eh, i'm having trouble understanding the science and the definition for noise, i.e.this is a quantum bit. There are given number of states given the field relaxation time; anyway, just define the device in the frequency domain. You were only trying to define a single state. But I see you don't know what state you are in and the allowed states of the system. In other words, if you're building a quantum computer, surely that is more logical. However defining the state as quanta, i.e. a specific e field at a point, instead of making it random, why not define all states. But the idea of noise? There is no noise, everything can traced back to a set of particles in a specific state simply based upon the spectra. If you do not fully understand the spectra, where is your understanding of quanta. The probability, i.e. close to one, the state is defined. My set point, my modulation, how about from a drum to a hyper-neutrino? It's all definable! Your error would be in your precision.

jeez, you guys don't see the time frequency-response. Time from -infinity to +infinity, space, field, e undefined; therefore, see only the field and these points in a spacetime, with our space being any space. The space of the particle any particle, within a crystal, each point is primarily defined by it's near space and use superposition about the point you are inquiring. You define where you are, when you are, where the charges are ... then build a quantum computer. So this paper may be refined. You should have an array defining any particle by using only the + and -. Your question then, with this sensitivity, you can hear an electron move, so the question is "What moved?" and all its iterations, calculable about the space being queried. Surely there is a set you may read without error.

Then, using the computer to calculate "what moved" or the defined state and whether a match can be found just by swapping plys or creative search algorithms using only two images. Don't forget, everything is moving, not Dr. E I think QM is a set of blinders. Yes, it is all waves; but make "It", the waves, definable by design, not guessing. I would seek to know all the atomic perturbations, wow! What a set of data. Not noise! We just have to learn to play with a bundle of + and - points in space-time. These describe Space. We look at that state as a point in 4D.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Fascinating: First time I've seen random frequency quantum switching elements tied to a very "un-random" resonating time dependent element.
Its so surprising that the almost classical resonator elements in such intimate contact with a quantum system don't do more harm than good.

Not the discontinuity vs continuity argument again? You get all those Planck limits and Heisenberg nonsense.