Category Archives: Quantum Physics

Article By : Maurizio Di Paolo Emilio

Let's leave our universe behind and dive into a parallel one, where we come upon three scientiststwo physicists and an engineer whos fond of high voltagewho are deep in conversation.

Quantum mechanics and relativity show us that parallel worlds are a possibility. In 1935, Einstein and Rosen first represented electrons as black holes, bridging relativity with quantum mechanics and thereby avoiding the contradiction of black hole singularity. In doing so, they opened the door and societys imagination to the idea of the wormhole, or a connection between parallel universes. A spacetime tunnel called the Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) would allow traveling and moving through space and time.

Thats where our interstellar journey begins. Lets leave our universe behind and dive into a parallel one, where we come upon three scientists two physicists and an engineer whos fond of high voltage who are deep in conversation. The scientists are surrounded by a crowd of people, who are listening to their amiable discussion and asking them questions. Lets see if we can hear what theyre saying.

Weve traveled to this parallel world from one where artificial intelligence is seen as a great hope for the future of humanity. We are already using it without even realizing it. According to some in the social sciences, however, AI may also be a great danger, as it is capable of replacing humans as the dominant species. Are you basically saying that the next Einstein will be using artificial intelligence? comments the famous relativity physicist. Humans cannot travel through time, but somehow, if artificial intelligence were able to solve some quantum knots, man could even end up arguing, in a parallel universe, with his alter ego without imagining what might happen.

In all honesty, Newton comments, I can say that my only alter ego is me.

The universe we see is just a fragment nested in timelessness, rather than a single material world magically rising out of nothing from some primordial event. All universes exist without beginning or end in the final arena of time, and every moment we experience exists forever. The energy of the universe around us is an asset to this planet, Tesla comments. Since ancient times, the demand for new energy sources has been an ongoing theme. The more energy that can be stored or produced through alternative renewable methods, the less of a burden traditional power-generation systems will place on them.

The universe is not just energy. Says Newton: My Principia formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, which have dominated the science of the universe. By deriving Keplers laws from his mathematical description of gravity, and then using the same principles to explain the trajectories of comets, tides, the precession of the equinoxes, and other phenomena, I cleared the last doubts about the validity of the heliocentric model of the solar system. This work has also shown that the motion of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies can be described by the same principles. We are accustomed to seeing the world at a macroscopic level; our eye does not perceive what is really there at its microscopic level.

Every day, we humans dance the same quantum dance dictated by the physical laws that scientists such as Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrdinger, and De Broglie described during the 20th century. Heisenberg laid the foundations during his stay on the island of Helgoland, where he managed to calculate the matrix of numbers without first even understanding what that would mean, notesEinstein. Heisenberg likely appreciated the peace of that remote, rocky place, where seagulls screech in the distance and the dominant sound is the sound of the waves.

We must have a microscope or some other technology to detect the behavior of the smallest part of matter, the atom. The best description we have of the nature of the particles that make up matter is described by quantum mechanics subatomic particles such as electrons, neutrons, protons, quarks, and so on. Electrons can jump from one orbit to another, and we see this as observation; in theory, we humans could also jump from one planet to another, though doing so would require a considerable expenditure of energy.

The first quanta we know well are photons, the particles of the sun, says Tesla. These are the elementary constituents of quantum mechanics simple massless particles that bombard and heat us every day, and through which we can also produce electricity by exploiting the photoelectric effect with photovoltaic panels.

Quantum physics has a reputation as a strange science because its predictions differ so dramatically from our everyday experience (at least, this is the case for humans, though perhaps not for extraterrestrials). This is because the effects involved get smaller as objects get bigger: If you want to see unambiguous quantum behavior, you basically want to see particles behaving like waves.

Improvements in quantum computer technology will require a new way of thinking, and experts will have to be able to collaborate across multidisciplinary domains of knowledge, science, and technology.

This article was originally published onEE Times Europe.

Maurizio Di Paolo Emilio holds a Ph.D. in Physics and is a telecommunication engineer and journalist. He has worked on various international projects in the field of gravitational wave research. He collaborates with research institutions to design data acquisition and control systems for space applications. He is the author of several books published by Springer, as well as numerous scientific and technical publications on electronics design.

Related Posts:

See original here:

An Interstellar Trip with Einstein, Newton, and Tesla - EE Times India

Particle physicists use lattice quantum chromodynamics and supercomputers to search for physics beyond the Standard Model.

Peer deeper into the heart of the atom than any microscope allows and scientists hypothesize that you will find a rich world of particles popping in and out of the vacuum, decaying into other particles, and adding to the weirdness of the visible world. These subatomic particles are governed by the quantum nature of the Universe and find tangible, physical form in experimental results.

Some subatomic particles were first discovered over a century ago with relatively simple experiments. More recently, however, the endeavor to understand these particles has spawned the largest, most ambitious and complex experiments in the world, including those at particle physics laboratories such as the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Europe, Fermilab in Illinois, and the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) in Japan.

These experiments have a mission to expand our understanding of the Universe, characterized most harmoniously in the Standard Model of particle physics; and to look beyond the Standard Model for as-yet-unknown physics.

This plot shows how the decay properties of a meson made from a heavy quark and a light quark change when the lattice spacing and heavy quark mass are varied on the calculation. Credit: A. Bazavov (Michigan State U.), C. Bernard (Washington U., St. Louis), N. Brown (Washington U., St. Louis), C. DeTar (Utah U.), A.X. El-Khadra (Illinois U., Urbana and Fermilab) et al.

The Standard Model explains so much of what we observe in elementary particle and nuclear physics, but it leaves many questions unanswered, said Steven Gottlieb, distinguished professor of Physics at Indiana University. We are trying to unravel the mystery of what lies beyond the Standard Model.

Ever since the beginning of the study of particle physics, experimental and theoretical approaches have complemented each other in the attempt to understand nature. In the past four to five decades, advanced computing has become an important part of both approaches. Great progress has been made in understanding the behavior of the zoo of subatomic particles, including bosons (especially the long sought and recently discovered Higgs boson), various flavors of quarks, gluons, muons, neutrinos and many states made from combinations of quarks or anti-quarks bound together.

Quantum field theory is the theoretical framework from which the Standard Model of particle physics is constructed. It combines classical field theory, special relativity and quantum mechanics, developed with contributions from Einstein, Dirac, Fermi, Feynman, and others. Within the Standard Model, quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, is the theory of the strong interaction between quarks and gluons, the fundamental particles that make up some of the larger composite particles such as the proton, neutron and pion.

Carleton DeTar and Steven Gottlieb are two of the leading contemporary scholars of QCD research and practitioners of an approach known as lattice QCD. Lattice QCD represents continuous space as a discrete set of spacetime points (called the lattice). It uses supercomputers to study the interactions of quarks, and importantly, to determine more precisely several parameters of the Standard Model, thereby reducing the uncertainties in its predictions. Its a slow and resource-intensive approach, but it has proven to have wide applicability, giving insight into parts of the theory inaccessible by other means, in particular the explicit forces acting between quarks and antiquarks.

