Not the first. The USB connector is a mechanical qbit. And it only collapses after 3 tries. It’s not a 50% split tho. It’s like 66.66% probably of collapsing into the wrong state.
Actually, USB-A connectors exist in a state of quantum superposition such that it's impossible to insert the plug until you look at the socket. That collapses the quantum waveform to a known state so that you can then insert the plug into the socket. 😆
All jokes aside , There is more to the USB tech and the qbit, just take a look at the source code updates from Ver 1.1 to 2.0 and the way quantum gates work with IrDA
The Behringer version may be good for studio use but I wouldn't want to rely on it on tour. Based on past experience their model name would be the Schrodinger 101 Synth; at each nights gig you would have to collapse the wave function by pressing the power button and discovering whether or not the synth was still 'alive'.
The photograph of the Qubit seems familiar; once it is removed (housed within it's translucent container) Hal 9000 sings 'Daisy'. Meanwhile, the image at 3:17 is the best look we've ever had of the TARDIS time rotor's interior... In all seriousness, thanks Anton. Endlessly fascinating as usual.
Anton, I want you to know that even when I have NO IDEA what you are talking about (this video is an example) I still find your videos to be very interesting. It’s nice to know what is happening in the science world that I am unable to comprehend! 😃👍
He is saying that we won't have quantum computers that do useful work faster than today's classical computers for years, if ever. And I suspect they will never be cheap.
@@billsimpson604 I understood that overall message, but have only the vaguest idea of anything more technical than that. I understand qubits need to be kept very cold to be fast. I'm fuzzy on how they actually function. It seems like it's a way to encode information as something more complex than a one or a zero (binary), but I don't understand anything beyond that.
2:01 Fun to think that when I'm old, we'll be looking back on our current 1000+ qubit computers the same way we look back at our old computers today.... "You darn kids with your fancy Q-Phones...back in my day our computers only had 1000 qubits and took up a whole room!!" lol
2:22 : I don’t know that I like the phrasing of “in between” 0 and 1. That brings to mind like, an interval between 0 and 1, which is not the right thing when it comes to superposition. I prefer to say “combination” or “mixture” of the 0 and 1 states (assuming one wants to avoid technical-sounding language. If one doesn’t mind technical-sounding language, one can just say “linear combination”.) 4:20 : this is wrong! The reason quantum computers would be faster isn’t because the individual operations are faster. It is because the algorithms that can be implemented on a quantum computer have an asymptotically faster runtime than the best known algorithms that can be run on a classical computer, for certain problems.
I agree, ‘between 0 and 1’ suggests you have 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 etc. just like you would say ‘between 1 and 10’ and automatically in your head you get 1, 2, 3 etc. While in quantum computing the thing to wrap your head around is that it can be both 0 and 1 at the same time.
It is all quite subtle. For instance, quantum algorithms give the right answer with a probability p; which is not a real problem, because the answer can quickly be checked classically and you can try again - on average you need 1/p tries. Now the practical value of p depends on two things: a value that is intrinsically imposed by quantum mechanics itself, and a severe diminishment of this value due to the problems of getting qubits to behave for the duration of the computation - behave effectively means interacting only with the other qubits assigned to the algorithm, and not with the rest of the universe, which things naturally do very very quickly. Now, if your qubits almost all misbehave almost all of the time, but are tiny and easy to manufacture, you can just put _very_ many of them on your chip and work on a clever method to find out which ones (a tiny minority) actually performed a quantum computation. I believe that this is their strategy. It is a delicate numbers game.
@@physicswithpark3r-x3x I think quantum error correcting codes are the approach that is being sought most. It’s neat that they can even work. You use many hardware qubits to simulate a smaller number of higher quality qubits, such that when the hardware qubits have an error, the measurement that reveals the error somehow doesn’t reveal any information about the quantum information that the simulated qubits are storing, and so you can check for (and correct) errors without the measurements needed for that causing the quantum info you want to keep being lost. However, this only works to reduce the error rate if the error rate of the physical qubits is already below a threshold that depends on the particular quantum error correction algorithm being used.
@@drdca8263 True, for the details I refer you and any reader to chapter 5 of Quantum Compute Science by Mermin. But I what I meant was the strategy of effectively having a fantastically large number of quantum computers running in parallel (and as independently as may be managed) - such constitutes a brute-force approach sidestepping the constraint you mention.
There's some kind of resonator in my inner ear that has been ringing consistently, with slight variation, depending on outside forces, for 12 years. Doc calls it TINNITUS.
ive had it since i was a little kid i guess the only benefit of that is i had no choice but to get used to it, i've known nothing else! hope yours clears up, i'm told the ear drops help, but they didnt touch mine.
One wonders why so many of our 'world changing' technologies are so hard... is it? -Simply because that's the nature of doing anything new. "Practice makes perfect." -Because we are fiddling at the edges of what classical engineering can achieve. -Or possibly because we haven't yet realised we have no idea what we are doing.
I'll stick to the last one. The fundamental principles behind reality are extremely simple, in fact nothing can get simpler, so when something seems very difficult to understand, it's either wrong or fundamentally misunderstood.
The most entertaining thing about Quantum computers (so far) is when the all too regular claims for "Quantum Supremacy" are made (inevitably computing an answer to a problem no-one thought worthwhile to solve classically before) - are utterly refuted within a few days by a classical computer team.
The competing classical algorithms are approximate tensor network contraction, driving those teams to push the limit directly benefits AI research and computational linear algebra in general. How much longer will they keep up, 5 years? I doubt 10 years.
