Archive for Quantum

book review | The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates

The God Problem

Howard Bloom‘s forthcoming book The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates, is arguably his best book so far, a page-turner with deep thoughts and entertaining bits on every page.

Is The God Problem a book on the history of science? No, more like a philosophical novel. Wait, perhaps an autobiography? Pop culture?

All of the above, and none. The God Problem defies categorization; it’s a cascade of books within books within books, like the novels of Joyce and Pynchon. The difference is that Bloom writes about the thoughts of the deepest thinkers of all times, from the Babylonians to our days, then proposes new ideas of his own.

I call it “scientific poetry.” The science is rigorous, and the philosophy is sound, but Bloom is first and foremost a great writer who makes cerebral stuff emotionally moving and entertaining.

This book has no equations, it is not written for scientists, but it’s an excellent science book that will help readers not only understand science better, but also love it more.

Toolkits of the mind

Ziggurat model. What simple things right under our noses do we fail to see? asks Howard Bloom (Credit: Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi, Wikimedia Commons)

The God Problem starts with the story of how mathematics was invented in fourth-millennium BC Mesopotamia to count, split, inventory, and (especially) tax property. He puts you in the head of a Mesopotamian. You suddenly see how radically different and strangely alien an ancient viewpoint was.

The Babylonians had no circles in their mental toolkit. None. To them, everything was a line or a flat surface, like the surface of an iPhone-sized clay writing tablet. Every reference book in sight asserts that the Babylonian’s invented the 360 degrees of angles.

But The God Problem says they did not. And without the concept of the angle and the circle, the Babylonian sky was as flat as a ceiling and Babylonian astronomers never bothered to look up at the sky. Instead, they focused on a line — they noted where dots of light poked into the flat ceiling of the heavens from the line they called the “cattle pen” of the horizon.

The bottom, well, umm, line? Explains The God Problem, the Babylonians had circles and angles right under their noses. They used circles in their decorative art. And they crafted perfect right angles to map out the corners of their ziggurats. But they never uploaded the circle and the angle to the toolkit of the mind. What simple things right under our noses, asks Bloom, do we fail to see? What simple things that we take for granted could be the next big tool of mind?

Bloom moves to the Greeks in the first century BC and produces more surprises. Pythagoras — considered by Bertrand Russell and Bloom as one of the people who had the biggest influence in the development of Western thought — was the master charismatic cult leader of all times. He preached that ultimate reality is based on numbers.

Writes Bloom, “One of Pythagoras’ modern biographers, Christoph Riedwig, asserts that if you and I were to meet Pythagoras, … we’d see him as a madman with exhibitionist tendencies. Why? Pythagoras’ way of presenting himself smacked not of reason, but of show business. He was tall, charming, and strange.

His robe was a startling white. And unlike your everyday Greek man of intellect, under his robes he wore an outrageous violation of the fashion of the day — a contribution to couture from the horse-riding barbarian warriors of the steppes to the northeast, the Scythians. Trousers.”

Again, the strange way Pythagoras reasoned reveals more of just how fragile and temporary our modern ways of thought may be.

Deep structures of the cosmos

Code 912 cellular automaton (credit: Wolfram Mathworld)

You really don’t want to miss Bloom’s account of the life and works of the thought leaders between Greeks and the thinkers of today. But fast-forwarding to our age, Bloom shows that modern ponderers are very much like Pythagoras.

Remember, Pythagoras was sure that number is behind everything, from the music of the heavens to the sneezes, coughs, and mood swings in your daily life. Instead of numbers, Benoit Mandelbort, John Conway, and Stephen Wolfram hunt for another kind of what Bloom calls “Ur patterns” — “deep structures of the cosmos, patterns the cosmos repeats over and over again.”

But Conway and Wolfram’s structures are algorithms, simple rules. The delicate fractal shapes of Benoit Mandelbrot — a Jewish mathematician escaped from Warsaw whose uncle, a modern Pythagoras, founded a secret society of mathematicians — are staggeringly complex but not random. On the contrary, they are generated by iteration of simple mathematical formulas.

