Support

If you have a problem or need to report a bug please email : support@dsprobotics.com

There are 3 sections to this support area:

DOWNLOADS: access to product manuals, support files and drivers

HELP & INFORMATION: tutorials and example files for learning or finding pre-made modules for your projects

USER FORUMS: meet with other users and exchange ideas, you can also get help and assistance here

smart questions

For anything not directly related to FlowStone

smart questions

Postby tester » Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:17 pm

We have the micro-scale and quantum world, the macro-scale and relativity theories, and we have world of... computer programs. Now the smart question. Is the world of computer programs - a macro-scale, micro-scale or something else? :mrgreen:

For solving mathematics in programming - quantum scale is used relatively directly (everything else is a visualization of microscopic events, so there is no true cross-scale reference, like between levels of physical reality).

Why the smart question? Well - can we do a quantum entanglement based on some sort of new abstract programming language (or algorhithms) and current nano-architecture of hardware on which it works?

:mrgreen:
Need to take a break? Looking for relaxing sounds? I have something right for you.
(by purchasing, you are also supporting further development of related projects).
Thank you for your contribution.
tester
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Poland, internet

Re: smart questions

Postby KG_is_back » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:14 pm

tester wrote:We have the micro-scale and quantum world, the macro-scale and relativity theories, and we have world of... computer programs. Now the smart question. Is the world of computer programs - a macro-scale, micro-scale or something else?


Computer programs are in information-scale which lies even under the micro-scale. Particles can carry information, which is stored in a form of state of the particle which affects the properties. If you think of it, particle is a instance of a class - it has defined parameters and may perform operations on itself and other particles when they are called (ie. when particles interact). On the other hand in macro-scale (both Newtonian and relativistic) we consider physical objects to be instances of some class too (they also have parameters like mass,shape,mass-center,electric charge,friction of surface, etc.) , and the same goes for force-fields. It seems that computer world is sort of endorses both scales/lies above them and implements them.

tester wrote:Why the smart question? Well - can we do a quantum entanglement based on some sort of new abstract programming language (or algorhithms) and current nano-architecture of hardware on which it works?


the problem is modern computers do not implement quo-bits hardware-wise. I do not know, if the quo-bits can actually be implemented in software.
KG_is_back
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:43 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: smart questions

Postby tester » Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:43 pm

But computers are expressing quantum phenomena during mathematics. It's somewhat like resonance control. To give a different example - there are folks, who quite recently created algos, to decrypt data according to sound patterns recorded from a working computer at certain distance. This means, that computations generate physical waves, which have more to do with quantum mechanics than with macro-world.

So the question is - what kind of physical resonances can be createt by regular computations in a way, that ongoing circuit workflow - would generate more entanglement-like quantum operations?

It's like generating green triggers (and maybe that's the way) in a way, that computer starts at some point to produce entanglement-based coherence in randomized variation of measurement... Or? Cumulation of this - could produce slight but measurable effect. So basically it would be a matter of producing certain types of physical distortion via computations that require physical hardware.

Destination of this question is: how to do such entanglement through time, from now to yesterday, so to speak. If science folks can do this with photons, esoteric folks do this with their minds, how the traditional computers could do it?

a lot of quantum mechanics is about statistics. Certain circumstances seem to alter the view inside it.
Need to take a break? Looking for relaxing sounds? I have something right for you.
(by purchasing, you are also supporting further development of related projects).
Thank you for your contribution.
tester
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Poland, internet

Re: smart questions

Postby KG_is_back » Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:02 pm

tester wrote:So the question is - what kind of physical resonances can be createt by regular computations in a way, that ongoing circuit workflow - would generate more entanglement-like quantum operations?

Problem is modern computers do not use entanglement.

Consider a Field-Electric-transistor:
- described by macro scale: Main Current goes from collector to emitter via semiconductor. The electric current at the base creates electric field, that "blocks" the current.
- described by micro scale: Electron traveling from Collector to emitter has a certain chance to interact with electron in base and either pass to emitter or "bounce" of the electron in the base. More electrons are in the base, bigger the chance the electron form collector does not pass to emittor.
When you have big Transistor you have many electrons going through and also many electrons at the base, so the effect is statistic. You are sure that certain % of electrons will pass +-some error/noise
However when you have microscopic transistor problem arises: you have just couple of electrons passing and only a couple of electrons on the base. Now the chance that electrons randomly pass instead of being stopped is quite significant and instead of small noise you get chance of error.
Entanglement means that two electrons on two different transistors are entangled and their ability to pass/not pass through is interconnected. This is yet not implemented in computers.
KG_is_back
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:43 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: smart questions

