|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
1 or a 0?
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 1 or a 0?Binary code. In an analog computing system a bit of information is either a one or a zero. Yet with quantum computing a bit can both be a one and a zero simultaneously. Thusly a quantum computer is magnitudes more powerful at processing information/computing. But why? Is it because it is not limited? It doesn't have the same burdens of limitations that an analog computer has by nature. Now take the predestination paradox. Relativity and quantum mechanics. I would hypothesis that the Universe is absolutely predetermined. AND also Understandable. Because of parallel Universe's and the Multiverse. So on the one hand you have no free will, yet on the other hand you have absolute free will at the same time. You are both a 1 and a zero simultaneously so to speak. Take the information paradox in Black hole theory. Information is both lost forever and never lost. It is lost within a fragment of the system but it still exists whin the totality of the system. Which is currently inaccessible to us. It seems to me that our thinking needs a tweak. The Universe avoids being pigeon holed into limitations. |
||
|
stalhandske 12-Apr-20, 21:06 |
Apatzer |
||
|
Stalhandske Now for some more Musings.... Hypothesis There is a concept in what I wrote an overall concept. That is currently eluding me like a word trapped in the tip of my tongue that just won't come to the surface. It is almost as if everything is set up on a spectrum of possibilities. And a duality of spectrum's. From great to small. The answer always seems to be yes and no simultaneously. How we choose to measure it, is where we fall on the spectrum. Or where our measurements fall on the spectrum of possibilities. For instance I was thinking about space time fabric, gravity (an after effect) The conventional was of thinking is like a fabric or net in 3 dimensions. This has always bothered me because it can not be accurately represented by a video grafic showing precisely the actions. However the measurements and predictions are extremely accurate. All gravity is said to be directly tied to mass and also affected by mass. An object on the surface of Mars would weigh less than it does on Earth because of the lower gravity, but it would still have the same mass. It would seem to me that what we call space time, is barely understood. I don't think we have any idea about what it is made of. And it has to be made of something because there is litteraly no such thing as nothing. However it is not made of matter it is made of energy or potential energy. Space time can be pushed (expansion) and it can be pulled (contraction) and there is no speed limit on how fast this can happen because it has no mass, or perhaps it has negative mass (another thought to investigate) Thefore space time fabric. Must be entangled in some way with atom's or even the higgs Bozon. But let's assume (for clarity) it is entangled with atom's. And those atom's are entangled with each other. Then mass is how many entangled atom's there are in one place and time. The more atom's. The more mass. Then the spacing of those atom's. This can be confusing so I will write a hypothetical analogy. To explain the overall thought. Let's say there is a planet that is 3 Earth masses. That planet could be the exact spherical size of the planet Earth. But due to the fact that it has more atom's packed into it's space. It is still 3 Earth masses. I concluded that space time must also flow through matter, probably between the gaps of atom's. This is why everything is attracted to the central portion of a massive body of mass. It flows through because space is constantly expanding. Thefore Gravity has to be the effect of atom's interacting with space time. Thusly matter ride's along with the expansion of space time because it grabs hold of it through that interaction. In a general way. On a more specific way, the entangled atom's of mass, interact and are entangled with space time. Drawing the space time towards the central portion of the entangled mass. So it actually contracts space time and slows it's flow relative to how many atom's are packed into a certain place. So Gravity has to be born from the interaction of atom's with space time. |
||
|
stalhandske 13-Apr-20, 20:45 |
Apatzer <The answer always seems to be yes and no simultaneously. How we choose to measure it, is where we fall on the spectrum> I would say that when this is the case our choice of method is bad or insufficient. I would also invite itchy to comment |
||
|
stalhandske 14-Apr-20, 00:37 |
Apatzer The conventional way of thinking is like a fabric or net in 3 dimensions. This has always bothered me because it can not be accurately represented by a video graphic showing precisely the actions. However the measurements and predictions are extremely accurate.> I will start, somewhat cryptically, to say that this 3D concept of gravity - indeed based on Einstein - is just a geometrical/mathematical model. It explains experiments perfectly but it doesn't really explain what gravity actually is, so I think your concern is entirely understandable. Just to give you a small hint, I think the actual explanation is very simple and was already on the tongues of Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, but they were not yet able to "connect the dots" because they were not aware of quantum mechanics or the actual nature of the void. |