The buzzing and meaningful complexity of reality can also be generated, Bloom shows, by iteration of simple rules. Termites build amazingly complex structures by the repetition of simple behaviors that are hardwired, by evolution, in their tiny brains, he points out.

life_utm

A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) implemented in Conway’s Game of Life. The tape, which acts as a storage medium, passes the  programmable read/write head. (Credit: Paul Rendell)

John Conway is the inventor of the popular and influential Game of Life, and Stephen Wolfram is the creator of A New Kind of Science. Digital physicists like Conway and Wolfram believe that the best model for ultimate reality, whatever that is, may be cellular automata, where — as in Mandelbrot’s fractals — simple rules and initial patterns produce unpredictable, beautiful and complex results .

“Can you build an entire cosmos from simple rules?” wonders Bloom. “Stephen Wolfram is convinced that you can. In fact, he’s certain that a variation on John Conway’s computer game can even solve such basic scientific mysteries as the unification of quantum physics and relativity.”

At 14, Wolfram “wrote his first book on particle physics. At 17, the scientific journal Nuclear Physics published a paper he’d written. At 18, he wrote a widely acclaimed paper on heavy quark production,” and became the youngest person to win a MacArthur Genius Grant. “Wolfram concluded,” says Bloom, “ that you could even use cellular automata to solve seemingly impossible problems like how to reconcile quantum physics with relativity.”

Then there’s a parallel plot. Many authors write to clarify their thoughts to themselves, and Bloom is no exception: in the autobiographical sketches scattered throughout the book, he writes about himself. But he puts you in his shoes — or his bedroom slippers — and lets you experience his adventures. In the process, you get to be Jewish for one day. Then you become an atheist at the age of 13 and learn why Bloom does not feel the need to create a God to create the universe.

A debilitating illness leaves you — a scientist whose experiment in mass culture turns you into a media expert/publicity consultant for Michael Jackson, Prince, Bob Marley, Peter Gabriel, and many other stars — confined to your bed for years and unable to work. But from your bed, you discover the Internet and create online communities to discuss your ideas, including some of the ideas that later result in your books.

You manage to get out of your bed after 15 years. And in 2006, as Bloom, you co-author a paper in the theoretical physics Internet preprint site arXiv on “Conversational (dialogue) model of quantum transitions.” The radical paper proposes that the source of a particle and all of that particle’s possible detectors “talk” before the particle is finally observed by just one detector. These talks do not take place in physical time, but in “hidden time.”

The hidden time model, says Bloom, “treats time as a form of communication. It treats time as a form of information extraction. It treats time as a form of translation. In fact, time is the ultimate extractor of implicate properties. Or, to use Claude Shannon’s word, time is the ultimate extractor of meaning.” In typical Bloom style, the Appendix, which more conventional scientists would probably fill with formulas, describes the social life of bees.

Entropy, information, and meaning

Howard Bloom (credit: Rob Kritkausky)

I never met him in person, but I had the pleasure and the honor to meet him virtually and talk to him in many online events. I think the Internet, an emerging group mind built by a “recruitment strategy” that makes us all parts of a planetary (and tomorrow cosmic) search engine and meaning generator, is one of the protagonists of this book.

In Bloom’s profile of Claude Shannon, another seminal thinker who played an important role in the computer technology of our times, “information” is defined as the entropy (disorder) of a signal.

According to Shannon, maximally entropic (random) noise — a sequence of random numbers — cannot be compressed to something simpler and therefore has maximum information content.

But that raises a problem: random noise, by definition, doesn’t have any useful information, Howard Bloom says, or meaning! Important areas of modern science (What is entropy? Does the universe destroy information or produce information?) are muddled by confusion between different aspects of information.

Entropy is about information, but life is about meaning, he points out: “Meaning means more than it does in Claude Shannon’s vocabulary. Meaning is a sense of direction. A sense of where to go next.”

In David Bohm’s “implicate order” formulation of quantum physics, hidden meaning unfolds in a seemingly random world. Bohm wrote in his 1980 Book Wholeness And The Implicate Order that “what we call empty space contains an immense background of energy, and matter as we know it is a small, ‘quantized’ wavelike excitation on top of this background, rather like a tiny ripple on a vast sea.” Space, he said, is “full, not empty.” Full of what? Implicate order, says Bloom.

