Toggle light / dark theme

New controls can stretch, blur and even reverse quantum time flow

In new research published in Physical Review X, scientists have designed quantum control protocols that generate processes more consistent with time flowing backward than forward. The protocols—techniques to control quantum systems—modify a quantum system’s “arrow of time,” the concept of time as moving in one forward direction. The work opens up possibilities for energy extraction from quantum systems and for quantum state preparation.

A quantum system, such as a collection of qubits, is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The team’s control protocols can prevent the emergence of the arrow of time in a quantum system or even invert its direction—that is, cause quantum time to appear to flow in reverse.

As an application of their research, the team leveraged their control protocols to design a measurement engine that extracts energy from quantum measurements performed on the system.

Superconducting quantum processor performs well with significantly less wiring

Quantum computers, computing systems that process information using quantum mechanical effects, could outperform classical computers on some computational tasks. These computers rely on qubits, the basic units of quantum information, which can exist in multiple states (0, 1 or both simultaneously), due to quantum effects known as superposition and entanglement.

Many of the quantum computers developed in recent years are based on conventional superconductors, materials that exhibit an electrical resistance of zero at extremely low temperatures. To operate reliably and exhibit superconductivity, circuits based on these materials need to be cooled down to millikelvin temperatures.

In quantum computers, each qubit typically requires its own control line. This means that engineers need to introduce several wires that carry electrical pulses (i.e., signal lines), and the number of necessary wires increases with the number of qubits. As quantum computers grow larger, this can be problematic, as processors become harder to build and reliably operate.

Quantum computers could have a fundamental limit after all

The performance of quantum computers could cap out after around 1,000 qubits, according to a new analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Through new calculations, Tim Palmer at the University of Oxford has reconsidered the mathematical foundations underlying the quantum principles behind the technology, concluding that restrictions on the information-carrying capacity of large quantum systems could make their computing power far more limited than many researchers predict.

For some time, quantum physicists have been growing increasingly excited—and concerned—about the seemingly limitless potential of quantum computers. In a classical computer, information content generally grows linearly as the number of bits increases. But in a quantum computer, each extra qubit doubles the number of quantum states the system can occupy.

Since these states can encode multiple possibilities at the same time, the overall system appears to become exponentially more powerful with each added qubit—at least according to our current understanding of quantum mechanics.

Sean M. Carroll

“I like to say that physics is hard because physics is easy, by which I mean we actually think about physics as students.”

Up next, The Multiverse is real. Just not in the way you think it is. ► • The Multiverse is real. Just not in the wa…

Physics seems complicated, until you realize why it works so well, says physicist Sean Carroll, revealing the basis of the field’s greatest successes: Radical simplicity.

Carroll takes us from Newton’s clockwork universe to Laplace’s demon, to Einstein’s spacetime revolution, exploring the historical shockwaves each breakthrough caused. If you’ve wondered how stripping the world down to its simplest parts can reveal deeper truths, this is where that story begins.

00:00:00 Radical simplicity in physics.
00:00:55 Chapter 1: The physics of free will.
00:04:55 Laplace’s Demon.
00:06:27 The clockwork universe paradigm.
00:07:41 Determinism and compatibilism.
00:08:45 Chapter 2: The invention of spacetime.
00:17:30: Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
00:24:27 Chapter 3: The quantum revolution.
00:28:05 The 2 biggest ideas in physics.
00:32:27 Visualizing physics.
00:38:17 Quantum field theory.
00:46:51 The Higgs boson particle.
00:47:28 The standard model of particle physics.
00:52:53 The core theory of physics.
01:02:03 The measurement problem.
01:13:47 Chapter 4: The power of collective genius.
01:16:19 A timeline of the theories of physics.

Why Does 2 + 2 = 4? What Math Teaches Us About Deep Reality

Is math something humans invent—or something we discover? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well?

In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson sits down with mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics.

