Jamila Minnicks, author of Moonrise Over New Jessup (Algonquin Books, 2023), in “Ten Questions.”
Game of Thrones Daily

★
Misplaced Lens Cap

Love Begins
dirt enthusiast
Acquired Stardust
Today's Document
Cosmic Funnies
Sweet Seals For You, Always
Stranger Things
we're not kids anymore.
Monterey Bay Aquarium
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

titsay
i don't do bad sauce passes

@theartofmadeline
No title available

shark vs the universe
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
hello vonnie
seen from United States

seen from Philippines
seen from Brazil

seen from Jordan
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Bangladesh
seen from France

seen from T1

seen from Singapore

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Taiwan
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from Belarus
@writerchiclady
Jamila Minnicks, author of Moonrise Over New Jessup (Algonquin Books, 2023), in “Ten Questions.”
champion
All Black Everything Eco Tote Bag
All Black Everything Eco Tote Bag
Say goodbye to plastic, and bag your goodies in this organic cotton tote bag. There’s more than enough room for groceries, books, and anything in between. • 100% certified organic cotton 3/1 twill • Fabric weight: 8 oz/yd² (272 g/m²) • Dimensions: 16″ × 14 ½″ × 5″ (40.6 cm × 35.6 cm × 12.7 cm) • Weight limit: 30 lbs (13.6 kg) • 1″ (2.5 cm) wide dual straps, 24.5″ (62.2 cm) length • Open main…
View On WordPress
Weapon fairy no 2:
Erebid moth, sage, katana
IWURE - the Structure of Traditional Yorùbá Prayer, part 2: ORÍKÍ
ORÍKÍ literally means “chanting praise to the head” The “head” in this sense is the inner spirit of a person, lineage, Òrìṣà, Ancestor or anyone.
The ancient Yorùbá taught us that the head is the container for the spirit. Particularly that part of the spirit that works to express the traits that allows one to fulfill their destiny in the world.
Using IWURE as an appeal to a spirit, after calling or invoking them, we chant praise and homage to all the spirits, ancestors, people and forces that assist us in IJUBÀ/IBÀ.
Now we chant to celebrate the special qualities, characteristics and powers of the spirit we are appealing to in Oríkí.
IWURE
Invocation
Ijubà / Ibà - homage and praise
Oríkí - eulogizing the special nature, abilities and character of a spirit.
ORÍKÍ are sources of the disposition of the Òrìṣà and the other spiritual forces the indigenous Yorùbá work with. Maybe even before Ifá verses they are important to learn and collect.
Here is an example:
Oríkí Àjẹ́
Ìyá mi òṣòròngà
My mother òṣòròngà
Afín ‘júẹyẹ
The immaculate bird
A pa má wà á igún
She who slaughters without looking for Vulture to consume the carcass (because she eats everything, flesh bones, intestines, etc.)
Oníwọ̀wọ́ àdó
Owner of plenty of medicinal gourds
Ò ru’mọ l’óògùn dànù
She who renders charms and spells impotent
Ológbò dúdú òru
Black cat of the night
Olókìkí òru
The famous dweller of the night
A jẹ̀’dọ̀ tútù má bì
She who does not suffer nausea from eating raw liver
Obìnrin dúdú rẹ́gí rẹ́gí, èyí tí í lọ nígbà ọjà bá tú
The beautiful Black Woman who is always the last person to leave the market
Dà’ṣẹ d’èpè nù tí í gbé’ni mì bí kàlòkàlò
She who renders aṣẹ and curses impotent while she swallows people like a casino machine
Òjìji fìrí
Twinkling shadow
A fẹ́ gẹ́gẹ́ ní’ yẹ̀ẹ́
The light feathered bird
A ró igba aṣọ má ba‘lẹ̀
200 pieces of wrap-around cloth are never enough for her
Ẹlẹ́yin‘jú ẹgẹ́, ẹyẹ ní Mọrẹ́
The beautiful bird in Mọrẹ̀ (Mọrẹ̀ is in Ilé Ifẹ̀)
A-jẹ-apá-jẹ-orí, a j’ẹ̀dọ̀-j’ohùn, a ti inú òroòro jẹ̀’fun
She who eats the head via the arm; the liver via the voice box; the intestines via the gall bladder
Ò wẹ̀ nínú omi ṣàló ṣàló
She bathes [in blood] like a fish
Ọdẹ t’apó y’oró, àrọ̀nìmòjà t’àpò y’oògùn
Like a hunter, she draws poison from the charm bag; powerful medicine person who draws charms from her pocket
Ẹ̀yin ẹ̀bìtì ká’wọ́ s’ẹ́yìn ṣ’oro
Cold havoc wreckers
A bà ‘órí igi ìrókò má yẹ̀
She who perches comfortably on the ìrókó tree
Òró gogoro l’óko olóko
The fearsome mystic positions herself conspicuously on someone’s farm
Oníbàntẹ́ pèlèjà tí í bá ni jà láì f’ọwọ́ kan ni
The fighter who fights one invisibly
Ológbò dúdú etí ọjà
Black cat on the edge of the marketplace
Èse, a b’ìrù gìlọ̀ gìlọ̀
The cat with a long tail
Ají ká ìgboro, a rìn ká ìgboro
The town prowler
Òjí ní kùtù f’omi ìgboro bọ́’ jú
She who starts prowling the streets from early morning