Postby tester » Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:40 pm

I would not be so sure about that... Computers are made of stuff that by definition produces quantum effects. Since there is not too much going on between this micro scale and our programming language, we can assume, that these effects will produce stuff like: rejected errors, unnecessary (from the point of view of the apps; it's like one trigger more or less) time delays, modulations and fluctuations, and all kind of noises or noise fluctuations burried within regular fluctuations. It's possible that these quantum-driven disturbances can be measured within regular disturbances, and that over time they can produce quantum data (like "say hello" after 24 hours of some sort of continuous stupid computations). Like a blurry picture, magified XXX times. The world might be self-coherent, otherwise transistors would not work, or?

There are folks, either in Slovakia or Slowenia (I don't remember right now) - who invented an interesting concepts and software capable of measuring light interference in regular optical noise in order to detect biological fields. So there are ways to get signals burried within regular noise.

Another thing. If we live in 4-dimmensional timespace continuum, and time is like other dimensions of space, then timespace compression is just about 170dB deep. We live in rather log world in terms of scales. 170dB is within 32bit range, just above 24bit depth, which ends at 144dB. I mention this comparison, because we are capable of measuring, perceiving, producing such depths of scale differences, so I would guess that quantum effects are comparable to these 170dB in some crazy way. As for these dimensions, there is a funny thing, because light is basically flat (polarized light experiments), and one mor problem it produces - is the "white" (or "clear" if you go to buddthism) component (the most white noise is silent DC, which has infinite wavelenght and null frequency and all frequencies at the same time?).

As for the quantum effects. Are they physical? Are they logical? If they are logical, then can they be reproduced using traditional computer logic? And what about approximations at given coordinates? Can we determine some sort of coordinates, at which we can approximate something, and average over time in order to get more coherent results? Timespace is like polynomial (I never remember that word in english) of 4th degree - using f', f'', f''' series and so on - we can yet - solve them.

I have some schematics, that can't be solved by traditional trigger order, they just must be rewired. In the way they are wired now - correct trigger will pass or not, and there is no way to tell. It's sure, that they will nor work only under high pressure, or that they will work under almost null pressure. I think, the major problem with approaching so called "randomnesses" produced by computers may have to do with algorithms and measured timespans. Maybe some sort of hit-or-miss infinities included. Or?
Need to take a break? Looking for relaxing sounds? I have something right for you.
(by purchasing, you are also supporting further development of related projects).
Thank you for your contribution.
tester
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Poland, internet

Re: smart questions

Postby KG_is_back » Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:50 pm

tester wrote:I would not be so sure about that... Computers are made of stuff that by definition produces quantum effects. Since there is not too much going on between this micro scale and our programming language, we can assume, that these effects will produce stuff like: rejected errors, unnecessary (from the point of view of the apps; it's like one trigger more or less) time delays, modulations and fluctuations, and all kind of noises or noise fluctuations burried within regular fluctuations. It's possible that these quantum-driven disturbances can be measured within regular disturbances, and that over time they can produce quantum data (like "say hello" after 24 hours of some sort of continuous stupid computations). Like a blurry picture, magified XXX times. The world might be self-coherent, otherwise transistors would not work, or?


Within the processor itself, such "additional" data basically makes the processor do random errors. That is generally undesirable and such errors are usually avoided. I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing.

However, when recording audio, the AD converters with high bitdepth (24-32) actually measure audio so precisely that last 2-4 bits are actually random (made only of noise, present in the signal and conversion itself). What they do is dithering. They are possibly caused by quantum effects. They might contain some quantum information, but I have no idea how to make use of it.
KG_is_back
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:43 pm
Location: Slovakia

Re: smart questions

Postby tester » Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:23 pm

KG_is_back wrote:
tester wrote:I would not be so sure about that... Computers are made of stuff that by definition produces quantum effects. Since there is not too much going on between this micro scale and our programming language, we can assume, that these effects will produce stuff like: rejected errors, unnecessary (from the point of view of the apps; it's like one trigger more or less) time delays, modulations and fluctuations, and all kind of noises or noise fluctuations burried within regular fluctuations. It's possible that these quantum-driven disturbances can be measured within regular disturbances, and that over time they can produce quantum data (like "say hello" after 24 hours of some sort of continuous stupid computations). Like a blurry picture, magified XXX times. The world might be self-coherent, otherwise transistors would not work, or?


