# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  information, gravity, and beakers (and the universe and everything in it)

## nonsqtr

So this guy Maldacena, he's a physicist at Princeton, he came up with this model called "ads/cft correspondence".

It's kind of holographic. It relates what happens inside a volume, to what happens at its boundary.

Ads stands for "anti-deSitter space", and cft stands for conformal field theory. Conformal means the transformations preserve angles.

The ads/cft people, say that gravity inside the volume (we're inside the volume, we're part of "the bulk"), is related to and due to, entanglement on the boundary. And they have math to show how it works.

This is all fine and dandy in theory, but how real is it? Our universe isn't "anti-deSitter". This is one of those cases where the math works but no one knows why or what it's good for.

So, someone decided to test the theory experimentally. They reasoned that if boundary conditions dictate internal structure, then they should be able to do the exact same thing in the laboratory, on a miniature scale, by entangling photons.

Such a "system" of entangled photons is called a many-body system, and modern technology makes it possible to control many-body systems quite precisely.

Monika Schleier-Smith at Stanford just won the Macarthur Fellowship for demonstrating a mode, in the laboratory, where information dissipates "rapidly" and stable spatial structures are formed as a result.

Told ya.  :Smile: 

Watch her video:




This is huge. Big. Big-big, as Barney Fife would say.

Turns out, what Dr Schleier has done, is replicate Ilya Prigogine's results at the quantum level.

I previously posted this picture of the Benard cells that arise from Rayleigh convection in a heated medium:



The stable spatial structure "in the volume" arises because of the boundary conditions - esse tialky, because of the beaker. Which is round and has "modes".

Well, here's what Dr Schleier gets with photons:



(This is a rendition, real life isn't "quite" this neat, as you can see in the video).

Dr Schleier has discovered a state, in a many body system, where information "disperses rapidly". This is exactly and precisely the diffusion tensor I was talking about.

See? This brilliant scientist didn't listen to the naysayers, who protested that we don't live in anti-deSitter space and thus exploring it is worthless. Apparently this chick is like me, she has no use for cosmological constants. She went ahead and did the experiment anyway. And look what happened.

----------

Authentic (01-15-2022),BooBoo (01-15-2022)

----------


## nonsqtr

I'm still trying to figure out how many "fields" there are supposed to be.

One count says 37, and that makes no sense at all! What genius would create a universe that depends on the delicate interaction between 37 different fields?

But wait, it gets scary. Fields in the Standard Model are grouped together on the basis of symmetries (Lorentz symmetries, and gauge symmetries). These exist as singlets, doublets, triplets... generally "multiplets". If you add up all the multiplets for the complex scalars (Higgs), two component spinors (electrons, quarks, muons), and massless complex vectors (photons, gluons, Z and W bosons) you get 19 multiplets with 268 real fields.

Which is just ridiculous. God did not make a universe that depends on 268 fields.

The "fields", must be realizations of something more primitive. 

The Schleier experiment shows that sophisticated geometry can be created from simple spin exchange. I suggest that fields have "shape", and that only certain kinds of energies feel the shape. For instance there could be 2 fields that are felt in 37 different ways depending on the states of the operators and etc. The other interesting concept is field-field interaction, like when two fields rub up against each other and energy is transferred from one to the other resulting in radiation.

Here's a (not so tricky) question based on the video.

Photons can be spin +1, -1, or 0. If you start with two 0-0 photons and create a +1 and a -1 from them (like in the video), are you creating information?

----------


## UKSmartypants

Spinors only create 2D spin networks. You need Twistors to create 4D spacetime.  I posted on the other thread about that, and the point that gauge fields are fibre bundles attached to twistors, and it all fits nicely together. Even Wave Function collapse can be explained if twistor space is curved as a jump from one twistor to another


so conceivably, positive curvature in twistor space  corresponds to De Sitter space. But I dont see how you can extract anti desitter space out of it and maintain wave function collapse correlation. ADS was abandoned cos it has some stupid implications.  If you were freely floating anywhere in anti de Sitter space, you would feel as though you were at the bottom of a gravitational well. Any object that you threw out would come back like a boomerang. Surprisingly, the time required for an object to come back would be independent of how hard you threw it”. Does that sound like any kind of gravity you know of? No, because we do not live in anti de Sitter space. Because it's just a fantasy.

There's a Scientific American article on it here from 2007

The illusion of Gravity - Scientific American

Susskind was still pushing it back in 2018  

Why Don't Black Holes Swallow All of Space? This Explanation Is Blowing Our Tiny Minds

----------


## nonsqtr

Now we're finally getting somewhere. This is great stuff. 

So I'm checking out all the claims made in the video. You heard her talk about quantum computations. Well - it's a whole lot more exciting than simple computation.

