She: Quantum computer's don't exist yet Me: in 2021 jumps into to description box to see when was the video uploaded 😂
@cj03harr
2 жыл бұрын
Same lol
@agaggaaggege
7 ай бұрын
me in 2024 too
@Lonewolf-
7 ай бұрын
@@agaggaaggegeit's been 2 years i commented this 😭 it feels like i did just 2 months a ago 😭
@Samuel-zs9gw
4 ай бұрын
@@Lonewolf-haha, time is flying 😂
@wiadroman
7 жыл бұрын
2:11 "Actually, qubits are not made of cats" - my world collapsed like a wave function :-(
@mistermeatyoaker8428
7 жыл бұрын
and Qbert is an old game from the 80's
@EchoL0C0
7 жыл бұрын
Maybe not, but you can take Fourier transformations of them: xkcd.com/26/
@vampyricon7026
7 жыл бұрын
+
@Quotheraving
7 жыл бұрын
Don't worry wiadroman, the internet is still made of cats.
@fossilfighters101
7 жыл бұрын
+
@shubhamshinde3593
7 жыл бұрын
Infinite series and spacetime are the best thing to happen to youtube...
@yitz7805
7 жыл бұрын
Don't forget Idea Channel!
@EchoL0C0
7 жыл бұрын
Thank goodness for PBS keeping hip with the times. I also liked the one about video games. Too bad it ended. Didn't really help that it started up around the same time as gamergate and didn't shy away from questions like race or gender (while covering a whole lot else too, arguably even more so than the standard identity politics discussion-- from how dating apps use gaming mechanics in their design to why Mario's jump "feels right".)
@HoD999x
7 жыл бұрын
don't forget: sharkee (especially this one deserved more views) vsauce scishow veritasium sciencium asap science minute earth it's ok to be smart fermilab the good stuff stated clearly scienceetonnante (if you speak french) zefrank1 and all those other science channels i might have forgotten
@s0mar885
7 жыл бұрын
Dennis Haupt i thought that zefrank was inactive.
@peepingtom9342
7 жыл бұрын
There is math channel 3Blue1Brown, he is similar to PBS, talks about undergrad math (linear algebra, multivariable calculus etc) in a simple yet quite comprehensive way. I wish I knew about him back in college.
@josefdubisar5115
4 жыл бұрын
I was just now running a program on an IBM quantum computer. And now I find a video which states, that no one has built one :-). Yea, it's from 2017, but still it entertained me. But the math still works though.
@quilan1
7 жыл бұрын
One thing that should be noted is that while computations on the entire quantum state are exponentially quicker than classical, there is still an exponential number of states that you have to observe, if you're not clever about setting things up. The reason that very specific algorithms (Shor, Grover, etc) are so much quicker is because they're able to manipulate the probabilities in a very specific manner that makes the correct answers tend to "jump out" of the final state (having a higher probability). For normal calculations, a quantum computer would be of no better use than classical.
@liesdamnlies3372
7 жыл бұрын
*For normal calculations, a quantum computer would be of no better use than classical.* Or worse. A lot worse. That most people just think quantum computers = faster classical computers still blows my mind.
@Lugmillord
7 жыл бұрын
Why does it blow your mind? How would the average person know what a quantum computer is or even comprehend it in the slightest? You can't expect many people to get behind the idea.
@saeedbaig4249
7 жыл бұрын
I've been skimming KZitem now for some quantum computing videos (including "You Don't Know How Quantum Computers Work") and I still can barely comprehend how it works
@kornkernel2232
7 жыл бұрын
This is what I'm thinking that in order to take advantage of quantum computing, we basically have to redefine the very foundation of our softwares to be designed for quantum computing. In a nutshell, a quantum computer will make no difference running Crysis if we don't change the underlying software of it. The game engine, the API, the OS it runs on, etc. Also if a person just use Facebook, a quantum computer won't make significant improvements to make Facebook faster. Though there will be a changes on the backend of Facebook to process big data that in the end-user will notice if they are aware of it.
@liesdamnlies3372
7 жыл бұрын
Lugmillord It takes about a minute of reading on Wikipedia to disabuse oneself of the notion. That anyone commenting on KZitem thinks that betrays that they are too lazy to check.
@lellyparker
5 жыл бұрын
Quantum SatNav computer. "Turn left at the next junction. Probably".
@Thelearner1000
4 жыл бұрын
imagine this logic in an AI robot at the airport making an error, "You must be detained" or "you must be executed for having water" Will i go to Jail? Probably! ;-)
@RubbberRabbbit2
7 жыл бұрын
I love this channel! This is the first video on the subject that's made real sense to me, actually explaining beyond the concept of Schrödinger's Cat. Good job!
@Julian-tf8nj
5 жыл бұрын
great video! One of the best intros to qubits and quantum computing (especially its underlying math) that I have seen. Thank you!
@mikeo759
7 жыл бұрын
2:10 That's it... I'm naming my cat Qubit
@daviddupoise6443
7 жыл бұрын
Excellent exposition. Shor's Algorithm represented by quantum states, and the requisite mathematical expressions, would be a nice follow up. Thanks for your excellent work. Cheers!
