"It is as though the qubit contains hidden information that we can manipulate but not access directly."

From this article: Rules for a complex quantum world. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005C8BF-1B88-1D9B-815A809EC5880000&pageNumber=3&catID=2)

Also:

"One can encode an infinite amount of classical information in a single qubit"

How is that not proof that extra spatial dimensions must reallyexist? It matches the profile perfectly doesnt' it?

wesmorris,
Thanks for very good link. I really enjoyed this article. What is amazing, how fast this area is developing due to ... commercial needs! But I still am not sure that the language and understanding of nature of all these processes is adequate to the phenomenon. Thanks again…

"One can encode an infinite amount of classical information in a single qubit"

Not having read the article yet, it seems to me that if you could store an infinite amount of information, then wouldn't this refer to an infinite number of dimesions? Or an infinitely large dimension?

I think it was hypothetical. As in "hypothetically" you could put an infinite amount of information on a qubit. Surely there would be some spatial limit. In classical space-time cartesian coordinates, what is the limit of x?

From this article: Rules for a complex quantum world. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005C8BF-1B88-1D9B-815A809EC5880000&pageNumber=3&catID=2)

Also:

How is that not proof that extra spatial dimensions must reallyexist? It matches the profile perfectly doesnt' it?

I too have not read the entire article yet but just based on the first page I have the following impressions.

The arguement about superpositions between 0 and 1 bits is really nothing more than an analog view rather than a digital view. Further that at the quantum level should there be imposed on physical reality a minimum quantum length the arguement that QM means an infinite amount of information can be stored in a cubit is deceptive in that such cubit would necessarliy require it to be of infinite size due to the minimal dimension of a superposition.

wesmorris,
Thanks for very good link. I really enjoyed this article.

You're welcome. Me too. I'm impressed with the writing skill required to write that thing such that a layman can actually make some sense of it all.

What is amazing, how fast this area is developing due to ... commercial needs!

Cool huh? Nature in action (since capitalism is analagous to evolution and regardless of social construct, fundamentally drives economics)

But I still am not sure that the language and understanding of nature of all these processes is adequate to the phenomenon.

Hehe.. of course not! This cannot be until there is a verified grand unified theory.

Thanks again…

No problem, but you didn't address the thread topic... would you mind? Any thoughts on it, or is that what you're saying about lacking language? Seems to me that this directly implies extra dimensions. Proof even. If not, how could you store that information on there? Why then couldn't you get it back?

I too have not read the entire article yet but just based on the first page I have the following impressions.

The arguement about superpositions between 0 and 1 bits is really nothing more than an analog view rather than a digital view.

You should read the entire article then. An infinite amount of information regarding the longitude and lattitude of the probability of the qubit's measurement can be encoded on the qubit. When it is measured however, the probabilistic stated collapses to a definite output (1 or 0).

Further that at the quantum level should there be inposed on physical reality a minimum quantum length the arguement that QM means an infinite amount of information can be stored in a cubit is deceptive in that such cubit would necessarliy require it to be of infinite size due to the minimal dimension of a superposition.

*sigh*

How about reading it and understanding it before deciding what's deceptive?

You should read the entire article then. An infinite amount of information regarding the longitude and lattitude of the probability of the qubit's measurement can be encoded on the qubit. When it is measured however, the probabilistic stated collapses to a definite output (1 or 0).

*sigh*

How about reading it and understanding it before deciding what's deceptive?

Without becoming entwined in the maze at this point, encoding an infinite amount of longitude and latitude code would still have a QM limit on dimension and hence would require a infinite space to store such infinite code.

*Sigh*

Are you paying attention? That infinite information can be stored on a qubit is stated in the article.

"One can encode an infinite amount of classical information in a single qubit"

That it seems it should require more space than that occupied by the qubit is basically my point in hypothesizing evidence of at least one extra spatial dimension. The information has to be stored somewhere. To me, the qubit seems like a representative of the boundary between our dimensionality and at least one extra spatial dimension.

Note that the result is a point or lack thereof, yet an infinite line's worth of information can be stored upon it. This is like being constrained to looking at the line from one end, but being able to cram as much information onto it as you want through that point.

I read the article but fail to see the magic. Why is this different than just saying there's an infinite number of decimals between 0 and 1.

