This speaker is fantastic. A wonderful voice for explanation, and always extremely precise in what he says. Everything I hear him say is what Descartes would have called a "clear and distinct idea".

Regardless of the scientific content, is it just me, or does he seem like a super-likeable person??

More quantum computing videos! Love them.

@itsGeorgeAgain

7 жыл бұрын

Dunno if i'll be able to watch them or not...

@itsGeorgeAgain

7 жыл бұрын

You missed the Quantum physics joke. That it can be either way until you check the state.

@itsGeorgeAgain

7 жыл бұрын

***** i'm not in the us.

@kai45654

7 жыл бұрын

TheRealNaxos seconded

@kimberlyforti7596

7 жыл бұрын

what a horrible joke

"As soon as you look at them." Really... really we should all start at remembering to change that to "as soon as they *interact with something*" as people keep getting "look" muddled up with "person looks" instead of "anything bumps into them". :P

@rafid1998

7 жыл бұрын

TechyBen Finally, I was getting confused

@TechyBen

7 жыл бұрын

Well, I see lots of newspapers report it that way. So hopefully less those informed, and more the problem of the media.

@LoneWolfSama

7 жыл бұрын

Listen to this fella, people

@BrianFrichette

7 жыл бұрын

Precisely. The last thing we need is more anthropocentrism.

@phun309

7 жыл бұрын

But when something "bumps into them", couldn't they just become entangled as well?

Hands down the best explanation I have yet heard. Thank you for making the extremely complex understandable.

@zilog1

2 жыл бұрын

from what ive learned over the years, its all simpler than you think. lots of scientists and groups obscure the rational with an overly complex explanation for the sake of making it seem more wonderful and magical than it is when in reality its just common sense in the end. Theres just so much misunderstanding around these topics its not even funny. and honestly im going to put my tin foil hat on and claim that its done on purpose to keep these things exclusive for marketing reasons. like Computer UIs and interactivity getting so overly simplified that the average person has no idea how computers work any more. its all for the sake of marketing. the less informed you are about how things work the more i can take advantage of you.

one of the best explanations of it ever

Talks intelligently about quantum computing; Writes shor's algorithm in Haskell. I feel that THIS is someone worth listing to about quantum computing.

@nadim4991

7 жыл бұрын

People think that Haskell is a language designed for geniuses or something like that, while it just uses a different programming paradigm. If you start programming with a functional programming language you are not worse of, since there is nothing intrinsically difficult about functional programming. Of course, coming from a imperative background, it might be hard to switch to Haskell or LISP or what have you not, but that can be said the other way around. And I think that is the reason the myth of Haskell being a difficult language originated from: People with imperative programming background being overwhelmed by a different paradigm.

@shitheadjohnson2797

Жыл бұрын

if hes helping you so much, where is your quantum computer then? you didnt get helped that much.

@Gakulon

8 ай бұрын

I am going to help you immensely by tucking you in and giving you a glass of warm milk so you can sleep soundly 💤

I love this area of scientific discovery and exploration. I'm confident we'll both find and not find the answers for which we are looking.

Dr Thorsten Altenkirch? Neat! Can we get some insights into functional programming and Type Theory now? :)

@Vekkq

7 жыл бұрын

you probably know enough already about it. :p

@Kram1032

7 жыл бұрын

Marius Wegner I don't actually have any kind of formal education in these subjects and only slowly learned about various parts of this. I'm still far from any kind of deep understanding. However, even if, as is likely the case, Computerphile won't go into the details about these topics that I'd actually seek, it's a beautiful topic and one that'd probably be of interest to plenty of Computerphile watchers.

@Kram1032

7 жыл бұрын

Artem Borisovskiy Monads really are like burritos :o)

@Vekkq

7 жыл бұрын

Artem Borisovskiy you have a point. computerphile should make one video about functional programming or monads in general. type theory is still kinda hard and not as practical as one might think.

@Kram1032

7 жыл бұрын

Marius Wegner not as practical as one might think? How so?

