The programming for analog computers I've seen so far consists of describing a problem as a circuit and then wiring it, in software, as a patch panel for an analog computer. If this was like that, it takes a remarkable imagination to turn Dune into an analog patch panel.
Yes, quantum computation is not procedural. The entire calculation happens in one step. It isn't like normal programming where you have sequences of instructions. You could say there is just one big instruction in a quantum program.
I can relate ... I've been seeing VBS (the script version not the VBA version) as pretty much the same way. What programmers/scripters do is make a structure in their mind that they are hooking things up to, the same way an electrician pulls/plugs cables in/out of a terminal. The way humans imagine and think about it is the true computer here. Basic problem solving that *almost* goes automatic merely through interacting with a physical object, or an imaginary object in their mind. This comparison falls flat with Quantum-anything. We can't imagine.
Decades ago the running gag was that "computers are great at creating problems only they can solve" referring to their inability to be truly practical, whereas nowadays they are performing essential tasks. Quantum computers are in the same situation today. So just give them two more decades.
@@Sonny_McMacsson Third response attempt: AGI requires either a breakthrough in approach or an extremely large dataset using current methods. We're already seeing diminishing returns as datasets grow, which could lead to significant power usage per query. However, if fusion energy were to be solved, that power problem might become manageable.
@@dominic.h.3363 Real general intelligence doesn't need a very large dataset nor much power, so I'd say the approach is wrong. Language has no intrinsic meaning either and more pattern matching won't produce actual intelligence. Just throwing more power at it is a waste of time and just wasteful overall.
@@dominic.h.3363 RUclips's algorithm is a joke, and won't even tell you what induced the silent deletion. Really really hoping DJT delivers on the bill-of-rights promise.
I earned my PhD in optical computing 25 years ago. Little has changed in the field. I have since retired from academia to work in R&D manufacturing, which is now growing rapidly in the US.
@@cromeaxe A small but rapidly growing subcontractor to Amogy, HP, and others. We work closely with several universities and national labs. We also do classified DOD work, which is why I won't state the name of the company I work for here.
Making the internet hack-proof would be incredibly useful and necessary, especially with the advent of much faster photon chips in the near future. For instance, a hybrid photon quantum entangled system could potentially break codes we currently consider secure, as well as prevent third parties from intercepting your communications.
Quantum computing doesn't give arbitrary speed ups? We already have quantum resistant cryptography, we just haven't implemented it. Photonics doesn't help you beat it either, since the speedup is meaningless compared to the power needed.
Also, it's not like the encription will make the thing hackproof, more like it will be a proof of hacking. And sure, if detected, then you can just stop transmiting, but what's the point then? If you know that your signal from the point A to the point B has been disrupted by someone C listening in between, all this does is that you stop transmiting. Which you may think is good since that means that the C won't get that data, but also useless because B doesn't get them either. Then all it takes to sabotage this is some low effort low maintainance interference between A and B to permanently remove your ability to safely communicate, without actually damaging any of the infrastructure. To me it looks like a giant weakness if anything
It will be fascinating to see which comes first: a practical quantum computer or a practical fusion reactor. It is almost certain that we'll have flying cars first...
History is replete with examples of popular belief that something was way, way in the future, only to have it happen far sooner. We need to keep pushing.
@@nathan_luthor Wouldn't say that's a good analog. It's on a completely different technical level and there were already functional examples of things flying in nature. Since there are supposedly many, try to give some more examples.
@@Sonny_McMacsson planes is a good analogy in the context of technology that no one confidently predict it would came fast even in the beginning 20th century Yes there were air balloons. But people at those times are mostly not optimistic when it comes mimicking flights like birds. Let alone cross transatlantic seas To quote from New York Times "Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly" in 1903: "[It] might be assumed that the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years... "
@@nathan_luthor My point is that's it's on a completely different level technically and you can't just extrapolate the future on previous outcomes, even if it were true. Throwing more money and time at something will more and more just consumer more money and time. There is no inevitable march of progress into the future. Things are going to slow down a lot. The fruit is higher and high up the tree. I don't care what some ignorant journalists say. They don't actually tend to understand much of anything. Please.
I work at RPI, which has an IBM quantum computer right in the building that I work in. People will never use quantum computers for running simple games (like Doom). *Never.* That's a ludicrous goal. There is nothing about the nature of quantum computing which would make it "better" for running Doom, even if we had a million qubits to play with, all of which ran at room temperature. However, here are other types problems where the nature of quantum computing *is* an advantage (at least in theory), although we're clearly limited by the number of qubits available in any one computer, and by the significant challenges of error correction in these computers. Factoring large numbers is an example of that. "Quantum supremacy" always refers to using a quantum computer with a quantum-specific algorithm for one specific task. That's why previous claims of Quantum supremacy have fallen, because all it takes is for someone to solve that specific task using a better non-quantum algorithm for that task.
Oh come on! The first - ok, second - thing I did on that brand new computer based rtty system on our brand new frigate in 1982 was running the star trek game written in basic.
Quantum is why all my passwords are over 45 characters now. They are lying to all of us about how limited quantum is currently. The gigantic quantum computer the nsa has for example.
I had a drink with the lead designer of IBMs quantum computer about 6 or 7 years ago at a conference in Florida. He told me that when they get close to 100 qubits it will seem like magic. Able to do things such as predict the weather and tell which way a hurricane is going to turn.
There is the more fundamental question whether an arbitrary number of q-bits can be entangled. There is no phenomen in nature where more the 60 quantum states are entangled. So there could be an upper limit that is way below the point of a useful quantum computer. When I asked a physisist colleague, he said, well that could be and the first who finds that limit will be invited to Stockholm.
The graphics on the Doom simulation are comparable to graphics on late 70s/early 80s home computers. There have been a few improvements in the past 45 years.
@@coreyleander7911 What is wrong with what I said? The only moderately successful quantum computers are the ones from D-wave and others (like google) which are running quantum annealing rather than actual quantum computing. Annealing, while useful for certain scenarios, can only perform a small subset of computations and are not Turing complete. The largest factorized integer was heavily pre-processed on classical computers in order to fit the problem into the still ridiculously small number of qubits available. Had those pre-processing steps been carried out on a quantum computer, it would have decohered long before producing any meaningful results. That is besides the point that they used annealing and not general purpose quantum computing. If I have missed any major milestones and achievements over the last 4 decades, feel free to let me know.
@ so you’re saying you’ve been following two gate fidelity go from 50% to 99.9% in the past few years? We only need a few more nines. You need to read actual specialists in quantum computing, like Scott Aaronson. Check out his blog discussing two gate fidelities. They are the building block of quantum computers.
@@coreyleander7911 Dave Hayes from Quantinuum's 3-nines announcement last April: “Getting to three 9’s in the QCCD architecture means that ~1000 entangling operations can be done before an error occurs. Our quantum computers are right at the edge of being able to do computations at the physical level that are beyond the reach of classical computers, which would occur somewhere between 3 nines and 4 nines. Some tasks become hard for classical computers before this regime (e.g. Google’s random circuit sampling problem) but this new regime allows for much less contrived problems to be solved. At that point, these machines become real tools for new discoveries - albeit they will still be limited in what they can probe, likely to be physics simulations or closely related problems.” So they are right at the edge of being able to do less contrived problems which will still be limited in what they can probe. I've been following the development of quantum computing for a bit over 25 years. While I find it impressive how far the various technologies have been pushed, I am left with a sense that most of the journey still lies ahead in foggy and uncharted territory.