Tí a bá pe’rí akọi, àá fi idà na lẹ̀
It is with great awe that the brave is summoned
Ìbà tó tó tó
My humble respect.
From Fundamentals of the Yoruba Religion (Orisa Worship) 2002
by Chief FAMA
Are Quasiparticles "real"? Part I
Previously we discussed emergence and its relation to symmetry breaking - however, emergence is such a rich feature of nature that it is worth further discussion, in particular its relation to quasi-particles. As Laughlin puts it: "One of the things emergence can do is create new particles" (as cited in [1]). Quasiparticles appear in many topics of condensed matter theory, e.g. in BCS Theory of superconductivity, in the integer quantum hall effect, or in topological insulators. Their name, quasi-particle, seems to indicate that they lack "reality" - however, as we will see, it is not that simple to determine their ontological status.
First, what are quasiparticles?
Before we can dive into the discussion of the quasi-particle's ontological status, it is required that we all are on the same page - hence, we will briefly review what quasiparticles are and for this purpose it will be helpful to regard a specific example: the Su-Schrieffer-Heger Model (SSH) [2]. The SSH model is a paradigmatic example of topological insulators - however necessary to discuss, the topology will not be the primary focus here.
The SSH-Model
The model describes a one dimensional chain on which electrons can hop between the sites. The hopping amplitudes are staggered and therefore one can regard fully dimerized cases as we will see later. The system consists of N unit cells with two sites each. Since one ignores interactions between the electrons, it is reasonable to describe it via an single particle Hamiltonian:
Here, v and w denote the (generally different) hopping amplitudes. Hence, v is the hopping amplitude within the unit cells and w the amplitude between two neighbouring cells. Moreover, A and B denote the respective sublattices.
Let's have a look on two special cases, the fully dimerized cases in which we have either w=0, v=1 or w=1, v=1. The former defines a trivial phase of the system, while the latter describes a so called topological phase.
In the above trivial case, (v=1, w=0) the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are simple singlet states within the unit cells:
For the topological case (v=0, w=1) things become more subtle, the states of the bulk look similar as in the trivial case:
However, the sites at the edges (m=1 on sublattice A, m=N on sublattice B) are isolated from the bulk:
Therefore these sites give rise to zero energy states, i.e. they are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian with zero energy:
Note, that there is a 4-fold degeneracy of the edge configurations: Since they are fermions, each site can only be occupied or not occupied - this leads to four states with equal energy (=zero), both occupied, both empty and two possibilities of having one site occupied and one empty.
These edge states belong to the simplest edge states that can appear in a topological insulator. In higher dimensions, edge states can also appear in a more "particle-like" form as e.g. in time reversal symmetric two dimensional topological insulators, where the edge states have well-defined momentum and travel along the edge. Note that these zero energy states do only appear because of the "shape" of the whole system! Without the given chain or lattice structure, they would not be present - this is a crucial point for the remaining discussion of their ontological status.
---
References:
[1] Guay, Sartenaer (2018). Emergent Quasiparticles. Or How to Get a Rich Physics from a Sober Metaphysics. Individuation, Process and Scientific Practices. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 214-235
[2] Asbóth, Orószlany, Pályi (2015). A Short Course on Topological Insulators: Band-structure topology and edge states in one and two dimensions. arXiv:1509.02295
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/margaretkingsbury/science-fiction-and-fantasy-novels-by-trans-and
Celebrate Pride Month by reading these fantasy and science fiction novels by trans and nonbinary authors.
CA Conrad, author of AMANDA PARADISE: Resurrect Extinct Vibration (Wave Books, 2021), in “Ten Questions.”
Quantum Mechanics Itself as Emergent 'Phenomenon'?