Good video, I really liked his explanation. I find it interesting, though, that everyone that talks about quantum mechanics tend to choose the interpretation that they like and then tend to talk like that's either the only one or downplay all the others. Most people I've heard talk about the heisenberg interpretation and down play many worlds theory, and this week I heard a completely different "riding-wave" theory. The fact is that there is still too much we don't know, and I think that's presents the biggest reason why simulating a quantum system in a classical system is hard. There might be that "unknown law" that he talks about, and without that "unknown law" I don't see how a classical simulation could be judged as accurate.

It should be noted (and the video doesn't put enough emphasis on this imo), that quantum computing would be extremely faster than classical computing *ONLY FOR CERTAIN PROBLEMS*. A quantum computer wouldn't be faster for playing video games or browsing the web, it would probably be even slower.

@timhuff

7 жыл бұрын

Yea, I see this misunderstanding pretty frequently when people talk about quantum computers. I think when people hear "quantum computers would break RSA" the assumption is "quantum computers are REALLY FRIGGIN FAST". Seems they think it's just a matter increasing the processing speed rather than enabling us to reduce the actual computational complexity of the problem itself. It's a reasonable misunderstanding, and that makes it all the more important that science journalists really drive that point home when talking about it.

@Gooberpatrol66

7 жыл бұрын

there are quantum algorithms for finding items in lists, something regularly used in programs, so yes, they could speed up your applications.

@timhuff

7 жыл бұрын

Nathan Dehnel looking something up in a list is already O(log(n)). Furthermore, for most applications, n stays in the range of millions (or fewer). A faster lookup wouldn't be meaningful for general computing. This would be like saying "we have a super fast way to crack eggs so now we can bake a cake in half the time"

@Gooberpatrol66

7 жыл бұрын

Tim Huff Depends whether the data is sorted or not.

@timhuff

7 жыл бұрын

Nathan Dehnel yea, but sorting itself is O(nlog(n)) and only needs to be done once (if at all - maintaining a sorted list is cheap). The point is, you could make all lookups instantaneous and it wouldn't have a meaningful impact on general application speed

Thanks, finally a video about Quantum computing that actually provides information (&links!) about the algorithms, not just the qubits :)

This reminds me of the old Far Side comic where some cows are standing around on two legs talking in a field. Then one says "car!" and they are all on all fours eating grass as the car drives by.

This guy is so german :D

@haakonvt

7 жыл бұрын

WannaBeMLG Ya!

I'm studying Computer Scienece at Nottingham University next year, Can't wait! Please make more Quantum Computing videos, its so hard to find good videos from real professors on the topic.

why cant the guy hold a camera? or use a tripod? or do some stabilization?

@wattage

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you. And all the rapid, unnecessary zooms. Really distracting. I love the content, but the camerawork, well, needs work. Or yeah... a friggin tripod. C'mon...

@arthurvaiselbuh616

7 жыл бұрын

Damn you I read this comment half way through the video, didnt even notice the shaking before, now its making me nauseous.

He has to be german

@dexter9313

7 жыл бұрын

No scheiße Sherlock !

@SinandLerd

7 жыл бұрын

Quantum Computing. Das ist gut!

@LivingArtifice

7 жыл бұрын

He is, he's a Professor of Computer Science at Nottingham Uni :)

@noredine

7 жыл бұрын

no he's obviously not german , he's Professor Dr Thorsten Altenkirch

@matsv201

7 жыл бұрын

Hi might be Austrian or even Swizz.... (but i highly doubt the last alternative)

Cool, more on the simulated quantum computer library would be nice!

I thought "Is he German?" Then I looked at his name, which made me happy :) His accent is really strong though I still like him :) (I am German)

@paxpacis2

7 жыл бұрын

Same here loö

@maartentbm

7 жыл бұрын

Dae4ever I read "Than I..." and I thought you were native English, because in one's native language, people often don't think about grammar anymore, but then you wrote you're German as well :$ Anyway, it should be "Then". "Than" is used to compare stuff. "Then" to state an order in which things happen(ed). (I am Dutch)

@TheDSProfi

7 жыл бұрын

Oh yeah, thank u :)

@maartentbm

7 жыл бұрын

Dae4ever Gerne ;)

Debugging a quantum computer cannot be fun...

