Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Researchers show that an iron bar is capable of decision-making

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Researchers show that an iron bar is capable of decision-making

#31

Post by j42 »

benjohnson wrote: post #9

I hope someone can provide a deeper indication to what is going on - on first reading it looks like the iron bar is simply recording past events. The observer would be the one who decides to use this information to extrapolate into future events - the iron bar just sitting there.

It comes across as a brilliantly absurd joke at first, though I suspect that to be a case of poor translation and an even poorer choice of analogy.

I see this pertaining to quantum physics/computing. I think it's trying to posit: "fluctuations in physically-coupled systems (tug-of-war dynamics) can be used to reliably and efficiently infer state/logic when the initial, discrete distribution is known."

To break that down a bit...

- They describe tug-of-war dynamics as a sort of "rigid physical coupling," and briefly allude to practical applications, stating that they've implemented this dynamic in "... quantum dots, single photons and atomic switches."

- They are using a poor example as the conceptual nature of the 'slot machines' and iron bar seems irrelevant -- it's just an analogy for a "measurable state" represented in a physically-coupled construct.

As for why it's relevant, it seems to be the cornerstone of an alternate paradigm to computing that when scaled down (to nanotechnology and quantum particles) can allow physical systems to represent logic and state without electrical transistors. That would appear to have application in every field from medicine to defense (smart materials, targeted drug delivery, et. al).

The breakthrough has 0 to do with the lovely "iron bar," and instead seems to be in their method of physical coupling, allowing them to represent binary switches reliably in the physical realm at quantum scale.

Then again...

"Other than this fluctuation, we added another fluctuation to our model. The important point is ... fluctuations."

http://i.imgur.com/bHFwiof.jpg

Re: Researchers show that an iron bar is capable of decision-making

#33

Post by subliminalzen »

bhz wrote: post #19
DannoHung wrote: post #13

It's a weird analogy, but it makes sense in the context of the paper's authors' statement: > "The most important implication that we wish to claim is that the proposed scheme will provide a new perspective for understanding the information-processing principles of certain lower forms of life," Kim, from the International Center for Materials Nanoarchitectonics' National Institute for Materials Science in Tsukuba, Iba…

Iron Bar for President! I think it's a very weird analogy, and a terrible title for an article on phys.org.

I heard that on Facebook, more people "liked" a pickle than the band Nickleback. So maybe an iron bar for President isn't so far fetched...

Re: Researchers show that an iron bar is capable of decision-making

#34

Post by ombudsperson »

Analog computing by ascribing meaning to motion, and cognizant of directions (in this case); while the bar may be 'just sitting there', an embedded device within, imbued with a human way ('intelligence') of 'reasoning' about lateral movements would be able to support decision making. Take another analogous case of a twig moving in a brook: the twig doesn't 'need to know' the parameters of water flow in a brook as humans do, to determine which way to turn and tumble as it meanders through the water; it need not care about 'calculations' of water pressure, the topology of the ground beneath, obstructions in its path, spin induced by local eddy currents and what not to merrily cruise along; from a human perspective, an immense amount of computation (should) be involved. Yet, as the water rolls along, equations of continuity needn't be solved, no moments need be calculated, as pure physical properties and forces do the trick. Lot to learn from analog computing: digital computing is after all, a subset of it at the electronic level, could one say? :-)

Re: Researchers show that an iron bar is capable of decision-making

#35

Post by nkrisc »

gpvos wrote: post #27
nkrisc wrote: post #24

Reading the article, it appears to me the researchers are talking about harnessing physical fluctuations in a process to achieve an outcome similar to some sort of computational modeling of the same process. I don't think they're literally saying the iron bar is making a decision, and I'm a little surprised that would have flown over the heads of most of the readers here.

Yeah, but that is what the title says (that the iron bar is making a decision). It seems like the title is completely out of whack with the contents of the article.

I totally agree. However I would hope most people can see past a poorly worded title.

Re: Researchers show that an iron bar is capable of decision-making

#36

Post by jerf »

zeidrich wrote: post #22
jerf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting, but I'm at a loss as to what's even remotely new about it. Unless the computer that you typed this on is very, very different from mine that I'm typing this on, there isn't any living components in it, yet it is "computing" and "deciding" quite a bit. There's a ton of natural processes that incorporate some feedback element and can be said without much stretching to be doing a computation. We're bey…

Science is composition. We build a bit, we test, if it's solid, we build a bit more. We don't need to come up with hypothetical black hole computers. The paper and the concept of TOW dynamics has been referenced in http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13253 which shares one of the authors and is interesting in a different way. I get tired of people saying things that aren't exciting enough shouldn't be published. It's…

Read my post more carefully before leaping to conclusions, please. You appear to have been blinded by some words and failed to read through them properly. You're trying to lecture me about how science works, when in fact you're the one who is being quite wrong about it. Especially re-read my last sentence, carefully.
Post reply on HN