by Dan Frey
Recommended Action: Due to the severity of the damage, the repeat nature of the offense, and the brazenly illegal nature of the crime, SSDB unanimously recommends expulsion, effective end of this semester.
LETTER—SENT MAY 13, 2014
Esteemed Members of the Student Disciplinary Board,
I am writing to you in regard to Adhvan Chaudry, or as I have come to know him, Adhi. Adhi was brought before the Disciplinary Board for his role in the prank that took place in the library last week, and he’s looking at potentially getting expelled from this University.
First, I want a chance to speak to Adhi’s character. I have firsthand knowledge of it due to the fact that I share a dorm room with him—and as you all may hopefully remember, there are few secrets between two guys living in a 10 by 20 foot room.
Adhi is a man of great moral principle. He is totally uncompromising in living by values he believes in. Everybody on our dorm floor recognizes that while he might not be the most outgoing guy around, he’s helpful to almost all of us. People even call him “IT” because he’s been so generous in troubleshooting technical problems for everyone.
Even more than that, Adhi is a great friend. The transition to college has been exciting for me; I honestly never wanted anything more than to come to Stanford. Adhi has helped me keep some perspective. He and I took philosophy together this semester for one of our core reqs, and he helped me study. I have ADHD and dyslexia, so it’s not easy for me academically here. Adhi has been a patient tutor, but also never helped me in any way that might possibly verge on cheating, because he is a man of integrity. I will have to find some new person to proofread this letter, because Adhi has always been the one to do it for me, and never asked anything in return.
Now, with regard to the prank Adhi is being disciplined for, I know it was a mistake. He never anticipated the level of damage it would cause. And I can say that with total certainty because I was part of it too. To be honest, the whole thing was my idea. I pretty much talked Adhi into it.
Now I’m aware that by disclosing this, I am setting myself up to be punished along with Adhi, and yes, even potentially be expelled with him from this school that I love so much. As the first member of my family to attend a university, I do not take that lightly, and I know that my mother (who passed away last year) would be immensely saddened to see me go.
But she would also be proud of me for doing what is right in this situation. And it is only fair that I be treated in the same way as Adhi. So I would like to leave you with this quote by Aristotle from the Nicomachean Ethics:
Between friends there is no need for justice, but people who are just still need the quality of friendship; and indeed friendliness is considered to be justice in the fullest sense.
I hope you will find it in your hearts to do what is just and allow me and Adhi to stay on at this beautiful University.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Boyce
EMAIL—MAY 22, 2014
From: Stanford Disciplinary Board
To: Adhvan Chaudry
Mr. Chaudry,
On behalf of the Stanford Disciplinary Board, I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the Hearing regarding your conduct on 5/4/14, with regard to the damages incurred to Wilkes Library.
The SDB has determined that you will be placed on Disciplinary Probation for a period of at least 1 year. That means that if you are involved in any other disciplinary incident, you will be expelled from the University.
Additionally, you will be assigned a Behavioral Counselor, whom you will meet with a minimum of sixteen times per semester. Your continued enrollment will be contingent on clearance from your Behavioral Counselor.
Thank you,
Mary Kleeman
Vice President of Student Affairs
EMAIL (DRAFT)
From: Adhvan Chaudry
To: Ben Boyce
B—
Just got word from the bigwigs…
No expulsion. Fuck yeah.
See ya in the fall after all.
I can’t really express how
The way that you stuck your neck out
Dude that was above and beyond, I
The foregoing draft was composed May 22, 2014, but never sent.
EMAIL—MAY 23, 2014
From: Tumblr Admin
To: Adhvan Chaudry
Welcome to the Tumblr community! Thank you for registering your new page: The Black Hole: Musings of an Anonymous Sci-Fi Superfan
As a member, you are expected to abide by all terms and conditions of our User Agreement. All material that you post to your new blog is represented to be your own intellectual property, and is subject to takedown in the event that it violates any of our community standards or guidelines surrounding IP.
Happy blogging!
TUMBLR BLOG POST—MAY 23, 2014
THE BLACK HOLE: MUSINGS OF AN ANONYMOUS SCI-FI SUPERFAN
“The Head and the Heart”
The greatest love story of our time is not between a man and a woman
or even between two people at all.
It is between a human and a Vulcan.
The brash, emotional Kirk, and the stoic, logical Spock.
Kirk has always been seen as the main character, of course.
The swashbuckling captain, the fearless leader.
But Spock is the more compelling character.
For Spock, it is initially painful to find himself on the Enterprise.
He doesn’t fit in.
