On this episode of the MarketScale Online Learning Minute, host Brian Runo dives into how quantum computing, the next revolutionary leap forward in computing, could apply to online education.

In particular, it can be used to epitomize the connectivism theory and provide personalized learning for each individual, as its not restricted by the capacity of an individual instructor.

In this way, each learner can be empowered to learn at their own pace and be presented with materials more tailored to them in real-time.

In fact, quantum computing is so revolutionary that the education world likely cant even currently dream up the innovations it will enable.

For the latest news, videos, and podcasts in theEducation Technology Industry, be sure to subscribe to our industry publication.

Follow us on social media for the latest updates in B2B!Twitter @MarketScaleFacebook facebook.com/marketscaleLinkedIn linkedin.com/company/marketscale

View post:
The Role of Quantum Computing in Online Education - MarketScale

UNITED STATES

The Endless Frontier Act was introduced by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York), Senator Todd Young (Republican, Indiana), Representative Ro Khanna (Democrat, California) and Representative Mike Gallagher (Republican, Wisconsin).

The preamble to the act warns that although the United States has been the unequivocal global leader in scientific and technological innovation since the end of World War II, and as a result the American people have benefited through good-paying jobs, economic prosperity and a higher quality of life, today this leadership position is being eroded.

Far too many of our communities have tremendous innovation potential but lack the critical public investment to build the nations strength in new technologies, while our foreign competitors, some of whom are stealing American intellectual property, are aggressively investing in fundamental research and commercialisation to dominate the key technology fields of the future.

It says: Without a significant increase in investment in fundamental scientific research, education and training, technology transfer and entrepreneurship, and the broader US innovation ecosystem across the nation, it is only a matter of time before Americas global competitors catch-up and overtake the US in terms of technological primacy: whichever country wins the race in key technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, advanced communications, and advanced manufacturing will be the superpower of the future.

The bill argues that the US government needs to catalyse US innovation by boosting investments in the discovery, creation and commercialisation of new technologies that ensure American leadership in the industries of the future.

The bill would rename the National Science Foundation (NSF) the National Science and Technology Foundation (NSTF) and task a new deputy director with executing the new funding of fundamental research related to specific recognised global technology challenges with geostrategic implications for the United States and create within it a Technology Directorate.

The authorisation for the new directorate would be US$100 billion over five years to reinvigorate American leadership in the discovery and application of key technologies that will define global competitiveness.

Connecting disadvantaged populations

An additional US$10 billion would be authorised over five years for the Department of Commerce to designate at least 10 regional technology hubs, awarding funds for comprehensive investment initiatives that position regions across the country to be global centres for the research, development and manufacturing of key technologies.

There would be a drive to connect disadvantaged populations and places to new job and business opportunities developing key technologies.

Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities which comprises 239 public research universities, land-grant institutions, state university systems, and affiliated organisations said: Public research universities applaud Senators Schumer and Young and Representatives Khanna and Gallagher for their work across the aisle to bolster US discovery and innovation.

The Endless Frontier Act, whose name is taken from a 1945 report that issued a clarion call for what would become the National Science Foundation, serves as a key step in driving US global scientific leadership in the 21st century.

Now more than ever, we need a national commitment to science and research on a grand level. Research and innovation can create new sectors of the global economy, drive economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and ultimately deliver long-term economic growth.

The Science Coalition, which represents more than 50 leading public and private research universities, issued a statement saying: In recent years, America has fallen behind its global counterparts in overall support and funding for fundamental scientific research, and this imbalance jeopardises our global economic competitiveness and our national security.

These lawmakers are right to prioritise funding for NSF and a new generation of cutting-edge research and technology. We commend their commitment to our researchers and STEM workforce pipeline that would chart a new course for American science and innovation.

According to the bill, the new directorate would fund research in the following areas:

Artificial intelligence and machine learning; High performance computing, semiconductors and advanced computer hardware; Quantum computing and information systems; Robotics, automation and advanced manufacturing; Natural or anthropogenic disaster prevention; Advanced communications technology; biotechnology, genomics and synthetic biology; Advanced energy technology; Cybersecurity, data storage and data management technologies; and Materials science, engineering and exploration relevant to the other focus areas.

The authorised activities would include:

Increases in research spending at universities, which can form consortia that include private industry, to advance US progress in key technology areas, including the creation of focused research centres.

New undergraduate scholarships, industry training programmes, graduate fellowships and traineeships and post-doctoral support in the targeted research areas to develop the US workforce.

The development of test-bed and fabrication facilities.

Programmes to facilitate and accelerate the transfer of new technologies from the lab to the marketplace, including expanding access to investment capital.

Planning and coordination with state and local economic development stakeholders and the private sector to build regional innovation ecosystems.

Increases in research spending for collaboration with US allies, partners and international organisations.

McPherson said the bill was needed to enable the US to compete with global rivals.

Federal investment in R&D has languished in recent decades. As a share of the economy, its a third of what it was at its peak. China, and other countries, meanwhile, have vastly expanded their investments in research and development, he said.

The current pandemic has underscored the critical need to redouble public investment in research and development. We must ensure more of these innovations and advancements take place in the US rather than elsewhere around the globe, he added.

This bill would not only advance US innovation, but also would help ensure the fruits of innovation are broadly shared. Investing in research across the country and in critical sectors such as quantum computing, biotechnology and robotics will help secure our place as home to the worlds most dynamic and advanced economy, McPherson said.

Read the original post:
Bipartisan push for US$100 billion investment in science - University World News

Photo: Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash.

Quantum physics is strange. At least, it is strange to us, because the rules of the quantum world, which govern the way the world works at the level of atoms and subatomic particles (the behaviour of light and matter, as the renowned physicist Richard Feynman put it), are not the rules that we are familiar with the rules of what we call common sense.

The quantum rules, which were mostly established by the end of the 1920s, seem to be telling us that a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time, while a particle can be in two places at once. But to the great distress of many physicists, let alone ordinary mortals, nobody (then or since) has been able to come up with a common-sense explanation of what is going on. More thoughtful physicists have sought solace in other ways, to be sure, namely coming up with a variety of more or less desperate remedies to explain what is going on in the quantum world.

These remedies, the quanta of solace, are called interpretations. At the level of the equations, none of these interpretations is better than any other, although the interpreters and their followers will each tell you that their own favored interpretation is the one true faith, and all those who follow other faiths are heretics. On the other hand, none of the interpretations is worse than any of the others, mathematically speaking. Most probably, this means that we are missing something. One day, a glorious new description of the world may be discovered that makes all the same predictions as present-day quantum theory, but also makes sense. Well, at least we can hope.

Meanwhile, I thought I might provide an agnostic overview of one of the more colorful of the hypotheses, the many-worlds, or multiple universes, theory. For overviews of the other five leading interpretations, I point you to my book, Six Impossible Things. I think youll find that all of them are crazy, compared with common sense, and some are more crazy than others. But in this world, crazy does not necessarily mean wrong, and being more crazy does not necessarily mean more wrong.

If you have heard of the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), the chances are you think that it was invented by the American Hugh Everett in the mid-1950s. In a way thats true. He did come up with the idea all by himself. But he was unaware that essentially the same idea had occurred to Erwin Schrdinger half a decade earlier. Everetts version is more mathematical, Schrdingers more philosophical, but the essential point is that both of them were motivated by a wish to get rid of the idea of the collapse of the wave function, and both of them succeeded.

Also read: If You Thought Quantum Mechanics Was Weird, Wait Till You Hear About Entangled Time

As Schrdinger used to point out to anyone who would listen, there is nothing in the equations (including his famous wave equation) about collapse. That was something that Bohr bolted on to the theory to explain why we only see one outcome of an experiment a dead cat or a live cat not a mixture, a superposition of states. But because we only detect one outcome one solution to the wave function that need not mean that the alternative solutions do not exist. In a paper he published in 1952, Schrdinger pointed out the ridiculousness of expecting a quantum superposition to collapse just because we look at it. It was, he wrote, patently absurd that the wave function should be controlled in two entirely different ways, at times by the wave equation, but occasionally by direct interference of the observer, not controlled by the wave equation.

Although Schrdinger himself did not apply his idea to the famous cat, it neatly resolves that puzzle. Updating his terminology, there are two parallel universes, or worlds, in one of which the cat lives, and in one of which it dies. When the box is opened in one universe, a dead cat is revealed. In the other universe, there is a live cat. But there always were two worlds that had been identical to one another until the moment when the diabolical device determined the fate of the cat(s). There is no collapse of the wave function. Schrdinger anticipated the reaction of his colleagues in a talk he gave in Dublin, where he was then based, in 1952. After stressing that when his eponymous equation seems to describe different possibilities (they are not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously), he said:

Nearly every result [the quantum theorist] pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that happening with usually a great many alternatives. The idea that they may not be alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him, just impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does behave this waynamely according to the wave equation. The aforesaid alternatives come into play only when we make an observation which need, of course, not be a scientific observation. Still it would seem that, according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it it is a strange decision.

