Always a joy to find a quantum physicist content creator on RUclips. Far too many pseudoscience channels to trudge through, so as to find a small handful of enlightening and knowledgeable resources. Thanks Dr Maria Violaris for sharing your time, knowledge, and thoughts on the topic of a quantum chip. 🌸
I'm comforted knowing there are people like Dr. Violaris who understand this field. Having a channel where she explains it to the rest of us is a gift. Thank you for your effort to provide this content.
I appreciate you bringing this to attention. There has been a significant amount of unnecessary hype surrounding the announcement from Google. While their approach is similar to what they did in 2019, there is a notable milestone in terms of quantum error correction (QEC) though this time.
Hello to everyone finding my channel from Curt! Hope you’ll enjoy the content here! 😄👋 For anyone confused about where all the people mentioning Curt are coming from: I was recently interviewed for Curt Jaimungal’s Theories of Everything podcast! You can watch (part 1 of) the discussion here: ruclips.net/video/Iya6tYN37ow/видео.htmlsi=0a_JncD8GYlkLcjJ
And just a few years ago the quantum computing community was extremely happy that it was able to factor the number 12, in a very error-prone kind of way.
What a great achievement! Thank you for the breakdown! I've heard a lot of talks with Scott Aaronson where he discusses Quantum Error Correction and it's cool to see the proof of the concept happening in real time. Their statement about the Everett interpretation I thought was quite misleading; I'd say it more lends credence to quantum theory as a whole than it does Everett in particular 😄
Their scaling surface codes allows them to pass the QEC threshold, but have they also indicated that the resulting added logical qubits are already useful for application? Or is there further work to be done past this verification infrastructure, to allow it to be programmed and do instruction?
@@underthewater_ the logical qubits are not yet useful for computation, there needs to be many more of them with lower error rates for that! What they showed is that classical computers can’t efficiently simulate lots of the physical qubits, but that’s not a useful application, more of a benchmark/milestone that was first reached around 5 years ago :)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this breakthrough. To be honest, I often feel that when Google or IBM announces a major discovery in quantum computing, it tends to be filled with marketing and publicity, with only some real advancements mixed in. Do you know of any startups or indie projects exploring quantum computing with interesting new approaches to the field? 🙂
I have the feeling that whenever one of these companies announce something big, it's not because one of their engineering teams achieved something big, but it's because one of their marketing teams was tasked to make a big fuss.
There is indeed more marketing and press (and also general public interest) in announcements from Google and IBM about their quantum advances vs advances achieved elsewhere :) There’s loads of startups and projects doing cool stuff, it’s hard to know where to start! I joined the startup Oxford Quantum Circuits a couple of months ago, and wrote a blog on some of the cool stuff I’ve found out about their approach, which uses a novel kind of qubit (see oqc.tech/resources/beyond-the-bit/flexibility-of-superconducting-qubits) There’s lots more happening in the field but perhaps I’ll save that for some future content :)
Good stuff. Always pleased when people who actually understand it take the time to release a bit of air from the hype balloon. Helps of course that this is _right_ in your wheelhouse :). (not that it's not significant, just that we're not _really_ significantly closer to practically useful quantum computations and the "many worlds confirmed !" nonsense in particular had my eyes rolling - uh huh, _maybe_ if you _already_ subscribe to "many worlds", otherwise not so much :)
Hi, really enjoyed your discussion with Curt. Would have been nice if you could have mentioned if any of the experiments have been done and the results, since you gave examples with quantam circuits and they didn't look too big
@@_arshadm will keep that in mind perhaps for the part 2 discussion! There have been implementations of these experiments though sometimes it’s subtle to say what the experiment is testing exactly :) You might also enjoy my Quantum Paradoxes video series on the Qiskit RUclips channel which shows how to code quantum circuits for thought experiments so you can run them directly on quantum computers: ruclips.net/p/PLOFEBzvs-VvoQP-EVyd5Di3UrPPc2YKIc
@@maria_violaris Thanks, just started on that playlist! Really, appreciate the content. Please keep posting, its nice to have someone working in the field making this.
Thanks, that helped me understand the announcement more. I'll definitely be whipping some of that out the next time I have a deep conversation at a 3 am bev sesh 😂
They really reached a milestone! And there's verifiable results for the key claims, specifically the quantum error correction milestone experiment was peer-reviewed and published in Nature, which was timed with the chip announcement press and PR. There have for sure been other advances in the quantum field and in quantum error correction that were also very cool but received much less press and public attention :) And there's a long road with more challenges to solve to reach the scale of useful quantum computers!
There’s strategic measurements carefully done on the qubits to extract information about what errors have happened, without destroying the quantum information being used for the computation! The technical term for these measurements is “syndrome measurements”, and their output is a string of bits that needs to be “decoded” by a classical computer to work out what the errors were (which is itself a difficult task to do efficiently)
Hi Maria!!! Very interesting video like all the ones you made on qiskit!!! I would like you could talk about the quantum eraser experiment and the concept of time in quantum mechanics. Thank you and I'm really happy you made your own Channel!!!
@@lucadepaoli4790 thanks for the suggestions and glad you like the videos on here and my Qiskit ones! Is there an aspect of quantum eraser and time that you’re interested in beyond what I covered in the Qiskit videos on quantum eraser and time-loops? (Eg a more accessible or more extensive discussion of them?) ruclips.net/p/PLOFEBzvs-VvoQP-EVyd5Di3UrPPc2YKIc FYI I have an upcoming podcast episode interviewing a guest about the quantum theory of time so look out for that! (Will release next year)
@maria_violaris Hi Maria!!! Thank you for your answer!!! If possibile I would like a more estensive discussion on them above all about the concept of time in quantum mechanics that seems very different from the one in the classical world and that seems can even go from the future to the past!!
We seem to have much greater control of entanglement than of superposition which can have quite different explanations! I refer to both ontogenic as well as epistemic factors. I´m doctor within Neuro Science and would tentatively be interested in quantum computing as far as neurotransmission and microtubules (cf Roger Penrose) are concerned. The differences in scale between neurochemical events and quantum effects are however daunting to say the least and we need a classical model just for pedagogic purposes to illustrate this.
@@maria_violaris The very core of quantum physics is literally still quite unclear and quantum computing might offer a tiny bit of the puzzle. Superposition has never been observed directly but is usually taken for granted. If we see time as quantized (cf Dr E.Nordström) it is easier to see that two states never occur quite simultaneously. Superposition could then be seen as an extremely fast oscillation between two discrete states, like a coin spinning at a tremendous speed where heads/tails appear superimposed till the coin settles i.e decoherence.
I feel that except for the part about "tentatively"- is that a quantum subutanium "tentatively" or a reverse pre continuous masking "tentatively"? Thanks Charles.
Hi, i wanted to ask if you explain quantum entanglement, and show a real world demonstation of it. How do two subatomic particles become entangled? Im also interested in a real life implementation of the double slit experiment.
