Qbit: More than a two-state quantum-mechanical system?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter askalot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    System
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
7 replies · 2K views
askalot
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Hello,
Why not to consider storing a higher degree than a 2-state QM system, in a qbit?
Wouldn't that increase the computing power?
Regards,
Askalot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I actually ask why not 3 or more QM-states, inside a Qbit.
 
askalot said:
Hello,
Why not to consider storing a higher degree than a 2-state QM system, in a qbit?
For the same reason it's not done in classical computers: distinguishing among 3 states is MUCH more difficult than between 2 states.
askalot said:
Wouldn't that increase the computing power?
No. Adding more 2-valued qbits is easier and gives the same result.
 
askalot said:
I actually ask why not 3 or more QM-states, inside a Qbit.

It exists theoretically. For three its called a qtrit but you can have as many states as you want. Wave mechanics deals with infinite dimensional information.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy
jk22, could you please list, the pros and cons of a qtrit?
 
Qtrit are spin 1 particles like photons. In fact its like if technically you make a computer out of lasers. The cons is that its afaik only theoretical and its even theoretically very seldom to deal with tristate. Most of logic is reduced to binary like master/slave true/false. It goes back to Aristoteles with his third middle excluded.

However quantum logic is based on vectors and we live in a 3d seeable world hence a ternary logic should be implementable but how this i don't know.

You could also ask your question in the quantum physics section to have other replies.
 
We can divide this question in two parts:
1. Practical: (SlowThinker made a statement, but did not give any concrete explanation, in his answer.)
2. Philosophical: (Just as jk22 started talking about.)