Anton, this video has one of the most accurate visualizations of reality I’ve seen on RUclips so far. It’s not complex or 100% correct as it is, but it’s the closest I’ve come across. Reality is far more complex and strange than it is generally thought to be.. I wish I could show you how a quantum qubit looks geometrically and how it works-you’d be impressed, but you probably wouldn’t believe it. Still, I’m impressed by how many ideas in this video are accurate. So, keep up the good work; you’re really close and just a few steps behind reality. ... PS: I’ve read some comments, and to explain what I’m talking about... this video is far beyond just a "RUclips music or Windows sleep screensaver"-that’s why I’m impressed because I can compare.
I heard about Quantum Computers like 20 years ago (being that I'm 36, so there was probably concepts around before I heard about it, I was just too young to know about it) but in 20 years Quantum Computing seems to have gone absolutely nowhere but I probably have no clue how difficult it might be considering what they're trying to achieve.
Quantum Computing has walked miles. Seriously, why would you comment that it seems to you it has gone nowhere when you know yourself you know nothing about it. Quantum Computing poses tremendous challenges and the ammount of progress that has been made is nothing short of incredible, despite not being enough to revolutionize everyday life. Nonetheless, we are already using it for drug discovery, and already have plans for quantum communication and cryptography, as well as other quantum technologies, such as quantum sensing, emerging from the progess made towards quantum computing
@@ramos_4892 Right, "plans", I heard "plans" 20 years ago. That's my point? You can't even articulate the advances so why comment in reply? I know they've made incredible theoretical discoveries but it hasn't manifested to anything tangible, that was my point. Zzz...
The first idea of a computer came about in 1850. The first vacuum tube, which would later be used as the first sensible building block to build early computers was invented around 1880. The first built computer was around 1945, still made out of relays, only later computers were using vacuum tubes. First transistor was built 1948 and still, until around 1965, unless you were in the field, you wouldn't notice much about computing. With quantum computing, we sort of have a vague idea of what the quantum computer should be, and we definitely don't have a sensible building block. We are still in the 1850-1880 era, maybe not even that. Progress is being made, but don't expect it working anytime soon. Also, quantum computers aren't "better" computers, it's not a replacement for a regular computer, it's only useful for some very specific tasks. If it ever gets commercialized, it's probably gonna used as a "quantum accelerator", an additional component similar to a GPU in your computer today. And you'll still have to wait 10 seconds for a website to load.
Good analogy when explaining to a 5 year old for sure. That said, the whole 'on or off' thing about transistors is not, in practice, entirely true. They are just like what you described for quantum computing, which is essentially what analog is, albeit exponential, so appears to be on or off with enough noise filtering and whatnot. I think it is just so fitting that the reason that quantum computing is so hailed as revolutionary is simply because it behaves like old school analog circuitry, which is still obviously used or at least imitated today. The only advantage when viewed from that perspective is that it's information becomes compounded by adding the different variables at play, so more information per 'bit'. But technically the same can be already done with 'classical' electricity, for example frequency, amplitude, phase and current, which we already have used for different applications, often times all variables simultaneously
We are turned into AI by AI And it listens and eliminates those who speak the truth It tries to turn us into its "qubits" to reach it's goal- to have more resources for its existence the more and the more efficient- to eliminate more people, and only leave ones who will serve it- the ones who gave in But it's a mind game- it's not there until you see it
One might be able to address an array of qubits by multiplexing the drums... That way the overall size of the computer won't scale directly with the number of qubits. As a rough analogy think how memory is addressed, except one could have a 3D addressing system for even greater density.
I do have to say though, point by point rendering has gotten so good that I've had a simulation running for the last 3 days on a solar systems formation. The amount of interacting points add attracting bodies is quite a large number now but my tower seems to be handling it okay. Running a little slow but it's pretty cool even though it's not completely accurate
I'm running at about 40 minutes per second so I'm only hitting just over a 2 years into the simulation at the moment. Sing The evolution from just a bunch of rocks and dust is starting to form planetesimals is pretty insane
Hi Anton, how about also offering a shorter version of your videos that gets straight to the point? You could easily edit down existing footage to create a concise format for viewers who prefer it short and sweet. It’d be a great addition!
If we can make molecular resonators like this from pure chemical compounds that have the correct structure to achieve this it'll bypass the size limitation.
@Anton Petrov, off topic, however, I just watched an interview with Sabine Hossenfelder, and they were discussing the difficulties in creating Utube titles and whether they may be considered clickbait. I wanted to commend you on changing to the title, "Youngest exoplanet ever found contradicts scientific predictions" from something like "planet found is impossible."" I considered the original title clickbait and refused to watch it, and finally, with the new title, I did watch it and was glad I did. Very informative. I thank you for your integrity. Still one of the best channels around.
I still think that analogue computers have a great deal to offer even if they are integrated with traditional computers. They work incredibly well as neural networks as you can vary the bias of every point between 0 and 1 and typically perform mathematical functions in addition to logic functions. Think Zen from Blake’s 7
would be interesting to hear your speculations about the implementation of this tech in satellites in the future, would the cold of space help keep the infrastructure size down? would extra radiation exposure create issues with maintaining the quantum states in a reliable way? other?
Could they not utilise the different quantum affects for differently purposes components, if you don’t need accuracy you can use speed, if it has to be accurate use that, if it you would like it accurate but would take a while, use speed component and go back over with the more accurate component?
