# I need a clever person to tell me why I'm wrong...



## Forever Jung (Sep 27, 2011)

I had a thought...

So I've been watching far too many science documentaries of late and somehow they have all been squashed into my brain...and this is what I've learned.

1) At a quantum level - sub-atomic particles (electrons etc) act differently to normal matter - in that when unobserved they both exist and do not exist simultaneously. (Schrodinger's cat thing)

2) Because they are both existing and non existing the energy given off of them is two separate amounts - lets say 0 and 1. But it oscillates between these two values at some incredible rate (60 billion times a second or something). So 010101010101010101 - I guess.

3) Recently, some science fella has discovered that larger atomic matter (many trillions of times larger) can also behave in the same way. Opening up the idea that ALL matter can behave this way. Here's some proof. "UCSB Physicists Show Theory of Quantum Mechanics Applies to the Motion of Large Objects " - UC Santa Barbara News Release

4) Antimatter has never been discovered. It acts in an opposite way to normal matter (opposite spin, opposite charge)

So my thought is - what if ALL matter is oscillating in the way that sub-atomic particles do. So all matter is just blinking in and out of existence at many billions of times a second. And what if antimatter - with it's opposite behavior to matter happens to also be blinking in and out of existence but at the opposite time to normal matter. That would explain why we have never discovered it - because it exists exactly when matter doesn't.

Matter:01010101
Antimatter:10101010

Can someone who knows their stuff please explain to me why that isn't right. I doubt it's right... I'd just like to know why it's not!

Thanks!


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

If it is true that everything we know to exist blinks in and out of existence so quickly that we don't even notice it, then nobody could ever say whether this is right or wrong, as it exists exactly when we don't... Sorry, but you're gonna have this doubt forever, buddy.

But then again, all the matter isn't synced... So some particles are popping in and out of existence at different times than others... So we are always only partially existent. So maybe I am wrong, and someday we will be able to discover antimatter, which I thought had been proven in theory?


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

Virtual particles come in an out of existence paired with the respective anti-particle. Therefore both matter and antimatter can exist at the same time.
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? - Scientific American
QED

Particles that compose the matter as we know it don't disappear (an anti particle is required for that), they exist in a wave form everywhere quantum tunnelling allows. Collision events create the appearance of solidity.

As for superpositions... I don't understand them either, I am not a scientist xD


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

i'm not that clever guy...but it was my understanding that they aren't coming in and out of existence...rather, they behave in such a way that they're never in the same place too long, and we don't know how to track where they are going.

in that, they're somewhere within the orbital, it's just unknown as to where. not that they just stopped existing.

but, that was my 3 or 4 years back, and it could've been wrong then too.


----------



## Wonszu (Sep 25, 2013)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> If it is true that everything we know to exist blinks in and out of existence so quickly that we don't even notice it, then nobody could ever say whether this is right or wrong, as it exists exactly when we don't... Sorry, but you're gonna have this doubt forever, buddy.
> 
> But then again, all the matter isn't synced... So some particles are popping in and out of existence at different times than others... So we are always only partially existent. So maybe I am wrong, and someday we will be able to discover antimatter, which I thought had been proven in theory?


I heard from someone the same thing - that we are not really moving, as matter we are made of is kind of "teleporting" it's way from point A to B. So we are going from bed to bathroom in many sequences partially disappearing and appearing those few tiny particles forward. Sadly this is not my field of knowledge so I can't prove/disprove it, but this behavior of every possible matter is fascinating.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

@Forever Jung : 

I'm not gonna tell you what's wrong because I don't know everything fully, but I will try to tell you some stuff.

*Antimatter*:

Pair production - A photon of high enough energy becomes a particle and its antiparticle. Most commonly given as the example of an electron and positron. This has been observed:










The red versus green lines represent traces of particles and antiparticles. They move away from each other because they are of opposite charge, so they repel each other. The curly pattern is presumably caused by a magnetic field (magnetic fields make moving electric charges undergo circular motion).

-------------------------

*Schrodinger's cat*:

This is NOT to do with actual existence. It's about the state in which the quantum system exists. A lot of quantum systems have multiple possible states in which they can exist. I'll try to explain.

Do you know about quadratic equations? It's a fairly basic mathematical concept so hopefully you do. Well, y'know how quadratic equations often have more than one solution? For example, [x^2 - 3x + 2 = 0], this has solutions x=1 and x=2.

Similarly, the equations used to describe quantum systems will also have numerous solutions. And so we can say that mathematically we have many solutions to describe what the quantum system will look like, _but we don't know the correct solution until we observe the quantum system to check_!

This is where Schrödinger's cat analogy comes in. If you have a cat in a box with a randomly decaying poisonous vial, you simply do not know if the cat is dead until you look in the box.

That is, you do not know the state of the cat until you actually look to observe it.

And, in the same way, you do not know the state of a quantum system until you actually look to observe it.

----------

*Large-scale matter having quantum-mechanical properties*:

To me this is strange because it's kind of obvious that large stuff can have quantum mechanical properties. You just need to zoom in to a very tiny specific area.

The main factor is that quantum mechanics only happens on a very small scale. Of course quantum mechanics still exists when you look at bigger objects, but these quantum effects become utterly negligible so you can ignore them completely.

Here's another way of seeing it:

Quantum mechanics is quite largely concerned with uncertainties. For example, you can say a particle exists in a certain region, but you can't pinpoint it exactly. So you have an element of uncertainty in your calculations. However, because it's such a tiny particle, the uncertainty is going to only be a few nano-nano-nano-nano-metres! So when you consider the uncertainty of these particles in large, everyday objects, you really don't need to include them.

Hence quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are separate.

One big unanswered question is: At what point does quantum mechanics become classical mechanics, and vice-versa? 

----------

*About all matter oscillating in and out of existence*:

Nothing can just cease to exist.

However everything does oscillate. An oscillation is a vibration. Everything does that. If an atom is not oscillating, it has no energy and therefore doesn't exist. So most (or all) things in existence oscillate.

Molecules oscillating:










Light is caused by an oscillation of an electric or magnetic field:










So yes, there is an oscillation - but not into and out of existence - just an oscillation. Everything oscillates!


----------



## Forever Jung (Sep 27, 2011)

Thanks for all your responses! I do have to say @HAL ..Wow, you're an impressively smart guy!

I was doubtful about my idea too - mostly because I both don't know enough about this field to know that what I hear in these programs is correct and because if it were possible, it would seem odd that nobody would have spotted it.

I will say though that the idea of particles blinking in and out of existence as opposed to merely oscillating IS one interpretation of quantum field theory.

This is an excerpt from MIT (who seem to think it is possible with some subatomic particles anyway) Mysterious quantum forces unraveled | MIT News Office

"Quantum mechanics has bequeathed a very weird picture of the universe to modern physicists. One of its features is a cadre of new subatomic particles that are constantly flashing in and out of existence in an almost undetectably short span of time. (The Higgs boson, a theoretically predicted particle that the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland is trying to detect for the first time, is expected to appear for only a few sextillionths of a second.) There are so many of these transient particles in space — even in a vacuum — moving in so many different directions that the forces they exert generally balance each other out."


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Forever Jung said:


> I will say though that the idea of particles blinking in and out of existence as opposed to merely oscillating IS one interpretation of quantum field theory.


Ah yeah I've come across that before.

So yeah I guess particles can pop in and out of existence, but, as far as I'm aware, they still need enough energy there for their creation.

For example, the Higgs boson didn't just 'appear'. The energy beam at CERN needed to be high enough for the particle to be created.

I suppose the other particles mentioned in that MIT quote are caused by quantum fluctuations, which again are permitted in terms of energy conservation.

The main thing I meant was that nothing can just disappear in entirety. My mistake for not seeing the point you were getting at!


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

> 4) Antimatter has never been discovered. It acts in an opposite way to normal matter (opposite spin, opposite charge)


Yes it has. We've even created small amounts of it, but it decays very quickly.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

I'm curious about something is there a scale, or range of scales at which quantum physics generally stops applying and conventional physics apply?


@_Forever Jung_




> Recently, some science fella has discovered that larger atomic matter (many trillions of times larger) can also behave in the same way. Opening up the idea that ALL matter can behave this way.


That is quote fascinating


@_HAL_



> *Antimatter*:
> 
> Pair production - A photon of high enough energy becomes a particle and its antiparticle. Most commonly given as the example of an electron and positron. This has been observed:
> 
> ...


Wait... I thought opposites _attracted_ not repelled...




> *Schrodinger's cat*:
> 
> Do you know about quadratic equations? It's a fairly basic mathematical concept so hopefully you do. Well, y'know how quadratic equations often have more than one solution? For example, [x^2 - 3x + 2 = 0], this has solutions x=1 and x=2.
> 
> Similarly, the equations used to describe quantum systems will also have numerous solutions. And so we can say that mathematically we have many solutions to describe what the quantum system will look like, _but we don't know the correct solution until we observe the quantum system to check_!


I never thought of it as a quadratic equation though you do have more than one solution



> This is where Schrödinger's cat analogy comes in. If you have a cat in a box with a randomly decaying poisonous vial, you simply do not know if the cat is dead until you look in the box.


However, the general rule around Schrodinger's cat involves the observation actually changing the result -- not merely not knowing the result until you take a look.

Hey, I didn't write the physics for this...



> Light is caused by an oscillation of an electric or magnetic field:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This kind of puzzles me... as the wave goes up and down... does it go to zero at the bottom or actually into the negatives? It sounds strange how that happens.


----------



## Dr. J (May 11, 2014)

Forever Jung said:


> I had a thought...So my thought is - what if ALL matter is oscillating in the way that sub-atomic particles do. So all matter is just blinking in and out of existence at many billions of times a second. And what if antimatter - with it's opposite behavior to matter happens to also be blinking in and out of existence but at the opposite time to normal matter. That would explain why we have never discovered it - because it exists exactly when matter doesn't.


Hal gave you a great explanation. I'd add in String Theory to the mix.

Yes- everything oscillates, and what people think they see are "blips of sub-atomic particles, combining, separating, popping into and out of existence"- and otherwise generally behaving the way Newton said they shouldn't.

String Theory is controversial, so any haters out there might pop into the thread, drop off some choice words and pop back out of existence again.... Take it with a grain of salt, but theoretical physicists are seriously considering it. When it was explained to me, it made sense, and it would explain the behavior of sub-atomic particles if true.

Simply, the vibrating and oscillating particles that we observe as "particles" are vibrations of "spherical sections" of strings that are momentarily passing through the space-time in this universe. When the strings "are cut", the particle "appears to vanish" or "is destroyed". When the strings combine, the particles "appear to combine". So, theoretically, these strings all exist at a higher dimension (4-D) of space-time, and pass through our universe of 3-D space-time, where they are 3-D. If they pass through to the 2-D (theoretical universe) then they are "flat circles". If one were to leave our 3-D space time and travel a dimension up, then one would see the strings as 4-D objects, then again as more complex structures in 5-D, 6-D, etc. So, they combine and become "membranes"- which leads to the name "M-Theory", and may become more complex (than "membranes") in shape as they progress upwards in D-levels. (note, some people now say that M is "matrix"- but the original M was for "membrane")

Superstring theory posits a "layering" or superposition of 11 dimensions all on top/overlapping one another. The strings emanate from the 11th D (in superstructures), pass through all of the dimensions (becoming more and more simple), and return to the center "zero point" which is connected with the 11th D through time and energy. I don't think science can really explain what all the dimensions would really be like if a person stood there and looked, and I don't think there is a good way to explain them so that you get a picture. There are plenty of math equations, but they're no help unless you try and make a graph!

Anyway- part of String theory involves "Supersymmetry". It's a standalone item, but String theory accepts this idea as part of the string universe. SSY states that particles with slightly different spins and slightly different masses are a part of matter as we know it, but haven't been isolated. These would be "part" of the strings that are passing through- and would change our understanding of how much matter there actually is, and how many particles we're really working with. So, we'd have to revisit that matter-antimatter balance with the new information before we could understand that. Also, we'd have to revise the idea of antimatter as particles, because the strings aren't separate particles that are winking in and out of existence in the universe. The antimatter would probably be balancing the "matter strings".... One article I read (a while back) suggested that the matter and antimatter strings were combined, with another string to balance them and keep them in existence. I don't know if that is still the current theory of "antimatter" balance or not. I kind of imagined/visualized it like magnetic and electronic fields. Every time there is a magnetic field, there is a perpendicular electric field. I imagine that matter and antimatter strings might behave this way, too... but that's my imagination forming patterns- I've no real reason to expect that would balance or make sense. 

Anyway, I don't think anyone can answer your question on antimatter, because I don't think an answer exists right now except that we _kind of_ know that it doesn't work the way you suggest or we'd have already found it?


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

The Astounding Link Between the P≠NP Problem and the Quantum Nature of Universe
With some straightforward logic, one theorist has shown that macroscopic quantum objects cannot exist if P≠NP, which suddenly explains one of the greatest mysteries in physics

The paradox of Schrodinger’s cat is a thought experiment dreamed up to explore one of the great mysteries of quantum mechanics—why we don’t see its strange and puzzling behaviour in the macroscopic world.

The paradox is simple to state. It involves a cat, a flask of poison and a source of radiation; all contained within a sealed box. If a monitor in the box detects radioactivity, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison and killing the cat.

The paradox comes about because the radioactive decay is a quantum process and so in a superposition of states until observed. The radioactive atom is both decayed and undecayed at the same time.

But that means the cat must also be in a superposition of alive and dead states until the box is open and the system is observed. In other words, the cat must be both dead and alive at the same time.

Nobody knows why we don’t observe these kinds of strange superpositions in the macroscopic world. For some reason, quantum mechanics just doesn’t work on that scale. And therein lies the mystery, one of the greatest in science.

But that mystery may now be solved thanks to the extraordinary work of Arkady Bolotin at Ben-Gurion University in Israel. He says the key is to think of Schrodinger’s cat as a problem of computational complexity theory. When he does that, it melts away.

First some background. The equation that describes the behaviour of quantum particles is called Schrodinger’s equation. It is relatively straightforward to solve for simple systems such as a single quantum particle in a box and predicts that these systems exist in a quantum superposition of states.

In principle, it ought to be possible to use Schrödinger’s equation to describe any object regardless of its size, perhaps even the universe itself. This equation predicts that the system being modelled exists in a superposition of states, even though this is never experienced in our macroscopic world.

The problem is that the equation says nothing about how large an object needs to be before it obeys Newtonian mechanics rather than the quantum variety.

Now Bolotin thinks he knows why there is a limit and where it lies. He says there is an implicit assumption when physicists say that Schrödinger’s equation can describe macroscopic systems. This assumption is that the equations can be solved in a reasonable amount of time to produce an answer.

That’s certainly true of simple systems but physicists well know that calculating the quantum properties of more complex systems is hugely difficult. The world’s most powerful supercomputers cough and splutter when asked to handle systems consisting of more than a few thousand quantum particles.

That leads Bolotin to ask a perfectly reasonable question. What if there is no way to solve Schrödinger’s equation for macroscopic systems in a reasonable period of time? “If it were so, then quantum theoretical constructions like “a quantum state of a macroscopic object” or “the wave function of the universe” would be nothing more than nontestable empty abstractions,” he says.

He then goes on to prove that this is exactly the case, with one important proviso: that P ≠ NP. Here’s how he does it.

His first step is to restate Schrödinger’s equation as a problem of computational complexity. For a simple system, the equation can be solved by an ordinary computer in a reasonable time, so it falls into class of computational problems known as NP.

Bolotin then goes on to show that the problem of solving the Schrödinger equation is at least as hard or harder than any problem in the NP class. This makes it equivalent to many other head-scratchers such as the travelling salesman problem. Computational complexity theorists call these problems NP-hard.

What’s interesting about NP-hard problems is that they are mathematically equivalent. So a solution for one automatically implies a solution for them all. The biggest question in computational complexity theory (and perhaps in all of physics, if the computational complexity theorists are to be believed), is whether they can be solved in this way or not.

The class of problems that can be solved quickly and efficiently is called P. So the statement that NP-hard problems can also be solved quickly and efficiently is the famous P=NP equation.

But since nobody has found such a solution, the general belief is that they cannot be solved in this way. Or as computational complexity theorists put it: P ≠ NP. Nobody has yet proved this, but most theorists would bet their bottom dollar that it is true.

Schrödinger’s equation has a direct bearing on this. If the equation can be quickly and efficiently solved in all cases, including for vast macroscopic states, then it must be possible to solve all other NP-hard problems in the same way. That is equivalent to saying that P=NP.

But if P is not equal to NP, as most experts believe, then there is a limit to the size the quantum system can be. Indeed, that is exactly what physicists observe.

Bolotin goes on to flesh this out with some numbers. If P ≠ NP and there is no efficient algorithm for solving Schrödinger’s equation, then there is only one way of finding a solution, which is a brute force search.

In the travelling salesman problem of finding the shortest way of visiting a number of cities, the brute force solution involves measuring the length of all permutations of routes and then seeing which is shortest. That’s straightforward for a small number of cities but rapidly becomes difficult for large numbers of them.

Exactly the same is true of Schrödinger’s equation. It’s straightforward for a small number of quantum particles but for a macroscopic system, it becomes a monster.

Macroscopic systems are made up of a number of constituent particles about equal to Avogadro’s number, which is 10^24.

So the number of elementary operations needed to exactly solve this equation would be equal to 2^10^24. That’s a big number!

To put it in context, Bolotin imagines a computer capable of solving it over a reasonable running time of, say, a year. Such a computer would need to execute each elementary operation on a timescale of the order of 10^(-3x10^23) seconds.

This time scale is so short that it is difficult to imagine. But to put it in context, Bolotin says there would be little diﬀerence between running such a computer over one year and, say, one hundred billion years (10^18 seconds), which is several times longer than the age of the universe.

What’s more, this time scale is considerably shorter than the Planck timescale, which is roughly equal to 10^-43 seconds. It’s simply not possible to measure or detect change on a scale shorter than this. So even if there was a device capable of doing this kind of calculating, there would be no way of detecting that it had done anything.

“So, unless the laws of physics (as we understand them today) were wrong, no computer would ever be able to execute [this number of] operations in any reasonable amount time,” concludes Bolotin.

In other words, macroscopic systems cannot be quantum in nature. Or as Bolotin puts it: “For anyone living in the real physical world (of limited computational resources) the Schrodinger equation will turn out to be simply unsolvable for macroscopic objects.”

That’s a fascinating piece of logic in a remarkably clear and well written paper. It also raises an interesting avenue for experiment. Physicists have become increasingly skilled at creating conditions in which ever larger objects demonstrate quantum behaviour.

The largest quantum object so far—a vibrating silicon springboard —contained around 1 trillion atoms (10^12), significantly less than Avogadro’s number. But Bolotin’s work suggests a clear size limit.

So in theory, these kinds of experiments provide a way to probe the computational limits of the universe. What’s needed, of course, is a clear prediction from his theory that allows it to be tested experimentally.

There is also a puzzle. There are well known quantum states that do contain Avogadro’s number of particles: these include superfluids, supeconductors, lasers and so on. It would be interesting to see Bolotin’s treatment of these from the point of view of computational complexity.

In these situations, all the particles occupy the same ground state, which presumably significantly reduces the complexity. But by how much? Does his approach have anything to say about how big these states can become?

Beyond that, the questions come thick and fast. What of the transition between quantum and classical states—how does that happen in terms of computational complexity? What of the collapse of stars, which are definitely classical objects, into black holes, which may be quantum ones?

And how does the universe decide whether a system is going to be quantum or not? What is the mechanism by which computational complexity exerts its influence over nature? And so on…

The computational complexity theorist Scott Aaronson has long argued that the most interesting problems in physics are intricately linked with his discipline. And Bolotin’s new work shows why. It’s just possible that computational complexity theory could be quantum physics’ next big thing.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1403.7686 : Computational Solution to Quantum Foundational Problems


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

RobynC said:


> I'm curious about something is there a scale, or range of scales at which quantum physics generally stops applying and conventional physics apply?


Nobody knows where that limit is. I don't know much else than that though. One of the PhD students told this to our class a few months ago. No-one knows the answer yet!

------



> Wait... I thought opposites _attracted_ not repelled...


Hahaha, shit you're right. In which case, the particles move away from each other because of the kinetic energy they gain in their creation. If there isn't enough kinetic energy, they'll quickly slam together again and annihilate back into a photon of energy.

This image demonstrates them both. You can imagine the process of pair production being followed almost immediately by annihilation. Clicky

So in the image I gave before, the particles must have had enough energy to not immediately collide together again.

------



> I never thought of it as a quadratic equation though you do have more than one solution


Yeah there are in theory infinite solutions. They're called eigenstates, because the solutions are eigenvalues of the schrodinger equation for the system. I didn't want to say that though because it might have convoluted things too much.

I used the quadratic equation analogy simply to highlight how some equations have more than one solution.

--------



> However, the general rule around Schrodinger's cat involves the observation actually changing the result -- not merely not knowing the result until you take a look.
> 
> Hey, I didn't write the physics for this...


No no. Observation does not change the result. It confirms and maintains one possible result out of many. The issue is that there are mathematically many possible solutions, but you'll only see one of those solutions. And the strange thing is that once you have observed that solution, it remains in that state forever more.

I'll try to explain further.

A wavefunction is a mathematical function that includes all the possible configurations of a quantum physical system. It's called a _wave_function because particles are modelled as waves, thanks to the theory of wave-particle duality.

The wavefunction is, among other things, linear. This means that solutions to the schrodinger equation, being a wave function, can be added together and will still work as solutions.

Basically, if you have a solution S1 and a solution S2, then also the solution (S1 + S2) will work.

A wave function could have many solutions, e.g. S1 + S2 + S3 + S4...

However, when you observe the quantum system, you see just one of those solutions.

So, for example, if the system is then known to be in state S1, you can then remove the other parts; S2, S3 and S4.

So you started with the possibilities of S1, S2, S3 and S4, but you're left with only S1. This is _wavefunction collapse_. Your original wave function has collapsed from many solutions to a single solution which then remains that way forever.

This is because it has been observed, so the solution is conclusively known. Just like schrodinger's cat, you don't know the state the system in until you observe it.

The only curious part is how it then remains in that one state (S1) forever, even if before it was in all states (S1 + S2 + S3 + S4) all at once. 

---------



> This kind of puzzles me... as the wave goes up and down... does it go to zero at the bottom or actually into the negatives? It sounds strange how that happens.


No it doesn't go into negative at all. The axis in the image is just part of a co-ordinate system. So the 'zero' point is not a measure of anything other than the central point of movement. Just like a bird flaps its wings - the wings can be a positive or negative direction from the central position. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@HAL



> Nobody knows where that limit is. I don't know much else than that though. One of the PhD students told this to our class a few months ago. No-one knows the answer yet!


There isn't even a general rule of thumb?



> Hahaha, shit you're right. In which case, the particles move away from each other because of the kinetic energy they gain in their creation. If there isn't enough kinetic energy, they'll quickly slam together again and annihilate back into a photon of energy.


That makes more sense



> No it doesn't go into negative at all. The axis in the image is just part of a co-ordinate system. So the 'zero' point is not a measure of anything other than the central point of movement. Just like a bird flaps its wings - the wings can be a positive or negative direction from the central position. Hope that makes sense.


Then why does phasing something out result in an energy state of zero?


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

RobynC said:


> There isn't even a general rule of thumb?


Probably but I don't know :happy:




> Then why does phasing something out result in an energy state of zero?


Honestly I don't know the answer to that!

However my point regarding plus/minus values about zero still stands. In the image of the travelling EM wave, it was just a movement about an arbitrary zero position. Well, kind of arbitrary. What happens is the electric field oscillates from one direction to another, so actually yes it will have a point at which its value is zero. But when it goes 'below' the zero line, it doesn't become negative in regards to energy, it just becomes negative regarding the direction it's pointing. Again with the 'wing flapping' analogy - it simply changes from a positive displacement to a negative displacement, and vice versa.

