posted on May, 1 2014 @ 06:12 AM
originally posted by: smithjustinb
a reply to: NorEaster
No. They're not using the words wrong.
Definition of qubit:
In quantum computing, a qubit/ˈkjuːbɪt/ or quantum bit is a unit of quantum information—the quantum analogue of the classical bit. A qubit
is a two-state quantum-mechanical system, such as the polarization of a single photon: here the two states are vertical polarization and horizontal
polarization. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other, but quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a
superposition of both states at the same time, a property which is fundamental to quantum computing.
The reporters even included a definition of qubit in the article so people like you couldn't accuse them of not knowing what a qubit was:
But in a quantum system, "qubits" are stored in a so-called "superposition state" in which they can be both 1s and 0 at the same time - enabling
them to perform multiple calculations simultaneously.
The two definitions match up.
They held a qubit in a state of 1 and 0 at the same time (superposition) for 39 minutes.
"Qubits" of information encoded in a silicon system persisted for almost 100 times longer than ever before.
Superposition definition from wikipedia (again):
Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in
all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously
Qubit. Superposition. 39 minutes. 1 and 0 at same time. This is what happened. This is what they reported.
I understand all of this, but what I'm trying to explain here is that (as your description of superposition states) imposing an entangled relationship
onto quibits (which is what this experiment claims to have accomplished) can't achieve a result where each entangled ion (quibit, if you will, in this
case, since this is what these scientists are assigning these ions to be in this application) "exists partly in all its particular theoretically
. No ion in this specific entanglement is free to be in any state other than the state that is imposed upon it as a direct
result of being in that imposed entanglement with every other phosphorus ion that is also part of that mass entanglement.
The entanglement itself forces all involved ions to be frozen into a specific state relative to each other ion within that entanglement. If not - if
any ion is free to be in all possible states - then that ion (the one that is free to exist in a state of superposition) is not part of the mass
entanglement. It can't be. The entanglement itself - by definition - restricts each involved ion to one, and only one state.
This is the whole point of quantum entanglement as applied to the mechanics of quantum computing. One quibit is affected directly, and all entangled
quibits are then simultaneously affected in a predetermined, controlled manner. No linear cause-effect delays. All effects are instantaneous, and
therefore much faster and more exact.
Superposition is all possible states being expressed virtually - in this case, only 2 possible states - by every quibit. That's exactly the opposite
of what bases the engineering concept of quantum computing, as it involves entangled quibits; regardless of whether they employ photons or phosphorus
ions as the material items that will serve as the quibits.
edit on 5/1/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)