Are you paying attention? That infinite information can be stored on a qubit is stated in the article.

"One can encode an infinite amount of classical information in a single qubit"

That it seems it should require more space than that occupied by the qubit is basically my point in hypothesizing evidence of at least one extra spatial dimension. The information has to be stored somewhere. To me, the qubit seems like a representative of the boundary between our dimensionality and at least one extra spatial dimension.

Note that the result is a point or lack thereof, yet an infinite line's worth of information can be stored upon it. This is like being constrained to looking at the line from one end, but being able to cram as much information onto it as you want through that point.

Not knocking your excitment over this but I find this just as much unsupported hyperbola as much of the alternative concepts which you routinely ridicule. In this case you want to believe so it seems ok to taut it as fact.

I read the article but fail to see the magic. Why is this different than just saying there's an infinite number of decimals between 0 and 1.

It isn't. But the problem that seems to be being overlooked is the minimum planck length. It is finite and an infinite number of finite elements requires and infinite volume or surface to accomadate, even adding an infinite number of dimensions.

Infinite means infinite and a finite planck length does not allow an infinite storage.l

I read the article but fail to see the magic. Why is this different than just saying there's an infinite number of decimals between 0 and 1.

It's about information storage. Saying that there is an infinite number of numbers between zero and one is quite different than having a place to record them.

In geometry,there are an infinite number of points on a sphere,or a plane or a line. I think we all are having a misconception here. Stating that an infinite amount of information can be encoded in a qbit, using the latitude/longitude analogy, is the same as saying that I can pick one of the infinity of points on any sphere. The article does not state that an infinite amount of information can be stored on one qbit, but that one qbit can encode and infinity of possible states, between one and zero. It is when entangled groups of qbits (read the whole article) act together that the infinity of possible states yields the possibility of performing some amazing calculations.

In geometry,there are an infinite number of points on a sphere,or a plane or a line.

Of course.

I think we all are having a misconception here.

It's possible.

Stating that an infinite amount of information can be encoded in a qbit, using the latitude/longitude analogy, is the same as saying that I can pick one of the infinity of points on any sphere.

I had a different take on it. I don't think that's what he was saying. He's saying you can encode it on a single qubit: "One can encode an infinite amount of classical information in a single qubit" That's different that just saying you can pick any point on it. That's saying you can store the information on it. Note: "It is as though the qubit contains hidden information that we can manipulate but not access directly."

The article does not state that an infinite amount of information can be stored on one qbit, but that one qbit can encode and infinity of possible states, between one and zero.

How is encoding not storing? If I encode information onto something, I've stored it there.

It is when entangled groups of qbits (read the whole article) act together that the infinity of possible states yields the possibility of performing some amazing calculations.

Agreed.

I have a bit that can have any of an infinite set of values between 1 and 0 as opposed to a classical bit that can have only two. Each qbit can therefore encode an infinite range of states. Think of the qbit as a pointer to an address (for all you code folks out there). The address range is infinite, but each qbit can only point to one particular address out of the superposition of infinite addresses. Yes, if the qbit encodes for some probability state between 1 and 0, say .78654334... then you could say the qbit stores this information. I think you are mistaken though in thinking of the qbit as a container of some sort with infinite storage capacity.

I understand your objection. Given that I'm no expert in QM it's quite possible you're correct that I'm mistaken. I'm basing my comments on those two quoted lines. If you can encode the qubit with an infinitely long expression of probability though... I think my point stands. It's not that you could pick it, it's that it's set to the probability function of choice. That's infinite information storage, even though the information cannot be directly retrieved. I hypothesize that it cannot be directly retreived because it's stored in an extra dimension through the qubit. From the end of a line in a dimension you can't access, you can only see "point or no point". That's why it seems to fit the extra-dimensional profile to me.

Wes,

I had a different take on it. I don't think that's what he was saying. He's saying you can encode it on a single qubit: "One can encode an infinite amount of classical information in a single qubit" That's different that just saying you can pick any point on it. That's saying you can store the information on it. Note: "It is as though the qubit contains hidden information that we can manipulate but not access directly."


I think of data encoding and data storage as two distinct things. I think that saying:

"One can encode an infinite amount of classical information in a single qubit"

is slightly misleading. I'm googling for clarification right now...

This was semi-helpful...

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341232,00.html