Current society is heavily influenced by the spread of online information, containing all sorts of claims, commonly found in news stories, tweets, and social media postings, while "quantum qubits" is an old magnet of such manifestations.

Depending on each user, they may be considered “true” or “false”, depending on the agent’s trust on the claim. Instead, one can discuss the concept of content trust and trust process, and use a framework to describe the trust process, which can support various possible models of content trust. See arxiv article by Carlos Laufer and Daniel Schwabe.

See also https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/8/170/htm on "Artificial Intelligence Implementations on the Blockchain. Use Cases and Future Applications".

Even though there seems to be a sufficient theoretical basis for separating “signal” from “noise”, which is the sought for solution, the problem still thrives as of today.

Imagine that you have a bit of information in a memory cell that can have 0 and 1 values. Now imagine that you can have in that memory cell instead of a 0 or 1, the values 00, 01, 10, 11. This is a qubit and is not inconsistent.

Instead of one electron to encode the information in 0 and 1, you use two electrons to encode the information in 00, 01, 10, 11.

This happens when the channel length of the transistor is < 10 atoms (2 nm). With 1 electron (with the electron spin) you can encode 0 and 1. With 2 electrons you can encode 00, 01, 10, 11.

It happens for the length of devices is some nano meter using electron ha spin 1/2

It happens for the length of devices is some nano meter using electron ha spin 1/2

yes

VB and HJA: This shows why free speech is academically important. Read the question text above, to see why qubits are inconsistent in two counts, and will fail to represent quantum information. I am available by PM if needed.

The inconsistency of qubits, is not in the number but in the quality. This is a case where classical information has evolved in the past 50 years, but not the quantum model.

By the principle of equivalence, it must. Classical information is represented today in three-level logic, not the old Shannon model of relays, and quantum must follow suit. Besides, Einstein already showed in 1917 that a third, coherent channel must be added, postulating stimulated emission as providing needed coherence, using experimental radiation data in the black-body problem.

In a forecast based on what happened classically with two-states, the insistence on using qubits will not only prevent scalability but also add unmitigated errors.

This must happen, as three-states cannot map continuously to two-states, even when continous in three-states, by a well-known theorem in projection and topology, that we call Topological Relationship.

Therefore, a quantum system must use tri-state+, in an algebraic approach.

This can be neared with qutrits and qudits, but not completely. See the RG archives, with our conference in Moscow University in 2021.

But a look of tolerance and free speech must be used today, for any use of qubits. Much like the failed concept of "relativistic mass" 50 years ago, even used by prominent physicists, much ink has been spilled on qubits, with no return expected, many doctorate theses wasted, and reputations lost.

Let us move on, to a better understanding of communication -- as requiring a coherent channel, modeled by GF(3^n) or tri-state+, in an algebraic approach.

Of course, what amounts to marketing attempts still affect qubits in physics. But, as people get used to the inutility of the concept of qubits, those calls are more of a sign of desperation.

One can embed three-states in two-states, but continuity must suffer. For example, chiral information is lost. A well-known theorem in projection and topology, that we call Topological Representation, affirms that.

So, people may represent an almost-proper two-state "slice" using quibts in some number, in tri-state, four-state or higher, but it must be discontinuous. The solution is to use tri-state+, matching the logic of communication.

The idea that energy can be likened to a weightless mass permeating uniformly a homogeneous system, has led us astray before. It is remarkable that even so great a physicist as Arnold Sommerfeld yielded to this impulse in Vol. V of his monumental Lectures on Theoretical Physics.

If qubits were found in nature, or could be constructed, the UV catastrophe in physics would exist, and the laser would not exist. Instead, Einstein proved by the form of the equations for thermal radiation, that a third process, with coherent radiation, must exist, in communication with bodies. The result can be extended to communication without bodies, as we see in Internet groups.

A communication requires a response, which must be stimulated by said communication, even in a contrarian fashion, or this is not effective.