@noodleiv
7 жыл бұрын
This is the best short explanation of quantum computing. Thank you!
@user-or7ji5hv8y
4 жыл бұрын
Thank goodness for KZitem. How else can we have access to such amazing teachers.
@MrPhaedrusx
7 жыл бұрын
I love whomever is coaching your hand movements between this and Spacetime. No Sarcasm. Your shows are incredible. :)
@Diwonkulus
7 жыл бұрын
I think D-Wave would argue against your opening point of quantum computers not existing.
@oliverhees4076
7 жыл бұрын
We can't be certain that quantum computers don't exist; it is both existent and nonexistent until you go to everyone and ask.
@Diwonkulus
7 жыл бұрын
Oliver Hees I see what you did there. LOL
@user-rh8hi4ph4b
7 жыл бұрын
D-Wave's computers are only by definition quantum computers, and are very different from what is typically called a "quantum computer". D-Wave's computers use quantum annealing as an optimization tool to find approximate answers to some NP-complete problems. Optimization algorithms that are inspired by annealing already exist (ie simulated annealing), but D-Wave's computers utilize "real" quantum annealing for optimization problems, instead of simulating it.
@pbsinfiniteseries
7 жыл бұрын
D-Wave has made some remarkable strides, but the machine they've created is very limited in scope. It can't, for example, implement Shor's algorithm. See: medium.com/quantum-bits/what-s-the-difference-between-quantum-annealing-and-universal-gate-quantum-computers-c5e5099175a1#.i248afb6k
@GuRuGeorge03
7 жыл бұрын
lmao genius
@pinustaeda
7 жыл бұрын
I have no idea what 90% of these things are yet I still enjoy watching this
@exklimexklim
7 жыл бұрын
But can it run Crysis?
@Tiranozauras
7 жыл бұрын
I think this one just might.
@MajorJimPlays
7 жыл бұрын
Nope, it cannot. Quantum computers will not be very good at running game like applications sadly..
@arooobine
7 жыл бұрын
They'll probably end up being a piece of hardware attached to the motherboard of classical computer, like a graphics card, used for the types of problems it deals well with.
@tomc.5704
7 жыл бұрын
No, but it would be pretty good at dynamic enemy AI
@nexaentertainment2764
7 жыл бұрын
Basically no. From what I gather, quantum computers aren't really that great at doing 'software'. Your GPU is not that accurate, and it uses that to its advantage. Or rather; it sacrifices accuracy for speed. Your GPU doesn't need to accurately calculate everything, because in a game you'll never notice if the light isn't pixel perfect, or the color grading is 100% accurate and such. It's why workstation GPGPUs/GPUs tend to do worse in games than regular GPUs. It's because they're designed for higher precision (among many other things) and thusly are a bit slower. Basically, something designed for physics and math work will be much slower than something that can live with a moderate amount of errors/inaccuracies.
@nemotaylor240
5 жыл бұрын
Finally a video on quantum computing that didn’t skip over the math and dumb it down too much. THANK YOU.
@felipemartin8255
7 жыл бұрын
This is *by far* the best content on internet I ever found explaining how a Quantum computer works. Gratitude.
@LuisAldamiz
6 жыл бұрын
The caveat at the end ( 10:50 ) is demolishing for the metaphysical interpretation of the "observer effect": if the environment (non-sentient) collapses (aka "measures", aka "interacts", aka "gets entangled") then there is no room anymore for the conscious observer being as critical as some would like. Only for that I'd applaud this video, although the rest is also pretty cool and quite well explained considering it's mostly maths.
@code4chaosmobile
7 жыл бұрын
don't understand everything but still love hearing the explanation
@ohyouresilly7366
7 жыл бұрын
Just found out about this channel and I am really enjoying it. Keep up the great content! This stuff is so fascinating.
@Math_oma
7 жыл бұрын
The power of abstraction, nerds.
@Goldpenny1
5 жыл бұрын
Quantum computing is great for calculating a program location scene on the Holodeck on the Starship Enterprise (before it was destroyed).
@schloergrape5191
7 жыл бұрын
she's actually a very good teacher.
@arca5200
7 жыл бұрын
I clicked on the video thinking that this is a PBS Space Time channel and was shocked when she started to talk instead of Matt. Turns out I just found this channel and it's awesome!
@dudethethe2548
4 ай бұрын
Finally I found an explanation of quantum computing that kinda makes sense! Thank you
@smg0003
5 жыл бұрын
Sphere 100 gates on outside Multiple gates open -ve just inside outside gates attract +ve optic light fed to centre of sphere Eg all gates are numbered so 1st light byte opens a gate and second byte is light to help master the software/hardware interface like old as it travels through +ve to -ve gate opening and onward Simple explanation u gave Best video yet on quantumn computing, produced yet. Cheers & Well done
@kamaleshrao1497
Жыл бұрын
One of The Best Explanation of Quantum Computers.
@axion4523
6 жыл бұрын
Can someone please explain to me why after applying quantum gate to 00, the probabilities would be 1/2 for 01, 1/3 for 11 & 1/6 for 10..Much thanks in advance
@thefigmaster3519
5 жыл бұрын
its just an example of what it could change to. They have just made up random numbers for the purpose of demonstration. (I think)
@suyashksharma7193
4 жыл бұрын
Those numbers you see preceding the states when squared give the probability density of that particular state. You can do a simple reading on quantum/Schrodinger's wave equations for a better understanding.
