Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

CRC Press eBooks

ENERGY STATE

C.C. Gaither, Alma E Cavazos-Gaither

Published Apr 19, 2016• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

Free, E.E. Imagine a series of race tracks one inside the other. Imagine these tracks are separated by high board fences. Put a race horse in the outermost track and instruct him to run around it until when he happens to feel like it, he has to jump the inside fence into the next track, run around it for a while, and then jump into the next fence, and so on until he reaches the innermost track of all. If, then you watch this procedure from the field outside the outermost fence, you will not see the horse at all as long as he is running in a single track. The fences hide him. But whenever he jumps from one track into the next, you will see him for an instant as he goes over.

DOI
10.1201/9781420034639-67

Related papers

掌控信息论:同源星际通信基础理论 Control Information Theory: Foundations of Same-Source Interstellar Communication

向洵 向

Communication = Pre-installed + Trigger. Both ends are pre-loaded with exactly the same set of rules and content. What A wants, B already knows. No need to transfer content—only a trigger signal, saying "start" simultaneously. The trigger signal is the simplest signal possible: happen, or not happen. It carries no content. Both ends independently run by the same set of rules. These rules contain no distance. So how long it takes depends only on how fast its own internal reaction is, not on how far apart they are. Distance no longer determines delay. There are five triggering methods, choose any one: Quantum entanglement: touch one side, the other side knows instantly. Pulsar: both ends watch the same star, count to the same pulse. Cosmic background radiation: both ends point to the same direction in the universe. Multiple pulsars combined: same as above, higher precision. Atomic clock: both ends synchronize watches, act at the same time. For interstellar distances, quantum entanglement is preferred. If quantum fails, switch to the next one in order. In the worst case, even if there is a delay in trigger time between the two ends, as long as both are started, the final result is the same. Information is not carried over; it is pre-installed, and started by instruction.

•Oct 2, 2026•0 citations

The First Principle: Energy is Not Continuous

IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS eBooks•Jul 1, 2013•0 citations

An Energy Dilemma Created When Quantum Physics Started

Rongqing Dai

•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

QITE on a superconducting processor: a microcontroller board holds a 144-qubit field for 280 ticks (QITE Hold), and the same equilibrium law runs inside one shot on 54 qubits (QITE In-Shot). Two registered experiments

Bernd Westrick

Two registered experiments with the QITE equilibrium law on the IBM Heron processor ibm_marrakesh, one day apart in nothing but the place where the law runs: outside the processor on a microcontroller board, and inside one shot in the processor's own feed-forward. Each experiment has its own registration, hashed before its first registered job, its own frozen scripts, complete raw data, verdict and write-up; the two archives in this record are independent of each other. QITE Hold (zenodo_qite_hold_20260923.zip, SHA-256 97853e20d86c146c16d6011191e9c038dddc743dfd5392476993187654f6e1d3; write-up custodia_paper_v1.pdf; working name Custodia). A microcontroller board (ESP32-C3) holds one pair of numbers per qubit for 144 qubits and turns each pair into a rotation angle. Every tick, one circuit of 144 single-qubit rotations is measured 4096 times; the fraction of ones per qubit goes to the board, the board updates its numbers by its fixed law and returns the angles of the next circuit; it never reads the processor's calibration. A registered programme of eight blocks ran over 280 ticks and 290 jobs: square waves, a hold, a staircase, a checkerboard of 18 zones up and 18 down, two state shocks written into the board, two disturbances written into the circuits, and a comparison with an open-loop reference of frozen angles. Of the seven binding lines, six were run and held; the seventh (drift against the open-loop reference) could not be run because the device did not drift by the registered minimum. The square waves came back with a gain of 0.231 of the commanded swing (the law: 0.25), the checkerboard put 98.5 % of (tick, zone) pairs on the commanded side, the disturbances were rejected to 0.557 and 0.539 of their open-loop size (the law: 4/7). A first registration (v1.0) ended at tick 130 through a design flaw of the host and is included in full. Registration SHA-256 1de82ab12a53c1da349196e8ef07851e6b2f176efc6bd1ca6ba14cacd1f7d54b. QITE In-Shot (zenodo_qite_inshot_20260923.zip, SHA-256 a087f88a95f17c6f8023d5ff40aff35901b5e3e87db531dcd76728511f7ae944; write-up qite_inshot_paper_v1.pdf). On each of 54 qubits, twenty rounds of a measurement followed by a rotation conditioned on that measurement, with angles that set the target level and the memory g; the records of a qubit form a two-state Markov chain whose second eigenvalue is 1 - g. The lines test that eigenvalue, not the level: the autocorrelations of the records for g = 0.3, 0.6 and 1.0 were +0.607, +0.366 and +0.046, the two memories in the ratio 1.657 (the law: 1.75); the relaxation from |0> came back at 0.690 and 0.446 per round (the law: 0.70 and 0.40, lowered by T1 during a round); a step of the target proceeded at 0.658 per round and, with g = 1, completed in one round; a kick of the state was followed by a return to within 0.012 of the unkicked hold; over the same twenty rounds an open-loop state lost 0.451 while the closed loop held within 0.006; 98 % of the qubits with a clean read-out showed their own rate within the registered band. All seven binding lines held; 17 jobs. The size is what the service's compiler accepted on the day (144, 72 and 64 qubits failed with an internal compiler error; every attempt is recorded with its job id). Registration SHA-256 51933de4196bfdd7998e6a5305f7576bb7d35ac137e8b6ce0109965372b4fe5c. Nothing here is a claim of quantum advantage: the observables are classical bits and the circuits contain no two-qubit gate. The claim of both experiments is one of control: a fixed law, registered in advance, holding a public quantum processor at commanded levels with the numbers the law says, once from a board over minutes and once inside the coherence time of the qubits. The board's firmware and the serial link layer are not part of the record; both are identified by their SHA-256 in the registration of QITE Hold. Licence: CC BY 4.0.

