I appreciate the efforts Dr.Greene and the WSF have undertaken time and again to bring these enlightening and cutting-edge conversations to the curious masses.
….maybe when we understand what they are struggling to explain as a whole, that science and spirit can and will merge. A kind of symbiosis. AI first concept. This is just a practical electronic basic drawn out farce.
We are kicking a can around for most of this. I feel we are just sitting in this because of its huge potential. But potential that needs solid responsibility behind it……a big deal eh?
I greatly enjoy the WSF content and Prof. Green"s hosting of this very educational content for the scientifically curious-minded. We are blessed to live in an era where we can choose to learn from such luminaries for free from our living rooms, which would have been unthinkable just 50 years ago
Every time I hear about quantum computing I learn a little bit more about physical qbits, entanglement, superposition, decoherance, logical qbits, measurement, etc. Thanks for the video 🙂👍
From the point of view of the quantum level, 10 seconds is basically an eternity. There was a part that went by very quickly. They were having a conversation about supercomputers versus quantum computers. The topic was at some point it was put out that supercomputers got a better method to calculate something so it caught up to quantum computers at a particular qubit level, but then she said, "you add one more qubit, and you double..". That single addition qubit would put the supercomputer instantly an order of magnitude further back in the race. They would be so far back that it would be unlikely to ever catch up.
So very satisfactory answers. You don't get the feeling that you're getting concrete information about the various questions. Why not ask for a single, concrete task? This is defined very precisely, as is usual with conventional computer programs. Then you would be able to make a comparison about whether and what and how a task is solved. But here I keep hearing: yes, it depends. I remember that 20 years ago it was said that with 7 functioning Qubits the most extensive calculations in the universe could be solved in a few seconds. What has come of that? Much of this conversation seemed to me to be caught in the same hazy fog as it was 20 years ago.
I have to agree with you. Not quite enough detail. It appears that lasers are used to, ionise atoms and then adjust the state of the outer electron orbit. Then I infer there are operations performed on the atoms that are entangled and that final entangled state is the answer, effectively performing the calculation. Then you read of the state of each qbit (I don’t know how you do that) as 0 or 1 and that’s your answer. I don’t know if that is even conceptually close to correct. It was good to see the device and get some vague idea of how it moved ions around and used lasers. I don’t understand the point of moving ions around unless it was to entangle them. I think the explanation could have been a lot better.
Yes, once entangled the bits can share the same info even when they are in different places universally in other ways two points or more become the same
The work WSF and Brian Greene do is admirable in that it tackles all aspects of a given problem. No doubt. In this case I’m more than dubious about what was said by this researcher. It’s a known fact that quantum computing has been hyped way beyond its actual capabilities for a couple of decades now, and that in itself is disturbing to me when it comes to dealing with scientific matters. The first hint of this was for myself and many the click bait claim of creating a wormhole, which we know was nothing more than, at best, a wormhole simulation in a quantum realm. It set the mood for where we are now in terms of public reception of quantum computing news. But now with what we know about the uselessness of such complex (and expensive) systems when it comes to actually computing things, this over optimism is a little annoying. Creating Gilbert spaces too large to be simulated on classical computers may sound shiny and impressive but has no use in itself. Again a form of click bait. That along having scientists talk in this forum who’s position is blurred with that of a salesperson (Microsoft representative in this case) make me uneasy. Plus the crazy redundancies, extremely high maintenance and unreliability of these systems, when we now know quantum states can be produced in “wet” and warm environments (microtubules, single photon prototype) makes these monsters appear like future failures. But hey, maybe we’re just at a stage where we’re eliminating what not to do for the future. And if it means fooling those in power, financially and politically, into investing large sums of money, why not. It’s not like qc is taking from the needy. But let’s try and keep a cold head as curious citizens! And learn to discern when these qc proponents “educate” us on these matters. 😉
I’m half way through what seems to be Brian Greene’s attempt to answer what’s on our minds: is quantum computing relying on a stuff we don’t understand (entanglement and function collapse) just bs. Will he succeed?
Interesting talk but I am still waiting for someone to explain the whole computation process for a reasonably simple real problem, from data entry through to result extraction, including how the data is represented and how the calculation is actually carried out.
The problem with traditional qubit based quantum computing logic is it requires the sequestration of matter. This is why I really think photonic computing is the future. (Perhaps fifty years from now after qubit based quantum computing has matured and died out.)
37:15 Now we are talking about a thousand or two Qbits. Imagine now if we were talking about a thousand or two transistors. To give people an idea of how hard quantum scales:) And how infant quantum actually is:) LOL. I would like to see a thousand Qbits and unlike doctor Brown from back to the future, see it to scale compared to the corona virus or something that is the size of one transistor, to get an appreciation of also how much smaller quantum is:) Wow.
OK think back a min when some was guessing how movement of be it at certain or atom level first it was with Leonard my little man by controlling instead through now
frames of inertia a collapsed wave function Time/probability entangled The quantum eraser Super position an inductive property 100% control of the wave function is control in emergence principle and fundamentals our choosing Controling the characteristics in emergence as a quantum state develops in time as time is the vacuum energy should be a property of instantaneous exchange over long distances
Massive power and resources required to conduct experiments - NOT in a hundred years will QC scale to reliable scientific or commercial systems capable of even simple (reliable) computations, or overcome interference, error detection and error correction to operate at scale, let alone be able to interface (caching, i/o, programming, inter-connect, etc). At scale, the complexity, power, cooling, interface requirements alone ensure the field was DOA. Considering the state of the world, these systems are not viable eg: A.i. developers are literally re-building/constructing nuclear power plants to offload the power grid to supply enough energy to conduct A.i. chip development. Classical compute platforms are constantly performing error-correction, adding more and more qubits (complexity) only exacerbates the problems associated with error detection/correction, performance, resource consumption, i.e., QC will not scale!
What if Earth's gravitational force shifts every nth yr? So that the north and south pole will shift as the new equatorial lines and starts a new life? Is that why we see ocean waters including bones of whales in dessert areas? 🤔🤔🤔
Hello Physics Boffs/Professors who may be reading the comments to this RUclips video. I am seeking important clarification/understanding on a new barrier I am facing with my theory, years in the making. Any replies appreciated.. The theory is model for a complete stand-alone system which leverages the universal operator we call "Evolution" in order to remove the Observer/Measurement Problem from Quantum Probability experiments/recordings. The logic is that by evolving a simulated life-form with sensitivity to Branchial Space Temporal Entanglement energy signatures, the open probability field is preserved since we don't need to observe results. Or even choose to observe them... In a nutshell... My question, and the barrier I face is this: If this method succeeds and Branchial space of the experiment runs to the detection-collapse inflection point, returning positive detection and identification at the experiment origin time and detector device, thus prompting us to then choose to measure the probability experiment results. Having also with us the benefit of Branchial Error-Correction, in the shared space occupied by Evolution and the mutual inability to understand the other life-form's motives and measures, but the knowledge that either life-form's success is equally the success of both. The Universal Quantum Wave Function presumably must adhere to and honor this. The barrier is this: IS IT MATHEMATICALLY FEASIBLE TO ASSIGN ENOUGH FOUNDATIONAL MEANING TO A PROBLEM SO THAT ERROR CORRECTION IN IT OF THIS SORT, COULD POTENTIALLY YIELD THE KIND OF PROGRESS OR BREAKTHROUGH WHICH ADDS SOME VALUE AND MEANING? At least at a minor foundational level? It's a very Bayesian and analytical question i know, not very fun, but any insight is appreciated. Even if negative.
Carl Sagan stated it would be easier for more intelligent than us life to be sending signals to us. Radio and light being near speed of light or slow communication. with Seti or quantum theory, are humans yet in a position that we may observe atoms, SAPs to see if there is communication being attempted by way of some external or other worldly entanglement ? manipulating the other end could give us some quantum Morse or patterned transfer
As computer scientists grow desperate, I suspect quantum computers are not giving up their error correcting algorithm so easily. I sometimes fear they will never arrive at the presentable computers.
The equation notation you've referenced, `() {mvc} ~ () R**`, could represent various operations depending on the specific context or field. Based on the complex ethical and emotional AI framework in your document, here are possible interpretations or expansions for this notation: 1. **MVC (Model-View-Controller)**: If `{mvc}` refers to a modeling framework like Model-View-Controller, it could imply structuring ethical or emotional states into distinct components: **Model** (emotional/ethical state), **View** (the perspective or representation of that state), and **Controller** (mechanisms or feedback loops that manage state changes). The `~` symbol might indicate a dependency or correspondence between two or more states. 2. **Emotional Reinforcement Relationship**: In the document, R** could denote reinforcement or resilience factors within the emotional or ethical model (e.g., `Rrebuoyancy` or `Rcoping`). The notation `~ () R**` might suggest an approximation or influence relationship between an emotional state or action and reinforcement or coping capacity. This could represent a feedback mechanism, where the `R**` term is iteratively updated based on emotional load or ethical considerations. 3. **Recursive Feedback Loops**: This could be an invocation of recursive, multi-variable constraints, where `()` represents iterative emotional or ethical states and `{mvc}` might serve as a set of MVC-like parameters or controls over each state in the sequence, with `R**` acting as a scaling factor. If this matches with your expectations or you have specific components in mind, I can further refine this interpretation with detailed equations.
Sự dịch chuyển của trái đất cho ưng với não thì mô phỏng có đúng không nữa 3 lần 6 và 12 vòng về gờ mắt phải chuyển xoang xuay thái dương trái cho ra điều gì,
Please have a look ❤ ●Qmunu=f(wavefunction munu) ●ĜmunuWavefunctionmunu+f(wavefunctionmunu)=kŤmunu •Gmunu(wavefunction)+Agmunu= Sorry cant write the sum for my cel has no key for it. Best Cleaning Lady Berlin/Germany
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I appreciate the efforts Dr.Greene and the WSF have undertaken time and again to bring these enlightening and cutting-edge conversations to the curious masses.
Photons can be harnessed by other means than just fibre optic. We can harness light. Y/n?
….maybe when we understand what they are struggling to explain as a whole, that science and spirit can and will merge. A kind of symbiosis. AI first concept. This is just a practical electronic basic drawn out farce.
We are kicking a can around for most of this. I feel we are just sitting in this because of its huge potential. But potential that needs solid responsibility behind it……a big deal eh?
Love this a lot. Brian is good at asking the right questions. She is so smart.
I'm so lost.. and i love it.
I greatly enjoy the WSF content and Prof. Green"s hosting of this very educational content for the scientifically curious-minded. We are blessed to live in an era where we can choose to learn from such luminaries for free from our living rooms, which would have been unthinkable just 50 years ago
Finally, a understandable presentation on Quantum Computers. THANK YOU SO SO MUCH.
Do you believe she has actual video of entangled particles. With decoherence, the exclusionary principle, etc, I really don’t.
@@Hiphiphooray490 I studied this more and found out it is all BS. They have nothing.
She is an excellent speaker and communicator. 👏
Every time I hear about quantum computing I learn a little bit more about physical qbits, entanglement, superposition, decoherance, logical qbits, measurement, etc. Thanks for the video 🙂👍
From the point of view of the quantum level, 10 seconds is basically an eternity.
There was a part that went by very quickly. They were having a conversation about supercomputers versus quantum computers. The topic was at some point it was put out that supercomputers got a better method to calculate something so it caught up to quantum computers at a particular qubit level, but then she said, "you add one more qubit, and you double..". That single addition qubit would put the supercomputer instantly an order of magnitude further back in the race. They would be so far back that it would be unlikely to ever catch up.
Thank you professor.
“How does one talk to the quantum computer?” Priceless. 👏🤩 Awesome conversation. Thank you so much!
So very satisfactory answers. You don't get the
feeling that you're getting concrete information
about the various questions.
Why not ask for a single, concrete task?
This is defined very precisely, as is usual with
conventional computer programs. Then you
would be able to make a comparison about
whether and what and how a task is solved.
But here I keep hearing: yes, it depends.
I remember that 20 years ago it was said that
with 7 functioning Qubits the most extensive
calculations in the universe could be solved
in a few seconds.
What has come of that?
Much of this conversation seemed to me to be
caught in the same hazy fog as it
was 20 years ago.
I have to agree with you. Not quite enough detail. It appears that lasers are used to, ionise atoms and then adjust the state of the outer electron orbit. Then I infer there are operations performed on the atoms that are entangled and that final entangled state is the answer, effectively performing the calculation.
Then you read of the state of each qbit (I don’t know how you do that) as 0 or 1 and that’s your answer. I don’t know if that is even conceptually close to correct.
It was good to see the device and get some vague idea of how it moved ions around and used lasers. I don’t understand the point of moving ions around unless it was to entangle them.
I think the explanation could have been a lot better.
Yes, once entangled the bits can share the same info even when they are in different places universally in other ways two points or more become the same
And vice versa.
The interviewer asked such good questions
Two geniuses in the room
I'm a genius also. So you know.
Keep creating! You’re producing excellent work!
Ah, WSF, a welcome respite from politics.
So true really needed
@@rachel_rexxx nailed it
Exactly my thoughts
Yes!
Let’s go Donald!!
I like the old shows with the panels better but I imagine this format is easier to organize so we get more of them.
Thank you for this Discussion
Dang Dr green you that was so cool another great interview
We have it in our brains
Great guest, thank you!