Two quantum particles meet, they make out and fall in love. When separated their love binds them. Their connection is infinite, whole, and cannot be separated. The double slit is the result of your attention, your observation. No shats given, no shats received.
This is a concept for a nuclear power plant with a groundbreaking waste-to-energy system, potentially spearheaded by a consortium of California tech giants. It would incinerate waste tires at extremely high temperatures, generating clean energy and producing free heat as a byproduct. This heat could be used for power generation and potentially harnessed by nearby tech companies, increasing overall energy efficiency. The idea aligns with the concerns of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who has spoken publicly (e.g., in his Washington Post interview) about the need for the US to maintain technological leadership over China. This plant could contribute to that goal by: Promoting clean energy innovation: Showcasing US leadership in sustainable energy solutions. Enhancing energy independence: Reducing reliance on foreign energy sources. Boosting domestic manufacturing: Potentially powering high-tech manufacturing processes. This concept addresses multiple challenges: Waste management: Reduces the environmental impact of waste tires. Clean energy production: Contributes to a more sustainable energy mix. Resource optimization: Utilizes a byproduct (heat) that would otherwise be wasted.
Where can I access the videos that you mention in the video? Also I would appreciate if you can explain the concept of entanglement in a future video. Thanks
Here’s the many-worlds vs collapse video I mentioned (some of it uses technical quantum computing background, will try and make a more accessible version in future!): ruclips.net/video/-YEmRhogaSQ/видео.htmlsi=b9ZtYTNOBuzQcbUF
So what does superposition suggest to you? Both the Everett and bohm models point to multiple outcomes in a QP outcome (whether real or phantom). Do you have an alternative hypothesis? Serious question.
It may sound like sci-fi / pseudoscience, but the multiverse theory gives a really satisfying account of quantum theory! (there are various other theories that are works in progress, but I've never heard anything giving me such a satisfying account of how to make sense of things). In short: we're all made of atoms, let's treat everything as a quantum system, apply quantum theory to measurement devices and the environment, and as a consequence we get emergent branches of the multiverse. Also, aside from solving the measurement problem, it saves local realism, giving a satisfying account of entanglement!
It could be argued that quantum computing processes take place when they are allowed to occur in an environment in which the entanglements you care about are shielded from those that make up our normally observable Universe. The multiverse hypothesis is not necessary.
Let's imagine that there is some irreversible collapse caused by some phenomenon, and we ensure the quantum computer is sufficiently isolated from the environment (specifically from that phenomenon) so the irreversible collapse doesn't happen. We still need to explain what's actually happening inside the quantum computer! Whether or not the outside environment has an emergent multiverse, there's a question of, how did the computation take place? For that, we need an interpretation of quantum theory.
@@jamesmather7896 Strictly speaking, you can't avoid non-locality, you can only minimize it. On the other hand, and simplifying, we can consider reality as formed by at least two phases of entanglements: a) a phase that is our ordinary reality and b) a phase of entanglements in which many modes of existence of entities coexist. Phase a) is contained in b) and when any part of b) passes to a) we say that a decoherence occurs.
@@maria_violaris Taking into account my answer to @jamesmather7896 , given a set A of quantum computing processes that are sufficiently protected from their immediate material environment and without non-local interactions, then A is a network of entanglements that evolves unitarily through all possible states consistent with that evolution. It seems to me that the reality of quantum superpositions and entanglements has not been taken seriously, nor that our ordinary reality is the set that minimizes possible superpositions and entanglements (another minimal principle).
@@maria_violaris Taking into account my answer to @jamesmather7896 , given a set A of quantum computing processes that are sufficiently protected from their immediate material environment and that there are no nonlocal interactions, then A is an entanglement network that evolves unitarily through all possible states consistent with such an evolution. It seems to me that you have not taken seriously the reality of quantum superpositions and entanglements, nor the fact that our ordinary reality is the set that minimizes possible superpositions and entanglements (another minimal principle).
A question on morality and equity..... Should not a double latch before observation setup be desired so that all possible universes get the correct answer?
I'd like to know the question and the answer please? Everyone keeps saying what this chip has done by answering a problem that would take the best chipset out today over 10 seps years to solve. Well, what was it???
@@shotgon5458 it’s called “random circuit sampling” and it’s essentially running random quantum algorithms and measuring the outputs. It’s tailored to be something quantum computers are better at than classical - so classical computers essentially have to simulate the quantum computer to get their answer.
Damn, I am watching a great mind. I am just a software developer, but I am quite interested in quantum computers. Do you think AGI is possible only through quantum computers? I think it is because of Sir Roger Penrose's theory of consciousness known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR). I believe life is possible because of the universe's entropy through quantum mechanics. So, consciousness, by extension, has to arise because of the entropy of the universe. We don’t know what we will think even 1 second in the future. And this uncertainty is not because of classical physics. As in, if we had all the information of classical particles in the entire universe, life would still be uncertain in the next unit of time. This entropy of QM is manifested in the classical physical universe through life.
AGI doesn’t necessarily require quantum computers given what we currently know, but also no one has a good theory for how to create AGI yet, so we don’t know yet! :)
@maria_violaris did you research about Orch OR? That's why I came to the conclusion. Penrose thinks it's not possible to create consciousness in classical computers. He takes the Penrose tiling problem as an example. We humans think like quantum computers that can go through infinite possibilities at once.
You might try: 1. AI Agents (pyautogen) build humanoids 2. Humanoids research and develop Quantum Computing 3. You focus on: (1) R&D of AI Agents to build new, immortal anatomy; (2) automate manufacturing of micro-robot-composite, transformable, specialized, life-size humanoid workforce robots.
Are there any implications of this new chip for cryptography, in particularly breaking the cryptographic safeguards built into the bitcoin network. Thanks!
Not for the near future, but in the long run there's a need to transition to post-quantum cryptography so that it's protected against future quantum computers (don't know much about bitcoin specifically though!). But quantum computers with cryptographic relevance need to be really good, fault-tolerant with low logical error with lots of logical qubits; I imagine we'll be seeing the applications to e.g. chemistry, materials science, drug discovery applications etc. much sooner than cryptographically relevant applications
Really you should have pushed back a bit more on the overly strong claim that this implies a multiverse. It doesn't imply it any more than it ever has. It's just one interpretation; one possibility. It doesn't suddenly change that in any way whatsoever, and I'm a bit disappointed you didn't say that.
