Category Archives: r&d homegrown

EMERGENT QM BREAKTHRU: ADLER+VINANTE MEASURE SUBQUANTUM EFFECTS

⭐ ⭐ ⭐ 💡 ❗ 😮 ❤ 😀 😎

SO EXCITING/ “JAZZED”!

hi all it was only about 2 mos ago a big ambitious update on quantum mechanics shifts was posted on the “fluid paradigm shift”. if you ask me this is all at least as epochal as the invention/ discovery of quantum mechanics itself about a century ago. and (unbeknownst to me at the time) theres been a striking new development.

around here updates to QM are measured in years and not months. have been blogging now a solid ½ decade on the topic and thats just the recorded history, my inquiries go back decades. but as mentioned in that last blog “my neurons are really buzzing”. something is in the air, the zeitgeist is electric right now. lightning is striking. all my spider senses are tingling. normally would not write very quickly on all this but heres a “flash update” based on the sheer significance of the announcement/ finding.

all the research is paying off. a breakthru has arrived. there is now SOLID EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR SUBQUANTUM EFFECTS.[a] thats right they have now been MEASURED and published in a reputable physics journal (physical review letters… uh hey preemptively addressing skeptics obsessing about peer review etc, didnt einstein + bohr + other founders have papers in there?).

that breakthru credit goes to the VINANTE-ADLER team. they have been working on this line of inquiry maybe about 2 decades judging by their papers.

Continue reading

Advertisements

top AGI leads 2018½

hi all, earlier this year released a new theory of AGI on this blog. it got substantial/ gratifying hits and am still pursuing it. aligned with this work, did a massive survey of existing state-of-the-art AGI leads. my initial idea was to try to summarize/ survey the different approaches. still have that in mind but its a almost herculean task and too much to bite off at this moment. this blog gets respectable hits but the audience is very spread out and not vocal/ participatory, dampening some of my energy for that high effort currently (but also not ruling it out).

however, this is a massive step in that direction, just painstakingly collecting this large ~180 link set/ collections of top leads.

much of this was found via the MIT AGI slack channel. its like trying to keep up with a firehose, but its very lively and cutting edge and also with tons of noise. as an expr goes used in this blog on various occasions, not for the fainthearted!

in compiling this its striking to me how both/ simultaneously brilliant and obscure some of these approaches are. some seem to me to be very much getting at the heart of AGI (and realized they are closely aligned with my own) but like my own audience, there is a lot of scattering. so far there is fairly low coalescing/ coalescence of groups around common themes/ consensus. my feeling is this disconnection may fall dramatically in the coming years esp with widely known/ publicized breakthrough(s) that drive the currently somewhat meandering herd down much more specific directions. it will be challenging-to-difficult but not inconceivable, exactly that happened on a substantial scale with deep learning within the last few years.

while it may seem overwhelming/ insurmountable at times, in some ways the AGI problem purely reduces to an architecture/ coordination problem, aka engineering. and notice some groups are arriving at the same answer from different directions (mainly psychology, (neuro)biology, machine learning, statistics/ data science/ big data, education/ learning theory, robotics, game AI, etc), with different languages/ vocabularies/ terminologies/ paradigms that are showing some/ early signs of converging/ convergence.

with new technologies, its all about “traction + momentum”. within the next few years, am expecting some major strategy/ consensus to emerge that builds on deep learning that gives rise to a plausible path/ route to AGI. have already outlined it myself, and think my ideas are close to the “secret sauce”, but my influence is low. fully expect nearly the exact same ideas to gain major traction but when espoused by some other leading light/ monolithic authority in the field, either an organization or individual or some combination of the two. it will likely be in the form of some step from the following ideas toward the more specific/ “laser-focused” direction.

odds are if there is some major AGI theory circulating at the present time, its pointed to in these refs, the well-known and not-so-well-known. and boldly both going out on a limb with a crystal ball, furthermore, think odds are strong that a “correct/ viable” AGI theory is in the not-too-distant future/ intermediate horizon and that the seeds will be contained (“holographic like”) in at least some refs cited here, maybe even many.

Continue reading

FLUID PARADIGM SHIFT 2018½

hi all. what if research into the interpretation of QM leads to a QM + GR path/ direction for unification? that is exactly the ambitious, overarching, but not inconceivable promise of the fluid paradigm of physics.

its been ~¾ a year since a last bold/ ambitious blog on copenhagen interpretation and new fluid ideas in quantum mechanics and physics.

at this point have blogged about ½ decade on some of these subjs and my neurons are really buzzing, crackling and snapping lately at full volume, the field is going thru an identifiable paradigm shift predicted years ago in this blog.

have collected a copious collection of new info/ leads, my links really runneth over. it really looks like nearly critical mass in some ways.

have been waiting to blog on this a few months and looking for an opportune moment. am expecting some massive signs to show up. many have already shown up. am finally deciding to write all this up at the near ½ year point.

one of the biggest signposts/ BREAKTHRUS is the new Becker book, What is Real, the Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics.[a] havent bought it yet but its on the top of my to-read pile. this is causing big, maybe even massive waves in the mass/ popular media eg NYT but also the scientific journals such as Nature. its being reviewed by top experts positively. major response on social media such as reddit also. maybe a gamechanger.