In fact, nobody responded to Schrdingers idea. It was ignored and forgotten, regarded as impossible. So Everett developed his own version of the MWI entirely independently, only for it to be almost as completely ignored. But it was Everett who introduced the idea of the Universe splitting into different versions of itself when faced with quantum choices, muddying the waters for decades.

It was Hugh Everett who introduced the idea of the Universe splitting into different versions of itself when faced with quantum choices, muddying the waters for decades.

Everett came up with the idea in 1955, when he was a PhD student at Princeton. In the original version of his idea, developed in a draft of his thesis, which was not published at the time, he compared the situation with an amoeba that splits into two daughter cells. If amoebas had brains, each daughter would remember an identical history up until the point of splitting, then have its own personal memories. In the familiar cat analogy, we have one universe, and one cat, before the diabolical device is triggered, then two universes, each with its own cat, and so on. Everetts PhD supervisor, John Wheeler, encouraged him to develop a mathematical description of his idea for his thesis, and for a paper published in the Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957, but along the way, the amoeba analogy was dropped and did not appear in print until later. But Everett did point out that since no observer would ever be aware of the existence of the other worlds, to claim that they cannot be there because we cannot see them is no more valid than claiming that the Earth cannot be orbiting around the Sun because we cannot feel the movement.

Also read: What Is Quantum Biology?

Everett himself never promoted the idea of the MWI. Even before he completed his PhD, he had accepted the offer of a job at the Pentagon working in the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group on the application of mathematical techniques (the innocently titled game theory) to secret Cold War problems (some of his work was so secret that it is still classified) and essentially disappeared from the academic radar. It wasnt until the late 1960s that the idea gained some momentum when it was taken up and enthusiastically promoted by Bryce DeWitt, of the University of North Carolina, who wrote: every quantum transition taking place in every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on Earth into myriad copies of itself. This became too much for Wheeler, who backtracked from his original endorsement of the MWI, and in the 1970s, said: I have reluctantly had to give up my support of that point of view in the end because I am afraid it carries too great a load of metaphysical baggage. Ironically, just at that moment, the idea was being revived and transformed through applications in cosmology and quantum computing.

Every quantum transition taking place in every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on Earth into myriad copies of itself.

The power of the interpretation began to be appreciated even by people reluctant to endorse it fully. John Bell noted that persons of course multiply with the world, and those in any particular branch would experience only what happens in that branch, and grudgingly admitted that there might be something in it:

The many worlds interpretation seems to me an extravagant, and above all an extravagantly vague, hypothesis. I could almost dismiss it as silly. And yet It may have something distinctive to say in connection with the Einstein Podolsky Rosen puzzle, and it would be worthwhile, I think, to formulate some precise version of it to see if this is really so. And the existence of all possible worlds may make us more comfortable about the existence of our own world which seems to be in some ways a highly improbable one.

The precise version of the MWI came from David Deutsch, in Oxford, and in effect put Schrdingers version of the idea on a secure footing, although when he formulated his interpretation, Deutsch was unaware of Schrdingers version. Deutsch worked with DeWitt in the 1970s, and in 1977, he met Everett at a conference organized by DeWitt the only time Everett ever presented his ideas to a large audience. Convinced that the MWI was the right way to understand the quantum world, Deutsch became a pioneer in the field of quantum computing, not through any interest in computers as such, but because of his belief that the existence of a working quantum computer would prove the reality of the MWI.

This is where we get back to a version of Schrdingers idea. In the Everett version of the cat puzzle, there is a single cat up to the point where the device is triggered. Then the entire Universe splits in two. Similarly, as DeWitt pointed out, an electron in a distant galaxy confronted with a choice of two (or more) quantum paths causes the entire Universe, including ourselves, to split. In the DeutschSchrdinger version, there is an infinite variety of universes (a Multiverse) corresponding to all possible solutions to the quantum wave function. As far as the cat experiment is concerned, there are many identical universes in which identical experimenters construct identical diabolical devices. These universes are identical up to the point where the device is triggered. Then, in some universes the cat dies, in some it lives, and the subsequent histories are correspondingly different. But the parallel worlds can never communicate with one another. Or can they?

Deutsch argues that when two or more previously identical universes are forced by quantum processes to become distinct, as in the experiment with two holes, there is a temporary interference between the universes, which becomes suppressed as they evolve. It is this interaction that causes the observed results of those experiments. His dream is to see the construction of an intelligent quantum machine a computer that would monitor some quantum phenomenon involving interference going on within its brain. Using a rather subtle argument, Deutsch claims that an intelligent quantum computer would be able to remember the experience of temporarily existing in parallel realities. This is far from being a practical experiment. But Deutsch also has a much simpler proof of the existence of the Multiverse.

What makes a quantum computer qualitatively different from a conventional computer is that the switches inside it exist in a superposition of states. A conventional computer is built up from a collection of switches (units in electrical circuits) that can be either on or off, corresponding to the digits 1 or 0. This makes it possible to carry out calculations by manipulating strings of numbers in binary code. Each switch is known as a bit, and the more bits there are, the more powerful the computer is. Eight bits make a byte, and computer memory today is measured in terms of billions of bytes gigabytes, or Gb. Strictly speaking, since we are dealing in binary, a gigabyte is 230 bytes, but that is usually taken as read. Each switch in a quantum computer, however, is an entity that can be in a superposition of states. These are usually atoms, but you can think of them as being electrons that are either spin up or spin down. The difference is that in the superposition, they are both spin up and spin down at the same time 0 and 1. Each switch is called a qbit, pronounced cubit.

Using a rather subtle argument, Deutsch claims that an intelligent quantum computer would be able to remember the experience of temporarily existing in parallel realities.

Because of this quantum property, each qbit is equivalent to two bits. This doesnt look impressive at first sight, but it is. If you have three qbits, for example, they can be arranged in eight ways: 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111. The superposition embraces all these possibilities. So three qbits are not equivalent to six bits (2 x 3), but to eight bits (2 raised to the power of 3). The equivalent number of bits is always 2 raised to the power of the number of qbits. Just 10 qbits would be equivalent to 210 bits, actually 1,024, but usually referred to as a kilobit. Exponentials like this rapidly run away with themselves. A computer with just 300 qbits would be equivalent to a conventional computer with more bits than there are atoms in the observable Universe. How could such a computer carry out calculations? The question is more pressing since simple quantum computers, incorporating a few qbits, have already been constructed and shown to work as expected. They really are more powerful than conventional computers with the same number of bits.

Deutschs answer is that the calculation is carried out simultaneously on identical computers in each of the parallel universes corresponding to the superpositions. For a three-qbit computer, that means eight superpositions of computer scientists working on the same problem using identical computers to get an answer. It is no surprise that they should collaborate in this way, since the experimenters are identical, with identical reasons for tackling the same problem. That isnt too difficult to visualize. But when we build a 300-qbit machinewhich will surely happenwe will, if Deutsch is right, be involving a collaboration between more universes than there are atoms in our visible Universe. It is a matter of choice whether you think that is too great a load of metaphysical baggage. But if you do, you will need some other way to explain why quantum computers work.

Also read: The Science and Chaos of Complex Systems

Most quantum computer scientists prefer not to think about these implications. But there is one group of scientists who are used to thinking of even more than six impossible things before breakfast the cosmologists. Some of them have espoused the Many Worlds Interpretation as the best way to explain the existence of the Universe itself.

Their jumping-off point is the fact, noted by Schrdinger, that there is nothing in the equations referring to a collapse of the wave function. And they do mean thewave function; just one, which describes the entire world as a superposition of states a Multiverse made up of a superposition of universes.

Some cosmologists have espoused the Many Worlds Interpretation as the best way to explain the existence of the Universe itself.

The first version of Everetts PhD thesis (later modified and shortened on the advice of Wheeler) was actually titled The Theory of the Universal Wave Function. And by universal he meant literally that, saying:

Since the universal validity of the state function description is asserted, one can regard the state functions themselves as the fundamental entities, and one can even consider the state function of the whole universe. In this sense this theory can be called the theory of the universal wave function, since all of physics is presumed to follow from this function alone.

where for the present purpose state function is another name for wave function. All of physics means everything, including us the observers in physics jargon. Cosmologists are excited by this, not because they are included in the wave function, but because this idea of a single, uncollapsed wave function is the only way in which the entire Universe can be described in quantum mechanical terms while still being compatible with the general theory of relativity. In the short version of his thesis published in 1957, Everett concluded that his formulation of quantum mechanics may therefore prove a fruitful framework for the quantization of general relativity. Although that dream has not yet been fulfilled, it has encouraged a great deal of work by cosmologists since the mid-1980s, when they latched on to the idea. But it does bring with it a lot of baggage.