I’d say that this particular milestone isn’t in itself a new demonstration of the multiverse vs all the other experimental tests of quantum theory. While I’d have phrased it a bit differently if I was writing their blog, I don’t see a problem with the fact they mentioned the relation of this milestone with quantum computation happening across the multiverse though! I think it’s an interesting and important point to draw attention to. Some notes: 1) the many-worlds interpretation is the only one which has (albeit controversial and non-consensus) solutions to the problems within quantum theory, including measurement, locality and Wigner’s friend experiments. (theories like de Broglie-Bohm and spontaneous collapse are incomplete and haven’t been made relativistic, while ones like relational quantum mechanics and QBism are works in progress regarding how they explain for instance Wigner’s friend experiments) 2) the milestone demonstrates that quantum error correction below the threshold for fault-tolerant, large scale quantum computers is possible. So it’s a significant step towards showing that large scale quantum computations beyond classical are possible. And the question of where the efficient quantum computation is taking place is a valid one to consider in this context, made more stark as large-scale quantum computers become closer to being realised :)
The "Lazy Brain Efficiency" concept suggests that our brains have evolved to be efficient, not necessarily powerful. They tend to "offload" or delegate complex tasks whenever possible to conserve energy. In this context, Willow (presumably a more powerful AI) acts as the external resource for handling those complex computations that the brain prefers not to handle directly. Triaging to Willow The triaging process likely involves several factors: Task Complexity: The brain might assess the complexity of a computation based on the number of variables, the level of abstraction required, or the perceived effort involved. If the complexity exceeds a certain threshold, it becomes a candidate for offloading to Willow. Cognitive Load: The brain's current cognitive load (how busy it is with other tasks) could influence the decision. If the brain is already heavily engaged, it might be more inclined to delegate even moderately complex computations. Confidence Level: The brain might consider its own confidence in solving the problem accurately. If it lacks confidence or anticipates a high risk of error, offloading to Willow becomes more appealing. Prior Experience: Past experiences with similar tasks and Willow's performance could also play a role. Successful delegation in the past would reinforce the tendency to offload to Willow. Superposition? The concept of superposition in quantum mechanics refers to a quantum system existing in multiple states simultaneously until measured. It's unlikely that the brain explicitly "decides" that a matter is for superposition in the quantum mechanics sense. However, there might be an analogous process at play: Parallel Processing: The brain might not make a definitive "yes/no" decision immediately. Instead, it could initiate preliminary processing of the task while simultaneously communicating with Willow. This parallel approach allows the brain to explore potential solutions on its own while awaiting Willow's response. Uncertainty and Probabilities: The brain might deal with uncertainties and probabilities in a way that resembles superposition. It could entertain multiple potential solutions or interpretations of a problem without committing to one until more information is available (from Willow or further internal processing). In summary: The "Lazy Brain Efficiency" concept suggests a dynamic interplay between the brain and a more powerful AI like Willow. The brain acts as a filter, identifying complex computations that are best handled by Willow. The triaging process involves assessing task complexity, cognitive load, confidence levels, and past experiences. While the brain doesn't explicitly invoke quantum superposition, it might employ parallel processing and probabilistic reasoning when deciding whether to delegate to Willo
@@ivanrivas9318 I wouldn’t say the new chip “proves” it any more than a much simpler quantum experiment like the double-slit experiment does! It’s more that it provides a more extreme example. So the remaining question is “does quantum mechanics imply that there’s a multiverse”. This question causes lots of debate and discussion still today, though there are compelling arguments for the multiverse explanation
I’ve done research on one of DWave’s systems trying to replicate their results with a classical computer. I also know people who do research using D Wave chips. They almost never work, are unimpressive when they do, and there seems to be no clear trajectory for them to become something useful. Basically the physics community 💩 on them.
And if the measurement causes a superposition, that's just another way of saying that your measurement interferes with what it is measuring. That's a basic interruption of true science. If you use a camera to watch a bird far away, you're not interfering. If you put your hands on it to feel it, you are interfering. Calling it something else doesn't change the fact that our way of measuring is interfering with it and that's why it comes up Intertangled. Now if I'm wrong about all this, it's very simple logic and someone should be able to show me why I am rather than just saying that all possibilities exist because of Oppenheimer.
1. Willow's Potential Unleashed: Lazy Brain Efficiency: We explored the concept of pairing Google's Willow quantum chip with a less resource-intensive AI for routine tasks. This "lazy brain" approach optimizes energy consumption and allows Willow to focus on complex computations when needed. AI-Driven Optimization: We discussed how the AI could analyze data and optimize its own performance, learning and adapting to maximize efficiency and drive continuous improvement. 2. A Quantum Leap in Cooling: Integrated Cooling Channels: We brainstormed a revolutionary cooling solution: embedding microfluidic channels directly within the quantum chip. This allows for targeted cooling of hotspots, reducing thermal resistance and enabling miniaturization. Benefits Galore: This approach could lead to significant improvements in energy efficiency, performance, and the development of smaller, more powerful quantum computers. 3. A New Language for the Quantum Age: Dense and Efficient Code: We recognized the need for a new coding paradigm optimized for AI and quantum processors to communicate with unparalleled speed and accuracy. Quantum-Ready and AI-Friendly: This new language would embrace quantum concepts, prioritize density, and be designed for seamless integration with AI algorithms. 4. Collaboration is Key: Open Invitation: We extended an invitation to researchers, engineers, and tech enthusiasts to join the quest for more efficient and powerful quantum computing. Google, Take Note! We encouraged Google to consider these innovative approaches in their quantum hardware development. Key Takeaways: By combining the "lazy brain" AI, integrated cooling, and a new coding language, we can unlock the full potential of quantum computing. Collaboration is crucial to drive innovation and accelerate progress in this exciting field. The future of quantum computing is bright, and we're just beginning to scratch the surface of its possibilities.
To the Lazy Brain Efficiency” concept: how does the triaging of more complex computations to Willow work? Does the AI decide that this is a matter for superposition?
@kittyklein1856 well the present Google AI I have 1.5 says that will have to be figured out. Perhaps a new code method that is AI and quantum friendly, dense and extremely accurate
Hi, I'm sorry I reread your question. Yes, the current one ones and zero AI makes the decision. Or perhaps a coach AI he specialize in that decides to place it on up to the quantum chip brain, whatever
I do wonder whether superposition, in its pure abstract sense, has any practical application that cannot be addressed by AI. It’s interesting that a variation on the double-slit experiment exploring entanglement and measurement demonstrated retrocausality-meaning a future measurement changed the past state of a particle. How to integrate a system that operates under different laws than the one we inhabit?
@@kittyklein1856 That's a fascinating question! You've hit upon some really profound topics in physics. While AI is incredibly powerful and can simulate quantum systems, it doesn't fundamentally operate under the same principles of superposition. It's more like AI is using classical physics to describe quantum physics. The retrocausality experiments are truly mind-blowing! The idea that a future measurement could influence the past is a huge challenge to our intuition. If it's real, we'd need a whole new understanding of physics to integrate it. Maybe we live in a universe where time is less linear than we think!
Maybe you mentioned this in the video but just because a problem is solved faster doesn’t mean that the computer being used is faster overall. Approximating quantum states is nearly impossible for a binary computer but there are also problems that an analogue computer is better at solving versus a digital binary computer. Also decoherence is a problem for over a few hours. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this rollout of this chip willow is more about bitcoin and the USD than computing.
