Questioning Neil Turok's Claim on Quantum Information

In summary, Neil Turok said that if you take just 300 electron spins and couple them together into a quantum computer, then the amount of information it would be capable of handling is the same as that in the position of every particle in the whole universe. There are about 10 to the power of 90 particles in the universe and if you use each one of their three-dimensional positions and imagine recording all of those positions, that's about the same as what you would get from just 300 electrons in a quantum computer. So it really is on a whole different scale from anything we can visualize in our mind.
  • #1
gendou2
241
1
I'm skeptical of something Neil Turok said, having to do with quantum information.

http://thetyee.ca/Books/2012/10/13/Neil-Turok-Universe-Within/

It turns out that if you take just 300 electron spins and couple them together into a quantum computer, then the amount of information it would be capable of handling is the same as that in the position of every particle in the whole universe. There are about 10 to the power of 90 particles in the universe and if you use each one of their three-dimensional positions and imagine recording all of those positions, that's about the same as what you would get from just 300 electrons in a quantum computer. So it really is on a whole different scale from anything we can visualize in our mind.

From what I understand, a qubit can store an infinite amount of information. So, where does he get the number 300 from? Why not just one? Also, can't the three-dimensional position of a particle can be classically recorded to the limit of infinite precision? Is there some limit at the Planck length? Any help/clarification would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
A qubit is a superposition of two states: |0> and |1>, it's not an infinite amount of information, and you should really be precise with the terms you use.
 
  • #3
Thanks for helping me be more precise with my terms! What is the amount of information stored in a superposition of |0> and |1>? Many sources claim this amount is infinite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit_field_theory
http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/PHYS4_lecture22v1_2page.pdf
http://everything2.com/title/qubit
http://books.google.com/books?id=5gmH-DLuIlMC&pg=PA101
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf [Broken]
http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~hego/technicalmanual/node34.html
http://class.ee.iastate.edu/mmina/ee314x/Qbit-after-trans.pdf [Broken]
http://math.arizona.edu/~ura-reports/081/Solis.Michelle/Proposal.pdf

Are these sources incorrect? Or in need of more precise terms?

The major question I want to answer is, does Neil Turok have a valid point, or is he being deceptive? He's come up with the very specific number of 300 electrons. Knowing that a qubit is a superposition of two states, |0> and |1> doesn't help me understand how he got the number 300. Did he just pull that number out of thin air? Or does he have some practical quantum computer in mind?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
gendou2 said:
Knowing that a qubit is a superposition of two states, |0> and |1> doesn't help me understand how he got the number 300. Did he just pull that number out of thin air??

Likely he's looking at 2300, which is the number of states a collection of 300 up-or-down electrons can have. This is approximately equal to 1090 if you use the convenient rule of thumb that 210 approximately equals 103.
 
  • #5
gendou2 said:
The major question I want to answer is, does Neil Turok have a valid point, or is he being deceptive? He's come up with the very specific number of 300 electrons. Knowing that a qubit is a superposition of two states, |0> and |1> doesn't help me understand how he got the number 300. Did he just pull that number out of thin air? Or does he have some practical quantum computer in mind?
The number 300 comes from a pretty good approximation.
In order to record the position of ##10^{90}## particles, you need ##10^{90}## registers, one for the position of each particle.
Now, ##10^{90} = 1000^{30} \approx 1024^{30} = 2^{300}##, that is, 300 bits of information. One qubit, as its name suggests, encodes one bit, and hence 300 qubits are required.
 
  • #6
I'm going to call BS on Dr. Turok. He's much smarter than I am, so he is probably correct in some underlying way, but I think he is being misleading. A single qubit does not store more information than a normal bit. Assuming that a measurement basis has been chosen, the measurement will come back 0 or 1 just like a classical bit. If I want to communicate something with this bit alone, that is all I can do. I could put the bit in a superposition, but unless you know to measure a different basis, that won't help. So, in the sense of quantum computers, a bit stores the same information as a qubit. The power of quantum computing comes from the algebra, not more storage space.

Since a qubit has two free variables that can continuously vary (it is commonly pictured as the Bloch sphere which is just the surface of a sphere; a geometrically simple surface) one could argue that there are infinitely many possible states that a qubit could be in (like positions in the sky). That is true, but that a classical particle on a string has infinite information. That isn't really useful.

Also, the wiki article you linked to actually says that, from an information theory stand point, a qubit should not have infinite information.
 
  • #7
Nugatory and Fightfish, thanks for your help reverse engineering this claim! This was just what I was looking for. I feel vindicated, thank you so much.

Yes, DrewD, I am happy to hear you came to the same conclusion as I did! Your explanation makes a lot of sense, thanks for adding some helpful ideas. I liked what you said about algebra vs. storage space. Also, a classical particle on a string. Good points!
 

1. What is Neil Turok's claim on quantum information?

Neil Turok, a theoretical physicist and Director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, has proposed a theory that suggests that the universe is made up of quantum information. This means that everything in the universe, from matter to energy, can be described as strings of binary code.

2. How does Turok's claim differ from other theories of the universe?

Turok's claim differs from other theories, such as string theory or the Big Bang theory, in that it focuses on the role of quantum information rather than traditional physical properties like matter and energy. Turok believes that this perspective can offer new insights into the fundamental nature of the universe.

3. What evidence supports Turok's claim?

While there is no definitive evidence to support Turok's claim, there are several ongoing experiments and studies that aim to investigate the role of quantum information in the universe. These include studies on black holes, quantum computing, and the behavior of subatomic particles.

4. What are some potential implications of Turok's claim?

If Turok's claim is proven to be true, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and how it functions. It could also lead to advancements in technology, particularly in the field of quantum computing, which relies on manipulating quantum information.

5. What are some criticisms of Turok's claim?

Some scientists have raised concerns that Turok's claim is too speculative and lacks sufficient evidence to support it. Others argue that it may be difficult to test or confirm Turok's theory, as it deals with concepts that are still not fully understood, such as black holes and the nature of space and time.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
41
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
706
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
752
Replies
8
Views
992
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top