This is the future that is envisioned and set in the original Star Trek and TNG Star Trek universe. Personally, I believe it is either that future or we are condemned to hit a great filter and become self-extinct. There is no middle ground.
That sounds like exactly what the Nova Music Festival attendees probably thought. Unfortunately, there has to be enough of us holding the line so that others of us can live in peace.
Seth Lloyd is indeed one of the most relevant physicists today! His work in quantum computing is pioneering, especially with algorithms that harness the strange yet powerful properties of quantum mechanics. His insights have the potential to reshape not just computing, but many fields of science.
@SPVLaboratories 🙃🫣... Well je kriminal is convicted... for the crime he got what he deserve. Maybe religious people will forgive and won't judge, but legal system is legal system... For religious believe just like hippocrates oath... first do no harm. World need more good samaritans spirits... ❤️ peace. Maybe if the more samaritans spirits, people that notice will come earlier.. Anyway justice was done, he was guilty.
I'm new to this field... no major background in physics or maths but have a degree in Computer Science. As such it's my first experience of Seth. He's clearly great at putting ideas across, but what struck me is how similar he looks to the scientist in the original Independencd Day movie! Theg were spot on with casting!
Brian . As usual, brilliant, eloquent and simplified for people like us. By the way, do you keep track of how many times you take off and wear your glasses..
If you can break something down that clear, you got it. And I understood that QC trades one problem for another: yes, Qbits feature superposition, but you’re ending up with quasilions of solutions and now you gotta figure out which one is the right one
You’ve got it! Quantum computing does introduce a new layer of complexity with superposition, where you can have a vast number of potential solutions, but the real challenge lies in ‘collapsing’ to the correct one. The trick is developing algorithms that effectively sift through these probabilities-it's a completely different way of computing compared to classical computers!
Yup. If you remember the double-slit experiment where the photons creates an interference pattern. Quantum computing is orchestrating an interference pattern that cacels out wrong answers and amplifies right answers.
Brian - I first began listening to you when I bought Fabric of the Cosmos on iTunes and listened to it on my iPod click-wheel while biking during my undergrad (circa 2006ish). I can't thank you enough for doing these WSF presentations and making them available to everyone for free!
String theorists in general get smack from certain people such as Eric Weinstein who r salty n claim that their theories aren't being listened to (because they don't provide accuracies and predictions akin to ST). But I haven't seen any hate directed to Brian specifically.
I was watching a video on Tensors. At the end of the video, the UA-cam algorithm auto-selected this video, but not at the beginning, it went to a point toward the end that perfectly answered a question I had in my mind about Quantum computing completely overriding all other less useful information. Almost as though the background AI search algorithms are leading us to an actual Quantum computational state by natural progression.😃 I like it!
Make the slit stage out of 1 to 5 atom layer thick sheets of graphine and the wave pattern will reduce or vanish. You will have a 2 slit pattern. Here's why. In stage 1 of the experiment: the electrons are already ommiting with randomly different vectors out of the cathode. As they hit the inner treshold of the edges of the slits on the plate in stage 2: they ricochet into different vectors, and either fail to enter the slits opening; or they enter the slit at an angle [having reflected off the imperfect inner edge of the slits opening] they then ricochet off the inner sides of the slits like tennis balls in a tunnel. As they exit the slit(tunnel) they have one; of a finite number of trajectories. This is what creates the wave like interference pattern on the screen. The relatively blank spaces between the bands of particles on the screen is geometricly correspondent to the width of the slits in the plate, the range from the plate, and the limited number of trajectories out of the slit that lead to the screen. Simply ricochets.
I am not an specialist but I think 100 to 900 years in qubits could be possible to have and be able to use and benefit the completely full potential of the result on quantum mechanics in the quantum computer. I am positive, I would love to work to make that possible even sooner! Thank you for the information.🙏🏽
Wow, although i didn't understand a bit in start but i really got engaged with the beautiful explanation to all those questions, doubts and probabilities.
