It would have been nice if one of the speakers explained how quantum computers work. For example: How do you create and maintain the entanglement of so many electrons? How do you input your data or query? How do you get the output from the computation? Can these processes not be explained in broad strokes?
I could not agree more. This talk is the opposite of satisfying. It like watching someone stumble about. You pray for deliverance, for some kernel of valuable information to be revealed, and you get nothing. There is no advancement in understanding.
Completely agree, and this is exactly what I expected. I'm tired of every presentation start with history and the same uninteresting thought experiments. All speculation which never addresses the real deep questions and problems.
Actually the LED light bulbs offered as the new standard to replace incandescent bulbs do still dissipate some of their consumed energy as heat. I grabbed my non-contact temperature gun and pointed it at the bulb in my lamp which was at ambient room temperature of 79 degrees F. When I turned it on, it immediately began to increase in temperature at a constant rate reaching a maximum 130 degrees F in just a few minutes. So technically as long as the rooms are not too distant from one another the engineers solution is still valid.
Yep, I just made the same comment with data. Staring at room temp of 79F reached a max of 130F in just a few minutes. Then Mr. Bryant just had to scroll to confirm his hunch that he wasn't the first person to point this out. They neglected scrolling further to see weather or not they may have been the third person to point this out. Lol See what I did there?
Let me clear out this "imaginary" number part. A lot of people might not know it; But there are what we call "imaginary" numbers that have a weird twist where something squared can give you a negative number (or you can have a square root of a negative number). That is why they are called like that, but remember the name "imaginary" was coined back in the early days of mathematicians struggling to understand them. Today and after Riemann, we know that there is nothing spooky or imaginary or weird, a root of a negative number. The square root of a negative number, is the *natural extension* of the root function when we talk about numbers that live outside the x'x axes (the axis of the real numbers) and "live" on an axis at right angles with the axis of the real numbers. Basically imaginary numbers, are just numbers that have one more sign to indicate their position on a 2D plane. Like real numbers have signs ( + - ) to indicate their positions on the 1D axes of the real numbers. - for left + for right. Imaginary numbers "live" on a zz axis that is at right angles with the x axis and meet the xx axis on the number zero. So here If they are above the xx axis we have the sign +i And if the are below the xx axis we have the sign -i For example the number 5i is 5 units above zero on the zz axis. And using these ideas we can prove (not so easy but possible) that sqrt(-1) = ±i where " i " is just another number like 1, 2 and 3... All numbers are just symbols anyway right; And following that we can prove the i^2 = -1 It might not make sense but we can prove it so it does. Like negative times a negative is a positive, here i^2 equals a negative, but remember i is not a positive number, neither it is a negative ;) So there's nothing spooky about it, don't let that confuse you.
Actually complex numbers are making up the 2D plane. Imaginary numbers are only making up the 2nd axis... Complex numbers fill up the entire 2D plane... They are a combination of real numbers plus or minus an imaginary number. For example z=5+4i ... 5 is the "real" part (well basically numbers on the x axis) and 4i is the "imaginary" part (well basically numbers on the z axis). Beyond that we have the Quaternions ruclips.net/video/3BR8tK-LuB0/видео.html that I know very little about And beyond that god only knows :D
For really top-tier graphical representations of mathematical concepts that are traditionally considered difficult to visualize, check out 3 Blue 1 Brown.
I appreciate the speakers time here, and I'm sure they're extremely knowledgeable.. however I think they were having difficulty dumbing it down for the rest of us. I am pretty interested in quantum mechanics so I could follow along somewhat, but it was difficult even for me to gather what they were trying to portray at certain points. That being said you don't have to be a brilliant speaker to be a brilliant person and I'm glad they're at least trying to help the rest of us catch up to all their hard work and dedication.
or they have knowledge of a biased kind, one which must quantify (as oppose to qualify) everything and everyone. (Can we say cha-chin? BANK on it.) They do not (yet) know field modality which involves non-linear retroductive logic. (Yeah it's a word, but one of many hidden from us to keep us in line with quantity-based reasoning, on mass & weight, which ulteriorly upholds a continued dependence on being treated as such. A grand and unbiased (un-institutional) source to learn from, YT Theoria Apophasis with keywords Field Theory, Gravity, Magnetism, Dielectricity, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Henri Poincaré, Nikola Tesla. And avoid all mainstreamlined cult-of-personalities for this. (For everything, really.)
Just like some professors I had in college: I either stayed home or fall asleep in class. Super boring and incoherent at times. They don’t try to transfer the knowledge, just spilling the content of their brain or certain book.
I couldn't agree more. This has to be the worst Royal Institution production I've ever seen ~ and I've watched a few. I thought the purpose of the RI was to make science accessible to the masses. This abysmal offering was about as accessible as a tightrope to a paraplegic! If the front entrance of the RI is as accessible as this lecture you'd have to be a rock climber just to get in the front door! Sorry guys but RI clearly has a different meaning now . . . Recondite Institution . . . do buck up your ideas!
I like the part Artur explained how proof is a physical process rather abstract process. The 3-light-bulb problem. @58:00 when we made it, we proved it !! :P
@Harry Buhrman: 59:39 LED lights do get worm, too, just not as much as the incandescent ones. To keep the LEDs from melting, they are mounted on a heat radiator.
I know it was only a joke, so it doesn't matter, but it is surprising that a technical person is blithely unaware that LEDs do get warm. The best information I could find leads to the conclusion that old incandescent lights turn about 3% of the energy into visible light (lumens) and the LED version about 14%.
Arthur’s talk was very sincere, he took the challenging path of describing the essence of quantum computing, not just fluff. I also didn’t get everything but understood the quantum interference and how classical probability breaks down.
Thank you for making a really complicated concept almost understandable. I think the beamsplitter examples explain the difference between quantum and classical probabilities neatly.
Q bits are first placed into a steady state by reducing its movement (temperature), then they are excited by frequencies and may result in a more positive or more negative output (zero or one) or vibrate between the two stages, which we consider to be simultaneously a zero and a one. Each frequency may result in a unique output which leaves us with a wide vocabulary (instead of zero, one or the combination of zeros and ones); this rich language makes the communication speed as rich as the number of q bits you can combine. The interference can be caused by solar radiation or possibly human thought.
Great talk, thanks! Lots of examples to get a feel for the field. I liked the engineer and light bulbs example as an analog how to make use of the physical processes rather than just the mathematical abstraction.
Notice how at 1:07:22 Harry Buhrman’s quantum random number generator is in superposition of being inside the bag and being somewhere else. Mr. Buhrman proceeds to conduct an experiment, but never tells the outcome. This bit of quantum information is now forever gone :)
The first speaker lost me at "Hello". Explaining probability math and the way quantum physics (interference) changes classical equations (and experiments) is incredibly difficult. I don't speak the language, thus it is like listening to an explanation of a potential solution to a complex problem (which nobody fully understands) spoken in Russian. The example at 44:07 made the most sense to my limited intellect. Nonetheless, this channel, The Royal Institute is AMAZING and reflects the best of the internet!