“Strangely, Bohm had his greatest impact on the New Age movement. In 1985, he co-wrote a book on The Ending of Time with legendary Indian “World Teacher” J. Krishnamurti, and his dialogs with the Indian mystic were collected in two more books.”

bagel_universe_bloom

The big bagel universe (credit: Sabine Allaeys)

The big bagel theory

Howard also describes some imaginative physics ideas of his own, like his “big bagel theory,” devised in 1959 [sic].

Imagine a big bagel (similar to a doughnut) with an infinitesimally small hole in the middle.

The matter universe expands rapidly (now known as “inflation”) up from the big-bang singularity at the hole, and then slows down, and over the ~14 billion years, expands out in a circle on the surface of the bagel.

An antimatter universe does the same, he explained, but moves in the opposite direction in the hole: down. In the distant future, “once the two universes run out of the energy that has shot them away from each other, they ‘sense’ each other’s call. They slowly begin to fall into each other’s arms. They slowly begin to succumb to the pull of each other’s gravity.

“When matter and antimatter meet at the outer edge of the bagel they annihilate. They turn to raw energy. And they do a dimensional flip. The outer edge of the bagel becomes the bagel’s hole. The hole from which a new big bang emerges.”

Fast-forward to 2003, when cosmologists noticed unexpected “circles in the sky” patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that could be best explained by — you guessed it — the “doughnut universe” model, according to Frank Steiner, a physicist at Ulm University in Germany, in a 2008 paper in Classical and Quantum Gravity (arXiv versioncited in Nature News.

I am sure all readers of Bloom’s previous books, The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of CapitalismThe Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of HistoryGlobal Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century, and How I Accidentally Started The Sixties, are impatiently waiting for the release of The God Problem on August 24.

They will not be disappointed.

Will a Dutch discovery lead to understanding dark matter and a real quantum computer? UPDATE APR 17

Indium Antemonide

The mysterious Majorana fermion has been detected in a nanowire, Dutch scientists claim (credit: TU Delft)

UPDATE APR 17, 2012: “One, however, has to be cautious because while this experiment from Delft has provided the likely necessary evidence for the existence of the Majorana, the sufficient conditions are more difficult to achieve and may take more time.” — Sankar Das Sarma, University of Maryland (press release). Also see: “Zero bias conductance peak in Majorana wires made of semiconductor-superconductor hybrid structures” C.H. Lin, J.D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, arXiv:1204.3085 (at arXiv.org), Apr 13, 2012.

It’s not every day that we can report a discovery of a tiny particle that may solve one of the biggest problems in the Universe and also lead to the first quantum computer that actually works.

What’s even better: a particle not detected at the huge CERN Large Hadron Collider — but in a tiny nanowire.

Here’s the story: in the 1930s, Italian physicist Ettore Majorana deduced from quantum theory the possibility that there must be a very special particle — later called the “Majorana fermion” — that would be right on the border between matter and antimatter.

Fast-forward to February 2012, whcn nanoscientist Leo Kouwenhoven caused a lot of excitement among scientists by leaking preliminary results of his research at a scientific congress. On April 12, Kouwenhoven went public in Science Express, saying his team at at TU Delft’s Kavli Institute and the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM Foundation) — and also financed by Microsoft — had created a nanoscale electronic device in which a pair of Majorana fermions magically (my word) “appear” at either end of a nanowire.

The recipe was simple: take one nanowire (made by colleagues from Eindhoven University of Technology) and add a superconducting material and a strong magnetic field.

Majorana Fermions

This is not a scene from Tron: Legacy. Two Majorana fermions (orange balls) are formed at the end of the nanowire. Electrons enter the nanowire from the Gold contact, and meet the Majorana fermion on the way. If the electron has the wrong energy, it is reflected back into the contact. If it has the right energy, it can go through the Majorana fermion via a special interaction. (Credit: TU Delft)

On dark matter and quantum computers

So what good are they? Well, one theory assumes that dark matter, which is thought to form about 73 percent of the Universe, is composed of Majorana fermions. So we may have just discovered dark matter. Maybe.

Also, Majorana fermions could be fundamental building blocks for a future quantum computer that would be exceptionally stable and barely sensitive to external influences. This would avoid the central problem with all current quantum computers: the dreaded decoherence.

Kouwenhoven’s team hopes to use a scheme called “topological quantum computation” that could evade decoherence at the hardware level by storing quantum information non-locally.