@RichardASalisbury1
6 жыл бұрын
Thanks. The first explanation of quantum computing (and, more broadly, of how the principle of superposition can be used, hence isn't a mere euphemism for indeterminate) that 1) I could follow, 2) I could understand (knew a little QM coming in), 3) makes sense, and 4) seems complete (at the level of the math).
@Chrisallengallery
7 жыл бұрын
Can quantum computers exist and not exist at the same time ??
@ashboon1625
7 жыл бұрын
Maybe, maybe not. We don't know.
@joymoody3239
7 жыл бұрын
Chicken before the egg type question
@JorgetePanete
7 жыл бұрын
Joy Moody but- evolution
@Its-Just-Zip
6 жыл бұрын
Depends on whether or not you are observing it.
@abj9121
6 жыл бұрын
Devil's Advocate yes "they" can but actually its he, not they.
@ylegoff
4 жыл бұрын
This is one of my favourite channels, of my favorite station and favorite topic! Suggestion: It might be useful to explain briefly in a follow up video why complex numbers have twice the dimensionality of real numbers. Something like: A single complex number is made up of its real and imaginary (i^2=-1) parts, so we have two real coordinates for *both* complex numbers z and w. To illustrate, show a graph/hypercube with four real dimensions (wo for the domain and two for the range, giving a two-dimensional surface in four-dimensional space.
@ScCat666
7 жыл бұрын
Meow! :D
@tabularasa0606
7 жыл бұрын
Don't let them fool you, you're not dead and alive at the same time. Superposition is nothing more than a "we don't know", but we can calculate exactly how big the chance is that you are in either state.
@badlydrawnturtle8484
7 жыл бұрын
+Hilmar Zonneveld Treating the collapse of the wave function as a physical event also leads to contradictions.
@WilliamSkafast
7 жыл бұрын
+Hilmar Zonneveld That's the Copenhagen interpretation. Bohmian mechanics says superposition is a false notion because we don't know the whole state of the system. Many worlds that all possibilities are real in other timelines, we just happen to be in the one we're at. The Copenhagen interpretation is easier to work with in the realm of quantum physics, but it doesn't say anything about even smaller scales, other interpretations will probably shed a light there in the future.
@TheSqoou
7 жыл бұрын
I said the same thing when I first saw her...
@adolfodef
7 жыл бұрын
Miau!
@wyattdelaney-lefebvre1561
7 жыл бұрын
Actually, the Schrodinger's Cat representation of a quantum superposition states that it is not the cat that is dead or alive, but it is the radioactive substance which is in a superposition of decayed and not decayed, the subatomic level at which quantum effects take place.
@jens2972
3 жыл бұрын
3:14 damn im bopping to this music
@philip0320
7 жыл бұрын
How would a quantum computer change computing for the consumer?
@neeneko
7 жыл бұрын
This probably will not be a technology that would end up in general purpose consumer computers.
@evanev7
7 жыл бұрын
As stated you probably wont own a quantum computer in your life, but some of the practical consumer applications include data security using entanglement (look that one up, its completely unhackable), complex rendering of simulations (entire scenarios are computed at the same time) and in the near future it will improve the speeds of search engines dramatically. Lightly touched on in this video, it would take the square root of the number of searches than a classicle computer - 10000 searches for a classical computer means 100 searches for a quantum one
@t3st1221
7 жыл бұрын
Except for everything related to security (and this is important with the internet) probably not much. Most stuff you want to do falls into a class of problem that have to be done sequentially so since there is nothing to parallelize you just need raw power and for that classical computer might keep the advantage by not having to deal with all the stuff that currently prevent us from having quantum computer. To go a bit technical, if you know how to solve your problem efficiently (P problems) then you don't need a quantum computer, if you currently need to do some brute force because there is no good way to solve this problem (so you need to try everything, NP-problems) then quantum computing might change this. So if you just want to play video games, nothing will change. If you want to surf on the internet, you might need a small quantum computing unit for the encryption, but otherwise you'll use a standard CPU.
@Lesesmo
7 жыл бұрын
I imagine, things will be more cloud based, and consumer machines will be like terminals again. As of today tech, quantum computer will be huge, taking multiple rooms like the old day computers. Internet search result is a really good example of that. For example of a video game, rather than having your console generate the 3d world, a quantum sever might able to do most of the work and your machine will only need to do some final touch and display it. Think of Siri on your phone, she doesn't know all those joke to tell you, the server does. So I think it will 1) pushes us to have even faster and bigger internet 2) new economic of quantum cpu time, perhaps (one more thing to pay after your cell data bill) 3) even cheaper, and more portable devices
@shyrealist
7 жыл бұрын
Security is the killer application, I can imagine that for the consumer, it would boil down to a special purpose security chip. Just like we have GPUs and ALU, one day we might have QSU (Quantum Security Unit) that would have different instruction sets and be capable of supporting different encryption algorithms. and standard.