That’s exactly how quantum stuff works! At first, it’s like trying to learn a new language where nothing makes sense, but then you get hit with that 'aha!' moment. Once you grasp even a tiny part of it, you can’t help but dive deeper. Glad you stuck with it-quantum can be such a fascinating rabbit hole once you get engaged.
It was great to see that the guest did not commit to answering ANY question directly. The most complex problem solved with Q compute is a child's division problem. That is all. If they had anything more to show, they would be dancing to heaven with it. I hate it that QM computer people and, in fact, most of the physics community is so dishonest. The fact that their coherence times are still low and that quantum memory is yet to be implemented are just "details" according to them. The problem is that once one community makes it a norm to make egregiously outrageous claims of success or promise of solving problems in unreasonable timeframes, other communities follow sut since funding comes from the same aggregate. This has vitiated the whole academic research system.
Honestly, I would have to agree with everything Seth said except I don't believe that these computers might never be as useful as we hope. I believe that we'll see the Technological Singularity within 5 to 15 years. I also don't believe that memory is an issue. I believe that the quantum state alone can be used as the memory and if external quantum memory/quantum RAM is necessary then it really is only just a detail that we don't yet have it.
Correct. I am sure the speakers are aware that it was early 19th (and not 20th) century when Young contributed that important milestone. I wonder if they were referring to the same experiment performed with electrons entities that were considered particles rather than waves at the beginning of 20th century?
i love Doc Brown, such a smart man and his playful sense of humour makes the information a little more accessible, sometimes. Enjoyed that presentation
Absolutely-Seth Lloyd is brilliant, but as with any emerging technology, we do need to be cautious about overhyping quantum computing’s capabilities. The field has immense potential, but there are still significant hurdles to overcome, like error correction and qubit stability. As for Brian Greene, his clarity and passion are unparalleled when it comes to explaining physics!
Love these science events, love these discussions and more importantly we all Love ❤️ Brian. For me he's the best science communicator today. Better than Susskind, degrasse Tyson and even Sean ..I forget his last name.
Feynman said no one understands QM, because Hilbert space is so vast. The real problem is how does infinite complexity can rearrange its sequence of actions when determinism is partly satisfied and partly reality remains probabilistic. As for life and consciousness, infinite lotteries were won in a row.
Agreed! The graphics really help bring the abstract concepts to life, and the host asks the kinds of questions that make the subject feel approachable. It’s a powerful combination when explaining something as challenging as quantum computing.
Quantum computing can calculate the mass of the proton in real time in every water molecule twice, which requires on the order of 1e16 or more classical computations. ;-) The only question is whether we can make this programmable, not how powerful it is.
There is problem with two slit experiment: 1) the photon source that shoots 2) the two slits 3) the receiver board 4) the measuring device All these variables. How accurate they are. 1) The source that shoots photons: does this shoot straight? What is the effect of air molecules interacting with one photon at a time? 2) two slits: how thin are they? What happens photos touch edges of slits? 3) no issues here 4) device that observes photon : how does this work?
@@glennet9613pick up a physics book and youll find out... A 40 minute talk isnt going to teach you quantum mechanics... Been there done that it takes time and effort
1) photon path can be manipulated 2) varying stardards are use to build up a calibrated scale but that makes it vary the reading of photons. My theory is divergence 3) 4) fluorescence screens light up when hit by photons
Excellent discussion. But noise of often completely ignored. When you 300 qbits you have to do a ton of reruns and ‘error correction’ so you really have very very few real bits. Until this noise issue is solved
at 16:26 there is something that struck me.... there are waves always everywhere and the particle just rides these waves and gets detected at a specific location..
Quantum computing holds immense promise, potentially revolutionizing fields from cryptography to material science. However, while the hype suggests we're on the brink of a quantum revolution, the reality is that many challenges such as error rates and qubit stability remain unsolved. Are we truly close to realizing the full potential of quantum computing, or is the excitement outpacing the technological advances needed for practical, scalable solutions?
I can't remember where I heard it but I remember hearing that technological advancements in quantum computing are developing at an exponential rate. With that said it's becoming more evident that AI could help us with this endeavor.
