|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 21, 2024 16:12:44 GMT
[quote timestamp="1709836621" source="/post/214514/thread" author=" Dubdrifter "I'm quite familiar with timing issues in digital circuits and it is something that has to be considered in the design. Crystal oscillators drift with temperature but it is OK in a computer because you drive everything from the same clock and you divide the frequency down to what you want using binary dividers. Delays can be experienced in the gates themselves, so you have to factor that in, and if you want to equalise timing you can do it on the PCB by adjusting the length of the tracks, which is common in circuits > 1 GHz. On the chip level the main quantum effect which screws it up is quantum tunnelling. This kicks in at about 5nm. This is why we have the integration density limit we have. The workaround currently being exploited is to have multi-layer chips. A Chinese firm claims to have a chip which incorporates 256 layers. I think that is still in the lab, but the general technology is going to shift that way for sure. The effects of gravity on caesium clocks can only be seen due to the incredible accuracy of these clocks. It is because we have this technology we can now confirm Einstein's general theory of relativity. It’s possible that much of the work being done trying to make the conceptual nature of QC’s work … will be useful when applied in future devices more useful to Humanity … www.newscientist.com/article/2420137-google-launches-5m-prize-to-find-actual-uses-for-quantum-computers/?utm_source=nsnew&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nsnew_070324&utm_term=Newsletter%20NSNEW_WeeklyAs things stand … your blowing £££$$$€€€¥¥¥ billions on a white elephant with few practical uses … Nice concept and hype … shame about Reality and Practicality. This field is struggling to deliver … and like many ideas with the word ‘quantum’ attached … people appear to be getting lost in the MATHS … and detached from hard facts and real possibilities. …. It appears one of science’s biggest problem now is the great Relativity Hoax … thinking Time has elasticity … when it’s nature is purely conceptual. The secrets of the Universe are pointing away from the 100 year dead end Theory of Relativity. Light and other wavelength particles are likely jumping instantly through the Dark Matter holes of our Physical Universe … everything has space in it … and I’m guessing this and gravity flexes the time errors in your hyper-sensitive atomic clocks. The lesson to learn here is … don’t build devices with poor stability. Clocks or Computers. Maths is the approach being used with people like Scott Aaronson.
If you have an hour to spare, I have a lecture here on the axiomatic approach to both maths and computation. I think you really need to learn this, and the chap explains it brilliantly. It's good to spend at least an hour a day looking at blackboards. The theory gives you the tools you need to properly understand it, and once that penny has dropped you will see something rather amazing. Lets stop using woolly terms and see how it works from basic logic.
This is particularly relevant to my work as I'm trying to design my own functional programming language. I dived in as an amateur, built something, played around with it and now I'm trying to solve some really fundamental issues to do with state and the flow of data, questions about types and so on. Anyway, the video gives you the first principles, but there is a whole load more on top of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Mar 22, 2024 2:38:34 GMT
I’ll give it a fair viewing … give me a few days to process …
[… As you know I am not one to get buried in Mathematical formulae … I deal more in practical solutions and observations … applying that grounded in as much scientific reality as allowed at the cutting edge of radical ideas.
…. Drawing ideas from threads of data like that stops one getting lost in formulae where mathematical symbolism can be flexible and loose enough for Reality to get lost in formula manipulation.
…. I think this is fundamentally where Quantum Mathematicians/Relativity buffs have come a cropper lately … and the Physics community has been steered down a few fundamental cul-de-sacs these past 100 years.
- ignoring observations on what extra-terrestrial alien technologies were achieving … didn’t help.
