We hope this work allows one to calculate large prime numbers directly, not by trial-and-error, but following a physical law. We report—contrary to conventional assumptions—that differentiation of discontinuous functions (DDF) exists in the set Q, which becomes central to algorithms for quantum computation. DDF have been thought to exist not in the classical sense, but using distributions. However, DDF using distributions still is defined in terms of mathematical real-numbers (MRN), and do not address the Problem of Closure, here investigated. These facts lead to contradictions using MRN, solved by this work, providing a new unbounded class of physical solutions using physical numbers in quantum mechanics (QM), that were always there (just hidden), allowing DDF without distributions, or MRN. It is worthwhile to see this only in mathematics, to avoid the prejudices found in physics, as this reforms both general relativity and QM. This confirms the opinions of Nicolas Gisin that MRN are non-computable with probability 1, and Niels Bohr that physics is not reality, it is a fitting story about reality. Mathematics can get closer to reality, surprisingly. We just have to base mathematics on nature, not on how it defines nature.
We hope this work allows one to calculate large prime numbers directly, not by trial-and-error, but following a physical law. We report—contrary to conventional assumptions—that differentiation of discontinuous functions (DDF) exists in the set Q, which becomes central to algorithms for quantum computation. DDF have been thought to exist not in the classical sense, but using distributions. However, DDF using distributions still is defined in terms of mathematical real-numbers (MRN), and do not address the Problem of Closure, here investigated. These facts lead to contradictions using MRN, solved by this work, providing a new unbounded class of physical solutions using physical numbers in quantum mechanics (QM), that were always there (just hidden), allowing DDF without distributions, or MRN. It is worthwhile to see this only in mathematics, to avoid the prejudices found in physics, as this reforms both general relativity and QM. This confirms the opinions of Nicolas Gisin that MRN are non-computable with probability 1, and Niels Bohr that physics is not reality, it is a fitting story about reality. Mathematics can get closer to reality, surprisingly. We just have to base mathematics on nature, not on how it defines nature.
The argument of this chapter is governed by the double meaning of its title: (a) the relationships between the concepts of discreteness and continuity in modern mathematics and physics; and (b) the relationships, both continuous and discontinuous, between mathematics and physics, as, from Galileo on, a mathematical-experimental science, with mathematics coming first in this conjunction. The project of modern physics was, thus, defined by an essential continuity between mathematics and physics, as a mathematical representation of nature, principally by means of continuous functions and then calculus, until the rise of quantum theory, specifically as quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum field theory (QFT). With QM, at least in certain interpretations, such as the one adopted in this chapter, quantum theory disconnected the ultimate constitution of nature from any mathematical representation, thus, making physics discontinuous with mathematics. As this chapter will argue, however, this new epistemological situation did not disconnect quantum physics from mathematics, but, on the contrary, led to relating abstract mathematics, such as that of Hilbert spaces over ℂ and operator algebra there, to discrete physical phenomena in terms of probabilities, thus reestablishing the connection, which was no longer representational, between mathematics and physics. This chapter will also argue that the development of the concepts of continuity and discontinuity, and the relationships between them, has acquired a great richness and complexity through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in mathematics itself, richness and complexity that found their way into physics, in particular relativity and quantum theory. One of the intriguing aspects of this development is the idea, advanced by, among others, A. Grothendieck, following B. Riemann's comment on the subject, that the continuous may serve as an approximation of the discontinuous, rather than seeing, as is more common, the discontinuous as a mode of technical approach to the continuous. This chapter will discuss this idea, and the relationships between continuity and discontinuity in, and between, mathematics and physics in terms of two new concepts: reality without realism (RWR), applicable in both mathematics and physics, and the relationships between them, and ideality without idealism (IWI), the version of the concept of RWR, applicable specifically to mathematics.
