4 ms·
I just gave you a paper showing that is not the case. I even provided the quote. There is no inherent limit from physics, only from engineering. History provid
by SideQuark 2y ago
I just gave you a paper showing that is not the case. I even provided the quote.
There is no inherent limit from physics, only from engineering. History provides ample evidence were a given medium had it's "Shannon Limit" broken via new signaling methods over the same medium. The terms you used, "bandwidth" and "noise" are technological, not physical. "Bandwidth" increases each time we invent better methods to pack and decode it. Most of the old concepts are based on old Fourier Analysis, whereas a better modern framework is wavelets or even their successors. Fourier is a very simple way to think of signals, missing plenty of useful things, which is exactly what led to the development of wavelets, to enable more powerful signal analysis.
Note in particular there is no single "bandwidth" when dealing with photonics, since photons can be physically stacked arbitrarily without interference. Simply google for breakthroughs in photonics bandwidth to see decades of advances beyond what was previously thought to be "the bandwidth".
The Shannon limit is a *model* of the system. That model is necessarily incomplete, since there increasingly advanced technology. Those models almost always use simplifications to make the math tractable, such as gaussian noise, independent errors, and a host of other things that are not true physically. Even the concept of noise requires either a non=physical abstraction to math or some details of the engineering used to measure it. Simply saying there "is gaussian noise" is a gross model used to simplify math. It is non-physical.
A simple example that leveraging quantum has created a new field of quantum shannon theory, which has better bounds. Under shannon's theory and his understanding of information, quantum key distribution would not be possible, yet it is, and companies have offered commercial versions for 20+ years. I would not be surprised if more and more pieces of physics not currently used for communication get used in the future, changing the "limits" again and again.
Before MIMO transmission, single channel over the same medium had a shannon limit. MIMO surpassed it. Many channels, especially where light is used, allow stacking more and more information into the same medium, subject to technology ability to decode, which is an engineering feat, not a physical one.
The world of information theory has moved past shannon, just like orbital mechanics moved past Newton. Both Newton and Shannon have uses, but they're not valid for modern techniques.
Two of many such changes are compressed sensing, which was a major discovery, that routinely beats Shannon-Nyquist sampling theory, and the discovery of what is called generalized sampling developed around 2000-2010 (and still making it's way through image processing). Both are fundamental theory changes that allowed breaking previous "limits".
So please read the paper, and if you claim there is still some inherent limit, publish the paper countering the one above.
- immibis 2y agoBandwidth does not increase based on packing methods. Bandwidth refers to analog signal bandwidth, something we can measure - not data rate. MIMO gets around the Shannon limit by creating more channels, like putting more fibers in a bundle.
- SideQuark 2y agoMIMO added no "new fibers". - it's more throughout with no change in medium, a consequence of photons not cross interacting. Electrons cross interact, and end up with different physical properties. You're proving my point: the physics has major impact in practice. Shannon says zero about this, since his is a simple, outdated model. Bandwidth is defined by the signal type. A signal is defined via the technology and model of communication. Change the tech or model, and you get different Shannon limits. Take some time and read and understand the papers I gave you. Your claims are contradicted by each of those papers (and hundreds more). How can you honestly ignore all those well cited papers that state exactly what I said? Post some evidence countering those papers or there's no more point replying to your opinions.