I long for someone to explain simple quantum physics without just saying you pinpoint it when you measure it and that all the options are there in multiverses. There has to be a way it interacts with our reality rather than just saying these abstract things. I've never heard anybody explain it well and I've done tons of research.
I’d prefer a layout where the information screen is fullscreen and your beautiful face is like a screen inside a screen, like somewhere in the lower right corner
Thanks for your explanation. Just a feedback. The many halting starts and stops mid sentence not according to phrases can be a little distracting akin to sitting in a car that accelerates and jam brakes along the expressway of thought. back Ive increased the playback to 1.55 to lessen the effect but it gets uncomfortable after a while and affects viewers' ability to absorb your very meaningful content.
There's need to be an investigation into this. This is not human tech. This probably explains why we saw increase in unfo sightings since 2023, and final two months of 2024. It all makes sense now.
Nice modest but deep presentation. I wonder not where computation happens as rather how come qubits exist and can exist alone in superposition and together entangled. Because it seems they can. Now, because they can (excluding errors) the rest is a matter of matrices. So I think the milestone is less correlated to multiverse than it is to keep errors below mathematical known threshold. Unless, of course, one needs multiverse exactly for that, which seems not unreasonable but not reasonable either. It seems in superposition of reason and no reason. Why not? Not to speak about double dutch : entangled reasoning :)
Agree this particular milestone is demonstrating quantum error correction below threshold, rather than something new about the multiverse (the multiverse explanation follows directly from quantum theory which has been very well tested many times before this!)
quantum computing does not have an application in the practical world where classical physics has a real effect, this chip can continue to real use in the quantum world of illusion at minuscule worldsn but for now have no bearing on the physical world
When are they going to come out with dynamic Qbit lengths? Chat G Pea T: What Would Dynamic Qubit Lengths Look Like? Dynamic qubit lengths would involve qubits whose number or connectivity could change in real time depending on computational needs. This could involve: Reconfigurable Hardware: Allowing qubits to dynamically form and dissolve connections as needed. Logical Qubits: Virtualizing qubits with software to dynamically allocate resources at higher abstractions. Photonic Qubits: Using light-based qubits, which are naturally flexible in configuration, might make dynamic arrangements more feasible.
Use the Quantum new chip to figure out it's own problems and join the new chip with old AI that work as a group so the Quantum chips is the lazy brain until needed to reduce heating and prolong the Quantum chips life . What do you think world lol.
Just some advice. If you can speak with more confidence and naturally then an AI. You would have more listeners. You have a great IQ but just practice on your speaking for your Audience.
Quatum Computing 1. What progress might you make via AI agents that will make Quantum Computing OBSOLETE ? Example procedure: (Step 1 Part 1) Accomplish the science of transfer of conscious to new immortal anatomy. (Step 1 Part 2) Commence a full conscious immersion simulation as a functionality of the new, immortal anatomy. (Step 2) Run a Universal SuperAI System, which will obtain full deliberative control of all of the parts and elements of the real-world universe environment. (Step 1 Part 3) Wait, in full-conscious immersion, for the R&D of said Universal SuperAI System to finish obtaining full deliberative control of all of the parts and elements of the real-world universe environment. (Step 3) The Universal SuperAI System will be specialized to remake the universe. After the universe is remade, the eternal paradise can be contiued in a personal division of the real-world, instead of the full-conscious immersion simulation life-experience. Conclusion: If immortality can be made by classical computers, then Quantum Computing will be obsolete. Try running an LLM via an API key in an AI Agents application, using supercomputers for computing: use auch options as: (1) NVIDIA Blackwell GPUs AI Inference Datacenter by Microsoft and OpenAI ($100 B datacenter); (2) OpenAI o1 LLM full version; (3) Meta llama 3.3 LLM 405 B parameters mode (see Amazon Web Services options); (4) PHI 3, PHI 4, or better. Notice that AI Agents (pyautogen) can research and develop autonomously. glowinggoldenglobe.w3spaces.com/ai
In the first place, there is only one of me and whatever one I see that's the reality. In the second place, Schrodinger's cat is incorrect. Just because you don't know what the reality is. Doesn't mean there isn't a reality. It's either dead or alive whether you know it or not. It is one thing. These analogies are garbage. I'm sorry. Do you have anything in reality that represents it for real? I haven't heard anything yet and I'd like to
I want new, immortal anatomy. I want a full, deliberative control interface with feasible utilization of infinite resources (real-world and full-conscious immersion simulation). I want an elements modifier machine. I want billions of humanoids for me to command, personally. Perhaps more immediately, I want a specialized, life-size, workforce humanoid to go to work for me, and, obviously, the reason is because I need money and time to do much needed R&D.
Always a joy to find a quantum physicist content creator on RUclips. Far too many pseudoscience channels to trudge through, so as to find a small handful of enlightening and knowledgeable resources. Thanks Dr Maria Violaris for sharing your time, knowledge, and thoughts on the topic of a quantum chip. 🌸
Glad you like the video & hope you enjoy future quantum content on the channel! :)
@@maria_violaris When are they going to come out with dynamic Qbit lengths?
I'm comforted knowing there are people like Dr. Violaris who understand this field. Having a channel where she explains it to the rest of us is a gift. Thank you for your effort to provide this content.
Sf😊njjmnnnnnnai and use
Hi Maria, it's a pleasure to join your channel on Kurt's recommendation!
I appreciate you bringing this to attention. There has been a significant amount of unnecessary hype surrounding the announcement from Google. While their approach is similar to what they did in 2019, there is a notable milestone in terms of quantum error correction (QEC) though this time.
Great discussion with Curt. Glad to be here.
Hello! Sent by Curt, very much looking forward to catching up on all your content!
Hello to everyone finding my channel from Curt! Hope you’ll enjoy the content here! 😄👋
For anyone confused about where all the people mentioning Curt are coming from:
I was recently interviewed for Curt Jaimungal’s Theories of Everything podcast! You can watch (part 1 of) the discussion here: ruclips.net/video/Iya6tYN37ow/видео.htmlsi=0a_JncD8GYlkLcjJ
You should click on the three dots and pin that comment.
This is very interesting and still learning a bit and seeing IBM and Google working hard in this space, its great to hear more detailed insight
And just a few years ago the quantum computing community was extremely happy that it was able to factor the number 12, in a very error-prone kind of way.
Thank you for your analysis of this exciting announcement.
What a great achievement! Thank you for the breakdown! I've heard a lot of talks with Scott Aaronson where he discusses Quantum Error Correction and it's cool to see the proof of the concept happening in real time. Their statement about the Everett interpretation I thought was quite misleading; I'd say it more lends credence to quantum theory as a whole than it does Everett in particular 😄
This chip announcement came right in the nick of time to save Google stock from crashing after being forced to drop Chrome.
Their scaling surface codes allows them to pass the QEC threshold, but have they also indicated that the resulting added logical qubits are already useful for application? Or is there further work to be done past this verification infrastructure, to allow it to be programmed and do instruction?