A plot of the Unitarity Triangle, a good test of the Standard Model, showing constraints on the , plane. The shaded areas have 95% CL, a statistical method for setting upper limits on model parameters. Credit: A. Ceccucci (CERN), Z. Ligeti (LBNL) and Y. Sakai (KEK)

DeTar and Gottlieb are part of the MIMD Lattice Computation (MILC) Collaboration and work very closely with the Fermilab Lattice Collaboration on the vast majority of their work. They also work with the High Precision QCD (HPQCD) Collaboration for the study of the muon anomalous magnetic moment. As part of these efforts, they use the fastest supercomputers in the world.

Since 2019, they have used Frontera at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) the fastest academic supercomputer in the world and the 9th fastest overall to propel their work. They are among the largest users of that resource, which is funded by the National Science Foundation. The team also uses Summit at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (the #2 fastest supercomputer in the world); Cori at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (#20), and Stampede2 (#25) at TACC, for the lattice calculations.

The efforts of the lattice QCD community over decades have brought greater accuracy to particle predictions through a combination of faster computers and improved algorithms and methodologies.

We can do calculations and make predictions with high precision for how strong interactions work, said DeTar, professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Utah. When I started as a graduate student in the late 1960s, some of our best estimates were within 20 percent of experimental results. Now we can get answers with sub-percent accuracy.

Frontera was the fifth most powerful supercomputer in the world and fastest academic supercomputer, according to the November 2019 rankings of the Top500 organization. Frontera is located at the Texas Advanced Computing Center and supported by National Science Foundation. Credit: TACC

In particle physics, physical experiment and theory travel in tandem, informing each other, but sometimes producing different results. These differences suggest areas of further exploration or improvement.

There are some tensions in these tests, said Gottlieb, distinguished professor of Physics at Indiana University. The tensions are not large enough to say that there is a problem here the usual requirement is at least five standard deviations. But it means either you make the theory and experiment more precise and find that the agreement is better; or you do it and you find out, Wait a minute, what was the three sigma tension is now a five standard deviation tension, and maybe we really have evidence for new physics.'

DeTar calls these small discrepancies between theory and experiment tantalizing. They might be telling us something.

Over the last several years, DeTar, Gottlieb and their collaborators have followed the paths of quarks and antiquarks with ever-greater resolution as they move through a background cloud of gluons and virtual quark-antiquark pairs, as prescribed precisely by QCD. The results of the calculation are used to determine physically meaningful quantities such as particle masses and decays.

One of the current state-of-the-art approaches that is applied by the researchers uses the so-called highly improved staggered quark (HISQ) formalism to simulate interactions of quarks with gluons. On Frontera, DeTar and Gottlieb are currently simulating at a lattice spacing of 0.06 femtometers (10-15 meters), but they are quickly approaching their ultimate goal of 0.03 femtometers, a distance where the lattice spacing is smaller than the wavelength of the heaviest quark, consequently removing a significant source of uncertainty from these calculations.

Each doubling of resolution, however, requires about two orders of magnitude more computing power, putting a 0.03 femtometers lattice spacing firmly in the quickly-approaching exascale regime.

The costs of calculations keeps rising as you make the lattice spacing smaller, DeTar said. For smaller lattice spacing, were thinking of future Department of Energy machines and the Leadership Class Computing Facility [TACCs future system in planning]. But we can make do with extrapolations now.

Among the phenomena that DeTar and Gottlieb are tackling is the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon (essentially a heavy electron) which, in quantum field theory, arises from a weak cloud of elementary particles that surrounds the muon. The same sort of cloud affects particle decays. Theorists believe yet-undiscovered elementary particles could potentially be in that cloud.

A large international collaboration called the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative recently reviewed the present status of the Standard Model calculation of the muons anomalous magnetic moment. Their review appeared in Physics Reports in December 2020. DeTar, Gottlieb and several of their Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD and MILC collaborators are among the coauthors. They find a 3.7 standard deviation difference between experiment and theory.

While some parts of the theoretical contributions can be calculated with extreme accuracy, the hadronic contributions (the class of subatomic particles that are composed of two or three quarks and participate in strong interactions) are the most difficult to calculate and are responsible for almost all of the theoretical uncertainty. Lattice QCD is one of two ways to calculate these contributions.

The experimental uncertainty will soon be reduced by up to a factor of four by the new experiment currently running at Fermilab, and also by the future J-PARC experiment, they wrote. This and the prospects to further reduce the theoretical uncertainty in the near future make this quantity one of the most promising places to look for evidence of new physics.

Gottlieb, DeTar and collaborators have calculated the hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment with a precision of 2.2 percent. This give us confidence that our short-term goal of achieving a precision of 1 percent on the hadronic contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is now a realistic one, Gottlieb said. The hope to achieve a precision of 0.5 percent a few years later.

Other tantalizing hints of new physics involve measurements of the decay of B mesons. There, various experimental methods arrive at different results. The decay properties and mixings of the D and B mesons are critical to a more accurate determination of several of the least well-known parameters of the Standard Model, Gottlieb said. Our work is improving the determinations of the masses of the up, down, strange, charm and bottom quarks and how they mix under weak decays. The mixing is described by the so-called CKM mixing matrix for which Kobayashi and Maskawa won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics.

The answers DeTar and Gottlieb seek are the most fundamental in science: What is matter made of? And where did it come from?

The Universe is very connected in many ways, said DeTar. We want to understand how the Universe began. The current understanding is that it began with the Big Bang. And the processes that were important in the earliest instance of the Universe involve the same interactions that were working with here. So, the mysteries were trying to solve in the microcosm may very well provide answers to the mysteries on the cosmological scale as well.