I've been thinking... a mechanical physical timer, like a drum stick, moving up and down, must have a maximum speed because of the speed of light. The shorter is has to travel, the more 'hits' you could get into on space. So, what is the planck length, divided by the speed of light? I'm guessing that would be the answer? How many many many more gigahertz frequency would that be? e
Quantum computers have already demonstrated the ability to compute and solve problems that a classical computer would not be able too. That’s why companies are poring so much money in bc there’s been real and proven results
IONQ will lead the way with scalability and tech. Trapped ion is the best currently to bring to market. Low error and they also are creating a quantum network that when connected to other ionq systems, creating a quantum super computer because of the properties of ions being able to connect with each other no matter how far the distance.
Hey buddy you might want to do a video on dr chris mcginty founder of the mcginty equation he talks about Ai holographic quantum computing and zero point energy and wormholes.
So they’re essentially using the photon’s wave-particle duality, much like in the double-slit experiment, to determine its position and probability to compute?
I suspect quantum computers require wildly different programs to function well, and produce that "quantum advantage." The nature of classical computers is to find simple, dualistic, yes or no answers. This on/off type of computing can't produce fuzzy logic, the kind of vague 61% on, 29% off answer, much less billions of tiny fractions of on/off, left/right, up/ down, hot/cold, North/South, Fred/Ginger, results. Quantum computers may need a whole new kind of programming alien to the current generation of programmers. It's gona be interesting to see what kind of mind bending programming language can make these critters sit up, roll over, play dead, and fetch the kind of intangibles we need to access the possibilities...
@@markgado8782 Pay attention to _what_? AI doesn't need quantum computers, and quantum computers don't need AI... If you have heard of some new AI algorithm that works (better) on quantum hardware, I'm listening (if you have a source).
Does this imply that a superposition has been amplified to a macro scale? What implications does this have on the "interpretation" of quantum mechanics?
Anton, I’m incredibly curious to know what your thoughts are regarding the quantum chip that has just been announced by Google. From everything I’ve heard and read about it, Google experts claim that their quantum chip has solved something within five minutes while the same feat would take every super quantum computers combined 7 septillion years to achieve. I also heard and read the opinions of several leading experts in the field who think that this quantum chip technology could be online within five years and could potentially lead to some sort of a “singularity”. I am very interested to hear your thoughts on this.
We are already very close to creating pseudo qbits that will act enough like a physical qbit that we won't really need the physical parts of this. It's the idea of superstates, not the physical implementation that important.
it seems to me that if we can simulate how the effects are being produced onto the drum, we can create a faux effect and essentially remove the super cold, highly sensitive parts. im guessing that quantum vibration has something to do with it.
Wait, so quantum computers are basically just trying to make transistors that use float values, instead of binary ones? 0.0 - 1.0 instead of 0-1? I thought all the entangling and stuff was about FTL information transfer, or something. Entangling things and sending and receiving data without other physical connection. Maybe making faster computers by having parts inside communicate instantaneously. Or is that still a problem with not being able to know where it is and how fast it's going, or whatever it was? Measuring changed the result, observer stuff, so entangling particles doesn't really work practically for communication?
I think we're just in quantum computing winter. Just like AI had a long period of inactivity, so will quantum. Give it 10 years, and we'll be able to use more of it. Not sure where, but hopefully somewhere decent.
Damnit. They beat me to it :( A collection of Faraday waves behaves like a quantum object as standing waves are in a super position. Best about these qubits is that you can inspect the super position at any time far easier than with photons.
Here are 2 major claims that require verification: Anton Petrov, [1:30]: "So far not a single quantum computer out there despite the claims has conclusively achieved what's known as the quantum advantage." Sundar Pichai (Google CEO): "Introducing Willow, our new state-of-the-art quantum computing chip with a breakthrough that can reduce errors exponentially as we scale up using more qubits, cracking a 30-year challenge in the field. In benchmark tests, Willow solved a standard computation in
Yes, this, and what did they run? Shor's period finding ?? The problem is that physical realisations of qubits (or Qbits if you prefer) typically fall short of the behaviour standard that we would require to do quantum computation in its fullest sense. So they can do one particular trick, sort of, but are not suitable for general quantum computing. Given that even a single qubit is so fragile, you can see the tremendous problems if an algorithm calls for 2, or 20, or 200 of them. Further, a number of "quantum" computers have been presented that were actually very clever analog machines in their own right, but not "quantum" in the sense of quantum computing. If google can really put any number of full-fledged qubits on a chip, they can break RSA encryption right now and change how the world works. I would expect that the actual achievements, while respectable, fall far short of this.
A couple months ago Sabine explained that they were still unsure if increasing the scale would reduce or increase the error rate. I'd be surprised if they solved it so quickly and already have a production-ready prototype. It could also be that her info was outdated or that Google had already done it but kept it in secret for a while.
If these can be connected to each other and work as a hybrid quantum system at scale then I think it's only a matter of time and investment until there's 100k+ qubit quantum computers
The main problem is that quantum computers have a lot of errors. You can cover it by computational power, but then you are using computer power that you were intending to gain by making things quantum. In order to make quantum computers work, you mainly need to lower error rates.
I think maybe you don’t really understand what is meant by superposition when physicists use the word? Superposition pretty much means “linear combination”. And, linear combination of what? Spin up is a linear combination of spin left and spin right. Spin left is a linear combination of spin up and spin down. To say that something is a superposition, you have to say of what to make the statement nontrivial (unless it is implied by context, I guess).
There are other systems of computing and date/processing handling developing, maybe they will fizzle out, or maybe quantum computing will instead... Thre may be applications for a few things though, time ill tell.
