2 ms·
It is quite interesting, and I’d think an ironic indicator of the limited conceptual space actually available for the qubit, which I think is a dead end. I am
by babafoo 2mo ago
It is quite interesting, and I’d think an ironic indicator of the limited conceptual space actually available for the qubit, which I think is a dead end.
I am confident there is much higher information density available in the quantum domain.
The future of quantum computing lies in analogue extradimentional quantum holography.
Something modern minds are not looking for.
The entangled substrates by scalar capacity may contain among themselves full analogue holographic renderings. These renderings may be manipulated through constructive and destructive interference. They produce a sieve which may be observed by passive differential techniques.
The advantage of the quantum holographic space over discrete linearity is one of potential distribution at scalar capacity over iterative state resolution. Iterative state resolution is a program that runs inside potential distribution.
- saqibj 2mo agoThere are a few real directions that sound close to this, and I'm not sure which one you mean. Qudits use d-level systems rather than two-level ones. Continuous-variable quantum computing, which most photonic approaches use, works in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces instead of discrete qubits — NTT and OptQC just announced a partnership aiming at a million-qubit-class optical machine on that basis. Analog quantum simulation skips gates entirely; QuEra's Aquila runs that way. And holographic error correcting codes like HaPPY come out of AdS/CFT. Any of those gets you more information per physical system than a qubit does. Which one are you pointing at, or is this something separate? Worth adding that Hassinger was emphatic that every modality still has open scientific questions, not just superconducting. Photonic and neutral atom approaches are underrepresented in our coverage and I'd like to fix that in a future session.