@83cable
7 жыл бұрын
As a very lay man, below average Id say in the math department, this is absolutely amazing! if we could actually make a quantum computer the difference would be something like before Alan Turing invented his Turing machine, and its aftermath! loving this stuff, thank you!.
@mikicerise6250
7 жыл бұрын
Awesome explanation, thank you. This really has helped me to understand more clearly what is meant when people talk about parallelism in quantum computing. :)
@jimmyriba
7 жыл бұрын
I wish you (PBS Infinite Series) wouldn't give the "quantum computers perform exponentially faster than classical" this losely, without mentioning that this isn't generally the case at all. It feeds the most common misconception about quantum computers: that they are generally exponentially faster and can solve, for example, NP-complete problems in polynomial time. They can't, and it can be proved (rigorously!) that they only can take the 2^n down to a 2^{\sqrt{n}}. It's the case only in very certain problems that exponential time is needed on a classical computer, but they can be computed in polynomial time on a quantum computer.
@G4mm4G0bl1n
6 жыл бұрын
They can and its proofable. Here are calculations which showing the NP-Problem. They are an example which I found when I research the Arithmetical Logical Unit for NP-Heavy problems, because the ALU has some Fails which are implemented since 50 years. cosd(2,4e+1001) = 1 = Has Polynominaltime, Result can be fetched just above 1ms cosd(6,e+995) = ? = Has infinite Polynominaltime and will never spit a Result cosd(1,8e+2325) = 1 = Has no Polynominaltime, Result can be fetched below 1ms The Polynominaltime for determinate the solution for cosd(6,e+995) is with our machines infinit, because the ALU isnt able to handle infinitisemal mathematics, but the solution is 0,5.
@bradleyed
7 жыл бұрын
I like the music that started playing when you started talking about vectors.
@b.k.1768
4 жыл бұрын
Show me how to write “Hello world!”
@dustudent1637
2 жыл бұрын
🥴🥴🥴🥴
@zeatoen2896
2 жыл бұрын
I might have watched a dozen of videos on this topic but I finally got that on 9:30 =>What other videos lacking is that we have to run it multiple times to find solution.
@hollowmoose
7 жыл бұрын
If quantum calculations result in multiple solutions based on probabilities how do we know which solution is the correct one?
@JacobP81
6 жыл бұрын
HollowMoose we test it
@contactsamie5060
6 жыл бұрын
its the one with the highest amplitude
@muffpotter2651
3 жыл бұрын
Really good. Thanks Kelsey Houston-Edwards :)
@13thbass13
7 жыл бұрын
I was there for Francis Su's speech! And I agree, it was really really good.
@JuneJulia
3 жыл бұрын
Finally a video can help me understanding quantum computing!!!
@danielbriones2938
7 жыл бұрын
this makes more sense than the other science channels feauturing quantum computers.
@pudum4916
2 жыл бұрын
Speed and rythem is exciting. And you are outstanding.
@itsRAWRtime007
7 жыл бұрын
First time I truly understood quantum computation. Great job!
@100Belgra
3 жыл бұрын
we live in three Dimensions. We require to count six Dimensions too. Six Dimensions means four sides. As up side and down side are included in four sides [means in/with two sides either one of up-side and down-side is included] three Dimensions multiplied by 0.8125 means 3 x 0.8125 = 2.4375 one write six Dimensions multiplied by 0.8125 means 6 x 0.8125 = 4.875 is two write four sides multiplied by 0.8125 means 4 x 0.8125 = 3.25 is three write we subtract 3.25-2.4375 = 0.8125 so three write minus one write = 0.8125 is four write we subtract 4.875-3.25 = 1.625 so two write minus three write we get = 1.625 which is five write. We subtract 2.4375-1.625= 0.8125 so one write minus five write = 0.8125 is six write we add 2.4375+3.25= 5.6875 so one write plus three write we get = 5.6875 which is seven write. (Note: Calculating three Dimensions if doesn't includes opposite Dimensions so two sides are remaining to be included. And value of three Dimensions and four sides could be is 5.6875 ? or we require to calculate 6 Dimensions value 4.875 ? so difference between last two questions is 0.8125 I write ahead) We subtract 5.6875-4.875= 0.8125 so seven write minus two write = 0.8125 is eight write. So four write, six write and eight write we get the value same which only possible by percentage way if something like Dimensions and Sides are equal. We came to know that value 3 for Dimensions is correct like value 4 for sides is correct. Percentage value of sides and Dimensions equal is 0.8125. so we can take other figures too and find the same answer but percentage wise we have to take all figures same. This is what I explained.only then the value we get same like 0.8125 here. for more see check the url forcetravelsinwith.blogspot.com/p/dimensions.html
@Persian5life
7 жыл бұрын
I am so happy this exists.
@EnriqueRegisPascalinRomo
7 жыл бұрын
Hold on. What is the D-Wave 2000Q? Is not even research level but commercial hardware. According to Wikipedia, there are quite some Quantum Computers and 2 very good ones and reprogramables for 2016. What is wrong here? Do they understand Quantum Computers different than you Kelsey? Thanks in advance for the kind response.
@badlydrawnturtle8484
7 жыл бұрын
Also according to Wikipedia, independent researchers are doubtful of D-Wave's claims.
