Friday, March 25, 2005

Interpretation and Philosophical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics
The situation is quite different in the case of quantum theory [as opposed to the theory of relativity], where we do not have such a generally accepted principle which can serve as the foundation of the theory. Indeed, I would suggest that this is the very reason makes it possible that a variety of different interpretations - in the broader sense - coexist. It is important to notice that nearly all of these interpretations are in agreement with each other when it comes to definite experimental predictions. Therefore, as is to be expected for an interpretation in the broader sense, there is no way - at least not immediately - of experimentally differentiating between them.[my emphasis]

I love the logic of this paragraph. And something else:

In an application of Bohr's statement which says that a quantum phenomenon comprises both the quantum system and the measuring device, Wheeler states that we as observers are free to decide in which way we will bring a quantum phenomenon to its close. We decide, by choosing the measuring device, which phenomenon can become reality and which one cannot. Wheeler explicates this by example of the well-known case of a quasar, of which we can see two pictures through the gravity lens action of a galaxy that lies between the quasar and ourselves. By choosing which instrument to use for observing the light coming from that quasar, we can decide here and now whether the quantum phenomenon in which the photons take part is interference of amplitudes passing on both sides of the galaxy or whether we determine the path the photon took on one or the other side of the galaxy. In both cases the individual process again contains an element that cannot be controlled. For example if we decide to measure the path of the photon - to let the path become reality - we have no influence on which of the two possible paths of the photon actually will be observed.

This is the reason why Wheeler labels the individual quantum phenomenon an elementary act of creation. We as observers play a significant role in this process since we can decide by choosing the measuring device which quantum phenomenon is realized. Still, we cannot influence the specific value obtained through the measurement. Finally, since we are part of the universe, the universe, according to Wheeler, creates itself by observing itself through us.

By observing we influence fundamentally...I recently read a science fiction story by Adam Roberts, called Stone, where he proposes that, because of that influence that a consciousness has on a quantum level, that there exists only one type of consciousness per universe. Of course that's just my interpretation and memory of the story. Will have to reread it. I can certainly recommend the novel...

From the same page:

A very interesting and closely related position is taken by Just[24] from a psychoanalytic viewpoint. He compares the spontaneous and discontinuous reduction of the wave function in the quantum mechanical measuring process with the process of spontaneous realization ("Aha-Erlebnis"), to which in his opinion exactly the same characteristics apply.

I can't say I'm hundred percent sure I understand this (the original is a lecture in German, ja?), but it seems to be the sort of thing that happened when Archimedes ran naked through the streets shouting Eureka!. Eureka-Erlebnis possibly? The sort of feeling you get when you suddenly understand a difficult concept. Something I'm obviously not going to experience soon in my readings of quantum physics.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Starlab research: Christopher Altman

Look at this...

Last summer I held a research fellowship working with the Starlab CAM Brain group in studies designing and evolving artifical neural networks directly in silico. The project combines evolvable hardware and genetic algorithms in a novel approach towards the design and implementation of large-scale neural networks.

Science fiction, or what? Evolvable hardware - I'm sure he's not talking about us (spoedniek speaking for the human race).

My son is 3 years old now. If we (again I'll casually take the liberty of speaking for the human race) survive our own cleverness, I can't begin to imagine what kind of world he's going to inhabit when he's my age. ...uhm...that's 33 years from now. And how do I keep up? I barely know my iPods from my DVD-R...RW+- (What is it with these RW+ and RW-?!) Hey, and I have a job, okay? Can't surf the net all day long...

PCWorld.com - World's Most Powerful Computer Doubles in Size

It's the size of half a tennis court. And that's the compact version.

Scientists lighten up on dark energy | The Register

I'm still on about the quantum computer and artificial neural networks, but I've discovered as I waded through the mangrove swamps of information google has virtualised all around me, that it's not all as simple as I thought. In fact...well, you can imagine. Nothing about 'quantum' was ever going to be simple. But I'll keep looking. In the meantime the above article has appeared at The Register. They're theorising that all this endless carrying on about dark matter and dark energy was just so much sticky stuff to keep all sorts of other theories together, and that all cosmologists can now relax and get on to other more interesting things like...whatever it is these guys find interesting (the whole universe, for instance).

Naturally, not everyone agrees.

However, the scientific community remains sceptical. Michael Turner from the University of Chicago actually coined the term "dark energy" and in 1990, co-authored a paper with Kolb. He says: "Their paper is going to get enormous scrutiny, and my own guess is that in the end, they'll be wrong."

Sunday, March 20, 2005

generation5 - Simple neural network as robot brain

and

Genetic Algorithms and Lego

I don't have time to go into this, but let's keep these two articles in mind. Especially if you have a Lego Mindstorms kit...