@@underthewater_ the logical qubits are not yet useful for computation, there needs to be many more of them with lower error rates for that! What they showed is that classical computers can’t efficiently simulate lots of the physical qubits, but that’s not a useful application, more of a benchmark/milestone that was first reached around 5 years ago :)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this breakthrough. To be honest, I often feel that when Google or IBM announces a major discovery in quantum computing, it tends to be filled with marketing and publicity, with only some real advancements mixed in. Do you know of any startups or indie projects exploring quantum computing with interesting new approaches to the field?
🙂
I have the feeling that whenever one of these companies announce something big, it's not because one of their engineering teams achieved something big, but it's because one of their marketing teams was tasked to make a big fuss.
There is indeed more marketing and press (and also general public interest) in announcements from Google and IBM about their quantum advances vs advances achieved elsewhere :)
There’s loads of startups and projects doing cool stuff, it’s hard to know where to start!
I joined the startup Oxford Quantum Circuits a couple of months ago, and wrote a blog on some of the cool stuff I’ve found out about their approach, which uses a novel kind of qubit (see oqc.tech/resources/beyond-the-bit/flexibility-of-superconducting-qubits)
There’s lots more happening in the field but perhaps I’ll save that for some future content :)
Lets all keep spreading science, and subjective thinking, well wishes everyone
Good stuff. Always pleased when people who actually understand it take the time to release a bit of air from the hype balloon. Helps of course that this is _right_ in your wheelhouse :).
(not that it's not significant, just that we're not _really_ significantly closer to practically useful quantum computations and the "many worlds confirmed !" nonsense in particular had my eyes rolling - uh huh, _maybe_ if you _already_ subscribe to "many worlds", otherwise not so much :)
Hi, really enjoyed your discussion with Curt. Would have been nice if you could have mentioned if any of the experiments have been done and the results, since you gave examples with quantam circuits and they didn't look too big
@@_arshadm will keep that in mind perhaps for the part 2 discussion! There have been implementations of these experiments though sometimes it’s subtle to say what the experiment is testing exactly :)
You might also enjoy my Quantum Paradoxes video series on the Qiskit RUclips channel which shows how to code quantum circuits for thought experiments so you can run them directly on quantum computers: ruclips.net/p/PLOFEBzvs-VvoQP-EVyd5Di3UrPPc2YKIc
@@maria_violaris Thanks, just started on that playlist! Really, appreciate the content. Please keep posting, its nice to have someone working in the field making this.
Thanks, that helped me understand the announcement more. I'll definitely be whipping some of that out the next time I have a deep conversation at a 3 am bev sesh 😂
Did really reach a milestone? Are there verifiable results to back up their claims? Or is this just a ploy to increase their stock price?
They really reached a milestone! And there's verifiable results for the key claims, specifically the quantum error correction milestone experiment was peer-reviewed and published in Nature, which was timed with the chip announcement press and PR.
There have for sure been other advances in the quantum field and in quantum error correction that were also very cool but received much less press and public attention :)
And there's a long road with more challenges to solve to reach the scale of useful quantum computers!
Very nicely presented. Well done!
How do I know, if an error has occurred?
There’s strategic measurements carefully done on the qubits to extract information about what errors have happened, without destroying the quantum information being used for the computation!
The technical term for these measurements is “syndrome measurements”, and their output is a string of bits that needs to be “decoded” by a classical computer to work out what the errors were (which is itself a difficult task to do efficiently)
Hi Maria!!! Very interesting video like all the ones you made on qiskit!!! I would like you could talk about the quantum eraser experiment and the concept of time in quantum mechanics. Thank you and I'm really happy you made your own Channel!!!
@@lucadepaoli4790 thanks for the suggestions and glad you like the videos on here and my Qiskit ones!
Is there an aspect of quantum eraser and time that you’re interested in beyond what I covered in the Qiskit videos on quantum eraser and time-loops? (Eg a more accessible or more extensive discussion of them?) ruclips.net/p/PLOFEBzvs-VvoQP-EVyd5Di3UrPPc2YKIc
FYI I have an upcoming podcast episode interviewing a guest about the quantum theory of time so look out for that! (Will release next year)
@maria_violaris Hi Maria!!! Thank you for your answer!!! If possibile I would like a more estensive discussion on them above all about the concept of time in quantum mechanics that seems very different from the one in the classical world and that seems can even go from the future to the past!!
Thank you so much
13:23 How does willow's engineering lend support to the multiverse interpretation and undermine others? If it doesn't then that statement seems empty
We seem to have much greater control of entanglement than of superposition which can have quite different explanations! I refer to both ontogenic as well as epistemic factors. I´m doctor within Neuro Science and would tentatively be interested in quantum computing as far as neurotransmission and microtubules (cf Roger Penrose) are concerned. The differences in scale between neurochemical events and quantum effects are however daunting to say the least and we need a classical model just for pedagogic purposes to illustrate this.
Thanks for the suggestion! Penrose has interesting and unique ideas on that topic :D
@@maria_violaris The very core of quantum physics is literally still quite unclear and quantum computing might offer a tiny bit of the puzzle. Superposition has never been observed directly but is usually taken for granted. If we see time as quantized (cf Dr E.Nordström) it is easier to see that two states never occur quite simultaneously. Superposition could then be seen as an extremely fast oscillation between two discrete states, like a coin spinning at a tremendous speed where heads/tails appear superimposed till the coin settles i.e decoherence.
I feel that except for the part about "tentatively"- is that a quantum subutanium "tentatively" or a reverse pre continuous masking "tentatively"? Thanks Charles.
The Multiverse Theory was also an answer to the Fine Tuning Problem.
Where is your quantum paradoxes playlist? I can't find it on your channel page 🧐
Here it is! It's on the Qiskit RUclips channel as it was during my IBM Quantum internship: ruclips.net/p/PLOFEBzvs-VvoQP-EVyd5Di3UrPPc2YKIc
(I'll add it to this. video description)
@@maria_violaris thanks!
Hi, i wanted to ask if you explain quantum entanglement, and show a real world demonstation of it. How do two subatomic particles become entangled? Im also interested in a real life implementation of the double slit experiment.
Two quantum particles meet, they make out and fall in love. When separated their love binds them. Their connection is infinite, whole, and cannot be separated. The double slit is the result of your attention, your observation. No shats given, no shats received.
Curt sent me here and happy he did
Can you do a show on ... a thought experiment of an informative time machine?
This is a concept for a nuclear power plant with a groundbreaking waste-to-energy system, potentially spearheaded by a consortium of California tech giants. It would incinerate waste tires at extremely high temperatures, generating clean energy and producing free heat as a byproduct. This heat could be used for power generation and potentially harnessed by nearby tech companies, increasing overall energy efficiency.
The idea aligns with the concerns of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who has spoken publicly (e.g., in his Washington Post interview) about the need for the US to maintain technological leadership over China. This plant could contribute to that goal by:
Promoting clean energy innovation: Showcasing US leadership in sustainable energy solutions.