The universal wave function describes the position of every particle in the Universe at a particular moment in time. But it also describes every possible location of those particles at that instant. And it also describes every possible location of every particle at any other instant of time, although the number of possibilities is restricted by the quantum graininess of space and time. Out of this myriad of possible universes, there will be many versions in which stable stars and planets, and people to live on those planets, cannot exist. But there will be at least some universes resembling our own, more or less accurately, in the way often portrayed in science fiction stories. Or, indeed, in other fiction. Deutsch has pointed out that according to the MWI, any world described in a work of fiction, provided it obeys the laws of physics, really does exist somewhere in the Multiverse. There really is, for example, a Wuthering Heights world (but not a Harry Potter world).

That isnt the end of it. The single wave function describes all possible universes at all possible times. But it doesnt say anything about changing from one state to another. Time does not flow. Sticking close to home, Everetts parameter, called a state vector, includes a description of a world in which we exist, and all the records of that worlds history, from our memories, to fossils, to light reaching us from distant galaxies, exist. There will also be another universe exactly the same except that the time step has been advanced by, say, one second (or one hour, or one year).

But there is no suggestion that any universe moves along from one time step to another. There will be a me in this second universe, described by the universal wave function, who has all the memories I have at the first instant, plus those corresponding to a further second (or hour, or year, or whatever). But it is impossible to say that these versions of me are the same person. Different time states can be ordered in terms of the events they describe, defining the difference between past and future, but they do not change from one state to another. All the states just exist. Time, in the way we are used to thinking of it, does not flow in Everetts MWI.

John Gribbin is a Visiting Fellow in Astronomy at the University of Sussex, UK and the author of In Search of Schrdingers Cat, The Universe: A Biography and Six Impossible Thingsfrom which this article is excerpted.

Thisarticlehas been republished fromThe MIT Press Reader.

Follow this link:
What Is the Many-Worlds Theory of Quantum Mechanics? - The Wire

WISeKey is Adapting its R&D and Extended Patents Portfolio to the Post-COVID 19 Economy with Specific Focus onPost-Quantum Cryptography

WISeKey International Holding Ltd., a leading global cybersecurity and IoT company, published today a technical article discussing how to guarantee digital security and protect against hackers who will take advantage of the power of quantum information science. This research was presented during the remote International Workshop on Code-Based Cryptography (CBCrypto 2020 Zagreb, Croatia May 9-10 2020).

IoT products are a major component of the 4th industrial revolution which brings together advances in computational power, semiconductors, blockchain, wireless communication, AI and data to build a vast technology infrastructure that works nearly autonomously.

According to a recent report published by Fortune Business Insights and titled Internet of Things (IoT) Market Size, Share and Industry Analysis By Platform (Device Management, Application Management, Network Management), By Software & Services (Software Solution, Services), By End-Use Industry (BFSI, Retail, Governments, Healthcare, Others) And Regional Forecast, 2019 2026., the IoT market was valued at USD 190.0 billion in 2018. It is projected to reach USD 1,102.6 billion by 2026, with a CAGR of 24.7% in the forecast period. Huge advances in manufacturing have allowed even small manufacturers to produce relatively sophisticated IoT products. This brings to the surface issues related to patents governing IoT products and communication standards governing devices.

Recommended AI News: Opera Mini Gets Major Update and Fully Revamped Design With the Launch of Opera Mini 50

Studies about quantum computing, namely how to use quantum mechanical phenomena to perform computation, were initiated in the early 1980s. The perspectives are endless and the future computers will get an incredible computing power when using this technology. When used by hackers, these computers will become a risk to cybersecurity: all the cryptographic algorithms used today to secure our digital world are exposed. Therefore, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched in 2016 a wide campaign to find new resistant algorithms.

WISeKeys R&D department is very much involved in this NIST PQC (Post-Quantum Cryptography) program with the only objective to provide the market with future-proof digital security solutions based on existing and new hardware architectures. The new article reports one of the Companys current contributions to this safer cyber future. ROLLO-I, a NIST shortlisted algorithm, was implemented on some of WISeKeys secure chips (MS600x secure microcontrollers, VaultIC secure elements, ) with countermeasures to make them robust against attacks.

Recommended AI News: iQIYI Partners With MediaTek to Provide AV1-Powered Ultra HD Streaming Experience in 5G Era

Although nobody exactly knows when quantum computers are going to be massively available, this is certainly going to happen. WISeKey is significantly investing to develop new technologies and win this race.

With a rich portfolio of more than 100 fundamental individual patents and 20 pending ones in various domains including the design of secure chips, Near Field Communication (NFC), the development of security firmware and backend software, the secure management of data, the improvement of security protocols between connected objects and advanced cryptography, to mention a few, WISeKey has become a key technology provider in the cybersecurity arena, says Carlos Moreira, Founder and CEO of WISeKey. This precious asset makes WISeKey the right Digital Trust Partner to deploy the current and future Internet of Everything.

Recommended AI News: Simplify Deploys 88 for Enhanced Collaboration and Engagement

Share and Enjoy !

Here is the original post:
WISeKey is Adapting its R&D and Extended Patents Portfolio - AiThority

Apple's Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone on Jan. 9, 2007, calling it a "revolutionary and magical product that is literally five years ahead of any other mobile phone,"

If 1995 seems a long time ago, that's because it was. The DVD player was the hot new entertainment device, mobile phones were bulky and did little besides place calls, and accessing the internet was a novel (and slow) experience confined to desktop computers. It also was the year CNET began publishing news and reviews.

Technology has changed immensely in the 25 years since then. One could argue that it's continued to improve our lives, keeping us more connected to information, entertainment and each other. You also could argue just the opposite, but either way, there are a few gadgets and technologies that have changed our lives and the world forever. Here are 25 influential advancements from the past quarter century.

Though it wasn't the first smartphone, Apple really got the ball rolling with the introduction of the iPhone in 2007. Social media, messaging and the mobile internet wouldn't be nearly as powerful or universal if they hadn't been freed from the shackles of the desktop computer and optimized for the iPhone and its dozens of competitors.

Now playing: Watch this: Celebrating 25 years of CNET

3:58

Armed with powerful features and able to run thousands of apps, they squeezed more functionality into one device than we'd ever seen before. The mobile revolution also brought the death of point-and-shoot cameras, dashboard GPS units, camcorders, PDAs and MP3 players. Now we use smartphones to shop, as a flashlight and sometimes even to call people. It's tech's version of the Swiss Army knife.

Now, 13 years after the iPhone's introduction, more than 3.5 billion people around the world use a smartphone, nearly half the Earth's population. You may even be using one to read this article.

Wi-Fi has become essential to our personal and professional lives.

The smartphone and the internet we use today wouldn't have been possible without wireless communication technologies such as Wi-Fi. In 1995 if you wanted to "surf" the internet at home, you had to chain yourself to a network cable like it was an extension cord. In 1997, Wi-Fi was invented and released for consumer use. With a router and a dongle for our laptop, we could unplug from the network cable and roam the house or office and remain online.

Over the years, Wi-Fi's gotten progressively faster and found its way into computers, mobile devices and even cars. Wi-Fi is so essential to our personal and professional lives today that it's almost unheard of to be in a home or public place that doesn't have it.

The internet of things allows consumer devices to connect and share information without human interaction.

Wi-Fi hasn't just allowed us to check email or escape boredom at the in-laws, it also made possible a ton of consumer devices that connect and share information without human interaction, creating a system called the internet of things. The term was coined in 1999, but the idea didn't start to take off with consumers until the past decade.

Today, there are tens of billions of internet-connected devices around the globe that allow us to perform smart home tasks such as turning on our lights, checking who's at our front door and getting an alert when we're out of milk. It also has industrial applications, such as in health care and management of municipal services.

Spending on internet of things technology is expected to hit $248 billion this year, more than twice the amount spent three years ago. In five years, the market is expected to top $1.5 trillion.

Voice assistants tell you the weather forecast, play music and help water your lawn.

For many consumers, the heart of the smart home is a voice assistant such as Amazon's Alexa, Google's Assistant and Apple's Siri. In addition to being a prerequisite for controlling devices in your home, their connected speakers will tell you the weather, read you the news and play music from various streaming services, among thousands of other "skills."