Colherent communication is the rule, even without bodies, even contrarian. The existence of coherent communication makes stimulated emission necessary, the laser becomes possible, and denies the qubit. Communication cannot use two-states only, with or without bodies.

Max Planck solved the ultraviolet catastrophe by his study of black body radiation where he found that the energy of an oscillating system is quantized, not continuous as the classical physics thought before 1900. We demonstrate that in the archives, directly from the Euler-Lagrange equation, instead of using Newton's laws, in Appendix B in

Preprint New Physics with the Euler-Lagrange Equation: Going Beyond Newton

So, radiation is made of quanta with energy depending on the frequency f, i.e. E = hf, where h is the proportionality constant, as well-known. Einstein, in 1917, proved it by reproducing the law of radiation found in 1900 by Max Planck. That required a coherent channel to exist, invalidating qubits before their concept started.

It was a historical mistake by Shannon, of difficult consequences until today and highlighting the importance of correct technical work, some 50 years later. This now led to bits and qubits being seriously considered and spilling lots of ink on them, with reputations and careers being lost. But facts cannot be swayed by will. We saw this before with the failed notion of "relativistic mass ", once defended even by Einstein.

The mistake was first that Information could be treated as a fluid, which can only be blocked or let pass, as a relay. This was against the theory of line formation, from Max Planck and Einstein, that required three processes-- so-called "spontaneous" emission, "spontaneous" absorption, and stimulated emission (today, all three processes are viewed as stimulated emission, in different energy ranges). That led Shannon to consider Boolean logic for Information. This second mistake led people to qubits, the third mistake in treating Information. One must use tri-state+ to represent Information, classically or quantically.

The good news, and also why this charade has been going on for 50+ years, is that three-state+ (also qutrits and qudits) can be always be embedded in two-state.

This can be shown in various ways, and it is considered well-known.

Therefore, one can use bits (or qbits) and set-up a working communication system that would need three or more states, as with coherent sources, albeit only using two-state parts in correct combination.

However, scalability and performance will be less, as we know from SystemVerilog three-state designs versus two-state Shannon designs. There must also be discontinuity in two-state, even though the three-state design is continuous. Perhaps, there are unreachable regions as well, where a two-state design cannot reach and only a three-state+ design would reach.

The important, missing characteristic is coherence.

Another good point of a two-state design, in spite of the incompleteness in comparison to the three-state+ reality, is that the LEM (Law of the Excluded Middle) can be used. This provides an intrinsic notion of certainty, used to great advantage, in computation and logic circuits with binary logic -- even though it represents an artificial means of choice, without the ambivalence one can easily see in choosing a unique path in a triangle.

We found a possibility to avoid this situation by delaying its onset. If one bases decisions on a three-logic system, such as YES, NO, and MAYBE, one can proceed into ternary trees for decision-making, and only consider a YES/NO decision at the end. If it fits, one has a solution, otherwise one continues the tree state interaction.

This was implemented with Galois numbers, and in that case, it turns out that one can represent correctly all 4 arithmetic operations, and analysis (calculus), using only finite integers. Gone are the fictional infinitesimals, infinite quantities, and continuity. Much faster calculations become possible, and 100% exact.

All can then be quantum, and continuity is obtained in universality (a notion in physics).

This reproduces waves, continuous phenomena, and e.g. the Maxwell equations, which don't support the laser nor the photon as a localized vibration (particle), but is based on quantum particles at the core. The difference lies in scales, between the macroscopic and the microscopic. This makes it possible ... and desirable. One does not have to be concerned with the microscopic world while dealing with the visible phenomena. But, the microscopic world asserts itself, for example, in the black-body radiation, as studied by Einstein in 1917. The stimulated emission becomes a mandatory process, and the laser becomes possible. Or, in the Brownian movement, also studied by Einstein.

Binary logic is formed by using the concepts of "0" and "1", which can be assigned to false and true. This would lead one to say that the LEM (Law of the Excluded Middle) is valid; after all, it seems that something can only be true or false.