@KohuGaly
7 жыл бұрын
D-wave is a special purpose computer - it is hard-wired to solve only one type of problem. And it's also crappy at doing so - it has speed comparable to average notebook and with only a fraction of precision and versatility.
@EnriqueRegisPascalinRomo
7 жыл бұрын
Agree with +Bradly Drawn Turtle and +KohuGaly, however, there is supposed to be some quantum machines right now regardless of D-Wave: -University of Maryland, reprogramable quantum computer. -Nasa aquired with Google a Quantum Computer, it's performance is widely accepted -etc....
@badlydrawnturtle8484
7 жыл бұрын
erparom The ones at Google and NASA are just D-Waves.
@edwardlewis1963
2 ай бұрын
Can dwave do simple math of a simple calculator? Right now quantum computing seems like Theranos. An exercise in attracting research money. Most of the money probably goes to low temperature physics research. The Chinese are following the logical path in quantum computing by studying it using light instead of low temperature.
@kristofersokk1580
7 жыл бұрын
@PBS Infinite Series PLEEAAAASSEEEE make an album of the music. It's so cool, I would listen to it all day. My favourite part starts at 3:00.
@TheRolemodel1337
7 жыл бұрын
tell us the story about the square on your left middle finger :D
@ballandpaddle
7 жыл бұрын
its the story of my life
@teriabac2974
7 жыл бұрын
I love this host! She's a much more interesting speaker than the other ones.
@cryptexify
7 жыл бұрын
I can tell you 2 is a factor of the number.
@zairaner1489
7 жыл бұрын
And the rest? ;)
@cryptexify
7 жыл бұрын
The comment box is too small for this factorization.
@zairaner1489
7 жыл бұрын
Damn youtube
@robinsparrow1618
7 жыл бұрын
It's also divisible by 3.
@GustavoValdiviesso
7 жыл бұрын
I studied Shor's algorithm on my Master's course and it is awesome. As a physicist and a computer scientist, I see it not just as an algorithm, but a piece of art.
@atharvas4399
7 жыл бұрын
Th whole point of computers is surity and confidence in the calculations it performs. How can you expect a calculation with a probabilistic outcome to represent anything real. I.E. how can we even use those numbers..if they are probabilistic???
@casaxtreme2952
7 жыл бұрын
That's what I don't get either... Does quantum computing mean that if for example you multiply two integers it sometimes gives you the wrong answer?
@quilan1
7 жыл бұрын
Yes, Quantum Computers are probabilistic, not deterministic. However, the benefit of this approach is that there are very specific cases where you can create a gate network that will assign a high probability to the "correct" calculation. What's the use of this, you might ask? There are problems that take enormously long times to solve in a deterministic manner (eg. factoring), and if you can instead get the number after repeating a quantum algorithm a number of times to find the right answer, it's a huge speed up. Yeah, you'll get the wrong answer a bunch of times, but the you've got classical computers to check the answer and when you finally DO get the correct answer, the total time taken will be much much lower than solving the original problem on a classical computer.
@liesdamnlies3372
7 жыл бұрын
They are probabilistic, but as they said, you don't just run it once and call it done. You run it as many times as necessary to settle on a result. Not unlike flipping a coin enough times in the same way to eventually arrive at a point where it is statistically extremely unlikely that the coin's probability of landing on either side is not 50/50 (or 49.99999999999999999999/50.00000000000000000001, as the case may be). Try not to think about it in classical terms. Quantum computers aren't for doing classical calculations (in fact they are typically several orders of magnitude slower than classical computers when doing things that classical computers are good at, like multiplying integers).
@quilan1
7 жыл бұрын
Let's take factoring for example, as that's the big win for QC. I'm simplifying things here a lot, but this should be okay for illustration. Let's say you get an answer "1234567 is a factor of this big number". You can take a classical computer and do out the division normally. If there's no remainder, then you can say that the quantum computer was right, 1234567 IS the factor we've been looking for! If not, it should be very quick to see that the answer popped out was incorrect, so try again.
@casaxtreme2952
7 жыл бұрын
49.999999999... + 50.1111111111... = 100.111111111... just sayin
@lucasvella
7 жыл бұрын
The probability of the system collapsing into a particular state is actually the square of the absolute of the value in the state vector, otherwise the probabilities won't add to 1.
@jjtt
7 жыл бұрын
I thought you didn't want to be limited to reality
@davidwuhrer6704
7 жыл бұрын
Quantum computers aren't real. (And never will be.)
@jjtt
7 жыл бұрын
The field is quite new, and quantum computers are possible, so I would not think that...
@firststepeducational6237
3 жыл бұрын
2021...and here they are
@SimplyDudeFace
7 жыл бұрын
In the description of a quantum computer can we please stop using the bit as the starting point. What makes computers easy to grok is the fact that they are based in switches. This isn't an analogy, they are literally switches. And that each switch has an on and an off state. Now, with that as a starting point, can someone put forth a description of a. Quantum computer that explains the mechanism behind a qubit, and please do better than just saying spin. I know this is a math channel, but with a masters in computer science, I need to know something of the physicality of the device to follow the logic. And no one ever goes into the details of how the quantum machines work.
@musicalBurr
7 жыл бұрын
I second Matt's request for more details on the actual physicality of the devices, it may help to understand what's what.