There were more than 3.25 billion voice assistant devices in use around the world in 2019, and that number is expected to more than double to 8 billion by 2023. But they also present a privacy headache, since the devices are essentially internet-connected microphones that transmit your conversations to servers at Amazon, Google or Apple. All three companies have admitted to using human contractors to listen to select conversations from the voice assistants in an effort to improve their software's accuracy.

Bluetooth has allowed us to hold telephone conversations while keeping both hands on the wheel.

Another wireless communication technology that has proven indispensable is Bluetooth, a radio link that connects devices over short distances. Introduced to consumers in 1999, Bluetooth was built for connecting a mobile phone to a hands-free headset, allowing you to carry on conversations while keeping your hands available for other uses, such as driving a car.

Bluetooth has since expanded to link devices like earbuds, earphones, portable wireless speakers and hearing aids to audio sources like phones, PCs, stereo receivers and even cars. Fitness trackers use Bluetooth to stream data to mobile phones, and PCs can connect wirelessly to keyboards and mice.

Between 2012 and 2018, the number of Bluetooth-enabled devices in the world nearly tripped to 10 billion. Today, Bluetooth is being employed in the smart home for uses such as unlocking door locks and beaming audio to lightbulbs with built-in speakers.

VPN helps employees work remotely and helps individuals avoid censorship.

The virtual private network, essentially an encrypted tunnel for transferring data on the internet, has proven invaluable for both businesses and individuals. Developed in 1996, the technology initially was used almost exclusively by businesses so their remote employees could securely access the company's intranet .

VPN use has grown in popularity since then, with about a quarter of internet users using a VPN in 2018. Today, other popular uses for VPNs include hiding online activity, bypassing internet censorship in countries without a free internet and avoiding geography-based restrictions on streaming services.

Bitcoin incorporates technology, currency, math, economics and social dynamics.

Bitcoin is the digital cryptocurrency that racked up headlines with its meteoric rise in value a few years back and then its equally breathtaking decline, and it's another technology made popular by anonymity. It cracked the $1,000 threshold for the first time on Jan. 1, 2017, topped $19,000 in December of that year and then lost about 50 percent of its value during the first part of 2018.

The decentralized currency incorporates technology, currency, math, economics and social dynamics. And it's anonymous; instead of using names, tax IDs or Social Security numbers, bitcoin connects buyers and sellers through encryption keys.

Computers running special software -- the "miners" -- inscribe transactions in a vast digital ledger. These blocks are known, collectively, as the "blockchain." But the computational process of mining for bitcoins can be arduous, with thousands of miners competing simultaneously.

Blockchains work as a secure digital ledger.

Perhaps bigger than bitcoin is blockchain, the encryption technology behind the cryptocurrency. Because blockchains work as a secure digital ledger, a bumper crop of startups hope to bring it to voting, lotteries, ID cards and identity verification, graphics rendering, welfare payments, job hunting and insurance payments.

It's potentially a very big deal. Analyst firm Gartner estimates that blockchain will provide $176 billion in value to businesses by 2025 and a whopping $3.1 trillion by 2030.

MP3 technology made music more portable

Entertainment has become a whole lot more portable in the past quarter century, in large part due to the introduction of the MP3 and MP4 compression technologies. Research into high-quality, low-bit-rate coding began in the 1970s. The idea was to compress audio into a digital file with little or no loss of audio quality. The MP3 standard that we know today emerged in the mid-'90s, but the first mobile MP3 player wasn't available to consumers until 1998, when South Korea's Saehan released MPMan, a flash-based player that could hold about 12 songs.

The format's popularity took off in 1999, when 19-year-old student Shawn Fanning created the software behind the pioneering file-sharing service Napster, allowing users to swap MP3 files with each other across the internet for free. That activity famously cut into the profits of the recording industry and artists, which filed lawsuits that eventually toppled Napster, but the format helped give rise to the market for streaming music services like Spotify, Apple Music and many others.

Facial recognition helps us unlock devices but also track individuals.

Facial recognition is a blossoming field of technology that's playing an ever-growing role in our lives. It's a form of biometric authentication that uses the features of your face to verify your identity.

The tech helps us unlock devices and sort photos in digital albums, but surveillance and marketing may end up being its prime uses. Cameras linked to facial recognition databases containing millions of mugshots and driver's license photos are used to identify suspected criminals. They also could be used to recognize your face and make personalized shopping recommendations as you enter a store.

Both activities raise privacy concerns, which range from law enforcement overreach, to systems with hidden racial biases, to hackers gaining access to your secure information. And some systems aren't always very accurate.

Even so, the market isn't showing any signs of stalling. In the US alone, the facial recognition industry is expected to grow from $3.2 billion in 2019 to $7 billion by 2024.

On the internet, artificial intelligence is used for everything from speech recognition to spam filtering.

Artificial intelligence simulating human intelligence in machines used to be confined to science fiction. But in recent decades, it's broken into the real world, becoming one of the most important technologies of our time. In addition to being the brains behind facial recognition, AI is helping to solve critical problems in transportation, retail and health care (spotting breast cancer missed by human eyes, for example). On the internet, it's used for everything from speech recognition to spam filtering. Warner Bros. even plans to use AI to analyze its potential movies and choose which ones to put into development.

But there's also fear that a dystopian future is looming with the creation of autonomous weapons, including drones, missile defense systems and sentry robots. Industry leaders have called for regulation of the technology to prevent the potential harm from tools like deepfakes, which are video forgeries that make people seem to say or do things they didn't.

Drones have been used to shoot movie sequences, deliver packages and spray pesticides over crops to protect farms.

Drones have really taken off in recent years. What started out as a hobbyist gadget has transformed industries, with the unmanned aircraft shooting movie sequences, delivering packages to hard-to-reach places, surveying construction sites and spraying pesticide over crops to protect farms.

Drones now range from noisy quadcopters to payload-carrying mini-planes. On the US-Mexico border, Customs and Border Protection uses $16 million military-style Predator drones that can fly as high as nine miles, equipped with radar strong enough to detect footprints in the sand.

In the not-too-distant future, drones are expected to crowd the skies, acting as personal air taxis and performing lifesaving duties such as delivering medicine, helping with search and rescue, and fighting fires.

DNA testing has been helpful in identifying previously unknown relatives as well as criminal suspects.

With a simple swab of your cheek or a sample of your saliva, DNA testing kits have helped deepen our understanding of ancestry, introduced us to living relatives around the world, determined paternity and shed light on a predisposition to specific health issues and diseases.

Over the past few years, the kits have become quite affordable and popular. Law enforcement agencies in particular have grown fond of the kits. Using a technique called genetic genealogy, they've cracked dozens of murder, rape and assault cases, some from decades ago.

Then investigators use traditional genealogical research to identify possible suspects, who are then tested for a DNA match to the crime scene. But the practice relies on investigators having access to a large cache of DNA profiles, and it stirs worries among privacy watchdogs.

Quantum computing is making dramatic leaps in computing power each year.

Companies and countries are pouring billions of dollars into quantum computing research and development. They're betting it will pay off by opening up new abilities in chemistry, shipping, materials design, finance, artificial intelligence and more.

The technology is beginning to show some of the promise researchers have hyped for decades. Last year, a Google-designed quantum processor called Sycamore completed a task in 200 seconds that, by Google's estimate, would take 10,000 years on the world's fastest supercomputer.

Honeywell, which once sold massive mainframes, predicts the performance of its quantum computers will grow by a factor of 10 every year for each of the next five years -- meaning they'd be 100,000 times faster in 2025.

Social media apps jockey for your attention.

The online world was a very different place two decades ago. Social networkers of a certain age may remember Friendster, the site that launched in 2002 and allowed people to fill out an online profile and connect with people they knew in real life. But two years later, Mark Zuckerberg changed everything when he launched a social-networking site for college students called Facebook. It opened to the general public in 2006 and quickly left Friendster and MySpace far behind.

Today Facebook helps people connect and stay connected, but its real business is advertising. Last year, it brought in $32 billion in ad revenue. It also helped pave the way for other social networks that help people chat, share photos and find jobs, among other activities. It now has 2.37 billion users nearly a third of the world's population.

A 3D printer in action.

3D printing -- the process of synthesizing a three-dimensional object -- is one of those technologies that edges ever closer to mainstream use every year. We've seen the concept play out on TV and in movies for years, and now with home 3D printers it's finally growing beyond a wildly exotic hobby for a small enthusiast audience.

3D printing got an early foothold as a way to design prototypes of just about anything. The technology allows manufacturers to build plastic components that are lighter than metal alternatives and with unusual shapes that can't be made by conventional injection molding methods.

The devices are used to create materials inside football helmets and Adidas running shoes, and Porsche plans to roll out a new 3D printing program that will allow customers to have their cars' seats partially 3D-printed.