The spin infrastructure in quantum mechanics, is "almost" like another dimension. It does in fact increase the degrees of freedom, instead of 2 we get 2 √ 2, which you'll notice is a "fractional" increase.

And, you heard her say, that all the geometry she's talking about, is achieved without ever changing the physical locations of the entangled particles.

Well, this is what she's talking about**:

Quantum logic using correlated one-dimensional quantum walks | npj Quantum Information

Two-dimensional quantum walks of correlated photons

Turns out, many body systems of correlated photons constitute universal quantum computers.

If you let a photon walk around on a lattice, it does a "random walk", but if you let TWO photons walk around on a lattice they become entangled. Automagically. If you let 37x37 photons walk around on a 2-d lattice, the correlations that occur will allow the photons to spontaneously self organize into stable spin geometries. 

Stable spin geometries, are information, they're exactly equivalent to configurations in a Boltzmann gas. Spatial structure is "configuration entropy".

You also heard her talk about spin up and spin down states almost as if they were electrons and "holes" in a semiconductor. Like, "slots", where something can go. Kind of like memory locations in a computer, which can be either filled or unfilled - if it's filled we say the memory location has information "in" it.

Although strictly speaking this is only half true. The slot may not know what's in it, it may only know that it's empty or full. Only the programmer knows the "meaning" of what's in it, and whether or not an empty slot has any meaning.

I mentioned a photon has a spin state called 0. Spin is angular momentum, does that mean the spin 0 state has lower energy than the spin 1 state? Well... no, that's not exactly how it works. In an atom each electron has an opposite spin to its neighbor, the quantum numbers obey the Pauli exclusion principle. But there is no "spin 0" state, there's only up and down.

A simple way of organizing entropy is:

Intrinsic entropy is degrees of freedom, it's "number of slots".

Configuration entropy belongs to the population, it's "arrangement of slots".

In a computer you can have a condition where the bit is either 0 or 1, but you can also have a condition where the bit is undefined (for instance if the location doesn't exist, or if it exists but it's designated as "empty" - to be designated as full it must be "filled with" either a 0 or a 1).

But there's no such concept in quantum land. A qubit is never "empty", it's always 0 or 1 or something in between ("both"). There's no way to designate a qubit as "empty", and "undefined" turns out to be the desired state.

So then, we have one situation where information is stored in the contents, and a different situation where information is stored in the configuration.

But, the configuration changes depending on how you look at it! One observer sees radiation, another observer doesn't. Which is why configuration entropy can't be a measurable.

It's non-local though. Which is not that big a deal. The electric field from electrons is non-local too. So is gravity.

----------


## Northern Rivers

Instantly? Libyan. Looks like a lady I kew...and thanks for the mnemonics in remembering her.  :Cool20:

----------

nonsqtr (01-16-2022),Robert (01-17-2022)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Spinors only create 2D spin networks. You need Twistors to create 4D spacetime.  I posted on the other thread about that, and the point that gauge fields are fibre bundles attached to twistors, and it all fits nicely together. Even Wave Function collapse can be explained if twistor space is curved as a jump from one twistor to another
> 
> 
> so conceivably, positive curvature in twistor space  corresponds to De Sitter space. But I dont see how you can extract anti desitter space out of it and maintain wave function collapse correlation. ADS was abandoned cos it has some stupid implications.  If you were freely floating anywhere in anti de Sitter space, you would feel as though you were at the bottom of a gravitational well. Any object that you threw out would come back like a boomerang. Surprisingly, the time required for an object to come back would be independent of how hard you threw it. Does that sound like any kind of gravity you know of? No, because we do not live in anti de Sitter space. Because it's just a fantasy.
> 
> There's a Scientific American article on it here from 2007
> 
> The illusion of Gravity - Scientific American
> 
> ...


I think we need to step out of the cosmological model. 

We need to get simple.

Yes, there's a plethora of force types. Quarks behave in exactly the manner you just described, throw something out and it comes back.

Seems to me, we should understand what is possible, before we can understand what is real.

2+1 models are the source of "most" of the vastness of modern physics. And you're right, they'll all have to be revisited.

However the quantum computing types, in the laboratory, are right now creating some highly unrealistic unphysical systems that are proving to be tremendously instructive.

Whatever model is ultimately favored, it will depend on the constraints. And I claim we can't understand the constraints until we understand what is being constrained.

Entanglement in charged systems decays exponentially, whereas entanglement in uncharged systems seems to obey more of a power law. Why is that? The fact that entanglement decays "at all", spontaneously by itself, should be of immense interest to physicists. (I mean, more than just waving one's hands over it and saying "gee, it must have interacted with something").

