hi all, have been pondering bell tests again. it would seem that “loophole free” tests done in the last decade or so are airtight, eg . it seems there is just no room left for (einsteinian) locality. or is there? have been pondering on the deep mystery of QM entanglement for over ~2½ decades myself now and have to revise my thinking in light of new experimental insight.Continue reading
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…
“the devil is in the details…”
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
- BOHM VINDICATED
- 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
- TEXTBOOKS NEED TO BE REWRITTEN
hi all. am EXCITED! the future has ARRIVED, NOW!Continue reading
My view is throw it all away and start again. —Hinton[x]
⭐ 😮 ❗ 💡 😎 ❤ hi all. blogged about a curiosity-based AGI theory in early 2018 after being inspired by recent Deepmind Go advances. the title was “novelty detection/ seeking”. the short word for that is curiosity. “curiously” the word “curious” didnt appear in the essay a single time. thinking back, suspect my thinking was that maybe the term was too advanced/ bold at the time. its a relatively abstract concept not even fully understood in neurobiology or psychology. it also crosses the species boundaries to other animals besides humans ie a general biological consideration also.
but now its time to use that word. the machine learning field has discovered curiosity in a big way… both locally and more globally.
the futures already here, its just not evenly distributed. —Gibson
the field of ML is very vast, grown rapidly in the last few years (esp wrt deep learning), and its not easy to keep track of these days. its something of a minor obsession for me and track it daily and over several years in this blog, almost since the beginning, via hundreds of links a year. did not run into some key references myself, and that shows how broad the field is and how hard it is even for dedicated/ committed individual researchers to keep up. but theres another element, curiosity was, and to some degree still is, “flying below the radar”.
this blog is timed based on some renewed attention and traction. the researchers in the field are definitely starting to notice something. they are still scattered but theyre the leaders, the pioneers, and suspect a mass herd shift is in the near future/ horizon (say within a few years) just like what happened with ML/ deep learning explosion/ wave itself in the last few years.
so in brief, thats exciting! the Curiosity Paradigm of Intelligence is gaining unmistakable signs of traction. this blog tracks some of those new milestones. yes its been studied for decades and by others, but the core/ nearly radical new theory/ proposal here (not entirely espoused by the following researchers, but aligned/ close) is that curiosity is necessary and sufficient for intelligence.
have been advocating/ promoting/ proseletyzing it myself in cyberspace heavily and got a lot of views on my blog. can be sure it is influencing some. also promote it on reddit and for that, earned some serious resistance there, some battle scars in cyberspace (oops/ yikes “promote” is nearly a 4-letter word in certain quarters of cyberspace that supposedly uphold/ glorify/ exist/ have entire business models based on user-generated-content!). but also a lot of excellent/ positive/ pointed feedback from redditors. thx for that guys!
Heidelberg Laureate Forum (@HLForum) September 20, 2018
😳 😥 hi all. am writing this with some heavy heart. in some ways there are a lot of angles to this story, in another way there are none at all. (to paraphrase one cold/ sarcastic respondent, nothing to see here, move along.)
the Riemann hypothesis is one of the worlds most premiere and probably hardest open problems, unsolved after 1½ century, and has a $1M Claymath prize now almost 2 decades old.
coincidentally, just did a brief survey on links between Riemann and physics/ quantum mechanics, a connection that was noticed decades ago by Dyson and has gotten further attention over the years. this crosscutting nature is somewhat rare of deep math/ physics problems, and esp wrt number theory. it even has significant connections to TCS.
Atiyah recently announced a “simple” proof presented at the Heidelberg Laureate Forum one of the premiere scientific conferences in the world. preprint is available on google drive (although these links are at risk to rot quickly, rats). he is one of the worlds premiere living mathematicians. he will be 90 years old in less than a year. theres an outstanding series of youtube lectures by him ranging over wide topics including physics + math crossover. wrt the proof “attack” theres substantial reaction across multiple blogs  and mainstream media including quick-to-react New Scientist.
there was mass buzz and excitement in cyberspace, eg across social media such as reddit quickly accruing hundreds of comments, some superficial, some substantial. (many people from laymen to professionals are interested in this problem, with good reason, theres real scientific drama here, a relatively rare occurence in that world.) alas, even much to my own chagrin, a lot/ most of that seems to have collapsed quickly in the immediate case.
before the definitely far-from-funny analysis, the episode is evocative of some relevant cartoon humor, which display a kind of timeless wisdom wrt capturing certain deep archetypes definitely in play here. sydney harris famous cartoon I think you should be more explicit here, xkcd number theory/ collatz eventually all your friends will stop calling you, and smbc old physicists, we had a lot of good times.