Some call 3D printing the fourth industrial revolution. Spending in the field is growing at about 13% annually among large US companies, consulting firm Deloitte estimates, and will likely reach $2 billion in 2020.

Video streaming services are quickly replacing cable and satellite subscriptions for many consumers.

Twenty-five years ago, a new media storage format was taking the entertainment world by storm. DVDs had superior picture and sound quality to the VHS tape, and they took up less room on your shelves. Movie rental stores abandoned VHS for DVDs, and online rental services like Netflix popped up, offering the convenience of mailing rented discs directly to you.

Then Netflix introduced its streaming service, allowing people to watch movies and TV shows across the internet. Consumers fell in love with the convenience of on-demand programming and began the phenomenon of "cutting the cord." As more streaming services like Amazon Prime Video, Hulu and YouTube emerged, consumers started canceling cable and satellite subscriptions and rental services such as Blockbuster went belly up.

By next year, more than one-fifth of US households are expected to have cut the cord on cable and satellite services, according to eMarketer.

Streaming represents 85% of all music consumption in the US.

Vinyl will always be popular among audiophiles, but streaming is still the future of music listening. Streaming music is cheap or even free (in the case of Pandora and Spotify) and outpaces any physical format when it comes to convenience.

Streaming now represents 85% of all music consumption in the US, a 7.6% increase over 2018, according to BuzzAngle Music. In 2019, on-demand audio stream consumption hit a record 705 billion streams, a 32% increase over the previous year.

In 2019, total music industry revenues rose 13% to $11.1 billion, with streaming accounting for nearly 80% of that total, according to the RIAA. But at the same time, album sales fell 23% in 2019 and song sales dropped 26%. And that's after declines of 18.2% and 28.8%, respectively, the previous year.

There are millions of apps on the market, helping perform almost any task you can imagine

Mobile apps have changed the way we consume media and communicate, from news and streaming services to texting and social media apps. They have also changed the way we go about living our daily lives, helping us find on-demand rides, short- and long-term rentals, and have food delivered to our door, just to name a few of the countless benefits.

There are more than 2 million apps in the Apple App Store, generating about $50 billion in revenue.

An Uber self-driving Ford Fusion.

The promise of autonomous vehicles has been touted for more than a decade: Without human drivers, proponents say, cars will be safer and more comfortable, especially on long trips. Technology companies have been working on making them a reality for a long time. The driverless vehicle fleet from Waymo, the autonomous car company owned by Google parent Alphabet, has driven more than 20 million miles on public roads since its founding in 2009.

Fully self-driving cars may not arrive in dealerships for another decade, but we're already benefiting from the technology being developed for autonomous vehicles, including adaptive cruise control, automatic forward-collision braking, automatic parking, autopilot and lane-keep assist.

RFID helps many car woners unlock and start their cars without using a key.

Retailers fell in love with radio frequency identification tracking some 20 years ago, touting the little chips as a convenient way to control inventory and reduce theft, without people having to make contact with the tagged item. Today, they have a variety of applications, including tracking cars, computer equipment and books. They're implanted into animals to help identify the owners of lost pets, farmers use them to monitor crops and livestock, and they help food companies track the source of packaged goods.

Thanks to growing demand, especially in the medical and health care industries, where the tracking technology is used to monitor patients and label medications, spending in the RFID tag industry is projected to hit $17 billion, more than twice the $8.2 billion spent in 2018.

Virtual reality isn't just about gaming.

Companies large and small have begun using virtual reality, which transports users to a computer-generated world. Once confined to the realm of science-fiction movies like Walt Disney's Tron, virtual reality has grown into a real-world industry worth an estimated $18 billion.

While the video game industry was expected to get an economic boost from virtual reality, the broader tech industry sees other applications for the nascent technology, including education, health care, architecture and entertainment.

A boy in the San Francisco Bay Area meets up with his preschool classmates and teachers with the Zoom videoconferencing app.

As the coronavirus pandemic has changed the world we live in, forcing us to avoid contact with others and shelter in place, videoconferencing has exploded in popularity. A few months ago, this technology wouldn't have made our list, but now it's proving indispensable. Video telephony has been around in some form since the 1970s, but it wasn't until the web debuted that the technology took off.

Along with webcams, free internet services such as Skype and iChat popularized the tech in the 2000s, taking videoconferencing to all corners of the internet. The corporate world embraced the tool as a way to cut down on employee travel for meetings and as a marketing tool.

As companies and schools implemented policies on work and study from home, video chatting and conferencing apps grew in popularity as a way to get work done and communicate with friends and family, especially among people who had never used the tech before.

E-cigarettes were pitched as a healthier alternative to cigarettes, but they have provoked new health concerns.

Battery-operated e-cigarettes hit the US market about a decade ago, touted as a safer alternative to traditional tobacco cigarettes. However, they didn't really gain traction until 2015, when Juul Labs debuted its discreet USB-size vaporizer and quickly became the industry leader.

In 2019, an increasing number of people who vape were winding up in hospital with symptoms that include coughing, shortness of breath and other health problems after vaping -- and at least 54 people have died.

Juul is accused in a lawsuit of illegally targeting young people online in advertising campaigns. Vaping companies have been sued on similar grounds in other courts. San Francisco banned the sale of e-cigarettes in June.

Ransomware attacks cost more than $7 billion each year.

The first ransomware attack can be traced to the late 1980s, but the malware has grown in prominence as one of the greatest cybersecurity threats since 2005. Ransomware locks down a victim's computer system until a ransom, usually in bitcoin or another cryptocurrency, is paid. Hackers often threaten to erase data. It spreads like other malware does, through email attachments or unsecured links.

Ransomware attacks skyrocketed in 2019, hitting nearly 1,000 government agencies, educational establishments and health care providers in the US, at an estimated cost of $7.5 billion.

View post:
25 technologies that have changed the world - CNET

In this bimonthly feature,HPCwirehighlights newly published research in the high-performance computing community and related domains. From parallel programming to exascale to quantum computing, the details are here.

Developing the HPC system for the ASKAP telescope

The Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) telescope (itself a pilot project for the record-setting Square Kilometre Array planned for construction in the coming years) will enable highly sensitive radio astronomy that produces a tremendous amount of data. In this paper, researchers from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) highlight how they are preparing a dedicated HPC platform, called ASKAPsoft, to handle the expected 5 PB/year of data produced by ASKAP.

Authors: Juan C. Guzman, Eric Bastholm, Wasim raja, Matthew Whiting, Daniel Mitchell, Stephen Ord and Max Voronkov.

Creating an open infrastructure for sharing and reusing HPC knowledge

In an expert field like HPC, institutional memory and information-sharing is crucial for maintaining and building on expertise but institutions often lack cohesive infrastructures to perpetuate that knowledge. These authors, a team from North Carolina State University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, introduce OpenK, an open, ontology-based infrastructure aimed at facilitating the accumulation, sharing and reuse of HPC knowledge.

Authors: Yue Zhao, Xipeng Shen and Chunhua Liao.

Using high-performance data analysis to facilitate HPC-powered astrophysics

High-performance data analysis (HPDA) is an emerging tool for scientific disciplines like bioscience, climate science and security and now, its being used to prepare astrophysics research for exascale. In this paper, written by a team from the Astronomical Observatory of Trieste, Italy, the authors discuss the ExaNeSt and EuroExa projects, which built a prototype of a low-power exascale facility for HPDA and astrophysics.

Authors: Giuliano Taffoni, David Goz, Luca Tornatore, Marco Frailis, Gianmarco Maggio and Fabio Pasian.

Using power analysis to identify HPC activity

Monitoring users on large computing platforms such as [HPC] and cloud computing systems, these authors a duo from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory write, is non-trivial. Users can (and have) abused access to HPC systems, they say, but process viewers and other monitoring tools can impose substantial overhead. To that end, they introduce a technique for identifying running programs with 97% accuracy using just the systems power consumption.

Authors: Bogdan Copos and Sein Peisert.

Building resilience and fault tolerance in HPC for numerical weather and climate prediction

In numerical weather and climate prediction (NWP), accuracy depends strongly on available computing power but the increasing number of cores in top systems is leading to a higher frequency of hardware and software failures for NWP simulations. This report (from researchers at eight different institutions) examines approaches for fault tolerance in numerical algorithms and system resilience in parallel simulations for those NWP tools.

Authors: Tommaso Benacchio, Luca Bonaventura, Mirco Altenbernd, Chris D. Cantwell, Peter D. Dben, Mike Gillard, Luc Giraud, Dominik Gddeke, Erwan Raffin, Keita Teranishi and Nils Wedi.