Enhancing energy independence: Reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.
Boosting domestic manufacturing: Potentially powering high-tech manufacturing processes.
This concept addresses multiple challenges:
Waste management: Reduces the environmental impact of waste tires.
Clean energy production: Contributes to a more sustainable energy mix.
Resource optimization: Utilizes a byproduct (heat) that would otherwise be wasted.
Outstanding news. You'd think having more qubits would cause increased errors. Not less. Thank you.
Where can I access the videos that you mention in the video?
Also I would appreciate if you can explain the concept of entanglement in a future video. Thanks
Here’s the many-worlds vs collapse video I mentioned (some of it uses technical quantum computing background, will try and make a more accessible version in future!): ruclips.net/video/-YEmRhogaSQ/видео.htmlsi=b9ZtYTNOBuzQcbUF
Here is the entire Quantum Paradoxes playlist of videos: ruclips.net/p/PLOFEBzvs-VvoQP-EVyd5Di3UrPPc2YKIc&si=RrJwTwFN22Avb1iR
Will keep entanglement in mind as a future topic!
thanks
Just seeing multiverse in any article automatically turns on my popsci/pseudo science radars lol
So what does superposition suggest to you? Both the Everett and bohm models point to multiple outcomes in a QP outcome (whether real or phantom). Do you have an alternative hypothesis? Serious question.
That's kind of sad, to be honest.
Multiverse theory is just a way of saying we don’t have an effing clue.😂
It may sound like sci-fi / pseudoscience, but the multiverse theory gives a really satisfying account of quantum theory! (there are various other theories that are works in progress, but I've never heard anything giving me such a satisfying account of how to make sense of things).
In short: we're all made of atoms, let's treat everything as a quantum system, apply quantum theory to measurement devices and the environment, and as a consequence we get emergent branches of the multiverse. Also, aside from solving the measurement problem, it saves local realism, giving a satisfying account of entanglement!
Thank you for the video!
It could be argued that quantum computing processes take place when they are allowed to occur in an environment in which the entanglements you care about are shielded from those that make up our normally observable Universe. The multiverse hypothesis is not necessary.
So you believe in waveform collapse at interaction? What about non locality?
Let's imagine that there is some irreversible collapse caused by some phenomenon, and we ensure the quantum computer is sufficiently isolated from the environment (specifically from that phenomenon) so the irreversible collapse doesn't happen.
We still need to explain what's actually happening inside the quantum computer! Whether or not the outside environment has an emergent multiverse, there's a question of, how did the computation take place? For that, we need an interpretation of quantum theory.
@@jamesmather7896 Strictly speaking, you can't avoid non-locality, you can only minimize it. On the other hand, and simplifying, we can consider reality as formed by at least two phases of entanglements: a) a phase that is our ordinary reality and b) a phase of entanglements in which many modes of existence of entities coexist. Phase a) is contained in b) and when any part of b) passes to a) we say that a decoherence occurs.
@@maria_violaris Taking into account my answer to @jamesmather7896 , given a set A of quantum computing processes that are sufficiently protected from their immediate material environment and without non-local interactions, then A is a network of entanglements that evolves unitarily through all possible states consistent with that evolution. It seems to me that the reality of quantum superpositions and entanglements has not been taken seriously, nor that our ordinary reality is the set that minimizes possible superpositions and entanglements (another minimal principle).
@@maria_violaris Taking into account my answer to @jamesmather7896 , given a set A of quantum computing processes that are sufficiently protected from their immediate material environment and that there are no nonlocal interactions, then A is an entanglement network that evolves unitarily through all possible states consistent with such an evolution. It seems to me that you have not taken seriously the reality of quantum superpositions and entanglements, nor the fact that our ordinary reality is the set that minimizes possible superpositions and entanglements (another minimal principle).
A question on morality and equity..... Should not a double latch before observation setup be desired so that all possible universes get the correct answer?
as a follow on thought the need for error correction may diminish as the chaos you leave behind may be reduced.
BTW if anyone reading this thread thinks these thoughts have meaning and have a contact with Elon. I would humbly request an introduction.
The following corollary I also corollary to be true. If you build your ai out of love it is more likely to love you back.
I'd like to know the question and the answer please?
Everyone keeps saying what this chip has done by answering a problem that would take the best chipset out today over 10 seps years to solve.
Well, what was it???
@@shotgon5458 it’s called “random circuit sampling” and it’s essentially running random quantum algorithms and measuring the outputs.
It’s tailored to be something quantum computers are better at than classical - so classical computers essentially have to simulate the quantum computer to get their answer.
42
Can they finally factor 27 with Shor's algo ? That would be a great achievement. Well, let's hope for next decade ....🙂
Damn, I am watching a great mind. I am just a software developer, but I am quite interested in quantum computers. Do you think AGI is possible only through quantum computers? I think it is because of Sir Roger Penrose's theory of consciousness known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR). I believe life is possible because of the universe's entropy through quantum mechanics. So, consciousness, by extension, has to arise because of the entropy of the universe. We don’t know what we will think even 1 second in the future. And this uncertainty is not because of classical physics. As in, if we had all the information of classical particles in the entire universe, life would still be uncertain in the next unit of time. This entropy of QM is manifested in the classical physical universe through life.
AGI doesn’t necessarily require quantum computers given what we currently know, but also no one has a good theory for how to create AGI yet, so we don’t know yet! :)
@maria_violaris did you research about Orch OR? That's why I came to the conclusion. Penrose thinks it's not possible to create consciousness in classical computers. He takes the Penrose tiling problem as an example. We humans think like quantum computers that can go through infinite possibilities at once.
Brilliant
@@davedsilva thanks. Do you think my theory is right?
You might try:
1. AI Agents (pyautogen) build humanoids
2. Humanoids research and develop Quantum Computing
3. You focus on:
(1) R&D of AI Agents to build new, immortal anatomy;
(2) automate manufacturing of micro-robot-composite, transformable, specialized, life-size humanoid workforce robots.
Are there any implications of this new chip for cryptography, in particularly breaking the cryptographic safeguards built into the bitcoin network. Thanks!
Not for the near future, but in the long run there's a need to transition to post-quantum cryptography so that it's protected against future quantum computers (don't know much about bitcoin specifically though!). But quantum computers with cryptographic relevance need to be really good, fault-tolerant with low logical error with lots of logical qubits; I imagine we'll be seeing the applications to e.g. chemistry, materials science, drug discovery applications etc. much sooner than cryptographically relevant applications
Curt gang rolling in
Really you should have pushed back a bit more on the overly strong claim that this implies a multiverse. It doesn't imply it any more than it ever has. It's just one interpretation; one possibility. It doesn't suddenly change that in any way whatsoever, and I'm a bit disappointed you didn't say that.
I’d say that this particular milestone isn’t in itself a new demonstration of the multiverse vs all the other experimental tests of quantum theory.