Reference: The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model by T. Aoyama, N. Asmussen, M. Benayoun, J. Bijnens, T. Blum, M. Bruno, I. Caprini, C. M. Carloni Calame, M. C, G. Colangelo, F. Curciarello, H. Czyz, I. Danilkin, M. Davier, C. T. H. Davies, M. Della Morte, S. I. Eidelman, A. X. El-Khadra, A. Grardin, D. Giusti, M. Golterman, StevenGottlieb, V. Glpers, F. Hagelstein, M. Hayakawa, G. Herdoza, D. W. Hertzog, A. Hoecker, M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, R. J. Hudspith, F. Ignatov, T. Izubuchi, F. Jegerlehner, L. Jin, A. Keshavarzi, T. Kinoshita, B. Kubis, A. Kupich, A. Kupsc, L. Laub, C. Lehner, L. Lellouch, I. Logashenko, B. Malaescu, K. Maltman, M. K. Marinkovic, P. Masjuan, A. S. Meyer, H. B. Meyer, T. Mibe, K. Miura, S. E. Mller, M. Nio, D. Nomura, A. Nyffeler, V. Pascalutsa, M. Passera, E. Perez del Rio, S. Peris, A. Portelli, M. Procura, C. F. Redmer, B. L. Roberts, P. Snchez-Puertas, S. Serednyakov, B. Shwartz, S. Simula, D. Stckinger, H. Stckinger-Kim, P. Stoffer, T. Teubner, R. Van de Water, M. Vanderhaeghen, G. Venanzoni, G. von Hippel, H. Wittig, Z. Zhang, M. N. Achasov, A. Bashir, N. Cardoso, B. Chakraborty, E.-H. Chao, J. Charles, A. Crivellin, O. Deineka, A. Denig, C. DeTar, C. A. Dominguez, A. E. Dorokhov, V. P. Druzhinin, G. Eichmann, M. Fael, C. S. Fischer, E. Gmiz, Z. Gelzer, J. R. Green, S. Guellati-Khelifa, D. Hatton, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, S. Holz, B. Hrz, M. Knecht, J. Koponen, A. S. Kronfeld, J. Laiho, S. Leupold, P. B. Mackenzie, W. J. Marciano, C. McNeile, D. Mohler, J. Monnard, E. T. Neil, A. V. Nesterenko, K. Ottnad, V. Pauk, A. E. Radzhabov, E. de Rafael, K. Raya, A. Risch, A. Rodrguez-Snchez, P. Roig, T. San Jos, E. P. Solodov, R. Sugar, K. Yu. Todyshev, A. Vainshtein, A. Vaquero Avils-Casco, E. Weil, J. Wilhelm, R. Williams and A. S. Zhevlakov, 14 August 2020, .DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006

Continued here:

Searching for New Physics in the Subatomic World - SciTechDaily

LEESBURG, Va., April 06, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Quantum Computing Inc. (OTCQB: QUBT) (QCI), a leader in bridging the power of classical and quantum computing, has expanded its executive team with sales and marketing leaders that position the company for immediate and long-term growth. QCI named iconic tech sales leader, Dave Morris, as its chief revenue officer, and tech marketing veteran Rebel Brown as vice president of marketing. With these hires, the company plans to accelerate the integration of quantum into enterprise problem solving, an effort thats already well underway.

It is extremely validating for QCIs business model to attract such accomplished professionals leading our sales and marketing efforts, said Robert Liscouski, CEO of QCI. Both bring a wealth of experience with the worlds largest computing companies and most exciting startups. The combination makes them so incredibly powerful for our efforts. Equally significant, both Dave and Rebel have broken ground in new areas of software and emerging technologies like QCI is doing in quantum. We are confident that the expanded team will accelerate our growth and advance quantum computing in the enterprise ahead of industry predictions.

Dave Morris has over 20 years of success leading regional, national, and international sales strategy, business development and execution, including significant roles with Cisco Systems and Intel. He previously was chief revenue officer of Airspace Systems, Inc., a leader in the drone detection and analytics space. Dave has a proven ability to set a clear vision and deliver meaningful results. He has prepared and adapted large sales teams to drive change and exploit technology evolution, both critical elements in quantum computing.

I am excited to join a team of accomplished professionals who are blazing the path to bring real value to the business community through QCIs ready-to-run quantum software, explained Morris. I am honored to be QCIs face to the business community at this pivotal inflection in the evolution of quantum computing. It is a rare opportunity to change computing at a fundamental level and apply it to real-word business problems. I look forward to working with progressive businesses who appreciate the potential of quantum to drive competitive advantage and boost results.

Rebel Brown has helped myriad U.S. and European advanced tech companies create, enter and lead markets.She brings deep expertise in strategy, product marketing/management and positioning. Rebel has helped raise more than $500M in startup funding, launched innovative technologies in software systems, development and HPC, and supported successful exits to companies like Apple, IBM, EMC, SGI and BEA. Along the way, Rebel helped introduce Unix to the commercial marketplace, launched the first open systems management platforms and put C++ objects on the map.

Ive successfully launched some of the most advanced tech throughout my career and have never seen a shift as potentially impactful as quantum computing, said Rebel Brown. QCI has quickly established itself as the market leader in ready-to-run quantum software. Like any early market, the hardest part can be separating hype from reality. I am excited to join the QCI team because of the companys commitment to demystifying the technology, and bringing the power of quantum to all users, not just quantum scientists, through real-world solutions that improve business results today.

QCIs flagship quantum software, Qatalyst, puts the power of quantum techniques for classical computing into the hands of non-quantum experts for solving critical business problems today. Qatalyst is the first to drive computational results on any quantum or classical computer without any new programming or low-level coding, quantum experts or exorbitantly long and costly development cycles. Qatalyst is now commercially available to support the QikStart Program, QCIs initiative to accelerate the real-world use cases for quantum computing.

QCI is unique in its capability to access a variety of quantum computers, including D-Wave, IonQ, and Rigetti, through Amazons Braket.

To learn more about QCI and how Qatalyst can deliver results for your business today, go to http://www.quantumcomputinginc.com.

About Quantum Computing Inc.Quantum Computing Inc. (OTCQB: QUBT) (QCI) is focused on accelerating the value of quantum computing for real-world business solutions. The companys flagship product, Qatalyst, is the first software to bridge the power of classical and quantum computing, hiding complexity and empowering SMEs to solve complex computational problems today. QCIs expert team in finance, computing, security, mathematics and physics has over a century of experience with complex technologies; from leading edge supercomputing innovations, to massively parallel programming, to the security that protects nations. Connect with QCI on LinkedIn and @QciQuantum on Twitter. For more information about QCI, visit http://www.quantumcomputinginc.com.

Important Cautions Regarding Forward-Looking StatementsThis press release contains forward-looking statements as defined within Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. By their nature, forward-looking statements and forecasts involve risks and uncertainties because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that will occur in the near future. Those statements include statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of Quantum Computing (Company), and members of its management as well as the assumptions on which such statements are based. Prospective investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, and that actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by such forward-looking statements.

The Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed conditions. Statements in this press release that are not descriptions of historical facts are forward-looking statements relating to future events, and as such all forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements may contain certain forward-looking statements pertaining to future anticipated or projected plans, performance and developments, as well as other statements relating to future operations and results. Any statements in this press release that are not statements of historical fact may be considered to be forward-looking statements. Words such as "may," "will," "expect," "believe," "anticipate," "estimate," "intends," "goal," "objective," "seek," "attempt," aim to, or variations of these or similar words, identify forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those described in Item 1A in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K, which is expressly incorporated herein by reference, and other factors as may periodically be described in the Companys filings with the SEC.

