Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

How Quantum Computers Could Kill the Arrow of Time

#1
C C Offline
https://www.livescience.com/63182-quantu...-time.html

EXCERPT: . . . It's much easier for a bit of software running on your laptop to predict how a complex system will move and develop in the future than it is to recreate its past. A property of the universe that theorists call "causal asymmetry" demands that it takes much more information — and much more complex calculations — to move in one direction through time than it does to move in the other. [...]

Information theorists suspected for a long time that causal asymmetry might be a fundamental feature of the universe. As long ago as 1927, the physicist Arthur Eddington argued that this asymmetry is the reason we only move forward through time, and never backward. If you understand the universe as a giant computer constantly calculating its way through time, it's always easier — less resource-intensive — for things to flow forward (cause, then effect) than backward (effect, then cause). This idea is called the "arrow of time."

But [...] A team of researchers found that in certain circumstances causal asymmetry disappears inside quantum computers, which calculate in an entirely different way [...] And, even more enticingly, their paper points the way toward future research that could show causal asymmetry doesn't really exist in the universe at all.

[...Jayne Thompson said...] "While classically, it might be impossible for the process to go in one of the directions [through time] ... our results show that 'quantum mechanically,' the process can go in either direction using very little memory."

And if that's true inside a quantum computer, that's true in the universe, she said. Quantum physics is the study of the strange probabilistic behaviors of very small particles — all the very small particles in the universe. And if quantum physics is true for all the pieces that make up the universe, it's true for the universe itself, even if some of its weirder effects aren't always obvious to us. So if a quantum computer can operate without causal asymmetry, then so can the universe.

[...] This paper doesn't prove that time doesn’t exist, or that we’ll one day be able to slip backward through it. But it does appear to show that one of the key building blocks of our understanding of time, cause and effect, doesn't always work in the way scientists have long assumed — and might not work that way at all. [...] The real practical benefit of this work [...] is that way down the road quantum computers might be capable of easily running simulations of things (like the weather) in either direction through time, without serious difficulty. That would be a sea change from the current classical-modeling world.

MORE: https://www.livescience.com/63182-quantu...-time.html
Reply
#2
Ostronomos Offline
With the sophistication of Quantum computers in the limelight and the increasing integration of their applicability into everyday usage, people will evolve towards a more transpersonal assimilation in society. Where human understanding and acceptance will reach a more open minded level.
Reply
#3
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Jul 27, 2018 03:15 PM)C C Wrote: https://www.livescience.com/63182-quantu...-time.html

EXCERPT: . . . It's much easier for a bit of software running on your laptop to predict how a complex system will move and develop in the future than it is to recreate its past. A property of the universe that theorists call "causal asymmetry" demands that it takes much more information — and much more complex calculations — to move in one direction through time than it does to move in the other. [...]

Information theorists suspected for a long time that causal asymmetry might be a fundamental feature of the universe. As long ago as 1927, the physicist Arthur Eddington argued that this asymmetry is the reason we only move forward through time, and never backward. If you understand the universe as a giant computer constantly calculating its way through time, it's always easier — less resource-intensive — for things to flow forward (cause, then effect) than backward (effect, then cause). This idea is called the "arrow of time."

But [...] A team of researchers found that in certain circumstances causal asymmetry disappears inside quantum computers, which calculate in an entirely different way [...] And, even more enticingly, their paper points the way toward future research that could show causal asymmetry doesn't really exist in the universe at all.

[...Jayne Thompson said...] "While classically, it might be impossible for the process to go in one of the directions [through time] ... our results show that 'quantum mechanically,' the process can go in either direction using very little memory."

And if that's true inside a quantum computer, that's true in the universe, she said. Quantum physics is the study of the strange probabilistic behaviors of very small particles — all the very small particles in the universe. And if quantum physics is true for all the pieces that make up the universe, it's true for the universe itself, even if some of its weirder effects aren't always obvious to us. So if a quantum computer can operate without causal asymmetry, then so can the universe.

[...]  This paper doesn't prove that time doesn’t exist, or that we’ll one day be able to slip backward through it. But it does appear to show that one of the key building blocks of our understanding of time, cause and effect, doesn't always work in the way scientists have long assumed — and might not work that way at all. [...] The real practical benefit of this work [...] is that way down the road quantum computers might be capable of easily running simulations of things (like the weather) in either direction through time, without serious difficulty. That would be a sea change from the current classical-modeling world.

MORE: https://www.livescience.com/63182-quantu...-time.html

rather than read some person try and sit on the political fence about a proposition of theoretical physics i would much prefer to read your comments about it.

i just turn off when the writer trys to lay out a pre disposed proposition of their own making.
it is adding dramatic ethereal content that is completely useles to me.
i do not wish to have a landscape painted for me to read a characterised story line on.
but thats just me. im quite fussy about such things and pick and choose quite a lot of what i read.
when i want science, i want the data. i dont want atmospherics or tech hungry laymens sale pitch melodically encased sales pitches modeled into pretend journalism. i find that seems to be taking over the tech info scene a bit, probably by people trying to get companys to sponsor them rather than talking about science.
i am happy to read a real journalist, they are very clever people.
like wise a witty science savy reporter.
otherwise it needs to be very clinical otherwise i start reading their personality into the item that they seem to inject out of habit to frame a marketable piece for tech news(a personalised patter which they inflate here and there for theme & style which i am not really interested in).
Reply
#4
C C Offline
(Jul 28, 2018 12:12 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: when i want science, i want the data. i dont want atmospherics or tech hungry laymens sale pitch melodically encased sales pitches modeled into pretend journalism. i find that seems to be taking over the tech info scene a bit, probably by people trying to get companys to sponsor them rather than talking about science. i am happy to read a real journalist, they are very clever people.

A "real" journalist is still just another mediator between the public and the scientist's own published work. When it comes to the latter, even non-predatory science journals (the horse's mouth) may not be that dependable anymore. So the ultimate validation of lab or field "data" and "reasoned proposals of science" may ironically be if such is ever implemented by applied endeavors (technology, engineering, etc). Validated with respect to demonstrating practical results, not attaining literal, perpetual metaphysical truth or absolute existence as totally independent of human experience and description, relationships, etc. (Also, this of course pertains to the physical sciences; the far less reliable social sciences and their continually vacillating output is a different story....)

Original journal piece:

Causal Asymmetry in a Quantum World
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10...X.8.031013

~
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Research Physicists finally find a problem only quantum computers can do C C 2 56 Mar 15, 2024 02:49 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Record entanglement of quantum memories + Quantum flute manipulates photons C C 0 77 Jul 7, 2022 07:44 PM
Last Post: C C
  We're building computers wrong + Using AI to find anomalies hid in massive datasets C C 0 81 Mar 3, 2022 06:06 PM
Last Post: C C
  How exascale computers can verify the universe C C 3 143 Oct 19, 2021 12:13 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  What’s the real science behind Google’s time crystal? (quantum computing) C C 1 96 Sep 18, 2021 07:45 PM
Last Post: Syne
  It's hard to give computers common sense Leigha 1 98 Aug 19, 2021 07:16 AM
Last Post: stryder
  Computer scientists discover new vulnerability affecting computers globally C C 0 172 May 2, 2021 09:42 PM
Last Post: C C
  The new oracles & gods: When people trust computers more than other humans C C 0 120 Apr 14, 2021 07:08 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why computers will never write good novels C C 3 170 Mar 31, 2021 04:35 PM
Last Post: Leigha
  Cells as computers + Interconnected single atoms could make a ‘quantum brain’ C C 1 189 Mar 9, 2021 05:25 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)