From the simple certainty that 2 + 2 = 4 to the mind-bending mathematics behind black holes and quantum physics, the conversation asks why abstract numbers—created in the human mind—map so perfectly onto the physical world. Is mathematics purely logical, or does it point to a deeper structure of reality that isn’t material at all? Along the way, the panel explores beauty in science, the “unreasonable effectiveness” of math, and whether the concept of materialism can really explain the world we live in.

This wide-ranging discussion blends mathematics, physics, philosophy, and metaphysics into a fascinating conversation about truth, beauty, and the nature of reality itself.

__________
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Hoover Institution or Stanford University.

Is it possible to *build* a fourth dimension? 🧊

We only ever experience three spatial dimensions, but quantum lab experiments suggest a whole new side to reality – weird particle apparitions included.

Subscribe ➤ https://bit.ly/NSYTSUBS

Get more from New Scientist:
Official website: https://bit.ly/NSYTHP
Facebook: https://bit.ly/NSYTFB
Twitter: https://bit.ly/NSYTTW
Instagram: https://bit.ly/NSYTINSTA
LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/NSYTLIN

About New Scientist:
New Scientist was founded in 1956 for “all those interested in scientific discovery and its social consequences”. Today our website, videos, newsletters, app, podcast and print magazine cover the world’s most important, exciting and entertaining science news as well as asking the big-picture questions about life, the universe, and what it means to be human.

New Scientist.

Could ChatGPT be conscious? | Roger Penrose, Sabrina Gonzalez, Max Tegmark

Roger Penrose, Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski, and Max Tegmark discuss consciousness, quantum physics, and the possibility of a sentient superintelligent A.I.

Could ChatGPT be conscious?

With a free trial, you can watch the full debate NOW at https://iai.tv/video/cracking-the-code-for-thought?utm_sourc…ed-comment.

The idea that the brain is computational has, from the outset, been central to neuroscience. Like a computer, the brain is a problem-solving machine that stores memories and processes information. But despite the advances in AI, many challenge whether this analogy captures the essence of the mind. Computers use transistors to build elementary logic gates, enabling them to store files exactly, in 0s and 1s. They are precise and repeatable. Human brains, in contrast, are biological—the neurons do not operate as simple logic gates, but have thousands of inputs, and their output is dependent on past activity and their current internal state. Remove a computer’s processor, and it breaks. But humans can survive with only one brain hemisphere. Fundamentally, brains think, they have perception, and are conscious.

Is it a mistake to see the mind as computational? Are computers, at root, limited machines with little in common with the sophistication of living things? Or have computers and mathematics uncovered the essential character of thought—and perhaps even the cosmos itself?

#consciousness #quantum #neuroscience #quantumphysics #ai #artificialintelligence.

Parallel realities solve this time travel paradox | Jim Al-Khalili

Become a Big Think member to unlock expert classes, premium print issues, exclusive events and more: https://bigthink.com/membership/?utm_

Time is the one thing every human being experiences identically, or so we assume.

Physicist Jim Al-Khalili dismantles that assumption, explaining how velocity and gravity don’t just affect clocks but actually alter the rate at which time passes for the person experiencing it.

Preorder Jim Al-Khalili’s forthcoming book, On Time: The Physics That Makes the Universe, here: https://www.amazon.com/Time-Physics-T?tag=lifeboatfound-20

About Jim Al-Khalili: Jim is a multiple award-winning science communicator renowned for his public engagement around the world through writing and broadcasting and a leading academic making fundamental contributions to theoretical physics, particularly in nuclear reaction theory, quantum effects in biology, open quantum systems and the foundations of quantum mechanics. Jim is a theoretical physicist at the University of Surrey where he holds a Distinguished Chair in physics as well as a university chair in the public engagement in science. He received his PhD in nuclear reaction theory in 1989 and has published widely in the field. His current interest is in open quantum systems and the application of quantum mechanics in biology.

About Jim Al-Khalili:

/* */