Thank God the Internet is shaking things up radically now … so the woolly thinking of the Establishment can be blown away by fresh ideas based on recent observations …
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 22, 2024 23:34:39 GMT
I’ll give it a fair viewing … give me a few days to process … [… As you know I am not one to get buried in Mathematical formulae … I deal more in practical solutions and observations … applying that grounded in as much scientific reality as allowed at the cutting edge of radical ideas. …. Drawing ideas from threads of data like that stops one getting lost in formulae where mathematical symbolism can be flexible and loose enough for Reality to get lost in formula manipulation. …. I think this is fundamentally where Quantum Mathematicians/Relativity buffs have come a cropper lately … and the Physics community has been steered down a few fundamental cul-de-sacs these past 100 years. - ignoring observations on what extra-terrestrial alien technologies were achieving … didn’t help. Thank God the Internet is shaking things up radically now … so the woolly thinking of the Establishment can be blown away by fresh ideas based on recent observations … The video is nothing to do with physics or quantum mechanics, but rather it is pure maths. You get different levels of maths. You get school maths, you get the long equations used in engineering calculus and that kind of thing, but above that you often find the advanced "real" maths as they like to say, does not use numbers, but notation that represents higher level concepts, where the expressions are often quite simple. It's when you get onto the real maths that you see what maths is all about. Once that is grasped, I think understanding quantum mechanics seems quite natural. The voodoo magic is in the way maths works. The video is good in that it explains an advanced idea in a way which makes it easy. The chap has a very good grasp of the subject. You often encounter difficulty if the teacher is a bit confused himself, as they pass on the confusion. This guy is very clear. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Mar 23, 2024 17:37:53 GMT
Oh dear …. Sounds like I’m going to struggle with this … from your description … this is way out of my comfort zone … I can rationalise the practical difficulties highlighted by some bolting Quantum Computing elements together …
I’ll give it a go … out of respect …
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 26, 2024 3:29:29 GMT
Oh dear …. Sounds like I’m going to struggle with this … from your description … this is way out of my comfort zone … I can rationalise the practical difficulties highlighted by some bolting Quantum Computing elements together … I’ll give it a go … out of respect … It would probably help if you have at least done some simple programming. If you have ever programmed in assembly then that's even better because you are close to the core of the machine and the way the machine thinks. Nearly all modern computers work in the way that was invented by John von Neumann, one of the most brilliant engineers and mathematicians there has been, and way smarter than Einstein. The other system , rather than being a step by step flow chart type of process, it is a function, just like in maths where say y = x^2 or alternatively f(x) = x^2, although often functions accept more than one input, like f(x, y, z) say. You can chain them together as well so you might say g(f(x)) so the output of f(x) is the input of g(x). These are two different programming paradigms. |
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Mar 26, 2024 9:53:25 GMT
Oh dear …. Sounds like I’m going to struggle with this … from your description … this is way out of my comfort zone … I can rationalise the practical difficulties highlighted by some bolting Quantum Computing elements together … I’ll give it a go … out of respect … It would probably help if you have at least done some simple programming. If you have ever programmed in assembly then that's even better because you are close to the core of the machine and the way the machine thinks. Nearly all modern computers work in the way that was invented by John von Neumann, one of the most brilliant engineers and mathematicians there has been, and way smarter than Einstein. The other system , rather than being a step by step flow chart type of process, it is a function, just like in maths where say y = x^2 or alternatively f(x) = x^2, although often functions accept more than one input, like f(x, y, z) say. You can chain them together as well so you might say g(f(x)) so the output of f(x) is the input of g(x). These are two different programming paradigms. I feel a bit awkward commenting on the contents of a video which mathematically lost me a third of the way thru … but then re-engaged me to the end. Firstly some basic questions: 1) What are ‘imaginary numbers’? … surely you can’t create systems in our real world using imaginary concepts? … (Re: my Relativity/Time concept argument revisited!) 2) Are Lambda Towers what Quantum Computing is all about? … or does the Turing Tower also apply to these machines … working in tandem? 3) If the above applies … can you point to hardware developed and working … that construct a practical Lambda Tower Computer system that works and is stable … gives a correct solution that isn’t ephemeral? 4) At point 25min 39 sec the lecturer states … “An algorithm is only computable … if and only if it can be encoded as a Turing Machine” … so don’t Lambda Towers calculate ANY algorithms?? … and therefore don’t follow any structural pattern or reality in our physical Universe? 5) Do Quantum Computers work towards Turing Completeness Systems?? … if the recording tape needs to be ‘infinite’( @26min) … and the State is never fixed … an end goal never reached … answers always ephemeral … aren’t Quantum Computers likely to swallow up enormous unlimited resources in money, energy and time … better spent engineering science solutions that actually save us from destroying our Planet? … and our Humanity? …. possibly more questions to follow …. and an answer or two … 👍🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 26, 2024 17:46:36 GMT
Firstly some basic questions: 1) What are ‘imaginary numbers’? … surely you can’t create systems in our real world using imaginary concepts? … (Re: my Relativity/Time concept argument revisited!) An imaginary number is denoted as i, or sometimes j in engineering. i = square root of -1 so i^2 = -1 and 1^4 = 1. A complex number is a real number + and imaginary number, so it is like a two dimensional number. You can draw it on a graph as a vector where i is the y axis and reals are the x axis. You can use trigonometry and Pythagoras on them, so think of a right angled triangle where the hypotenuse is the magnitude. They are used throughout maths and engineering.