@G4mm4G0bl1n
6 жыл бұрын
Watch and Read this in the order I gave you: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometry en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_amplitude_modulation kzitem.info/news/bejne/mIiq15avoJ1ohKA kzitem.info/news/bejne/25mnwHyPqGmAgag en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics) I have allready concepted a logical circuit which is able to register time correlated bits.
@b43xoit
5 жыл бұрын
In a classical computer, the data are conveyed via data paths from storage devices, through gates, and back to storage. So the gates are physically separate from the storage (although not far away). In a quantum computer, a state is in a storage device, and microwaves are directed at it that device cause it to perform a gate function on the state stored in it. So the same device functions as storage and gates.
@cantkeepitin
5 жыл бұрын
Matthew, this is an excellent question. In a normal computer the switches are formed by MOS transistors. And these MOSTs act as controllable switches. With drawing a schematic out of MOSTs you can see e.g. how a more complex gate like NOT or AND is formed. It would be great to have such schematic for a quantum gate. But I think currently such qbit gates are not formed by such MOSTs, but by a kind of physical testbench so that physics acts as a quantum gates, or even as a cascade of it. Unfortunately in such testbench there are no MOS transistor switches, and you need temparatures close to few Kelvins.
@b43xoit
5 жыл бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/sI2AqZqFr6GUm3Y
@Vodkarh
7 жыл бұрын
I kind of feel like this channel has not found his public yet? Explaining complicated concepts to a large public is hard. But right now, half the text of this video is reminders to not worry for math stuff, other half is math stuff. For example, why mentionning complex numbers if this is only to say that they are not needed for comprehension? Just explain them, a simple way is : they are just like a 2D vector, a two parts number. Or don't mention them. It breaks the fluididy of the explanations. (This is not complaining, just trying to suggess contructivelly, still great job
@executivesteps
2 жыл бұрын
Her endless body gyrations and hand motions make this watchable.
@onlynamelefthere
7 жыл бұрын
a little bit of nit picking: I dont expect that any non-german speaker can pronounce Schrödinger correctly; but for a good scientific standard you should at least write his name right, i.e., with an "ö" instead of an "o".
@profmjm
4 жыл бұрын
Excellent video and I think I am beginning to understand. The very best explanation I have seen so far and I have viewed and read many. Thank you
@bgoggin88
7 жыл бұрын
view 208 and i feel bad for calling this chick bo burnham because i kinda like her. but she still looks like bo yo
@TheMajorpickle01
7 жыл бұрын
aha mate i can totally see it
@pronounjow
7 жыл бұрын
Uncanny resemblance. O.o
@GlukAlex
7 жыл бұрын
But what about those adorable legs ?
@jameshandysam
7 жыл бұрын
Why does she stand with her feet turned inwards so much? I really doubt she's that pigeon-toed and it must be deliberate :/ So annoying
@aaronhauth8880
7 жыл бұрын
Your videos are getting better! Loving the background music.
@colox97
7 жыл бұрын
once i tried the online free IBM quantum computing experience, that gives you 5 qubits and some gates to mess around with, but even with good knowledge in IT it was very difficult to visualize and understand
@badlydrawnturtle8484
7 жыл бұрын
Many people do not know that Schrödinger introduced the thought experiment about a cat in a box in order to illustrate the absurdity of taking a physical interpretation of superposition. For those who want to know Schrödinger's credentials on the subject, among other things, he derived the Schrödinger equation, a central tool for describing the evolution of a quantum system. His position that the superposition and wave function collapse should be taken as mathematical tools rather than literal events was agreed upon by another big name: Einstein. But since it's entertaining to imagine a cat that is both alive and dead, people ignore the wider implications of considering it to be a real thing.
@nonameforyouokpeterrodney9051
6 жыл бұрын
Did you know that an infinite sequence of non-square semiprimes can be generated that can be factored perfectly into its prime-integer factors by using a special one-of-a-kind integer-factorization formula?! There's a You-Tube video that demonstrates this astounding feat!
@yukihorita
7 жыл бұрын
you make me feel that i know math!!! :) btw keep moving your hands like you do, i don't no why but it really calm me down when things are getting complicated and so i can get back on track, finish the video and learn sonething, almost like you are taking us to a step-by-step learning with your hands ^^ thanks a lot, great video about something that i thought i would never understand...
@GregPlummer-o3m
Ай бұрын
Thanks , brilliant explanation, the best I have seen !
@doyakimember
5 жыл бұрын
Is it only spin state that can be used to represent quantum possibilities? isnt there another aspect of physics that can be used to represent these states and harvested for computation? must it be spin state of a nucleus or electron?
