..”Quantum
algorithms are often probabilistic, in that they provide the correct
solution only with a certain known probability.*[12]
Note that the term non-deterministic computing must not be used in
that case to mean probabilistic (computing), because the term
non-deterministic
has a different meaning in computer science.”..
"Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum
mechanics. It states that, much like waves in classical
physics, any two (or more) quantum
states can be added together ("superposed") and the
result will be another valid quantum state; and conversely, that
every quantum state can be represented as a sum of two or more other
distinct states."
"Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon which occurs
when pairs or groups of particles
are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum
state of each particle cannot be described independently of the
state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a
large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the
system as a whole. Measurements
of physical properties such as position,
momentum, spin,
and polarization,
performed on entangled particles are found to be correlated.
For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that
their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to
have clockwise spin on a certain axis, the spin of the other
particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be
counterclockwise, as to be expected due to their entanglement.
However, this behavior gives rise to paradoxical
effects: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as
acting on that particle (e.g., by collapsing a number of superposed
states) and will change the original quantum property by some unknown
amount; and in the case of entangled particles, such a measurement
will be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one
particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has
been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there
is no known means for such information to be communicated between the
particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by
arbitrarily large distances.
Such phenomena were the subject of a 1935 paper by Albert
Einstein, Boris
Podolsky, and Nathan
Rosen,[1]
and several papers by Erwin
Schrödinger shortly thereafter,[2][3]
describing what came to be known as the EPR
paradox. Einstein and others considered such behavior to be
impossible, as it violated the local
realist view of causality (Einstein referring to it as "spooky
action at a distance")[4]
and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum
mechanics must therefore be incomplete. Later, however, the
counterintuitive predictions of quantum mechanics were verified
experimentally.[5]" Go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing
*Italics mine, one might argue that all quantum
calculations are probabilistic as one will also only probably make the required measurement, when dealing with quantum the observer
cannot be “ruled out” of the equation.
Reading the "tea-leafs"? Quote; ""Put
simply, quantum computers use a unit of computing called a qubit.
While regular semiconductors represent information as a series of 1s
and 0s, qubits exhibit quantum properties and can compute as both a 1
and a 0 simultaneously. That means two qubits could represent the
sequence 1-0, 1-1, 0-1, 0-0 at the same moment in time. This compute
power increases exponentially with each qubit. A quantum computer
with as few as 50 qubits could, in theory, pack more computing power
than the most powerful supercomputers on earth today.
This
comes at a timely juncture. Moore’s Law dictated that computing
power per unit would double every 18 months while the price per
computing unit would drop by half. While Moore’s Law has largely
held true, the amount of money required to squeeze out these
improvements is now significantly greater than it was in the past. In
other words, semiconductor companies and researchers must spend more
and more money in R&D to achieve each jump in speed. Quantum
computing, on the other hand, is in rapid ascent.
One
company, D-Wave Systems, is selling a quantum computer that it says
has 2,000 qubits. However, D-Wave computers are controversial. While
some researchers have found good uses for D-Wave machines, these
quantum computers have not beaten classical computers and are only
useful for certain classes of problems—optimization problems.
Optimization problems involve finding the best possible solution from
all feasible solutions. So, for example, complex simulation problems
with multiple viable outcomes may not be as easily addressable with a
D-Wave machine. The way D-Wave performs quantum computing, as well,
is not considered to be the most promising for building a true
supercomputer-killer.
Google, IBM, and a number of startups
are working on quantum computers that promise to be more flexible and
likely more powerful because they will work on a wider variety of
problems. A few years ago, these flexible machines of two or four
qubits were the norm. During the past year, company after company has
announced more powerful quantum computers. In November 2017, IBM
announced that it has built such a quantum machine that uses 50
qubits, breaking the critical barrier beyond which scientists believe
quantum computers will shoot past traditional supercomputers.
The
downside? The IBM machine can only maintain a quantum computing state
for 90 microseconds at a time. This instability, in fact, is the
general bane of quantum computing. The machines must be super-cooled
to work, and a separate set of calculations must be run to correct
for errors in calculations due to the general instability of these
early systems. That said, scientists are making rapid improvements to
the instability problem and hope to have a working quantum computer
running at room temperature within five years."
http://fortune.com/2018/01/17/what-is-quantum-computing/ for full article.