A common use is in reactive circuits where you have resistance, capacitance and inductance. The capacitance and inductance are on the imaginary axis because the current phase is + & - 90 degrees out of phase to the resistive current, the resistance on the real axis and so we say the impedance is the magnitude. They are called orthogonal quantities, similar to how the axes of space are orthogonal to one another. Another common place imaginary numbers crop up is where you can write y = cos x + i sin x can be written as e^ix. Physics formulae often represent sine functions in exponential form. You also represent the angle in radians so if you want a 90 degree phase shift you just add pi/2 to the exponent.
2) Are Lambda Towers what Quantum Computing is all about? … or does the Turing Tower also apply to these machines … working in tandem? You could try and build a quantum system that works in either way or more usually in its own way. The boson sampling system could be called a quantum computer and that does not relate to either paradigm. Quantum computers are often similar to electrical circuits, so in the case of the D-wave machine you create the circuit by a microchip interface which makes the connections like electronic switches. 3) If the above applies … can you point to hardware developed and working … that construct a practical Lambda Tower Computer system that works and is stable … gives a correct solution that isn’t ephemeral? Well as he says the lambda system is just maths, as per it does not try and be a practical implementation. The main difference in it is it is a stateless system. This has big implications. It is Turing complete but has to use recursion which does not work so well with a von Neumann architecture. You use the stack to do recursion, but it is an inefficient use of memory and can run out of stack space easily. You can get around it. With a functional programming language though it does have some advantages. You can't get stuck in a loop and the order of execution is irrelevant due to the commutative property. 4) At point 25min 39 sec the lecturer states … “An algorithm is only computable … if and only if it can be encoded as a Turing Machine” … so don’t Lambda Towers calculate ANY algorithms?? … and therefore don’t follow any structural pattern or reality in our physical Universe?
Yes it is Turing complete, as per what you quote.
5) Do Quantum Computers work towards Turing Completeness Systems?? … if the recording tape needs to be ‘infinite’( @26min) … and the State is never fixed … an end goal never reached … answers always ephemeral … aren’t Quantum Computers likely to swallow up enormous unlimited resources in money, energy and time … better spent engineering science solutions that actually save us from destroying our Planet? … and our Humanity?
This is the problem. Quantum machines are often not Turing complete. If you use them in conjunction with classical machines as a kind of accelerator then that could be pretty useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Mar 27, 2024 7:20:44 GMT
Thanks for those answers … Do you think defining zero and negative(imaginary) numbers has led science down the cul-de-sacs it now faces today? Hypothetical concepts not grounded in Reality?
People argue nothing doesn’t exist in our Physical/practical Universe …. and negative situations shouldn’t be entertained as REAL. 😋 … what was defined as Negative (-ve) these last 2 centuries … should be redefined … reconfigured as REAL positives. (+) … physical observations.
It’s interesting the drive and money and energy being pumped into these hypothetical Quantum devices that swallow up so much in precious resources that AI robots may soon determine they should get priority over Human needs.
QC’s practically have very few applications that justify the effort … and as we have seen, some calculations can be done much easier through other devices … conventional Turing modelled computers … far easier to control … with memory … and greatly miniaturised in comparison.
Looking at the observed interiors of extra-terrestrial craft … that seem to be pretty much wireless … the emphasis seems to be moving away from the hardware dominated approach to computation that has seen the Turing Model reach the incredible speed levels we see today …. but has now reached a ceiling where chip size, wire connections, heat and mineral shortages are a brick wall to further progress.
Stripping all maths back to axiom basics is all very well … but it introduces so many more mundane calculation yes/no switchings … going pedantically the long way round to each solution … that make you wish the computer was more like the brain … able to short cut in a complex inter connected neural network … where short cuts are king. => delivering speed … less heat.
If photon switching is the way to go … surely Holographic Computing is now the way to go … where you scatter light like a disco ball along many short cut routes (Lambda configured)through your calculation holographic network … hitting reams of short cut detectors … some linked to Turing chips and others to more Lambda short cuts … giving you the best of both worlds, no? … QC power with energy saving … and memory that isn’t ephemeral. … no negatives, no zeros?😋
Just riffing here … so if this is much much slower than what’s out there already … just press “ignore”.🤔… and nip my impractical rambling in the bud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 28, 2024 15:08:40 GMT
Do you think defining zero and negative(imaginary) numbers has led science down the cul-de-sacs it now faces today? Hypothetical concepts not grounded in Reality?
No, but on the contrary, understanding how maths works has led to many physical discoveries.
