Monthly Archives: September 2021

Theoretical physicists have spent nearly a century trying to reconcile a unified physical theory of our universe out of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

The problem they face is that both prevailing theories work incredibly well at describing our world, and have both held up under repeated experimentation.

But the two might as well be describing two entirely different realities that never actually intersect.

General relativity can mathematically describe a leaf falling from a tree, the orbits of moons and planets, even the formation of galaxies, but is not much use when trying to predict the motion of an electron.

Quantum mechanics, meanwhile appears to violate nearly everything we know about the universe that matter can only be in one place at any given time, that something can only be in one state at a time, or that observing something is not the same thing as interacting with it but which nonetheless gives us the mathematical tools we need to create lasers, quantum computers, and many other modern technologies.

Recently, though, an interesting proposal about a thorny paradox involving black holes,ER = EPR, has been causing quite a stir among physicists, and it's easy to see why. This simple equation might be the wormhole we've been looking forthat bridges the two seemingly irreconcilable theories.

The equation ER = EPRwas proposed in 2013 by the theoretical physicists Leonard Susskind andJuan Maldacena as a possible solution to one of the most contentious issues in modern physics: the black hole firewall.

The problem began in 1974, when British cosmologist Stephen Hawking proposed that black holes would actually leak particles and radiation, and eventually explode. This combined general relativity with quantum theory, but there was a big problem. Dr. Hawking concluded that the radiation coming from a black hole would be completely random, and would convey no information about what had fallen into it. When the black hole finally exploded, that information would be erased from the universe forever.

For particle physicists, this violated a basic tenet of quantum theory, that information is always preserved. Following a 30-year controversy, Dr. Hawking announced in 2004 that his theory was incorrect. However,Dr. Hawking might have been too hasty. At the time, nobody had figured out how information could get out of a black hole. But a group of researchers based in Santa Barabara may have found an answer.

First put forward in a 2012 paper published in the Journal of High Energy Physics, the black hole firewall theory states that immediately behind every event horizon of a black hole there must exist a veil of energy so intense that it completely incinerates anything that falls into it.

The authors demonstrated thatinformation flowing out of a black hole is incompatible with having an area of Einsteinian space-time, the event horizon, at its boundary. Instead of the event horizon, a black hole would have a region of energetic particles a firewall located just inside.

The reason for this, according to the paper's authors, Ahmed Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joseph Polchinski, and James Sully known collectively as AMPS is that three key assumptions about black holes can't all be true: that information which falls into a black hole is not lost forever (unitarity); that physics outside the event horizon still functions as normal even if it breaks down beyond the event horizon (quantum field theory); and that an object passing the beyond the event horizon would not experience an immediate change (equivalence).

It is this last assumption that AMPS says gives rise to the firewall. AMPS argues that the entanglement of a pair of virtual particles responsible for Hawking radiationis broken at the event horizon, releasing an incredible amount of energy just behind and all along the entire visible boundary of a black hole.

This violation of a key principle of Einstein's General Relativity, however, would essentially lead to the unraveling of the core model of modern physics. If physicists don't like that idea, AMPS argues, then one of the other two pillars of physics as we know it must fall instead.

This has produced fierce debate ever since, with no satisfactory solution. Raphael Bousso,a string theorist at the University of California, Berkeley, says the problem posed by the firewall theory, "shakes the foundations of what most of us believed about black holes...It essentially pits quantum mechanics against general relativity, without giving us any clues as to which direction to go next."

Susskind andMaldacena, however, proposed a novel solution to this problem: wormholes, and this has far-reaching implications beyond just the firewall paradox.

When Albert Einsteinpublished his theory of general relativity in 1916, he revolutionized our understanding of gravity by describing it as the curvature in the fabric of space and time created by the masses of objects in space.

Curvature in space-time can vary with mass, and in theory, in extreme cases, space-time can even curve so much that it touches some other point in the fabric, linking the two points together even if they are separated by vast distances, represent different points in time, or exist in different universes entirely.

Formally known as an Einstein-Rosen (ER) bridge, named for Einstein and his co-author of the 1935 paper describing the bridge, Nathan Rosen, this theoretical bridge in space time is more popularly called a wormhole.

Among the cases where wormholes are hypothesized to be most likely to form are black holes, and if two black holes form an ER bridge with each other, then the point where one black hole begins and the other one ends would essentially disappear.

An ER bridge isn't restricted to singularities though, and if the entwining of two distinct objects into a connected pair sounds familiar, then you're on your way to understanding ER = EPR.

Quantum entanglement, which Einstein famously derided as "spooky action at a distance", is the quantum phenomenon where two interacting particles becoming inextricably linked, so that knowledge of one of the pair immediately gives you knowledge of the other.

More critically, however, because a particle can be in more than one quantum state at once and will only assume a definite state when it is observed or interacted with in some manner, a particle's collapse from superposition into a defined state forces its entangled partner to collapse into the complementary quantum state instantaneously, regardless of the distance between the two.

For example, if one entangled particle's superposition, also described as its waveform or wave function, collapses into an "up" state when it is observed, its entangled partner simultaneously collapses into a "down" state, even if it is on the other side of the universe and it is not being observed at all. How does the other particle know to do this?

This question is what so rattled Einstein and others. This phenomenon clearly implies the communication of information from one particle to the other in violation of General Relativity, since this information exchange appears to travel faster than the speed of light, which is supposed to be the official speed limit of everything in the universe, information included.

Einstein, along with co-authors Rosen andBoris Podolsky, wrote in a 1935 paper that this violation of Relativity meant, "either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in quantum mechanics is not complete or (2) these two quantities cannot have simultaneous reality."

Essentially, quantum mechanics as described must be leaving out some key principle that conforms it to general relativity, or the two particles could not instantaneously communicate.

Yet, entangled particles appear to be capable of doing exactly what Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen say they cannot possibly do, giving rise to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, a more formal way of describing quantum entanglement.

In fact, quantum entanglement plays a crucial role in quantum computing and, apparently, in explaining how information encoded in the Hawking radiation could get out of a black hole.

With the second half of the equation laid out, we can finally start to reckon with the implications of ER = EPR and how it could be key to unlocking the "Theory of Everything."

When Susskind and Maldacena first approached the black hole paradox in 2012, they weren't the first to see the possible connection between quantum entanglement and the structure of space-time.

Mark Van Raamsdonk, a theoreticalphysicist at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, described an important thought experiment that suggests that an inscrutably complex network of quantum entanglements could actually be the threads that form the fabric of space-time itself.

What Susskind and Maldacena did was take this assumption and make the logical step that wormholes (ER) could be a form of quantum entanglement (EPR), and so entangled particles falling into black holes could still be connected to their partners outside the black hole via quantum-sized wormholes, orER = EPR.

This form ofentanglement would maintain the link between the particles on the interior of a black hole with the older exterior Hawking radiation without having to cross the event horizon and without having to violate the principle that a particle cannot be strongly entangled with two separate partners at once, thus avoiding the creation of the dreaded firewall.

This theoryisn't without its critics though, especially since this kind of entanglement would require a re-evaluation of quantum mechanics itself (as AMPS rightly predicted it would). But what would it mean if Susskind and Maldacena are right and ER = EPR? It could mean everything, at least for the long-elusive unified theory of physics.

What makes ER = EPR more interesting, beyond AMPS' Firewall problem, is what it would mean if we had a describable principle that was the same in both quantum mechanics and relativistic physics.

If quantum entanglement and wormholes are fundamentally linked, then we would have our first real overlap between Relativity and quantum mechanics. Much like the wormholes or entangled particles they describe, these two seemingly disparate fields that have been separated for nearly a century would finally have a thread connecting them.

There is other evidence that this may be the case beyond ER = EPR. There is a lot of excitement around something known as tensor networks, a way of linking entangled particles with other entangled particles, so that A is linked to B and C is linked to D, but also that A and B are collectively linked as a pair to the pair C and D.

These linked pairs could be linked to other linked pairs and start to build complex quantum geometry that implies a strong connection to a curved, hyperbolic geometry of space-time. Our observations of the microwave background radiation strongly suggest a flat, Euclidean plane as a model for our universe, however, at least for the parts that are observable.

In both spherical and hyperbolic geometric models of the universe, though, the universe could still appear flat locally, with the curvature of space-time only becoming apparent once we take the part of space-time beyond the 13.8 billion light-years limit of the observable universe into account.

It's would be similar to the way the Earth looks flat from where you're standing (or sitting) right now, but that's only because you aren't high enough off the ground to perceive its true shape. Get high enough into the air and the spherical shape of the Earth becomes indisputable.