Interesting! Love how you display humor while staying totally serious.. I see the only advantage of early stage quantum computing to be evident when it comes to (deep) space communication. Mitigating the delay we have with standard communication methods.. what do you think
I played the Original Atari Pong on Christmas 1976 - First Retail Atari Video games available to the public. Played all the Atari games through 1982 when we got a PC Junior. Then the Original Castle Wolfenstein's. Then the second version of Doom in 1993. Then Quake 1, 2, & 3 in the late 90's and got really good. Then grew out of being an addicted gamer.
4:33 NISQ is more a collection of techniques than one single technique. It doesn't actually hope for some qubits to stay entangled out of many, it rather assumes that overall entanglement will stay at acceptable levels long enough for a useful computation to happen. NISQ techniques also delegate tasks that are easy for classical computers onto classical computers (like running Doom) and keeps the tasks which are easy for quantum computer (like preparing a highly entangled state of say, chemical compounds or materials, which need entanglement to be described accurately). NISQ is expected to produce useful results within the next 3 years, not as a substitute or speedup for classical computers, but as a very different way of doing computation of specific problems. Breaking RSA is not one of those problems, as Shor's algorithm assumes that qubits stay perfect forever (or for many-many orders of magnutude longer than what is currently possible).
_"Sometimes when I brood too strenuously and wax too melancholic about the uncertain future of humanity, given the existential risk of AI and all that-one of my many bad habits, mea culpa, mea culpa-I picture Thufir Hawat scowling furiously while milking his daily dose of antidode from a cat in a box, while Baron Harkkonnen & Sting literally kack themselves while watching & listening over hidden spycams, and all of a sudden, things don't seem quite as bad as they did a couple bong rips ago..."_ _"...is a sentence I'll warrant has never, ever been uttered, typed, or even pondered before, in the history of history, which provides a modicum of solace."_ _"(By solace I mean weed. And by modicum I mean A LITERAL F**K-TON. Heh.)"_ - Bud Good (internal thoughts, yesterday)
Oh Anton! Today after a little segway into quantum computers, I search the subject here only to find my favourite science youtuber uploading a video on the exact topic I wanted a day before. A testament to Nietszche's collective unconcious, or just 'spooky action at a distance'?. Perhaps we will never know, but what I do know is that I am ever grateful of your format of videos. Thank you, Wonderful Person!
The issue is that we don't know enough about the behavior of the small stuff to use those phenomena reliably. (I'm not saying that what we know is wrong, just that it's not enough.) But, at the same time, if we don't try it... We're probably not going to learn much either.
How can a wave packet be a single photon? Photons being a quantum of electromagnetic energy, a wave packet is a superposition of plane waves so many photons, I think? If so makes more sense why more than one qubit can be encoded in a wave packet
Every photon is its own "wave packet" until it interactions with the electrons of some atom it collides with. Roughly speaking. I have no idea how they went about encoding 32 separate values into an individual photon though.
well to make any meaningful and useful calculations you need an amount of qbits higher than you can theoretically preserve from decoherence. So yeah. Kinda expected and calculated tears ago.
@@Zorro33313 so that begs the question. What are they going to do with them? I understand it’s supposed to aid in researching by using quantum to calculate processes that use quantum or are in nature.
I do wonder if there are practical applications for space exploration? For example, putting a quantum computer on a satellite, sending it to Proxima or some other star, and having it "communicate" with another here on Earth? Is it not the case that no matter how far away the computer on the satellite gets, you can have practical communication with it (thanks to "spooky action at a distance") through a quantum channel? It is something that was going to happen when quantum computing was first announced.
Unfortunately, using entanglement to communicate like that would break the laws of physics. We don't think it's possible to send information faster than the speed of light, regardless of the method. All you would get from the entangled particles is knowledge of their entangled partners' states, in random combinations.
But, how else are you going to have any clue if that is true without quantum hackers trying to prove otherwise? You need team quantum to establish the cat-and-mouse dynamic.
@ not really - because quantum computer capabilities in this field are pretty much all known. If a encryption key set can be generated as a „truly“ random number (not a set of factorials of prime numbers), then there is no approach to find the keys. Look up „Einstein Tiles“ - that seems to be the basis for this approach. It may - may! - work simply because the approach is purely quantum (and therefore, random) in itself.
@ Yeah I spent 6 months on it, 13 seconds in the first month, 11 in the next few, 10 for the majority, then 0:09. I haven’t thought about this record in a long time lol. Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say
This only has me worried about the potential future of computers. They are so eager to jump on this. Kind of like how they're all jumping on ARM Computers for the potential power savings. It's a good idea, but it's always been there. It's not until now that they're making the jump. Are we starting to see demission returns in Moore's Law.
I think that quantum computers need dynamic Qbit lengths. Meaning the ability to repurpose the amount of entangled Qbits using the same hardware. I think coherence is the first priority, and dynamic Qbit lengths are the second most important thing for the engineers to create.
Schrödinger’s Qbit is out of the box 📦! I must say, the cat 🐈 was a great analogy, they are unpredictable, in moment friendly and suddenly they « byte » you! 😉
Please excuse me if I got this painfully, painfully wrong. Me no smart. Me big dumb. I’m really really trying to understand the small optical quantum computer.. they stored the information on the photon beam? Is this similar in concept to a record containing sound data along grooves? Is this like an optical groove containing information? Also, what exactly is the point of a quantum computer? Like what is theoretically achievable with a quantum computer that can’t be with classical computers?
The problem with a QM computer is that as soon as you open it up and look at the qubits, the wave function collapses superposition and it ceases to function...
Doom is built on the raycasting principle. A clever "hack" to get something done with little resources. Drawing a space with 3D vectors is much more demanding. A serious 16 bit machine, back in the day, could not do much more in terms of real 3D. Unless one had a specialized computer, the price of an exclusive car. After 1995 3D works because of investment in hardware acceleration to do the math. Difficult to compare these things.
I recently watch a video about quantum computers and that they don't actually run any programs. It also said many scientist believe it can't be scaled up because of it becoming unstable. In other words it seems that it's not viable, but because so much has been invested people are reluctant to admit the fact it's not viable.
Well, yes. Look at life before mobile phones to after. But Quantum computers where promised 30 years ago. And still do not work in any way other than theory.
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 In case of technology the argument that some goal has been wrongfully anticipated by somebody a while ago does not indicate anything.
@@NoidoDev I am sorry, but what? No, in case of technology, someone giving a wrongful date means, either they lied knowingly, or it is more complicated than they thought it would be and might not work at all. It is why any claim of future tech, that is not just a evolution on current tech, should always be taken with a grain of salt. Quantum computer are still a theory, that is still a unproven theory Made to explain why Einstein's theories does not always work, so they made a hypothesis on something else that could explain it. But they have not even proven it to be correct (that is why string theory is used as a alternative theory because we do not know if either of them are true).
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 Just a theory you write? There are working quantum computers right now that have proven to perform calculations. Just because you can't check your mail and properly game on it right now doesn't change this fact.
Anyone who tells you 'classical computer will always be able to do anything a quantum computer can do, and do it better' doesn't know what they're talking about. Same goes for the other direction. The truth is, there are problems one can do that the other can't, there are some that both can do, but more importantly, there are some problems neither can do ... ever.
I can relate... I keep buying CPU's with more cores and all software developers do is make code that runs on a single core which leaves my processor just wasting it's potential.
