‘Poor man’s qubit’ can solve quantum problems without going quantum / Purdue

@MoreAnonymous It is totally OK. The most likely result if the English is hard to understand would be that vzn (or me) would ask questions trying to make things clearer. Doing that exercise with a friend instead will certainly leave a better impression.

@ThomasKlimpel The english isn't hard to understand. The reader doesn't like the line of attack :P

@vzn Minor in mathematics. Didn't cover anything like this, though. I'm going to need to start learning some topology.

I didn't want a 3-sphere. But things kept pushing me towards that interpretation; I have the surface area of an event horizon, rotating around the Kaluza-Klein dimension. Spherical surface area, with an additional closed circle, is just the surface of a 3-sphere. Turn it inside out along distance, so that distance is a negative dimension, and my fractal description of forces arises naturally. Whether or not it is the same fractal force as I expected in the first place remains to be seen.

Technically it isn't really the "surface" of the event horizon, unless people mean something different by that than what I think it means, but that's the closest description to the idea.

But... in this interpretation, distance is also time, which is only a little bit weird, that's already kind of implied in relativity. But then it is also the Kaluza-Klein closed dimension, which is very weird. The weirdness of it being a negative dimension is a bit mixed; makes sense for time, that's already in relativity again. Kind of hard to process as distance, but I'm insisting on a field theory that is fractal with respect to distance, so I can't complain too much.

Kaluza-Klein being negative is just gibberish, though.