Two conclusions if this works: a Nobel Prize for Kouwenhoven and total domination by Microsoft. Oh boy.

The case of the disappearing physicist

Is the man in the center in this 1950 photo from Argentina actually Majorana (left and right images)? (Credit: Corriere della Sera)

The Italian physicist Ettore Majorana was a brilliant theorist who showed great insight into physics at a young age. He discovered a hitherto unknown solution to the equations from which quantum scientists deduce elementary particles: the Majorana fermion.

Practically all theoretic particles that are predicted by quantum theory have been found in the last decades, with just a few exceptions, including the enigmatic Majorana particle and the well-known Higgs boson.

But Ettore Majorana the person is every bit as mysterious — and elusive — as the particle. In 1938 he withdrew all his money and disappeared during a boat trip from Palermo to Naples. Whether he killed himself, was murdered or lived on under a different identity is still not known. No trace of Majorana was ever found.

But on June 7, 2011 Italian media reported that the Carabinieri‘s RIS had analyzed a photograph of a man taken in Argentina in 1955, finding ten points of similarity with Majorana’s face. So what did Ettore discover in Argentina? Tune in tomorrow. (Actually, I have no idea, but I’m sure something mysterious will turn up — send your tips to editors@kurzweilai.net.)

Ref.: V. Mourik, et al., Signatures of Majorana Fermions in Hybrid Superconductor-Semiconductor Nanowire Devices, Science, 2012; [DOI:10.1126/science.1222360]

How to see quantum images and survive (I hope)

Quantum image

Sketch of a setup to recover the information imprinted on a laser beam (a letter A, in this example) by visualization of a high-order image (credit: Geraldo Barbosa)

Physicists have designed several wild experiments to see if humans can see quantum images.

The latest, just described in the Physics arXiv Blog: Geraldo Barbosa at Northwestern University plans to use a laser beam shaped into an image, such as the letter A.

This laser beam hits a non-linear crystal, generating entangled pairs of photons that retain this image shape and are detected by human eyeballs.

(Hmm, I wonder if this could lead to a new display concept for quantum computers? What about a crystal for each pixel…?)

Anyway, the quantum images are created by sending entangled photons towards a pair of detectors. Use one of the detectors to receive just one half of the entangled photons and the result is a blur, smeared by the process of randomness.

But use two detectors to receive both sets of photons and the uncertainties disappear, because of the quantum correlation between the entangled pairs. Damn cool. (Ref.: Geraldo A. Barbosa, Can humans see beyond intensity images?)

Entangled humans: the oops factor

Sensing spooky-action-at-a-distance (credit: Nicolas Gisin et al.)

But Barbosa wasn’t the first to conceive this. In 2008, Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva calculated that a human eye ought to be able to detect entangled photons, and a year later, took it a step further, saying that the human eye could be used in a Bell type experiment to sense spooky-action-at-a-distance. Now that’s an experiment.

Slight problem: these experiments would mean that the humans involved would become entangled themselves, if only for an instant. Shades of The Fly and the Philadelphia Experiment! (OK, that was a hoax, but still….)

The Stellerator: try this at home (if you dare)

Nick Herbert (credit: Nick Herbert)

Meanwhile, edge physicist Nick Herbert — chronicled in the book How the hippies saved physics — came up with a simpler (and safer) way to view entangled photons: just two people looking at a star, as he explained to me in 2006.

“Visible stars possess a ‘radius of coherence’ of several feet or larger so that when you and your partner look up at a star (and are close together), you are standing inside that star’s coherence radius,” he explained in his January 2010 Quantum Tantra blog. “But you are also standing inside lots of other star’s coherence discs.”

To solve that, he invented the Stellerator — simply a hollow tube that allows you and your partner’s retinas to be excited by light from the target star and no others.

Sun and Allan test out the Stellerator (credit: Nick Herbert)

“The Stellerator was first tested by a gang of happy amateurs immersed in an Esalen hot tub on the edge of a cliff overlooking the Pacific Ocean under the starlit sky,” he said. “No huge increase was observed in our already high level of conviviality.”

The Lunarator: physics violation? 

But what about trying something closer? So Herbert conceived the Lunarator, which depends on the smaller coherence radius of moonlight. “The coherence discs from the Moon are small enough to fit inside the light-adapted pupil of the human eye.