Qatalyst and QikStart are trademarks of Quantum Computing Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Company Contact:Robert Liscouski, CEOQuantum Computing, Inc.+1 (703) 436-2161info@quantumcomputinginc.com

Investor Relations Contact:Ron Both or Grant StudeCMA Investor Relations+1 (949) 432-7566Email Contact

Media Relations Contact:Seth MenackerFusion Public Relations+1 (201) 638-7561qci@fusionpr.com

Twophotos accompanying this announcementare available at:

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/13673ad8-502d-4aee-9969-ab520c8bd6c2

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/0f1609d3-14c0-453e-9ea8-1de2897b3f5c

Original post:

QCI Expands Sales and Marketing Team to Accelerate Growth and Advance Enterprise Adoption of Quantum Computing - GlobeNewswire

Article

5 Questions to Hansjrg Kutterer, DVW

April 1, 2021

Innovative developments based on quantum physics will lead to further disruption of our professional field over the coming decade, predicts Hansjrg Kutterer who, besides being president of DVW, is also a professor of geodetic Earth system science. 'GIM International'asked him five questions relating to the challenges and opportunities in the geospatial industry, now and in the future.

2020 was an extraordinary year. How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the way the industry operates, and which other factors are influencing the geospatial business?

The pandemic was and is extremely influential on our professional life. At very short notice, we had to considerably change our approaches from on-site and immediate to remote and fully virtual settings. Fortunately, we could benefit from the ongoing digital transformation. The existing digital infrastructure and established procedures based on digital communication and collaboration tools could be used in order to overcome obstacles caused by the pandemic. Thus, it was possible to provide effective substitutes in the given situation, such as digital meetings, digital conferences or digital teaching. Nevertheless, both technical capacities and personal capabilities needed rapid upgrades. Actually, the accelerated digitalization is both an opportunity and an obligation for the geospatial business, as work can generally be continued on a digital basis but very often relies on digital geospatial data.

Which new technologies do you foresee becoming important to your work?

This is going to be the decade of continuous Earth observation based on a sustainably maintained infrastructure and a comprehensive open-data policy. The European Copernicus system may serve as an example. Rapidly increasing amounts of heterogeneous geospatial data are obtained within very short time spans. These new opportunities are accompanied by the strong need for effective data management using integrated research data infrastructures, for example. Moreover, advanced data processing is required which comprises things like deep learning techniques. I also expect that innovative developments based on quantum physics will lead to further disruption of our professional field over the coming decade. Quantum sensors such as optical clocks will provide accurate height differences over large distances, and quantum computers will further speed up time-consuming computations.

Is the surveying profession able to attract enough qualified personnel?

The number of qualified personnel is becoming increasingly crucial for the further development of the surveying profession. Despite the broad appeal of our professional field and the high number of vacancies, there is still a lack of public visibility and thus limited awareness among potential candidates. For this reason, there have been various activities in Germany over the years aimed at reaching and attracting more young people to the industry. For example, the Instagram campaign #weltvermesserer has been launched in 2021 by a consortium consisting of all national stakeholders, including the private sector, administration, science and all relevant professional organizations. Both the expected impact of this campaign and the increasing interdisciplinary nature of our professional community will provide a good basis for tackling this sizeable challenge successfully.

What is your policy on crowdsourcing and open data?

Due to my academic role and my volunteer position within DVW, my answer is twofold. Open data policies are mandatory for a more comprehensive scientific, administrative or private exploitation of existing and newly incoming data. This definitely refers to all stakeholders who rely on geospatial data. Data generated and used in science and education must be open and available through efficient digital data infrastructures. Sustainable open-data initiatives and programmes are highly appreciated. Crowdsourcing offers the opportunity to collect data that is either outside the scope of public agencies or could offer an alternative to existing administrative data that is only available with a licence. The DVW organization encourages any initiative that advances the fields of geodesy, geoinformation and land management.

In terms of meeting your goals, what is the biggest challenge for your organization in the next five years?

As a university professor I am very aware of the increasing need of the professional community for enhanced capabilities in the digital transformation, in smart and integrated systems, in the widespread application of our contributions, and in interdisciplinary work. This needs to be further implemented in the curricula over the coming years, including effective digital settings and dedicated competence-oriented techniques. Actually, this is also linked to DVWs activities, albeit from the perspective of a non-profit organization. As DVW, we offer professional expertise, conferences, post-graduate training, highly skilled working groups, and last but not least an attractive networking platform for our members, essentially based on volunteering. This needs to be sustainably maintained and further developed.

Read more from the original source:

Quantum Physics to Disrupt Geospatial Industry over the Coming Decade - GIM International

Mathematics is a language and languages can be used to create stories. It just takes imagination to create time travel or wormholes or theories of strings or lots of nice things theoretical physicists throw into arXiv.

Sometimes math has to create a story because real numbers don't work, even if the physics does.

Wave-particle duality, a foundation of quantum mechanics, has a fascinating science history. James Clerk Maxwell, whose equations govern the device you are reading this article on, couldn't explain everything - he died of cancer at age 46. It was left to Albert Einstein a generation later, in his 1905 paper, to describe light as photons containing properties of both particles and electromagnetic fields - the waves of Maxwell.

In 1923, Louis de Broglie came up with an idea for how particles could behave like waves and then two physicists at Western Electric, Lester Germer and Clinton Davisson, proved it with electrons. But there was still something missing from that physical proof - an explanation using using real numbers. I mentioned Maxwell's Equations being fundamental to the device you are this reading on, and they are the basis for a trillion-dollar industry, but despite that I wish you good luck defining a magnetic field without being recursive (like it's a field in the presence of a magnet). So it goes with wave-particle duality without using imaginary numbers. Real numbers are for measurable physical quantities. This has not really been an obstacle. Sometimes things work even if it's a bit of a black box how, so complex numbers have real and imaginary aspects; a and bi. a and b are real while i is imaginary.

A new paper says that rather than complex numbers being a purely mathematical invention to "facilitate calculations for physicists", quantum states and complex numbers are instead ironically and inextricably linked. They even can show it experimentally.

There is no i in the real world. You can have one pair of shoes, you can have two, and if the dog takes the left one you can have 1/2 of a pair of shoes but you can never have i pairs of shoes - shoes are not roots of negative numbers. Yet quantum mechanics deals with probability - if it will behave like a particle or a wave a la Schrdinger. Such changes in 'time' are called the wave function,and i is next to the wave function in Schrdinger's equation.

Complex numbers have an amplitude and phase and i describes the phase. Without it, the sum of all the probabilities can't be equal to one.

All fine for math, but you can see why the public thinks that is not real, any more than subject-verb agreement in a story is "real", even as it's important, or that adjectives need to go in a certain order - "size comes before colour, green great dragons can't exist"- in a story. Obviously such a thing can exist, English is not the only language and I am tempted to write a story in English using no adjective in commonly accepted order because I am a rebel. That is why complex numbers also have their place when the math is not middle school.