Spot on! While the hype surrounding quantum computing is exciting, the reality is that we’re still facing significant challenges, such as error rates and qubit coherence times. The technology holds incredible promise, but the path to scalable, practical quantum computers is still a work in progress. It’s an exciting field to follow as researchers continue to push boundaries!
You may imagine bowmen are shooting their arrows to a target. If they are shooting arrows to the target an arrow in every 15 minutes. The arrows may hit the center more, but if they shoot an arrow in every 20 seconds, then the arrows may hit randomly around the center. I may think the conditions from the paths and source are making a patterns. This concept may apply to every things in the universe. It is really hard to keep movements consistently because the conditions are continuing to change any moment.
I love this analogy! It really does capture how patterns can emerge in complex systems, even when things appear random. The universe is full of shifting variables, and it’s fascinating how this principle echoes across different scales.
This was a great talk about Quantum computer and its algorithmic functions. I watched it 3 times to understand little about Quantum computer. Professor Brian Greene asked some great questions but the answers weren't convincing. Quantum mechanics and Quantum entanglement have big role in Qubits algorithm. Quantum entanglement which was spooky action for great Albert Einstein, but His General Relativity also interacts with modern Particle Physics to predict theory of Single Graviton Particle which is outstanding. The Single Graviton Particle is completely different from other particles. It is million times powerful than all other observable particles. The entire gravity force has only one particle and that's the Single Graviton Particle which controls entire Earth's gravitational force and Its objects not to collide with one another. Its mass, energy, light and power is beyond the imagination. A beautiful article can be written about theory of Single Graviton Particle to predict Its energy density and functions. Professor Brian Greene said well" you don't need to calculate the number, you need to understand the dynamical process"
Very insightful! Quantum entanglement is indeed a critical aspect of quantum computing, and its implications in algorithms are vast. I love how you tied Einstein’s "spooky action at a distance" to the modern search for the graviton. There's still so much to explore in the quantum realm!
If you think of everything as fields, and "particles" as excited areas of a field, then things are still confusing, but not quite as confusing. Plus our brains are quantum computers! Our brains use a lot of shortcuts to process information, quantum mechanically, for us to understand. As our brains evolve, along w/ technology, we'll have a better, and eventually even complete, understanding of what happens at the quantum level. Considering we continue to have the ability to evolve/advance at any rate. If you take all of that into account, just remember, I'm not a physicist, even though physics is my favorite thing! 🍻
No really. With classical random fields, you would only have to distinguish between thermal and Lorentz-invariant noise. Quantum computers are continuous systems and will never be fully error corrected. We knew this by the 30s. It's like these guys have never investigated the standard model.
Our brains are classical meat computers, definitely not quantum computers. My brain can't even multiply 4.123 x 12.582 without a piece of paper. It definitely isn't processing with bazillions of Q bits.
I love the enthusiasm! Thinking of particles as excited areas of fields does clear up some of the mystery, but quantum mechanics is still a mind-bender. And you’re right about our brains being incredibly powerful information processors-it’s almost poetic that we’re using our own quantum systems to understand the quantum world. Maybe one day we’ll figure it out, but for now, we’re just chipping away at the surface. Keep geeking out on physics-it’s how we evolve too!
The brain itself is too big to be entirely quantum but all chemical processes are in the end a combination of quantum effects and statistical processes. When you talk about many molecules, you are at a level where you look at rates. If quantum effects played too much a role in the brain to make it fancy the brain and the body would be way more fragile. On the other hand the biochemistry itself takes quantum effects into account but only on a level of chemical reactions. In the end the question is - when you have many reactions at the same times probability turns into rates. Let's say quantum mechanics allows for different reactions happening at the same time and you get certain probabilities for them. Yet to have resilience in a physical world you need tons of redundancy. Seeing the body as a big chemical machine if individual quantum effects were so strong that it would strongly influence decisions then the human body and mind would be incredible fragile. It already is incredible fragile compared to most stable chemical structures due to its complexity but still has amazing repair mechanisms. What I mean is the following - you have to distinguish between all the fancy spooky stuff in quantum information that allows for more information storage and processing, quantum randomness, classical randomness and quantum chemistry. Quantum chemistry describes how small reaction mechanisms look like and some of those effects may play a part. But this is just normal physics, that chemistry is quantum, is old and known. If you want to look at the fancy stuff in quantum information you need to look at very isolated systems. Entanglement in systems as complex as biochemical systems might play some role but it still is rather neglectable compared to the complexity of the system as a whole. If your brain was a quantum computer somehow you could not live. So for forming new synapses in the brain I'd rather bet on statistical mechanics combined with some optimizations by quantum chemistry.
