Hi Rick,
Apologies if things sounded confusing but long story short, physical properties
in macro dimensions don't have any relevance in the micro world. You are
correct in terms of larger dimensions, they are just vectors or logical
constructs to understand what can be beyond a contour plot for instance. The
higher the dimension, the harder it is to explain what it really does, however
they exist and the hard part is to access snapshots and compare them against
each other. I'm still very infant at this stage when it comes to quantum
computing but I can see the methods used for it to equate large sets of
computations.
If you want to give it a try, here's the paper in mention:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3678065/quantum_computing.pdf
It's a good read, hefty and requiring breaks between paragraphs but more worth
than some crap tv series out there.
I realised you're a veteran here, but don't think age is cause for stopping to
learn :)
Best regards,
On 3/04/2016, at 9:54 AM, Rick Thomas <ofbgmail@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Again Uma:
Before I sign off I wanted to say that after considering your example over
and over I sort of get what you are saying.
That is that the system in question is a definition of a quantum computing
model construct, not of quantum physics theories of reality as we exist in it.
You did sort of combine several, while related, not explanitory and confusing
elements into a short message without handling the relationships between them
like the hexbot rotating and how the inability to measure position and
velocity at the same point in time relates to the states the hexbot can be in
at any given point in time.
Also, you did not explain how you derived the 28 dimensions from this system.
By the way, I would call them something like states or vectors or something
since they are not dimensions in any sense of the word other than as a
mathmatical construct, like saying a 2 dimensional or 100 dimensional array,
outside of any quantum reality they would have to exist in.
M-Theory and String Theory and Field Theory all have more than 3 dimensions
but I had not heard of 28 dimensions which is what got me rereading your
posting to see if I could figure out how you got 28 dimensions but I couldn’t
figure it out even with a 2 dimensional hexbot.
Anyway, again, it was very, very nice to have talked to you.
Not many folks really like this stuff nor understand it enough to want to
talk about it, even a little at any depth.
Too bad I am so far down the curve, 68 years old, tired, slow and blind or I
might pick your brain and start hitting the books again it was fun and got my
juices flowing a little indeed!
Rick USA
From: program-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:program-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:program-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
<mailto:program-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Rick Thomas
Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 7:13 PM
To: program-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:program-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [program-l] Re: About Mathematics and Software Development
It took me many, many years to get pretty good playing the guitar.
It would take me many many years to understand what you just wrote.
The abstraction of a hex nanobot with a couple of bridges to nowhere climbing
through space time and then indicating a point on a graph, polar or
rectangular 2 or 3 or more dimensional, got me confused when attempting to
understand measuring the potential, probable, entangled position and velocity
of the nanobot traversing say a worm whole without the ability to measure its
position and velocity without integrity destruction, although one experiment
has been published about a supposedly successful attempt at doing this.
Backing out the math, I am so weak as to not able to normalize the bridge, so
I am having trouble unentangling the 28 dimensions since I don’t see how the
nanobot can pull down 28 dimensions from the Higgs Space without disregarding
both string theory and, I believe, m-theory.
I wish I had enough math to give an example but, sigh, that has been my
problem so I have to live in the rather gross world of words.
I think I would have to use a vector system with the Eigan transforms to
describe it correctly and words sort of fall as flat as the formula you get
when you integrate (2 pi r) – I think you get (pi r squared) if I remember my
calc1 days and that is pretty flat indeed.
Anyway, nice talking to you – God bless and good hunting Uma!
Rick USA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