Scientists have debated whether or not the quantum realm can be shown with real numbers. That is what the new paper sought to answer, and they used our old friends Alice and Bob, from the seminal 1978 paper by Rivest and Adleman, when encryption was already a big concern.

If two photons are in one of two quantum states, you need complex numbers to tell them apart. Only then can you send one photon to Alice and the other to Bob where they can be measured and compared.

"Let's assume Alice and Bob's measurement results can only take on the values of 0 or 1. Alice sees a nonsensical sequence of 0s and 1s, as does Bob. However, if they communicate, they can establish links between the relevant measurements. If the game master sends them a correlated state, when one sees a result of 0, so will the other. If they receive an anti-correlated state, when Alice measures 0, Bob will have 1. By mutual agreement, Alice and Bob could distinguish our states, but only if their quantum nature was fundamentally complex," says co-author Dr. Alexander Streltsov from the University of Warsaw.

More importantly, if you value experimental physics over theoretical, is that they did an experiment using linear optics. It proved "that complex numbers are an integral, indelible part of quantum mechanics."

Credit: USTC

What does it all mean in a practical sense? Quantum superposition in the real world has been a pipe dream since I was young but that is because it is evolutionary in the real world unlike revolutionary in the theoretical. Yet the real world has to accept that some things will always be complex and proceed from there. This paper moves us along that path.

Go here to see the original:

Imaginarity: New Paper Says The Imaginary Part Of Quantum Mechanics Can Be Observed - Science 2.0

Modern physics is full of the sort of twisty, puzzle-within-a-puzzle plots youd find in a classic detective story: Both physicists and detectives must carefully separate important clues from unrelated information. Both physicists and detectives must sometimes push beyond the obvious explanation to fully reveal whats going on.

And for both physicists and detectives, momentous discoveries can hinge upon Sherlock Holmes-level deductions based on evidence that is easy to overlook. Case in point: the Muon g-2 experiment currently underway at the US Department of Energys Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

The current Muon g-2 (pronounced g minus two) experiment is actually a sequel, an experiment designed to reexamine a slight discrepancy between theory and the results from an earlier experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory, which was also called Muon g-2.

The discrepancy could be a sign that new physics is afoot. Scientists want to know whether the measurement holds up or if its nothing but a red herring.

The Fermilab Muon g-2 collaboration has announced it will present its first result on April 7. Until then, lets unpack the facts of the case.

Illustration by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Steve Shanabruch

All spinning, charged objectsincluding muons and their better-known particle siblings, electronsgenerate their own magnetic fields. The strength of a particles magnetic field is referred to as its magnetic moment or its g-factor. (Thats what the g part of g-2 refers to.)

To understand the -2 part of g-2, we have to travel a bit back in time.

Spectroscopy experiments in the 1920s (before the discovery of muons in 1936) revealed that the electron has an intrinsic spin and a magnetic moment. The value of that magnetic moment, g, was found experimentally to be 2. As for why that was the valuethat mystery was soon solved using the new but fast-growing field of quantum mechanics.

In 1928, physicist Paul Diracbuilding upon the work of Llewelyn Thomas and othersproduced a now-famous equation that combined quantum mechanics and special relativity to accurately describe the motion and electromagnetic interactions of electrons and all other particles with the same spin quantum number. The Dirac equation, which incorporated spin as a fundamental part of the theory, predicted that g should be equal to 2, exactly what scientists had measured at the time.

But as experiments became more precise in the 1940s, new evidence came to light that reopened the case and led to surprising new insights about the quantum realm.

Illustration by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Steve Shanabruch

The electron, it turned out, hada little bit of extra magnetism that Diracs equation didnt account for. That extra magnetism, mathematically expressed as g-2 (or the amount that g differs from Diracs prediction), is known as the anomalous magnetic moment. For a while, scientists didnt know what caused it.

If this were a murder mystery, the anomalous magnetic moment would be sort of like an extra fingerprint of unknown provenance on a knife used to stab a victima small but suspicious detail that warrants further investigation and could unveil a whole new dimension ofthe story.

Physicist Julian Schwinger explained the anomaly in 1947 by theorizing that the electron could emit and then reabsorb a virtual photon. The fleeting interaction would slightly boost the electrons internal magnetism by a tenth of a percent, the amount needed to bring the predicted value into line with the experimental evidence. But the photon isnt the only accomplice.

Over time, researchers discovered that there was an extensive network of virtual particles constantly popping in and out of existence from the quantum vacuum. Thats what had been messing with the electrons little spinning magnet.

The anomalous magnetic moment represents the simultaneous combined influence of every possible effect of those ephemeral quantum conspirators on the electron. Some interactions are more likely to occur, or are more strongly felt than others, and they therefore make a larger contribution. But every particle and force in the Standard Model takes part.

The theoretical models that describe these virtual interactions have been quite successful in describing the magnetism of electrons. For the electrons g-2, theoretical calculations are now in such close agreement with the experimental value that its like measuring the circumference of the Earth with an accuracy smaller than the width of a single human hair.

All of the evidence points to quantum mischief perpetrated by known particles causing any magnetic anomalies. Case closed, right?

Not quite. Its now time to hear the muons side of the story.

Illustration by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Steve Shanabruch

Early measurements of the muons anomalous magnetic moment at Columbia University in the 1950s and at the European physics laboratory CERN in the 1960s and 1970s agreed well with theoretical predictions. The measurements uncertainty shrank from 2% in 1961 to 0.0007% in 1979. It looked as if the same conspiracy of particles that affected the electrons g-2 were responsible for the magnetic moment of the muon as well.

But then, in 2001, the Brookhaven Muon g-2 experiment turned up something strange. The experiment was designed to increase the precision from the CERN measurements and look at the weak forces contribution to the anomaly. It succeeded in shrinking the error bars to half a part per million. But it also showed a tiny discrepancyless than 3 parts per millionbetween the new measurement and the theoretical value. This time, theorists couldnt come up with a way to recalculate their models to explain it. Nothing in the Standard Model could account for the difference.

It was the physics mystery equivalent of a single hair found at a crime scene with DNA that didnt seem to match anyone connected to the case. The question wasand still iswhether the presence of the hair is just a coincidence, or whether it is actually an important clue.

Physicists are now re-examining this hairat Fermilab, with support from the DOE Office of Science, the National Science Foundation and several international agencies in Italy, the UK, the EU, China, Korea and Germany.

In the new Muon g-2 experiment, a beam of muonstheir spins all pointing the same directionare shot into a type of accelerator called a storage ring. The rings strong magnetic field keeps the muons on a well-defined circular path. If g were exactly 2, then the muons spins would follow their momentum exactly. But, because of the anomalous magnetic moment, the muons have a slight additional wobble in the rotation of their spins.

When a muon decays into an electron and two neutrinos, the electron tends to shoot off in the direction that the muons spin was pointing. Detectors on the inside of the ring pick up a portion of the electrons flung by muons experiencing the wobble. Recording the numbers and energies of electrons they detect over time will tell researchers how much the muon spin has rotated.