His logic and intelligence make him anomalous. Even threatening.
Kirk recognizes his value but cannot understand him.
Yet over time, Kirk sees that Spock’s way of being is not a lack of feeling.
It is merely a necessary compartmentalization.
The Vulcan feels deeply…
but his feelings are not allowed to make his decisions.
They balance each other out.
They get each other’s backs and save each other’s lives, time and again.
Gene Roddenberry sought to make a show about ideas,
but it is the emotional bond between those two that has made it last.
When it comes to the films, Wrath of Khan is undeniably the best.
The martyrdom of Spock, when he dies for Kirk and crew, is touching.
But Search for Spock is the one that cuts the deepest.
When Kirk risks his captainship to rescue his first officer—
when we see that the love between them transcends rank and duty—
when even death cannot break their bond,
and the reborn Spock, cleansed of his memory,
nevertheless recognizes his old friend and says, “You are…Jim,”
even the most hardened Vulcan heart swells with joy.
EXCERPT FROM CONGRESSIONAL HEARING—DECEMBER 1, 2021
SEN. BOB HOLDER (R-AZ): I’m sure it felt very noble, to stick up for him like that. But the incident with the “library party” was brought up to help paint a picture, for the committee, of the nature of your relationship.
BOYCE: We were friends. Adhi would’ve done the same for me.
SEN. BOB HOLDER (R-AZ): That is certainly one way to view it. Another is that Mr. Chaudry carried out a publicly damaging use of technology, while you sheltered him from the consequences. That pattern of behavior seems to be very much in line with what has happened with your company.
BOYCE: Is there a question in there that I’m missing?
SEN. BOB HOLDER (R-AZ): I’m trying to illuminate the nature of your partnership—especially in light of the fact that you were both lawfully summo
ned before this committee, yet you are the only one who appeared.
BOYCE: I wish Adhi were here too. But he’s not. And I honestly don’t know why. I haven’t heard from him in a couple days.
SEN. BOB HOLDER (R-AZ): You’re saying, Mr. Chaudry has…what, disappeared? Should we be alarmed?
BOYCE: Look, he does stuff like this sometimes. He gets in his head, and…Adhi’s just not really made for the real world, you know? People like him thrive in a controlled environment, like school. By the time we graduated, I was eager to get out, but Adhi went straight into the grad program. And that’s where he started cooking up the ideas that led us here.
SEN. BOB HOLDER (R-AZ): So an antisocial introvert doing everything in his power to avoid the world…may have created a technology that will end up destroying it? Interesting. I have no further questions.
CHAPTER 2
GRADUATE STUDENT DISSERTATION
Submitted to University Faculty on September 7, 2020
THE FEASIBILITY OF QUANTUM-STATE DATA TRANSFER ACROSS TEMPORAL GAPS
Adhvan Chaudry
Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
Abstract
In this paper, I explore the feasibility of constructing a data-processing device which combines quantum-state computing with a relay mechanism that would enable the transmission of information 4th-dimensionally—that is, from a fixed “present” point in time, to an earlier “past” point in time.
Quantum computing is a field in its relative infancy, but the fundamental underlying principles are well understood. Quantum processors use quantum states as the medium for data storage, and employ an interference mechanism whereby those states are altered in such a way that they can serve as a data medium. Instead of the “1” and “0” of an electrical transistor, quantum spin states are the medium for data, and by altering those states, it is possible to perform calculations and informational transfer.
These well-understood foundations can be combined with two underlying principles of quantum mechanics, namely:
i. Quantum entanglement: Two quantum particles can be paired, such that the “spin” state of each particle (positive or negative) will always be opposite the “spin” state of the other.
ii. Bell’s theorem: Which postulates that when two quantum particles are entangled, changing the spin of one will instantaneously change the spin of the other, regardless of the distance between them.
The fact that the spin state changes instantaneously means that information is transmitted between the particles, across any distance, over a time interval of 0. This is in violation of Einsteinian General Relativity, defying our assumption of light speed as an absolute limit.
Consequently, information could be relayed to an earlier relative moment in time than the one in which the transmission was initiated.
By extending this relay process—i.e., by “pinging” data back and forth within a quantum-computational framework—it should be theoretically possible to build a stable structure which could transmit data to an earlier moment in time than the one from which a given operation was commenced.
In layman’s terms, this means that, in the given present, you could receive data directly from the future.
(Note: The body of the paper, detailing the theoretical workings of the proposed device, has herein been REDACTED.)
