Nutshell 2018 5^{th} February 2019

HOME  
"So my conclusion is that, the dynamics of the interior of blackholes is governed by the complexity in a way, which is somewhat similar to the way the dynamics of the exterior of the horizon and so forth, as seen from outside, is dependent on the thermodynamics of entropy."  Leonard Susskind, Complexity and Gravity, Prospects in Theoretical Physics: From Qubits to Spacetime, 2018. "...but it was a little bit like me and maybe you know if the anteaters went on a trading mission to the beluga whales and you might imagine that the beluga whales would say, well thanks, well we'll let you know if we need any ants, but you know we're we're we're you know we're we're doing okay as it is...."  Scott Aaronson describing his initial interaction with Juan Maldacena, Firewalls, AdS/CFT, and the Complexity of States and Unitaries..., Prospects in Theoretical Physics: From Qubits to Spacetime, 2018. " WHY? are all three forces due to local symmetry? Why is α = 1/137.036999708..? WHY? are there families of quarks and leptons? Why is Mtop/Mup ~ 100,000? WHY? is space three dimensional?"  David Gross, The Coming Revolutions in Theoretical Physics, October 19, 2007. String theory must answer these questions. The eventual goal remains the understanding of the lifeforce, not quantum gravity. The concept of an infinite source in jspace, is an attempt in that direction. 
In the year 2018 we discussed some really interesting topics, such as Quantum ComputingIII, Knots and DNAs, the equivalence between Lorentz transformation and Möbius transformation, and the Curve of Least Disorder or equivalently the Curve of Least Energy. Each of these topics, is of great importance and we will be discussing them in greater details in 2019. Quantum Computing: For Quantum Computing (QC), it has always been the case that there is no clear sense of which fundamental problem to solve, if the technical issues causing decoherence are properly addressed, which is very likely in the near future. In this context, we described the impossibleproblem and then the impossibleproblem1, which are "the knowledge of the outcome of the next instant" and "the resource optimization in a closed system" respectively. Any other problem that we can think of at present, for example the minimization of the action integral in physics, is a subset of the impossibleproblem1. Our strategy will be to focus on the impossibleproblem1, and that should be able to provide us with enough understanding of the various issues involved. The knowledge thus gained, will perhaps allow us a better insight into the "impossibleproblem". The discussion on the curve of least disorder, is an important step in that direction.
On the commercial prototyping of QC, currently there seem to be three
leading contenders for a working QC. They are Quantum Annealer from
DWave, SQUID based QC from IBM, and Anyon based topological QC from
Microsoft. DWave Qannealer is already out in the market with mixed
reviews. IBM's QC will be out, probably in few years time. Both of
these SQUID based solutions are sensitive to the decoherence problem,
hence they require strict operational environment control (very low
temperature and noise), which is a major drawback. The Microsoft
solution is based on Qbits designed using Anyons or Majorana particles.
Should it come through, the problem of the decoherence will not be an
issue, as this solution does not use electrons as carriers. In fact a working device using Majorana particles, will be a monumental technological breakthrough, which will change the worldwide manufacturing landscape completely. Anyon based QC architecture has an distinct advantage over SQUID based QC, as the solution will be independent of the operating environment conditions, it will require a minimal fault tolerant architecture, therefore it should be scalable and the miniaturization of Qbit will be possible. But there is no prediction as such to if or when, a prototype will be available. If we could ever got our act together and focus more on moving the manufacturing into the space, rather than moving ourselves to Mars or some other fictional planet, then QC combined with some truly advanced concepts such as, evolutionary design and manufacturing, additive manufacturing (3D manufacturing), digital twins, & Industry 4.0, will result in products of extraordinary quality, reliability, and aesthetics. Up in the space, extremely low temperature required for QC is available, the effect of gravity is minimal, and the manufacturing activities will have no impact on the earth's environment. From theoretical physics point of view, the equivalence between the inner mechanism of a black hole and a QC is quite fascinating. We will be discussing black holes, and what they mean in the discrete measurement space or jspace in 2019. Knots: Just few points about knots in jspace; 1. The knots in jspace are written so that each configuration is completely distinct from other. We can introduce symmetries later on, to determine structures which could be equivalent to each other. But similar structures really do not help us, as we want better and better resolution in discrete measurement space. 2. The equations of knots are written as Laurent polynomials, for example, Laurent
