OK so school's about to start. New schedule includes wave motion, sound, fluid dynamics, electromagnetism, optics, and proofs.

My past few months of study have included topological quantum computing, quantum gravity, condensed matter physics, statistical mechanics (mostly entropy), superposition, and what all of that means...inside, outside, on the surface of a black hole, and in infinite dimensions.

I have to do some gear-switching :(

Throughout some course of my life, after reading the Commonwealth Saga by Peter F. Hamilton (check it out if you haven't, it's a great space opera), I have gotten a drive to build...well, really fucking good computers. Not things limited by transistor size, or by classical computation theory - I mean the stuff that quantum mechanics brought in, the stuff that shattered the idea of computation by bringing in physical systems that are simply unable to be simulated within the framework of classical computation for one simple reason: You might be able to say that your theory-puter can simulate quantum physics with classical computation, but in reality any classical computer you build will be 150% unable to simulate any quantum system bigger than a few dozen qubits; beyond that, its processing time, no matter how powerful the computer is, will take longer than the age of the observable universe.

Yet, you don't have to simulate these things; you can MAKE them because the world allows you to do so. The problem of simulation then switches around; can we build a computer capable of simulating...well, all the physics we know and love today...or more? Theoretically, a quantum computer should be able to simulate quantum point computations (QPCs) of any kind of quantum mechanical interaction, down to the particle physics. Understanding the computational side of field theories is a subject which doesn't have a lot of exploration; after all, one of the fundamental parts of quantum field theories is the ability to distinguish identical states, and even split their components, increasing the particle number. A many-body Schrodinger is limited to the number of bodies you put into it initially; even if you make that infinite, a single-quanta particle cannot split, instead it must influence the particles around it.

Thus, from quantum mechanics, and particle physics, we have an interesting new picture: Particles are not individual quanta. We already know this to some extent; quantum mechanics isn't all about how particles must be quantized, it's about how things in general are quantized. An electron has spin up, spin down, charge negative, and even components of positive charge and negative mass; on top of all this it has more an angular momentum, it has positional momentum with respect to the space around it. We also know that if an electron and positron collide with enough energy, their annihilation will actually produce more particles - ones with properties such as color and flavor.

How to classify these particle states which have underlying quantum states which for the large part hide themselves? There's also an oddity which might help the picture: Fermions and bosons may have non-integer or integer spin, but they are still quantized values...and while an electron (spin +-1/2) is a fermion, so are the spin +-1/3, +-2/3 up and down quarks. Additionally, in an atom, we have m_s, m_l, and m_j - where m_j is the atom's composite angular momentum number, a quantized yet composite entity. Are all quantum states composite ones? Is the only elementary unit of universal construction, a qubit? Qudits also fit into this framework, but even they may be represented by their smaller partner, the qubit.

How to make these particle states, though? Raw data is simply raw data; with enough construction perhaps a real system of physics is grown, but we have some particular quantities that need to be true. For one, we have all these constants, hbar, c, G, Λ, etc which all have to arise somehow. Is there a more fundamental constant in a data-centric theory of qubits, which leads directly to particle physics?

This is a question that David Deutsch thinks has no obvious answer; there are an infinite set of possible constructions that might happen, and even if you apply Fermi's golden rule of state rate-change limits, it just leaves you with an infinite dimensional 0-dimensional space; even if ALL qubits can interact with one another instantaneously, and their phase speed limit is Planck's constant, there is simply too much to try and build.

There is a hope in the AdS-CFT correspondence, in that we might think of this fundamental field of qubits to be the constructor of a quantum, fractal-like space in which, from infinite-dimensional anti de sitter space, holographic projection may (eventually) paint a 3-dimensional picture, through some number theoretic methodology. These are things that begin to stray from my knowledge...but I see some method of looking into the real numbers as a way forward.

We can look at topological quantum computation as a way to visualize the growth of composite qubit states - of geometric timelike constructions - as systematic realities. Ideally, we may be able to build a topological computer in which we target a particle physics quantum geometry, and simulate it in a way that is even impossible for high-energy particle accelerators; a way in which we may prepare pure states out of computational structures, and run them into another to allow those computational structures to interact. We would base our initial structures off what we know of these field theories, involving a substrate of exotic construction - an actively programmable construction, such as a quantum FPGA of large dimension - and through error, correct it, gaining a picture known by our design, which mimics the physical reality. This is the next experimental venture which humanity will undertake, giving us a picture into reality which is not only a simulation, but a reconstruction; we will mimic low-lying physics by imitating it on a larger structure.

This might also be how we escape from our reality into higher dimensions; these computers will reconstruct dimensions larger than their own physical construction, building those dimensions out of both timelike qudits and inverse holographic projectors, entangling large-scale geometries to sort entropy before knitting it into superposition dimensions. This relies, of course, upon the fundamentals of the AdS/CFT correspondence.

Einstein and de Sitter were both able to see down into a more fundamental construction, beyond the initial building blocks of quantum mechanics. They did not know how to make the connection, although Einstein realized that it had to be possible somehow; God does not play dice, not in the reality which we know, at least. There are infinite dimensions, but many of them overlap; their overlap and interference eventually draws a 4-dimensional spacetime at some point, somewhere in there.

Someplace, in the two theories we know, they collide, and from that point onward the quantized knitting draws physical reality. That reality is one we know. It is both a probabilistic computation, and a deterministic one; it will go someplace, but that pathway involves structures beyond our current comprehension. Only ingenuity, creativity, and application will get us there. Then hilariously enough, computational applications (ie google chrome) will be identical, physically, to the way we view "application" to any physical process such as a saw to woodworking. Woodworking is the OS, and if you apply a saw, it is naught but an API from the woodworking meme to the reality network.