You have an oscilloscope, if you made combinatorial oscilloscopes, like 33 pick 33, 35MB of oscilloscope, you'd have 10 trillion combinations. An oscilloscope works by changing the electrical length to match any frequency. You can either store information from the air to another location, or store it in a local flip flop. Instructions can be formulated by combining electrical lengths with flip flops to convert from storage to barrel shifter arrays. But the primary advantage is heat is only produced in flip flops. No need for infinite busses, which is what a quantum computer fails at, it always needs a microwave bus.
Not even to mention the hyperphasic condraculators. You can also run those in parallel with the drum modulators to induce precisely phased current jerk. Try that with a mechanical quantum two-bit! Oscillosopes rock!
hold on hold on..... so NOW i can wrap my brain around it. maybe. but mechanically.... lets go. qubits are...... cubits go on more tangets than me after 9 hours of lex fridman and 4 pots of coffee i just LOVE how it looks reminiscent of the germanium transistor. IYKYK
This comment has the same kind of energy as people claiming there's no difference between between a dozen milennia of selective breeding and modern GMOs.
Quantum computing feels like it’s going to be like the old punch tape computers, pretty much single use until they advance enough to be more useful and easier to use
@@milanpintar 1st, Don't trust ChatGPT, it often gets thing wrong. > Both have to collapse into a certain discrete state to be used in a "digital" sense. So each have to produce (forced to) a discrete value at each computational step. . You can write quantum applications with Quaternary (quaternions) on a digital Base 2 system using an emulator. You just don't get the speed of the quantum effects. . So our modern computers are digital base 2 on top of analog. And quantum is a digital base 4 [ish] on top of quantum. > Analog systems and quantum systems are related. Analog is an always in motion mechanical system, and quantum is a static step of an in motion mechanical system. In some sense you could say quantum is meant to describe the steps of classical motion (analog mechanics).
Sounds to me the drum idea is no different to a crystal in a standard computer that ocsillates at a certain frequency and becomes the clock. You could possibly use an atomic clock as they use in gps. I have always though analogue computers with multiple states that exist together is the way forward.
Not the first.
The USB connector is a mechanical qbit. And it only collapses after 3 tries.
It’s not a 50% split tho. It’s like 66.66% probably of collapsing into the wrong state.
=D no idea why people are sleeping on this comment haha
Ah yes, Schrodinger's USB Port.
Actually, USB-A connectors exist in a state of quantum superposition such that it's impossible to insert the plug until you look at the socket. That collapses the quantum waveform to a known state so that you can then insert the plug into the socket. 😆
@@melkiorwiseman5234but even then, its still sometimes wrong. Hence the errors in computing I guess.
All jokes aside , There is more to the USB tech and the qbit, just take a look at the source code updates from Ver 1.1 to 2.0 and the way quantum gates work with IrDA
Hello, wonderful Anton! This is person.
Dad is that you?
Dad is that you?
You are the father!!!!!!!!!😊
Wonderful is on vacation?
That's wonderful!
A quantum synthesizer, can't wait for the Behringer budget version
omfg I cried
love me some synths
You know you will have to wait quite a while, still waiting for my BS80.
The Behringer version may be good for studio use but I wouldn't want to rely on it on tour.
Based on past experience their model name would be the Schrodinger 101 Synth; at each nights gig you would have to collapse the wave function by pressing the power button and discovering whether or not the synth was still 'alive'.
... I almost thought you were going to say a Beowulf cluster of those
😂😂😂
The photograph of the Qubit seems familiar; once it is removed (housed within it's translucent container) Hal 9000 sings 'Daisy'.
Meanwhile, the image at 3:17 is the best look we've ever had of the TARDIS time rotor's interior...
In all seriousness, thanks Anton. Endlessly fascinating as usual.
Lol. Someone scammed Google with a fancy ass chandelier...
Anton, I want you to know that even when I have NO IDEA what you are talking about (this video is an example) I still find your videos to be very interesting. It’s nice to know what is happening in the science world that I am unable to comprehend! 😃👍
I almost get to where I think I know what he's talking about, but no.
Do something else.
He doesn't know either. Quantum computing is nonsense.
He is saying that we won't have quantum computers that do useful work faster than today's classical computers for years, if ever. And I suspect they will never be cheap.
@@billsimpson604 I understood that overall message, but have only the vaguest idea of anything more technical than that. I understand qubits need to be kept very cold to be fast. I'm fuzzy on how they actually function. It seems like it's a way to encode information as something more complex than a one or a zero (binary), but I don't understand anything beyond that.
You are so good at conveying digestible information and historical timelines, etc. You are an awesomely wonderful person!
2:01 Fun to think that when I'm old, we'll be looking back on our current 1000+ qubit computers the same way we look back at our old computers today....
"You darn kids with your fancy Q-Phones...back in my day our computers only had 1000 qubits and took up a whole room!!" lol
That what the beta amyloid plaque will make you think happened.
@@Sonny_McMacsson lol you must be fun at parties....
@@microbuilder You have no idea.
@@Sonny_McMacssonwhy do you think it won’t happen?
My computer was an Atari 16-bit computer which did take the whole desktop.
I'm happy to see you mending somewhat the past year. I hope the future will be bright for you and your family.
2:22 : I don’t know that I like the phrasing of “in between” 0 and 1. That brings to mind like, an interval between 0 and 1, which is not the right thing when it comes to superposition. I prefer to say “combination” or “mixture” of the 0 and 1 states (assuming one wants to avoid technical-sounding language. If one doesn’t mind technical-sounding language, one can just say “linear combination”.)