Quote; "A crucial feature of Bitcoin is its security. Bitcoins have two
important security features that prevent them from being stolen or
copied. Both are based on cryptographic protocols that are hard to
crack. In other words, they exploit mathematical functions, like
factorization, that are easy in one direction but hard in the other—at
least for an ordinary classical computer.
But there is a problem on the horizon. Quantum computers can solve
these problems easily. And the first quantum computers are currently
under development.
That raises an urgent question: how secure is Bitcoin to the kinds
of quantum attack that will be possible in the next few years?
Today, we get an answer thanks to the work of Divesh Aggarwal at
the National University of Singapore and a few pals. These guys have
studied the threat to Bitcoin posed by quantum computers and say that
the danger is real and imminent.
First some background. Bitcoin transactions are stored in a
distributed ledger that collates all the deals carried out in a specific
time period, usually about 10 minutes. This collection, called a block,
also contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, which
contains a cryptographic hash of the one before that, and so on in a
chain. Hence the term blockchain.
(A hash is a mathematical function that turns a set of data of any length into a set of specific length.)
The new block must also contain a number called a nonce that has a
special property. When this nonce is hashed, or combined mathematically,
with the content of the block, the result must be less than some
specific target value.
Given the nonce and the block content, this is easy to show, which
allows anybody to verify the block. But generating the nonce is time
consuming, since the only way to do it is by brute force—to try numbers
one after the other until a nonce is found.
This process of finding a nonce, called mining, is rewarded with
Bitcoins. Mining is so computationally intensive that the task is
usually divided among many computers that share the reward.
The block is then placed on the distributed ledger and, once
validated, incorporated into the blockchain. The miners then start work
on the next block.
Occasionally, two mining groups find different nonces and declare
two different blocks. The Bitcoin protocol states that in this case, the
block that has been worked on more will be incorporated into the chain
and the other discarded.
This process has an Achilles’ heel. If a group of miners controls
more than 50 percent of the computational power on the network, it can
always mine blocks faster than whoever has the other 49 percent. In that
case, it effectively controls the ledger.
If it is malicious, it can spend bitcoins twice, by deleting
transactions so they are never incorporated into the blockchain. The
other 49 percent of miners are none the wiser because they have no
oversight of the mining process.
That creates an opportunity for a malicious owner of a quantum
computer put to work as a Bitcoin miner. If this computational power
breaks the 50 percent threshold, it can do what it likes." Go to: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609408/quantum-computers-pose-imminent-threat-to-bitcoin-security/
for full article.
So are we misidentifying
the data set?
Consider the following;
if we do indeed (as promised by the quantum computing advocates), attempt to
apply quantum computed algorithmic profiling to our biodiversity issues (in for
instance the case of the apparently rapid extinction of many of the
world's insects), are we not already suffering from something of a
paucity within the data-set? After all this is what "trawling
the big-data" is for, the greater the range the more accurate
(or "the more probable"), the result, pre-limiting this
data set is
clearly insane
but CERN deliberately misconstrue the influence of Chronos claiming
(mathematically), that a big-enough data-set can represent infinity
whereas any schoolboy knows the size of any finite number is totallyinsignificant
in relation to infinity, worse
still they then attempt to apply the notion that it is not to
Einsteins "basic" E=MC2 in
the hope that they can create more
energy! Attempting to put Descartes before the horse?
One surely needs only the epidemiological data of species loss before one acts, to spend millions waiting for a high-tech solution to the "complex-algorithm" is indeed an insult to Chronos. The questions of life and death do not belong in the hands of the technocrats because they will always pursue their own happiness at the expense of the rest of society, at some point a halt must be called to their profligacy. Ensuring the maximum diversity within the data set is a prerequisite to good statistical analysis, sitting on our a***s waiting to calculate how bad things may become will only hasten the denouement.
Quote; “The
worldwide loss of insects is simply staggering with some reports of
75% up to 90%, happening much faster than the paleoclimate record
rate of the past five major extinction events. It is possible that
some insect species may already be close to total extinction!
It’s
established that species evolve and then go extinct over thousands
and millions of years as part of nature’s course, but the current
rate of devastation is simply “off the charts, and downright
scary.””..
..”Significantly,
insects are the primary source for ecosystem creation and support.
The world literally crumbles apart without mischievous burrowing,
forming new soil, aerating soil, pollinating food crops, etc.
Nutrition for humans happens because insects pollinate.