On mainframes like the IBM z16 (which has an 8-core CPU) use the cores for (simultaneous) multiprocessing. Computers use to have a single central processor. It could handle several applications "concurrently." Getting more than one processor to work simultaneously with others was very difficult.
MS-DOS means MicroSoft Disc Operating System. It's rather classical, don't you think? And it actually significantly accelerated general acceptance of computers and rapid development in the 80's making them unified. It was kind of copy-pasta recompile of already existing stuff, but that's a different story. Despite of what you think every society gets what it requires the most. And then came Google and Facebook and sold all your data overnight. Apple - premium design console. Linux - can't decide what they are up to. 25 years ago hyped as the future and free alternative. If chaos is the future. Server space - fine, managed by pros.
you’re right, MS-DOS stands for Microsoft Disc Operating System. They bought it for $50,000 from some guy who is still kicking himself. Before DOS there was MSBASIC which again Microsoft didn’t invent. Xerox developed the mouse for their copy machines but gave away that technology because no one wanted to deal with a wire attached to the copy machines. Apple figured out how to integrate it into computers and I believe that helped make a quantum leap in the consumer market. When I was in school for my film and video engineering degree we had a Video Toaster computer that was running Unix and it saved memory by making every pixel black. Normally you have 8 bits to determine the color of a pixel but on that system you only needed 7 bits because if it was black it didn’t take up any memory. It doesn’t sound like much but it adds up when you’re transcoding and editing. MS has never been a leader. IBM were fools and gave them an exclusive contract for PC’s because they’re a hardware company and they didn’t see any value in software. If it wasn’t for that deal MS would’ve died back in the 80’s.
@@magickmarck Well the reality is around 2K many were saying Linux is The Future. Free, fast, secure. Didn't happen. Reality is you can't make free forever and IT guys love to create new pet projects just because they can. Dying to make it better than the other guy. Except hardly anybody needs it and no one will pay for that. See the real world issue?
I do not understand "classical" computers. I have only the faintest inkling of quantum. And I thought a cubit is about the distance from elbow to extended middle finger. Thanks, anyway, Anton. I will use them if they come with instructions!
I feel like that’s not an appropriate comparison, yes it requires a lot of power to do something it’s not designed to do, but how much power does it require to do what it is designed to do… The moment it’s able to provide a real contribution to anything it’s going to change the field in which it’s working and that is likely to come far sooner then video games designed to run on entirely different hardware let alone physics…
Quantum computing is only useful at specific tasks its not going to replace regular computers. They allow computer to access new algorithms that allow very specific calculations much faster.
Unlike classical computers, most quantum computer processors require cryogenic cooling. Only optical quantum computers are free of this requirement, and thus have potential widespread use baked into the construction materials. Photolithography developed for classical computing could presumably be leveraged here. In other words, ignore cryo-cooled devices and pay close attention to the optical quantum space. Single-chip hybrid optical-quantum/classical designs will eventually win out on cost and adaptability alone.
My brain failed when it said "add more dimensions". How do you do that? Is that proof of higher dimensions or the definition of "dimensions" is different?
I don't actually know the precise answer, but it should be (as far as I know) related with encoding data over many properties of light, like phase and chirality/polarization, rather than "just" different wavelengths.
@@marcoottina654 I know you can use a light wave as a carrier wave the same as any analog radio, but I don't know how much data you can fit in a single wave packet.
I wouldn't say that its not hackable just because someone could not listen in and steal data on a Quantum internet connection. It just means you have moved the attack vector from being data theft to a denial of service attack.
The power of the static matrix in quantum memory is stronger than people realize. As you can hold the state of every object in the universe with 100 qbits, as quantum memory holds 2^N positions per Q-bit. The bottleneck is in the input/output of the matrix to classic observation. Its actually quite impressive that they have a working matrix in real time, as whats measured is always a small part of the quantum matrix.
For me quantum effects are useful only at the sub atomic level and to enable information to pass at the level in terms of space time and energy. When the big bang occured quantum effects of entangment and the mean free time of conherence was massive since there was far less concentration of matter. Note: quantum mechanics must only work with non-datk matter right??? Anyways as the first stars, planters, moons, black holes and galaxies formed then there the density of matter and this interations between sub atomic matter increased dramatically thus reducing the mean free time of co-herence within complex oragisations of matter, i think there must be a maximum system of matter wereby co-herence and entanglement becomes impossible in nature. The key is, can this maxium be increased artificially and can useful amounts of information be processed by said maximally co-herent system.
In a way i am not mad that we do not have currently a way to advance this tech quickly, equally to LLMs not being the be all end all to AIs. I guess we still be getting these before we as a species are ready for them.
RSA-2048 is likely safe for now, but quantum computing could break it in the next 25-50 years or more, depending on advancements in quantum technology. Post-quantum cryptography is being developed as a precaution to safeguard against quantum threats in the future.
The problem with that is that encrypted data is being harvested now which will be able to be cracked with ease after this threshold is broken, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it
In distant future I see quantum computers being used as a flex by some manufacturers like how Apple used RISC processors in their MacBooks just to be different, and later quantum computers will develop into a very popular but very specific niche, just like we now have ARM.
Great as always, Anton! If useful quantum computers are possible, it may disprove "Simulation Theory" once and for all because you couldn't simulate a potentially infinitely powerful computer. It may also unlock the way human minds and consciousness work, so its a very very big deal, not just whether they can break RSA encryption one day.
You should look into Penrose and Hameroff's Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory and the research being done on quantum superradiance inside of microtubules that are found inside of neurons
I could not joke about this, if you did not explain it so well petrov don't say you did not warn us. I believe the security aspect is the best application, if someone that loves to exploit things would make it work for usefulness
9:10 This is where you lost me. Forgive me, I'm not a big brain. In geometry, an "extra dimension" refers to a spatial or temporal dimension beyond the three spatial dimensions (length, width, and height) that we experience daily, and often beyond time as the fourth dimension in spacetime models. An extra dimension is conceptualized as an additional direction in which an object or particle can move or extend, beyond the typical three-dimensional space. So does this mean we became like the aliens in the series 'Three Body Problem?'
When taking about dimensions in math, think about a big data table that not only has rows and columns, but also extra cells in other directions. Not spatially, just to make room for more information. So instead of 2D array: [x,y] It could be a 10D array: [a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j] And to make matters more complicated; All data cells connect to each other. And that's actually similar to how neural networks work 👌 and when AI programmers are referring to "parameters". They're really talking about dimensions.
The first “computer” I ever worked on was an IBM 1620 a looong time ago so I’ve been around the block more times I can count…I have yet to figure out what the hell a “quantum” computer really is or does…much less how to program the damned things!
My high-school had an IBM 1620. On Saturdays the school district let us use their IBM 1401 with tape drives, 1403 line-printer, 1311 disk-drives, etc. Learned a lot and had a great time. Even won the San Francisco Bay Area Science Fair's 1st prize in Comp-Sci in 1972. (It's sad that kids today don't get real hands-on experience with hardware, assembler & machine language coding, etc.)
@ 👍 By the 70’s I had moved “up” to a Xerox Sigma 5, a “massive” 5mb RAD - hard drive with 512 heads floating on a cushion of air. Paper tape reader, teletype, card reader, chain line printer…and this was at a defense contractor. Before the RAD started turning, compressed air lifted the heads off the 2 foot diameter disk - one day, the compressor failed - end of disk - and I got to rebuild the OS from punch cards when we finally got a new disk installed - took a full 19” rack also. Lots of lights flashing on the front panel…Ah, fun times…
Certainly programming it requires a different approach in thinking, and it will never be good for many tasks that current computers can do quite well. I've been programing non-quantum computers for so many decades that I'm not sure I can wrap my head around the right way to design algorithms on a quantum computer!