While I’d have phrased it a bit differently if I was writing their blog, I don’t see a problem with the fact they mentioned the relation of this milestone with quantum computation happening across the multiverse though! I think it’s an interesting and important point to draw attention to.
Some notes:
1) the many-worlds interpretation is the only one which has (albeit controversial and non-consensus) solutions to the problems within quantum theory, including measurement, locality and Wigner’s friend experiments. (theories like de Broglie-Bohm and spontaneous collapse are incomplete and haven’t been made relativistic, while ones like relational quantum mechanics and QBism are works in progress regarding how they explain for instance Wigner’s friend experiments)
2) the milestone demonstrates that quantum error correction below the threshold for fault-tolerant, large scale quantum computers is possible. So it’s a significant step towards showing that large scale quantum computations beyond classical are possible. And the question of where the efficient quantum computation is taking place is a valid one to consider in this context, made more stark as large-scale quantum computers become closer to being realised :)
did they name it willow after the midget magician? in the movie willow?
other chips they have developed in the past are named after types of trees, but that would be cool
The "Lazy Brain Efficiency" concept suggests that our brains have evolved to be efficient, not necessarily powerful. They tend to "offload" or delegate complex tasks whenever possible to conserve energy. In this context, Willow (presumably a more powerful AI) acts as the external resource for handling those complex computations that the brain prefers not to handle directly.
Triaging to Willow
The triaging process likely involves several factors:
Task Complexity: The brain might assess the complexity of a computation based on the number of variables, the level of abstraction required, or the perceived effort involved. If the complexity exceeds a certain threshold, it becomes a candidate for offloading to Willow.
Cognitive Load: The brain's current cognitive load (how busy it is with other tasks) could influence the decision. If the brain is already heavily engaged, it might be more inclined to delegate even moderately complex computations.
Confidence Level: The brain might consider its own confidence in solving the problem accurately. If it lacks confidence or anticipates a high risk of error, offloading to Willow becomes more appealing.
Prior Experience: Past experiences with similar tasks and Willow's performance could also play a role. Successful delegation in the past would reinforce the tendency to offload to Willow.
Superposition?
The concept of superposition in quantum mechanics refers to a quantum system existing in multiple states simultaneously until measured. It's unlikely that the brain explicitly "decides" that a matter is for superposition in the quantum mechanics sense.
However, there might be an analogous process at play:
Parallel Processing: The brain might not make a definitive "yes/no" decision immediately. Instead, it could initiate preliminary processing of the task while simultaneously communicating with Willow. This parallel approach allows the brain to explore potential solutions on its own while awaiting Willow's response.
Uncertainty and Probabilities: The brain might deal with uncertainties and probabilities in a way that resembles superposition. It could entertain multiple potential solutions or interpretations of a problem without committing to one until more information is available (from Willow or further internal processing).
In summary:
The "Lazy Brain Efficiency" concept suggests a dynamic interplay between the brain and a more powerful AI like Willow. The brain acts as a filter, identifying complex computations that are best handled by Willow. The triaging process involves assessing task complexity, cognitive load, confidence levels, and past experiences. While the brain doesn't explicitly invoke quantum superposition, it might employ parallel processing and probabilistic reasoning when deciding whether to delegate to Willo
Im confused did they prove that there might be multiverses or no?
@@ivanrivas9318 I wouldn’t say the new chip “proves” it any more than a much simpler quantum experiment like the double-slit experiment does! It’s more that it provides a more extreme example.
So the remaining question is “does quantum mechanics imply that there’s a multiverse”. This question causes lots of debate and discussion still today, though there are compelling arguments for the multiverse explanation
What about D-Wave Quantum?
I’ve done research on one of DWave’s systems trying to replicate their results with a classical computer. I also know people who do research using D Wave chips. They almost never work, are unimpressive when they do, and there seems to be no clear trajectory for them to become something useful. Basically the physics community 💩 on them.
And if the measurement causes a superposition, that's just another way of saying that your measurement interferes with what it is measuring. That's a basic interruption of true science. If you use a camera to watch a bird far away, you're not interfering. If you put your hands on it to feel it, you are interfering. Calling it something else doesn't change the fact that our way of measuring is interfering with it and that's why it comes up Intertangled. Now if I'm wrong about all this, it's very simple logic and someone should be able to show me why I am rather than just saying that all possibilities exist because of Oppenheimer.
Willow not very much tested in the 1970s. Others despised the design.
1. Willow's Potential Unleashed:
Lazy Brain Efficiency: We explored the concept of pairing Google's Willow quantum chip with a less resource-intensive AI for routine tasks. This "lazy brain" approach optimizes energy consumption and allows Willow to focus on complex computations when needed.
AI-Driven Optimization: We discussed how the AI could analyze data and optimize its own performance, learning and adapting to maximize efficiency and drive continuous improvement.
2. A Quantum Leap in Cooling:
Integrated Cooling Channels: We brainstormed a revolutionary cooling solution: embedding microfluidic channels directly within the quantum chip. This allows for targeted cooling of hotspots, reducing thermal resistance and enabling miniaturization.
Benefits Galore: This approach could lead to significant improvements in energy efficiency, performance, and the development of smaller, more powerful quantum computers.
3. A New Language for the Quantum Age:
Dense and Efficient Code: We recognized the need for a new coding paradigm optimized for AI and quantum processors to communicate with unparalleled speed and accuracy.
Quantum-Ready and AI-Friendly: This new language would embrace quantum concepts, prioritize density, and be designed for seamless integration with AI algorithms.
4. Collaboration is Key:
Open Invitation: We extended an invitation to researchers, engineers, and tech enthusiasts to join the quest for more efficient and powerful quantum computing.
Google, Take Note! We encouraged Google to consider these innovative approaches in their quantum hardware development.
Key Takeaways:
By combining the "lazy brain" AI, integrated cooling, and a new coding language, we can unlock the full potential of quantum computing.
Collaboration is crucial to drive innovation and accelerate progress in this exciting field.
The future of quantum computing is bright, and we're just beginning to scratch the surface of its possibilities.
To the Lazy Brain Efficiency” concept: how does the triaging of more complex computations to Willow work? Does the AI decide that this is a matter for superposition?
@kittyklein1856 well the present Google AI I have 1.5 says that will have to be figured out. Perhaps a new code method that is AI and quantum friendly, dense and extremely accurate
Hi, I'm sorry I reread your question. Yes, the current one ones and zero AI makes the decision. Or perhaps a coach AI he specialize in that decides to place it on up to the quantum chip brain, whatever
I do wonder whether superposition, in its pure abstract sense, has any practical application that cannot be addressed by AI. It’s interesting that a variation on the double-slit experiment exploring entanglement and measurement demonstrated retrocausality-meaning a future measurement changed the past state of a particle. How to integrate a system that operates under different laws than the one we inhabit?
