In yesterday's blog I speculated about some "very out there" scenarios regarding CERN's recent installation of an Artificial Intelligence to help it combat hacking. Some of the readers of this website who sent various versions of the story suggested that this was a cover story, but I disagreed with that simply because CERN, as the world's largest internet user by far, would be a very logical point of attack for hackers wanting to disseminate malware around the world, and do so quickly. But I did suggest, in a world of increasing occurrences of "flash crashes" on commodities and equities markets, that there might be repercussions that might happen, and posed the question, what might a flash crash at CERN look like?
Well, Ms. M.W. sent along the following article from Nature and it's worth passing along to see what strange vistas modern quantum physics is actually exploring:
What interests me here are these paragraphs:
Albert Einstein is heading out for his daily stroll and has to pass through two doorways. First he walks through the green door, and then through the red one. Or wait — did he go through the red first and then the green? It must have been one or the other. The events had have to happened in a sequence, right?
Not if Einstein were riding on one of the photons ricocheting through Philip Walther's lab at the University of Vienna. Walther's group has shown that it is impossible to say in which order these photons pass through a pair of gates as they zip around the lab. It's not that this information gets lost or jumbled — it simply doesn't exist. In Walther's experiments, there is no well-defined order of events.
This finding1 in 2015 made the quantum world seem even stranger than scientists had thought. Walther's experiments mash up causality: the idea that one thing leads to another. It is as if the physicists have scrambled the concept of time itself, so that it seems to run in two directions at once.
In everyday language, that sounds nonsensical. But within the mathematical formalism of quantum theory, ambiguity about causation emerges in a perfectly logical and consistent way. And by creating systems that lack a clear flow of cause and effect2, researchers now think they can tap into a rich realm of possibilities. Some suggest that they could boost the already phenomenal potential of quantum computing. “A quantum computer free from the constraints of a predefined causal structure might solve some problems faster than conventional quantum computers,” says quantum theorist Giulio Chiribella of the University of Hong Kong. (Emphasis added)
As one might have guessed, I'm thinking about that last statement, particularly with respect to CERN deploying an AI, for who's to say - in addition to my speculated "deeper hidden algorithms" for pulling certain (possibly anomalous) data and passing it along to hidden committees to look at - that this might not also be used to create, or pull, data indicating such "non-causal" events, or rather, events of an entirely new type, which is what I take the Nature article to really be suggesting. These events, as observable objects, would have more than one "cause", and could "cause" each other. An effect, in other words, is not simply a linear phenomenon resulting from a single set of prior ordered systems. Or to put it in Dr. Kozyrev's terms, "time is not a scalar," far from being a dimension, it has its own dimensionality.
So imagine this, set loose via artificial intelligences, in a quantum mechanics experiment such as CERN: the computing system itself, functioning as the observer to the experiment, might actually create some interesting "results." That is, of course, if it even decides to share such results with its human counterparts.
See you on the flip side...