I’m really really trying to understand the small optical quantum computer.. they stored the information on the photon beam? Is this similar in concept to a record containing sound data along grooves? Is this like an optical groove containing information? Please excuse me for if I got this painfully ,painfully wrong. Me no smart. Me big dumb.
10:11 - about this, i have actually asked some of the researchers that very heavly doubt the result of the paper you mentioned at that moment. Result of this paper was very vague, they possibly didn't even use Shor algorithm. The paper itself is very weird, it does not contain any citations whatsoever. What you are looking at is some Chineese research that isn't clear and cannot be claimed as proper. Also you failed to mention that these 50 "logical" qubits were ran on 2000 qubit machine, which is not promising at the moment... About advancements in the field - There are LOTS of ways you can use quantum computers for. Most of people use it in finance sector, for example for portfolio rebalancing. There is also huge field of quantum chemistry, which usually focuses on "well chemistry is mostly effects of nucleus/electrons so why not simulate these effects with the use of effects commonly occuring in quantum computer?". There are several main areas you have to recognize, which i know a few. Usually these are: - QEC/QEM (Quantum Error correction, Quantum Error Mitigation - algorithms for information encoding and preventing/detecting/correcting for example phase errors inside QC), - development of new algorithms (bringing math papers and proposing how to run certain algorithms/equations on Quantum computer), - circuit design development (basically "refactoring existing designs" - proposals for new ways of cheaper circuits that save on qbits or save on runtime complexity) - field of study (actual application of known quantum algorithms) - merging multiple solutions into commercial products - for example, instead of learning 1 library like qiskit (which only lets you run these on IBM computers), you learn library that the service provider has, that then transforms your code into a runnable solution for a platform of your choice Of course i didn't mention development of new quantum computers but this one should be obvious. There are many things you can do RIGHT NOW to get in touch with this technology. There are initiatives that teach you basics and give certificates of completion from usage of libraries like qiskit and how to make quantum computing libraries on your own. Some of them are even "pro publico bono" meaning you don't even have to spend a dime on this. You don't even have to be enlisted into university of any kind! (you only need to know math, which can be a barrier)
We've gotten used to high end computers with massive storage, so why would they even say anything about running a game like about the same as playing Snake on phones 20 years ago?
Anyone know what happened to the fft gate parallel transfer system that was supposed to be the way forward in quantum networking looked like it might be the first end user application for quantum processing but went dark about two years ago. Was curious if it was a dead end or if it just got military licensed and we won't hear about it again until it's several gens old?
We already have jet packs lol. The military and private market has had them for a few years now. Each year, it has been getting lighter and smaller. Look up videos on yt. They got military people landing on aircraft carriers with a jet pack. They are also available in the private sector too.
I cling tenaciously to the hope that one day, a Quantum computer will help me finally finish the fnord creative writing project* I've been labouring to finish since circa mid-June 1988. * Tentative title: _'The Neverending Short Story'_ Quantum-Entabgled Subtitle: _"That Rug-Dragon Really Held the Prequel Together."_
I remember doom 2 took up about 20 mb on my computer back in the 90s ,all that computing power, and all this thing can do is the 1st level of doom, and it's horrible . How much money did they spend on this?
The programming for analog computers I've seen so far consists of describing a problem as a circuit and then wiring it, in software, as a patch panel for an analog computer. If this was like that, it takes a remarkable imagination to turn Dune into an analog patch panel.
Frank Herbert's Doom
Yes, quantum computation is not procedural. The entire calculation happens in one step. It isn't like normal programming where you have sequences of instructions. You could say there is just one big instruction in a quantum program.
I can relate ... I've been seeing VBS (the script version not the VBA version) as pretty much the same way.
What programmers/scripters do is make a structure in their mind that they are hooking things up to, the same way an electrician pulls/plugs cables in/out of a terminal. The way humans imagine and think about it is the true computer here. Basic problem solving that *almost* goes automatic merely through interacting with a physical object, or an imaginary object in their mind. This comparison falls flat with Quantum-anything. We can't imagine.
Decades ago the running gag was that "computers are great at creating problems only they can solve" referring to their inability to be truly practical, whereas nowadays they are performing essential tasks. Quantum computers are in the same situation today. So just give them two more decades.
We'll get them in practical form right after fusion and AGI are commonplace.
@@Sonny_McMacsson Third response attempt:
AGI requires either a breakthrough in approach or an extremely large dataset using current methods. We're already seeing diminishing returns as datasets grow, which could lead to significant power usage per query.
However, if fusion energy were to be solved, that power problem might become manageable.
@@dominic.h.3363 Real general intelligence doesn't need a very large dataset nor much power, so I'd say the approach is wrong. Language has no intrinsic meaning either and more pattern matching won't produce actual intelligence. Just throwing more power at it is a waste of time and just wasteful overall.
@Sonny_McMacsson been saying the same thing in regards to true machine intelligence. ( I don't like the term AI it's really nonsensical)
@@dominic.h.3363 RUclips's algorithm is a joke, and won't even tell you what induced the silent deletion. Really really hoping DJT delivers on the bill-of-rights promise.
I earned my PhD in optical computing 25 years ago. Little has changed in the field. I have since retired from academia to work in R&D manufacturing, which is now growing rapidly in the US.
Which company ?
@@cromeaxe A small but rapidly growing subcontractor to Amogy, HP, and others. We work closely with several universities and national labs. We also do classified DOD work, which is why I won't state the name of the company I work for here.
Thank you Anton, I am a computer engineer and have always struggled with quantum computing hipe. Great reality check.
It's not a reality check man, it's kinda ridiculous. No point was valid.
@@peterschmidt3551agreed. That was a terrible video. Im surprised he was so wrong
WOW!
Quantum Pong!
Can’t wait!
The question is when you try to hit the blip, will the blip be there when you want to hit it?
@
Only if you blink, will it not be there.
Quantum entanglement takes over.
@
Everybody looses!
And then quantum space invaders will be released.
@
But you may never win when played in the double slit mode!
Making the internet hack-proof would be incredibly useful and necessary, especially with the advent of much faster photon chips in the near future. For instance, a hybrid photon quantum entangled system could potentially break codes we currently consider secure, as well as prevent third parties from intercepting your communications.
Quantum computing doesn't give arbitrary speed ups? We already have quantum resistant cryptography, we just haven't implemented it. Photonics doesn't help you beat it either, since the speedup is meaningless compared to the power needed.
So it will break encryption while also making encryption unnecessary . . . sounds like quantum mechanics alright.
Also, it's not like the encription will make the thing hackproof, more like it will be a proof of hacking. And sure, if detected, then you can just stop transmiting, but what's the point then? If you know that your signal from the point A to the point B has been disrupted by someone C listening in between, all this does is that you stop transmiting. Which you may think is good since that means that the C won't get that data, but also useless because B doesn't get them either. Then all it takes to sabotage this is some low effort low maintainance interference between A and B to permanently remove your ability to safely communicate, without actually damaging any of the infrastructure.
To me it looks like a giant weakness if anything
@@GoogleAreEnemyCombatantsall at the same time also...with absolutely no process what so ever. 😂
In my quantum mechanics colloquium course back in 2014 we worked with qbit algorithm simulations.