Yeah, it's easy to feel like quantum computing can get wrapped up in the hype sometimes. It’s such a wild frontier! But I think that’s what makes it exciting too-there’s so much potential, but also a lot we’re still trying to figure out. The key is balancing that sense of wonder with some healthy skepticism.
Seth Lloyd truly is a genius. His work on quantum computation has pushed the boundaries of what we thought possible, and his ability to communicate these ideas in such a fascinating way makes him a standout. We’re lucky to have minds like his working on these cutting-edge technologies.
That’s such a deep thought. As AI continues to evolve, distinguishing between machines and reality becomes more important than ever. It’s a delicate balance, but with the right ethical approaches and pure intentions, hopefully, we can navigate this new era thoughtfully and responsibly.
A single electron itself only form a single spot. The interference pattern is a property of a collection of dots produced by many electrons in the collection. Thus wave nature, if at all, is only exhibited by the collection, so DSE does not say that a single electron is a wave. It may be riding a terrain established by a latent, standing probability wave that is a function of configuration of distances in the experiment. Bohmian mechanics proposes existence of such a wave which is separate from the electron itself. For example if we keep changing the distances in the experiment, for every electron, the pattern may disappear altogether. or become fuzzier.
Great point! Bohmian mechanics does suggest that the wave guiding the electron is distinct. It adds an interesting perspective on how particles interact with probability waves, particularly in setups like the double slit experiment.
Hmm, the title of this video is contributing to the Hype, since out of 44 minutes, only the last 2-3 minutes are about the reality that large scale quantum computers might not be constructed EVER.
The power of quantum computing comes from it's ability to parallel process, which classical computers can't match, as classical computing requires additional CPU cores to process in parallel. The tradeoff comes from the difference in power to run the stacks. Quantum Computer's can represent 2^N positions per q-bit simultaneous in quantum memory. Which quickly becomes an unimaginable amount of positions to represent at once. But it could be used to model the observable universe, possibly beyond.
Well put! Quantum computers have a parallel processing advantage that can quickly outscale classical machines, thanks to the exponential increase in possible states represented by qubits.
Dear Prof Brian Greene I wish you and all your colleagues the Godess of Wisdom to touch your mind to find all the answers what the science world need to make the human understanding more equip to what it is to be alive somehow. And how to be a "good human" for the society . Thank you so much. I imagine my self to have learned some sense of it. Best Cleaning Lady Berlin/ Germany
Exactly! Quantum mechanics really flips things around. Sometimes, you seem to start with the answer-then you have to work backward to understand why. It’s one of those strange, counterintuitive aspects of the quantum world, but it’s also what makes it so mind-bendingly cool.
Nice spin lol But what they always fail to show is that by having such a system are we actually going to solve useful problems better, faster and cheaper? That holy grail remains such a hype
Intuitively speaking, one of the basic laws of physics states that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Conversely, it should follow that one object cannot be doing two things at the same time. So, I feel that the idea that a particle can spin up and down at the same time is just an illusion caused by our inability to differentiate a particle’s state at infinitesimally small fractions of time. A camera needs a very fast lens to capture fast moving objects. Similarly, there is a limit to our visual perception and technology where it appears to be in two states at the same time.
The laws of physics are based on observation, not on intuition. State superposition does exist. Bosons are particles that can occupy the same space and energy levels, while fermions cannot occupy the same space with the same energy level (due to what is called Pauli principle). The spin superposition is not caused due to a limit in our measurement, it is a fundamental property of the quantic realm.