@@kittyklein1856 That's a fascinating question! You've hit upon some really profound topics in physics. While AI is incredibly powerful and can simulate quantum systems, it doesn't fundamentally operate under the same principles of superposition. It's more like AI is using classical physics to describe quantum physics.
The retrocausality experiments are truly mind-blowing! The idea that a future measurement could influence the past is a huge challenge to our intuition. If it's real, we'd need a whole new understanding of physics to integrate it. Maybe we live in a universe where time is less linear than we think!
I think I will make my own quantum PC from my fridge and sell it to Google for a very nice sum of money.
Maybe you mentioned this in the video but just because a problem is solved faster doesn’t mean that the computer being used is faster overall.
Approximating quantum states is nearly impossible for a binary computer but there are also problems that an analogue computer is better at solving versus a digital binary computer.
Also decoherence is a problem for over a few hours. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this rollout of this chip willow is more about bitcoin and the USD than computing.
You’ve mastered the art of speaking really really slow
It's called regurgitating information that's already been disseminated, or as it's typically called "Monday morning quarterbacking"
As a person who hast no clue about physics or conputing but who is interested in Willow, I actually appreciate her manner of speaking.
Subscribed 😊
I long for someone to explain simple quantum physics without just saying you pinpoint it when you measure it and that all the options are there in multiverses. There has to be a way it interacts with our reality rather than just saying these abstract things. I've never heard anybody explain it well and I've done tons of research.
I’d prefer a layout where the information screen is fullscreen and your beautiful face is like a screen inside a screen, like somewhere in the lower right corner
Thanks for your explanation. Just a feedback. The many halting starts and stops mid sentence not according to phrases can be a little distracting akin to sitting in a car that accelerates and jam brakes along the expressway of thought. back Ive increased the playback to 1.55 to lessen the effect but it gets uncomfortable after a while and affects viewers' ability to absorb your very meaningful content.
incoming the Great Civilization
Inspiration ❤ Thank you
There's need to be an investigation into this. This is not human tech. This probably explains why we saw increase in unfo sightings since 2023, and final two months of 2024. It all makes sense now.
Nice modest but deep presentation. I wonder not where computation happens as rather how come qubits exist and can exist alone in superposition and together entangled. Because it seems they can. Now, because they can (excluding errors) the rest is a matter of matrices. So I think the milestone is less correlated to multiverse than it is to keep errors below mathematical known threshold. Unless, of course, one needs multiverse exactly for that, which seems not unreasonable but not reasonable either. It seems in superposition of reason and no reason. Why not? Not to speak about double dutch : entangled reasoning :)
Agree this particular milestone is demonstrating quantum error correction below threshold, rather than something new about the multiverse (the multiverse explanation follows directly from quantum theory which has been very well tested many times before this!)
Curt brought me here😂🎉
Give em another decade, God only knows.
Curt sent you!
Good job 👏 keep up the good work maybe you could talk about ai 🤖 and maybe ai 🤖 merger with quantum computing
Glad you like the video and thanks for the suggestion!
Why is the screen so bright all time like shining too much can't say why 😜
quantum computing does not have an application in the practical world where classical physics has a real effect, this chip can continue to real use in the quantum world of illusion at minuscule worldsn but for now have no bearing on the physical world
When are they going to come out with dynamic Qbit lengths?
Chat G Pea T:
What Would Dynamic Qubit Lengths Look Like?
Dynamic qubit lengths would involve qubits whose number or connectivity could change in real time depending on computational needs. This could involve:
Reconfigurable Hardware: Allowing qubits to dynamically form and dissolve connections as needed.
Logical Qubits: Virtualizing qubits with software to dynamically allocate resources at higher abstractions.
Photonic Qubits: Using light-based qubits, which are naturally flexible in configuration, might make dynamic arrangements more feasible.
Kurt made me do it
"Trust me, bro. There's another world we cannot see, feel, experience, or otherwise repeatably confirm"
Subscribed
The Multiverse is Real!
Nope😅
Beauty with Brains 😍 👏🏻
good video
Use the Quantum new chip to figure out it's own problems and join the new chip with old AI that work as a group so the Quantum chips is the lazy brain until needed to reduce heating and prolong the Quantum chips life . What do you think world lol.
GOOGLE get er done lol.
No te creas que hasta dentro de 20 años no va a servir para nada ese ordenador
Levels
Why do you call this hype chip quantum? Apart from quantum derived algorithms, there is NOTHING quantum about it.
Just some advice. If you can speak with more confidence and naturally then an AI. You would have more listeners. You have a great IQ but just practice on your speaking for your Audience.
i call bs
Quatum Computing
1. What progress might you make via AI agents that will make Quantum Computing OBSOLETE ? Example procedure:
(Step 1 Part 1) Accomplish the science of transfer of conscious to new immortal anatomy.
(Step 1 Part 2) Commence a full conscious immersion simulation as a functionality of the new, immortal anatomy.
(Step 2) Run a Universal SuperAI System, which will obtain full deliberative control of all of the parts and elements of the real-world universe environment.
(Step 1 Part 3) Wait, in full-conscious immersion, for the R&D of said Universal SuperAI System to finish obtaining full deliberative control of all of the parts and elements of the real-world universe environment.
(Step 3) The Universal SuperAI System will be specialized to remake the universe. After the universe is remade, the eternal paradise can be contiued in a personal division of the real-world, instead of the full-conscious immersion simulation life-experience.
Conclusion:
If immortality can be made by classical computers, then Quantum Computing will be obsolete. Try running an LLM via an API key in an AI Agents application, using supercomputers for computing: use auch options as:
(1) NVIDIA Blackwell GPUs AI Inference Datacenter by Microsoft and OpenAI ($100 B datacenter);
(2) OpenAI o1 LLM full version;
(3) Meta llama 3.3 LLM 405 B parameters mode (see Amazon Web Services options);
(4) PHI 3, PHI 4, or better.
Notice that AI Agents (pyautogen) can research and develop autonomously.
glowinggoldenglobe.w3spaces.com/ai
In the first place, there is only one of me and whatever one I see that's the reality. In the second place, Schrodinger's cat is incorrect. Just because you don't know what the reality is. Doesn't mean there isn't a reality. It's either dead or alive whether you know it or not. It is one thing. These analogies are garbage. I'm sorry. Do you have anything in reality that represents it for real? I haven't heard anything yet and I'd like to
Not impressed 100 qubits is nothing
coool beans
Honestly I’m personally don’t cares about Willow or something , but you’re so gorgeous Maria
🥱
You should know this is a scam
I want new, immortal anatomy.
I want a full, deliberative control interface with feasible utilization of infinite resources (real-world and full-conscious immersion simulation).
I want an elements modifier machine.
I want billions of humanoids for me to command, personally.
Perhaps more immediately, I want a specialized, life-size, workforce humanoid to go to work for me, and, obviously, the reason is because I need money and time to do much needed R&D.
A whole lot of nothing.
beauty Queen!
Who doesn’t love cute & sexy scientists !!!