Pioneering the exascale era with astronomy

Another team this time, from SURF, a collaborative organization for Dutch research also investigated the intersection of astronomy and the exascale era. This paper, written by three researchers from SURF, highlights a new, OpenStack-based cloud infrastructure layer and Spider, a new addition to SURFs high-throughput data processing platform. The authors explore how these additions help to prepare the astronomical research community for the exascale era, in particular with regard to data-intensive experiments like the Square Kilometre Array.

Authors: J. B. R. Oonk, C. Schrijvers and Y. van den Berg.

Enabling EASEY deployment of containerized applications for future HPC systems

As the exascale era approaches, HPC systems are growing in complexity, improving performance but making the systems less accessible for new users. These authors a duo from the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich propose a support framework for these future HPC architectures called EASEY (for Enable exAScale for EverYone) that can automatically deploy optimized container computations with negligible overhead[.]

Authors: Maximilian Hb and Dieter Kranzlmller.

Do you know about research that should be included in next months list? If so, send us an email at[emailprotected]. We look forward to hearing from you.

Read more:
What's New in HPC Research: Astronomy, Weather, Security & More - HPCwire

May 28, 2020 Under the direction of Michael Devetsikiotis, chair of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE), The University of New Mexico recently joined the IBM Q Hubat North Carolina State University as its first university member.

The NC State IBM Q Hub is a cloud-based quantum computing hub, one of six worldwide and the first in North America to be part of the globalIBM Q Network. This global network links national laboratories, tech startups, Fortune 500 companies, and research universities, providing access to IBMs largest quantum computing systems.

Mainstream computer processors inside our laptops, desktops, and smartphones manipulatebits, information that can only exist as either a 1 or a 0. In other words, the computers we are used to function through programming, which dictates a series of commands with choices restricted to yes/no or if this, then that.Quantum computers, on the other hand, process quantum bits or qubits, that are not restricted to a binary choice. Quantum computers can choose if this, then that or both through complex physics concepts such as quantum entanglement. This allows quantum computers to process information more quickly, and in unique ways compared to conventional computers.

Access to systems such as IBMs newly announced53 qubit processor (as well as several 20 qubit machines) is just one of the many benefits to UNMs participation in the IBM Q Hub when it comes to data analysis and algorithm development for quantum hardware. Quantum knowledge will only grow with time, and the IBM Q Hub will provide unique training and research opportunities for UNM faculty and student researchers for years to come.

How did this partnership come to be? Two years ago, a sort of call to arms was sent out among UNM quantum experts, saying now was the time for big ideas because federal support for quantum research was gaining traction. Devetsikiotis vision was to create a quantum ecosystem, one that could unite the foundational quantum research in physics atUNMsCenter for Quantum Information and Control(CQuIC) with new quantum computing and engineering initiatives for solving big real-world mathematical problems.

At first, I thought [quantum] was something for physicists, explains Devetsikiotis. But I realized its a great opportunity for the ECE department to develop real engineering solutions to these real-world problems.

CQuIC is the foundation of UNMs long-standing involvement in quantum research, resulting in participation in theNational Quantum Initiative(NQI) passed by Congress in 2018 to support multidisciplinary research and training in quantum information science. UNM has been a pioneer in quantum information science since the field emerged 25 years ago, as CQuIC Director Ivan Deutsch knows first-hand.

This is a very vibrant time in our field, moving from physics to broader activities, says Deutsch, and [Devetsikiotis] has seen this as a real growth area, connecting engineering with the existing strengths we have in the CQuIC.

With strategic support from the Office of the Vice President for Research, Devetsikiotis secured National Science Foundation funding to support a Quantum Computing & Information Science (QCIS) faculty fellow. The faculty member will join the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering with the goal to unite well-established quantum research in physics with new quantum education and research initiatives in engineering. This includes membership in CQuIC and implementation of the IBM Q Hub program, as well as a partnership with Los Alamos National Lab for a Quantum Computing Summer School to develop new curricula, educational materials, and mentorship of next-generation quantum computing and information scientists.As part of the Q Hub at NC State, UNM gains access to IBMs largest quantum computing systems for commercial use cases and fundamental research. It also allows for the restructuring of existing quantum courses to be more hands-on and interdisciplinary than they have in the past, as well as the creation of new courses, a new masters degree program in QCIS, and a new university-wide Ph.D. concentration in QCIS that can be added to several departments including ECE, Computer Science, Physics and Astronomy, and Chemistry.

Theres been a lot of challenges, Devetsikiotis says, but there has also been a lot of good timing, and thankfully The University has provided support for us. UNM has solidified our seat at the quantum table and can now bring in the industrial side.

For additional graphics and full announcement, https://news.unm.edu/news/the-university-of-new-mexico-becomes-ibm-q-hubs-first-university-member

Source: Natalie Rogers, University of New Mexico

Read more here:
The University of New Mexico Becomes IBM Q Hub's First University Member - HPCwire

Riverlane builds ground-breaking software to unleash the power of quantum computers. Chemistry is a key application in which quantum computing can be of significant value, as high-level quantum chemistry calculations can be solved far faster than using classical methods.

World leaders in drug discovery and development, Astex Pharmaceuticals apply innovative solutions to treat cancer and diseases of the central nervous system.The two companies will join forces to combine their expertise in quantum computing software and quantum chemistry applications to speed up drug development and move us closer to quantum advantage.

As part of the collaboration, Astex are funding a post-doctoral research scientist at Riverlane. They will apply very high levels of quantum theory to study the properties of covalent drugs, in which protein function is blocked by the formation of a specific chemical bond.So far in this field of research, only empirical methods and relatively low levels of quantum theory have been applied. Riverlane will provide access to specialised quantum software to enable simulations of the target drug-protein complexes.

Dave Plant, Principal Research Scientist at Riverlane, said: This collaboration will produce newly enhanced quantum chemical calculations to drive efficiencies in the drug discovery process. It will hopefully lead to the next generation of quantum inspired pharmaceutical products.

Chris Murray, SVP of Discovery Technology at Astex said: "We are excited about the prospect of exploring quantum computing in drug discovery applications. It offers the opportunity to deliver much more accurate calculations of the energetics associated with the interaction of drugs with biological molecules, leading to potential improvements in drug discovery productivity."

View post:
Riverlane partner with bio-tech company Astex - Quantaneo, the Quantum Computing Source

Photo:Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash, (CC BY-SA)

Quantum physics is strange. At least, it is strange to us, because the rules of the quantum world, which govern the way the world works at the level of atoms and subatomic particles (the behaviour of light and matter, as the renowned physicist Richard Feynman put it), are not the rules that we are familiar with the rules of what we call common sense.

The quantum rules, which were mostly established by the end of the 1920s, seem to be telling us that a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time, while a particle can be in two places at once. But to the great distress of many physicists, let alone ordinary mortals, nobody (then or since) has been able to come up with a common-sense explanation of what is going on. More thoughtful physicists have sought solace in other ways, to be sure, namely coming up with a variety of more or less desperate remedies to explain what is going on in the quantum world.

These remedies, the quanta of solace, are called interpretations. At the level of the equations, none of these interpretations is better than any other, although the interpreters and their followers will each tell you that their own favored interpretation is the one true faith, and all those who follow other faiths are heretics. On the other hand, none of the interpretations is worse than any of the others, mathematically speaking. Most probably, this means that we are missing something. One day, a glorious new description of the world may be discovered that makes all the same predictions as present-day quantum theory, but also makes sense. Well, at least we can hope.

Meanwhile, I thought I might provide an agnostic overview of one of the more colorful of the hypotheses, the many-worlds, or multiple universes, theory. For overviews of the other five leading interpretations, I point you to my book, Six Impossible Things. I think youll find that all of them are crazy, compared with common sense, and some are more crazy than others. But in this world, crazy does not necessarily mean wrong, and being more crazy does not necessarily mean more wrong.

If you have heard of the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), the chances are you think that it was invented by the American Hugh Everett in the mid-1950s. In a way thats true. He did come up with the idea all by himself. But he was unaware that essentially the same idea had occurred to Erwin Schrdinger half a decade earlier. Everetts version is more mathematical, Schrdingers more philosophical, but the essential point is that both of them were motivated by a wish to get rid of the idea of the collapse of the wave function, and both of them succeeded.

Also read: If You Thought Quantum Mechanics Was Weird, Wait Till You Hear About Entangled Time

As Schrdinger used to point out to anyone who would listen, there is nothing in the equations (including his famous wave equation) about collapse. That was something that Bohr bolted on to the theory to explain why we only see one outcome of an experiment a dead cat or a live cat not a mixture, a superposition of states. But because we only detect one outcome one solution to the wave function that need not mean that the alternative solutions do not exist. In a paper he published in 1952, Schrdinger pointed out the ridiculousness of expecting a quantum superposition to collapse just because we look at it. It was, he wrote, patently absurd that the wave function should be controlled in two entirely different ways, at times by the wave equation, but occasionally by direct interference of the observer, not controlled by the wave equation.