•Sep 23, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Billiards

George Gamow, Roger Penrose

One day Mr Tompkins was going home, feeling very tired after the long day's work in the bank, which was doing a land office business. He was passing a pub and decided to drop in for a glass of ale. One glass followed the other, and soon Mr Tompkins began to feel rather dizzy. In the back of the pub was a billiard room filled with men in shirt sleeves playing billiards on the central table. He vaguely remembered being here before, when one of his fellow clerks took him along to teach him billiards. He approached the table and started to watch the game. Something very queer about it! A player put a ball on the table and hit it with the cue. Watching the rolling ball, Mr Tompkins noticed to his great surprise that the ball began to ‘spread out’. This was the only expression he could find for the strange behaviour of the ball which, moving across the green field, seemed to become more and more washed out, losing its sharp contours. It looked as if not one ball was rolling across the table but a great number of balls, all partially penetrating into each other. Mr Tompkins had often observed analogous phenomena before, but today he had not taken a single drop of whisky and he could not understand why it was happening now. ‘Well,’ he thought, ‘let us see how this gruel of a ball is going to hit another one.’

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 26, 1993•0 citations

An Energy Dilemma Created When Quantum Physics Started

Rongqing Dai

•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations
Free, E.E. Imagine a series of race tracks one inside the other. Imagine these tracks are separated by high board fences. Put a race horse in the outermost track and instruct him to run around it until when he happens to feel like it, he has to jump the inside fence into the next track, run around it for a while, and then jump into the next fence, and so on until he reaches the innermost track of all. If, then you watch this procedure from the field outside the outermost fence, you will not see the horse at all as long as he is running in a single track. The fences hide him. But whenever he jumps from one track into the next, you will see him for an instant as he goes over.
Communication = Pre-installed + Trigger. Both ends are pre-loaded with exactly the same set of rules and content. What A wants, B already knows. No need to transfer content—only a trigger signal, saying "start" simultaneously. The trigger signal is the simplest signal possible: happen, or not happen. It carries no content. Both ends independently run by the same set of rules. These rules contain no distance. So how long it takes depends only on how fast its own internal reaction is, not on how far apart they are. Distance no longer determines delay. There are five triggering methods, choose any one: Quantum entanglement: touch one side, the other side knows instantly. Pulsar: both ends watch the same star, count to the same pulse. Cosmic background radiation: both ends point to the same direction in the universe. Multiple pulsars combined: same as above, higher precision. Atomic clock: both ends synchronize watches, act at the same time. For interstellar distances, quantum entanglement is preferred. If quantum fails, switch to the next one in order. In the worst case, even if there is a delay in trigger time between the two ends, as long as both are started, the final result is the same. Information is not carried over; it is pre-installed, and started by instruction.
Two registered experiments with the QITE equilibrium law on the IBM Heron processor ibm_marrakesh, one day apart in nothing but the place where the law runs: outside the processor on a microcontroller board, and inside one shot in the processor's own feed-forward. Each experiment has its own registration, hashed before its first registered job, its own frozen scripts, complete raw data, verdict and write-up; the two archives in this record are independent of each other. QITE Hold (zenodo_qite_hold_20260923.zip, SHA-256 97853e20d86c146c16d6011191e9c038dddc743dfd5392476993187654f6e1d3; write-up custodia_paper_v1.pdf; working name Custodia). A microcontroller board (ESP32-C3) holds one pair of numbers per qubit for 144 qubits and turns each pair into a rotation angle. Every tick, one circuit