The article argues that-at least in certain interpretations, such as the one assumed in this article under the heading of "reality without realism"-the quantum-theoretical situation appears as follows: While-in terms of probabilistic predictions-connected to and connecting the information obtained in quantum phenomena, the mathematics of quantum theory (QM or QFT), which is continuous, does not represent and is discontinuous with both the emergence of quantum phenomena and the physics of these phenomena, phenomena that are physically discontinuous with each other as well. These phenomena, and thus this information, are described by classical physics. All actually available information (in the mathematical sense of information theory) is classical: it is composed of units, such as bits, that are-or are contained in-entities described by classical physics. On the other hand, classical physics cannot predict this information when it is created, as manifested in measuring instruments, in quantum experiments, while quantum theory can. In this epistemological sense, this information is quantum. The article designates the discontinuity between quantum theory and the emergence of quantum phenomena the "Heisenberg discontinuity", because it was introduced by W. Heisenberg along with QM, and the discontinuity between QM or QFT and the classical physics of quantum phenomena, the "Bohr discontinuity", because it was introduced as part of Bohr's interpretation of quantum phenomena and QM, under the assumption of Heisenberg discontinuity. Combining both discontinuities precludes QM or QFT from being connected to either physical reality, that ultimately responsible for quantum phenomena or that of these phenomena themselves, other than by means of probabilistic predictions concerning the information, classical in character, contained in quantum phenomena. The nature of quantum information is, in this view, defined by this situation. A major implication, discussed in the Conclusion, is the existence and arguably the necessity of two-classical and quantum-or with relativity, three and possibly more essentially different theories in fundamental physics.
The argument of this article is threefold. First, the article argues that from its rise in the sixteenth century to our own time, the advancement of modern physics as mathematical-experimental science has been defined by the invention of new mathematical structures. Second, the article argues that quantum theory, especially following quantum mechanics, gives this thesis a radically new meaning by virtue of the following two features: on the one hand, quantum phenomena are defined as essentially different from those found in all previous physics by purely physical features; and on the other, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are defined by purely mathematical postulates, which connect them to quantum phenomena strictly in terms of probabilities, without, as in all previous physics, representing or otherwise relating to how these phenomena physically come about. While these two features may appear discordant, if not inconsistent, I argue that they are in accord with each other, at least in certain interpretations (including the one adopted here), designated as “reality without realism”, RWR, interpretations. This argument also allows this article to offer a new perspective on a thorny problem of the relationships between continuity and discontinuity in quantum physics. In particular, rather than being concerned only with the discreteness and continuity of quantum objects or phenomena, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory relate their continuous mathematics to the irreducibly discrete quantum phenomena in terms of probabilistic predictions while, at least in RWR interpretations, precluding a representation or even conception of how these phenomena come about. This subject is rarely, if ever, discussed apart from previous work by the present author. It is, however, given a new dimension in this article which introduces, as one of its main contributions, a new principle: the mathematical complexity principle.
Abstract Quantum computing consists of algorithm and algorithm-output extraction. There are two major philosophical bubbles of quantum computing: the output-extraction model has low mathematical coverage closing to zero; the real mathematized goal of output-extraction, the existence of process solution, is hidden. Piercing the two bubbles, we reduce the mathematical structure of quantum computing to the two barest mathematical problems: to prove the existence of the program solution for given input and output state in algorithm; to prove the existence of process solution for given initial and final probability in output-extraction. The mathematical theme of algorithm-output extraction is two probability binaries (PA(λn), PB(λn) and (PB(λn), PBorn(λn)). For (PA(λn), PB(λn)), PA(λn) is the outcome probability obtained by the researchers by means of the eigenvalue-to-outcome transmission, PB(λn) is the probability within the state space based on the average of the results obtained from a finite discrete set of trials. The researchers assert PA(λn) = PB(λn), and assume that the mathematical basis for PA(λn) = PB(λn) is the existence of process solution satisfying PA(λn) = PB(λn). For (PB(λn), PBorn(λn), PBorn(λn) ≡|Ψ|2is the theoretical probability for single-bit output specified by quantum mechanical principles. The researchers assert PB(λn) = PBorn(λn), and assume that the mathematical basis for PB(λn) = PBorn(λn) is the so-called Law (QC) of Large Numbers. Thus, there are two major math-bugs of quantum computing: the existence of process solution satisfying PA(λn) = PB(λn) is unproven, the Law (QC) of Large Numbers guaranteeing PB(λn) = PBorn(λn) is unproven. For the first math-bug, we introduce a completely new proof method, nonconstructive proof based on path classification. We reformulate the problem of the existence of process solution as the existence problem of path classes. Physicists rarely have the opportunity to use non-constructive proofs, which are very effective for the desired existence problem. For our nonconstructive proof, it is not necessary to provide an example of a path and a mathematical algorithm that produces an example of the path. By means of non-constructive proof, we have shown the nonexistence of process solution satisfying PA(λn) = PB(λn). For the second math-bug, we show that the law (QC) of large numbers is not a corollary of any known law of large numbers in probability theory. For the qubit-output probability of quantum computing experiments there is no reliable basis of probability theory. We provide the three examples to prove that all known minimized quantum factorization experiments are invalid. We conclude that Quantum computing cannot survive the two major math-bugs. quantum computing theory is wrong because the mathematics of the output-extraction theory is wrong; the output-extraction theory, which assumes PA(λn) = PB(λn) = PBorn(λn), is wrong because PA(λn) = PB(λn) is wrong and PB(λn) = PBorn(λn) is unproven. Our study shows that two major math-bugs of quantum computing are very serious and unfixable, because they challenge mathematicians' understanding of the underlying mathematical rules.