One
of the world’s best and oldest entomological resources is Krefeld
Entomological Society (est. 1905) tracking insect abundance at more
than 100 nature reserves. They first noticed a significant drop off
of insects in 2013 when the total mass of catch fell by 80%. Again,
in 2014 the numbers were just as low. Subsequently, the society
discovered huge declines in several observation sites throughout
Western Europe.
For example, Krefeld data for hoverflies, a
pollinator often mistaken for a bee, registered 17,291 hoverflies
from 143 species trapped in a reserve in 1989. Whereas by 2014 at the
same location, 2,737 individuals from 104 species, down 84%.1
Down
Under in Australia anecdotal evidence similarly shows an unusual
falloff of insect populations. For example, Jack Hasenpusch, an
entomologist and owner of the Australian Insect Farm collects swarms
of wild insects but now says: “I’ve been wondering for the last
few years why some of the insects have been dropping off … This
year has really taken the cake with the lack of insects, it’s left
me dumbfounded, I can’t figure out what’s going on.”2”" Go to: https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/03/insect-decimation-upstages-global-warming/ for full article.
Biodiversity.
Quote; “"Last
week, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), an independent intergovernmental body
that monitors biodiversity, sent out a chilling warning — in
destroying the planet’s flora and fauna with such mindless haste,
we are undermining our own future well-being. Compiled by nearly 600
scientists over three years, IPBES’s reports underline how human
activity has driven animals and plants into decline in every region
of the world.
“Without biodiversity, there is no future for
humanity,” says Prof David Macdonald, at Oxford University.
The
term biodiversity was coined in 1985 — a contraction of “biological
diversity” — but the huge global biodiversity losses now becoming
apparent represent a crisis equalling — or quite possibly
surpassing — climate change.
More formally, biodiversity
comprises several levels, starting with genes, then individual
species, then communities of creatures and finally entire ecosystems,
such as forests or coral reefs, where life interplays with the
physical environment. These myriad interactions have made Earth
habitable for billions of years.
A more philosophical way of
viewing biodiversity is this: it represents the knowledge learned by
evolving species over millions of years about how to survive through
the vastly varying environmental conditions Earth has experienced.
Seen like that, experts warn, humanity is currently “burning the
library of life”.”..
..”
But the recent revelation that 75 per cent of flying insects were
lost in the last 25 years in Germany — and likely elsewhere —
indicates the massacre of biodiversity is not sparing creepy
crawlies. And insects really matter, not just as pollinators but as
predators of pests, decomposers of waste and, crucially, as the base
of the many wild food chains that support ecosystems.
“If
we lose the insects, then everything is going to collapse,” says
Prof Dave Goulson of Sussex University, UK. “We are currently on
course for ecological Armageddon.”"...
"What’s destroying
biodiversity?
We are. The rise in human population, our food
habits, the felling of forests, poaching and unsustainable hunting
for food are some of the big causes. More than 300 mammal species,
from chimpanzees to hippos to bats, are being eaten into extinction.
Pollution is a killer too, with orcas and dolphins being
seriously harmed by long-lived industrial pollutants. Global trade
contributes further harm: amphibians have suffered one of the
greatest declines of all animals due to a fungal disease thought to
be spread around the world by the pet trade.
The hardest hit
of all habitats may be rivers and lakes, with freshwater animal
populations in these collapsing by 81 per cent since 1970, following
huge water extraction for farms and people, plus pollution and dams.
Could biodiversity loss be a greater threat than climate
change?
Yes — nothing on Earth is experiencing more
dramatic change at the hands of human activity. Changes to the
climate are reversible, even if that takes centuries or millennia.
But once species become extinct, particularly those unknown to
science, there’s no going back.”
Locating
the tipping point that moves biodiversity loss into ecological
collapse is an urgent priority. However, some researchers say that
the missing ingredient is political will.
A global treaty,
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), has set many targets.
Some are likely to be reached, for example protecting 17 per cent of
all land and 10 per cent of the oceans by 2020. Others, such as
making all fishing sustainable by the same date are not. The 196
nations that are members of the CBD next meet in Egypt in November."" Go to:http://gulfnews.com/news/americas/usa/why-does-biodiversity-matter-1.2197149 for full article.
*Italics mine (Nb. which are not the same as a "Bitcoin Mine"!).
No comments:
Post a Comment