Using ER = EPRto connect quantum mechanics to relativistic physics could, in a way, provide us the theoretical elevation we've been missing to see the true shape of things and finally start to understand how the two theories are actually one and the same.

That's the idea, anyway. Whether that turns out to be the case remains to be seen, and ER = EPR could turn out to be a dud in the end. It wouldn't be the first time, but even those who express warranted skepticism, likeAMPS' own Polchinski, find the idea worth looking into: "I dont know where its going, but its a fun time right now."

Read the original post:

A Simple Equation Indicates Wormholes May Be the Key to Quantum Gravity - Interesting Engineering

Global Market report has been published by Absolute Markets Insights which provides a comprehensive valuation of the market for the forecast period. The report also covers the elements, Global Quantum Computing Technologies Market growth, share, drivers, size, restraints which impacts on the market over the forecast period 2021-2030. The restraints and drivers are key elements while challenges and opportunities are important factors of the market. The Global Quantum Computing Technologies Market study includes data regarding development of the market in terms of market revenue throughout the analysis period 2021-2030. These market estimates have been measured through learning the effect of monetary elements combined with the present market dynamics affecting the Global Quantum Computing Technologies Market growth. The report has been organized based on the evaluation interpretation of facts about the Global Quantum Computing Technologies Market.

Request for Sample Copy of This Report@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/request_sample.php?id=615

Quantum computing are being used in computationally intensive applications such as artificial intelligence. Quantum machine learning (QML) is a combination of quantum physics and machine learning. Alphabet Inc. launched TensorFlow Quantum library in March 2021 for developing QML apps. Researchers at Pennsylvania State University are using QML for developing COVID-19 treatment. These applications will drive the quantum computing technologies market in future. As per the healthcare perspective, quantum computing technologies can lead to studied acceleration in speed and performance both. Radiation therapy is the widely-used form of treatment for oncology. Radiation beams are used to destroy cancerous cells. Developing a radiation plan is to minimize damage to surrounding healthy tissue and body parts is a very complicated optimization problem with thousands of data. To arrive at the optimal radiation plan requires many simulations until an optimal solution is determined. The horizon of possibilities that can be assumed between each simulation is much broader and large in nature. Such a factor is expected to boost the overall market growth.

Enquiry Before Buying @ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/enquiry_before_buying.php?id=615

Key Players of ((keyword)):

IBM, Microsoft, AWS, D-Wave Systems, Rigetti, Google, Honeywell, QC Ware, 1Qbit, Huawei, Accenture, Cambridge Quantum Computing, Fujitsu, Riverlane, Zapata, Quantum Circuits, Quantica Computacao, XANADU, VeriQloud, Quantastica , AVANETIX, Kuano, Rahko, Ketita Labs, and Aliro Quantum.

Request for customization@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/request_for_customization.php?id=615

Segmentation of Global Quantum Computing Technologies Market:

Get Full Information of this premium report@ https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/reports/Reusable-Shipping-Boxes-Market-2019-2027-615

Contact Us:

Company: Absolute Markets Insights

Email id: sales@absolutemarketsinsights.com

Phone: +91-740-024-2424

Contact Name: Shreyas Tanna

The Work Lab,

Model Colony, Shivajinagar, Pune, MH, 411016

Website: https://www.absolutemarketsinsights.com/

Read the original here:

What to expect from the Market of Global Quantum Computing Technologies and know the Market scenario 2030? Stillwater Current - Stillwater Current

We think of the universe as having a timeline, a point at which it began, until now. But how much do modern cosmologists really know about time? Image via Alex Mittelmann/ Wikimedia.What is time?

By Thomas Kitching, UCL

Imagine time running backwards. People would grow younger instead of older and, after a long life of gradual rejuvenation unlearning everything they know they would end as a twinkle in their parents eyes. Thats time as represented in a novel by science fiction writer Philip K. Dick but, surprisingly, times direction is also an issue that cosmologists are grappling with.

While we take for granted that time has a given direction, physicists dont: most natural laws are time reversible which means they would work just as well if time was defined as running backwards. So why does time always move forward? And will it always do so?

Help EarthSky bring you more articles about the cosmos. Please donate what you can to our annual crowd-funding campaign.

