Computers are real
- Thread starter Vkothii
- Start date
Anyways, the thing about those massless photons and how you can only polarize their spin-wavefunction orthogonally, they are bosons and have bosonic spin numbers.
Electrons are fermions and have spin-1/2. This spin is connected fundamentally to magnetic potential, and 'flux' of that potential; electron charge is connected to polarization of the EM field, which means electron flux.
So can you get an 'excitation' in this field that corresponds to a connection between 'massless' charge, and spin?
You can if you constrain electrons to a 2-d surface, because now their spin-1/2 states have one less dimension to interact in. You get the fractional quantum Hall effect.
FQHE anyons are examples of "topological charge"; they are effectively quanta of magnetic flux potential, like little vortices of paired electrons. But they behave like bosons too.
So there ya go, then.
I understand there's a story about how they found the sought-after NA-anyon, in the 5/2 FQHE boson?
Electrons are fermions and have spin-1/2. This spin is connected fundamentally to magnetic potential, and 'flux' of that potential; electron charge is connected to polarization of the EM field, which means electron flux.
So can you get an 'excitation' in this field that corresponds to a connection between 'massless' charge, and spin?
You can if you constrain electrons to a 2-d surface, because now their spin-1/2 states have one less dimension to interact in. You get the fractional quantum Hall effect.
FQHE anyons are examples of "topological charge"; they are effectively quanta of magnetic flux potential, like little vortices of paired electrons. But they behave like bosons too.
Carlos Mochon said:
So there ya go, then.
I understand there's a story about how they found the sought-after NA-anyon, in the 5/2 FQHE boson?
And of course, everyone has heard the word "pattern" before today, haven't they just?
A pattern, is informational. It has 'dimensionality', spatial existence. Even a static pattern has a time-dependent sort of existence (everything does). You cannot see a pattern if there isn't some stasis, solid, stable things to look at, with "holes" between - like something knotted together, maybe, out of bits of 'thread'.
Any fabric has a pattern (not necessarily one you see from a distance), macroscopic and microscopic patterns - fractals, knots, surfaces that look quite different at different scales, lots of patterns.
You just need something that can find a pattern, which is called 'recognizing'. For this you also need a representation, of the different kinds of things patterns are made out of. Math has a lot of patterns too, and you keep seeing certain numbers and forms of equations all over the place.
A pattern, is informational. It has 'dimensionality', spatial existence. Even a static pattern has a time-dependent sort of existence (everything does). You cannot see a pattern if there isn't some stasis, solid, stable things to look at, with "holes" between - like something knotted together, maybe, out of bits of 'thread'.
Any fabric has a pattern (not necessarily one you see from a distance), macroscopic and microscopic patterns - fractals, knots, surfaces that look quite different at different scales, lots of patterns.
You just need something that can find a pattern, which is called 'recognizing'. For this you also need a representation, of the different kinds of things patterns are made out of. Math has a lot of patterns too, and you keep seeing certain numbers and forms of equations all over the place.
Ok, I take back what I said about sensibility. I can't see at all what that has to do with anything.
And I've even read the Nature (or Science, can't remember) issue with the article on the 5/2 anyon. (For anyone who's completely in the dark: IIRC Kitaev suggested using non-abelian anyons for so-called topological quantum computing, which supposedly would be very fault-tolerant, and a 5/2 anyon was experimentally demonstrated in the article.)
And I've even read the Nature (or Science, can't remember) issue with the article on the 5/2 anyon. (For anyone who's completely in the dark: IIRC Kitaev suggested using non-abelian anyons for so-called topological quantum computing, which supposedly would be very fault-tolerant, and a 5/2 anyon was experimentally demonstrated in the article.)
Computers are just a myth.
ohhhhh. I see, you're busy stretching the definition of a word to the breaking point, suggesting that this blanket is "better" and then stroking your intellect. If myths exist then they have been computed, myths have existed for thousnds of years, thus computers have existed for thousands of years.
A computation is a computation, communication is what I keep calling a "trivial computation".
Perhaps it's a bit too big of a word?
So, if myths are a computer, what do they compute, what's the output message?
Is an ocean wave a computer, or a computation?
Or, gosh, think about this for just a sec, is it both??:bugeye:
Perhaps it's a bit too big of a word?
So, if myths are a computer, what do they compute, what's the output message?
Is an ocean wave a computer, or a computation?
Or, gosh, think about this for just a sec, is it both??:bugeye:
Vkothii-dude. You can take a rock and say it has been computed-it came from somewhere, then say it has been computed, in a universal sense, all things are in motion, and is computing, because there is change all the way down to the planck level, and is thus a computer. Computer is a word that, when properly abused, can be made to fit anything. Now. Prove real. Might want to check philosophy for that one.
1) The universe computes (the universe is a computer)
2) Everything in the universe is a computation, or the 'result' of one
3) The law of Universal Computation should apply to everything in the universe, including the universe itself.
4) We cannot prove that such a machine exists however, only that computations exist.
Or processes (that process); or functions (that function); or "information". Such is the nature of observation (which is assumed to be "universal", but obviously there is a lot we can't observe).
2) Everything in the universe is a computation, or the 'result' of one
3) The law of Universal Computation should apply to everything in the universe, including the universe itself.
4) We cannot prove that such a machine exists however, only that computations exist.
Or processes (that process); or functions (that function); or "information". Such is the nature of observation (which is assumed to be "universal", but obviously there is a lot we can't observe).
Fine. The Universe is a computer. Cool. You say computers are real. Ok. You are saying the Universe is real because it's a computer?
The purpose is to retract the cautious endorsement of certain remarks about computation you made, as you've seemed to gone completely out to lunch.
In review, this whole thread seems to be nothing more than you writing down whatever random thoughts pop into your head about computers, and then going wildly overboard with certain (some commonplace, some not) interpretations.
No, I was referring to the anyon remarks.
You guys are absolutely totally fucked over here aren't you?
You realise who else says the universe computes right?
You guys are complete wankers, really, But you can all get fucked OK?
You interpret what the fuck you want to interpret.
Here's another one: your computer needs fixing: that's the one between your collective ears.
So can you get an 'excitation' in this field that corresponds to a connection between 'massless' [electric] charge, and spin?
You can if you constrain electrons to a 2-d surface, because now their spin-1/2 states have one less dimension to interact in. You get the fractional quantum Hall effect.
FQHE anyons are examples of "topological charge"; they are effectively quanta of magnetic flux potential, like little vortices of paired electrons. But they behave like bosons too.
So what can the local topological charge expert say is wrong with this?
" We assume that the ground state is separated from the excited states by an energy gap (i.e, it is incompressible), as is the situation in fractional quantum Hall states in 2D electron systems. The lowest energy electrically-charged excitations are known as quasiparticles or quasiholes, depending on the sign of their electric charge. (The term “quasiparticle” is also sometimes used in a generic sense to mean both quasiparticle and quasihole as in the previous paragraph). These quasiparticles are local disturbances to the wavefunction of the electrons corresponding to a quantized amount of total charge."
Who do you think is saying this lot, and how does it contradict a word I've said, you fuckwits?
Scientists; my arse you are.
You realise who else says the universe computes right?
You guys are complete wankers, really, But you can all get fucked OK?
You interpret what the fuck you want to interpret.
Here's another one: your computer needs fixing: that's the one between your collective ears.
So can you get an 'excitation' in this field that corresponds to a connection between 'massless' [electric] charge, and spin?
You can if you constrain electrons to a 2-d surface, because now their spin-1/2 states have one less dimension to interact in. You get the fractional quantum Hall effect.
FQHE anyons are examples of "topological charge"; they are effectively quanta of magnetic flux potential, like little vortices of paired electrons. But they behave like bosons too.
So what can the local topological charge expert say is wrong with this?
" We assume that the ground state is separated from the excited states by an energy gap (i.e, it is incompressible), as is the situation in fractional quantum Hall states in 2D electron systems. The lowest energy electrically-charged excitations are known as quasiparticles or quasiholes, depending on the sign of their electric charge. (The term “quasiparticle” is also sometimes used in a generic sense to mean both quasiparticle and quasihole as in the previous paragraph). These quasiparticles are local disturbances to the wavefunction of the electrons corresponding to a quantized amount of total charge."
Who do you think is saying this lot, and how does it contradict a word I've said, you fuckwits?
Scientists; my arse you are.
Last edited: