Too bad this was too short. I personally met him in Norway, and he talked about his project on quantum computing in about 70 mins. Even that was not enough. Anyways, it is good to see him on TED
you know what i love about humans, we always underestimate time. and that can be a good thing or a bad thing, but this time it's a good thing because i'm sure it will take less than a couple of TED talks to get to that goal.
arayia6girmay if i am not mistaken we are yet to prove quantum computing operates in superposition. I actually allocated a percentage of doubt it will ,if the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong which i believe has a fair chance there is a problem with it.
well I understand what he said ........most of it..........the fist part and the middle part and the last part were confusing but i understood the rest of it nice
some how, I imagine, that one day we will be able to copy and transpose the Nano transistor. This nano will be able to be arranged in axis to one another to form a group. As they spin on its own axis its partnering axis does the same. Then I think again to the switch and I Imagine the switch not as being in position one or position two But a switch that rotates on its own axis. Seeing the switch interacting with multiple station points in conflict would produce a radicalization. As you introduce a new Nano to the Housing (host) This radicalization would then have an opposing effect thereby becoming de-radicalized. I guess my question here is, Do I imagine just the nano transistor controlled by one switch in one position?. I do have quite a bit more fun and say that my Input device isn't just an input but a output in position 2 with relation to its interaction with nano transistor 359. Why can't my switch be a radical nano switch consisting of many bridged positions in plane?. Think of the switch as a gyro scope in properties, as we tilt the plane the switch makes separate contacts. As we cross each field we generate differing voltages. As each can be placed in set position we can generate varying outputs in one movement. Switch 1 and switch 360 are acting in unison as all switches will within the same housing. In theory we find the radical to become a known quantity merely by the addition or subtraction. Call me crazy, but the only effective way to reach this level of production is on the Super Cloning method.
![KAYTRANADA - Witchy (feat. Childish Gambino) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jGK3YVmGZ3Y/mqdefault.jpg)
Too bad this was too short. I personally met him in Norway, and he talked about his project on quantum computing in about 70 mins. Even that was not enough. Anyways, it is good to see him on TED
Watching this after 10 years.
Very Very interesting Field. Can't wait to see what comes out of his work!
The DWave computer
Learning from ted talks is always fun
jump ahead to time 9:15 for the heart of the lecture
you know what i love about humans, we always underestimate time. and that can be a good thing or a bad thing, but this time it's a good thing because i'm sure it will take less than a couple of TED talks to get to that goal.
arayia6girmay if i am not mistaken we are yet to prove quantum computing operates in superposition. I actually allocated a percentage of doubt it will ,if the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong which i believe has a fair chance there is a problem with it.
Great Ted talk, great presenter.
He only covered Quantum entanglement in this speech! but i think given that time limit (11 Minutes) that's all what he could have done
Quantum entanglement is 1 min topic, why he explaining so much
well I understand what he said ........most of it..........the fist part and the middle part and the last part were confusing but i understood the rest of it nice
+miku hatsune haha haha
Good that you got the part before the lecture and the after.
designing GAN based room temp. quantum computer chips....why did i have to search 3 hours for this....why why why is it so dam short?
Did you remember Turan Kapudereli?
The DWave computer and the quantum internet today is a reality.
some how, I imagine, that one day we will be able to copy and transpose the Nano transistor. This nano will be able to be arranged in axis to one another to form a group. As they spin on its own axis its partnering axis does the same. Then I think again to the switch and I Imagine the switch not as being in position one or position two But a switch that rotates on its own axis. Seeing the switch interacting with multiple station points in conflict would produce a radicalization. As you introduce a new Nano to the Housing (host) This radicalization would then have an opposing effect thereby becoming de-radicalized. I guess my question here is, Do I imagine just the nano transistor controlled by one switch in one position?. I do have quite a bit more fun and say that my Input device isn't just an input but a output in position 2 with relation to its interaction with nano transistor 359. Why can't my switch be a radical nano switch consisting of many bridged positions in plane?. Think of the switch as a gyro scope in properties, as we tilt the plane the switch makes separate contacts. As we cross each field we generate differing voltages. As each can be placed in set position we can generate varying outputs in one movement. Switch 1 and switch 360 are acting in unison as all switches will within the same housing. In theory we find the radical to become a known quantity merely by the addition or subtraction.
Call me crazy, but the only effective way to reach this level of production is on the Super Cloning method.
"its", not "it's", is the possessive.
semantics ... :)
Troy Lewis Syntax actually.
He spends to long on EPR paradox of Quantum Entanglement & ©Schroedinger`s Cat which only leaves him 10mins to cover his own work.
Hi
Help Me
2011-2017 and they are still trying to make one ? lol
lucky Bastard !! (winks) showing off
XX~ TIME/GOD/THOUGHT/ Neurotic ACT between the CAVITIES OF OUR little BRAINS. WE ARE ALL THINKING GODS ~THINKING THE ABSURD.
🤔
Is it just me, or does he not realize.
A quantum transistor may be, not only:
- On
- Off
- Both
But also can be:
- Neither
how is that?
ur mad haha
Zhoul luohZ ...or both?
You r crazy, seriously
This is seriously boring. Everyone knows this.
Whos your daddy?