People argue nothing doesn’t exist in our Physical/practical Universe …. and negative situations shouldn’t be entertained as REAL. 😋 … what was defined as Negative (-ve) these last 2 centuries … should be redefined … reconfigured as REAL positives. (+) … physical observations.
These people sound very confused. It's lack of education that leads them to think all manner of nonsense.
It’s interesting the drive and money and energy being pumped into these hypothetical Quantum devices that swallow up so much in precious resources that AI robots may soon determine they should get priority over Human needs.
That sounds like science fiction.
QC’s practically have very few applications that justify the effort … and as we have seen, some calculations can be done much easier through other devices … conventional Turing modelled computers … far easier to control … with memory … and greatly miniaturised in comparison.
If you viewed research in terms of current known uses then you would never get anywhere. Anyone who believes they can know all the effects a new technology will have is lying. I'm trying to steer you away from the bullshitters and show you real science and maths from reliable people.
Looking at the observed interiors of extra-terrestrial craft … that seem to be pretty much wireless … the emphasis seems to be moving away from the hardware dominated approach to computation that has seen the Turing Model reach the incredible speed levels we see today …. but has now reached a ceiling where chip size, wire connections, heat and mineral shortages are a brick wall to further progress.
There is a modified Turing machine called quantum Turing Machine.
This was invented in the 1980s at Oxford and replaces the tape with a Hilbert space and uses transitional matrices describing Markov chains. This is the area Scott Aaronson deals with.
Stripping all maths back to axiom basics is all very well … but it introduces so many more mundane calculation yes/no switchings … going pedantically the long way round to each solution … that make you wish the computer was more like the brain … able to short cut in a complex inter connected neural network … where short cuts are king. => delivering speed … less heat.
The theoretical models are used to establish the computational complexity of a class of computational problem. The same ideas are being used in the QTM as we used in the TM for classical computers. It's issues like the complexity of the problem, the complexity to verify a solution is correct, whether the algorithm will definitely terminate (halting problem) and other related analysis. It's a kind of meta analysis.
If photon switching is the way to go … surely Holographic Computing is now the way to go … where you scatter light like a disco ball along many short cut routes (Lambda configured)through your calculation holographic network … hitting reams of short cut detectors … some linked to Turing chips and others to more Lambda short cuts … giving you the best of both worlds, no? … QC power with energy saving … and memory that isn’t ephemeral. … no negatives, no zeros?😋Well what people do in the study of photonics is to look at all physical effects you can achieve with photons and see how these can implement useful computational functions. One technique is to temporarily store photons in a ring or the Kerr effect was one which is commonly used. actually the idea of a hologram is not too distant from the boson sampling computer mentioned earlier in the thread. That a kind of parallel interference system. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 4, 2024 19:05:14 GMT
Thanks for those answers …. By the way, talking of the axiomatic approach to computational systems I was just making a comment on a YT video from an Oxford 3rd year undergrad and then got chatting to some guy about mathematics, and he aid he was a programmer and brought up something called Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. I've just been reading up on it in wiki. This is quite modern maths and it is a way of creating a set theory that gets around the Russell Paradox.
It's interesting that Von Neumann's name crops up there. Gödel's incompleteness theorems derive from set theory, so that makes sense.
It's rather along page this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Apr 5, 2024 19:08:34 GMT
Apologies for not responding to your comments here earlier … I got distracted! … trying to stop WW3!😋🤪 Do you think defining zero and negative(imaginary) numbers has led science down the cul-de-sacs it now faces today? Hypothetical concepts not grounded in Reality?No, but on the contrary, understanding how maths works has led to many physical discoveries. So, you think states exist that are less than zero… Can you give examples pls? People argue nothing doesn’t exist in our Physical/practical Universe …. and negative situations shouldn’t be entertained as REAL. 😋 … what was defined as Negative (-ve) these last 2 centuries … should be redefined … reconfigured as REAL positives. (+) … physical observations.These people sound very confused. It's lack of education that leads them to think all manner of nonsense. When I said “people”, I mean’t ‘me’ … yes, I am a little confused … but feeling my way tentatively towards an idea.
Let me explain … toying with a simple example … take a 9v battery … flow is dictated as from + to - … it’s a direction of electron flow …. set up by a surfeit of electrons delivered from the + terminal (9v worth) released when a circuit is made to the negative terminal (- 9v as defined mathematically) … but technically … in reality … you cant have a state of -9v … just a minimum state of 0v? …. So the equation should replace the ‘-‘ symbol with a directional arrow (=>) symbol instead to indicate direction of electron flow.