Continue reading

secret/ blueprint/ path to AGI: novelty detection/ seeking

hi all. kurzweil wrote in 2006 “the singularity is near”. foreboding words! but today, still maybe more of a feeling than a fact. definitely, the AI field has started to mature into a new steady advance period/ era in the last few years, also with a burst of energy/ enthusiasm/ innovation heralded by the Google Deepmind acquisition in 2014, and other massive shifts toward increased investment by large corporations and govts. the Musk Open AI initiative was announced in 2015.

the other massive milestone is the ready conquering of Go by Google in 2016 by AlphaGo. in late 2017, a new version AlphaZero was announced that plays superior to AlphaGo (at “beyond human grandmaster level”) after learning merely from the rules and reinforcement learning, ie no example human-level play presented as training whatsoever. AlphaZero also plays grandmaster level chess after learning “from scratch”. this breakthrough is not fully/ widely appreciated in some ways. it is the first case of a potentially more general algorithm for AI emerging from “previously relatively narrow” study of AI in games.

AI has the terminology “weak AI” and “strong AI” for different levels/ sophistication/ “ability”. more recently the term AGI, Artificial General Intelligence has been coined.

Continue reading

latest on killing copenhagen interpretation via fluid dynamics

⭐ ❗ 💡 😎 😮 ❤ hi all. bohr was transfixed by so-called "complementarity"; its said schroedingers cat is both alive and dead, and curiosity killed the cat. wikipedia states[n6]

In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave function is the most complete description that can be given of a physical system.

but wait, if that is against inquiring deeper, isnt that nearly an anti-curiosity-investigation-research position/ pov? and isnt anti-curiosity-investigation-research nearly anti-science? 😮

copenhagen interpretation is sometimes referred to as the shut up and calculate ideology by questioners/ challengers/ critics in a statement originating with one of them, Mermin, an adept popsci writer and fan of Bells work. here is a famous quote that sounds like a near restatement of the copenhagen interpretation by Feynman:

Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, “But how can it be like that?” because you will get “down the drain”, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

now how about a somewhat radical quote/ response from Daniel Sank, Phd working for Google QM labs?

The other day someone from the WSJ asked me to explain why quantum mechanics is weird.

I went off on a rather well-reasoned and carefully articulated rant about how it’s not weird and that people only say that to sound cool.

I even went so far as to say that Feynman’s famous statement that {anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics is wrong} is destructive, stupid, and should not be repeated.

whoa, strong words there! however maybe somewhat unexpectedly, both somewhat agree/ disagree! yet, alas, somehow think DS is not really intending to challenge the copenhagen interpretation with his dramatic excoriation of feynman!* DS is also on the (chat) record as averse to/ strongly rejecting “alternative interpretations”. which to me is not really scientific, where to me conceptual evolution/ scientific progress inherently entails/ involves never stopping/ ceasing questioning how can it be like that?

oh, coincidentally right around writing all this, just ran into another striking quote by John Rennie a very high ranking member of physics stack exchange on the “1st Law,” with high ranking mod ACuriousMind immediately agreeing:

no physicist shall discuss interpretations of quantum mechanics or by inaction allow interpretations of quantum mechanics to be discussed.

lol and now this seems to reach/ degenerate to the absurd levels of Epimenides paradox when one asks the simple question, are Bohr/ Heisenberg, the founders of the Copenhagen interpretation, physicists? …so is this physics or fight club? 😮 o_O 🙄

* further search jujitsu by me, managed to turn up another striking quote by DS expressly rejecting Copenhagen interpretation… more strong words!

Listen to me very closely: I am a quantum computing professional and I think the Copenhagen interpretation is not even self-consistent and therefore entirely inadmissible as a theory of Nature.

and to finish on a different note, think this captures something relevant/ accurate/ typically unspoken “between the lines” by mod ACuriousMind, a sort of “non-interpretation” approach at least )( admitted openly/ candidly/ honestly:

Of those named, Copenhagen is the most popular, but my impression is that a significant number of people actually doing quantum physics every day share my personal disdain for all the squabbles around “interpretations”.

(so then, bottom line/ in conclusion… Copenhagen and/ or interpretations as taboo, that which shall not be named? aka scientific omerta, “code of silence”) 😳 😮 🙄

⭐ ⭐ ⭐

have been collecting physics links on a diverse set of topics that are not unified yet but think will someday be unified. the general area is now sometimes known as Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics (PWH) also aka/ known as “oil drop dynamics experiments”. the Bohmian pilot wave was speculated on for many decades, and soliton theory combined with new experimental findings has given rise to a new reality, science, and growing research area/ program/ paradigm! but it exists alongside in a tension right now with “standard” quantum mechanics.

the stage has been set! its two large plates shearing against each other. when will the inevitable top/ pivotal showdown/ confrontation/ conflict/ earthquake occur? think its just a matter of time! (admittedly 1 is far much smaller than the other right now, but relatively shortly, predict that will flip-flop.) my feeling/ estimate/ prediction is there is at least 1 nobel to be won in the next 5-10 yrs in this area, and several in store over several decades!* signifying/ corresponding with an imminent genuine physics paradigm shift/ revolution in the 21st century at least on the scale of QM in the 20th.

* 😳 o_O (note, however, some fineprint/ hedging/ reality check on this superficially bold-appearing claim! nobels are clearly not comprehensive/ thorough/ totally evenhanded, eg Einstein did not win one for relativity! also, they are often awarded up to decades after the date of the actual accomplishment! therefore to thoroughly invalidate the claim might take decades!)

would like to write a comprehensive survey based on several years of juicy links but thats a herculean task. even just collecting/ writing up the latest batch is a formidable task. these are some of the big highlights for me.

there are a lot of boundary-pushing experiments in qm lately.[a]

Continue reading