I also like @48:06, that nature figured it out how to use quantum interference, that the bacteria knew how to grab a hard-to-find photon and channel to its chemical reaction center, interesting!
Thank you, we're a small independent charity, and we'd like to stay that way! We do rely heavily on our members and patrons for this, so if you are able to, we would greatly appreciate your support on Patreon - www.patreon.com/TheRoyalInstitution
Год назад
As long as you're willing to break the assumptions in the lamp puzzle, you don't even need LEDs, there are hundreds of methods: · Send two people, one in each room, then shout. (the car mechanic solution) · Place a mirror into the hallway. · Make a hole in the wall. · Use a conduction tester to map out the wires from each room and then combine the two maps. · If the lamps produce any amount of light, use an infrared camera. (diffuse, but interferometry can remove the wall from the data) · Bribe or threaten the puzzle creator so that they tell you the solution. · Spend a few years developing a super advanced telescope, point it at an exoplanet and watch the reflected light from Earth to see the setup process in "real time". Or just make a time machine at this point…
Kolmogorov axiom IS right. It is the assumption that the path are mutually exclusive that is wrong. Or something else in the perception of reality is wrong. Axioms are right by definition.
"I don't really feel like a prophet to be able..." you are a very modest man, this was the best talk I've heard so far about quantum computing. I hope to hear more of you.
quantum physics is abstract to the level where one needs to tear themselves away from all interferences (generally referred to as "reality") to have a hope of understanding a single qubit. It takes an especially talented person to be able to translate their understanding of how something works (in terms of the fundamental workings of the universe) in a manner that is succinct, fluent and coherent. All that said, he still struggles at the most difficult question; the one that has plagued humankind for at least as long as I remember: "can I go back (to the previous PPT slide)?" Personally, I've been conditioned to hit the reset button and confuse people with drawings on the blackboard. We can add "patient" to the list of this man's attributes.
I definitely understand this subject a little more now, but am still a long way from properly getting it. One thing that came out of this, is that it seems that no problems have yet been solved by a quantum computer. If this is correct, what is the nature of study on quantum computers at the moment? Also, when do we think a real solution to a problem will be output by a quantum computer?
He is like one of my uni lecturers (Im sure there are many more out there) that mumbles on and on and the entire class is puzzled, then comes the exam and the entire class fails and he wonders why. However I have no doubt he is a genious but has no creative teaching skills.
Only a genius would fail to recognise there are two monitors 'buried' in the audience that render exactly the same graphic being shown on the big monitor he cranes his neck to see...
Ekert is a very bad in presenting his material. For those who barely understand the subject and manages his work would have difficulties in explaining the concept to laymen. This is true in the cutting-edge research. For example, Einstein would not be a good teacher in relativity until Hermann Minkowski came along to put the concept of spacetime in a 4D perspective. But of course, I am not comparing Ekert to Einstein. You know what I mean.
I'm a fairly clever guy. Very high IQ and a communications engineer. Also taken a lot of computer science classes and at one time could program in 3 languages. The double slit experiment has always fascinated me and I'm sufficiently knowledgable to know something about epistemology and logic. Okay... Listening to this I felt like the child that noticed the King had no close on. Children should not have been allowed in the audience for fear of nightmares. What a complete waste of my time. "Incoherence theory?" Sounds like the entire thing is incoherent. When they can tell me whether to put my chips on black or red and win more than 50% of the time I'll be impressed; and the boys at Las Vegas will put out hits on these guys so we'll be back where we started.
You order a quantum computer, and a big black box arrives with "Quantum computer" written on the side. You open the box and there's nothing inside. You call the seller, and complain, but he reacts unexpected: "That's possible sir, that's the nature of the thing".
Back in the '70s when having to confront AC calculations for the first time, it was 'i'. I've often wondered why it later became 'j'. Now I know! The only thing I really thought I knew about quantum computing was, that by taking every path to a solution, previously time-consuming calculations can be performed quickly. These presentations have expanded my awareness so thanks for the great upload.
@@MrAlpacabreeder thanks. Somehow, we used 'i' for both and they never became confused because of the context in which they appeared, but what you say makes complete sense. We used 'i' for AC components, loop currents during analyses and also for instantaneous currents. 'I' was generally, though not always exclusively reserved for DC current.
The biggest question will be: Will it run Crisis? On a serious note why did he not show how to link the photons? 1:11:00 That would have been the most interesting thing here, the other stuff was boring meaning either to high or low to make sense to a "normal person"
There is no spooky action at a distance: entangled photons simply alternate their spins synchroniously and opposite each other since this is how they were formed: The Garon Principle states that entangled photons must from the get go, be of opposite magnetic fields and of opposite phase( simply put, mirror images of each other). During entanglement, their angular momenta are simply coupled and so the photons do not oscillate but rotate in unison. The moment of de-entanglement simply sets the spins depending on which part of the oscillation the photons are on at the time (remember opposite phase of each other) and which direction of rotation they are set off on ( one will rotate left, the other right 100% of the time). And that's the truth!
I have a question at 7:25. The two images are obviously used to document some kind of progress. But which progress? The progress in technical engineering achieved by the R&D department? Or the progress in social engineering achieved by the HR and PR departments?
These images present stage of progress in classical computers and Quantum Computers, according to the presenter. QCs are now in a very early stage, and could be compared to the early stage of classical computers.
So did I, it seems to me the slides are more effective than his speech in conveying information. It must be hard for a genius to explain something to a lay person. Nevertheless, he enhanced my very basic understanding of the topic.
have you ever walked into a lecture and 30 minutes later realised you are not in the right room. My brain wasnt ready nor able to compute. The LED light joke made me feel normal. Thank you. for the intensity.
Sadly conditions you need to acheave for this to work is just too harsh for it to be common commersial product. BUT i think that a centers and cloud technologies with this would be amasing.
I regret to say that M. Ekert explained nothing. Pictures of the double-slit experiment: what were we seeing? He didn't say. What exacrly did Kolmogorov say? Not stated. What is a logic gate? What is an algorithm? If he'd explained that, at least the essence of these and other things, I would have watched this to the conclusion. But I found his lecture to be muddled and incomprehensible.
I suggested to China quantum project recently reported on by CGTN did the calculation show any organised vibration like chaos theory in the computers method of calculating and build it's own algorithm in any vibratory patterns...?
