Monthly Archives: April 2021

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