Recently, we've been talking about emergence - more explicitly about emergent phenomena in many body systems. But what if the concept of emergence would not only apply 'within' quantum mechanics but also 'outside' the theory? What if quantum mechanics itself is an emergent theory from a classical-type underlying 'reality'? This is exactly the approach of an interpretation of quantum mechanics, called emergent quantum mechanics (EmQM).
Where is EmQM located in the 'zoo' of interpretations?
The 'zoo' of interpretations and alternative theories of quantum mechanics can be classified by their answers to the violation of Bell's inequalities. Bell's Theorem is a theory-independent result and therefore must hold for any possible approach which reproduces the results of standard quantum mechanics. Roughly speaking, the theorem's consequences are that one either has to give up the traditional understanding of realism, or the idea of locality. E.g. Rovelli's approach and QBism belong to the camp which gives up traditional realism and adheres to locality, whereas Bohmian Mechanics sticks to realism and therefore embraces nonlocality. In general, hidden variable theories belong to this 'realist' camp.
EmQM suspects a locally deterministic theory from which standard quantum mechanics emerges. Walleczek and Groessing (p. 2, [1]) suppose that instead of "absolute quantum randomness" there might be "quantum interconnectedness" - indicating the presence of some kind of nonlocality, e.g. nonlocal causality. Hence, this approach seems to belong to the above called 'realist' camp, in which a traditional understanding of realism is embraced and the price to pay is nonlocality, more neatly called "quantum interconnectedness".
Why EmQM?
Walleczek and Groessing [1] argue that a metaphysical fundament is needed in order to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. Since general relativity is strictly deterministic and standard quantum mechanics inherently indeterministic, the metaphysical fundament of each theory starkly opposes each other such that the lack of unification seems inevitable. However, setting a microscopically causal fundament for both branches of physics, as well as the focus onto emergent phenomena, might yield a solution. For instance, the theory of quantum gravity already relies on the idea of emergent spacetime - together with EmQM it may be possible to lay a metaphysical framework of 'all physics'. Nevertheless it might be questionable, in my view, how this is supposed to work with an approach as EmQM in which nonlocality is a cornerstone, i.e. possibly causing trouble with causality as we know it from relativity.
EmQM and Bohmian Mechanics
Since EmQm and Bohmian Mechanics (BM) belong to the same, 'realist' camp, both seem to be related. Both claim to describe the underlying 'reality' beneath standard quantum mechanics. Both approaches share the belief that standard textbook quantum mechanics does not have descriptive character regarding the nature of reality, even though the theory is empirically successful. Then, standard quantum mechanics is regarded as an 'effective' theory.
However, two approaches can be well compared by regarding how they attempt to reproduce standard quantum mechanics. One main aspect in this respect is the appearance of randomness. Both approaches claim to be fundamentally deterministic and therefore have to explain why we experience the randomness of standard quantum mechanics in our laboratories. Bohmians do this by introducing so called "absolute uncertainty" [3], which is a consequence of the quantum equilibrium hypothesis. Effectively, this means that a universe in which Bohmian Mechanics governs the dynamics, it is impossible to gain knowledge about the configuration of a system beyond the probability distribution determined by the wave function ρ=|ψ|^2. Hence, the complete configuration of point particles, their positions and velocities do exist, but there is no experimental access to it. This limited knowledge is supposed to be the source of randomness and uncertainty that we encounter in standard quantum mechanics:
"This absolute uncertainty is in precise agreement with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But while Heisenberg used uncertainty to argue for the meaninglessness of particle trajectories, we find that, with Bohmian mechanics, absolute uncertainty arises as a necessity, emerging as a remarkably clean and simple consequence of the existence of trajectories." (p.864 [3])
Instead of making use of a (more or less ad-hoc) hypothesis, the appearance of randomness in EmQM seems a bit more natural: Only because the underlying dynamics is supposed to be deterministic, this does not imply pre-determination. This is something one can already observe in purely classical systems: The more complex a system is, the more uncertain is the outcome (often referred as "deterministic chaos"). A minor change in the boundary conditions can cause a huge change in the result. Thus, the central point is emergence:
"Critical in this context is that emergent phenomena are subject to unpredictability as a consequence of the intrinsically self-referential nature of the governing dynamics [...]." (p.5 [1])
In comparison, BM formulates its theory in a rather rigid manner. It formulates postulates from which the theory can be deduced. The issue with this is that these postulates have kind of an ad-hoc character. In my view, EmQM circumvents these problems by being less strict/definite. This approach does not seem to have a fixed formalism yet (at least I haven't found analyses on the same level of rigor as there are for BM), while the research seems to be more focused on exploring how emergence can enter the picture - as e.g. 't Hooft does in [2], where he describes explicit examples of possibly emergent symmetries. (Disclaimer: maybe my impression is incorrect, since I have only superficial knowledge about EmQM.)
Regardless of this point, both approaches seem to be interconnected in the end. Walleczek and Groessing (p.2 [1]) claim that a future EmQM would include BM. Hence, in my view, it might be possible that EmQM might support BM in the sense that it lifts the necessity of possibly ad-hoc appearing postulates as formulated in BM. Thus, any theory of quantum mechanics (orthodox or unorthodox) might not only yield emergent phenomena within the theory but quantum mechanics might unravel itsel as an emergent 'phenomenon'.
---
References:
[1] Walleczek, Groessing, Is the World Local or Nonlocal? Towards an Emergent Quantum Mechanics in the 21st Century, arXiv:1603.02862, 2016
[2] 't Hooft, Emergent Quantum Mechanics and Emergent Symmetries, arXiv:0707.4568, 2007
[3] Dürr, Goldstein, Zanghí, Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty. J Stat Phys 67, 843–907 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049004
Dreamweaver
Special Palestinian Issue of FIYAH: TOC and Cover Announcement
As part of FIYAH’s continued solidarity with the people of Palestine, we are proud to present the cover and table of contents for FIYAH’s Special Issue of Palestinian Speculative Fiction. The curation was put together and edited by Nadia Shammas and Summer Farah, with cover art by Leila Abdelraziq. Features include prose: The Night Journey – a short story by Samah Fadil an exercise in public…
View On WordPress
“The Sweetest Song” by Taylor Jenae
Michael Kleber-Diggs in “5 over 50: 2021”
Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution (DIQKD) - a Provider of Secure Communication? Part I
The flourishing field of quantum cryptography might have its roots in the 1980s, approximately when the BB84 protocol was published. While this protocol makes use of quantum 'peculiarities' and provides a way of distributing secret keys between two parties, Alice and Bob; it has been possible to prove its security. In particular the latter point is a decisive advancement in comparison to classical cryptography such as commonly used RSA encryption: the security of classical cryptography is most often based on our trust that technological advancements are a slow process. If there was a large and rapid leap forward in terms of computational power, encryption methods that can be broken via prime factoring, e.g. RSA, would lose their security instantly. Hence, quantum key distribution (QKD) is a promising attempt to provide secure communication: its security is not based on 'naive' confidence in slowness of technological advances, instead it is based on fundamental laws of nature. Quantum mechanics itself provides ways to keep Alice and Bob safe from an eavesdropper, Eve.
Limits of provable security