Using the same magnet from the Brookhaven experiment with significantly better instrumentation, plus a more intense beam of muons produced by Fermilabs accelerator complex, researchers are collecting 21 times more data to achieve four times greater precision.

The experiment may confirm the existence of the discrepancy; it may find no discrepancy at all, pointing to a problem with the Brookhaven result; or it may find something in between, leaving the case unsolved.

Illustration by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Steve Shanabruch

Theres reason to believe something is going on that the Standard Model hasnt told us about.

The Standard Model is a remarkably consistent explanation for pretty much everything that goes on in the subatomic world. But there are still a number of unsolved mysteries in physics that it doesnt address.

Dark matter, for instance, makes up about 27% of the universe. And yet, scientists still have no idea what its made of. None of the known particles seem to fit the bill. The Standard Model also cant explain the mass of the Higgs boson, which is surprisingly small. If the Fermilab Muon g-2 experiment determines that something beyond the Standard Modelfor example an unknown particleis measurably messing with the muons magnetic moment, it may point researchers in the right direction to close another one of these open files.

A confirmed discrepancy wont actually provide DNA-level details about what particle or force is making its presence known, but it will help narrow down the ranges of mass and interaction strength in which future experiments are most likely to find something new. Even if the discrepancy fades, the data will still be useful for deciding where to look.

It might be that a shadowy quantum figure lurking beyond the Standard Model is too well hidden for current technology to detect. But if its not, physicists will leave no stone unturned and no speck of evidence un-analyzed until they crack the case.

Excerpt from:

The mystery of the muon's magnetism | symmetry magazine - Symmetry magazine

Miracle drugs and revolutionary products seem to pop up daily in todays social-media-driven world. Maybe its a magic diet that will make you lose 20 pounds in a week or an amino-acid-fortified shampoo that cures baldness in 24 hours. But one way or the other, theres a good chance youve come across a few of them.

Unfortunately, these so-called miracle products are generally terrible disappointments. And that shouldnt be surprising. Most if not all of these magic products have little to no scientific evidence backing them. At best, they are a waste of your time and money. At worst? They can lead to sickness or even death.

Here's a guide to everything you need to know about pseudoscience, how to spot fake products, and a list of some of the most popular products and technologies that are all hype and no science.

First things first what exactly is pseudoscience? The word pseudo means "false," so pseudoscience simply translates to false science. Or better put it is nonsense dressed up as science. Pseudoscience is almost always either loosely based on real science or what sounds like science.

In his recently published research paper, Sven Hanson, a Swedish philosopher, defines pseudoscience as "a doctrine that is claimed to be scientific in spite of not being so." He goes on to say that, unlike science, which is open to change and new information, pseudoscience is ideological in nature. It is "characterized by a staunch commitment to doctrines that are irreconcilable with legitimate science."

Hanson identifies the three major boxes that pseudoscience must check as: 1) It refers to issues that rest within the domain of science. 2) Its results are unreliable (not reproducible). 3) It is based on a body of knowledge that is ideological and generally stands as a doctrine

According to Hanson, pseudotechnology is, an alleged technology that is irreparably dysfunctional for its intended purpose since it is based on construction principles that cannot be made to work. To paraphrase, it doesnt do what its supposed to and can never do so. Interestingly, the term pseudotechnology is pretty unpopular. In fact, as of April 2020, the word pseudoscience was searched on Google 700 times more than pseudotechnology, notes Hanson.

And heres why you dont hear so much about pseudotechnology if a piece of tech doesnt work, youll know right there on the spot. Additionally, a technology typically only impacts the end-user (or those near to them). Science, on the other hand, involves all-encompassing concepts that usually impact us all and is more difficult to refute than a technology that does or does not do a specific thing.

In an ideal world, pseudoscience would be easy to spot. Unfortunately, the many so-called experts who promote these products usually make the task more challenging. For instance, Dr. Mehmet Oz, a doctor and popular TV host, has been repeatedly accused of peddling pseudoscientific information on his show and even had to appear before the US senate in 2014. In one of his episodes, he proclaimed green coffee extract as a magic weight-loss compound. In his defense, a handful of research studies did report a mildweight-loss benefit for this compound. But heres the kicker: these studies are based on poor methodological quality, according to a systematic review on the subject published in Gastroenterology Research and Practice.

In short, Dr. Oz's claims were not based on reliable peer review or what actual science shows.

Elsewhere, Goop, Gwyneth Paltrows company, has also been heavily criticized for peddling false health claims. In fact, in 2018, they were forced to pay a $145,000 settlement in a lawsuit they faced for peddling false health claims for financial profit. For instance, Goop claimed that one of their products the vaginal jade egg could regulate menstrual cycles, balance hormones, increase bladder control and prevent urinary prolapse. Wow. Sounds like a cureall.

Unfortunately, it cannot do any of those things.

So, how do you ensure you dont fall for con artists parading as scientists? Well, here are a few telltale signs of pseudoscience-based products.

They rely heavily on testimonials

As far as real science is concerned, you dont need to oversell anything. If it works, your results should do the talking. But marketers of pseudoscientific products understand that people respond well to emotional stimulation and the story of others. So, instead of sharing real data, they emphasize the numerous testimonials they have from current users.

If the science behind a product is legit, the manufacturers will go out of their way to share the results. Testimonials will only be secondary. But if you find a so-called science-based product that is marketed largely based on testimonials, then be careful... its probably a scam.

Theyre based on new and evolving sciences

Evolving sciences are a major breeding ground for quacks and people who want to get away with whatever explanation they provide. This isnt yet fully understood, but it works, is the catchphrase they use to deceive the innocent public, so you might want to look out for that.

Speaking of evolving sciences, quantum mechanics has been heavily abused in this regard. For instance, one business created a so-called tick-repelling barrier that supposedly utilizes the "power of the bio-energetic field which surrounds all living things"to create a repelling barrier against insects and its all based on "natures energetic principles in combination with physics, quantum physics, and advanced computer software technology". But guess what quantum physics doesn't work like that.

One Product cures many diseases

Okay heres the thing the human body is very complex and even a single disease can have multiple root causes. So, the idea of a single product curing multiple ailments is simply impractical and irrational no matter how many testimonials they display or how shiny the science looks.

They ignore real scientific processes

Evidence-based products or treatments undergo multiple steps in the scientific process before theyre released for public use. For a new medicine or treatment, such steps may include basic lab research, animal tests, clinical trials, and eventually, peer-reviewed publications. If a so-called miracle product hasnt been rigorously tested enough to result in a published peer-reviewed paper, you should probably stay away from it.

One Genius figured it out

While it may be easy for a fictional Tony Stark to create some of the world's greatest technologies all by himself, the truth is far from this in the real world. Even geniuses like Elon Musk and Bill Gates dont claim to figure out everything all by themselves.

