# B A bit as pair of attributes

1. Dec 13, 2016

### Nicky665

In information theory, one bit is typically defined as the uncertainty of a binary random variable that is 0 or 1 with equal probability,[4] or the information that is gained when the value of such a variable becomes known.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit

That sounds a lot like superposition, maybe I'm mixing things, but starting from the above,

and also from Shannon's Capacity theorem that says that "in the limit in which only a single bit of information exists within the entity being measured, only a single independent measurement can ever be made"

why cant a pair of attributes (like position+momnetum) of a quantum system be considered as having only one recoverable bit of information and saying that the heisenberg uncertainty principle , with the equal sign, is an application over one bit ?

Last edited: Dec 13, 2016
2. Dec 13, 2016

### secur

No, you couldn't make a bit like that. Unfortunately there's too much "uncertainty" in the question, as it stands, to go into why not.

Please explain in more detail how you think such a bit might work. I suppose the two states ("0" and "1") of the bit would be represented by "position" vs. "momentum"? How would you set these two states? How would you then read the bit, to obtain the information of which state was set? Hopefully, in trying to answer these questions, you'll realize it's not viable. Or at least, make your idea clear enough to allow me (or whoever) to explain what's wrong with it.

3. Dec 13, 2016

### Nicky665

Its not really my idea, I was just trying to ask some questions ...

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 14, 2016
4. Dec 14, 2016

### secur

Ok, now I see what it's about. That paper is by what we call a "Bell denier". Here's the conclusion:

This is the nature of the correlations being characterized by Bell’s Theorem. It has nothing to do with “spooky action at a distance”, since it is simply the consequence of an intrinsically limited information content - the defining difference between the “classical” and the “quantum”.

He's trying to explain Bell's theorem in terms of classical information theory. It's generally accepted in physics community that such attempts don't work. Quantum correlations can't be reproduced classically. But I can't say exactly what's wrong with the paper, without more study than I have time for at the moment. It seems a plausible attempt, but it's like perpetual motion machines - you might not be able to pinpoint what's wrong with it, but there must be something.

Perhaps someone else will look at it closer ... or, if you're still interested in a few days, I could do so. Sorry I can't be more helpful at the moment

5. Dec 14, 2016

### Nicky665

Of course I'm interested. :)

6. Dec 14, 2016

### Staff: Mentor

Look carefully at that paper.... You've been victimized by a crackpot. The paper hasn't been peer-reviewed or published in any reputable journal, or anywhere else for that matter. The list of references shows that the author is relying on wikipedia for his understanding of the subject. Vixra is not an acceptable source under the Physics Forums rules, because they accept stuff like this so uncritically.

This thread is closed; we don't discuss crackpottery even to debunk it.

Last edited: Dec 14, 2016