However, the provable security of QKD only works in theory. As usual the devil lies in the details, hence in the assumptions of such proofs: usually, they do not take into account that the practical implementation of QKD protocols relies on real, flawed devices. Unfortunately, this crucially undermines the practical security of QKD in real life applications. Even commercial QKD systems have been hacked in the past [1]. Research groups such as Vadim Makarov’s Quantum Hacking Lab focus on work of this kind. Thus, the dream of secure communication via quantum mechanics seems to be in danger. The possibility of hacking QKD motivates to develop specific countermeasures and/or new protocols that cannot fall prey to eavesdroppers. Among these new developments one can find the attempt of Device-Independent QKD (DIQKD), that tries to tackle security issues of quantum cryptography in a structural manner.
Key idea of DIQKD protocols
Facing the issue of imperfect devices, one can imagine that the manufacturer of the devices might be identified as Eve with malicious intentions. To be less dramatic and paranoid, the manufacturer might be just careless such that the devices do not work properly, hence causing a lack of security during the key distribution. However, given the possible imperfect/malicious devices makes it necessary to implement some kind of 'self-testing' into the protocol. The key idea of DIQKD protocols is to make use of Bell inequalities, such that the protocol can be aborted if the necessary degree of 'quantumness' is not achieved in a run of the protocol. Creating keys this way requires playing games such as the following Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt game (CHSH-game) [2]:
The encircled plus denotes binary addition (XOR) and the "·" is basically equivalent to a logical AND. The probability (A derivation of these probabilities can be found e.g. in these lecture notes: [3]) of the winning condition of the last line is 75% for a classical device, i.e. if there is no entanglement. Whereas under the usage of maximally entangled states (e.g. the Φ^+ Bell state) the maximal winning probability can be 86%. As a result, Alice and Bob do not need to trust the devices, they can test their reliability by themselfes via checking the correlations using their public channel. Hence, DIQKD protocols do not rely on specifying the internal functionality of the devices. The fact that this self-testing is reliable is based on monogamy of entanglement - a feature of quantum entanglement that ensures that a bipartite state cannot share any of its entanglement with a third system, i.e. in our case Eve. Thus, since Bob and Alice can test whether there is a maximally entangled state shared between both of them, they can be simultaneously sure that Eve cannot obtain information about their shared state.
DIQKD protocols work like the following in principle (see for a similar example e.g. Box 1 in [2]): Both, Alice and Bob possess a device in each of their isolated laboratories such that they can play the CHSH-game. The index i denotes the round in the interval [1,n]. For every round they perform the subsequent steps:
Both parties choose their setting x_i, y_i randomly.
They actually input the settings and record their outputs a_i, b_i.
They share the inputs and outputs of a sufficiently small subset of rounds such that they can test the "quantumness" and abort the process in case the winning probability is too low.
If the "quantumness" is satisfying, they do the usual QKD post processing (as in the BB84 protocol) with the bits of the remaining rounds, i.e. error correction, key sifting, privacy amplification and finally, they successfully distributed a key.
Is such a distributed key necessarily safe in practice? The security of protocols of this kind has been proven mathematically as for the BB84 protocol, but might it be reasonable to expect backdoors that arise once such protocols will be actually practically implemented? We will discuss this question in an upcoming part.
---
[1] Lars Lydersen et al. “Hacking commercial quantum cryptography systems by tailored bright illumination”. In: Nature Photonics 4.10 (Oct. 2010), pp. 686–689. doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2010.214. arXiv: 1008.4593 [quant-ph].
[2] Rotem Arnon-Friedman et al. “Practical device-independent quantum cryptography via entropy accumulation”. In: Nature Communications 9.1 (Jan. 2018). doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02307-4. url: https:doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02307-4.
[3] Ihttp://markwilde.com/teaching/2015-fall-qit/lectures/lecture-06.pd
“Ebonee Too” by FIYIN KOKO
Gank Pansuay