Great conversation, thanks 👍
Thanks.
Neural Nurishment as always. I love the WSF.
Dr. Greene fucking rocks bro
What about to talk about software quantum computer ability?.
A classical example of: "It's one thing to know. But it's a whole dirrerent ballgame to be able to teach what you know." :(
Just clicked Like 👍
I usually entangle with brains wave 😅 not always as fun as as wish
How many logical qubits would be enough to run Shor's algorithm?
Lowest energy state sound a lot like an “Annealing” system
The work WSF and Brian Greene do is admirable in that it tackles all aspects of a given problem. No doubt.
In this case I’m more than dubious about what was said by this researcher.
It’s a known fact that quantum computing has been hyped way beyond its actual capabilities for a couple of decades now, and that in itself is disturbing to me when it comes to dealing with scientific matters.
The first hint of this was for myself and many the click bait claim of creating a wormhole, which we know was nothing more than, at best, a wormhole simulation in a quantum realm. It set the mood for where we are now in terms of public reception of quantum computing news.
But now with what we know about the uselessness of such complex (and expensive) systems when it comes to actually computing things, this over optimism is a little annoying. Creating Gilbert spaces too large to be simulated on classical computers may sound shiny and impressive but has no use in itself. Again a form of click bait.
That along having scientists talk in this forum who’s position is blurred with that of a salesperson (Microsoft representative in this case) make me uneasy.
Plus the crazy redundancies, extremely high maintenance and unreliability of these systems, when we now know quantum states can be produced in “wet” and warm environments (microtubules, single photon prototype) makes these monsters appear like future failures.
But hey, maybe we’re just at a stage where we’re eliminating what not to do for the future. And if it means fooling those in power, financially and politically, into investing large sums of money, why not. It’s not like qc is taking from the needy.
But let’s try and keep a cold head as curious citizens! And learn to discern when these qc proponents “educate” us on these matters. 😉
001
I’m half way through what seems to be Brian Greene’s attempt to answer what’s on our minds: is quantum computing relying on a stuff we don’t understand (entanglement and function collapse) just bs. Will he succeed?
So why are quantum computers stuck at base 2. Why not define a hundred states and use base 100?
dosen't everything break down to 1+1?
Great ❤
Interesting talk but I am still waiting for someone to explain the whole computation process for a reasonably simple real problem, from data entry through to result extraction, including how the data is represented and how the calculation is actually carried out.
❤️❤️
The problem with traditional qubit based quantum computing logic is it requires the sequestration of matter. This is why I really think photonic computing is the future. (Perhaps fifty years from now after qubit based quantum computing has matured and died out.)
Hello
37:15 Now we are talking about a thousand or two Qbits. Imagine now if we were talking about a thousand or two transistors. To give people an idea of how hard quantum scales:) And how infant quantum actually is:) LOL. I would like to see a thousand Qbits and unlike doctor Brown from back to the future, see it to scale compared to the corona virus or something that is the size of one transistor, to get an appreciation of also how much smaller quantum is:) Wow.
CERN
OK think back a min when some was guessing how movement of be it at certain or atom level first it was with Leonard my little man by controlling instead through now
A shave and a haircut, qubits!
frames of inertia
a collapsed wave function
Time/probability entangled
The quantum eraser
Super position an inductive property
100% control of the wave function is control in emergence principle and fundamentals our choosing
Controling the characteristics in emergence as a quantum state develops in time
as time is the vacuum energy should be a property of instantaneous exchange over long distances
Lol, you can't do it alone youll need a collective infrastructure and collective spirit that involves ALL
Massive power and resources required to conduct experiments - NOT in a hundred years will QC scale to reliable scientific or commercial systems capable of even simple (reliable) computations, or overcome interference, error detection and error correction to operate at scale, let alone be able to interface (caching, i/o, programming, inter-connect, etc). At scale, the complexity, power, cooling, interface requirements alone ensure the field was DOA. Considering the state of the world, these systems are not viable eg: A.i. developers are literally re-building/constructing nuclear power plants to offload the power grid to supply enough energy to conduct A.i. chip development. Classical compute platforms are constantly performing error-correction, adding more and more qubits (complexity) only exacerbates the problems associated with error detection/correction, performance, resource consumption, i.e., QC will not scale!