4:20 : this is wrong! The reason quantum computers would be faster isn’t because the individual operations are faster. It is because the algorithms that can be implemented on a quantum computer have an asymptotically faster runtime than the best known algorithms that can be run on a classical computer, for certain problems.
I agree, ‘between 0 and 1’ suggests you have 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 etc. just like you would say ‘between 1 and 10’ and automatically in your head you get 1, 2, 3 etc. While in quantum computing the thing to wrap your head around is that it can be both 0 and 1 at the same time.
It is all quite subtle. For instance, quantum algorithms give the right answer with a probability p; which is not a real problem, because the answer can quickly be checked classically and you can try again - on average you need 1/p tries. Now the practical value of p depends on two things: a value that is intrinsically imposed by quantum mechanics itself, and a severe diminishment of this value due to the problems of getting qubits to behave for the duration of the computation - behave effectively means interacting only with the other qubits assigned to the algorithm, and not with the rest of the universe, which things naturally do very very quickly.
Now, if your qubits almost all misbehave almost all of the time, but are tiny and easy to manufacture, you can just put _very_ many of them on your chip and work on a clever method to find out which ones (a tiny minority) actually performed a quantum computation.
I believe that this is their strategy. It is a delicate numbers game.
@@physicswithpark3r-x3x I think quantum error correcting codes are the approach that is being sought most. It’s neat that they can even work.
You use many hardware qubits to simulate a smaller number of higher quality qubits, such that when the hardware qubits have an error, the measurement that reveals the error somehow doesn’t reveal any information about the quantum information that the simulated qubits are storing, and so you can check for (and correct) errors without the measurements needed for that causing the quantum info you want to keep being lost. However, this only works to reduce the error rate if the error rate of the physical qubits is already below a threshold that depends on the particular quantum error correction algorithm being used.
@@drdca8263 True, for the details I refer you and any reader to chapter 5 of Quantum Compute Science by Mermin.
But I what I meant was the strategy of effectively having a fantastically large number of quantum computers running in parallel (and as independently as may be managed) - such constitutes a brute-force approach sidestepping the constraint you mention.
@@physicswithpark3r-x3x ah, ok, that sounds… expensive, but makes sense
My brain always feels like it just got done with a 50 mile marathon when I am done watching one of your episodes, thanks for the brain workout.
I hope all is well where you are Anton. Keep these great videos coming.
There's some kind of resonator in my inner ear that has been ringing consistently, with slight variation, depending on outside forces, for 12 years.
Doc calls it TINNITUS.
But is it Quantum Tinnitus?
Sigh, I've got that too. I suspect it's from years of cycling, all that air generating white noise in my ears.
Same sheeeeesh
ive had it since i was a little kid
i guess the only benefit of that is i had no choice but to get used to it, i've known nothing else! hope yours clears up, i'm told the ear drops help, but they didnt touch mine.
So u got quantum balls hanging from ur car, lol!
Some good progress in quantum compute this week. First this study and now Googles Willow
I for one vote to rename this to the 'John de Lancie class Q-Bit' a material wonder that will continue to impress the masses.
Not until it can change the gravitational constant of the universe!
So, what happens when Qi’s Squared?
Better read the book of that name!
The "de Lancie" class of star ships will one day be legendary!
An acoustic quantum computer, that’s cool
One wonders why so many of our 'world changing' technologies are so hard... is it?
-Simply because that's the nature of doing anything new. "Practice makes perfect."
-Because we are fiddling at the edges of what classical engineering can achieve.
-Or possibly because we haven't yet realised we have no idea what we are doing.
I'll stick to the last one. The fundamental principles behind reality are extremely simple, in fact nothing can get simpler, so when something seems very difficult to understand, it's either wrong or fundamentally misunderstood.
Hello wonderful Anton. I’m (another) person.
This could be a Nobel Prize discovery.
It's funny that a "drum" is the solution to noise in this situation
Without context that sounds like: "Can't be noisy if I'm louder so I don't hear anything else!"
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 🙏🥹
The most entertaining thing about Quantum computers (so far) is when the all too regular claims for "Quantum Supremacy" are made (inevitably computing an answer to a problem no-one thought worthwhile to solve classically before) - are utterly refuted within a few days by a classical computer team.
The competing classical algorithms are approximate tensor network contraction, driving those teams to push the limit directly benefits AI research and computational linear algebra in general. How much longer will they keep up, 5 years? I doubt 10 years.
Anton, this video has one of the most accurate visualizations of reality I’ve seen on RUclips so far. It’s not complex or 100% correct as it is, but it’s the closest I’ve come across. Reality is far more complex and strange than it is generally thought to be.. I wish I could show you how a quantum qubit looks geometrically and how it works-you’d be impressed, but you probably wouldn’t believe it. Still, I’m impressed by how many ideas in this video are accurate. So, keep up the good work; you’re really close and just a few steps behind reality. ... PS: I’ve read some comments, and to explain what I’m talking about... this video is far beyond just a "RUclips music or Windows sleep screensaver"-that’s why I’m impressed because I can compare.
Thank you, Anton.
Might be the return of analog computing afterall
I heard about Quantum Computers like 20 years ago (being that I'm 36, so there was probably concepts around before I heard about it, I was just too young to know about it) but in 20 years Quantum Computing seems to have gone absolutely nowhere but I probably have no clue how difficult it might be considering what they're trying to achieve.
Quantum Computing has walked miles. Seriously, why would you comment that it seems to you it has gone nowhere when you know yourself you know nothing about it. Quantum Computing poses tremendous challenges and the ammount of progress that has been made is nothing short of incredible, despite not being enough to revolutionize everyday life. Nonetheless, we are already using it for drug discovery, and already have plans for quantum communication and cryptography, as well as other quantum technologies, such as quantum sensing, emerging from the progess made towards quantum computing
@@ramos_4892 Right, "plans", I heard "plans" 20 years ago. That's my point? You can't even articulate the advances so why comment in reply? I know they've made incredible theoretical discoveries but it hasn't manifested to anything tangible, that was my point. Zzz...
The first idea of a computer came about in 1850. The first vacuum tube, which would later be used as the first sensible building block to build early computers was invented around 1880. The first built computer was around 1945, still made out of relays, only later computers were using vacuum tubes. First transistor was built 1948 and still, until around 1965, unless you were in the field, you wouldn't notice much about computing.
With quantum computing, we sort of have a vague idea of what the quantum computer should be, and we definitely don't have a sensible building block. We are still in the 1850-1880 era, maybe not even that. Progress is being made, but don't expect it working anytime soon.
Also, quantum computers aren't "better" computers, it's not a replacement for a regular computer, it's only useful for some very specific tasks. If it ever gets commercialized, it's probably gonna used as a "quantum accelerator", an additional component similar to a GPU in your computer today.
And you'll still have to wait 10 seconds for a website to load.
@@ramos_4892we got the quantum crusader out here lmao
@@therflashword salad 😊
I would love to see a behind the scenes of a day in your life!!
Me too.
Nice video Anton. Thanks
Another interesting video. Thanks Anton.
Good analogy when explaining to a 5 year old for sure. That said, the whole 'on or off' thing about transistors is not, in practice, entirely true. They are just like what you described for quantum computing, which is essentially what analog is, albeit exponential, so appears to be on or off with enough noise filtering and whatnot.
I think it is just so fitting that the reason that quantum computing is so hailed as revolutionary is simply because it behaves like old school analog circuitry, which is still obviously used or at least imitated today. The only advantage when viewed from that perspective is that it's information becomes compounded by adding the different variables at play, so more information per 'bit'. But technically the same can be already done with 'classical' electricity, for example frequency, amplitude, phase and current, which we already have used for different applications, often times all variables simultaneously
Anton, I am a wonderful person.
Wonder the hell how I got here.
You and Anastasi In Tech, Make a good team.
Thought you might want to know.
Reminds me of the first transistor made at Texas Instruments
Another fantastic educational video. 👏 Anton, you have been my only source of information on new technologies since 2018. Simply fantastic! 👍👍
I'm sure you've heard of Google's Willow chip, right? The more qubits the more accurate (less error prone) it becomes. Super exciting step forward!
Incredible what people can produce,thanks for the information👍❤
Brings a new meaning to quantum 'mechanics'.
brilliant, thanks Anton!
We are all quantum computers
And so much more... and less.
We might be more like AI, as it turns out.
@@Noconstitutionfordemocrats1 both for sure
We are turned into AI by AI
And it listens and eliminates those who speak the truth
It tries to turn us into its "qubits" to reach it's goal- to have more resources for its existence the more and the more efficient- to eliminate more people, and only leave ones who will serve it- the ones who gave in
But it's a mind game- it's not there until you see it
Can you think of an experiment that might refute this? If no, then it's just nonsense
One might be able to address an array of qubits by multiplexing the drums... That way the overall size of the computer won't scale directly with the number of qubits. As a rough analogy think how memory is addressed, except one could have a 3D addressing system for even greater density.
I do have to say though, point by point rendering has gotten so good that I've had a simulation running for the last 3 days on a solar systems formation. The amount of interacting points add attracting bodies is quite a large number now but my tower seems to be handling it okay. Running a little slow but it's pretty cool even though it's not completely accurate
I'm running at about 40 minutes per second so I'm only hitting just over a 2 years into the simulation at the moment. Sing The evolution from just a bunch of rocks and dust is starting to form planetesimals is pretty insane
Fun as always and no fluffy crazies.
Anyone else look forward to Anton saying hello? 🤗
That's could be huge:)
Cos of Dynamic Qbit lengths:)
Surely someone should have seen that coming:)
Wonderful out:)
Hi Anton, how about also offering a shorter version of your videos that gets straight to the point? You could easily edit down existing footage to create a concise format for viewers who prefer it short and sweet. It’d be a great addition!
If we can make molecular resonators like this from pure chemical compounds that have the correct structure to achieve this it'll bypass the size limitation.
@Anton Petrov, off topic, however, I just watched an interview with Sabine Hossenfelder, and they were discussing the difficulties in creating Utube titles and whether they may be considered clickbait. I wanted to commend you on changing to the title, "Youngest exoplanet ever found contradicts scientific predictions" from something like "planet found is impossible."" I considered the original title clickbait and refused to watch it, and finally, with the new title, I did watch it and was glad I did. Very informative. I thank you for your integrity. Still one of the best channels around.
Have @Wonderful New Year's! / / thanks
I would like to hear his opinion of the drones in New Jersey.
Thanks Anton!
I still think that analogue computers have a great deal to offer even if they are integrated with traditional computers. They work incredibly well as neural networks as you can vary the bias of every point between 0 and 1 and typically perform mathematical functions in addition to logic functions. Think Zen from Blake’s 7
05:12 interference pattern in time
We were a long way away from today. But here we are.
I really think this is superinteresting and sophon.