Within the processor itself, such "additional" data basically makes the processor do random errors. That is generally undesirable and such errors are usually avoided. I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing.


I think I speak about wider picture. Random errors yes, but what I meant was rather randomness of speed during computations. If in CPU and other electronic guts, current consumption and use of structure (which transistors are in use at the time so to speak) is regulated according to computation needs, then computation needs may/could vary according to some formula, that forces these quantim instabilities in electronic environment. Thus, the circuits would produce operational delays within the tolerance, but maybe within that threshold (I don't know, few CPU-or-else cycles per hour or day?) - such thing as quantum entanglement could happen in a way, that it could be a) wired, and b) measured. Basically, it would be good to find "something", some setting, that produces less regularities on its own (like coil resonances), and more fluctuations that depend on computations. Thus the irregularity could maybe perhaps point something. Basically, the noises can be statistically evaluated for deviations (things like z-score, chi square as far Iremember are used for that) from expected randomness, but I think here there is also some field for adjustements.

KG_is_back wrote:However, when recording audio, the AD converters with high bitdepth (24-32) actually measure audio so precisely that last 2-4 bits are actually random (made only of noise, present in the signal and conversion itself). What they do is dithering. They are possibly caused by quantum effects. They might contain some quantum information, but I have no idea how to make use of it.


I think right now more important is not how to use audio right now, but what kind of general experiment or macro setting would reflect these odd quantum states (like entanglement), that produce these out-of-reality end results. It's like using large object to produce very small waves.

If this quantum mechanics is not only physical effect, but also logical in nature, then (even with using some coordinate/coeffs driven approximations) such things in nature - should be scalable independent from micro/macro world, like anything else in programming. Also, it should be possible to translate it (like cybernetics do; generalize and find similar) onto any other system. And then it's a matter of finding system, that responds in the best way to applied environment. I guess it would be a matter of whether system generates something like "hel$o wo$$d" or not.
Need to take a break? Looking for relaxing sounds? I have something right for you.
(by purchasing, you are also supporting further development of related projects).
Thank you for your contribution.
tester
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Poland, internet

Re: smart questions

Postby tulamide » Fri Sep 19, 2014 9:15 am

This discussion is interesting but I can't contribute something of value, at least not, when having to stick to the english language.
So don't laugh, if it's the obvious I'm pointing to, but I was always fascinated about the fact that the green cables pretty much are an example of a quantum state. Unlike in real world, if two green cables cross in Flowstone you can't tell which one is above the other. Not even if they probably melt together. It's only when you actually inspect one of the cables that you can tell its state.
But is it a macro example of a quantum state?
tulamide
 
Posts: 2161
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:48 pm
Location: Germany

Re: smart questions

Postby tester » Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:20 pm

tulamide wrote:This discussion is interesting but I can't contribute something of value, at least not, when having to stick to the english language.
So don't laugh, if it's the obvious I'm pointing to, but I was always fascinated about the fact that the green cables pretty much are an example of a quantum state. Unlike in real world, if two green cables cross in Flowstone you can't tell which one is above the other. Not even if they probably melt together. It's only when you actually inspect one of the cables that you can tell its state.
But is it a macro example of a quantum state?


As we said with KG - programming objects represent different type of "space" so to speak. It's not micro, nor macro, it's scalable without dimensional/physical reference. The cable itself would have to be connected to an event, to give it a representation. Otherwise it's just a meaningless virtual object.

As for a setup, I can imagine something like this. In one point of time, there is a setup with three things. One generator that produces continuous string of letters, a,b,c,d,... one computation unit, that affects the order of letters being sent to the output, and user interface that decides what to send. In other point of time, there is similar setup running, with one difference - no user interface, only letter generator and computation unit that affects what goes to output. Now - the quantum entanglement would happen through "connecting" somehow these computation parts, and the effect would be measured by comparing letter based outputs or seeking for meaning in second output or checking for irregularities between it and non-entangled reference. Sort of. :mrgreen:
Need to take a break? Looking for relaxing sounds? I have something right for you.
(by purchasing, you are also supporting further development of related projects).
Thank you for your contribution.
tester
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Poland, internet


Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ivanaf16 and 6 guests