Brian really has a gift for bringing these deep, mind-blowing topics to a wider audience, doesn’t he? You can feel the love and passion he puts into explaining these concepts in a way that makes us all want to learn more. Blessings indeed!
Love Brian Green and his book "The Elegant Universe" is one of the best pop. science books I've ever read, but he do move and talk like someone making an impersonation of Brian Green on snl ;)
When intuiting 0 and 1 (as a QUBIT) represented at the same time, we can use colour i.e. if 0 = Red and 1 = Blue then 01 is Magenta (the mix of Red and Blue). Any colour (frequency) is just a representation of some proportion of the three primary colours.
Double slit experiment: using classical slits for a quantum experiment… I doubt our tech is sending single photos. Through 100 baseballs each shot through 2 slits and it’ll make a “wave” as well. Can you explain how they’re sending single photons and not what looks like a single photon?
hmmm! In the double slit experiment, photons can indeed be sent one at a time, and the interference pattern still emerges due to their wave-like nature. The tech used in these setups is highly sensitive and designed specifically to control and detect single photons. It's mind-boggling, but even baseballs would behave differently due to their much larger mass and classical nature.
A single photon is reacting with all the other single photons as if they all went though the slits together rather than over a time span. Maybe because they were closer in time. A foreign article says there is no time to the photon leaving a star and reaching your eye to light, and a scalar report reaches ach to the star with no time. ANOTHER WORDS it all happened the moment it left the star.
It’s amazing how concepts like time behave so differently for photons. Their "timeless" journey from a distant star to our eyes is a fascinating thought.
Questions - Do the slits in the wall have a particular width, depth, shape to them. Are they like a fortress type slit, narrow on the inside, going wider to the outside..? Do the particles bounce off the insides of the slits or pass straight through? Is there any interference of the particle on the way towards the slit? What's causing the initial spin of the particle/electron..?
They don't really spin an the slit is not really a slit. Both are metaphores. The slit experiment has been replicated multiple times with different starting conditions and it always shows the same results.
@@johndemtopics1377 I see, so their descriptions are like two pigs in a frying pan. One of them says 'pass me the salt,' and the other says, 'what do you think I am, a radio!?' So none of them spin plates and the slit in their eyes are black as marble. Cheers for clearing that up for me! 🙂👍
@@Feverstockphotoyou could phrase it like that😅 what i was trying to say is that the whole quantum world is for real for real not explainable with words. There is a very sound level of mathematical knowledge needed to describe the world of the small and to be honest i am not yet having a grasp on the theory in the slightest. Using imaginary numbers and linear algebra to calculate a probabilty is just a nutshell description. Talking about QT is pretty exciting but practicing it is very tasking. Hence why we call it spin but it is not really spinning in a classical sense. Calling it by mathematical terms is just not useful for communicating with other people that may not want to do the math.
@@johndemtopics1377 Cool yeah, I think I understand what you mean, some things can be tricky to explain. I tried telling my parents when I was young that I wanted to be a physicist but I couldn't work out how to get the bubbles into the lemonade 🙂👍
Excellent questions! The slits in quantum experiments, like the famous double-slit, do have specific properties, and the setup is incredibly sensitive. Photons interact with their environment in fascinating ways, even when it seems like they’re traveling in a straight line. Air molecules, the slit edges, and even the way we observe can influence the outcome. These minute details make quantum experiments so mind-blowingly complex but also reveal the deep, intricate nature of reality.
Right? The visuals can help us 'see' what’s happening in these quantum processes, which is priceless when trying to wrap our heads around such complex ideas.
It doesn’t work, have never worked and will never work. The problem is no one dare touching these fanatical priests of papers upon papers. New now, “spins up and down at the same time” … suck it up. (?!!) It is evilness sucking up resources of societies for personal gains as fame, power and money.
Well, actually because the proof that QM works is essentially just that the weird results come from actual experiments. What QM does, is to describe it. As with all theories in physics, it is essentially a simple set of rules that successfully describe all sorts of experimental results. And to show how QM reconstructs the experimental results is just too technical for a general audience. Even for someone with sufficient mathematical knowledge, it would be roughly 5 minutes describing the rules and ~20 minutes writing code that reflects the mathematical description of the rules to create some type of visualization for a particular experiment, and another ~ 5 minutes explaining why the visualized results fit the experiment. And that would already be a proper university tutorial session.
Great job prof Greene Thoroughly enjoyed although I Should admit that I did not quite understand a lot of it . Lets keep politics out . Keep up the excellent work
This might be the first time I found the show a bit disappointing. Mostly just a recap of QM, I would have liked to hear a bit more about the actual quantum computing.
We tried "shut up and calculate" for many years, and sure, we got good technology that we can not do without in our modern societies, but it is time to also do fundamental research and understand what goes on fundamentally. The discussion at times seemed to be dismissive of the latter. Experimental physicists may be ok with that, but I was slightly disappointed in Brian's take on this. Copenhagen interpretation was a PR forced idea by mostly Bohr, etc. Luckily, Sean Carroll, Tim Maudlin, and David Albert are forging ahead and beyond to understand it. Also, Stephen Wolfram is using a computational approach (Branchial space).
@Kwayzar_ I know. But I am talking about discussion at 22:20. I think this attitude that we do not need to know is what was promoted by Bohr and had stopped progress in terms of fundamental understanding of QM. Luckily, no more Shut up and Calculate ONLY, but ALSO try to find what is actually happening. And don't get me wrong, shut up and calculate gave us all the modern technology on the basis of which our modern societies run.
So quantum computing immensely increases computational results of varying probability amplitudes-both positive, negative and anywhere in between-per computing cycle which can then be leveraged informationally based on their probabilistic character at a moment of observation?
Exactly! Quantum computing leverages these probability amplitudes across many possible states in parallel. It’s like exploring countless possible solutions all at once, and then using observation to narrow down the most relevant outcome.
We're still using base-2 mathematics and qubits instead of base-3 mathematics and qutrits. Qutrits get 1.58 times the information density per unit than qubits. That matters. Are we surprised at our lack of explanatory power?
Interesting point! Qutrits, which use base-3 rather than base-2, could indeed offer greater efficiency. It’s a field that’s still being explored and might yield significant advancements in the future.
I believed that i understand a little bit of quantum mecanics, so I opened this video to learn more, now i don't understand anything about quantum mecanics
I like the way they describe bits as "0 or 1" and qubits as "0 and 1", but it might also make sense to think of qubits as an inclusive "or". Makes me wonder what would happen in a case that outputs both true and false. From a computing perspective, all conditional statements at that qubit would essentially return true. That's not exactly how to think of it from a quantum perspective. It just goes to show that applying classical computing logic to the idea of "neither true nor false" just doesn't hit right. Quantum computers actually have to be logically distinct.
Reminds me of Monte Carlo simulation on inputs to a business case I did where each variable can be set to vary by a number of standard deviations. Then if you run enough simulations and capture the output (like NPV, revenue, profit) then you get a convergence for maximum, minimum, most likely outcomes. Maybe quantum computer can run this faster ? 🤔
Yes, quantum computers are expected to revolutionize simulations like Monte Carlo, where probabilities and distributions are key. It could process those simulations at speeds that classical computers just can’t match.
The word they are looking for, when not being able to comprehend spin up and spin down is not Intuition, it’s faith. We must have faith that there are things beyond our comprehension.
What if we considered this classically, but balls passing through the slits are curve balls. Or imagine it as two slits along 2 identical bowling lanes. One lane will be Spin Up one lane will be Spin down. The bowling ball will curve left or right due to an off center mass but it is random. We also do not know which of the two slits it will pass through on the lane the left slit or the right slit. Since the path after passing the slit is not straight we would expect an “interference” pattern. There would be locations that would not be possible if the ball was spinning left and passing through the left hole. The bowling lane example would lack freedom to rotate in the 3rd dimension, but it should produce the interference patterns, without needing to pass both holes simultaneously. I would think it would make sense to use an object that is traveling along a curved path, because elementary particles have angular momentum and therefore should not be traveling on a linear path.