The truth is that science and medicine have been practiced for thousands of years. And even the most novel findings are largely based on building on the existing knowledge provided by many people. So, when you hear that one person figured out some new technique or cure overnight, without it going through some sort of critique or review by other experts, you can almost be certain its pseudoscience.

Read the original post:

Your Guide to Products and Technologies That Are Pseudoscience - Interesting Engineering

Classical computers have served us well and they will continue to do so but breakthroughs in quantum physics are opening up new doors. Thats why Im sharing my favorite quantum computing stocks today.

Its still in the early stages and could take a while to pay off. But the list of companies below gives you some great investing opportunities. Youll find big companies shaking up the technology world. Theyre not resting on their laurels.

Ill highlight some research from each company and what excites me most. But first, itd be good to get a better understanding of this up-and-coming technology. The potential is huge

Moores Law states that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles about every two years. This exponential trend has led to massive advancements in our world. In fact, its impacted every industry and all of our lives.

To help put Moores Law in perspective, a new iPhone is millions of times faster than the Apollo spacecraft when it comes to computing. Computers have become exponentially faster. This trend might be coming to an end, though

Gordon Moore and other forecasters expect that Moores law will end around 2025. Its the result of an intricate set of physics problems. And quantum computing might be the next big step forward.

Many technology companies see the potential and are investing lots of money. If their research pays off, the top quantum computing stocks could hand shareholders huge returns.

These new computers have the ability to store more information thanks to whats called superposition. Unlike traditional computers that use bits with only ones and zeros, quantum computers take it to the next level. They have the advantage of using ones, zeros and superpositions of ones and zeros. This opens up the door for solving tasks that have long been thought impossible for classical computers.

This list of quantum computing companies includes some of the largest companies in the world. They have proven business models and the resources to push quantum computing forward.

As a result, this list provides some cashflow safety for investors, while providing exposure to new technologies. So lets take a look at some of their top quantum research and projects

IBM was one of the first big movers in quantum research. And already, its deployed 28 quantum computers. Thats the largest fleet of commercial devices, and IBM has a road map to scale systems to 1,000 qubits and beyond.

The IBM Quantum Network is currently working with more than 100 partners. These partners are in many different industries and are developing real-world commercial applications. IBM also offers free access to quantum computing.

IBM is scaling these technologies and making them more accessible. This is vital for further adoption and innovation. The strategy is working, and IBM will continue to be one of the top quantum computing stocks over the coming decades.

Alphabet is one of the top quantum computing stocks to buy. Back in 2019, the company claimed quantum supremacy for the first time when its advanced computer surpassed the performance of conventional devices.

Alphabets Sycamore quantum processor performed a specific task in 200 seconds that would take the worlds best supercomputer 10,000 years. Thats a huge milestone, and the company is continuing to advance with quantum physics.

Google AI Quantum is making big strides as well. Its developing new quantum processors and algorithms to help solve a wide range of problems. Its also open sourcing some of its framework to spur innovation.

Intel is a semiconductor giant thats developing many cutting-edge technologies. And its been making quantum processors in Oregon. Furthermore, the company hopes to reach production-level quantum computing within 10 years.

Intel is on its third generation of quantum processors with 49 qubits. The company has a unique approach, advancing a technology known as spin qubits in silicon. Intel believes it has a scaling advantage over superconducting qubits.

This easily makes Intel one of the top quantum computing stocks. Buying into this company gives investors exposure to many cutting-edge technologies.

Similar to IBM, Microsoft takes a comprehensive approach to quantum computing. Its working on all the technologies required to scale commercial application.

Microsoft is advancing all layers of its computing stack. This includes the controls, software and development tools. Microsoft also created the Azure Quantum open cloud ecosystem. This helps speed up innovation.

In addition, the tech giant is making great advancements with Topological qubits. These provide performance gains over conventional qubits. They increase stability and reduce the overall amount of qubits needed. Its promising technology that should reward shareholders down the road.

Amazon Quantum Solutions Lab is helping businesses identify opportunities. Amazons experts are working with clients to better understand quantum computing. This helps them build new algorithms and solutions.

Amazon now offers quantum computing on Amazon Web Services through Amazon Bracket. This service provides access to D-Wave hardware. D-Wave is a leading quantum computing company based in Canada. Its not publicly traded, though

Overall, Amazon is continuing to disrupt many industries. And advancing quantum computing should help drive its innovation even further.

This quantum stock is the smallest on the list. It gives direct exposure to quantum computing. This makes it a higher-risk opportunity, however. Its risk-to-reward setup looks good for long-term investors, though.

Quantum Computing offers cloud-based, ready-to-run software. Its focused on creating services that dont require quantum expertise or training to use. This approach is opening the doors for more businesses to leverage the new technologies.

This company is also focusing on real-world problems such as logistics optimization, cybersecurity and drug discovery. To accomplish this, its partnering with hardware companies such as D-Wave.

The quantum computing companies above are mostly indirect plays. Their other established businesses provide the capital required to innovate. This is vital, as quantum computing is still an up-and-coming industry.

It might take a decade or more to really play out. And investing early in these technologies can lead to large returns for patient investors. Quantum breakthroughs are compounding and creating new opportunities.

Whether you buy into these top quantum computing stocks or not, well all benefit from the innovation. If you want to stay on the cutting edge of tech investing, consider signing up for Profit Trends. Its a free e-letter thats packed with useful research and tech investing opportunities. Also, here are some othertech IPOs that you might want to consider.

Visit link:

6 Quantum Computing Stocks to Invest in This Decade - Investment U

Swedish Philosopher Nick Bostroms simulation argument says we might be living in a computer-generated reality. Maybe hes right. There currently exists no known method by which we could investigate the parameters of our programming, so its up to each of us to decide whether to believe in The Matrix or not.

Perhaps its a bit more nuanced than that though. Maybe hes only half-wrong or half-right, depending on your philosophical view.

What if we are living in a simulation, but theres no computer (in the traditional sense) running it?

Heres the wackiest, most improbable theory I could cobble together from the weirdest papers Ive ever covered. I call it: Simulation Argument: Live and Unplugged.

Philosophy!

Bostroms hypothesis is actually quite complicated:

But it can be explained rather easily. According to him, one or more of the following statements must be true:

Bostroms basically saying that humans in the future will probablyrun ancestry simulations on their fancy futuristic computers. Unless they cant, dont want to, or humanity gets snuffed out before they get the chance.

Physics!

As many people have pointed out, theres no way to do the science when it comes to simulation hypothesis. Just like theres no way for the ants in an antcolony to understand why youve put them there, or whats going on beyond the glass, you and I cant slip the void to have a chat with the programmers responsible for coding us. Were constrained by physical rules, whether we understand them or not.

Quantum Physics!