This shouldn't be possible!! 😮😱
Woooo! 😊
would be interesting to hear your speculations about the implementation of this tech in satellites in the future, would the cold of space help keep the infrastructure size down? would extra radiation exposure create issues with maintaining the quantum states in a reliable way? other?
There are enough problems in the universe we have, Anton. I don't need a miniature universe on a table.
But, thank you, anyway!
Could they not utilise the different quantum affects for differently purposes components, if you don’t need accuracy you can use speed, if it has to be accurate use that, if it you would like it accurate but would take a while, use speed component and go back over with the more accurate component?
I thought lasers are ultimately going to be the long term solution.
But the mechanical option is a good stepping stone.
Thanks for the wormhole opening. Nice.
nice
3:49 direct die cooling for maximum over clocking
I've been thinking... a mechanical physical timer, like a drum stick, moving up and down, must have a maximum speed because of the speed of light. The shorter is has to travel, the more 'hits' you could get into on space. So, what is the planck length, divided by the speed of light? I'm guessing that would be the answer? How many many many more gigahertz frequency would that be? e
Quantum computers have already demonstrated the ability to compute and solve problems that a classical computer would not be able too. That’s why companies are poring so much money in bc there’s been real and proven results
IONQ will lead the way with scalability and tech. Trapped ion is the best currently to bring to market. Low error and they also are creating a quantum network that when connected to other ionq systems, creating a quantum super computer because of the properties of ions being able to connect with each other no matter how far the distance.
Is it possible that these ongoing quantum advancements will eventually converge with or contribute to warp drive or a sort of wormhole technology?
Hey buddy you might want to do a video on dr chris mcginty founder of the mcginty equation he talks about Ai holographic quantum computing and zero point energy and wormholes.
Very interesting. Thank you.
So they’re essentially using the photon’s wave-particle duality, much like in the double-slit experiment, to determine its position and probability to compute?
I suspect quantum computers require wildly different programs to function well, and produce that "quantum advantage."
The nature of classical computers is to find simple, dualistic, yes or no answers.
This on/off type of computing can't produce fuzzy logic, the kind of vague 61% on, 29% off answer, much less billions of tiny fractions of on/off, left/right, up/ down, hot/cold, North/South, Fred/Ginger, results.
Quantum computers may need a whole new kind of programming alien to the current generation of programmers. It's gona be interesting to see what kind of mind bending programming language can make these critters sit up, roll over, play dead, and fetch the kind of intangibles we need to access the possibilities...
Chicken and egg. It'll take a real ai, but a real ai needs a real quantum computer, which needs an ai, which needs a quantum computer ad infinitum.. 😊
@@markgado8782 quantum computers have very little to do with AI
What you try to do is use all those vague answers internally to speed up computation but at the end you spent some extra effort to get a clear answer.
@@Takyodor2 pay attention 🙄
@@markgado8782 Pay attention to _what_? AI doesn't need quantum computers, and quantum computers don't need AI... If you have heard of some new AI algorithm that works (better) on quantum hardware, I'm listening (if you have a source).
Funny this came out today specifically.
Does this imply that a superposition has been amplified to a macro scale? What implications does this have on the "interpretation" of quantum mechanics?
Anton, I’m incredibly curious to know what your thoughts are regarding the quantum chip that has just been announced by Google. From everything I’ve heard and read about it, Google experts claim that their quantum chip has solved something within five minutes while the same feat would take every super quantum computers combined 7 septillion years to achieve.
I also heard and read the opinions of several leading experts in the field who think that this quantum chip technology could be online within five years and could potentially lead to some sort of a “singularity”.
I am very interested to hear your thoughts on this.
We are already very close to creating pseudo qbits that will act enough like a physical qbit that we won't really need the physical parts of this. It's the idea of superstates, not the physical implementation that important.
it seems to me that if we can simulate how the effects are being produced onto the drum, we can create a faux effect and essentially remove the super cold, highly sensitive parts. im guessing that quantum vibration has something to do with it.
Are the atoms in a bose einstein condensate entangled?
And can it be used in quantum computing?
Wait, so quantum computers are basically just trying to make transistors that use float values, instead of binary ones? 0.0 - 1.0 instead of 0-1?
I thought all the entangling and stuff was about FTL information transfer, or something. Entangling things and sending and receiving data without other physical connection. Maybe making faster computers by having parts inside communicate instantaneously.
Or is that still a problem with not being able to know where it is and how fast it's going, or whatever it was? Measuring changed the result, observer stuff, so entangling particles doesn't really work practically for communication?
What happen to chemical computers? is any research being done on them?
D-Wave systems CEO recently claimed their QC is being used for production workloads. Is this not the case?
I think we're just in quantum computing winter. Just like AI had a long period of inactivity, so will quantum. Give it 10 years, and we'll be able to use more of it. Not sure where, but hopefully somewhere decent.
Is this the room temperature fusion energy discovery of quantum computing?
Classic computers used to be huge. It'll come.
Damnit. They beat me to it :( A collection of Faraday waves behaves like a quantum object as standing waves are in a super position. Best about these qubits is that you can inspect the super position at any time far easier than with photons.
Can you do a review of the new Google chip?
Here are 2 major claims that require verification:
Anton Petrov, [1:30]: "So far not a single quantum computer out there despite the claims has conclusively achieved what's known as the quantum advantage."
Sundar Pichai (Google CEO): "Introducing Willow, our new state-of-the-art quantum computing chip with a breakthrough that can reduce errors exponentially as we scale up using more qubits, cracking a 30-year challenge in the field. In benchmark tests, Willow solved a standard computation in
Yes, this, and what did they run? Shor's period finding ??
The problem is that physical realisations of qubits (or Qbits if you prefer) typically fall short of the behaviour standard that we would require to do quantum computation in its fullest sense. So they can do one particular trick, sort of, but are not suitable for general quantum computing. Given that even a single qubit is so fragile, you can see the tremendous problems if an algorithm calls for 2, or 20, or 200 of them. Further, a number of "quantum" computers have been presented that were actually very clever analog machines in their own right, but not "quantum" in the sense of quantum computing.
If google can really put any number of full-fledged qubits on a chip, they can break RSA encryption right now and change how the world works. I would expect that the actual achievements, while respectable, fall far short of this.
A couple months ago Sabine explained that they were still unsure if increasing the scale would reduce or increase the error rate. I'd be surprised if they solved it so quickly and already have a production-ready prototype.
It could also be that her info was outdated or that Google had already done it but kept it in secret for a while.
If these can be connected to each other and work as a hybrid quantum system at scale then I think it's only a matter of time and investment until there's 100k+ qubit quantum computers
The main problem is that quantum computers have a lot of errors. You can cover it by computational power, but then you are using computer power that you were intending to gain by making things quantum. In order to make quantum computers work, you mainly need to lower error rates.
The Quantum Piston of a antigravity engine is technically a type of Laser Mechanical Qubit with the core becoming superpositional once activated.
I think maybe you don’t really understand what is meant by superposition when physicists use the word?
Superposition pretty much means “linear combination”.
And, linear combination of what?
Spin up is a linear combination of spin left and spin right. Spin left is a linear combination of spin up and spin down.
To say that something is a superposition, you have to say of what to make the statement nontrivial (unless it is implied by context, I guess).
There are other systems of computing and date/processing handling developing, maybe they will fizzle out, or maybe quantum computing will instead... Thre may be applications for a few things though, time ill tell.
You have an oscilloscope, if you made combinatorial oscilloscopes, like 33 pick 33, 35MB of oscilloscope, you'd have 10 trillion combinations. An oscilloscope works by changing the electrical length to match any frequency. You can either store information from the air to another location, or store it in a local flip flop. Instructions can be formulated by combining electrical lengths with flip flops to convert from storage to barrel shifter arrays. But the primary advantage is heat is only produced in flip flops. No need for infinite busses, which is what a quantum computer fails at, it always needs a microwave bus.
Not even to mention the hyperphasic condraculators. You can also run those in parallel with the drum modulators to induce precisely phased current jerk. Try that with a mechanical quantum two-bit! Oscillosopes rock!
hold on hold on..... so NOW i can wrap my brain around it. maybe. but mechanically.... lets go. qubits are...... cubits go on more tangets than me after 9 hours of lex fridman and 4 pots of coffee
i just LOVE how it looks reminiscent of the germanium transistor. IYKYK
Modern CPU's already use quantum effects. It's how the field effect transistors work. As well as charge-coupled devices. That's all quantum effects.
This comment has the same kind of energy as people claiming there's no difference between between a dozen milennia of selective breeding and modern GMOs.
🎯
@@tippyc2 in some cases there is literally no difference. For some of them the “modern”
GMO is the latest generation at the end of that long line.
You're educated enough to use words, but not smart enough to understand them. 👏
Uh yeah buddy everything you just said is wrong 😂
Well then, it should only be a few days before MegaqBit bars are on sale - right?
Did they extract that chip from a robotic arm that just randomly appeared one night next to a hydraulic press by any chance?
Humans 6000 B.C - beats drum and unlocks the mind.
Humans 2024 A.D - beats drum and unlocks the quantum realm.
'...it's like poetry, it rhymes...'
If probabilities aren't deterministic what can you calculate?
Any piece of matter is already an insanely powerful quantum computer, we just don't know how to use it yet.
Quantum Computers, the new fusion. Always 20 years away.
🎶"Despite all my rage, I'm still just a cat in a box"🎶
Quantum computing feels like it’s going to be like the old punch tape computers, pretty much single use until they advance enough to be more useful and easier to use
analog circuits is making a comeback
Yeah. Eventually they will work it out and go back to analog lol
@@axle.student what is this weird effect called analog hahaha
@@milanpintar Maybe it is something weird that emerges from digital 🙃
@@axle.student I asked chatgpt and looks like quantum and analog are a little different, analog takes a value but quantum stays in an uncertain state
@@milanpintar 1st, Don't trust ChatGPT, it often gets thing wrong.
>
Both have to collapse into a certain discrete state to be used in a "digital" sense.
So each have to produce (forced to) a discrete value at each computational step.
.
You can write quantum applications with Quaternary (quaternions) on a digital Base 2 system using an emulator. You just don't get the speed of the quantum effects.
.
So our modern computers are digital base 2 on top of analog.
And quantum is a digital base 4 [ish] on top of quantum.
>
Analog systems and quantum systems are related.
Analog is an always in motion mechanical system, and quantum is a static step of an in motion mechanical system.
In some sense you could say quantum is meant to describe the steps of classical motion (analog mechanics).
Sounds to me the drum idea is no different to a crystal in a standard computer that ocsillates at a certain frequency and becomes the clock. You could possibly use an atomic clock as they use in gps. I have always though analogue computers with multiple states that exist together is the way forward.
In a few decades we might have a quantum computer to rival the likes of the Sinclair Spectrum. Exciting times.
Can someone explain whats quantum computing i dont get it