only probabilities.’ But recently I sat down with a physicist that even takes things a step further, and says: ‘what if there is no outside of the cave at all?’ Markus Müller PhD, who is Group Leader at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna, Austria and visiting fellow at the prestigious Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, came up with a probability theory that can make accurate mathematical predictions about the world we see without the notion that an outside world actually exists. With a smile on his face Müller calls it a “zero-worlds” theory. Müller’s ideas, based on his work in quantum information theory, are hard to grasp because they are about as counter intuitive as it gets. But to solve some of the fundamental questions of modern physics, they might be a hint to the right direction. To quote Niels Bohr, maybe Müller’s ideas are “crazy enough to be true.” What is in essence the difference between information theory and quantum information theory? The main difference is, I would say, that in standard information theory you can always reduce everything to a lack of knowledge. For any given question, you can always assume that the answer is already out there in the world. You just don’t know it. This turns out to be wrong in quantum theory: it just doesn’t work to assume that the answers to all questions are already out there before you ask, unless we give up other important principles of physics like locality. There’s a kind of missing information that’s not due to missing knowledge, but due to the fact that the world hasn’t decided yet. I hesitate putting it so simplified, and would rather go into the mathematics to explain this rigorously, but let me give a practical example of quantum information theory. If information isn’t ‘out’ yet, then you can use it to do cryptography and have a secret key that nobody can spy on, because you can’t spy on a key that’s not yet there. You can only spy on information that’s already out there in the world. Put differently: if the world hasn’t ‘decided’ yet whether an electron spins left or right, and then you measure it and find an answer, then nobody else can know the answer unless you tell them. This is a colorful way to explain the mathematics of parts of quantum cryptography or the quantum generation of random numbers—though I know how counterintuitive this sounds to someone unfamiliar with quantum information theory. It is absolutely counter-intuitive and confuses everything about what we normally understand when we talk about ‘information.’ Is it correct that in quantum theory we can only speak of probabilities, instead of ‘solid’ information about the world? On a microscopic level quantum theory only gives you probabilities for an outcome, it doesn’t tell you which outcome you will see. So if you send a photon to a half-silvered mirror, it can either be reflected or pass through, but you don’t know which of the two you will get. But if you send two million photons in a row, you can be pretty sure that you will roughly get one million passes and one million reflections. In a similar way things average out in our macroscopic world: for large objects and many particles, most predictions become essentially deterministic. What fascinates me, is that in this probabilistic world everything is theoretically possible, for instance many copies of myself could be out there in the universe. What bothers you is not so much the weirdness of these ideas, but the fact that current physics cannot give us accurate probabilities about the weirdness, right? Well, according to some models the universe is so extremely large that we should expect very unlikely things to happen, and that they should happen a large number of times. Now the idea of copies of yourself, that you’re referring to, is called the Boltzmann brain problem. Imagine a brain popping up somewhere in the universe with exactly all the memories that you’re holding of your life on earth. According to some cosmological models, it is much more likely in the universe for such a ‘Boltzmann brain’ to spontaneously emerge, than it is for our human brains to have evolved on earth. But if this is true, doesn’t this mean that we should believe that we are Boltzmann brains—and believe that in the next few moments, we will disappear as quickly as we have popped up? Cosmologists ponder about these questions, because they think it allows them to distinguish “good” from “bad” cosmological models—those with or without Boltzmann brains. But if you try to answer questions like this, you automatically run into fundamental other questions, like how big is the multiverse? Why do the laws of nature have the form that they have? Could they be different somewhere else in the universe? And: where exactly are we in this universe? OK, so if I understand correctly: if we for instance want to calculate the probability that we’re a Boltzmann brain, we need to know these variables, some of which we cannot in principle know… Yes, according to some models of our universe, there has been in the beginning after the Big Bang a phase of rapid growth. The universe was expanding very rapidly and it’s become extremely large. We only see a small portion of it until we reach the event horizon, the place from where light cannot reach us to tell us what’s out there. And in different universes different laws of physics could apply. So there are simply too many unknowns. Now you came up with a rather remarkable ‘work around’ and suggest a bold thought-experiment: what if we let go for a moment of the whole idea that we are located in a physical universe, could that help us to be a bit more precise on the probabilities of, for instance, the idea of Boltzmann brains? Instead of making all sorts of metaphysical assumptions about what is out there in the universe, I want to begin with something that’s kind of unquestionable, namely that I’m an observer and I see something. Now you could talk about consciousness and subjective experience but for me as a physicist it’s actually more technical. I would just say I have a bunch of locally available data and I want to make a guess what the data will be next. Usually, we assume that the external world determines your next data: you look up and see a bright spot in the sky because there is the Sun out there, and the laws of physics determine what the Sun looks like. So to predict, we model the world, say where we are in that world, and apply the known laws of physics. But the Boltzmann brain problem shows that this doesn’t always work—you could be a brain floating out there that has a memory of the sun, without a real sun out there. Thus, I’m proposing something different: assume that what’s next is determined directly by the data that you hold and nothing else; no external world, no physical laws in the usual sense. Instead, a single claim: what you see next is determined by a probability law called “algorithmic probability.” It’s something that computer scientists have discovered independently. It gives computers a way to predict what happens next without knowing the laws of physics; it’s a kind of “gold standard” for machine learning. It turns out that this probability law is in principle in agreement with physics: it predicts that what you see looks very much as if there was an external world around you—without having assumed that there is actually such a world in the first place. It sounds like a radical quantum approach to the macroscopic world, putting the observer or the measurement at the centre. But how exactly does algorithmic probability allow us to infer a complete external world only from ‘data’ that we see directly? An understandable way of explaining it is to take a look at Conway’s Game of Life. This is a simulated world on your computer built up of lots of squares that can be black or white on a large canvas. These squares, called cellular automata, are governed by a couple of simple rules like: if a white square is surrounded by three other white squares it turns black. Now you start the Game with a simple initial state and then let it run and the most interesting structures evolve. It actually is a great metaphor of evolution to see how complexity emerges from very simple rules. And say this is our universe, this super large canvas with cellular automata giving us data. We are ‘trapped’ in only a very small part of the canvas and we don’t know the rules that govern the patterns we see. So what if we don’t ask what is the explanation for the patterns we see, but simply: what pattern will I see next? The way it’s mathematically formulated is to scan through all possible computations for a particular pattern and figure out what the simplest computation is, and with a high probability that will be the computation to predict what you see next. Rest in Link
|
|