Saturday, March 19, 2005


Just checking... Posted by Hello

Can you see the picture?

KK emission

On my wandering through the quantum computing world I discovered the animated image...

I have to figure out how to get images on this blog...

Quantum computing FAQ The interesting bit on that page is:
interesting speculation on combining quantum computers with neural networks Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:38:36 +0100 (MET)

Some time ago I read a very good article on quantum computers, explaining in fairly simple terms how they should eventually work. I'll post the link somewhere on this blog when I find it again. As I was reading it I couldn't help noticing a strong (in my ignorance I certainly thought it was strong) correlation (mmh, statistically perhaps a bit loaded, that word) with artificial neural nets. Not that I know that much about neural nets either, except that they work superficially (since I only understand them superficially) the way quantum computers will work (one day when they get them to work at all).

When I discovered the link above I was quite excited since the author seem to have come to a similar conclusion, and since he obviously is more knowledgeable on the subject than I. The only downer on that one is the date. I am just soooo slow.

The British Computer Society (BCS), in 1999, then followed a similar route: Quantum Neural Information Processing

Oh, here we go. Someone who can summarise it for us nicely (ultimately from Technology Research News 10 July 2002).

Friday, March 18, 2005

neural network - Webopedia.com
Strictly speaking, a neural network implies a non-digital computer, but neural networks can be simulated on digital computers.
Neural networks are currently used prominently in voice recognition systems, image recognition systems, industrial robotics, medical imaging, data mining and aerospace applications.

Some more introductory sites on neural networks:

Yes, I noticed. There's only one in that list. Is that still a list, then? I'll add more as I go along.
India would become leader in nano-technology in 5 yrs

How many people in India now? Last time I checked it was 700 million, but that was in the eighties.Here are some numbers:

The population in India as at 0:00 hours on 1st March 2001 stood at 1,027,015,247 persons. With this, India became only the second country in the world after China to cross the one billionmark. India's population rose by 21.34 % between 1991 - 2001. The sex ratio (i.e., number of females per thousand males) of population was 933, rising from 927 as at the 1991 Census. Total literacy rate in India was returned as 65.38%.

More stats.

Although India occupies only 2.4% of the world's land area, it supports over 15% of the world's population. Only China has a larger population. Almost 40% of Indians are younger than 15 years of age. About 70% of the people live in more than 550,000 villages, and the remainder in more than 200 towns and cities. Religion, caste, and language are major determinants of social and political organization in India today. The government has recognized 18 languages as official; Hindi is the most widely spoken.

And a bit more interesting: India population 'to be biggest'

India is set to overtake China as the world's most populous nation by 2050, while some countries will shrink by nearly 40%, according to new research.
Britain's population is likely to overtake that of France, while the US will grow by nearly 50%, it says.
India is expected to grow from 1.08bn to 1.63bn people, overtaking China, which is forecast to reach 1.44bn from 1.3bn currently.
PREDICTED POPULATIONS, 2050 1 India, 1,628m (2) 2 China, 1,437m (1) 3 United States, 420m (3) 4 Indonesia, 308m (4) 5 Nigeria, 307m (9) Source: PRB (2004 position in brackets)

And so on. So what's the point of this blog entry? Hopefully we'll find out soon...

First evidence for entanglement of three macroscopic objects has been seen in a superconducting circuit

Now what on earth is entanglement again? Entanglement:

A phenomenon in quantum mechanics in which set of (more than one)particles do not individually have a definite state but exist as an intermediate form of multiple “superposed” states. Each of these states describes each particle in a definite individual state. One of these states is realized when a 'measurement' is made on any one of the particles, placing all the other particles in the corresponding definite states, with out any measurements being directly carried out upon them! This effect (described by Einstein as "spooky action at a distance") was the subject of the "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox" that was part of the reason that Albert Einstein did not particlarly like quantum mechanics - despite his role in creating it!

Now I'll have to go and reread the article again...

Here's a very good site on quantum computing which I haven't read yet, either. I did read some other page on the web, but its location has merged with the chaos of the general web (or, alternatively, leaked out of my memory like a cheap C program (oh dear...)).

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Warming Up to a Martian Carcass :: Astrobiology Magazine :: Search for Life in the Universe or Search for Oil on Mars?

Sounds to me more like thinly disguised effort to get funding from the oil companies...

I've read a few science fiction stories...and I've read a few science fiction stories with Mars as the backdrop. Often there's mining going on. Can't remember exactly what they're usually mining, but I don't think there are many authors who came up with oil as the mineral.

So what is kerogen?

The naturally occurring, solid, insoluble organic matter that occurs in source rocks and can yield oil upon heating.

So can a meteor impact create the heat necessary? The article above doesn't discuss this, but I'm sure in the right place at the right time...