I try to be a "very careful" scientist. As you can see I'm all over the map while learning things, but when it comes to actual experiments I become Mr Anal. At one point I invented a simple device to keep a lab rat moving around freely while it had a chemical cannula attached to it's brain, sprutzing nanoliters of chemical directly onto specific neurons. That's the kind of stuff I do, the impossible for people who will never fully appreciate it.  :Smile:

----------


## nonsqtr

@UKSmartypants, did you catch her little compactification trick?

Very clever!  :Thumbsup:

----------


## nonsqtr

Here's the deal with these "holographic entanglements":

Spinors have a "direction", and it's not the same as the classical direction. (Twistors have a direction too, yes?)

So when these rubidium atoms get excited, they "align themselves" according to a population interaction that has to do with their spins.

The big deal is, the alignment has STRUCTURE, it's actually a tree structure, a graph. Which means it can be studied with the methods of graph theory. Which are extensive. ("Most" things in the continuum have graph-theoretic representations).

The issue here is not the particular kind of space, it's the fact that shared information is controlling the geometry.

----------


## nonsqtr

"information controls geometry".

An analogy here might be a library with books.

You can ask "what kind of a library is it", and if it's a science library, maybe 510 is over here and 621 is over there. ("Geometry").

But now let's say, we add a book to it. Well, if it's a science book in 621 electronics, we just push the other books aside to make room for it.

But if it's a music book, maybe we have to create a new section for music, cause maybe we didn't have one before. And maybe since we need space for the new section, we have to move some other things around to make room for it. ("Information controls geometry").

And now, some scientist comes in and asks why the hell we have music books in a science library, so now we need to point him to the math section where the group theory is (so now we already have an extensive "tree structure" on the basis of the new information, in the form of nodes and links, cross references in the card catalog).

----------


## nonsqtr

Far out.

Wiki has a brand new section on information geometry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Info...0distributions.

I learned statistical neurodynamics from Shun'ichi Amari. In 1979 he understood neural catastrophes that Nobel prize winners are still trying to figure out. He's brilliant, he's like the chick in the video.

I love the Japanese, they're very disciplined. I got rapped on the knuckles a lot for trying to be clever, y'know how it goes - "we're not paying you to be clever, we're paying you to solve these equations".

Whatever. There's other people who think like I do. I'll take anything that works, I don't care what it's "called".

Twistor space and Perceptual space-time | Download Scientific Diagram

----------


## nonsqtr

Ha - the physicists are already proving me right!

The trouble is, they're physicists so they can't speak English.

Look here - "measurement entropy", and "mixing entropy". lol  :Grin:  (This is Spekkens himself, btw)

Entropy and information causality in general probabilistic theories - IOPscience

How you can tell they're confused, is that the information hull is always convex. ALWAYS. No exceptions. I'll send anyone who can find an exception a hundred dollar bill. Seriously. Call it the "nonsqtr challenge".

----------


## nonsqtr

The key quantum behavior my theory explains is: entanglement swapping.

This is how and when two photons become entangled "in time", even though the two photons never coexisted.

What they do in these experiments is, they pass off the entangled state from one photon to another, wait a while, perform a measurement on the new photon, and observe that it defines the state of the original.

The piece that supports my view is there is no additional variance contributed by the swapping. In probability theory, any time you try to pass off a correlation you get additional variance, except under very special circumstances.

ShieldSquare Captcha

Simultaneous Perturbation Stochastic Approximation of the Quantum Fisher Information  Quantum

----------


## nonsqtr

Cool. I have a competing theory. It's called box world. I think I can modify it to make it work.

Box world is non-physical, it's just a toy theory with lots of simulations.

However it's very valuable from a probability standpoint.

Peter Janotta at Wurzburg has already done some of the relevant enhancements, but I'm going to have to reformulate it in terms of my partition algebra.

Basically though, we agree on the essentials.

I'll have to write him a letter, let him know I'm engaged. The other guy is Aharonov in Israel, he's the man when it comes to the physics of things.

(I just realized, I'm going to be an unpopular fellow next year. Oh well. We'll see how long it takes the public to grow a brain ha ha. I suspect we'll have a war first and none of this will matter. They'll probably make me work on ELF lasers or something, you know, entangle all of China...)

----------


## 12icer

Good luck with that as we work for the ultimate controllable weapon. Stable spatial positioning transfer.  As we work to that end we will possibly find the answer to instant transfer of lifeforce from an alternate existence to a current existence and back. Primary question being whether the conscious processes can be transferred with the spirit. If not they would be worthless for continuation. Quantum processes are the only true way to begin to explore lifeforce and spiritual processes there MUST be a core from which all things begin and end, mere mortals may never find it. Think we can get it by 2022 to save the world HEHEHEH.

----------

