Quantum Dice

Nowadays all chance games, e.g. backgammon, risk, card games, etc. rely on the physics of Chaos theory. I suggest to make them depend on Quantum theory and thus make them truly chance games. In order to understand this project some background is in order.

Chaos theory states that given a small change in initial conditions, the amount of change in later times grows exponential, i.e. the changes later are huge. The so-called "butterfly effect"  states (wrongly, I think) that a butterfly moving its wing in Africa can cause a hurricane in America. My interpretation of Chaos theory (which I learned since I was 16 years old) is somewhat different. The "problem" in Chaos theory is not in random or even small effects; the problem is lack of knowledge of them. Chaos theory has completely no randomness in it; it is based on Newtonian deterministic dynamics. Hence, as Newton stated, if you know all the initial conditions, you can predict the future completely. Chaos theory states that if you don't know all the initial conditions, i.e. some conditions are simply unknown or immeasurable, then chaotic systems will be unpredictable as time progresses. The uncertainty in prediction is due to lack of knowledge and not true randomness.

How all of this relates to chance games? Rolling the dice means that you do not know all the initial conditions, e.g. the exact force expended, the friction with the air and the table, the exact shape and mass-distribution of the dice, etc. Hence, each throw has some different initial conditions and hence you cannot predict its future. A counter-example: weighted-dice have known important initial condition of asymmetric mass-distribution, such that no matter the other initial conditions, the toss is always the same. Weighted dice show how knowing, or better yet determining, the initial conditions can result in a predictable future in an otherwise chaotic system. Shuffling of cards prior to distribution follows the same logic.

So why is quantum physics so different? Quantum physics has shown that (to the best of our scientific knowledge) there is an inherent randomness in the world, i.e. there are some systems that you cannot, even if you know everything (all the initial conditions), predict their future. Once you make your measurement of the future, the result is completely and utterly random. I will not go in detail how this is possible or how that was proven, but you can look at my Quantum Computer Games to get the gist of it. However, this is a known scientific fact. A question arises: what are those quantum systems that behave in such a random way? The answer is small (really small) systems, such as a single atom, a single electron or such (although larger systems have been shown to behave in a quantum manner, the record being a virus!).

The project thus suggests to use a quantum system as the chance element in chance games. This is obviously not easy since quantum systems are hard to manufacture and maintain. The most formidable challenge is to isolate the system from the environment. However, I can envision a small portable product whose sole purpose is to generate a 0 or a 1, randomly, based on a quantum system. Suggestions for such a system are: single-photon emitters, which are now commonplace in research laboratories; solid-state systems, which are becoming the most promising avenue to the coveted quantum computers; quantum-dot systems, which can hold a single electron. Such a system can easily be transferred to a dice (1-6) or distribution of cards, using standard (classical) hardware. Hence, the results of such a product, the quantum die, will be truly random and give a little tweak to the word "chance" in chance games.

Rewarding derivatives

In modern child-in-the-center world, there is a fear to reward success, so as to not offend those children that never win in contests. "Everybody wins" is proclaimed to induce equality. However, it can also induce stagnation and remove the desire to improve.  There is merit in the problem that children who are unlucky to be surrounded by more capable children indeed never win, which is very bad for their self-esteem.

I propose a new reward system for competitions that include a numerical grade, e.g. sports events of individuals such as running, jumping, etc. Up until now, the first place went to the person with the best grade, the second place to the one with the second grade and third to the third. I suggest a new system: the first place goes to the one with the best grade, as before, but the second place goes to the one with the best improvement in his grade, and the third place is chosen at random from the other contestants. For example, if several children compete in a running contest, each child should have his own personal record (by record I mean really recorded somewhere, for example from previous contests). The first place goes to the one that arrived first, but the second place goes to the child that improved his personal record the most. The third place goes to another child, chosen randomly.

This system has several advantages:

1.       Even if there is a single most skilled child, the second and third places can go to other children.
2.       It promotes the will to simply improve, so even if one has a lousy score, if he improves by a lot, he wins.
3.       One can never be second place for a long time, since by definition improvements always become smaller and smaller. Hence, many children will win second place.
4.       The third place teaches children that not everything in life is deterministic, and there is always a measure of luck.

As for the third place, someone once asked me: Is life more similar to backgammon or chess? While I wish it was more like chess, life has taught me that backgammon is probably a more appropriate metaphor. Children should be taught that winning is composed of three things: being the best, improving the most and sheer luck!

Printing flowers

Today, one can print objects in 3D in various materials, from plastic to rubber. A new emerging field is that of biological 3D printing. The main idea is to print specific tailor-made organs from the cells of a specific patients. This can reduce the implanting complications, as well as optimize the properties of the implanted organ, such as shape and size. However, for some reason, 3D biological printing has focused on humans. The reason is obvious since it can save lives and have a huge market.

I want to suggest a new market, e.g. printing flowers. If there is such a technology to print human organs, I believe that it can be simpler to print plants and flowers. Think of printing a flower with a unique shape and color; designing your own plant and shrubbery; choosing whatever you want from the fauna world.

The market for this is, I believe, quite large. In the entertainment market, consider a flower with the petals spelling your girlfriend's name or a single custom-made flower that has your fiancé's unique combination of colors.

In the biological market, this can induce a unique combination of traits in a single organism, instead of genetic recombination, one can print out a single plant from several plant's cell types, thus for a mind-boggling example, print a delicate plant that produces important proteins surrounded by a tough bark from an oak tree.

In these 3D printing days, imagination is the limit; why confine it to humans?

introduction

This is my very first blog post, so I apologize for not conforming to "standard" blogging.
I'm Goren Gordon and I'm the eternal researcher. I've spent my last 18 years studying in universities and it's time to give something back.

The Research Fountain's purpose is to publish research ideas and projects that I cannot do myself, yet I believe they are doable and worthy. I have too many of those to keep in my e-drawer, so I decided to share them with the world, in the hope that someone with time, energy, money or all of the above will make something of them. My goal is to post an idea a week, on average, but we'll see how I progress with this goal.

I claim no ownership on these ideas and anyone can feel free to pursue them. I would appreciate if someone actually does something with them, to get some feedback. Also, if someone has any knowledge that the idea was already done, I'd appreciate a link.

One last remark, so you can take the ideas I write seriously: I have a triple-double, i.e. two undergraduates in Medicine and Physics; two masters in Business and Physics; and two PhDs in Neuroscience and Physics. I wrote over 40 research papers, five patents and one app. All can be found on my website: http://gorengordon.com .

So let's start...