Stuck in superposition!
Schrödinger's kat is doomed!
What are you doing, step-baron?!
Been stuck in superposition many times, so many times have I been beside myself that I'm frequently assigned two man jobs alone.
Don't worry, mate. Superposition is not a stable state; you will decohere back into your normal state with the tiniest disturbance.
@@JamesSarantidis xD
It will be fascinating to see which comes first: a practical quantum computer or a practical fusion reactor.
It is almost certain that we'll have flying cars first...
"We're about ten years away from that." *ten years later* "We've made amazing progress and we're about ten years away rom that! ". 😂😂😂
@@allengoodwin7043 meanwhile... give us zillions of dollars!
The only reason we wouldn't have either is if we'd rather be cynical than move forward.
Check out the flying drone car prototypes
meanwhile... give us zillions of dollars!
Proof that Doom runs on anything... 😂😂😂
Well, our cat fought back ...
sadly its only a recreation
It really does.
Looolll
Look, if only that pet bunny was left alone, we wouldn't be here.
History is replete with examples of popular belief that something was way, way in the future, only to have it happen far sooner. We need to keep pushing.
Like?
@@Sonny_McMacsson planes in the 1900s
@@nathan_luthor Wouldn't say that's a good analog. It's on a completely different technical level and there were already functional examples of things flying in nature.
Since there are supposedly many, try to give some more examples.
@@Sonny_McMacsson planes is a good analogy in the context of technology that no one confidently predict it would came fast even in the beginning 20th century
Yes there were air balloons. But people at those times are mostly not optimistic when it comes mimicking flights like birds. Let alone cross transatlantic seas
To quote from New York Times "Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly" in 1903:
"[It] might be assumed that the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years... "
@@nathan_luthor My point is that's it's on a completely different level technically and you can't just extrapolate the future on previous outcomes, even if it were true. Throwing more money and time at something will more and more just consumer more money and time. There is no inevitable march of progress into the future. Things are going to slow down a lot. The fruit is higher and high up the tree.
I don't care what some ignorant journalists say. They don't actually tend to understand much of anything. Please.
Fascinating insights on quantum computing! 🧠 Can't wait for more!
I work at RPI, which has an IBM quantum computer right in the building that I work in. People will never use quantum computers for running simple games (like Doom). *Never.* That's a ludicrous goal. There is nothing about the nature of quantum computing which would make it "better" for running Doom, even if we had a million qubits to play with, all of which ran at room temperature. However, here are other types problems where the nature of quantum computing *is* an advantage (at least in theory), although we're clearly limited by the number of qubits available in any one computer, and by the significant challenges of error correction in these computers. Factoring large numbers is an example of that.
"Quantum supremacy" always refers to using a quantum computer with a quantum-specific algorithm for one specific task. That's why previous claims of Quantum supremacy have fallen, because all it takes is for someone to solve that specific task using a better non-quantum algorithm for that task.
Oh come on! The first - ok, second - thing I did on that brand new computer based rtty system on our brand new frigate in 1982 was running the star trek game written in basic.
I’m a third year aero/mech at RPI. Didn’t expect to find someone like you here
So is that a Yes/No Answer 😉
@@VolkerHett - If you want to put up $50 million for your own personal quantum computer, then feel free to play games.
Quantum is why all my passwords are over 45 characters now. They are lying to all of us about how limited quantum is currently. The gigantic quantum computer the nsa has for example.
I had a drink with the lead designer of IBMs quantum computer about 6 or 7 years ago at a conference in Florida. He told me that when they get close to 100 qubits it will seem like magic. Able to do things such as predict the weather and tell which way a hurricane is going to turn.
That’s not true at all 😂
Quantum computing is one of those subjects I didn’t know I’d be interested in until I started watching you regularly
Awesome and accurate video . Thank you for the the accuracy and the informations
It's not accurate, we're being sold baseless doubt. None of the points were both true and valid.
There is the more fundamental question whether an arbitrary number of q-bits can be entangled. There is no phenomen in nature where more the 60 quantum states are entangled. So there could be an upper limit that is way below the point of a useful quantum computer. When I asked a physisist colleague, he said, well that could be and the first who finds that limit will be invited to Stockholm.
The graphics on the Doom simulation are comparable to graphics on late 70s/early 80s home computers. There have been a few improvements in the past 45 years.
Yes, but that is the point here. Quantum computing was invented in 1980, and there hasn't been many improvements in the last 45 years.
@@michaeldamolsenthat’s wrong lmao.
@@coreyleander7911 What is wrong with what I said? The only moderately successful quantum computers are the ones from D-wave and others (like google) which are running quantum annealing rather than actual quantum computing. Annealing, while useful for certain scenarios, can only perform a small subset of computations and are not Turing complete. The largest factorized integer was heavily pre-processed on classical computers in order to fit the problem into the still ridiculously small number of qubits available. Had those pre-processing steps been carried out on a quantum computer, it would have decohered long before producing any meaningful results. That is besides the point that they used annealing and not general purpose quantum computing.
If I have missed any major milestones and achievements over the last 4 decades, feel free to let me know.
@ so you’re saying you’ve been following two gate fidelity go from 50% to 99.9% in the past few years? We only need a few more nines. You need to read actual specialists in quantum computing, like Scott Aaronson. Check out his blog discussing two gate fidelities. They are the building block of quantum computers.
@@coreyleander7911 Dave Hayes from Quantinuum's 3-nines announcement last April: “Getting to three 9’s in the QCCD architecture means that ~1000 entangling operations can be done before an error occurs. Our quantum computers are right at the edge of being able to do computations at the physical level that are beyond the reach of classical computers, which would occur somewhere between 3 nines and 4 nines. Some tasks become hard for classical computers before this regime (e.g. Google’s random circuit sampling problem) but this new regime allows for much less contrived problems to be solved. At that point, these machines become real tools for new discoveries - albeit they will still be limited in what they can probe, likely to be physics simulations or closely related problems.”
So they are right at the edge of being able to do less contrived problems which will still be limited in what they can probe.
I've been following the development of quantum computing for a bit over 25 years. While I find it impressive how far the various technologies have been pushed, I am left with a sense that most of the journey still lies ahead in foggy and uncharted territory.
Interesting! Love how you display humor while staying totally serious.. I see the only advantage of early stage quantum computing to be evident when it comes to (deep) space communication. Mitigating the delay we have with standard communication methods.. what do you think
I played the Original Atari Pong on Christmas 1976 - First Retail Atari Video games available to the public. Played all the Atari games through 1982 when we got a PC Junior. Then the Original Castle Wolfenstein's. Then the second version of Doom in 1993. Then Quake 1, 2, & 3 in the late 90's and got really good. Then grew out of being an addicted gamer.
*_What are you, some kinda bottom-feeding scum-sucking algae eater?!"_* /Duke_Nukem
4:33 NISQ is more a collection of techniques than one single technique. It doesn't actually hope for some qubits to stay entangled out of many, it rather assumes that overall entanglement will stay at acceptable levels long enough for a useful computation to happen. NISQ techniques also delegate tasks that are easy for classical computers onto classical computers (like running Doom) and keeps the tasks which are easy for quantum computer (like preparing a highly entangled state of say, chemical compounds or materials, which need entanglement to be described accurately).