polynomials for knots in jspace, represent the motion alternating
between positive and negative time axes, as the knots are formed. We
want loworder exponents of Laurent polynomial, along with the
contribution of the term 0_{j}. The idea here,
is to compare the effectiveness of competing mechanisms, which are
represented by complex knots and respective Laurent polynomials.
3. If we compare the knot polynomials written for enzymes and DNA, the enzymes corresponding to the polynomials of lower order (t^{+n}, n small) and with high contributions of 0_{j} terms, are more likely to succeed in breaking down DNA which have relatively higher order polynomials, (t^{+n}, n large), and small contributions of 0_{j} terms. In similar fashion, the DNA with lower order polynomials and with high contributions from 0_{j} terms, should be immune to the effects of enzymes corresponding to higher order polynomials and with little contributions from 0_{j} terms.^{1} Equivalence between Möbius and Lorentz transformations: We already had a lot of fun with this truly remarkable concept and we ended up designing a universal translator, just in case Vulcans, Ramulans, Klingons and others happen to descend on the good old blue marble presently inhabited by future Martians. The equivalence is extremely important, as the structures following these transformations are scalable (z > 1/z) and conformal (the angles between the intersecting lines are preserved). We will be using this equivalence extensively in the discrete measurement space we call jspace, which itself is a complex space. The curve of least disorder: If we can complete a circuit in discrete measurement space and form a curve of least disorder, then theoretically we can use Stokes' theorem, lineintegral to surfaceintegral, to form the corresponding surface of least disorder. Next we can use Gauss' theorem, surfaceintegral to volumeintegral, to transform this surface to get the volume of least disorder. What does it really gets us? It gives us: 1. A measure of the origin or 0_{j} in discrete measurement space, 2. The definition of null {} for a given group of objects in jspace, 3. A Qbit for the most efficient Quantum computer in jspace. All of above three are invariants in there respective descriptions. More importantly we have an expression for ds rather than ds^{2}, given as: Therefore, we have ds which is essentially an invariant in discrete measurement space, similar to ds^{2 }which
is an invariant in general theory of relativity. The advantage is that
we will not need metrics or manifolds, if the criterion for the curve
of least disorder ds is precisely established, as is the case here. We should be able to figure out how to count next^{2}. Good stuff !
___________________ 1. <0j0j> represents the initial state. The polynomial with higher contribution from the initial state is likely to be more effective than the polynomial with smaller contribution from the initial state. As a simple example, if we compare the knot polynomials for the Trefoil knot and the Figure8 knot, as they are written in jspace, we will notice that the Trefoil knot is more fundamental in nature than the Figure8 knot. 2. 0_{j}, 0_{j}+0_{j}, 0_{j}+0_{j}+0_{j}...................., {}, { {} }, { {} {{}} }..........and so on.
***

Previous Blogs: Chiral Symmetry
Sigmaz and I Spin Matrices Rationale behind Irrational Numbers The Ubiquitous zAxis Majorana ZFC Axioms Set Theory Nutshell2014 Knots in jSpace Supercolliders Force Riemann Hypothesis Andromeda Nebula Infinite Fulcrum Cauchy and Gaussian Distributions Discrete Space, bField & Lower Mass Bound Incompleteness II The Supersymmetry The Cat in Box The Initial State and Symmetries Incompleteness I Discrete Measurement Space The Frog in Well Visual Complex Analysis The Einstein Theory of Relativity *** 

Information on
www.ijspace.org is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. This is a humanreadable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license. 