Do you get the point I am making? - less than zero states don’t exist, right? … therefore you cannot use them in science and maths dealing with REAL situations? … does that sound logical?
[Like the point I’m making about all equations where ‘t’ is used … because Time is hypothetical … conceptual … all equations with ‘t’ in them … have no basis in our REAL physical Universe either.
Time is metronomal, linear, constant … and only important in human conceptual situations. … call it a ‘vanity’ mathematical symbol. Not staggeringly important … when there are NO HUMANS AROUND! 🤔]
Back to batteries … Change the polarity … flow changes direction … but nothing goes below a state of zero … which is reached when the battery dies.
Voltage meters therefore should be just directional flow strength indicators … not +/- current indicators.
Does that make sense? … I’m basically picking holes in the ACCURACY of mathematical symbolism when used in certain scientific situations defining our physical Universe - where we are chained by physical forces until deathIt’s interesting the drive and money and energy being pumped into these hypothetical Quantum devices that swallow up so much in precious resources that AI robots may soon determine they should get priority over Human needs.That sounds like science fiction. Surely the power needed to drive todays QC’s is going to be considerably? … That’s real … and AI robots, unregulated, without kill switches designed into chip architectures ~ could take over the World? … another REAL possibility.
Elon Musk is concerned about it … shouldn’t you be too?QC’s practically have very few applications that justify the effort … and as we have seen, some calculations can be done much easier through other devices … conventional Turing modelled computers … far easier to control … with memory … and greatly miniaturised in comparison.If you viewed research in terms of current known uses then you would never get anywhere. Anyone who believes they can know all the effects a new technology will have is lying. I'm trying to steer you away from the bullshitters and show you real science and maths from reliable people.
I appreciate the comment … and will try and keep my concerns grounded. … when quantum scientists become ‘grounded’ in the ‘real’ and stop robbing us tax-payers with ‘concepts’ that are clearly impossible … even to dumb laymen like me..
Looking at the observed interiors of extra-terrestrial craft … that seem to be pretty much wireless … the emphasis seems to be moving away from the hardware dominated approach to computation that has seen the Turing Model reach the incredible speed levels we see today …. but has now reached a ceiling where chip size, wire connections, heat and mineral shortages are a brick wall to further progress.There is a modified Turing machine called quantum Turing Machine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Turing_machineThis was invented in the 1980s at Oxford and replaces the tape with a Hilbert space and uses transitional matrices describing Markov chains. This is the area Scott Aaronson deals with. Stripping all maths back to axiom basics is all very well … but it introduces so many more mundane calculation yes/no switchings … going pedantically the long way round to each solution … that make you wish the computer was more like the brain … able to short cut in a complex inter connected neural network … where short cuts are king. => delivering speed … less heat. The theoretical models are used to establish the computational complexity of a class of computational problem. The same ideas are being used in the QTM as we used in the TM for classical computers. It's issues like the complexity of the problem, the complexity to verify a solution is correct, whether the algorithm will definitely terminate (halting problem) and other related analysis. It's a kind of meta analysis. If photon switching is the way to go … surely Holographic Computing is now the way to go … where you scatter light like a disco ball along many short cut routes (Lambda configured)through your calculation holographic network … hitting reams of short cut detectors … some linked to Turing chips and others to more Lambda short cuts … giving you the best of both worlds, no? … QC power with energy saving … and memory that isn’t ephemeral. … no negatives, no zeros?😋Well what people do in the study of photonics is to look at all physical effects you can achieve with photons and see how these can implement useful computational functions. One technique is to temporarily store photons in a ring or the Kerr effect was one which is commonly used. actually the idea of a hologram is not too distant from the boson sampling computer mentioned earlier in the thread. That a kind of parallel interference system. Hope my answers in red make sense. Apologies again for my delayed reply … […. Hope to look into your last post in a few days … going away for 4 days … have a great weekend! Regards DD] |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 5, 2024 19:38:34 GMT
An example of negative energy is the positron. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PositronIt's rather a head scratcher. Regarding negative voltages, all that is important is the potential difference, so the 0v potential is arbitrary. Electrical potential is analogous to gravitational potential energy. When you have an object and a planet, as a matter of convention the zero gravitational potential energy is the potential at infinite distance, so anything closer is regarded as a negative energy. The power to run a quantum computer depends on the type. If it uses electrons it has to be cooled to almost absolute zero so very costly for the cryogenics. QCs using photons just need a laser to drive them, and not a particularly powerful one. |
|