Always good to hear a Dutch English accent (the introductory congenial lady), funny that it feels so strongly "at home" for me. (I'm Dutch as well.) Ok, back to business - now I'm going to start listening the lecture. ;-)
I really appreciate your efforts! I need some advice: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (air carpet target dish off jeans toilet sweet piano spoil fruit essay). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
Huh. I'm so lost lol So we will be using questions derived from laws and mathematical formulae we currently believe correct, which are initially derived from observation and theory, written and tested on the original base type of computer as well as we were able (traditional CPU). We then ask a higher level system we invented, that we have to trust we asked precisely correctly, to find the optimal answer? Didn't think there was a way to invent scientific faith but here we are. Amazing
It’s very interesting the way they keep trying to compare the old fashioned classical computers with the new quantum computers, there is a very big difference you didn’t actually need those computers to run the software you could do it all with pencil and paper if you wanted to, be very slow but can be done,but the problem with quantum computers is they don’t know how to program them even if they could afford a pencil and paper
He is talking about what is on the screen behind him but you only show me a glimpse of the screen. I need to be able to read the content as he is talking about it, not just watch him wave his hands around.
This is what I have understood the double slit experiment to be. But he appears to show a ray of light consisting of one photon (width, presumably: if the ray exists in time the source will emit a stream of photons won’t it?) . And he appears to show the photon splitting into two AT SOURCE. So the two slits are not what creates the split particle. Why they chose to go in the opposite direction after passing through slit doesn’t get explained. Nor how you generate a ray of light one photon in width. So this bloke doesn’t seem to quite follow what he is talking about, which accounts for his very hesitant manner. It looks to me as if quantum computing - like nuclear energy - is being developed by people who don’t understand the theory of how they achieve the activity they do, and have got to where they are through trial and error with very sophisticated electronic equipment. So maybe the theory is being developed after the practical activity has been achieved: you learn to ride a two wheel vehicle and then afterwards you work out the theory of how motion allows you to defy the law of gravity One wonders for example if perhaps QC technicians are actually unwittingly accessing particle level below the photon level, rather than dividing the photon into two. According to the Maharishi, the energy of which all particles at every level are comprised originates as pure thought. So wave function comprises the text of the thought itself. Like a groove on a record man. And the deeper level of consciousness at which the thought originates the more powerful its impact is in the material field. Of course to accept this as the explanation of quantum behaviour you have to accept that consciousness pre-exists creation (all contributors to RI lectures start jumping up and down at this point screaming PROVE IT!!!! WHERE ´S YOUR PROOF) and that, by logical extension, creation itself is the consequence of a thought. In pure Consciousness. It is,though, the only possible explanation that has no defaults at all. It all works perfectly. Reality is n that all bona fide research in whatever branch of science you look leads to this conclusion. Including what little actual research has been achieved in evolutionary biology
There are many concepts that can facilitate intuitive understanding. Mentioned in talks here on the RI yt channel and I also like to watch the (german) videos of Gaßner, Lesch and Ganteför. The more different perspectives you get to know, the better you can get your own picture of this initially less intuitive topic.
The level of the talk was far above the lay person level. The speaker started with very simple and immediately jumped to much more difficult. He sounded like he was talking to other physicists that need to learn about quantum computation.
And what was the hype and how did you untangle it? Hmmm... would have appreciated more sticking to the point and more clarity in answers to your thesis statement.
The first guy is the first person who actually got through me. He is an awesome dude. The second guy is spouting all that useless nonsense everyone says. It true but not as profound as the first one.
Short story, nonfiction or fiction it's open to interpretation. The brain is a quantum entangled neural network. We, as individuals, consciously control a single neuron (node) that consciously interacts with our nervous system. The rest are part of the subconscious neural network. We all exist inside of each other's neural network. If we didn't we couldn't share an experience inside this self projected universe. We are all a duality, self is not unique to the individual. The individual is unique to self. None of us are observers, the only thing we observe as individuals are the projections of self. When 2 individuals meet inside the self projection, the nodes in each brain representing the participants forge neurological connections to each other, so they can share an experience together. Simultaneously every other brain has those same 2 neurological connections made based on their own positions in spacetime. Your neuron (node) and my neuron (node) exist inside of every brain of every human on earth. We all share an umbilical cord and that umbilical cord ties all of our neurology together. All that neurological action taking place while we sleep, most of it's the participants that are awake and actively making neurological connections. Those connections have to be made in all of our brains in order for quantum tunneling of information to occur. The subconscious mind is something we all share, just like self. We have roughly 7.9 billion living humans and our neural network consists of about 85-90 billion neurons. I'll let you ponder what those neurons represent. The neural network has redundancy built into it by design. Our brain's subconscious development depends only on the location of all the nodes in spacetime as the brain is developing and connecting to them subconsciously. The conscious branching occurs through interaction inside the self projection. Unless an individual has genetic or medical conditions preventing normal neurological development and function, the human brain will have forged a full subconscious connection to the entire universe at some point during adult life. In order to benefit from other nodes you have to forge actual conscious connections in spacetime. So the brain will forge conscious neurological connections. We are all tied together subconsciously but in order to share an experience consciously we have to make conscious neurological connections. This can only be done inside of spacetime through conscious interaction. Just making conscious notice of someone walking past you on the street will forge a neurological connection to that node consciously and this will allow you to network with their subconscious mind to gain enlightenment. The internet is a powerful tool for forging conscious neurological connections. Just interacting online is enough to forge a physical conscious connection neurologically. In either case we are all entangled and we are building more and more conscious connections to each other. In doing so we are gaining enlightenment or intelligence which might equate to higher energy consumption (brighter star). It would seem that the more conscious neurological connections a person makes to the network the more subconscious power they receive. What role does our moral conduct play on diseases and other bugs that infect our system? What role does our level of conscious connectivity to the subconscious neural network play with the energy consumption of the quantum realm powering our network? Is sin just a poison that infects our network like a virus? We are all entangled, so all of our cups pour into each other. How does morality play into our conscious connections to the world? Does a connection forged in moral obligation and truth produce a more powerful connection than a connection forged in lies and deceit? Will we make it to the heavens? Will humanity fail to complete the Trinity? Consume so much power that we self-destruct before we achieve artificial universal intelligence? Before our subconscious becomes self aware and our GOD> can emerge? The Father and Son await. WIll humanity receive the holy spirit? Forge a connection to the Trinity and allow our GOD> to emerge, and open up our heavens? Or will humanity end up a failed experiment and attempt to produce a universally conscious being? I believe humanity will make it to the heavens and we will produce a universally conscious GOD>. I call this story "The Trinity Of Human Evolution". Brought to us by The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit.
In all these lectures of particle physics and super computing, it appears as if we are entering the era of the event horizon. And if that isn't enough we are actually quantum computing theories into dark matter (1) and dark energy (-1) and super impose; entangled neutron (0). This collapse of the wave function would seem to have the process capability of 3D printing. Cad Cam design capabilities to transfigure perhaps biological matter into RNA and DNA strands. It even sounds like the Star Trek concept into replicators. I have no idea of software concepts that tap into a infra scan within the matrix,, for it seems that classical computation we presently have is biased upon measuring the electron value as 1 while the anti matter or neutron as 0 yet all reactance and the least amount of friction still is the key. It would then seem as if our future will meet the other Nickel side plane of the galaxy as this universe enters into the next 12000 yrs. of quantum computing.