But even in physical binary circuits, as chips that can only read or generate "0" and "1", one can find tri-state, something that is neither true nor false.

This is the domain of SystemVerilog, an IEEE standard, and chips. The third state is high-impedace and is used for multiplexing, creating better systems than binary logic can.

Shannon logic has been deprecated, the bit is not only binary. A qubit must also not be binary -- this choice would be consistent.

There is a more basic reason why bits and qubits are inconsistent. Look at the full-adder in binary logic. It requires a 3rd state. One MUST consider the carry. A memory of a previous operation, which is not available in two states only.

This creates a simulated emission channel, which must be coherent. Binary logic is not able to perform any arithmetic operations with only 2 states. This excludes bit and qubit as a viable models of information.

Computing, so far, is based in binary logic. Quantum computing needs to be tri-state+, in our proposed model using Galois fields.

Very important in quantum computing are also private companies, like Microsoft and Google. A great part of the work by university and private groups is in retracting papers.

Much rubbish keeps being published, like on Majorana fermions, qubits, and qutrits.

Like ducks in a pond, they keep throwing water at each other, and saying that they are doing "this important work". Meanwhile, the military keeps paying for ... retraction. In looking for failure as an end by itself, not getting ahead is the result.

A focus on principles would be more productive. Can binary states represent communication? Shannon though so, and qubits were born. SystemVerilog proved Shannon wrong, even classically. Also, Einstein did not think so, and stimulated emission was recognized already in 1917. And it goes further, with collective effects like superemission, to tri-state+ in an algebraic approach, as GF(3^n).

A coherent state MUST exist, so base 3 is necessary for any credible methods, classically and in quantum, while base 2 is enough for any implementation. This question is, therefore, closed.

Conventional computing relies on classical two level systems, one believes, a high and low voltage. This was achieved with digital electronics, and explained by Shannon theory. And this is the basis to accept qubits.

But, contrary to this belief, two things demanded at least three logic levels, which make qubits inconsistent.

One, was the evolution of digital circuits, where one was led to use tri-state. This has today, 2022, become the state-of-the-art in the design of large, complicated and yet efficient circuits, and an IEEE standard with SystemVerilog.

Second, how three states were crafted out of only two states, a high and low voltage. This was due to an engineering approach reviewed in RG, at

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349025552/

This was also reviewed in a confetence presentation, within the Moscow State University, of a three or more state, quantum information model. This model, connects the three or more states, to stimulated emission, and achieves even more states in an algebraic approach using Galois fields GF(3^n).

Such is the model we are viewing in information, messages, quantum mechanics, quantum computing, and physics. A model with tri-state+. It deprecares binary states and qubits, showing their inconsistencies.

Some comments (now, deleted) above show how following the RG ToS is necessary for a scientific conversation.

But the legal responsibility of enforcing the RG ToS falls only on RG, per EU law.

Meawhile, it is suggested to read the question text, with the latest references. Also, private messaging is available.

One can after all use bits and qubits in the hardware, albeit one has to program (have a coherent path) in three states!

For any x in the set Q, to talk about computability, N --> B^n --> B = {0,1}.

So, computers can calculate anything measurable, using the set B. P-adic numbers, and the sets R, C, and G, do not appear.

This is valid for any use of coprocessors, and makes tri-state chips and Intel Corporation concerns unnecessary-- let's use FPGA!

No physical measurement can be in sets R or C (which has two sets R).

No physical measurement can be in set G, either, because a physical path must begin and in the set Q -- and one can always get two set Q numbers between any two set G numbers.

So, attending a private message. If one gets a rational number (which I say happens in ANY physical measurement), one can get a natural number from it by a known isometric relationship, Q --> N.

One cannot get an irrational number by adding numbers in the set Q -- the set Q is closed for addition, +Q--> Q. For any x in the set Q, to add computability, N --> B^n --> B = {0,1}. Computers can calculate anything measurable, using the set B. P-adic numbers, and the sets R, C, and G, do not appear.

QED.