Any universal concept of time must ultimately be based on the evolution of the cosmos itself. When you look up at the universe, youre seeing events that happened in the past it takes light time to reach us. In fact, even the simplest observation can help us understand cosmological time: for example, the fact that the night sky is dark. If the universe had an infinite past and was infinite in extent, the night sky would be completely bright filled with the light from an infinite number of stars in a cosmos that had always existed.

For a long time, scientists, including Albert Einstein, thought that the universe was static and infinite. Observations have since shown that it is in fact expanding, and at an accelerating rate. This means that it must have originated from a more compact state that we call the Big Bang, implying that time does have a beginning. In fact, if we look for light that is old enough, we can even see the relic radiation from Big Bang the cosmic microwave background. Realizing this was a first step in determining the age of the universe (see below).

But there is a snag, Einsteins special theory of relativity shows that time is relative: The faster you move relative to me, the slower time will pass for you relative to my perception of time. So in our universe of expanding galaxies, spinning stars and swirling planets, experiences of time vary: Everythings past, present and future is relative.

It turns out that because the universe is on average the same everywhere, and on average looks the same in every direction, there does exist a cosmic time. To measure it, all we have to do is measure the properties of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmologists have used this to determine the age of the universe: its cosmic age. It turns out that the universe is 13.799 billion years old.

So we know time most likely started during the Big Bang. But there is one nagging question that remains: what exactly is time?

To unpack this question, we have to look at the basic properties of space and time. In the dimension of space, you can move forwards and backwards; commuters experience this everyday. But time is different, it has a direction, you always move forward, never in reverse. So why is the dimension of time irreversible? This is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.

To explain why time itself is irreversible, we need to find processes in nature that are also irreversible. One of the few such concepts in physics (and life!) is that things tend to become less tidy as time passes. We describe this using a physical property called entropy that encodes how ordered something is.

Imagine a box of gas in which all the particles were initially placed in one corner (an ordered state). Over time they would naturally seek to fill the entire box (a disordered state) and to put the particles back into an ordered state would require energy. This is irreversible. Its like cracking an egg to make an omelette. Once it spreads out and fills the frying pan, it will never go back to being egg-shaped. Its the same with the universe: as it evolves, the overall entropy increases.

It turns out entropy is a pretty good way to explain times arrow. And while it may seem like the universe is becoming more ordered rather than less going from a wild sea of relatively uniformly spread out hot gas in its early stages to stars, planets, humans and articles about time its nevertheless possible that it is increasing in disorder. Thats because the gravity associated with large masses may be pulling matter into seemingly ordered states with the increase in disorder that we think must have taken place being somehow hidden away in the gravitational fields. So disorder could be increasing even though we dont see it.

But given natures tendency to prefer disorder, why did the universe start off in such an ordered state in the first place? This is still considered a mystery. Some researchers argue that the Big Bang may not even have been the beginning, there may in fact be parallel universes where time runs in different directions.

Time had a beginning, but whether it will have an end depends on the nature of the dark energy that is causing it to expand at an accelerating rate. The rate of this expansion may eventually tear the universe apart, forcing it to end in a Big Rip; alternatively, dark energy may decay, reversing the Big Bang and ending the universe in a Big Crunch; or the universe may simply expand forever.

But would any of these future scenarios end time? Well, according to the strange rules of quantum mechanics, tiny random particles can momentarily pop out of a vacuum, something seen constantly in particle physics experiments. Some have argued that dark energy could cause such quantum fluctuations giving rise to a new Big Bang, ending our time line and starting a new one. While this is extremely speculative and highly unlikely, what we do know is that only when we understand dark energy will we know the fate of the universe.

So what is the most likely outcome? Only time will tell.

Thomas Kitching, Lecturer in Astrophysics, UCL

This article was originally published in The Conversation. Read the original article.

Bottom line: What is time, and why does it move forward? Cosmologist Thomas Kitching of University College London explains how the arrow of time points to the future.

Members of the EarthSky community - including scientists, as well as science and nature writers from across the globe - weigh in on what's important to them.

Read more from the original source:

What is time, and why does it move forward? - EarthSky

Yesterday, we looked at Untitled Earth Sim 64, a science fiction comedy based on the idea that Earth is a messed up simulation created by entities that are in themselves simulations. And maybe their simulators were in turn simulated And so forth. The problem is, wheres the original? Surprisingly, perhaps, there is a physics theory that offers an answer: The universe simulated itself:

A new hypothesis says the universe self-simulates itself in a strange loop. A paper from the Quantum Gravity Research institute proposes there is an underlying panconsciousness. The work looks to unify insight from quantum mechanics with a non-materialistic perspective.