NISQ is expected to produce useful results within the next 3 years, not as a substitute or speedup for classical computers, but as a very different way of doing computation of specific problems. Breaking RSA is not one of those problems, as Shor's algorithm assumes that qubits stay perfect forever (or for many-many orders of magnutude longer than what is currently possible).
Wild to me how off base Anton was on most of what he said.
_"Sometimes when I brood too strenuously and wax too melancholic about the uncertain future of humanity, given the existential risk of AI and all that-one of my many bad habits, mea culpa, mea culpa-I picture Thufir Hawat scowling furiously while milking his daily dose of antidode from a cat in a box, while Baron Harkkonnen & Sting literally kack themselves while watching & listening over hidden spycams, and all of a sudden, things don't seem quite as bad as they did a couple bong rips ago..."_
_"...is a sentence I'll warrant has never, ever been uttered, typed, or even pondered before, in the history of history, which provides a modicum of solace."_
_"(By solace I mean weed. And by modicum I mean A LITERAL F**K-TON. Heh.)"_
- Bud Good (internal thoughts, yesterday)
Oh Anton! Today after a little segway into quantum computers, I search the subject here only to find my favourite science youtuber uploading a video on the exact topic I wanted a day before.
A testament to Nietszche's collective unconcious, or just 'spooky action at a distance'?.
Perhaps we will never know, but what I do know is that I am ever grateful of your format of videos.
Thank you, Wonderful Person!
The issue is that we don't know enough about the behavior of the small stuff to use those phenomena reliably. (I'm not saying that what we know is wrong, just that it's not enough.)
But, at the same time, if we don't try it... We're probably not going to learn much either.
God dammit, the behaviour of small stuff....brings to mind such filthy thoughts *_BLUSH_*
@horaceosirian8993 LOL
One of the most interesting videos lately. Anton for the President. :)
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 🙂⭐️✌️☺️
This one was baseless unfortunately, but I love the guy too.
F quantum computers. Where is my flying car, thermonuclear power station, house on Mars and AI-robot working in its kitchen?
People are too stupid to drive safely in two dimensions. You want to add a third one?
@ Agreed. However, it would decrease traffic significantly. By hook or crook.
The only purpose of all these "projects" is to embezzle money.
Where the hell is my jet pack ???
Where's my freaking pokemon???!!!!
I remember years ago in the mid 1980s, galium arsenide chips were the future of computing.
So... We're somewhere around 1985 in terms of classic computing.
Not even close to that. I'd say somewhere before the invention of the integrated circuit.
@vaikkajoku I was referring to the emularot, but yeah. Somewhere around the integrated logic gate era.
More like Atanasov's work in the 1930s.
Nope not even close
How can a wave packet be a single photon? Photons being a quantum of electromagnetic energy, a wave packet is a superposition of plane waves so many photons, I think? If so makes more sense why more than one qubit can be encoded in a wave packet
Every photon is its own "wave packet" until it interactions with the electrons of some atom it collides with. Roughly speaking. I have no idea how they went about encoding 32 separate values into an individual photon though.
_"Ask me again tomorrow."_
/Magic 8-Qubit-Ball
So even a DOS-level graphics version of Doom is not yet possible on an actual quantum computer. Well, that says a lot.
well to make any meaningful and useful calculations you need an amount of qbits higher than you can theoretically preserve from decoherence. So yeah. Kinda expected and calculated tears ago.
@@Zorro33313 so that begs the question. What are they going to do with them? I understand it’s supposed to aid in researching by using quantum to calculate processes that use quantum or are in nature.
You sound a bit muted in this video Anton.
iT'S In It'S InFaNcy!
I see everyone here watched one video on the the quantum computing "bubble" and thinks they're a clairvoyant computer physicist now.
Cool. Thanks for sharing.
I do wonder if there are practical applications for space exploration? For example, putting a quantum computer on a satellite, sending it to Proxima or some other star, and having it "communicate" with another here on Earth? Is it not the case that no matter how far away the computer on the satellite gets, you can have practical communication with it (thanks to "spooky action at a distance") through a quantum channel? It is something that was going to happen when quantum computing was first announced.
Unfortunately, using entanglement to communicate like that would break the laws of physics. We don't think it's possible to send information faster than the speed of light, regardless of the method. All you would get from the entangled particles is knowledge of their entangled partners' states, in random combinations.
Please do a video on how the algorithms were made so much faster.
The fact that they know how to get there is amazing! In the beginning they only knew how to make it calculated one single thing.
oh well now we gotta see 20 Cyberdemon vs 250 Baron of hells
Thank you so much, Anton.
A 'foolproof security system,' much like an 'unsinkable ship,' has always seemed like an oxymoron to me. To quote Dr. Malcolm: 'Life finds a way.'
I hope this optical quantum computer using a single photon is the breakthrough we need for future quantum computers!
IIRC there were a few discoveries in encryption theories that may lead to truly unhackable encryption systems - even for quantum computers.
But, how else are you going to have any clue if that is true without quantum hackers trying to prove otherwise? You need team quantum to establish the cat-and-mouse dynamic.
@ not really - because quantum computer capabilities in this field are pretty much all known. If a encryption key set can be generated as a „truly“ random number (not a set of factorials of prime numbers), then there is no approach to find the keys.
Look up „Einstein Tiles“ - that seems to be the basis for this approach. It may - may! - work simply because the approach is purely quantum (and therefore, random) in itself.
Fun fact I had the record for a 9 second 1st level doom run. Idk if I still do :D
9 seconds?? 😮😮👏👏👏
@ Yeah I spent 6 months on it, 13 seconds in the first month, 11 in the next few, 10 for the majority, then 0:09. I haven’t thought about this record in a long time lol. Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say
Cacodemons ripped my flesh.
I love your channel!!!
This only has me worried about the potential future of computers. They are so eager to jump on this. Kind of like how they're all jumping on ARM Computers for the potential power savings. It's a good idea, but it's always been there. It's not until now that they're making the jump. Are we starting to see demission returns in Moore's Law.
I think that quantum computers need dynamic Qbit lengths. Meaning the ability to repurpose the amount of entangled Qbits using the same hardware. I think coherence is the first priority, and dynamic Qbit lengths are the second most important thing for the engineers to create.
Really appreciated the doom and gloom pun, golden
Schrödinger’s Qbit is out of the box 📦! I must say, the cat 🐈 was a great analogy, they are unpredictable, in moment friendly and suddenly they « byte » you! 😉
Please excuse me if I got this painfully, painfully wrong. Me no smart. Me big dumb.
I’m really really trying to understand the small optical quantum computer.. they stored the information on the photon beam? Is this similar in concept to a record containing sound data along grooves? Is this like an optical groove containing information?
Also, what exactly is the point of a quantum computer? Like what is theoretically achievable with a quantum computer that can’t be with classical computers?
The problem with a QM computer is that as soon as you open it up and look at the qubits, the wave function collapses superposition and it ceases to function...
Great Work!
Now l know something, thanks Anton👍❤😃
Doom is built on the raycasting principle. A clever "hack" to get something done with little resources. Drawing a space with 3D vectors is much more demanding. A serious 16 bit machine, back in the day, could not do much more in terms of real 3D. Unless one had a specialized computer, the price of an exclusive car.
After 1995 3D works because of investment in hardware acceleration to do the math. Difficult to compare these things.
What is the ray tracing principle? I know what ray tracing is.
@@Sonny_McMacsson Raycasting. My bad. Pseudo 3D.
Thank you An
Cool.
We've Advanced All The Way To Black And White !!!