Although Schrdinger himself did not apply his idea to the famous cat, it neatly resolves that puzzle. Updating his terminology, there are two parallel universes, or worlds, in one of which the cat lives, and in one of which it dies. When the box is opened in one universe, a dead cat is revealed. In the other universe, there is a live cat. But there always were two worlds that had been identical to one another until the moment when the diabolical device determined the fate of the cat(s). There is no collapse of the wave function. Schrdinger anticipated the reaction of his colleagues in a talk he gave in Dublin, where he was then based, in 1952. After stressing that when his eponymous equation seems to describe different possibilities (they are not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously), he said:

Nearly every result [the quantum theorist] pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that happening with usually a great many alternatives. The idea that they may not be alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him, just impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved nature does behave this waynamely according to the wave equation. The aforesaid alternatives come into play only when we make an observation which need, of course, not be a scientific observation. Still it would seem that, according to the quantum theorist, nature is prevented from rapid jellification only by our perceiving or observing it it is a strange decision.

In fact, nobody responded to Schrdingers idea. It was ignored and forgotten, regarded as impossible. So Everett developed his own version of the MWI entirely independently, only for it to be almost as completely ignored. But it was Everett who introduced the idea of the Universe splitting into different versions of itself when faced with quantum choices, muddying the waters for decades.

It was Hugh Everett who introduced the idea of the Universe splitting into different versions of itself when faced with quantum choices, muddying the waters for decades.

Everett came up with the idea in 1955, when he was a PhD student at Princeton. In the original version of his idea, developed in a draft of his thesis, which was not published at the time, he compared the situation with an amoeba that splits into two daughter cells. If amoebas had brains, each daughter would remember an identical history up until the point of splitting, then have its own personal memories. In the familiar cat analogy, we have one universe, and one cat, before the diabolical device is triggered, then two universes, each with its own cat, and so on. Everetts PhD supervisor, John Wheeler, encouraged him to develop a mathematical description of his idea for his thesis, and for a paper published in the Reviews of Modern Physics in 1957, but along the way, the amoeba analogy was dropped and did not appear in print until later. But Everett did point out that since no observer would ever be aware of the existence of the other worlds, to claim that they cannot be there because we cannot see them is no more valid than claiming that the Earth cannot be orbiting around the Sun because we cannot feel the movement.

Also read: What Is Quantum Biology?

Everett himself never promoted the idea of the MWI. Even before he completed his PhD, he had accepted the offer of a job at the Pentagon working in the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group on the application of mathematical techniques (the innocently titled game theory) to secret Cold War problems (some of his work was so secret that it is still classified) and essentially disappeared from the academic radar. It wasnt until the late 1960s that the idea gained some momentum when it was taken up and enthusiastically promoted by Bryce DeWitt, of the University of North Carolina, who wrote: every quantum transition taking place in every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on Earth into myriad copies of itself. This became too much for Wheeler, who backtracked from his original endorsement of the MWI, and in the 1970s, said: I have reluctantly had to give up my support of that point of view in the end because I am afraid it carries too great a load of metaphysical baggage. Ironically, just at that moment, the idea was being revived and transformed through applications in cosmology and quantum computing.

Every quantum transition taking place in every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on Earth into myriad copies of itself.

The power of the interpretation began to be appreciated even by people reluctant to endorse it fully. John Bell noted that persons of course multiply with the world, and those in any particular branch would experience only what happens in that branch, and grudgingly admitted that there might be something in it:

The many worlds interpretation seems to me an extravagant, and above all an extravagantly vague, hypothesis. I could almost dismiss it as silly. And yet It may have something distinctive to say in connection with the Einstein Podolsky Rosen puzzle, and it would be worthwhile, I think, to formulate some precise version of it to see if this is really so. And the existence of all possible worlds may make us more comfortable about the existence of our own world which seems to be in some ways a highly improbable one.

The precise version of the MWI came from David Deutsch, in Oxford, and in effect put Schrdingers version of the idea on a secure footing, although when he formulated his interpretation, Deutsch was unaware of Schrdingers version. Deutsch worked with DeWitt in the 1970s, and in 1977, he met Everett at a conference organized by DeWitt the only time Everett ever presented his ideas to a large audience. Convinced that the MWI was the right way to understand the quantum world, Deutsch became a pioneer in the field of quantum computing, not through any interest in computers as such, but because of his belief that the existence of a working quantum computer would prove the reality of the MWI.

This is where we get back to a version of Schrdingers idea. In the Everett version of the cat puzzle, there is a single cat up to the point where the device is triggered. Then the entire Universe splits in two. Similarly, as DeWitt pointed out, an electron in a distant galaxy confronted with a choice of two (or more) quantum paths causes the entire Universe, including ourselves, to split. In the DeutschSchrdinger version, there is an infinite variety of universes (a Multiverse) corresponding to all possible solutions to the quantum wave function. As far as the cat experiment is concerned, there are many identical universes in which identical experimenters construct identical diabolical devices. These universes are identical up to the point where the device is triggered. Then, in some universes the cat dies, in some it lives, and the subsequent histories are correspondingly different. But the parallel worlds can never communicate with one another. Or can they?

Deutsch argues that when two or more previously identical universes are forced by quantum processes to become distinct, as in the experiment with two holes, there is a temporary interference between the universes, which becomes suppressed as they evolve. It is this interaction that causes the observed results of those experiments. His dream is to see the construction of an intelligent quantum machine a computer that would monitor some quantum phenomenon involving interference going on within its brain. Using a rather subtle argument, Deutsch claims that an intelligent quantum computer would be able to remember the experience of temporarily existing in parallel realities. This is far from being a practical experiment. But Deutsch also has a much simpler proof of the existence of the Multiverse.

What makes a quantum computer qualitatively different from a conventional computer is that the switches inside it exist in a superposition of states. A conventional computer is built up from a collection of switches (units in electrical circuits) that can be either on or off, corresponding to the digits 1 or 0. This makes it possible to carry out calculations by manipulating strings of numbers in binary code. Each switch is known as a bit, and the more bits there are, the more powerful the computer is. Eight bits make a byte, and computer memory today is measured in terms of billions of bytes gigabytes, or Gb. Strictly speaking, since we are dealing in binary, a gigabyte is 230 bytes, but that is usually taken as read. Each switch in a quantum computer, however, is an entity that can be in a superposition of states. These are usually atoms, but you can think of them as being electrons that are either spin up or spin down. The difference is that in the superposition, they are both spin up and spin down at the same time 0 and 1. Each switch is called a qbit, pronounced cubit.

Using a rather subtle argument, Deutsch claims that an intelligent quantum computer would be able to remember the experience of temporarily existing in parallel realities.

Because of this quantum property, each qbit is equivalent to two bits. This doesnt look impressive at first sight, but it is. If you have three qbits, for example, they can be arranged in eight ways: 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111. The superposition embraces all these possibilities. So three qbits are not equivalent to six bits (2 x 3), but to eight bits (2 raised to the power of 3). The equivalent number of bits is always 2 raised to the power of the number of qbits. Just 10 qbits would be equivalent to 210 bits, actually 1,024, but usually referred to as a kilobit. Exponentials like this rapidly run away with themselves. A computer with just 300 qbits would be equivalent to a conventional computer with more bits than there are atoms in the observable Universe. How could such a computer carry out calculations? The question is more pressing since simple quantum computers, incorporating a few qbits, have already been constructed and shown to work as expected. They really are more powerful than conventional computers with the same number of bits.

Deutschs answer is that the calculation is carried out simultaneously on identical computers in each of the parallel universes corresponding to the superpositions. For a three-qbit computer, that means eight superpositions of computer scientists working on the same problem using identical computers to get an answer. It is no surprise that they should collaborate in this way, since the experimenters are identical, with identical reasons for tackling the same problem. That isnt too difficult to visualize. But when we build a 300-qbit machinewhich will surely happenwe will, if Deutsch is right, be involving a collaboration between more universes than there are atoms in our visible Universe. It is a matter of choice whether you think that is too great a load of metaphysical baggage. But if you do, you will need some other way to explain why quantum computers work.

Also read: The Science and Chaos of Complex Systems

Most quantum computer scientists prefer not to think about these implications. But there is one group of scientists who are used to thinking of even more than six impossible things before breakfast the cosmologists. Some of them have espoused the Many Worlds Interpretation as the best way to explain the existence of the Universe itself.