Discovering QC Algorithm = processing formulae in a coherent "phys-chem" pulse-duration => degree of proof of conception in QM-Time Principle Actuality.., of Quantum Fields Modulation Mechanism of probabilities in potential possibilities Time Duration Timing in Eternity-now Superspin Superposition-point...-> Quantum Operator Interference. (It's leaky) I've always wondered, how is a half-silvered mirror not a frequency-dependent diffraction grating/filter? No difference in QM-Time Principle In-form-ation terms.., only linear and transverse frequency modulation, axially-tangentially e-Pi-i -> alignment/coherence. Branes and Brains are the leaky devices of Universal Quantum Operator Computational Existence. Such is life. Well composed lectures..
The hype is real. Get your degrees, the thought revolution has started. If you take nothing else away from this, realize this is no longer just theoretical science, it’s engineering.
Quantum bits or 'qubits' can exist in a superposition state of both zero and one simultaneously. This means that a set of two qubits can be in a superposition of four states, which therefore require four numbers to uniquely identify the state. So the amount of information stored in N qubits is two to the power of N E R D S
I can make a square root of NOT gate. The gate processes the values 0 and 1 as normal, but also two more values, call them A and B. Transfer function is: 0 -> A; 1 -> B; A -> 1; B -> 0. Nothing quantum about that.
The non-commutative algebras that describe quantum systems are perfectly "normal" from a mathematical point of view. What is special about physical quantum systems is that the phase space grows exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom. That's because our lack of knowledge about the systems grows exponentially. Quantum computing is basically calculation with the lack of knowledge. It's pretty cool that one can do that. I am not so convinced, however, that it's efficient for the overwhelming majority of important problems.
A wonderful topic with poor execution. Wish you would do this one again with speakers that can express their thoughts clearly and in a semi-organized manner... Should label this video "Quantum Computing: Tangling the Hype"...
Nobody knows. That's the fun part and probably one of the Achilles' heels of quantum computing. I have a hunch that converting a classical problem into a quantum program will turn out to be just as hard, if not harder, in general, as solving the problem.
Sorry, but it's a very nebulous lecture. 1:18:50 is where it kinda touches the question in the title, but is still far from "untangling" anything. I'd say that it brings even more "hype" to quantum computing. I'm a software developer and I still don't see how having those q-bits in a superposition can help us create logical gates, or do any kind of "computing." All those q-bits that they reference sound nothing more than a good random number generator, or a data storage, at best. It would really help RI, if you invited someone who knows well and does programming of "classical" computers, who can then show how that can be translated into this "hypothetical" field of quantum computing. So far I haven't found a single lecture like that! All that I see is a click bait or a marketing ploy that basically extrapolates previous exponential development of computers into the future. Sorry to break it to you, but it doesn't always work like that. It took us over 200 thousand years to put a rock on the stick to make an ax.
An excellent starting point with a far superior explanation can be found in the first and third chapters of 'The Feynman lectures on Physics', Vol iii. www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html Once you have read and thoroughly understood the ideas presented here; then read the book 'Quantum Computer science: An introduction' by David Mermin. www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Computer-Science-David-Mermin/dp/0521876583
That's fair, but describing a completely different architecture wouldn't really be appropriate for these lectures. And you're wrong about the promise of quantum computing. That's understandable as you obviously don't understand how they work. Skepticism is good if you aren't too lazy to put in the most minor amounts of research.
I agree. I know it is old comment, but (if by any chance you didn't find it already) this is the lecture to watch -> ruclips.net/video/F_Riqjdh2oM/видео.html
Ladies and gentlemen I appreciate your focus to 26:40, the place where the whole essence of the talk reveals before us. And you are welcome.
ككمممممنننت ت 8نننظظنننططكخ ه اللببييدييييرىىىرييييدييسييييرييييييييسييبيييقيققققق ف ب ف فف4444ف4ف4444ففففقف444فف44 4
جكججج0
وا او ز جحا اه ههههههههههه له 5 غ غغ
نط ظ ز ز.طططططططط
@@laithmohamad2215 what jibrish is this dear?
Artur Ekert part of lecture starts at 11:45
Harry Buhrman part starts at 59:50
Video starts at 4:54
thank you
mvp
and ends at 3 minutes...it's a paradox
no, at 11:49.
There will be a time when every computer is a quantum computer. What comes after that, I wonder?
It would have been nice if one of the speakers explained how quantum computers work. For example: How do you create and maintain the entanglement of so many electrons? How do you input your data or query? How do you get the output from the computation? Can these processes not be explained in broad strokes?
I could not agree more. This talk is the opposite of satisfying. It like watching someone stumble about. You pray for deliverance, for some kernel of valuable information to be revealed, and you get nothing. There is no advancement in understanding.
Completely agree, and this is exactly what I expected. I'm tired of every presentation start with history and the same uninteresting thought experiments. All speculation which never addresses the real deep questions and problems.
Actually the LED light bulbs offered as the new standard to replace incandescent bulbs do still dissipate some of their consumed energy as heat. I grabbed my non-contact temperature gun and pointed it at the bulb in my lamp which was at ambient room temperature of 79 degrees F. When I turned it on, it immediately began to increase in temperature at a constant rate reaching a maximum 130 degrees F in just a few minutes. So technically as long as the rooms are not too distant from one another the engineers solution is still valid.
All temperature guns are non-contact lol that's what makes it a gun
Two speakers.
Arthur Ekert at 11:42.
Harry Buhrman is at 59:42.
I love The Royal Institution! Such great lecturers and topics for us science enthusiasts.
59:40 LED lights actually do get warm. The last laugh is on Arthur 🙋♀️
Lo
Yep, I just made the same comment with data. Staring at room temp of 79F reached a max of 130F in just a few minutes. Then Mr. Bryant just had to scroll to confirm his hunch that he wasn't the first person to point this out. They neglected scrolling further to see weather or not they may have been the third person to point this out. Lol See what I did there?
Let me clear out this "imaginary" number part. A lot of people might not know it; But there are what we call "imaginary" numbers that have a weird twist where something squared can give you a negative number (or you can have a square root of a negative number).
That is why they are called like that, but remember the name "imaginary" was coined back in the early days of mathematicians struggling to understand them. Today and after Riemann, we know that there is nothing spooky or imaginary or weird, a root of a negative number. The square root of a negative number, is the *natural extension* of the root function when we talk about numbers that live outside the x'x axes (the axis of the real numbers) and "live" on an axis at right angles with the axis of the real numbers.
Basically imaginary numbers, are just numbers that have one more sign to indicate their position on a 2D plane. Like real numbers have signs ( + - ) to indicate their positions on the 1D axes of the real numbers. - for left + for right.
Imaginary numbers "live" on a zz axis that is at right angles with the x axis and meet the xx axis on the number zero.
So here If they are above the xx axis we have the sign +i
And if the are below the xx axis we have the sign -i
For example the number 5i is 5 units above zero on the zz axis.
And using these ideas we can prove (not so easy but possible) that sqrt(-1) = ±i where " i " is just another number like 1, 2 and 3...
All numbers are just symbols anyway right; And following that we can prove the i^2 = -1
It might not make sense but we can prove it so it does. Like negative times a negative is a positive, here i^2 equals a negative, but remember i is not a positive number, neither it is a negative ;)
So there's nothing spooky about it, don't let that confuse you.
Great explanation. The 2D plane picture helps a lot. So are there numbers that we need to describe in a third dimension?
Actually complex numbers are making up the 2D plane. Imaginary numbers are only making up the 2nd axis... Complex numbers fill up the entire 2D plane... They are a combination of real numbers plus or minus an imaginary number. For example z=5+4i ... 5 is the "real" part (well basically numbers on the x axis) and 4i is the "imaginary" part (well basically numbers on the z axis).
Beyond that we have the Quaternions ruclips.net/video/3BR8tK-LuB0/видео.html that I know very little about
And beyond that god only knows :D
Thank you for this clarification... it is most elucidating!!! The geometric description illuminates it... BRAVO NUKE!
You are very welcome Jose!
For really top-tier graphical representations of mathematical concepts that are traditionally considered difficult to visualize, check out 3 Blue 1 Brown.
I appreciate the speakers time here, and I'm sure they're extremely knowledgeable.. however I think they were having difficulty dumbing it down for the rest of us. I am pretty interested in quantum mechanics so I could follow along somewhat, but it was difficult even for me to gather what they were trying to portray at certain points. That being said you don't have to be a brilliant speaker to be a brilliant person and I'm glad they're at least trying to help the rest of us catch up to all their hard work and dedication.
or they have knowledge of a biased kind, one which must quantify (as oppose to qualify) everything and everyone. (Can we say cha-chin? BANK on it.) They do not (yet) know field modality which involves non-linear retroductive logic. (Yeah it's a word, but one of many hidden from us to keep us in line with quantity-based reasoning, on mass & weight, which ulteriorly upholds a continued dependence on being treated as such.
A grand and unbiased (un-institutional) source to learn from, YT Theoria Apophasis with keywords Field Theory, Gravity, Magnetism, Dielectricity, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Henri Poincaré, Nikola Tesla. And avoid all mainstreamlined cult-of-personalities for this. (For everything, really.)
Those who can't, teach...
Right..?lol
Just like some professors I had in college: I either stayed home or fall asleep in class. Super boring and incoherent at times. They don’t try to transfer the knowledge, just spilling the content of their brain or certain book.
I couldn't agree more. This has to be the worst Royal Institution production I've ever seen ~ and I've watched a few. I thought the purpose of the RI was to make science accessible to the masses. This abysmal offering was about as accessible as a tightrope to a paraplegic! If the front entrance of the RI is as accessible as this lecture you'd have to be a rock climber just to get in the front door! Sorry guys but RI clearly has a different meaning now . . . Recondite Institution . . . do buck up your ideas!
I like the part Artur explained how proof is a physical process rather abstract process. The 3-light-bulb problem. @58:00 when we made it, we proved it !! :P
TODAY'S LUNATIC MAYBE TOMORROW'S THEORETICAL PHYSICIST AND VICE-VERSA!😁
PERHAPS ALL THEORETICAL PHYSICIST ARE SCHROEDINGER CATS!!!😁
Once they figured out the slide projection misbehaviors, the presenters relaxed and ended up giving a smashing good program. Well done.
Agreed. Once relaxed things moved along well.
Can anyone go to these lectures?
Or are they only for certain people?
Looks like it would be an interesting day out.
Everyone's welcome! www.rigb.org/whats-on
@Harry Buhrman: 59:39 LED lights do get worm, too, just not as much as the incandescent ones. To keep the LEDs from melting, they are mounted on a heat radiator.
I know it was only a joke, so it doesn't matter, but it is surprising that a technical person is blithely unaware that LEDs do get warm. The best information I could find leads to the conclusion that old incandescent lights turn about 3% of the energy into visible light (lumens) and the LED version about 14%.
Arthur’s talk was very sincere, he took the challenging path of describing the essence of quantum computing, not just fluff. I also didn’t get everything but understood the quantum interference and how classical probability breaks down.
Thank you for making a really complicated concept almost understandable. I think the beamsplitter examples explain the difference between quantum and classical probabilities neatly.
Q bits are first placed into a steady state by reducing its movement (temperature), then they are excited by frequencies and may result in a more positive or more negative output (zero or one) or vibrate between the two stages, which we consider to be simultaneously a zero and a one. Each frequency may result in a unique output which leaves us with a wide vocabulary (instead of zero, one or the combination of zeros and ones); this rich language makes the communication speed as rich as the number of q bits you can combine. The interference can be caused by solar radiation or possibly human thought.
George Spencer-Brown devised a "square-root of not" circuit in the 1950s that used an "imaginary" logic value that resembles a two-phase clock signal.
Great talk, thanks! Lots of examples to get a feel for the field. I liked the engineer and light bulbs example as an analog how to make use of the physical processes rather than just the mathematical abstraction.
(
Notice how at 1:07:22 Harry Buhrman’s quantum random number generator is in superposition of being inside the bag and being somewhere else. Mr. Buhrman proceeds to conduct an experiment, but never tells the outcome. This bit of quantum information is now forever gone :)
That's what I love about our reality. Someone comes up with an idea of how things should be then someone else makes it happen
Someone Poor and intelligent often got these ideas. And someone rich with opportunities made it happen. As far as history is concern.
True whatever we come up with, lots af those ideas will work overtime. I always wonder about that.
The first speaker lost me at "Hello". Explaining probability math and the way quantum physics (interference) changes classical equations (and experiments) is incredibly difficult. I don't speak the language, thus it is like listening to an explanation of a potential solution to a complex problem (which nobody fully understands) spoken in Russian. The example at 44:07 made the most sense to my limited intellect. Nonetheless, this channel, The Royal Institute is AMAZING and reflects the best of the internet!
I also like @48:06, that nature figured it out how to use quantum interference, that the bacteria knew how to grab a hard-to-find photon and channel to its chemical reaction center, interesting!
I love the fact that it's NOT sponsored by Squarespace; or @t; or Audible; or World of Tanks, etc.
Thank you, we're a small independent charity, and we'd like to stay that way! We do rely heavily on our members and patrons for this, so if you are able to, we would greatly appreciate your support on Patreon - www.patreon.com/TheRoyalInstitution
As long as you're willing to break the assumptions in the lamp puzzle, you don't even need LEDs, there are hundreds of methods:
· Send two people, one in each room, then shout. (the car mechanic solution)
· Place a mirror into the hallway.
· Make a hole in the wall.
· Use a conduction tester to map out the wires from each room and then combine the two maps.