How real are you? What if everything you are, everything you know, all the people in your life as well as all the events were not physically there but just a very elaborate simulation? Philosopher Nick Bostrom famously considered this in his seminal paper Are you living in a computer simulation?, where he proposed that all of our existence may be just a product of very sophisticated computer simulations ran by advanced beings whose real nature we may never be able to know. Now a new theory has come along that takes it a step further what if there are no advanced beings either and everything in reality is a self-simulation that generates itself from pure thought?

The paper, which appeared in Entropy in 2020, is open access.

The most significant element of this new theory is surely that it is explicitly a theory of panconsciousness and non-materialism.

Thus it bears comparison with newer theories of consciousness, which are explicitly panpsychist.

Remarkably, the science world is growing comfortable with non-materialist theories of consciousness. Is that because materialist theories of consciousness are not providing much insight and end in absurdities or for other reasons? It would be hard to say at present.

It will be most interesting to see what sort of reception this self-simulation approach gets. Formulated as a model of quantum gravity, it riffs Nick Bostroms simulation approach, with this explicit difference:

One important aspect that differentiates this view relates to the fact that Bostroms original hypothesis is materialistic, seeing the universe as inherently physical Their hypothesis takes a non-materialistic approach, saying that everything is information expressed as thought. As such, the universe self-actualizes itself into existence, relying on underlying algorithms and a rule they call the principle of efficient language.

This is something like John Wheelers it from bit principle (information precedes matter). But it is somewhat more radical.

Are the researchers saying that the universe is a thinking being? More or less:

Under this proposal, the entire simulation of everything in existence is just one grand thought. How would the simulation itself be originated? It was always there, say the researchers, explaining the concept of timeless emergentism. According to this idea, time isnt there at all. Instead, the all-encompassing thought that is our reality offers a nested semblance of a hierarchical order, full of sub-thoughts that reach all the way down the rabbit hole towards the base mathematics and fundamental particles. This is also where the rule of efficient language comes in, suggesting that humans themselves are such emergent sub-thoughts and they experience and find meaning in the world through other sub-thoughts (called code-steps or actions) in the most economical fashion.

This sounds like traditional theism, with the universe as a self-existent God, right down to the creation of humans (as emergent sub-thoughts).

However off-the-beaten-track this QGR hypothesis may seem, it does solve two problems:

First, it offers an account of consciousness that conforms to what we experience. Materialist accounts generally fail at that. Famously, Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett describes consciousness as a user illusion. Its not really there. Which prompts the question, whose illusion is it then? The QGR researchers see human consciousness as a sub-thought of a grand thought. Agree or disagree, that is somewhat closer to what we experience.

Second, the researchers approach that the universe simulates itself into existence gets rid of the problem of infinite regress (what simulated the universe?), in the same way that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth gets rid of it. Of course, as noted above, anything that simulates itself into existence as one grand thought might as well be God. But it is the researchers right to prefer their own terminology.

It will be most interesting to see whether further papers on the origin of the universe, arguing along substantially the same lines, come to be accepted in science journals. If so, we may be seeing the same thing happen in cosmology as in consciousness studies: It becomes necessary to take the reality of consciousness seriously.

Note: Heres a series of videos at YouTube that offers more details. It features Klee Irwin, founder of Quantum Gravity Research.

You may also wish to read: When a simulated world begins to fall apart. In Untitled Earth Sim 64, Marie has reason to expect trouble when the simulator who explains reality to her cannot get her name right If Marie has found God amid strange events, as her friend thinks, the God she has found is highly disorganized one.

New theory of mind offers more information, less materialism First, lets begin by noting a remarkable fact: Panpsychism seems to have triumphed in the area of theories of consciousness. Are there materialist theories of consciousness out there any more? Yes. But it is unclear how many of them are taken seriously. Except in pop science mags.

and

The final materialist quest: A war on the reality of the mind Going to war with the very concept is an approach even George Orwell did not think up. When George Orwell wrote 1984, he addressed destroying minds, not denying their possibility and changing the language associated with them.

Originally posted here:

Researchers: The Universe Simulated Itself Into Existence - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence