Saturday, June 30, 2018

A New Equivalence Principle

If we want to revolutionize physics, by creating a GUT of Quantum-Gravity, wouldn't be a good idea to look at the past examples of revolutions in physics, first?

For example, how Einstein and Newton did it?
(Their success was really due to their superior (to everyone else) mathematical talents?)

I think, in Einstein's Special Relativity Theory case, a big experiment (Michelson–Morley Experiment) disagreed with Newton Physics.
And unlike other physicists, Einstein fully accepted the results/implications of the experiment, which (its mathematical expression(s)) led directly to Special Relativity Theory!

When it comes to Quantum-Gravity Theory problem, do we really have any big experiment disagreeing with Quantum Mechanics and/or Relativity?
I think the answer is no!

I think, in Einstein's General Relativity Theory case, on the other hand, Einstein started with finding/defining a new (real/physical) Equivalence Principle (equivalence of gravity and acceleration), which (its mathematical expression(s)) led directly to General Relativity Theory!

I think, what led Newton to success was also finding/defining a new (real/physical) Equivalence Principle (equivalence of force between, Earth and a falling Apple, and, Earth and (constantly falling) Moon)!

Can we really find/define a new Equivalence Principle, to led us to a (realistic/consistent) GUT of Quantum-Gravity?
A new (real/physical) Equivalence Principle that joins/bridges foundations of (General) Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?

Can't we say foundation of (General) Relativity is spacetime?
Can't we say foundation of Quantum Mechanics is quantum-vacuum?

Then, what if, we define a new Equivalence Principle, such as, spacetime and quantum-vacuum are equivalent (same)?!
Or, spacetime is created by quantum-vacuum (which created by virtual particles keep popping in and out of existence everywhere)?

Consider that, how air around us looks like empty space, but we know that, it is actually a (transparent) gas medium, created by atoms/molecules.
Imagine that, quantum-vacuum was also similar, a (transparent) gas-like medium, created by virtual particles keep popping in and out of existence everywhere!

But, if spacetime is actually quantum-vacuum, (when quantum-vacuum observed from macro-scale), then, what really is gravitational field?
What happens at micro-scale, to quantum-vacuum (medium of virtual particles), when we see (positive or negative) bent spacetime, at macro-scale?
To answer, imagine that, if we observe flat spacetime at macro-scale, then at (quantum-vacuum) micro-scale, average probabilities of, positive energy/mass virtual particles randomly coming to existence, and, negative energy/mass virtual particles randomly coming to existence, are equal/balanced!

But, can we really say, we have perfect/absolute/clear justification to define/accept a new Equivalence Principle, such as that?
To answer, I would ask, did Einstein and Newton, really had perfect/absolute/clear justification for theirs?

Thursday, February 15, 2018

What Black Holes Are Made Of?


https://www.patreon.com/posts/black-holes-must-16994748

Wikipedia says Planck particle "defined as a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius".

Can we really think of Planck particles as tiny Black Holes themselves, as Wikipedia says? I think the answer is yes. Then, could we also really and truly call them Black Hole particles? I think the answer is yes. Would it be logically consistent to say, Black Holes are made of Black Hole particles? I think the answer is yes.

Would that be consistent with General Relativity? I think the answer is yes. Because, would it really make any difference from GR point of view, if we divided a single Black Hole into N smaller Black Holes? Would the total gravitational field around of that Black Hole, would really change then? I think the answer is no. (Actually, the total gravitational field around of that Black Hole would be locally different from the total gravitational field around of a single Black Hole, but it would become more and more similar/indistinguishable, as N increases toward infinity. And, if Black Holes are really made of Planck particles, then N would be an astronomically large number for any real Black Hole, and so the gravitational field around any real Black Hole (made of Planck particles) would be practically indistinguishable from the gravitational field around of a single Black Hole.)

Would that be also consistent with Quantum Mechanics? I think the answer is yes. Because, if we are assuming Black Holes are made of Black Hole (Planck) particles, then we are assuming Planck particle is real and so it is a (new) member of Standard Model. And if we are assuming that, then would it be consistent with Quantum Mechanics, if Black Holes are made of Black Hole (Planck) particles? I think the answer is yes.

And, if any theory of Quantum-Gravity (now/future) is really correct, would it not say that, all objects in the Universe (including Black Holes) must be made of particles? If so then, should not we consider, which theoretical elementary particle(s) we know about, could be really fully consistent with, what we know about Black Holes and GR and QM, altogether?

I think only a particle that is by itself a (tiny) Black Hole would be consistent with General Relativity, for BHs could be made of. Is there any other theoretically possible particle that is a tiny Black Hole itself? I think the answer is no. So if any Quantum-Gravity theory is correct, and so BHs are made of particles, then only valid possible option would be Planck particles.