Conclusions
According to these explorations, the device in question is theoretically feasible. However, it faces existential obstacles in three major areas:
1) Scalability
In order to create a stable relay protocol that could transmit data across a sufficiently meaningful timeline, the processor would need to be created from a large-scale array, with fast enough read/write capability to monitor a vast number of quantum states (approx. 3.8 x 1022).
Current quantum-computing systems are several orders of magnitude removed from this threshold, which means the technology is out of reach until a significant breakthrough alters the QC landscape.
2) Commercial Viability
The development of the product would most likely need to take place at a commercial enterprise with the resources to invest in building and testing the requisite technology. However, it is unlikely that any commercially minded enterprise would undertake the expense, which may prove to be on the relative level of the space program.
3) Ethical Hazards
The construction of such a technology poses significant dilemmas in terms of the regulation of its usage, which would likely prohibit serious investigation of the technical feasibility.
EXCERPT FROM CONGRESSIONAL HEARING—DECEMBER 1, 2021
REP. WANDA MOONEY (D-AR): Mr. Boyce, I trust that you are familiar with the particulars of Mr. Chaudry’s graduate-school thesis paper that formed the basis for your technology. But I’ll be honest, it’s Greek to me.
BOYCE: No reason to feel embarrassed, ma’am, it’s pretty complicated.
REP. WANDA MOONEY (D-AR): I suspect that it’s equally confusing to more of the members of the committee than would be willing to admit it. But we have in the submitted evidence a series of slides as well, from a presentation that you often gave on the technology.
BOYCE: Right. That’s from a presentation that we gave investors.
REP. WANDA MOONEY (D-AR): Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of this hearing, I would prefer to use the remainder of my time to invite Mr. Boyce to explain the technology in his own words.
SEN. GREG WALDEN (D-OR): Are you prepared to make such a presentation, Mr. Boyce?
BOYCE: Uh, yes, sir. I usually present this with my co-founder, but…I could do my best, sure. Is somebody…? OK. Well, if you want to bring up the first slide, we can…there we go.
BOYCE: So, this first image, this is meant to just establish what we’re all used to. The computer we all know, the machine that changed the world. This little box of transistors that could perform the calculations needed to fly to the moon, and store more information than you could read in a lifetime, and play some pretty fun games. But the potential of what computers could do, it changed to a whole other level starting sometime in the ’90s. Next slide, please.
BOYCE: When the Internet came along, that was a different ball game. The underlying technology for the modem dates back to the ’70s, actually, but in terms of consumer usage, 1990 is really when the PC stopped being a device of isolation, and instead became a means of connection.
All of a sudden, your machine could link up and exchange data with another machine. That’s how you access your email, news articles, your Instagram account, most of your entertainment. One machine talking to another, like all the little lines on this grid. And that paradigm is powerful, no doubt. It gets more powerful every year.
But let’s be honest—we’re running out of things for the Internet to do. Because really, the paradigm hasn’t changed. Web 2.0, 3.0, whatever you call it, what’s new? From the AOL dial-up tone you grew up with to the broadband in your pocket today, the Internet has transformed our world…but it’s not changing anymore. Not in a fundamental way. Next slide, please.
BOYCE: So it’s time to think about the Internet in a new way. Because as much as it grows every year, you have to ask yourself, is it really evolving? This top line represents where we are today. You’ve got your device, linked to all these others. And in the future, the lower row—you have the same machine, the same connections. And how do we take the paradigm to a whole new level? Next slide…
BOYCE: This is how. Our technology connects a machine to its future self. Internet connections today let you access data from other machines in your same timeframe—that’s what the horizontal lines represent. But the vertical line here represents our technology, connecting the present to the future, for the f
irst time in human history. It’s a way to access data from the future.
And how do we do that? I mean, that’s what Adhi’s paper gets into, but the short answer is: through the magic of quantum computing. The technical specifics are a trade secret, of course. But the underlying principle is a weird little quirk of quantum entanglement, which enables data transfer faster than light speed. That means data can effectively be sent back in time. Or, from our vantage point…data from the future can be accessed today.
Imagine that. Your laptop, or eventually your phone, linking up with the future version of itself. You could see all the pictures you’re going to take in the next year. Read all the files on your future hard drive. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The true game-changer here comes in the fact that the future version of your computer is connected to the Internet. So…next slide.
BOYCE: That means, by extension, that our Prototype is connected to the Internet of the future. You can log on today, and read all the email you’re going to receive one year in the future. Watch the news, one year before it happens. Check out your Facebook page from next year, and see every status and photo you’re going to post. Check how much money is in your bank account, or track stock prices in real time. A year in advance. Talk about sound financial planning, right?