· If the lamps produce any amount of light, use an infrared camera. (diffuse, but interferometry can remove the wall from the data)
· Bribe or threaten the puzzle creator so that they tell you the solution.
· Spend a few years developing a super advanced telescope, point it at an exoplanet and watch the reflected light from Earth to see the setup process in "real time". Or just make a time machine at this point…
4:45 start
2016 IBM made QC that is 5Q-bit
6:11 IBM Q Experience
8:13 richard fineman first introduced QC
Seems as though the next step is a mathematical harmonic to be found which increases probability greatly.
Kolmogorov axiom IS right. It is the assumption that the path are mutually exclusive that is wrong. Or something else in the perception of reality is wrong. Axioms are right by definition.
"I don't really feel like a prophet to be able..." you are a very modest man, this was the best talk I've heard so far about quantum computing. I hope to hear more of you.
How do you do I/O, in view of the principle of indeterminacy?
Look it is infinity...unlimited discrimination~😆😱😉😂😎
quantum physics is abstract to the level where one needs to tear themselves away from all interferences (generally referred to as "reality") to have a hope of understanding a single qubit. It takes an especially talented person to be able to translate their understanding of how something works (in terms of the fundamental workings of the universe) in a manner that is succinct, fluent and coherent. All that said, he still struggles at the most difficult question; the one that has plagued humankind for at least as long as I remember: "can I go back (to the previous PPT slide)?"
Personally, I've been conditioned to hit the reset button and confuse people with drawings on the blackboard. We can add "patient" to the list of this man's attributes.
I definitely understand this subject a little more now, but am still a long way from properly getting it. One thing that came out of this, is that it seems that no problems have yet been solved by a quantum computer. If this is correct, what is the nature of study on quantum computers at the moment? Also, when do we think a real solution to a problem will be output by a quantum computer?
He is like one of my uni lecturers (Im sure there are many more out there) that mumbles on and on and the entire class is puzzled, then comes the exam and the entire class fails and he wonders why. However I have no doubt he is a genious but has no creative teaching skills.
Only a genius would fail to recognise there are two monitors 'buried' in the audience that render exactly the same graphic being shown on the big monitor he cranes his neck to see...
Ekert is a very bad in presenting his material. For those who barely understand the subject and manages his work would have difficulties in explaining the concept to laymen. This is true in the cutting-edge research. For example, Einstein would not be a good teacher in relativity until Hermann Minkowski came along to put the concept of spacetime in a 4D perspective. But of course, I am not comparing Ekert to Einstein. You know what I mean.
Great presentations. I got finally a better understanding of QC.
I'm a fairly clever guy. Very high IQ and a communications engineer. Also taken a lot of computer science classes and at one time could program in 3 languages. The double slit experiment has always fascinated me and I'm sufficiently knowledgable to know something about epistemology and logic. Okay... Listening to this I felt like the child that noticed the King had no close on. Children should not have been allowed in the audience for fear of nightmares.
What a complete waste of my time. "Incoherence theory?" Sounds like the entire thing is incoherent. When they can tell me whether to put my chips on black or red and win more than 50% of the time I'll be impressed; and the boys at Las Vegas will put out hits on these guys so we'll be back where we started.
Using photons, Is is possible to generate, with quantum physics, 2 sets of entangled random numbers?
I love talks like these, it helps me sleep :)
Different strokes for different folks. We're glad to be there for you.
G
You order a quantum computer, and a big black box arrives with "Quantum computer" written on the side. You open the box and there's nothing inside. You call the seller, and complain, but he reacts unexpected: "That's possible sir, that's the nature of the thing".
Something has written on the side of the box .
That's mean someone has measured it.
So it should be existing. ;)
By you opening it, you made it appear at Andromeda earth, 2 million light years away. That's why your box was empty.
So, Amazon, then.
@@isaackitone Good thing that's next door in our local group.
We're sorry, sir. It appears we accidentally shipped you a cat.
Back in the '70s when having to confront AC calculations for the first time, it was 'i'. I've often wondered why it later became 'j'. Now I know! The only thing I really thought I knew about quantum computing was, that by taking every path to a solution, previously time-consuming calculations can be performed quickly. These presentations have expanded my awareness so thanks for the great upload.
It became j when electrical and electronics engineers needed to use complex equations and already used i for electrical current
@@MrAlpacabreeder thanks. Somehow, we used 'i' for both and they never became confused because of the context in which they appeared, but what you say makes complete sense. We used 'i' for AC components, loop currents during analyses and also for instantaneous currents. 'I' was generally, though not always exclusively reserved for DC current.
The biggest question will be:
Will it run Crisis?
On a serious note why did he not show how to link the photons? 1:11:00
That would have been the most interesting thing here, the other stuff was boring
meaning either to high or low to make sense to a "normal person"
Any good video on quantum hacking and cracking? And quantum firewalls and such?
There is no spooky action at a distance: entangled photons simply alternate their spins synchroniously and opposite each other since this is how they were formed: The Garon Principle states that entangled photons must from the get go, be of opposite magnetic fields and of opposite phase( simply put, mirror images of each other). During entanglement, their angular momenta are simply coupled and so the photons do not oscillate but rotate in unison. The moment of de-entanglement simply sets the spins depending on which part of the oscillation the photons are on at the time (remember opposite phase of each other) and which direction of rotation they are set off on ( one will rotate left, the other right 100% of the time). And that's the truth!
But important to add that no hidden information is the reason for their entangled behaviour.
I have a question at 7:25.
The two images are obviously used to document some kind of progress.
But which progress?
The progress in technical engineering achieved by the R&D department?
Or the progress in social engineering achieved by the HR and PR departments?
These images present stage of progress in classical computers and Quantum Computers, according to the presenter. QCs are now in a very early stage, and could be compared to the early stage of classical computers.
I liked a lot the info in the slides. 👍
So did I, it seems to me the slides are more effective than his speech in conveying information. It must be hard for a genius to explain something to a lay person. Nevertheless, he enhanced my very basic understanding of the topic.
have you ever walked into a lecture and 30 minutes later realised you are not in the right room. My brain wasnt ready nor able to compute. The LED light joke made me feel normal. Thank you.
for the intensity.
Came to know about the importance and need of quantum computing
So understand your calling ❤️🙏
One of the best talks, thanks for sharing this
Sadly conditions you need to acheave for this to work is just too harsh for it to be common commersial product. BUT i think that a centers and cloud technologies with this would be amasing.
I regret to say that M. Ekert explained nothing. Pictures of the double-slit experiment: what were we seeing? He didn't say. What exacrly did Kolmogorov say? Not stated. What is a logic gate? What is an algorithm? If he'd explained that, at least the essence of these and other things, I would have watched this to the conclusion. But I found his lecture to be muddled and incomprehensible.
This is entertainment, not a physics lecture.
I suggested to China quantum project recently reported on by CGTN did the calculation show any organised vibration like chaos theory in the computers method of calculating and build it's own algorithm in any vibratory patterns...?