@riccardoorlando2262

7 жыл бұрын

Well, we already have code that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, and that is so complicated and spaghettified as to be basically a black box, so how can it get any worse?

@nnaaaaaa

7 жыл бұрын

that analogy doesn't work, you can debug classical computing programs, it's just really really hard, not impossible. quantum seems like it's not possible to fully debug since you can't look at the state.

@Fiercesoulking

7 жыл бұрын

You can look at the last state but for resmung you have to run the program all over again.

@teekanne15

7 жыл бұрын

well isn't the art then, to write the program in such a way that it makes use of this ever changing state? I mean that's why we want quantum computers in the first place, to have unsolvable encryption

@jessstuart7495

7 жыл бұрын

You cannot observe the internal state without destroying the quantum-interactions that the quantum computation is based on. You might be able to deliberately interact with the system in some ways that would give you some hint about how the system is configured, but that is about it. No single-stepping through quantum code I'm afraid.

I either 45% or 80% understood the contents of this video.

@Zorn101

6 жыл бұрын

I understood it I used magic!

@andrewgervais3039

6 жыл бұрын

Or, both 40% AND 80%, as long as you don't look within to decipher which amount of understanding you really have! :-P

@crazyspace3913

4 жыл бұрын

I watched you while you were watching the video. You actually only 45% understood this video.

@roy04

3 жыл бұрын

@@crazyspace3913 In my observation, he understood 80%

@kamilien1

3 жыл бұрын

You mean you either full or not at all understood the contents of this video, and sometimes both at the same time.

Hoped you've had mentioned the IBM project. They offer a kind of quantum language, a visualisation of said language (actually the process can be done both ways), a great tutorial on quantum algorithms and programming, simulated results and for the most important part: They schedule your program upon demand on an available processing slot on their actual 5qubit processor. It's free to study and can easily sign up using your IBM, Google or Github account.

Oh shat dschörman äckzent, I laik it

The double slit becomes interpretable as soon as you start to think about it as „at which slit did the electron not bump into other particles?“ The obvious answer is: both!

All this quantum stuff looks like optimizations someone did to the supercomputer that runs the simulation of our universe.

Videos such as this always seem to avoid the mechanics of how a quantum computer 'runs a program'. Is there a conventional set of instructions which get passed through the qbits as though they were acting as a conventional register or is it more like the qbits are running along side a conventional processor that makes calls to it, like grabbing a random number from a RdRand?

@braincruser

7 жыл бұрын

Steve Gould This is the process: 1. you setup the qbits, some will be 1 or 0, some will be in a superposition ex 20:80 superposition. 2. you do quantum operations, ex multiplication, adition. These will change the states of the qbits. (ex. if you do multiplication of two 1qbit numbers 20:80 and 40:60 you would get 30:70, its basically operation with probabilities) once you do the quantum operations, you have qbits in specific states, some are 1s other are 0s, and many are inbetweens like 70:30 chance etc. (If you measure it now, you will get random values for the inbetween bits with 70% chance of 1 and 30% chance of 0) so far you have an unreliable computer that gives you the correct answer some % of the time, and its no more efficient than a normal computer. 3. you do amplitude amplification, this is the quantum magic part. this is where you get the efficiency. this takes the 70:30 and multiplies it with itself, so it will become either 97:3 or 49:51 depending on what way you need the multiplication to go(algorithm decided this), you repeat this 5-10 times and you get something like 1 in trilion chance of getting the wrong result. 4. Now that the randomness is killed, you measure the qbits and verify the result on a normal computer.

@vibs6991

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks Man !! This explains a lot

@WoWOmegor

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks I finally have some basic understand of how we measure the qubits after using them. I suspected we took several measurement of the same system to get and "average"

@riccardoorlando2262

7 жыл бұрын

Well, in most cases once you have an answer it's easy to test whether it is correct or not, so even if you get unlucky and hit the one in a hundred false result, you can easily check. Think of factoring number: it is easy to check whether a given number is a factor of another given number: you just divide and check if you get an integer.

@braincruser

7 жыл бұрын

WoWOmegor The amplitude amplification part is key. Without that part you have nothing. You have no way of extracting more information than a random guess. Even if you took average values 1000s of times, it will be the same as if a normal computer tried 1000 posibilities, just in random order.

