Thursday, February 15, 2018

What Black Holes Are Made Of?

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!


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.)


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.)

Saturday, January 13, 2018



Each international problem that keeps going for a long time without a permanent solution is a failure for our whole human civilization. We need to be able to solve our problems ourselves, peacefully, permanently, quickly. I think all international problems have solutions, if we just apply objective and realistic reasoning on them and act on the results.

There are two sides of people at island of Cyprus, Southern Greek side and Northern Turkish side. After decades of negotiations, finally some years ago, UN prepared a very detailed joining agreement for the both sides. I think, first, the governments of both sides agreed in the terms of the agreement, and later both sides done their own public referendums for approval. Greek side refused the joining agreement but Turkish side accepted it. Since then the situation stays unresolved and no permanent solution could be seen for the future.

How they could move on towards a permanent solution for the both sides?

I think, objectively and realistically, solution of the both sides joining together, is pretty much looks dead. Then, next possible solution is the both sides becoming fully independent countries. I think from that viewpoint, Southern Greek side has no problem with international recognition from UN, but Northern Turkish side has a problem. Then, IMHO (as always), problem is already half solved. We just need a solution for the other side.

How to move on:
I think Northern Turkish side need to ask UN to vote on, whether accept it as a fully independent country, or not. If UN refuses to vote on it, or votes but decides no, then I would say, Northern Turkish side would need to accept the reality, that their dreams of becoming a fully independent country is pretty much dead, at that point. And if that happens, their only realistic option, for a permanent solution, would be to join Turkey. And then Northern Turkish side would need to do a public referendum to decide between two realistic options:
1) Full join (meaning, their internal government/laws would be canceled)
2) Half join (meaning, their internal government/laws would stay)

Choosing Option 2 would mean a relationship similar to the relationship between any state and federal government, of USA, if any a real-world working example is needed. (Of course, an example also could be chosen from the world history or today. Or they could try to create a new example of their own.)

But what if, Southern Greek side is claiming that Northern Turkish region is actually belongs to them? (And so only permanent solution they can accept is that Northern Turkish people leaving the island.) I think, to be able to solve big international problems of humanity, first, we need to be realistic and objective. How many countries, kingdoms, empires came and went from world history. How many times, each and every piece of land, exchanged ownership? If so then, who can really say which piece of land is really belongs to whom? Each land must belong to oldest known people who lived there? If so then, what would happen to USA, Canada, Australia, for example? IMHO, Southern Greek side need to see that only realistic way for them to get Northern Turkish side would be war. Because Northern Turkish people and Turkey are already proved that they are willing to make war for it. I certainly would like to think neither side really wants to start a new war, which would involve many countries, for sure. So how about we all try to be objective and accept the reality that we can see?

Of course, politics is a highly polarizing subject to talk about, same goes for religion. It should be known that I completely and absolutely respect any other views/opinions of anyone else. And I also always hope that everybody respect my own personal opinions are (only) mine. Also, ultimately, all political decisions belong to the official governments of the world, each for their own country.

So that clarified, what about Syria problem?
IMHO, what happened (and continuing for years) in Syria is a civil war. The country divided into two parts. The current situation (which is really going on for years) is a stalemate. I think, ideal solution would be similar to the solution I suggested above for Cyprus. Meaning, both sides would do their internal public referendums about how to join back. But, to be realistic, I am guessing that, after many years of making war with each other, and enduring a lot of losses from each other, neither side would accept joining back, in any way. Then my suggestion would be that, both sides accept to become a new independent country, and all land each side currently control would become the land of their new country.

And what about North Korea problem?
IMHO, best solution would be that North Korea government/public given these three options to choose one: (within a week/month for example)
1) North Korea joins South Korea
2) North Korea joins China
3) North Korea stays independent, but must also accept to give up on any, current or future, R&D on any kind of WMD, and must also accept periodical inspections by UN, US, and any/all other countries with WMD ownership, knowledge, experience. In return, all international trade restrictions must be lifted from North Korea, so to become the same as any other independent country in the world.
Of course, if option 1 or 2 is chosen by North Korea, then joining could be full or half (which would be best to decide by an internal public referendum). I personally think North Korea joining back to South Korea would be the best solution for the people of both sides/countries. (I think, how East and West Germany were reunited could be a good real world example.)