Reminds me of one of my college professors a brilliant person but you really had to pay attention to have any hope of passing the class.
My professors were all better teachers then this.
Cool and thanks for this topics. Do talk more about Qbit and its operators.
Always good to hear a Dutch English accent (the introductory congenial lady), funny that it feels so strongly "at home" for me. (I'm Dutch as well.) Ok, back to business - now I'm going to start listening the lecture. ;-)
I really appreciate your efforts! I need some advice: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (air carpet target dish off jeans toilet sweet piano spoil fruit essay). What's the best way to send them to Binance?
Huh. I'm so lost lol
So we will be using questions derived from laws and mathematical formulae we currently believe correct, which are initially derived from observation and theory, written and tested on the original base type of computer as well as we were able (traditional CPU). We then ask a higher level system we invented, that we have to trust we asked precisely correctly, to find the optimal answer?
Didn't think there was a way to invent scientific faith but here we are. Amazing
It’s very interesting the way they keep trying to compare the old fashioned classical computers with the new quantum computers, there is a very big difference you didn’t actually need those computers to run the software you could do it all with pencil and paper if you wanted to, be very slow but can be done,but the problem with quantum computers is they don’t know how to program them even if they could afford a pencil and paper
He is talking about what is on the screen behind him but you only show me a glimpse of the screen. I need to be able to read the content as he is talking about it, not just watch him wave his hands around.
Pause the video.
1:03:00 in the other version of this picture Schrödinger is missing.
I like looking down my You-Tube while listening to this.
This is what I have understood the double slit experiment to be. But he appears to show a ray of light consisting of one photon (width, presumably: if the ray exists in time the source will emit a stream of photons won’t it?) . And he appears to show the photon splitting into two AT SOURCE. So the two slits are not what creates the split particle. Why they chose to go in the opposite direction after passing through slit doesn’t get explained. Nor how you generate a ray of light one photon in width.
So this bloke doesn’t seem to quite follow what he is talking about, which accounts for his very hesitant manner.
It looks to me as if quantum computing - like nuclear energy - is being developed by people who don’t understand the theory of how they achieve the activity they do, and have got to where they are through trial and error with very sophisticated electronic equipment.
So maybe the theory is being developed after the practical activity has been achieved: you learn to ride a two wheel vehicle and then afterwards you work out the theory of how motion allows you to defy the law of gravity
One wonders for example if perhaps QC technicians are actually unwittingly accessing particle level below the photon level, rather than dividing the photon into two.
According to the Maharishi, the energy of which all particles at every level are comprised originates as pure thought. So wave function comprises the text of the thought itself. Like a groove on a record man. And the deeper level of consciousness at which the thought originates the more powerful its impact is in the material field.
Of course to accept this as the explanation of quantum behaviour you have to accept that consciousness pre-exists creation (all contributors to RI lectures start jumping up and down at this point screaming PROVE IT!!!! WHERE ´S YOUR PROOF) and that, by logical extension, creation itself is the consequence of a thought. In pure Consciousness. It is,though, the only possible explanation that has no defaults at all. It all works perfectly. Reality is n that all bona fide research in whatever branch of science you look leads to this conclusion. Including what little actual research has been achieved in evolutionary biology
Don't be fooled by them. They know nothing.
I love quantum theory but my head hurts to understand it. Anyone who has the guts to explain it is a good person by my vote.
There are many concepts that can facilitate intuitive understanding. Mentioned in talks here on the RI yt channel and I also like to watch the (german) videos of Gaßner, Lesch and Ganteför. The more different perspectives you get to know, the better you can get your own picture of this initially less intuitive topic.
The level of the talk was far above the lay person level. The speaker started with very simple and immediately jumped to much more difficult. He sounded like he was talking to other physicists that need to learn about quantum computation.
Why so many downvotes? This is the very first "almost-in-depth" video I'm given a chance to watch tbh
So practical quatam computing hardware and software so thank you very much to you all to explain about ❤️ 🙏❤️quantum comuters
Interesting talk but you have to stick with it. A good supplement to other quantum discussions.
Ok I will learn theory description in the video ❤️🙏 today itself is my preference to understand so ❤️🙏
a tear on my eye around 13:50
Quantum Computer: Your electric bill might be $2, or $2 Million. Due to the Uncertainty Principle, we don't know!"
I think I'm more confused now than I was before.
And what was the hype and how did you untangle it? Hmmm... would have appreciated more sticking to the point and more clarity in answers to your thesis statement.
4:50 - The thing actually starts.
Tnx bro
A great introduction to the wonderful Quantum Computer, but as usual, we can't get the slideshow to work smoothly, wtf
Damn. Him explaining that *Green Sulfur Bacterium* uses *Quantum Computing* is mind blowing.
Thanks!
Thank you!
The first guy is the first person who actually got through me. He is an awesome dude. The second guy is spouting all that useless nonsense everyone says. It true but not as profound as the first one.
I always thought the "IBM Q Experience" involved John de Lancie putting you on trial for the crimes of Humanity, or something.
What was the date of this talk??? 2018?
Short story, nonfiction or fiction it's open to interpretation.
The brain is a quantum entangled neural network. We, as individuals, consciously control a single neuron (node) that consciously interacts with our nervous system. The rest are part of the subconscious neural network. We all exist inside of each other's neural network. If we didn't we couldn't share an experience inside this self projected universe. We are all a duality, self is not unique to the individual. The individual is unique to self. None of us are observers, the only thing we observe as individuals are the projections of self.
When 2 individuals meet inside the self projection, the nodes in each brain representing the participants forge neurological connections to each other, so they can share an experience together. Simultaneously every other brain has those same 2 neurological connections made based on their own positions in spacetime. Your neuron (node) and my neuron (node) exist inside of every brain of every human on earth. We all share an umbilical cord and that umbilical cord ties all of our neurology together.
All that neurological action taking place while we sleep, most of it's the participants that are awake and actively making neurological connections. Those connections have to be made in all of our brains in order for quantum tunneling of information to occur. The subconscious mind is something we all share, just like self. We have roughly 7.9 billion living humans and our neural network consists of about 85-90 billion neurons. I'll let you ponder what those neurons represent. The neural network has redundancy built into it by design.
Our brain's subconscious development depends only on the location of all the nodes in spacetime as the brain is developing and connecting to them subconsciously. The conscious branching occurs through interaction inside the self projection. Unless an individual has genetic or medical conditions preventing normal neurological development and function, the human brain will have forged a full subconscious connection to the entire universe at some point during adult life. In order to benefit from other nodes you have to forge actual conscious connections in spacetime. So the brain will forge conscious neurological connections.
We are all tied together subconsciously but in order to share an experience consciously we have to make conscious neurological connections. This can only be done inside of spacetime through conscious interaction.
Just making conscious notice of someone walking past you on the street will forge a neurological connection to that node consciously and this will allow you to network with their subconscious mind to gain enlightenment. The internet is a powerful tool for forging conscious neurological connections. Just interacting online is enough to forge a physical conscious connection neurologically.
