Quantum phase change tech support for digital physics hypothesis?

Read an article the other day saying that the library of congress or possibly an unlimited amount of info could be stored in and retrieved from an electron. This was quantum phase change tech. So an electron could be made to act like an info packet? Is it already such a packet? Does using it like a storage device change its nature or basic characteristics? If it can store and retrieve is it in any way programmable. This tech almost seems to imply that electrons and subatomic particles are like code objects or objects in reuseable code. But more the artical said that quantum phase change tech could make metals act like plastic and plastic act like metals on the fly it seems. Now we’ve known that virtual atoms or quantum dots had some of these characteristics but this makes ordinary matter seem programmable and programmable apparently through some sort of frequency interface. Coding the universe? Code-able universe, like notion that the universe is a q computer from Seth Lloyde. Programming the universe?

@Melvin lets just run with this one and forget the others.


I found out about it recently, too. However, the experiments were done in the early 2000s, and not much has been happening to this idea ever since. At least, publicly :joy_cat:

1 Like

“At least publically” may be the key. TomCampbell’s book from around the same year explores the extent to which the Universe may be programmable.

That was mostly a joke though. Personally, I don’t believe we’re anywhere near the level to pack a small lab’s worth of experimental stuff into practically useful size while at the same time multiplying its capacity by enough that it matters.

On the other hand, the complete lack of coverage, apart from a handful of articles from around the time it was published, may indicate something, but I’m too busy with life to pursue that train of thought.

Anyway, here are two articles, this is the guy, and this is the original stuff as it was published in Nature.

Quantum bridges just arrived to scale smaller quantum computers into a much bigger whole.

But this article makes it clear that it is what I was wondering above, they are computing with electrons themselves (i.e., qbits- or other sub atomic entities same sort of process) through some sort of frequency interface. Matter itself is programmable. Shouldn’t surprise us too much, we were already computing with it at more macro levels. But its strange- you can run a program on matter- this goes beyond nano tech. You can compute with the sub atomic particles themselves. This is Seth Llolyde’s conception that the Universe is a quantum computer. So programming it might be like programming reality. Lest we think this stuff is far out- not really Samsung just introduce some Qdot displays where it expressed the opinion that the tech is very superior to OLED of which it is a major producer. And when you think about it, although the screen is in a static plane a quantum dot or virtual atom display is really going in the direction of programming matter resulting a very coordinated manipulation of light. Say its all light in the end. Yes a projection of matter through light back into consciousness, think VR.

1 Like

@polpolrene an optimal SI may not involve a lot of matter. Its something about that possibly infinite or relatively infinite storage capacity of an electron comment that provides the clue. There is a sense in which QM says electrons are blurred out across all of space time. There used to be talk of black holes for info density and with black holes there is always talk of them being portals possibly to domains that don’t have space time or causality, really the inconcievable from this vantage point. So its seems like what may be happening is a boundary problem, such that when you go to program the universal quantum computer through any of its objects you get access to the whole thing in some sense. After all there may come a point of diminshing returns with qbits and it may be that the same qbits that process do all the storage and simulate any needed classical machine as well with enough resolution but with out much mass. So it seems even from the seeming inside, a full interface doesn’t need much mass. And if we can be an instrument in building and using one of these maybe we have similar functionality built into our minds already. This is Paul Selig’s viewpoint (echoes Bruce Lipton’s) we are like a dimnable led light or a broadcast TV receiver, you can simply change the channel brighten the bulb, phase or frequency change grants access to the range of manifestation.

Not trying to bump this but this business about being able to store info in an electron is radical, but the notion that the storage is infinite even if possibly only in lessor sense- as per Cantor there are greater and lessor conception of infinite numbers etc. And then we find out that you can compute with a single electron. And there may be the retort that we can’t do much even with say a single qbit. And while I am limited to a kind of poetic conception of things it just seems like storage is space and compute is time and if space/storage is unlimited in somerthing like an electron then next we well find that a single electron or any matter particulate how ever small can provide an infinte number of qbits. And I think the reason here is that these particulates are nor just peogramable matter or objects but interfaces or access points into a deeper realm or system. Do we just think they are blank in content? So in a sense its a bit of a holism or holigram where the whole is in every part and the part in every whole. Its as if you can use the full power of the deeper system through every point of access. So its virtual. But virtual in this sense is very interesting as there is no inside or outside or boundary its blurred out in every sense.

Ive been reading this book of published conversations with Nisargdatta (I am That.) He was supposed supposed to be an un uneducated cigaretted salesman and the conversations are from 73. But he had a precise conception of this stuff it seems. Thought I knew of him, thought I knew a bit about the tradition or viewpoint he was coming from. Nope.