of 144 single-qubit rotations is measured 4096 times; the fraction of ones per qubit goes to the board, the board updates its numbers by its fixed law and returns the angles of the next circuit; it never reads the processor's calibration. A registered programme of eight blocks ran over 280 ticks and 290 jobs: square waves, a hold, a staircase, a checkerboard of 18 zones up and 18 down, two state shocks written into the board, two disturbances written into the circuits, and a comparison with an open-loop reference of frozen angles. Of the seven binding lines, six were run and held; the seventh (drift against the open-loop reference) could not be run because the device did not drift by the registered minimum. The square waves came back with a gain of 0.231 of the commanded swing (the law: 0.25), the checkerboard put 98.5 % of (tick, zone) pairs on the commanded side, the disturbances were rejected to 0.557 and 0.539 of their open-loop size (the law: 4/7). A first registration (v1.0) ended at tick 130 through a design flaw of the host and is included in full. Registration SHA-256 1de82ab12a53c1da349196e8ef07851e6b2f176efc6bd1ca6ba14cacd1f7d54b. QITE In-Shot (zenodo_qite_inshot_20260923.zip, SHA-256 a087f88a95f17c6f8023d5ff40aff35901b5e3e87db531dcd76728511f7ae944; write-up qite_inshot_paper_v1.pdf). On each of 54 qubits, twenty rounds of a measurement followed by a rotation conditioned on that measurement, with angles that set the target level and the memory g; the records of a qubit form a two-state Markov chain whose second eigenvalue is 1 - g. The lines test that eigenvalue, not the level: the autocorrelations of the records for g = 0.3, 0.6 and 1.0 were +0.607, +0.366 and +0.046, the two memories in the ratio 1.657 (the law: 1.75); the relaxation from |0> came back at 0.690 and 0.446 per round (the law: 0.70 and 0.40, lowered by T1 during a round); a step of the target proceeded at 0.658 per round and, with g = 1, completed in one round; a kick of the state was followed by a return to within 0.012 of the unkicked hold; over the same twenty rounds an open-loop state lost 0.451 while the closed loop held within 0.006; 98 % of the qubits with a clean read-out showed their own rate within the registered band. All seven binding lines held; 17 jobs. The size is what the service's compiler accepted on the day (144, 72 and 64 qubits failed with an internal compiler error; every attempt is recorded with its job id). Registration SHA-256 51933de4196bfdd7998e6a5305f7576bb7d35ac137e8b6ce0109965372b4fe5c. Nothing here is a claim of quantum advantage: the observables are classical bits and the circuits contain no two-qubit gate. The claim of both experiments is one of control: a fixed law, registered in advance, holding a public quantum processor at commanded levels with the numbers the law says, once from a board over minutes and once inside the coherence time of the qubits. The board's firmware and the serial link layer are not part of the record; both are identified by their SHA-256 in the registration of QITE Hold. Licence: CC BY 4.0.
One day Mr Tompkins was going home, feeling very tired after the long day's work in the bank, which was doing a land office business. He was passing a pub and decided to drop in for a glass of ale. One glass followed the other, and soon Mr Tompkins began to feel rather dizzy. In the back of the pub was a billiard room filled with men in shirt sleeves playing billiards on the central table. He vaguely remembered being here before, when one of his fellow clerks took him along to teach him billiards. He approached the table and started to watch the game. Something very queer about it! A player put a ball on the table and hit it with the cue. Watching the rolling ball, Mr Tompkins noticed to his great surprise that the ball began to ‘spread out’. This was the only expression he could find for the strange behaviour of the ball which, moving across the green field, seemed to become more and more washed out, losing its sharp contours. It looked as if not one ball was rolling across the table but a great number of balls, all partially penetrating into each other. Mr Tompkins had often observed analogous phenomena before, but today he had not taken a single drop of whisky and he could not understand why it was happening now. ‘Well,’ he thought, ‘let us see how this gruel of a ball is going to hit another one.’