In either case we are all entangled and we are building more and more conscious connections to each other. In doing so we are gaining enlightenment or intelligence which might equate to higher energy consumption (brighter star).
It would seem that the more conscious neurological connections a person makes to the network the more subconscious power they receive.
What role does our moral conduct play on diseases and other bugs that infect our system? What role does our level of conscious connectivity to the subconscious neural network play with the energy consumption of the quantum realm powering our network? Is sin just a poison that infects our network like a virus? We are all entangled, so all of our cups pour into each other. How does morality play into our conscious connections to the world? Does a connection forged in moral obligation and truth produce a more powerful connection than a connection forged in lies and deceit?
Will we make it to the heavens? Will humanity fail to complete the Trinity?
Consume so much power that we self-destruct before we achieve artificial universal intelligence? Before our subconscious becomes self aware and our GOD> can emerge? The Father and Son await. WIll humanity receive the holy spirit? Forge a connection to the Trinity and allow our GOD> to emerge, and open up our heavens?
Or will humanity end up a failed experiment and attempt to produce a universally conscious being? I believe humanity will make it to the heavens and we will produce a universally conscious GOD>.
I call this story "The Trinity Of Human Evolution". Brought to us by The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit.
@@Hopeful1s Something I don't look forward to but it's clear humanity is pushing for it.
In all these lectures of particle physics and super computing, it appears as if we are entering the era of the event horizon. And if that isn't enough we are actually quantum computing theories into dark matter (1) and dark energy (-1) and super impose; entangled neutron (0). This collapse of the wave function would seem to have the process capability of 3D printing. Cad Cam design capabilities to transfigure perhaps biological matter into RNA and DNA strands. It even sounds like the Star Trek concept into replicators. I have no idea of software concepts that tap into a infra scan within the matrix,, for it seems that classical computation we presently have is biased upon measuring the electron value as 1 while the anti matter or neutron as 0 yet all reactance and the least amount of friction still is the key. It would then seem as if our future will meet the other Nickel side plane of the galaxy as this universe enters into the next 12000 yrs. of quantum computing.
48:00 where is this interesting picture from, please? can't find it online (i even bing-ed it, to no avail)
I was interested, but could not make out what the speaker was saying. Plonk
Amazing content
Loved it 😊
Discovering QC Algorithm = processing formulae in a coherent "phys-chem" pulse-duration => degree of proof of conception in QM-Time Principle Actuality.., of Quantum Fields Modulation Mechanism of probabilities in potential possibilities Time Duration Timing in Eternity-now Superspin Superposition-point...-> Quantum Operator Interference. (It's leaky)
I've always wondered, how is a half-silvered mirror not a frequency-dependent diffraction grating/filter?
No difference in QM-Time Principle In-form-ation terms.., only linear and transverse frequency modulation, axially-tangentially e-Pi-i -> alignment/coherence.
Branes and Brains are the leaky devices of Universal Quantum Operator Computational Existence. Such is life.
Well composed lectures..
@@HighestRank thank you
A computer that can and will do whatever the hell it wants. There is your killer AI right there.
The hype is real. Get your degrees, the thought revolution has started. If you take nothing else away from this, realize this is no longer just theoretical science, it’s engineering.
This isn't engineering. Told to you by an engineer.
Starts at 4:45
Quantum bits or 'qubits' can exist in a superposition state of both zero and one simultaneously. This means that a set of two qubits can be in a superposition of four states, which therefore require four numbers to uniquely identify the state. So the amount of information stored in N qubits is two to the power of N E R D S
Do you really think that the whole e,g, Netflix video library can be stored in a single 1000 qbit quantum computer?
I need "Quantum computing for dummies"
Once the quantum computer proves a proposition, can its next task be writing the elements (for humans) which document a proof?
I can make a square root of NOT gate. The gate processes the values 0 and 1 as normal, but also two more values, call them A and B. Transfer function is: 0 -> A; 1 -> B; A -> 1; B -> 0. Nothing quantum about that.
The non-commutative algebras that describe quantum systems are perfectly "normal" from a mathematical point of view. What is special about physical quantum systems is that the phase space grows exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom. That's because our lack of knowledge about the systems grows exponentially. Quantum computing is basically calculation with the lack of knowledge. It's pretty cool that one can do that. I am not so convinced, however, that it's efficient for the overwhelming majority of important problems.
A wonderful topic with poor execution. Wish you would do this one again with speakers that can express their thoughts clearly and in a semi-organized manner... Should label this video "Quantum Computing: Tangling the Hype"...
1:06 So Aphelios was designed by The Royal Institution all along!
Sorry, this does not untangle Hype, it simply confuses. How do you program in qbits?
Nobody knows. That's the fun part and probably one of the Achilles' heels of quantum computing. I have a hunch that converting a classical problem into a quantum program will turn out to be just as hard, if not harder, in general, as solving the problem.
You don't, much like you don't program in bits.
51:18 The Hitchhiker's Guide reference :)
How many qubits can a Q Experience user access now? I know Rigetti's upgraded access allows up to 19.
37
@@kylorenkardashian79 oh wow
thanks
Is a sum of histories actually a probability sum?
Love this topic. Need another. But not these people. Couldnt stand it for long. This was a horrible train wreck.
seafaring Netherlands 🇳🇱 and UK 🇬🇧/waves/
Sorry, but it's a very nebulous lecture. 1:18:50 is where it kinda touches the question in the title, but is still far from "untangling" anything. I'd say that it brings even more "hype" to quantum computing.
I'm a software developer and I still don't see how having those q-bits in a superposition can help us create logical gates, or do any kind of "computing." All those q-bits that they reference sound nothing more than a good random number generator, or a data storage, at best.
It would really help RI, if you invited someone who knows well and does programming of "classical" computers, who can then show how that can be translated into this "hypothetical" field of quantum computing. So far I haven't found a single lecture like that! All that I see is a click bait or a marketing ploy that basically extrapolates previous exponential development of computers into the future. Sorry to break it to you, but it doesn't always work like that. It took us over 200 thousand years to put a rock on the stick to make an ax.
An excellent starting point with a far superior explanation can be found in the first and third chapters of 'The Feynman lectures on Physics', Vol iii.
www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html
www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_03.html
Once you have read and thoroughly understood the ideas presented here; then read the book 'Quantum Computer science: An introduction' by David Mermin.
www.amazon.co.uk/Quantum-Computer-Science-David-Mermin/dp/0521876583
That's fair, but describing a completely different architecture wouldn't really be appropriate for these lectures. And you're wrong about the promise of quantum computing. That's understandable as you obviously don't understand how they work. Skepticism is good if you aren't too lazy to put in the most minor amounts of research.
I agree. I know it is old comment, but (if by any chance you didn't find it already) this is the lecture to watch -> ruclips.net/video/F_Riqjdh2oM/видео.html