Definitely interesting to think about why waves cancel to zero when phased though. I mean yeah its because they both have opposing amplitudes, but I agree its odd that the energy 'disappears' entirely. I want to suggest it becomes heat, but that's wrong because EM waves _are_ heat. I think I'll email one of my tutors about this at some point..!


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> The Astounding Link Between the P≠NP Problem and the Quantum Nature of Universe
> With some straightforward logic, one theorist has shown that macroscopic quantum objects cannot exist if P≠NP, which suddenly explains one of the greatest mysteries in physics


Very interesting read. Thanks. But a simple question: what about quantum computing? Faster, more efficient. And perfectly apt, because, in a sense, aren't all objects the "solutions" of their own equations? Maybe it will someday be possible to construct a quantum computer that "solves itself" or some other object?

It's like the idea of using bacteria or viruses to manufacture nano-things. They're already manufacturing molecules on that scale so why not use that natural capability to make other really small stuff.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

RobynC said:


> There isn't even a general rule of thumb?


about 2 hydrogen atoms



ae1905 said:


> Very interesting read. Thanks. But a simple question: what about quantum computing? Faster, more efficient. And perfectly apt, because, in a sense, aren't all objects the "solutions" of their own equations? Maybe it will someday be possible to construct a quantum computer that "solves itself" or some other object?
> 
> It's like the idea of using bacteria or viruses to manufacture nano-things. They're already manufacturing molecules on that scale so why not use that natural capability to make other really small stuff.


No, because if we could use a quantum computer to simulate a more complex universe inside the one we exist in that would violate certain principles in information theory. ie. it's like saying you have a cube that is 1'x2'x3' and inside of it is a cube that is 100'x237'x794'. The only way it would be possible is if p=np, but then we should be able to observe macroscopic quantum objects. I am unsure if bose-einstein condensates constitute proof of that or if the article the OP listed does, but for now it is in the realm of mathematical forms (ie no experimental evidence so take it with a grain of salt)


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Tezcatlipoca said:


> about 2 hydrogen atoms
> 
> 
> 
> No, because if we could use a quantum computer to simulate a more complex universe inside the one we exist in that would violate certain principles in information theory. ie. it's like saying you have a cube that is 1'x2'x3' and inside of it is a cube that is 100'x237'x794'. The only way it would be possible is if p=np, but then we should be able to observe macroscopic quantum objects. I am unsure if bose-einstein condensates constitute proof of that or if the article the OP listed does, but for now it is in the realm of mathematical forms (ie no experimental evidence so take it with a grain of salt)


To become practical machines quantum computers will have to be made to the dimensions of macroscopic objects. At that point why can't that computer be tasked with solving the equation for a macro obj smaller than itself?


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Tezcatlipoca



> about 2 hydrogen atoms


Makes sense, but where did you derive this?



> No, because if we could use a quantum computer to simulate a more complex universe inside the one we exist in that would violate certain principles in information theory.


And that would be?



> The only way it would be possible is if p=np


P = NP means Determinism = Non Determinism right? How would this make it possible for a computer to simulate something ibgger than itself?



> I am unsure if bose-einstein condensates constitute proof of that or if the article the OP listed does, but for now it is in the realm of mathematical forms (ie no experimental evidence so take it with a grain of salt)


Bose Einstein Condensates are like really cold helium where atoms overlap sometimes?


----------



## Tezcatlipoca (Jun 6, 2014)

No, I would recommend googling both topics. To be honest each answer I give you will just take you further down the rabbit hole. Just suffice to say to answer your original question.. it doesn't have implications (in all likelihood) for our everyday lives so it is not something to worry about too much. What originally made you ask the question? What did it imply that made you curious? because if you answer is curiousity or the desire to learn I couldn't really explain to you in the manner you might prefer until you learned a bunch of other concepts so it may not be worth it for you to do. If you are curious about these topics I would recommend looking for a "quantum physics" torrent and listening to audiobooks.


----------