In the Lunarator, moonlight is split by a half-silvered mirror so that half goes into his eye and the other half goes into hers. There is a sense in which you two are both competing for the same photons.”

Herbert (perhaps wisely) hasn’t built one of these things yet. He pointed out a conceptual problem: “even if the Lunarator only induces a common mood (no signaling), it is easy to show that the presence or absence of such a mood could be used for signaling, and that signaling could, in principle, be superluminal.

And you know all about that uproar with the CERN Opera experiment.

Hey, I have no problem with that. I’m going to build one and try it! I’ll report back — if I survive the entanglement.

teleXLR8 returns, featuring quantum physicist Gildert on ‘Hack the Multiverse!’

(credit: teleXLR8)

This exciting news just in from Giulio Prisco: “teleXLR8 is reopening on Sunday 21 10 a.m. PST with a talk by [experimental quantum physicist/programmer] Suzanne Gildert on Hack the Multiverse!.”

The teleXLR8 online talk program is “a telepresence community for cultural acceleration,” as their blog puts it. Translation: an audiovideo seminar — think TED in Second Life, plus webcam videoconferencing and video session recording.

The previous phase of teleXLR8 project last year, based on the Teleplace service, produced excellent online talks by Suzanne Gildert, Ben Goertzel, Max Hodak, Randal A. Koene, Luke Robert Mason, David Orban, Mike Perry, Martine Rothblatt, Anders Sandberg, with interactive audience participants — including me, when I could get up that early. Video highlights are here. Topics included brain-machine interfacing, an immortalist strategy, reconstructing minds from software files, a cosmist manifesto, and realistic routes to substrate-independent minds. (KurzweilAI coverage here.)

teleXLR8 2010 (credit: teleXLR8)

Suzanne says: “This talk will be a call to arms. I’ll excite you about quantum physics — our deepest understanding of the Universe. I’ll explain why quantum computing is not as mysterious as everyone thinks. And I’ll show you how to become a quantum computer programmer in less than 10 minutes.

“Join me for an hour of both deep learning and fun, as I proudly stand up for those who are turning an abstract science into a powerful computational resource, and deliver the message that quantum computing is not spooky, it’s just misunderstood.”

Attendance is free but invitation-only, so please contact the organizers if you wish to attend. The full video coverage of the talk, Q/A and discussion will be available online one or two days after the talk.

If you do not understand the simple explanation how possibly can you understand the technical jargon? I must say this is the most confusing part of all this.

Schrödinger’s cat

Noted physicists Schrödinger and Heisenberg are driving around in a car, and Heisenberg says,”I think we just ran over a cat.”

“Is it dead?” asks Schrödinger.

“I can’t be certain,” says Heisenberg.


Heisenberg and Schrödinger are driving in a car and they get pulled over. The police officer asks, “Do you know how fast you were going?” and Heisenberg says, “Well, not really, but I can tell you exactly where I was.”

The officer thinks that this peculiar response is grounds for a search, and he finds a dead cat in the trunk, and he says, “Do you guys know that there’s a dead cat in your trunk?!” Schrödinger replies, “Um, now I do.”

Related:
Schrödinger’s cat explained

Thinking about the hardware of thinking: Can disruptive technologies help us achieve uploading?

As we begin to run larger and more brain-like emulations, will our current methods of simulating neural networks, using general-purpose silicon processors, be enough, even in principle? As we wish to run computations faster and more efficiently, we might we need to consider if the design of the hardware that we all take for granted is optimal.

Suzanne Gildert: working on applications of quantum hardware

In a presentation (at Teleplace, produced online by teleXLR8 on November 28, part of the Advancing Substrate Independent Minds (ASIM) series), I discussed the recent return to a focus on co-design  — designing specialized software algorithms running on specialized hardware — and how this approach may help us create much more powerful applications in the future.

As an example, I discussed some possible ways of running AI algorithms on novel forms of computer hardware, such as superconducting quantum computing processors. These behave entirely differently to our current silicon chips, and help to emphasize just how important disruptive technologies may be to our attempts to build intelligent machines.

Video

teleXLR8 is a telepresence community for cultural acceleration. It “produces online events, featuring first-class content and speakers, with the best system for e-learning and collaboration in an online 3D environment.”