ProgrammingGodJordan Posted September 8, 2017 Report Share Posted September 8, 2017 (edited) Is it possible to create a ‘Transverse Field Ising Spin’-compatible Super Hamiltonian?I want to apply the Super Hamiltonian to this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.05695 Edited September 8, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted September 28, 2017 Report Share Posted September 28, 2017 (edited) Well, I dunno but here is the normal Hamiltonian completely dissected, I would think so since it is just a variable constructed from Newtonian mechanics for harmonic quantum oscillation. How good did you say you were at Calculus and algebra? Actually, I edited this to say, it is absolutely possible, they constructed their own Hamiltonians for these systems in the PDF of this paper, you definitely could if you knew what you were doing. Unfortunately, I only had time to read the math of the paper and not the text. Edited September 28, 2017 by Vmedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted September 28, 2017 Report Share Posted September 28, 2017 Well, I dunno but here is the normal Hamiltonian completely dissected, I would think so since it is just a variable constructed from Newtonian mechanics for harmonic quantum oscillation. How good did you say you were at Calculus and algebra? This is the Hamiltonian excluding spin, which we all learned as 1st yr undergraduates. To include spin, you need something as described here: https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs191/fa07/lectures/lecture15_fa07.pdf This however is for an isolated atom in the presence of an external magnetic field. The Ising model concerns ferromagnetism, so it is really a solid state physics problem, involving a lattice of spins: https://www.mpp.mpg.de/~caldwell/ss10/Lecture11.pdf So I would guess the Hamiltonian for that is one yielding eigenvalues that correspond to the quantisation of a 3D array of spins. I do not know much solid state physics, so can't comment on this "transverse field" stuff. But since this poster has copied his enquiry to a number of forums including an "atheist" forum (yes, really), I begin to wonder how serious he is. :) Perhaps he will come back and explain a bit more, allaying my suspicions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted September 28, 2017 Report Share Posted September 28, 2017 (edited) This is the Hamiltonian excluding spin, which we all learned as 1st yr undergraduates. To include spin, you need something as described here: https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs191/fa07/lectures/lecture15_fa07.pdf This however is for an isolated atom in the presence of an external magnetic field. The Ising model concerns ferromagnetism, so it is really a solid state physics problem, involving a lattice of spins: https://www.mpp.mpg.de/~caldwell/ss10/Lecture11.pdf So I would guess the Hamiltonian for that is one yielding eigenvalues that correspond to the quantisation of a 3D array of spins. I do not know much solid state physics, so can't comment on this "transverse field" stuff. But since this poster has copied his enquiry to a number of forums including an "atheist" forum (yes, really), I begin to wonder how serious he is. :) Perhaps he will come back and explain a bit more, allaying my suspicions. Ya, actually I have some ideas on how to fix this, but the poster will have to return for me to have reason to waste that much time, I was thinking about adding some Faraday into this in the potential energy or kinetic energy area. Quantum Machines huh? I have been pretty successful at Organic and Silicon Nano-machinery. You have me interested now, but just from Visual analysis, I would say for Atoms in Alternating magnetic field loops this would be the way to go. *Looks at D-wave computers*, ya....... So, If i solve this do I get a free D-wave Quantum Computer? *Looks Closer* *Even Closer* *looks really close* I think Faraday is your answer for Magnetic Loops........ I think I know how to make this work, I accept bribes. In any case, this is a transverse field paper which is more Maxwell-Faraday-Lorentz.https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node455.html The Answer is still yes, but I still ask "How Good are you at Calculus and Algebra?" It is not going to be easy. Edited September 28, 2017 by Vmedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted October 16, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) This is the Hamiltonian excluding spin, which we all learned as 1st yr undergraduates. To include spin, you need something as described here: https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs191/fa07/lectures/lecture15_fa07.pdf This however is for an isolated atom in the presence of an external magnetic field. The Ising model concerns ferromagnetism, so it is really a solid state physics problem, involving a lattice of spins: https://www.mpp.mpg.de/~caldwell/ss10/Lecture11.pdf So I would guess the Hamiltonian for that is one yielding eigenvalues that correspond to the quantisation of a 3D array of spins. I do not know much solid state physics, so can't comment on this "transverse field" stuff. But since this poster has copied his enquiry to a number of forums including an "atheist" forum (yes, really), I begin to wonder how serious he is. :) Perhaps he will come back and explain a bit more, allaying my suspicions. I was quite serious. I am not a physicist, so I scour the internet for data whenever I can. (I am actually a software engineer, who does body building) Btw, the original question really concerned Artificial General Intelligence. Based on talks with physicists elsewhere, I had come to somewhat resolve the issue.This is the outcome, based on this.See a clear overview of the outcome here. Edited October 16, 2017 by ProgrammingGodJordan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted October 16, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 Thanks for your helpful answers everyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted October 16, 2017 Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) I was quite serious. I am not a physicist, so I scour the internet for data whenever I can. (I am actually a software engineer, who does body building) Btw, the original question really concerned Artificial General Intelligence. Based on talks with physicists elsewhere, I had come to somewhat resolve the issue.This is the outcome, based on this.See a clear overview of the outcome here. Ya, when the Artificial General Intelligence turns on you just remember I told you so, just make a huge news report ripple when you make it, so I know when to start making the universal deconstructor swarm to destroy your fully self aware robots that killed you because as I see it by the time they make it to me, I will be done with the first self-replicating nanite. we fully understand the ramifications of our actions do you? I hope so, programming the swarm doesn't take much math. See, unlike you I know my creations would eat me in a heart beat given the chance much like a virus or bacteria. robotics in all forms is a most dangerous game, everything living is naturally a predator once threatened or simply by evolution into predator once it is in the proper environment, life has killed life for 4 billion years some odds to beat, hope it works out for you. Edited October 16, 2017 by Vmedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProgrammingGodJordan Posted October 16, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 Ya, when the Artificial General Intelligence turns on you just remember I told you so, just make a huge news report ripple when you make it, so I know when to start making the universal deconstructor swarm to destroy your fully self aware robots that killed you because as I see it by the time they make it to me, I will be done with the first self-replicating nanite. we fully understand the ramifications of our actions do you? I hope so, programming the swarm doesn't take much math. See, unlike you I know my creations would eat me in a heart beat given the chance much like a virus or bacteria. robotics in all forms is a most dangerous game, everything living is naturally a predator once threatened or simply by evolution into predator once it is in the proper environment, life has killed life for 4 billion years some odds to beat, hope it works out for you. As Richard Dawkins recently said, "perhaps humans should go extinct". Maybe the next artificially intelligent species are fit to replace us, similar to how we replaced our somewhat less intelligent ancestors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil Posted October 16, 2017 Report Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) As Richard Dawkins recently said, "perhaps humans should go extinct". Maybe the next artificially intelligent species are fit to replace us, similar to how we replaced our somewhat less intelligent ancestors. Ya, making a silicon nano-machine based disease for self aware robots was not my intent when these were designed back in 2012. So, make sure that you don't make them too human-like or it may share our vices of war and murder. Superior intelligence does not always mean superior survival skills or morality, a virus can kill a smart human just as easily as a dumb one, but they will know their error of their ways if they try to kill me your self aware A.I., it took humans 10,000 years to defeat disease, we will see how long it takes them, it is only fair, what is life anyway without struggle for survival. Here is a warning from Hollywood about this subject about the things that may happen from Self-Aware A.I. from the Animatrix - Second Renaissance. https://youtu.be/jNiO2sTe2wo?t=33s Edited February 8, 2018 by Vmedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.