Except, of course, in quantum mechanics. There, all the classical physics rules we spent millennia coming up with make almost no sense. In the reality you and I see every day, for example, an object cant be in two places at the same time. But the heart of quantum mechanics involves this very principal.

The universe at large appears to obey a different set of rules than the ones that directly apply to you and I in our everyday existence.

Astrophysics!

Scientists like to describe the universe in terms of rules because, from where were sitting, were basically looking at infinity from the perspective of an amoeba. Theres no ground-truth for us to compare notes against when we, for example, try to figure out how gravity works in and around a black hole. We use rules such as mathematics and the scientific method to determine whats really real.

So why are the rules different for people and stars than they are for singularities and wormholes? Or, perhaps more correctly: if the rules are the same for everything, why are they applied in different measures across different systems?

Wormholes, for example, could, in theory, allow objects to take shortcuts through physical spaces. And who knows whats actually on the other side of a black hole?

But you and I are stuck here with boring old gravity, only able to be in a single place at a time. Or are we?

Organic neural networks!

Humans, as a system, are actually incredibly connected. Not only are we tuned in somewhat to the machinations of our environment, but we can spread information about it across vast distances at incredible speeds. For example, no matter where you live, its possible for you to know the weather in New York, Paris, and on Mars in real-time.

Whats important there isnt how technologically advanced the smart phone or todays modern computers have become, but that we continue to find ways to increase and evolve our ability to share knowledge and information. Were noton Mars, but we know whats going on almost as if we were.

And, whats even more impressive, we can transfer that information acrossiterations. A child born today doesnt have to discover how to make fire and then spend their entire life developing the combustion engine. Its already been done. They can look forward and develop something new. Elon Musks already made a pretty good electric engine, so maybe our kids will figure out a fusion engine or something even better.

In AI terms, were essentially training new models based on the output from old models. And that makes humanity itself a neural network. Each generation of human adds selected information from the previous generations output to their input cycle and then, stack by stack, develop new methods and novel inferences.

The Multiverse!

Where it all comes together is in the wackiest idea of all: our universe is a neural network. And, because Im writing this on a Friday, Ill even raise the stakes and say our universe is one of many universes that, together, make up a grand neural network.

Thats a lot to unpack, but the gist involves starting with quantum mechanics and maintaining our assumptions as we zoom out beyond what we can observe.

We know that subatomic particles, in what we call the quantum realm, react differently when observed. Thats a feature of the universe that seems incredibly significant for anything that might be considered an observer.

If you imagine all subatomic systems as neural networks, with observation being the sole catalyst for execution, you get an incredibly complex computation mechanism thats, theoretically, infinitely scalable.

Rather than assume, as we zoom out, that every system is an individual neural network, it makes more sense to imagine each system as a layer inside of a largernetwork.

And, once you reach the biggest self-contained system we can imagine, the whole universe, you arrive at a single necessary conclusion: if the universe is a neural network, its output must go somewhere.

Thats where the multiverse comes in. We like to think of ourselves as characters in a computer simulation when we contemplate Bostroms theory. But what if were more like cameras? And not physical cameras like the one on your phone, but more like the term camera as it applies to when a developer sets a POV for players in a video game.

If our job is to observe, its unlikely were the entities the universe-as-a-neural-network outputs to. It stands to reason that wed be more likely to be considered tools or necessary byproducts in the grand scheme.

However, if we imagine our universe as simply another layer in an exponentially bigger neural network, it answers all the questions that derive from trying to shoehorn simulation theory into being a plausible explanation for our existence.

Most importantly: a naturally occurring, self-feeding, neural network doesnt require a computer at all.

In fact,neural networks almost never involve what we usually think of ascomputers. Artificial neural networks have only been around for a matter of decades, but organic neural networks, AKA brains, have been around for at least millions of years.

Wrap up this nonsense!

In conclusion, I think we can all agree that the most obvious answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything is the wackiest one. And, if you like wacky, youll love my theory.

Here it is: our universe is part of a naturally-occurring neural network spread across infinite or near-infinite universes. Each universe in this multiverse is a single layer designed to sift through data and produce a specific output. Within each of theselayers are infinite or near-infinite systems that comprise networks within the network.

Information travels between the multiverses layers through natural mechanisms. Perhaps wormholes are where data is received from other universes and black holes are where its sent for output extraction into other layers. Seems about as likely as us all living in a computer right?

Behind the scenes, in the places where scientists are currently looking for all the missing dark matter in the universe, are the underlying physical mechanisms that invisibly stitch together our observations (classical reality) with whatever ultimately lies beyond the great final output layer.

My guess: theres nobody on the receiving end, just a rubber hose connecting output to input.

Published April 2, 2021 20:06 UTC

More here:

What if youre living in a simulation, but theres no computer? - The Next Web

Quantum physics is, in short, the physics that explains how everything works. It explores the nature of the particles that make up matter and the sheer force with which they interact. Its the study of matter and energy at the most core level explaining how electrons move through a microchip or how the sun is a consistent ball of fire.

A great example is fluorescent lighting. The light you get from the tubes is a result of a quantum phenomenon its basically the reaction of a small amount of mercury vapour into the plasma.

Now, a bachelors, masters or PhD in quantum physics per se is not a thing. Its usually studied as part of the physics programme. However, you can aim for a masters or PhD that specialises in this field by taking on concentrations in quantum mechanics or quantum science.

To be a physics major, youll need a high school diploma, ACT or SAT scores, transcripts and letters of recommendation. Before declaring a major in physics, students are asked to complete coursework in general physics, algebra and calculus.

Those who are looking for a PhD programme in physics with a focus on quantum physics should have a strong undergraduate and masters background in physics with sufficient coursework in the domain. To add to that, an interest in independent research or a bachelors degree from an accredited college or uni is also needed.

NASA photo showing engineers and technicians insert 39 sample tubes into the belly of the Mars rover, as each tube is sheathed in a gold-coloured cylindrical enclosure to protect it from contamination, the perseverance rover will carry 43 sample tubes to the Red Planets Jezero Crater. Source: NASA/JPL-CALTECH/AFP

The more common courses cover thermodynamics, electromagnetism, statistical physics and quantum physics and mechanics. Many schools offer physics degree programmes that include quantum physics coursework, so when choosing, students might want to look closer at these details.

When pursuing a PhD with an interest in quantum physics, topics such as quantum mechanics, applied electrodynamics, quantum theory of solids, advanced solid state physics, statistical mechanics, quantum physics of matter, modern optics and quantum electronics are covered.

With a degree in this field, you can be a theoretical or experimental physicist, a researcher and even work with a quantum computer. Not only can you work in the engineering field (the highest paid jobs at NASA are the engineers), but in the world of medicine too, as quantum mechanics are used to make different compounds. A quantum physicist takes home an average annual pay of US$120,172.

See the rest here:

Quantum physics: what to expect - Study International News