So, I think the idea that "Black Holes are made of Planck (Black Hole) particles" is actually consistent with both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Can we say the same for the idea that "the center of any Black Hole is a singularity"? It is obviously consistent with General Relativity, but, is it really consistent with Quantum Mechanics, also? I think the answer is no. Because, Quantum Mechanics (Standard Model), does not, also cannot, have any elementary/composite particle that can represent a singularity!

So, it seems to me that, it is physically/realistically more plausible, Black Holes are made of Planck particles, compared to, Black Holes contain a singularity in their centers, which has infinite density and zero size and can have/hold any amount of mass/energy/information.

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Proving Quantum Supremacy

What would be the simplest way to compare the power/capability of classical and quantum computers?

Assume a basic N-bit Classical RISC processor (each processor register is N bits). How its insruction set would need to change for it to become an N-bit Quantum RISC processor?

Actually most of the instructions would not need any change. For example, arithmetic and logic instructions would still be the same, but they would process qubit states (0,1,U) instead of bit states (0,1).

Maybe just load/store instruction(s) need to be modified (from a programmer point of view):
Assume that, if a LOAD instruction for a basic N-bit Classical RISC processor is:
LOAD Ri, 'a literal string of N 0/1'
Then the LOAD instruction for N-bit Quantum RISC processor would be:
LOAD Ri, 'a literal string of N 0/1/U' (U for Unknown/Undetermined states)

Quantum algorithm examples for such a N-bit Quantum RISC processor:

Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm:
Problem: Assume A*B=C; A and B are known to be prime numbers; the value of C is given. What are the values of A and B?
LOAD R0, 'U'*N     # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, 'U'*N     # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
MULT R0, R1, R2    # R0*R1 -> R2
LOAD R2, C         # => A -> R0 and B -> R1 after this instruction! (C is N-digit binary (as literal string) value.)
Imagine that, when R2 is forced to have the value of C in the end, that causes states of R0 and R1 change from unknown to real values of A and B, thus solving the problem.

Quantum First Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm:
Problem: Assume A*X+B=0. What is X if A and B are given? (Analytical solution: X=-B/A)
LOAD R0, 'U'*N     # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, A         # A is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R2, B         # B is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
MULT R0, R1, R3    # R0*R1 -> R3
ADDN R2, R3, R3    # R2+R3 -> R3
LOAD R3, '0'*N     # => X -> R0 after this instruction (which is the solution)!

Quantum Second Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm:
Problem: Assume A*X*X+B*X+C=0. What is X if A and B and C are given? (Analytical solution: Quadratic formula!)
LOAD R0, 'U'*N     # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, A         # A is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R2, B         # B is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R3, C         # C is N-digit binary (as literal string) value
MULT R0, R0, R4    # R0*R0 -> R4
MULT R1, R4, R4    # R1*R4 -> R4
MULT R0, R2, R5    # R0*R2 -> R5
ADDN R4, R5, R4    # R4+R5 -> R4
ADDN R4, R3, R4    # R4+R3 -> R4
LOAD R4, '0'*N     # => X0 or X1 (with %50 probability for each) -> R0 after this instruction (which is the solution)!

Quantum Second Degree Polynomial Equation Solving Algorithm 2:
Problem: Assume A*X*X+B*X+C=0. X0+X1=-B/A & X0*X1=C/A. What is X if A and B and C are given? (Analytical solution: Quadratic formula!)
LOAD R0, 'U'*N     # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
LOAD R1, 'U'*N     # 'U'*N: a literal string of N 'U's
ADDN R0, R1, R2    # R0+R1 -> R2
MULT R0, R1, R3    # R0*R1 -> R3
LOAD R2, -B/A      # as N-digit binary (as literal string) value
LOAD R3, C/A       # as N-digit binary (as literal string) value
=> X0 -> R0 and X1 -> R1 after these (which is the solution)!

Realize that such a N-bit Quantum RISC processor could also still work as a N-bit Classical RISC processor (by simply never setting any register qubits to unknown states)! Meaning, a quantum computer has at least the same power as a classical computer for any/all worst problem cases! Meaning, finding even a single problem that a quantum computer can solve faster, would mean a proof of quantum supremacy! And realize that the Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm above uses only 4 instructions! Could there be any chance that the N-bit Classical RISC processor (which has the same instruction set as the N-bit Quantum RISC processor), could solve the same problem using an equal or less number of instructions? The answer is obviously no, which means we have a proof of quantum supremacy!

What are the advantages of quantum computers against classical computers, in general?
Realize that the Quantum Integer Factorization Algorithm above evaluates (in the end) all possible values of A and B instantly to find the (unique) solution.
(Imagine that whenever a problem has multiple possible solutions then a quantum computer randomly picks one each time.)

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Hawking Radiation vs Unruh Radiation

Equivalency Principle (which is the foundation of General Relativity) says gravity and acceleration are physically completely equivalent. Let's also consider that acceleration towards speed of light produces Unruh Radiation. Then one must conclude that, Black Holes also should produce Unruh Radiation, since their gravity (escape velocity) increases towards speed of light, when approaching near their Event Horizon.