@connorleahy2585
7 жыл бұрын
I have a few questions on the difference between classical and quantum computing: How does quantum computing relate to the limits of computing? Limits such as Landauer's Principle and the Berkenstein Bound seem to put clear limits on what computation can be done with a given volume or energy and these limits are measured in bits, not qubits. This seems to imply the universe is classical in its computation (if you were to consider any given interaction between elementary forces to be one or more "computation steps"). If any quantum computation can be equally performed using (possibly many) classical computation steps, does this imply that quantum effects are "under the hood" just complex classical effects? Does this mean quantum computers are ultimately "just" a very clever design for a classical computer with some unusual programming constraints? Would this imply that if a given quantum algorithm is exponentially faster than a classical one, it is simply performing more classical computation steps "under the hood" (by exploiting the "calculations" the universe "uses" for quantum effects) or that a better classical algorithm remains to be found (I distinctly recall that many quantum speed ups over classical algorithms were later reversed once better classical algorithms were discovered)? I probably totally misunderstood something along the line and apologize if the mistake is embarrassingly obvious.
@MusiCaninesTheMusicalDogs
7 жыл бұрын
This is the best quantum computing explanation I've seen! Congratulations for the great video! 👍
@daveaasen
7 жыл бұрын
You should do the mathematics of anyons and topological quantum computers next
@Erkkiboi
7 жыл бұрын
Could we get a whole episode about complex numbers??
@quagmire444
7 жыл бұрын
I wish our government was smart enough to prioritize the budget in such a way that would be investing more in technologies like this. Quantum Computing is going to be a huge part of the future.
@100Belgra
3 жыл бұрын
three Dimensions multiplied by 0.8125 means 3 x 0.8125 = 2.4375 one write six Dimensions multiplied by 0.8125 means 6 x 0.8125 = 4.875 is two write four sides multiplied by 0.8125 means 4 x 0.8125 = 3.25 is three write we subtract 3.25-2.4375 = 0.8125 so three write minus one write = 0.8125 is four write we subtract 4.875-3.25 = 1.625 so two write minus three write we get = 1.625 which is five write. We subtract 2.4375-1.625= 0.8125 so one write minus five write = 0.8125 is six write we add 2.4375+3.25= 5.6875 so one write plus three write we get = 5.6875 which is seven write. (Note: Calculating three Dimensions if doesn't includes opposite Dimensions so two sides are remaining to be included. And value of three Dimensions and four sides could be is 5.6875 ? or we require to calculate 6 Dimensions value 4.875 ? so difference between last two questions is 0.8125 I write ahead) We subtract 5.6875-4.875= 0.8125 so seven write minus two write = 0.8125 is eight write. (Above content I wrote in the previous comment) People other than using 0.8125 for multiplication or division like before still the same value could be made by other ways even like adding or subtracting 0.8125 or connecting other values too same answer comes. 0.8125 comes due to 0.25 x 3.25 means half dimension should be taken 3.25 times so we reach the mid-vlaue is (write B1). And 4.875-3.25 = 1.625 which is five write (two write minus three write) and we get same value by 3.25 means 3.25 multiplied by one Dimension is 3.25 x 0.5 =1.625 is (A1) which means answer is same as five write. (as we saw We subtract 1.625 from 2.4375 so it is 2.4375-1.625 =0.8125 write (B2) so 0.8125 we get so in six write too as 1.625 value is used for subtraction there.) 3.25/4 =0.8125 so 3.25 if made into four parts which divided by 4 sides is 0.8125 (B3) (copy three write) as half-Dimension requires to 3.25 times so if we see same value for sides as sides we don't require we divide means remove sides, so divide by 4 so we get 3.25/4=0.8125 which is (B3). 4 - 3.25= 0.75 so 4 sides minus three write =0.75 is write (A2) (3.25 also comes due to three write like one dimension need to be multiplied by 3.25 which we get this 3.25 value [firstly it is from three write]) 4.875 is six multiplied 0.8125 which means 4.875 is two write. So 4.875/3= 1.625 which means this value is same as five write and also same as [A1] so this is now new number as (A3) 4.875 x 0.5 = 2.4375 which the answer is same as one write, means two write multiplied by one Dimension value which is 2.4375 so (A4). So 2.4375/3 = 0.8125 means (A4)/3 =0.8125 same as one write (B4) 2.4375 + 0.8125 = 3.25 so adding one write plus midvalue of dimensions and sides is same as three write answer value (A5) and 2.4375 - 0.8125 is subtracting one write minus midvalue of dimensions and sides = 1.625 (A6) which this value is same as five write and write (A1) and write (A3) 3.25/4=0.8125 so (A5)/4=0.8125 is (B5) which same as three write. 4.875-0.8125 = 4.0625 as it is three write minus 0.8125= 4.0625(A7) and 5.6875-4.0625 =1.625 as it is (A9) same as five write, which is same as seven write minus (A7) so we get which this value is same as five write and write (A1) and write (A3) and write (A6). WE GET THE VALUE 0.8125 FROM FOUR WRITE, SIX WRITE, EIGHT WRITE when in previous figures to/for these writes 0.8125 figure was used. AND FROM WRITES (B1), (B2), (B3), (B4), (B5) AND FROM (A4) DIVIDED BY 3, (A5) DIVIDED BY 4, WE COME TO KNOW 0.8125 is concerning value to Dimensions and Sides too many ways. Here in this paragraph we get value 0.8125 directly means without using 0.8125 any way before still we get 0.8125 value. It also means my figures on Dimensions and Sides are correct including 0.8125 is the midvalue of Dimensions and Sides we come to know separately in this paragraph as signs of calculations are given for those calculations I showed. Values five write and (A1) ARE SAME, three write and (A3) like (A9) ARE SAME. For more see url forcetravelsinwith.blogspot.com/p/dimensions.html.