The argument of this article is threefold. First, the article argues that, from its rise in the sixteenth century to our own time, the advancement of modern physics, as mathematical-experimental science, has been defined by the invention of new mathematical structures. Secondly, the article argues that quantum theory, specifically with quantum mechanics, gave this thesis a radically new meaning by virtue of the following two features: one the one hand, quantum phenomena themselves are defined by purely physical features, as essentially different from all previous physics; and on the other, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are defined by purely mathematical postulates, which connect them to quantum phenomena strictly in terms of probabilities, without representing or otherwise relating to how these phenomena physically come about. While these two features may appear discordant, if not inconsistent, I argue that they are in accord with each other, at least in certain interpretations (including the one adopted here), designated as “reality without realism,” RWR, interpretations. This argument allows this article to offer a new perspective on a thorny problem of the relationships between continuity and discontinuity in quantum physics. In particular, rather than being concern only with the discreteness and continuity of quantum objects or phenomena, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory relate their continuous mathematics to the irreducibly discrete quantum phenomena, in terms of probabilistic predictions, while, at least in RWR interpretations, precluding a representation or even conception of how these phenomena come about. This subject is rarely, if ever discussed, apart from previous work by the present author. It will, however, be given a new dimension in this article which introduces, as one of its main contributions, a new principle: the mathematical complexity principle.
A case study of quantum mechanics is investigated in the framework of the philosophical opposition “mathematical model – reality”. All classical science obeys the postulate about the fundamental difference of model and reality, and thus distinguishing epistemology from ontology fundamentally. The theorems about the absence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics imply for it to be “complete” (versus Einstein’s opinion). That consistent completeness (unlike arithmetic to set theory in the foundations of mathematics in Gödel’s opinion) can be interpreted furthermore as the coincidence of model and reality. The paper discusses the option and fact of that coincidence it its base: the fundamental postulate formulated by Niels Bohr about what quantum mechanics studies (unlike all classical science). Quantum mechanics involves and develops further both identification and disjunctive distinction of the global space of the apparatus and the local space of the investigated quantum entity as complementary to each other. This results into the analogical complementarity of model and reality in quantum mechanics. The apparatus turns out to be both absolutely “transparent” and identically coinciding simultaneously with the reflected quantum reality. Thus, the coincidence of model and reality is postulated as necessary condition for cognition in quantum mechanics by Bohr’s postulate and further, embodied in its formalism of the separable complex Hilbert space, in turn, implying the theorems of the absence of hidden variables (or the equivalent to them “conservation of energy conservation” in quantum mechanics). What the apparatus and measured entity exchange cannot be energy (for the different exponents of energy), but quantum information (as a certain, unambiguously determined wave function) therefore a generalized law of conservation, from which the conservation of energy conservation is a corollary. Particularly, the local and global space (rigorously justified in the Standard model) share the complementarity isomorphic to that of model and reality in the foundation of quantum mechanics. On that background, one can think of the troubles of “quantum gravity” as fundamental, direct corollaries from the postulates of quantum mechanics. Gravity can be defined only as a relation or by a pair of non-orthogonal separable complex Hilbert space attachable whether to two “parts” or to a whole and its parts. On the contrary, all the three fundamental interactions in the Standard model are “flat” and only “properties”: they need only a single separable complex Hilbert space to be defined.