||
|
10 + 10 =100 = 4 Not that that I’m an expert to the quantum by any means, but it appears that we might first need to argue and possibly clarify the difference between “analogue” and “digital” computers. There is no such thing as an Analog Computer that resembles anything approaching a computer as representation of a processor computer. but it can be accurately said that analog computers do exist in every-day household items such as Oscilloscopes, maybe radios and operational amplifiers, etc, because these products rely on variable inputs to be of practical use. There are apparently ways to build an analog computer with Electron tubes, but to even approach the computing power of your lap top would require a space the size of an aircraft carrier and the cost would approach $ billions. As for the history of Analog computers: It’s quite likely that they go back to the time when Evolution first found brains. Digital Computers use ones and zeros (see digital numbering system) to rapidly calculate vast amounts of information, because on and off (ones and zeros) are the only two possible states of a (digital) bit. Virtually all practical computers --- from your laptop computer to the largest Cray super computer use exclusively Digital computing. To avoid confusion: When we type the word “word” on our keyboard we see “word” on our computer screen and if we type “9” we see a 9. This is an analog like output that has been converted from digital to analog, for the convenience of our brains, by software. All CPUs (Central Processing Units) calculate ONLY in digital language. There was a time, not too long ago, when programing was done only with digital format because of limited data space, but that has been corrected as microminiaturization of Integrated Circuits (ICs) has advanced (Microsoft Word contains over 50 million bytes 8-bits of program) So. What about Quantum computers? Quantum computing is still in its infant stage. Although they are potentially capable of processing certain types of data that is cumbersome for Digital computers, they are still quite fussy, prone to errors and their application for common computer uses appears limited. After that, the Science of quantum computers is fascinating, and it seems that they might act in some ways like analog computers = brains --- currently ant brains at best. |
||
|
Thank you all This is an interesting article. www.quantamagazine.org I will return later and re read your posts it is 5 am and I'm exhausted. |
||
|
But why? Is it because it is not limited? It doesn't have the same burdens of limitations that an analog computer has by nature.>> I’m not going to claim this is my area, but as far as I know it’s to do with the idea that entangled quantum bits can store more information at once than their digital counterparts. For example, two bits can store 4 numbers (00, 01, 10 and 11) which are the binary equivalents of 0 to 3. Quantum bits are not restricted to these combinations, as they can exist in some strange in between phases as well. If we could use those phases to code for particular numbers, then our range increases for the same amount of bits. Due to this, quantum computers could process operations exponentially faster than regular computers. The downside is that it becomes more difficult to string these operations together into algorithms, because the steps are not carried out in an explicit order but instead done simultaneously and with probabilistic outcomes. |
||
|
itchynscratchy None of these topics are my area either hence my inaccuracies. |
||
|
(I still have the research article I got of the internet at the time). Being roughly 95% accurate is obviously not good enough for commercial use; besides, the calculation was a very simple mathematical problem that even a 8-year old could solve. Also at the time quantum computers were 'programmed' for a specific problem, while a digital computer could be applied to several different problems. The computing process is very different from digital computers. I don't fully understand it in detail- it has something to do with sending the qubits through a quantum gate, Since then quantum computers have improved and I hear they are being offered on the market for sale commercially. I don't know what the costs are and if it compares favorably with digital computers. I suspect not. I suspect that you would still get more bang for buck with a digital computer. I know that entities such as NASA have a lot of interest in quantum computing. I believe it is an essential requisite for a mission to Mars- due to the size and mass limitations on sending a payload to Mars. A digital computer would weigh the same mass as a quantum computer but will be (not yet) limited in comparison with quantum computers. All the traditional big names are into the research, but other companies are also unexpectedly entering the field, like Google, which we usually associate with software applications, not R&D into quantum computers. And I know of several new companies that have been created to focus specifically on quantum computing and R&D. My interest in quantum computing lies in old fashioned curiosity- I would love to decrypt RSA-encrypted communications. At the moment I can't to it with the technology I have available to me. I can only encrypt my own messages (and that of my organization). I should check into quantum computers and the development since 2009 again, and see what is happening in the field. |