But then, a BH produces both Hawking Radiation and Unruh Radiation?
IMHO, all physical mechanisms I read about for, how exactly Hawking Radiation is produced, seem lacking. So I think it is quite possible that, BHs actually produce only Unruh Radiation.

I think it is generally thought that, even if it is real, Hawking Radiation around any real BH, can never be actually detected by us, using any tech. What about possibility of detecting Unruh Radiation, instead? (I have no idea.)

Sunday, January 14, 2018

World Energy Problem

I think, for the long term future of humanity, just having renewable clean energy (solar, wind, wave) is not really enough! If we really want to improve the future of our world, we need renewable clean energy but also astronomical amounts of it!

Why? Realize that, we could really transform our world, if we had astronomical amounts of energy to spend. For example, titanium is an extremely light, strong, durable material. And our world has plenty of it to use for anything. But mining it at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy. If we had enough energy for it, we could build all our vehicles, buildings, homes, bridges, roads, infrastructure from titanium, for example. Then, they all would last pretty much as long as we want/need! Imagine how much maintenance costs would be saved in the long term!

Also keep in mind, titanium is just one example. Similar situation exists for aluminum, also. Aluminum is also an extremely useful dream material, and it is also plenty in Earth's crust, but it also requires a lot of electricity to mine. Another example is glass. Imagine, if we could produce glass bricks very cheap, then we could use them in all kinds of buildings (as walls), for example.

Also water desalinization (using sea water) at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy, also moving water across continents (using pipeline networks) at large scale requires enormous amounts of energy. If we had enough energy for it, we could provide enough clean water to anywhere anytime, for cities, agriculture, even for creating new large forests!

Also realize that electricity is a big part of the total cost for pretty much anything we produce and use/consume. If we had really plenty electricity, price of pretty much everything would significantly drop (in different levels for different things) and also availability of pretty much everything would significantly increase (in different levels for different things).

And that is why, we as humanity need to keep researching/experimenting clean fission/fusion!

FUTURE OF AIRCRAFT

For large passenger and cargo (fixed-wing) aircraft (at least), what are must be our design goals?
I think:
1) Max fuel efficiency
2) Min mechanical complexity (for less breakdowns (more relilability) , less repairs and replacements, cheap production and maintenance)
3) Max safety

What if, all wings had no internal/external moving parts? (Where each wing joined to the body, the wing is actually joined to a rotatable circle, where circle diameter is the wing width.) (That means the pair of two large width main wings would need to be replaced by small width (and also small length?) multiple pairs of wings, located back-to-back (with an interval in between) and/or like biplane wings.) The rotatable circles would enable a flight computer to keep readjusting attack angle of each wing, for all kinds of flight control, and very fast, very often. It would also enable computer to always adjust the attack angles for max lift/speed/efficiency, depending on current speed, temperature, pressure, weather. I think it would also end icing problems for all such aircraft! (Also realize that this kind of aircraft would require engines to be joined to the body (not to any wings), to not increase mechanical complexity.)

AUTOMATION AND UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

I think it should be clear to almost anyone today that our technology is progressing really fast, and its progress speed was always keep increasing (in the long term), since the beginning of our human civilization. So the speed of our technological progress is exponential in general. Availability of higher and higher tech, for cheaper and cheaper, to more and more people, is also probably exponential. I think, as the complexity and ability of our tech increases exponentially, the result for humanity would be having harder and harder time, for keep adapting to our own technological progress!

I think, if nothing (effective) is done, we would be looking at a future world, where the general population share of poor people (who are below the income needed for their own basic needs), keeps increasing. (And where the general population share of rich people keeps decreasing but they also keep getting richer!) Unless a permanent solution is found, that is!

I think, the first solution possibility, would be that humanity also (hopefully) keep increasing its abilities (always at same speed as tech!), by means of extending STEM education to the whole population.

Second, each government could start (hopefully) providing Social Security Income and/or Food Stamps and/or Universal Basic Income, to its all poor people.

I think success would be always far from guaranteed for either of these kinds of solution attempts.
Even if they can be done successfully for a while, they both have their own natural limits. For example, where the continuous money for the poor will come from? Would there be always enough money, if the share of the poor in the population keeps climbing in each country? If the tax on the all rich(est) people is increased successfully, is economic balance/stability can always be preserved? What would be the max tax rate possible on the rich for still keeping economic stability? And, is it really guaranteed, that max tax rate, would always be enough to provide help to all poor? (Or always can be even successfully enforced against the rich?)

I think, if all other solution attempts failed someday, in the (hopefully distant) future, the last solution could be try to make a global law for everybody having less children. (If ever really made, I think that kind of law would need to be global (and approved by all countries), to really work, to prevent any country having/claiming any unfair population advantage/disadvantage against any other.)