So quantum computing is a little like cold fusion? Functional in a perfect system, just impossible to engineer?

@TaiiwoLlort

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, with the difference being that we can never know if the perfect system we have in mind would ever actually work, because we're never allowed to look at how it works. Imagine trying to make a clock, but every time you try to check if the hands are moving at the right speeds, the clock always stops working. We have to come up with a design that's so perfect that we can know it works without ever checking, which if you've ever written code, you'll know is a miracle...

@TechyBen

7 жыл бұрын

So far, we don't know. We have to scale it up to find out. So unlike Cold Fusion, which currently goes against known observations, a large scale Quantum Computer has not yet been tested to know either way. So far observations of quantum systems in general have found no upper size limit... but only got to the size of a small grain of diamond as far as I know.

@Unassuming_Gay

7 жыл бұрын

Also pretty sure we have been building actual cold fusion reactors. They might not be efficient, but they *are* cold fusion reactors. :)

@Pyriold

7 жыл бұрын

Don't say cold fusion is impossible to engineer. At the moment there are several groups around getting interesting results. While it's certainly not trivial, it doesn't seem to be impossible.

@badmanjones179

7 жыл бұрын

well you could listen to the ticks of the clock, but theres a chance this analogy doesnt extend that far and still apply to quantum stuff, if you get what im trying to say

Quantum Physics: Getting Trolled by Nature

More of this topic. Can't get enough.

Ya?

Can you make video about DNA Computer ?

Thank you so much for this video. The best explanation is this because he is know this staff! he does not read from a script! It is easy for him and makes it easy for us to understand!

I like the honesty to say that it is unknown whether there are any fundamental obstructions against creating large scale coherent quantum systems. It might be there is some such thing, maybe of statistic nature similarly to the second law of thermodynamics. If say it were to require, in order to prevent de-coherence, an energy that grows proportional to the exponentially increasing number of superposed states in large systems, then that would probably put any practical application beyond our grasp. But I think there is vastly more effort invested on the assumption that quantum computation will turn out to be feasible than to research the possibility of a fundamental obstruction against it.

They recently took the first ever photo of light behaving both as a wave and a particle! You should do a video on that.

@TheRumpletiltskin

7 жыл бұрын

phys(.)org/news/2015-03-particle.html (delete the parenthesis)

It seems to me that to crack quantum computing we would be directly harnessing the raw processing power of the computer in which our universe simulation is running, and I suspect the programmer(s) may have made it very hard to crack! :)

it's our boy, Altenkirch!

you show something on the whiteboard, s it must be asked. WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

The universe is the product of consciousness. Dualism seems to be the fundamental purpose of Superposition and Quantum entanglement.Once you observe one particle in a state the other particle is in the opposite state.

Is it possible to get a 'real' random number with a quantum processor? So, not like the current pseudo rand() in c c++ java...

@Kaepsele337

7 жыл бұрын

Yes. In fact, if all you want to do is generating random numbers you can already by such processors.

@ITR

7 жыл бұрын

Why would you want that though...?

@OliverONeill

7 жыл бұрын

Cryptography mostly

@johnnydeep7089

7 жыл бұрын

Currently the quantum process of radioactive decay is used to generate truly random numbers

@ITR

7 жыл бұрын

Nopiw "Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, regardless of how long the atom has existed." From Wikipedia about Radioactive Decay

can you explain how discription code language works ? like transfering the zeros and ones to the coding languages

Very interesting video! It really helped me in my understanding of quantum computing.

Very informative especially the idea that if you look at qbits they behave like particles instead of waves.

Quantum computing is incredibly interesting. I feel like it's one of the first things physicists simulate after learning some (advanced) quantum.

can not view code: "No access to directory. The Computer Science web server is available to current Computer Science Staff and Research students. If you believe you are seeing this message in error, please contact the support team."

more content from this dude, he is a pleasure to watch.

schrodinger's bit

We could have cracked this during lockdown. There were 1000s of home working computers that were on from 9-5 and completely unobserved. 😉

This guy might be my favorite person of all time. Chomsky? Russell? Scrubs. Give me some of that Altenkirch.

i think it is not about 'looking' but about measure, which by definition changes state of a particle superposition.

It doesn't endear faith when the people trying to figure out quantum computing pick Haskell to implement their quantum simulation library.

@talideon

7 жыл бұрын

Jay Jeckel, you're assuming that it'd even be worthwhile to make it available in a more 'conventional' language. Besides, if Haskell gives him the abstractions he needs to implement it, more power to him. Besides, Haskell isn't all that hard.

Even if decoherence has to occur at large scale entanglement- it DOES NOT mean that nature is classical. The measurement problem would be 'solved', yes. But there are no classical explainations for the particular way that quantum states are after they decohere. We cannot predict the outcome after decoherence. The observer is not special. The entanglement of large systems goes classical. That actually aligns with the Everettian interpretation.

Sät Denglisch sough!

If I could trouble the better-informed on quantum mechanics with a question: I understand that the act of observing a quantum system causes the superposition property to essentially be lost (Is this waveform collapse? Decoherence? Resolution? I'm still learning the terminology)--the wave now behaves like a particle. What does it mean to "observe" a quantum system in these scenarios? What specific actions are taken upon quantum system? I saw from IBM's videos on the topic and it was explained that (in their systems, at least) microwave pulses apply constructive interference that change qubit state as well as entangle two or more qubits. Is something similar happening in order to measure/observe the quantum system? Please feel free to correct anything I may have gotten wrong. :-)

The fact that something behaves one way and just the act of measuring it forces it to act differently is mind melting. You know something is black and when you look at it, it becomes white. Or it is not black or white, but when you measure it the act of measuring forces it one way or the other. That almost is proof of intelligent design IMHO. Think about that, and you will agree. If you don't agree, I will be upset. Be nice and agree! lol

@fritt_wastaken

5 жыл бұрын

I totally disagree. So please be very upset until you stop making premature conclusions on matters you don't understand, jeez

@valuedhumanoid6574

5 жыл бұрын

@@fritt_wastaken That's the wonder of KZread. We can state our OPINIONS, throw in a little humor and see what happens. Sorry to have upset you with my OPINION (notice how I capitalize OPINION to emphasize the word. I am so clever)

I was just getting ready to ask if it could be simulated at the end but you beat me to it!

A particle surrounded by a wave. The wave of the particle going trough the double slit creates an interference pattern and the particle follows it randomly. Trying to "see or measure" it disrupt the wave and the particle acts as a particle.

Quantum Hackers..... one day...

@adelarscheidt

7 жыл бұрын

Não.

@blanklein221

7 жыл бұрын

Use quantum computers to decrypt important government stuff

If the pilot-wave theory is right then what would that mean for the future of quantum computing ?

@DinosaurFromFuture

7 жыл бұрын

Nothing different. Pilot wave theory still allows quantum superposition and entanglement.

Off-topic: it seems that youtube doesn't like 50fps video... I have to change it to 480p in order to avoid video lag.

I thought IBM was working on a prototype quantum machine.... OS and all. Has this changed?

@formelekandscreen

7 жыл бұрын

Source?

@seigeengine

7 жыл бұрын

You missed the point. It isn't about whether it's possible to have qubits, it's about whether it's possible to build a system that's actually a functional computer that can accomplish meaningful things.

@renatonascimento9306

7 жыл бұрын

if they had the technology to build the complexity of an OS, they would be able to break into any system protected by RSA :P

@toymachine4253

6 жыл бұрын

The Real Maxis Google. Actually, I think they've built or bought some, too.

I've recently heard about the Pilot Wave Theory. Should take a look into it.

@DinosaurFromFuture

7 жыл бұрын

It's from 1927

funny that you talk about quantum computing and there's the second degree polynomial formula on the whiteboard :p. one would hope scientists of this caliber know these by heart haha.

@ThorstenAltenkirch

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, but even we scientists may do A-level maths with their son in their office. :-)

His mother language is German, I think.

@BeHappyTo

7 жыл бұрын

Oh, really? What could possibly make you think that?

May I put to the person in the video and idea that I have had. At the beginning he talks about how particles move in the duble slit experiment. He talks about how they behave like waves but as soon as you put detectors on the slits they behave like particles. My thought is what if the wave like behaviour is in fact a manifestation of the way Space/Time is effected by the movement of the particle. So in fact when we observe the wave like effects what we are seeing is space/time moving like water moves when a boat moves though it. Is this and interesting thought?

So, its basically like distance graphic optimization in games, whenever you move towards or interact with smth it gets clear and when you turn your back its becomes a Cybertruck!

@IDK-kv8ob

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly my point doodt

I wonder how it's possible to not interact with a particle if there is gravity. Gravity might be extremely insignificant on this mass to distance ratio but it's shouldn't ever be absolute zero between any two particles with mass, right? How is it that gravity isn't collapsing every wave function?

@DinosaurFromFuture

7 жыл бұрын

Beware! You're trying to blend gravity and quantum mechanics together :) The question of knowing if gravity should be considered as an interaction (in the particle physics way) is not settled yet, as no "gravity boson" or "gravity quantum field" as been proven to exist.

@Winchestro

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the answer. With "gravity quantum field" you mean like "regular gravity on smaller scale"? I always thought gravity is just so insignificant for QM, not that something else entirely is needed because QM actually violates it.

i am not able to digest the fact that just by watching the experiment can change the outcome of the experiment...

@mouwersor

6 жыл бұрын

It's not by watching it, but by measuring it

I think Quantum Computing concept is a mix of Huygens and Newton idea. The duality of light as wave or particle.

I don't mean to be rude, but some subtitles would really help with this gentleman.

About the double slit experiment: Isn't it more likely that the measuring device alters the electrons behaviour than that the electron "magically" knows that it's being watched?

@ThorstenAltenkirch

7 жыл бұрын

No it isn't that the electron "knows" but that you determine in what universe you are. You can try to be clever and design indirect measurements - the outcome is always the same: once you know the outcome there are no more waves.

@TiagoTiagoT

7 жыл бұрын

+Alexej Gerstmaier "Observed" is a very unfortunate terminology that stuck, it really just means "interacted with". It is impossible to sense (in the sensor sense) something without interacting with it; the sensor becomes part of the system being sensed. The two things you said are actually the same thing, but the second version has been anthropomorphized.

@alexejgerstmaier4989

7 жыл бұрын

How do we now that a measuring device that doesn't alter the electrons behaviour won't be invented?

great explanation, great accent :3

does anyone have a link to information on nondestructive measurement of photons and its effects on quantum interference?

Something is still written in Pascal? That brings back memories! My view is that the magical ability of quantum computing to instantly solve O(2^n) problems is of itself the proof that ultimately the universe *is* classical at the large scale and that such solutions are impossible. The double-slit experiment itself is proof that you can't fool the universe, and you can't fool it into accidentally cracking the ultimate hard task in mathematics.

@paulahulme

7 жыл бұрын

haskell language

i think its like that. people who work on quantum computer are going to be in the history books, and people who aren't working on quantum computer wont bein those books. And these people who don't work on quantum computers say that oh we don't know if its actually a quantum computer, it might be just classical computer. Let's just stay with classical computer, let's stay at the same level. It's like envy i feel from many people.

His such a geek! I love it!

Now do one on homotopy type theory!

Inspected the CSS on that Quantum IO Monad page. It's screaming at me.

I do love to get my mind fried ~ great vid guys.

why am I so fasinated with this man.....

Can someone finally explain what physicians understand under the word "Observe". Because clearly it is not just someone sitting there and watching. A machine continues to work without a human watching. The words watching and observe therefore are misleading and not the real thing that is going on. So what actually causes Quantum states to realize? Interaction between matter? Or what?

@Unassuming_Gay

7 жыл бұрын

What they meant by observe is any other particle bumping into your system. All methods of human detection rely on particles bumping into each other. The moment one of our senses detects any quantum system, it gets the shitters.

@DinosaurFromFuture

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, "observation" means "interaction". Nothing more.

@Para199x

7 жыл бұрын

Physicists. A physician is a medical doctor.