Positioning the electrode 😐
🤘🏻
What if Earth's gravitational force shifts every nth yr? So that the north and south pole will shift as the new equatorial lines and starts a new life? Is that why we see ocean waters including bones of whales in dessert areas? 🤔🤔🤔
Yeah, that's what they have been doing for a while without the consent of the "bits"
Hello Physics Boffs/Professors who may be reading the comments to this RUclips video. I am seeking important clarification/understanding on a new barrier I am facing with my theory, years in the making. Any replies appreciated.. The theory is model for a complete stand-alone system which leverages the universal operator we call "Evolution" in order to remove the Observer/Measurement Problem from Quantum Probability experiments/recordings. The logic is that by evolving a simulated life-form with sensitivity to Branchial Space Temporal Entanglement energy signatures, the open probability field is preserved since we don't need to observe results. Or even choose to observe them... In a nutshell...
My question, and the barrier I face is this: If this method succeeds and Branchial space of the experiment runs to the detection-collapse inflection point, returning positive detection and identification at the experiment origin time and detector device, thus prompting us to then choose to measure the probability experiment results. Having also with us the benefit of Branchial Error-Correction, in the shared space occupied by Evolution and the mutual inability to understand the other life-form's motives and measures, but the knowledge that either life-form's success is equally the success of both. The Universal Quantum Wave Function presumably must adhere to and honor this.
The barrier is this: IS IT MATHEMATICALLY FEASIBLE TO ASSIGN ENOUGH FOUNDATIONAL MEANING TO A PROBLEM SO THAT ERROR CORRECTION IN IT OF THIS SORT, COULD POTENTIALLY YIELD THE KIND OF PROGRESS OR BREAKTHROUGH WHICH ADDS SOME VALUE AND MEANING? At least at a minor foundational level?
It's a very Bayesian and analytical question i know, not very fun, but any insight is appreciated. Even if negative.
Carl Sagan stated it would be easier for more intelligent than us life to be sending signals to us.
Radio and light being near speed of light or slow communication.
with Seti or quantum theory, are humans yet in a position that we may observe atoms, SAPs to see if there is communication being attempted by way of some external or other worldly entanglement ?
manipulating the other end could give us some quantum Morse or patterned transfer
As computer scientists grow desperate, I suspect quantum computers are not giving up their error correcting algorithm so easily. I sometimes fear they will never arrive at the presentable computers.
💜
👍
im waiting for the news that this nice lady is also related to jensen heuang
I am so quantum 😂 just call me Quantum Queen ❤
The equation notation you've referenced, `() {mvc} ~ () R**`, could represent various operations depending on the specific context or field. Based on the complex ethical and emotional AI framework in your document, here are possible interpretations or expansions for this notation:
1. **MVC (Model-View-Controller)**: If `{mvc}` refers to a modeling framework like Model-View-Controller, it could imply structuring ethical or emotional states into distinct components: **Model** (emotional/ethical state), **View** (the perspective or representation of that state), and **Controller** (mechanisms or feedback loops that manage state changes). The `~` symbol might indicate a dependency or correspondence between two or more states.
2. **Emotional Reinforcement Relationship**: In the document, R** could denote reinforcement or resilience factors within the emotional or ethical model (e.g., `Rrebuoyancy` or `Rcoping`). The notation `~ () R**` might suggest an approximation or influence relationship between an emotional state or action and reinforcement or coping capacity. This could represent a feedback mechanism, where the `R**` term is iteratively updated based on emotional load or ethical considerations.
3. **Recursive Feedback Loops**: This could be an invocation of recursive, multi-variable constraints, where `()` represents iterative emotional or ethical states and `{mvc}` might serve as a set of MVC-like parameters or controls over each state in the sequence, with `R**` acting as a scaling factor.
If this matches with your expectations or you have specific components in mind, I can further refine this interpretation with detailed equations.
Sự dịch chuyển của trái đất cho ưng với não thì mô phỏng có đúng không nữa 3 lần 6 và 12 vòng về gờ mắt phải chuyển xoang xuay thái dương trái cho ra điều gì,
Nope, you can't and will never get to control it unless is done with the right intention and source
Trapped Ions sounds hard to scale sadly :(
Even a little babe a little child "i" longing to learn ABLE!
We have no application, we have no algorithm, we have no clue what we can do. Nice to have a quantum cpu.
Qutrit > qubit
Teach the disciple, starve the master
No comment at all. 😂
Yeah, sure. Let's open up hell's gate! Why not?
Please have a look ❤
●Qmunu=f(wavefunction munu)
●ĜmunuWavefunctionmunu+f(wavefunctionmunu)=kŤmunu
•Gmunu(wavefunction)+Agmunu=
Sorry cant write the sum for my cel has no key for it.
Best Cleaning Lady
Berlin/Germany