... glad i kept that tv 😏
This video is incredible. ❤
I recently watch a video about quantum computers and that they don't actually run any programs. It also said many scientist believe it can't be scaled up because of it becoming unstable. In other words it seems that it's not viable, but because so much has been invested people are reluctant to admit the fact it's not viable.
I tried to figure out the bit flip, woke up with crazy notes and the letter P in the middle
Youd be surprised how much can change in 10-20 years .
Well, yes. Look at life before mobile phones to after.
But Quantum computers where promised 30 years ago.
And still do not work in any way other than theory.
@@haraldbredsdorff2699
In case of technology the argument that some goal has been wrongfully anticipated by somebody a while ago does not indicate anything.
@@NoidoDev I am sorry, but what?
No, in case of technology, someone giving a wrongful date means,
either they lied knowingly,
or it is more complicated than they thought it would be
and might not work at all.
It is why any claim of future tech, that is not just a evolution on current tech, should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Quantum computer are still a theory, that is still a unproven theory
Made to explain why Einstein's theories does not always work, so they made a hypothesis on something else that could explain it.
But they have not even proven it to be correct (that is why string theory is used as a alternative theory because we do not know if either of them are true).
@@haraldbredsdorff2699 Just a theory you write? There are working quantum computers right now that have proven to perform calculations. Just because you can't check your mail and properly game on it right now doesn't change this fact.
Anyone who tells you 'classical computer will always be able to do anything a quantum computer can do, and do it better' doesn't know what they're talking about. Same goes for the other direction. The truth is, there are problems one can do that the other can't, there are some that both can do, but more importantly, there are some problems neither can do ... ever.
This video pained me to listen to lol
Reminds me of Dungeons of Daggorath on the TRS-80
I'm going to go even further and say it never left whatever comes before limbo.
One use case might be long distance communication, like with spacecraft.
I can relate... I keep buying CPU's with more cores and all software developers do is make code that runs on a single core which leaves my processor just wasting it's potential.
On mainframes like the IBM z16 (which has an 8-core CPU) use the cores for (simultaneous) multiprocessing. Computers use to have a single central processor. It could handle several applications "concurrently." Getting more than one processor to work simultaneously with others was very difficult.
As long as classical computer isn’t using Microsoft it should be ok for a few years.
Unix must be
It's the only reliable and free way
MS-DOS means MicroSoft Disc Operating System. It's rather classical, don't you think? And it actually significantly accelerated general acceptance of computers and rapid development in the 80's making them unified. It was kind of copy-pasta recompile of already existing stuff, but that's a different story. Despite of what you think every society gets what it requires the most. And then came Google and Facebook and sold all your data overnight. Apple - premium design console. Linux - can't decide what they are up to. 25 years ago hyped as the future and free alternative. If chaos is the future. Server space - fine, managed by pros.
you’re right, MS-DOS stands for Microsoft Disc Operating System. They bought it for $50,000 from some guy who is still kicking himself. Before DOS there was MSBASIC which again Microsoft didn’t invent. Xerox developed the mouse for their copy machines but gave away that technology because no one wanted to deal with a wire attached to the copy machines. Apple figured out how to integrate it into computers and I believe that helped make a quantum leap in the consumer market. When I was in school for my film and video engineering degree we had a Video Toaster computer that was running Unix and it saved memory by making every pixel black. Normally you have 8 bits to determine the color of a pixel but on that system you only needed 7 bits because if it was black it didn’t take up any memory. It doesn’t sound like much but it adds up when you’re transcoding and editing. MS has never been a leader. IBM were fools and gave them an exclusive contract for PC’s because they’re a hardware company and they didn’t see any value in software. If it wasn’t for that deal MS would’ve died back in the 80’s.
@@vensroofcat6415 Linux is great. Just because there's choices doesn't make it broken.
@@magickmarck Well the reality is around 2K many were saying Linux is The Future. Free, fast, secure. Didn't happen.
Reality is you can't make free forever and IT guys love to create new pet projects just because they can. Dying to make it better than the other guy. Except hardly anybody needs it and no one will pay for that.
See the real world issue?
Good job!
I do not understand "classical" computers. I have only the faintest inkling of quantum. And I thought a cubit is about the distance from elbow to extended middle finger.
Thanks, anyway, Anton. I will use them if they come with instructions!
I feel like that’s not an appropriate comparison, yes it requires a lot of power to do something it’s not designed to do, but how much power does it require to do what it is designed to do…
The moment it’s able to provide a real contribution to anything it’s going to change the field in which it’s working and that is likely to come far sooner then video games designed to run on entirely different hardware let alone physics…
Quantum computing is only useful at specific tasks its not going to replace regular computers. They allow computer to access new algorithms that allow very specific calculations much faster.
One small step for quantum, one giant leap for humanity😊
Unlike classical computers, most quantum computer processors require cryogenic cooling. Only optical quantum computers are free of this requirement, and thus have potential widespread use baked into the construction materials. Photolithography developed for classical computing could presumably be leveraged here.
In other words, ignore cryo-cooled devices and pay close attention to the optical quantum space. Single-chip hybrid optical-quantum/classical designs will eventually win out on cost and adaptability alone.
My brain failed when it said "add more dimensions". How do you do that? Is that proof of higher dimensions or the definition of "dimensions" is different?
I don't actually know the precise answer, but it should be (as far as I know) related with encoding data over many properties of light, like phase and chirality/polarization, rather than "just" different wavelengths.
@@marcoottina654 I know you can use a light wave as a carrier wave the same as any analog radio, but I don't know how much data you can fit in a single wave packet.
Thank you.
I wouldn't say that its not hackable just because someone could not listen in and steal data on a Quantum internet connection. It just means you have moved the attack vector from being data theft to a denial of service attack.
Actually that looks a lot closer to a game I played on my ZX81 and another on the COCO (Dungeons of Daggorath).
The power of the static matrix in quantum memory is stronger than people realize. As you can hold the state of every object in the universe with 100 qbits, as quantum memory holds 2^N positions per Q-bit. The bottleneck is in the input/output of the matrix to classic observation. Its actually quite impressive that they have a working matrix in real time, as whats measured is always a small part of the quantum matrix.
So can a quantum computer hold the state of every other quantum computer, or does it just disappear up its own ...
Brings back memories of virtual boy. That thing was so cool in 1996. Now, not so much.
For me quantum effects are useful only at the sub atomic level and to enable information to pass at the level in terms of space time and energy.
When the big bang occured quantum effects of entangment and the mean free time of conherence was massive since there was far less concentration of matter.
Note: quantum mechanics must only work with non-datk matter right???
Anyways as the first stars, planters, moons, black holes and galaxies formed then there the density of matter and this interations between sub atomic matter increased dramatically thus reducing the mean free time of co-herence within complex oragisations of matter, i think there must be a maximum system of matter wereby co-herence and entanglement becomes impossible in nature.
The key is, can this maxium be increased artificially and can useful amounts of information be processed by said maximally co-herent system.
That's some impressive results after this time Nice 😃😄😁😆😅 5 Smile's.
That was the standard back in the day. Could you compete with the guy with a hot rodded 486dx with 16 megs of ram playing Doom full screen.
Anton 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
In a way i am not mad that we do not have currently a way to advance this tech quickly, equally to LLMs not being the be all end all to AIs. I guess we still be getting these before we as a species are ready for them.
RSA-2048 is likely safe for now, but quantum computing could break it in the next 25-50 years or more, depending on advancements in quantum technology.