@braincruser

7 жыл бұрын

L0LWTF1337 If anything interacts with the particle other than what you intended to happen, that is observation. so if you have an electron, as long as nothing sends or receives a photon with that electron, that electron is unobserved. the moment _anything_ interacts with it, that electron is observed. Also, to do an observation, both the observer and the observed particle have a chance to interact, lets say you put a 50% transparent film on the double slit experiment. You just did a 50% observation, and 50% of photons will interfere with eachother, the other 50% won't.

@you_tube618

7 жыл бұрын

"Observation" is a useful analogy. All results in quantum mechanics can be explained without the concept.

As far as the not-knowing part goes: I do believe that one can build a large quantum system that solves a problem but I also believe that it is not possible to efficiently program a quantum computer.

I think analog computation and neural networks would be useful in this context. if the answer is either 3 or 5 that means that this computer computes chances of things happening. the result is like 'im 20% sure X is the answer and im sure 80% sure Y is the answer.' thats kinda what a neural network gives an an answer.

I don't have all the computations but I can predict precisely!

We really need CC on this guys.

@4.0.4

7 жыл бұрын

avts I wish all science videos had CC, it makes it easy for translators. That said ze English of ze German zientist iz fine. It's a cute accent!

Wow, physics I don't intuitively understand, that's quite scary to tell the truth. This is pretty cool overall, I just hope whoever gets this power uses it responsibly.

Is there a followup to this video now that the D-WAVE is finished?

I'm only 2 minutes in and I am pretty high but this makes so much sense if you think of the two parallel universes as the one that exists regardless of life to experience it, and the one we experience based on the sum of our combined senses. Since we're limited by our senses, our version of the universe isn't reality, and that could explain why they act like particles when we look at them and waves when we don't. They really are in a parallel universe when we observe them. Since this universe is in our mind, and our brain is made of particles, mustn't there be some limiting factor there? And if we could make a machine that observes them in a way that our senses don't how could we interpret that information? That sounds to me like trying to understand how a cat thinks or something. I'm gonna finish the video and hope some of this is answered, I'm just here because he looks like THE ONE AND NO LONGER ONLY PIE!

A qubit has a variable amplitude somewhere between your elbow and the tip of your finger.

A q-bit isn't necessarily "between zero and one" in the same way as a unit interval. That's kind of misleading. It's rather "between zero and one" like you are currently somewhere "between the North- and South-pole" on a sphere. Ours is called Earth, whereas the q-bit one is called a Bloch sphere.

Toni Erdman, Consultant, Coach, Computer Scientist

I'm from Germany myself and DAMN this guy doesn't care about pronunciation at all! :D

i mean, i thought we had generally settled on the pilot wave interpretation of quantum behavior? you know, a particle sending waves ahead of itself and interfering with itself as it moves around the world, those waves being the fluctuations in the electron field, therefore, its both a wave and a particle because the particle causes the wave.

I have a one question professor Can quantum computer compute next week lottery numbers, I want to use it for my evil plans

Epic explanation. Love that guy!

Nice video! How about one about photonic computing next?

so you are saying all of my print statements littering my code for error checking are not going to be forward compatible in quantum computing.

What about the no-teleportation theorem? Quantum state cannot be converted into classical bits. So, what does this say for your classical simulation of a quantum computer if you cannot convert quantum state into classical bits?

@UnknownPerson-wg1hw

3 жыл бұрын

the idea is you collapse the states into either 1 or 0 (the classical bits) by measuring it.

Can computerphile do a type theory episode with Thorsten?

Great video. Although it is such a shame that everyone here instinctively tries to stigmatize the speaker, rather than actually discuss what the man has to say...

Nice video, although I still cannot wrap my head around how a qubit knows if it is being observed or not

@Aziraphale686

7 жыл бұрын

There is a lot of baggage that comes with the word "observe". Generally when people hear that word they think that a conscious observer is necessary, when in reality decoherence happens whenever you have an interaction of two sufficiently large quantum systems. Like the professor said, it's not known exactly how big a system can be before it stops exhibiting quantum behaviour and starts acting classical, or if that's even the right question to ask, but no "observer" is necessary.