@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546
2 жыл бұрын
Learned so much! Thank You. More please.
@jpphoton
7 жыл бұрын
'threatening to measure' speaks to your brilliance aside from that being obvious. The SKINNY right here folks.
@edisonmurairi5483
7 жыл бұрын
This is the best video I have seen this month!
@b43xoit
5 жыл бұрын
Leonard Susskind explains, on KZitem, the simplest quantum calculations, those for the spin on the electron. No infinitesimal calculus required. Just some vector and matrix arithmetic with complex numbers.
@venkatbabu186
5 жыл бұрын
They wanted to increase the processing power usually limited by gate size approx nano. Now they do the same using quantum computing by increasing the number of states for a gate. They are a little bit different than the ordinary microprocessor. The human brain is something like that and that's why they are into this.
@circuitboardsushi
7 жыл бұрын
4 questions: What's the difference between quantum computing and fuzzy logic? Why don't classical computers handle complex numbers (sqrt(-1) = undefined)? What steps are being considered to deal with decoherence (perhaps lower temperatures and system isolation)? Is quantum computing and quantum teleportation related?
@zairaner1489
7 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure what you mean about that complex number comment-ofc the right programm can handle them
@warrenmcclure7819
6 жыл бұрын
Wow shes real beautiful! Also great video, I love what quantum computers can offer and hope one day I can work with one!
@appapurapu
6 жыл бұрын
Its very good lecture on Quantom Computing... Thanks a lot..!
@misrasaurabh1
7 жыл бұрын
Such an amazing mathematical representation described in such a simple way!
@timechopper
5 жыл бұрын
Great vid but I'm missing the main point. The 4-step computation is quickly glossed over so I'm not getting how the quantum step "functions". Matrix and vector algebra in a few dimensions over the complex field is very simple. I'd like to see the quantum step compared with the classical computation of the same step. Extra credit: explain the energy budgets for both approaches.
@fuckoffannoyingutube
7 жыл бұрын
that speech by Su is amazing. thank you for sharing it here :)
@kadlubom
7 жыл бұрын
The idea of quantum computing is based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, if I get this right. But what with other interpretations, like many-worlds interpretation or Bohmian mechanics (the pilot wave theory)? And is randomness related with a quantum state being in superposition rather a problem than a good thing? As far as I know the big thing about computing is that it is more or less deterministic, while here we have no way to avoid randomness...
@KohuGaly
7 жыл бұрын
the only non-deterministic part of the q-computation is the final step of measuring the result (Copenhagen interpretation). The measurement is technically just formation of entanglement. So under many-words interpretation, when you measure the final result, you end up in superposition of states. Under Bohmian mechanics the result of the final measurement was predetermined even before, even though it was not physically possible to measure the starting conditions precisely enough. For practical purposes copenhagen interpretation is good enough, because it's most compatible with our intuition. Bohmian mechanics is close second, but it introduces weird unmeasurable properties which may be distracting you from the core problem. And the many worlds interpretation... well... let's just not go there...
@zairaner1489
7 жыл бұрын
As far as I remember, the point about all of these "interpretations" is that you can not physically distinguish which one is true, so it won't have any influence on your quantum computer whcih interpretation you use.
@frankschneider6156
7 жыл бұрын
+Maciej Kadłubowski Nope, quantum computing is not based upon any specific interpretation. You could do the same with Everett's multiple worlds. Explanation will be different, but the result will be same. Don't forget, that in QM the only thing that is valid is the maths, while all interpretations are just made up fairy tales to explain the weird behavior of nature. Even that psi² equals a probability distribution is an interpretation (although one that fits observation so well, that it must be true). Yes being probabilistic is a problem, but as it is probabilistic and not random, you can determine the distribution function by repeated calculation. So no big deal, especially as ALL data in the real word is also probabilistic. The only part of the universe for which that is not true is maths and logic,
@sulimanibra5332
10 ай бұрын
What if we create parallel universes in maths, unequal numerically, and using digital computers? Controlled by central processor to get result from all universes?
@SarvagyaDwivedi-y3r
3 ай бұрын
Before that we need a manipulative interpretation of our universe
@dynastysong
5 ай бұрын
Best explanation ever...thank you
@KraKra-Ah
5 жыл бұрын
One of the beter video out there to explain quantum computing.
@diwitdharpatitripathi7427
3 жыл бұрын
The mathematical logic of the quantum mechanics and it's functional application in frontier areas of emerging technologies..
@vincentkhang5264
7 жыл бұрын
Omg tysm for this video. My research project is based on this. If you're actually reading this, can you make a part two on quantum computers and the mathematics behind it
@BigTuna711
7 жыл бұрын
I never understood the quantum oracle used in Grover's algorithm. Could you maybe explain what a quantum oracle is?
@generalkitten2100
7 жыл бұрын
finally something explaining why quantum computing works
@TheMrVogue
7 жыл бұрын
Ph.D. in Math candidate Kelsey... One day, I will find you, and woo you. But in all seriousness, I imagine this lady to be quite the nerd heartbreaker.
Пікірлер: 1,4 М.