Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.–einstein
hi all! the minev experiment really got my neurons buzzing and inspired me to dive deep into a lot of QM lately. so have been looking further into many QM directions that are relatively new, only about ~2decades old. during this time Quantum Computation has had a big effect on the development of physics research + trends. the age-old problem introduced with the origins of QM, “the measurement problem” comes front-and-center. QC fundamentally depends on “accurately measuring” qubits. but due to complementarity identified by Bohr + the heisenberg uncertainty principle, “accurate measurement” is an extremely slippery, subtle concept in QM/QC.
this stuff is some of the hardest in the world to “wrap ones brain around.” the worlds top geniuses are still struggling themselves. its a rarefied crowd, an at times esoteric/ arcane area. even physics specialists into QC are not so familiar with some of the deeper ramifications. last month, outlined a bunch of vocabulary that is related to the Minev work. ah, its much more comprehensive, its an entirely new vocabulary around QM mostly from the optics subfield. had to try to disentangle all that somehow…
WordPress.com is excited to announce our newest offering: a course just for beginning bloggers where you’ll learn everything you need to know about blogging from the most trusted experts in the industry. We have helped millions of blogs get up and running, we know what works, and we want you to to know everything we know. This course provides all the fundamental skills and inspiration you need to get your blog started, an interactive community forum, and content updated annually.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. –PLANCK
GAMECHANGING, MULTICENTURY KUHNIAN PARADIGM SHIFT IN PLAY/ INITIATED
SCHROEDINGER CAT OUT OF THE BAG
EINSTEIN+SCHROEDINGER WERE RIGHT, BOHR+HEISENBERG WRONG
BELLS INTUITION EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN
20TH CENTURY QM THEORY IS INCOMPLETE
SO-CALLED COPENHAGEN “INTERPRETATION” OBSOLETE/ FALLS/ OVERTURNED/ FALSIFIED, NOW CONSIGNED/ RELEGATED TO DUSTBIN OF HISTORY
THE DISTINCTION OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS VS QUANTUM MECHANICS IS A FIGMENT OF HUMAN IMAGINATION AND SCIENTIFIC COGNITIVE BIAS
WAVEFUNCTION “COLLAPSE” IS NOT INSTANTANEOUS, HAS MEASURABLE/ REPEATABLE DYNAMICS, NOT DERIVABLE FROM PRIOR QM AXIOMS
WATERSHED MOMENT/ THE FLOODGATES HAVE OPENED
21ST CENTURY QC EXPERIMENTALISTS LEAD THE WAY TO A NEW POST-20TH CENTURY PHYSICS VIA NEW MEASUREMENTS/ PHENOMENA
THE JURY IS IN: SUBQUANTUM REALM IS REAL, EXPERIMENTALLY PROVABLE/ TESTABLE, CONTROLLABLE, REPLICATED
DESPITE A CENTURY OF DENIAL AND OBFUSCATION, QUANTUM MECHANICS IS DISGUISED FLUID DYNAMICS AT HEART
NOW BETA TESTING QUANTUM MECHANICS VERSION 2.0
NEW SCIENCE/ TERMINOLOGY BEING DISCOVERED/ INVENTED AS WE SPEAK
the outside background around this post is that google just announced world-shattering results in protein folding problem with machine learning. this is historic, deserves to be highly celebrated (not mere typical marketing hype!), and crosscutting more than 3 of my favorite fields all tied up into one problem (bioinformatics + physics + ML etc), and am very inspired/ awed/ psyched about this. those feelings are not easy to obtain these days. would like to put large effort into commentary on all this, but alas my audience is not into reciprocity. drop me a line (comment) if you want to (rather easily?) prove me wrong…
am immediately working on the last code some, and my full data scientist expertise/ repertoire is being put to the test. its been some back-and-forth, almost a dialog or even conversation with the data, which is nearly the best case scenario. its like a kind of debugging, but on the level of data manipulation more than coding errors and has a lot to do with trying to understand the presence/ lack of generalization in the model, which maybe as has been indicated a long time ago, is the machine learning equivalent of induction. in other words, the code might work on less complex data, but it doesnt, so has to be further tweaked. this is an attempt to make a relatively long story short.
💡 this following code/ signal came up somewhat indirectly, incidentally, almost by accident. had an experiment to generate long ‘cgnw2’ glides with nearly ½ entropy to force them into the undifferentiated region; as explored last month the ½ density constraint is not sufficient for that, leading to long 1-lsb runs nearly ½ the iterate width. the ~½ entropy constraint works fairly well but then found small initial 1-lsb runs even in those. so wrote some code to cut off the leading 1-lsb runs of the glide, and analyze remaining glide carefully.
was looking for any kind of signals at all, lots out of the “bag of tricks,” also looking at 3-power sequence, and again it seemed to come up undifferentiated mush with lots of sophisticated analysis. there is a lot of signal found in prior 3-power sequence analysis but in general, a lot of it was related to Terras density glides. the hybrid approach tends to produce more “in the wild” glides. there is still some hidden order, maybe significant, in Terras glides that various experiments have isolated. but some, much, most, or nearly all this seems to melt away on “in the wild” glides.
notably, this hasnt been pointed out, but the (local) density metrics associated with the 3-power sequence naturally tighten even for random iterates. so its important to try to separate this “typical” tightening from “atypical” tightening, and thats not a trivial exercise.
but then started working on some “baseline” comparison ie control data, and then chasing down some stuff, lost my focus on the glides entirely. the simple way to generate this is via random ½ density iterates and then look at the drains. then started looking at features over these drains. some of this work has already been done, but it seems that some key signals have been missed. this straightfwd/ finetuned/ yet conceptually near basic code is on ½ density drains only.