Their jumping-off point is the fact, noted by Schrdinger, that there is nothing in the equations referring to a collapse of the wave function. And they do mean thewave function; just one, which describes the entire world as a superposition of states a Multiverse made up of a superposition of universes.

Some cosmologists have espoused the Many Worlds Interpretation as the best way to explain the existence of the Universe itself.

The first version of Everetts PhD thesis (later modified and shortened on the advice of Wheeler) was actually titled The Theory of the Universal Wave Function. And by universal he meant literally that, saying:

Since the universal validity of the state function description is asserted, one can regard the state functions themselves as the fundamental entities, and one can even consider the state function of the whole universe. In this sense this theory can be called the theory of the universal wave function, since all of physics is presumed to follow from this function alone.

where for the present purpose state function is another name for wave function. All of physics means everything, including us the observers in physics jargon. Cosmologists are excited by this, not because they are included in the wave function, but because this idea of a single, uncollapsed wave function is the only way in which the entire Universe can be described in quantum mechanical terms while still being compatible with the general theory of relativity. In the short version of his thesis published in 1957, Everett concluded that his formulation of quantum mechanics may therefore prove a fruitful framework for the quantization of general relativity. Although that dream has not yet been fulfilled, it has encouraged a great deal of work by cosmologists since the mid-1980s, when they latched on to the idea. But it does bring with it a lot of baggage.

The universal wave function describes the position of every particle in the Universe at a particular moment in time. But it also describes every possible location of those particles at that instant. And it also describes every possible location of every particle at any other instant of time, although the number of possibilities is restricted by the quantum graininess of space and time. Out of this myriad of possible universes, there will be many versions in which stable stars and planets, and people to live on those planets, cannot exist. But there will be at least some universes resembling our own, more or less accurately, in the way often portrayed in science fiction stories. Or, indeed, in other fiction. Deutsch has pointed out that according to the MWI, any world described in a work of fiction, provided it obeys the laws of physics, really does exist somewhere in the Multiverse. There really is, for example, a Wuthering Heights world (but not a Harry Potter world).

That isnt the end of it. The single wave function describes all possible universes at all possible times. But it doesnt say anything about changing from one state to another. Time does not flow. Sticking close to home, Everetts parameter, called a state vector, includes a description of a world in which we exist, and all the records of that worlds history, from our memories, to fossils, to light reaching us from distant galaxies, exist. There will also be another universe exactly the same except that the time step has been advanced by, say, one second (or one hour, or one year). But there is no suggestion that any universe moves along from one time step to another. There will be a me in this second universe, described by the universal wave function, who has all the memories I have at the first instant, plus those corresponding to a further second (or hour, or year, or whatever). But it is impossible to say that these versions of me are the same person. Different time states can be ordered in terms of the events they describe, defining the difference between past and future, but they do not change from one state to another. All the states just exist. Time, in the way we are used to thinking of it, does not flow in Everetts MWI.

John Gribbin is a Visiting Fellow in Astronomy at the University of Sussex, UK and the author of In Search of Schrdingers Cat, The Universe: A Biography and Six Impossible Thingsfrom which this article is excerpted.

Thisarticlehas been republished fromThe MIT Press Reader.

Read this article:
A Jargon-Free Account of the Many-Worlds Theory of Quantum Mechanics - The Wire

WISeKey is Adapting its R&D and Extended Patents Portfolio to the Post-COVID 19 Economy with Specific Focus on Post-Quantum Cryptography

With more than 25% of its 2019 annual turnover invested in R&D, WISeKey is a significant and recognized contributor to digital trust in an interconnected world. The Companys recent publication and a conference presentation about post-quantum cryptography illustrates once again that innovation is at the heart of the Company.

WISeKey is involved in this NIST PQC (Post-Quantum Cryptography) program with the only objective of providing future-proof digital security solutions based on existing and new hardware architectures

Geneva, Switzerland May 28, 2020: WISeKey International Holding Ltd. (WISeKey) (SIX: WIHN, NASDAQ: WKEY), a leading global cybersecurity and IoT company, published today a technical article (https://www.wisekey.com/articles-white-papers/) discussing how to guarantee digital security and protect against hackers who will take advantage of the power of quantum information science. This research was presented (video here: https://www.wisekey.com/videos/) during the remote International Workshop on Code-Based Cryptography (CBCrypto 2020 Zagreb, Croatia May 9-10 2020).

IoT products are a major component of the 4th industrial revolution which brings together advances in computational power, semiconductors, blockchain, wireless communication, AI and data to build a vast technology infrastructure that works nearly autonomously.

According to a recent report published by Fortune Business Insights and titled Internet of Things (IoT) Market Size, Share and Industry Analysis By Platform (Device Management, Application Management, Network Management), By Software & Services (Software Solution, Services), By End-Use Industry (BFSI, Retail, Governments, Healthcare, Others) And Regional Forecast, 2019 2026., the IoT market was valued at USD 190.0 billion in 2018. It is projected to reach USD 1,102.6 billion by 2026, with a CAGR of 24.7% in the forecast period. Huge advances in manufacturing have allowed even small manufacturers to produce relatively sophisticated IoT products. This brings to the surface issues related to patents governing IoT products and communication standards governing devices.

Studies about quantum computing, namely how to use quantum mechanical phenomena to perform computation, were initiated in the early 1980s. The perspectives are endless and the future computers will get an incredible computing power when using this technology. When used by hackers, these computers will become a risk to cybersecurity: all the cryptographic algorithms used today to secure our digital world are exposed. Therefore, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched in 2016 a wide campaign to find new resistant algorithms.

WISeKeys R&D department is very much involved in this NIST PQC (Post-Quantum Cryptography) program with the only objective to provide the market with future-proof digital security solutions based on existing and new hardware architectures. The new article reports one of the Companys current contributions to this safer cyber future. ROLLO-I, a NIST shortlisted algorithm, was implemented on some of WISeKeys secure chips (MS600x secure microcontrollers, VaultIC secure elements, ) with countermeasures to make them robust against attacks.

Although nobody exactly knows when quantum computers are going to be massively available, this is certainly going to happen. WISeKey is significantly investing to develop new technologies and win this race.

With a rich portfolio of more than 100 fundamental individual patents and 20 pending ones in various domains including the design of secure chips, Near Field Communication (NFC), the development of security firmware and backend software, the secure management of data, the improvement of security protocols between connected objects and advanced cryptography, to mention a few, WISeKey has become a key technology provider in the cybersecurity arena, says Carlos Moreira, Founder and CEO of WISeKey. This precious asset makes WISeKey the right Digital Trust Partner to deploy the current and future Internet of Everything.

Want to know more about WISeKeys Intellectual Properties? Please visit our website: https://www.wisekey.com/patents/.

About WISeKey

WISeKey (NASDAQ: WKEY; SIX Swiss Exchange: WIHN) is a leading global cybersecurity company currently deploying large scale digital identity ecosystems for people and objects using Blockchain, AI and IoT respecting the Human as the Fulcrum of the Internet. WISeKey microprocessors secure the pervasive computing shaping todays Internet of Everything. WISeKey IoT has an install base of over 1.5 billion microchips in virtually all IoT sectors (connected cars, smart cities, drones, agricultural sensors, anti-counterfeiting, smart lighting, servers, computers, mobile phones, crypto tokens etc.). WISeKey is uniquely positioned to be at the edge of IoT as our semiconductors produce a huge amount of Big Data that, when analyzed with Artificial Intelligence (AI), can help industrial applications to predict the failure of their equipment before it happens.

Our technology is Trusted by the OISTE/WISeKeys Swiss based cryptographic Root of Trust (RoT) provides secure authentication and identification, in both physical and virtual environments, for the Internet of Things, Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence. The WISeKey RoT serves as a common trust anchor to ensure the integrity of online transactions among objects and between objects and people. For more information, visitwww.wisekey.com.

Press and investor contacts:

Disclaimer:This communication expressly or implicitly contains certain forward-looking statements concerning WISeKey International Holding Ltd and its business. Such statements involve certain known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause the actual results, financial condition, performance or achievements of WISeKey International Holding Ltd to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. WISeKey International Holding Ltd is providing this communication as of this date and does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.This press release does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities, and it does not constitute an offering prospectus within the meaning of article 652a or article 1156 of the Swiss Code of Obligations or a listing prospectus within the meaning of the listing rules of the SIX Swiss Exchange. Investors must rely on their own evaluation of WISeKey and its securities, including the merits and risks involved. Nothing contained herein is, or shall be relied on as, a promise or representation as to the future performance of WISeKey.

See the article here:
WISeKey is Adapting its R&D and Extended Patents Portfolio to the Post-COVID 19 Economy with Specific Focus on Post-Quantum Cryptography -...