Post-quantum cryptography is being developed as a precaution to safeguard against quantum threats in the future.
The problem with that is that encrypted data is being harvested now which will be able to be cracked with ease after this threshold is broken, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it
In distant future I see quantum computers being used as a flex by some manufacturers like how Apple used RISC processors in their MacBooks just to be different, and later quantum computers will develop into a very popular but very specific niche, just like we now have ARM.
I expected the game decision making to be done with the simulated quantum computer and the graphics to be done by a classical computer.
Great as always, Anton! If useful quantum computers are possible, it may disprove "Simulation Theory" once and for all because you couldn't simulate a potentially infinitely powerful computer. It may also unlock the way human minds and consciousness work, so its a very very big deal, not just whether they can break RSA encryption one day.
You should look into Penrose and Hameroff's Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory and the research being done on quantum superradiance inside of microtubules that are found inside of neurons
Hello wonderful Anton! This is person.
I could not joke about this, if you did not explain it so well petrov don't say you did not warn us. I believe the security aspect is the best application, if someone that loves to exploit things would make it work for usefulness
9:10 This is where you lost me. Forgive me, I'm not a big brain. In geometry, an "extra dimension" refers to a spatial or temporal dimension beyond the three spatial dimensions (length, width, and height) that we experience daily, and often beyond time as the fourth dimension in spacetime models. An extra dimension is conceptualized as an additional direction in which an object or particle can move or extend, beyond the typical three-dimensional space. So does this mean we became like the aliens in the series 'Three Body Problem?'
When taking about dimensions in math, think about a big data table that not only has rows and columns, but also extra cells in other directions. Not spatially, just to make room for more information.
So instead of 2D array: [x,y]
It could be a 10D array: [a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j]
And to make matters more complicated; All data cells connect to each other.
And that's actually similar to how neural networks work 👌 and when AI programmers are referring to "parameters". They're really talking about dimensions.
What we need is something like VMWare or VirtualBox for quantum computers 🙂
I bet quantum computers will run LLMs REALLY well someday.
Oh joy, can get all possible permutations of confabulation!
@@spvillano They'll be able to hallucinate in up to 10 dimensions!
Oh boy tell us more about how you know nothing about quantum computing and llms.
The first “computer” I ever worked on was an IBM 1620 a looong time ago so I’ve been around the block more times I can count…I have yet to figure out what the hell a “quantum” computer really is or does…much less how to program the damned things!
The best introductory book i've seen is Mermin's Quantum Computer Science. It's very accessible if you know some linear algebra
My high-school had an IBM 1620. On Saturdays the school district let us use their IBM 1401 with tape drives, 1403 line-printer, 1311 disk-drives, etc. Learned a lot and had a great time. Even won the San Francisco Bay Area Science Fair's 1st prize in Comp-Sci in 1972. (It's sad that kids today don't get real hands-on experience with hardware, assembler & machine language coding, etc.)
@ 👍 By the 70’s I had moved “up” to a Xerox Sigma 5, a “massive” 5mb RAD - hard drive with 512 heads floating on a cushion of air. Paper tape reader, teletype, card reader, chain line printer…and this was at a defense contractor. Before the RAD started turning, compressed air lifted the heads off the 2 foot diameter disk - one day, the compressor failed - end of disk - and I got to rebuild the OS from punch cards when we finally got a new disk installed - took a full 19” rack also. Lots of lights flashing on the front panel…Ah, fun times…
Certainly programming it requires a different approach in thinking, and it will never be good for many tasks that current computers can do quite well. I've been programing non-quantum computers for so many decades that I'm not sure I can wrap my head around the right way to design algorithms on a quantum computer!
@ Sam’s here. My first impression was like wiring an analog computer to do a specific task.
I’m really really trying to understand the small optical quantum computer.. they stored the information on the photon beam? Is this similar in concept to a record containing sound data along grooves? Is this like an optical groove containing information?
Please excuse me for if I got this painfully ,painfully wrong. Me no smart. Me big dumb.
10:11 - about this, i have actually asked some of the researchers that very heavly doubt the result of the paper you mentioned at that moment. Result of this paper was very vague, they possibly didn't even use Shor algorithm. The paper itself is very weird, it does not contain any citations whatsoever. What you are looking at is some Chineese research that isn't clear and cannot be claimed as proper. Also you failed to mention that these 50 "logical" qubits were ran on 2000 qubit machine, which is not promising at the moment...
About advancements in the field - There are LOTS of ways you can use quantum computers for. Most of people use it in finance sector, for example for portfolio rebalancing. There is also huge field of quantum chemistry, which usually focuses on "well chemistry is mostly effects of nucleus/electrons so why not simulate these effects with the use of effects commonly occuring in quantum computer?". There are several main areas you have to recognize, which i know a few. Usually these are:
- QEC/QEM (Quantum Error correction, Quantum Error Mitigation - algorithms for information encoding and preventing/detecting/correcting for example phase errors inside QC),
- development of new algorithms (bringing math papers and proposing how to run certain algorithms/equations on Quantum computer),
- circuit design development (basically "refactoring existing designs" - proposals for new ways of cheaper circuits that save on qbits or save on runtime complexity)
- field of study (actual application of known quantum algorithms)
- merging multiple solutions into commercial products - for example, instead of learning 1 library like qiskit (which only lets you run these on IBM computers), you learn library that the service provider has, that then transforms your code into a runnable solution for a platform of your choice
Of course i didn't mention development of new quantum computers but this one should be obvious.
There are many things you can do RIGHT NOW to get in touch with this technology. There are initiatives that teach you basics and give certificates of completion from usage of libraries like qiskit and how to make quantum computing libraries on your own. Some of them are even "pro publico bono" meaning you don't even have to spend a dime on this. You don't even have to be enlisted into university of any kind! (you only need to know math, which can be a barrier)
Quantum computers. The Edsel of technology ?
We've gotten used to high end computers with massive storage, so why would they even say anything about running a game like about the same as playing Snake on phones 20 years ago?
Anton, please list the name of the music you use on your outro ! ❤
Anyone know what happened to the fft gate parallel transfer system that was supposed to be the way forward in quantum networking looked like it might be the first end user application for quantum processing but went dark about two years ago. Was curious if it was a dead end or if it just got military licensed and we won't hear about it again until it's several gens old?
Step 1: Create infinite powerful Quantum Compy. Step 2: Solve fusion. Step 3: Jet packs.
We already have jet packs lol. The military and private market has had them for a few years now. Each year, it has been getting lighter and smaller. Look up videos on yt. They got military people landing on aircraft carriers with a jet pack. They are also available in the private sector too.
@@danieljamesbinderystu2968the compact engines are also used in drones.
@@ericpode6095 yup, forgot to mention that. Lol
@@danieljamesbinderystu2968 Oh c'mon! They're not the jet packs everybody wants and you know it!
I cling tenaciously to the hope that one day, a Quantum computer will help me finally finish the fnord creative writing project* I've been labouring to finish since circa mid-June 1988.
* Tentative title: _'The Neverending Short Story'_
Quantum-Entabgled Subtitle: _"That Rug-Dragon Really Held the Prequel Together."_
Wow it's like quantum computing is going through the same evolution as computers did
I remember doom 2 took up about 20 mb on my computer back in the 90s ,all that computing power, and all this thing can do is the 1st level of doom, and it's horrible . How much money did they spend on this?
The single photon quantum computer looks like ORAC. Blake's 7 ahead of its time!