From WSF to WTF! It's such a pity these regular broadcasts been reduced to a hurried 40 mins. I have enormous respect for Brian Greene and his guests, but these discussions have become increasingly rushed and superficial. This latest talk is a prime example. Top guest, but for just half an hour? Considering there appears to be a live audience, maybe these broadcasts are truncated. I mean, spending quarter of an hour introducing the guest and then regurgitating the double slit experiment (that 99% of people viewing this broadcast will already be very familiar with) would be fine if the discussions lasted for 90 mins plus as they used to. I hate to sound critical because these discussions are an essential gateway into the minds of top scientists and the current discoveries and theories. I hope it is seen as a compliment that we wish these broadcasts were longer.
So why do we talk about probabilities in QM if they can be negative? And what happens if two waves meet at point 0.9 "probability" for each particle? What is then the resulting probability/amplitude? And the last question: aren't these "probability" waves just standard waves (of mass or energy) propagating through space?
Quantum probabilities are a bit counterintuitive. When two waves meet, they can interfere either constructively or destructively, resulting in positive, negative, or even zero probability amplitudes at certain points. It’s part of the magic of quantum mechanics, where probabilities aren't just classical chances, but linked to the underlying wave functions. If two waves meet, we need to add their complex amplitudes. If their amplitudes align constructively, they can reinforce each other, potentially increasing the probability. If they destructively interfere, the result could be smaller or even zero probability at certain points.
The things that can be negative or even imaginary are probability *amplitudes* and not probabilities. The actual probabilities work out all fine and behave as what you would've expect. And when one describes two particles, the wave is actually somewhat like an object that spans across two copies of space they live in, determining the probability for the first AND the second particle to be in their respective locations, and if you're familiar with probability linguo, essentially a joint probability. The essential difference between quantum uncertainties and usually probabilities is that the former combines things by combining those weird probability amplitudes.
They are not waves of mass or energy. They are instead waves encoding the probability of the quantum object being in a certain place if we are talking about these waves being in space. But in fact these waves do not have to be in actual physical space. They can be waves in the "space" of all the possible values of momentum, for example.
Brian Greene just makes life so much more beautiful, what a guy.
make respect my dear. he have wife.
🤦♀️
@@RanjakarPatel what do you mean? How is my comment disrespectful?
unfortunately bit woke
@@abdulazizrehan he is no san francisco. he have wife. he marry. please respect my friendly
I gave this video a spin up👍
This is the thing people should concentrate on, no geopolitics no war no religion fanatism.
This and morality
Morality is emergent
@@walterrodriguez4325 then we should be figuring out how to predict it and set adaptable rules for any situation
This is the future that is envisioned and set in the original Star Trek and TNG Star Trek universe.
Personally, I believe it is either that future or we are condemned to hit a great filter and become self-extinct. There is no middle ground.
That sounds like exactly what the Nova Music Festival attendees probably thought. Unfortunately, there has to be enough of us holding the line so that others of us can live in peace.
I wished i had teachers like these guys
Quantum Music is a project exploring the connection between quantum physics and classical music.
It's a very novel kind of symphony. 33:55
A quantum symphony requires quantum instruments.
Hype also means "to cheer up" or emphasize! 33:58
But you just had these mentors work for you!
Seth Lloyd has to be one of the most relevant physicist of our time
Programming by chasing away noise 😅😅😅😊 ❤️
Seth Lloyd is indeed one of the most relevant physicists today! His work in quantum computing is pioneering, especially with algorithms that harness the strange yet powerful properties of quantum mechanics. His insights have the potential to reshape not just computing, but many fields of science.
Just don’t ask him about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein
@SPVLaboratories 🙃🫣...
Well je kriminal is convicted... for the crime he got what he deserve.
Maybe religious people will forgive and won't judge, but legal system is legal system...
For religious believe just like hippocrates oath... first do no harm.
World need more good samaritans spirits...
❤️ peace.
Maybe if the more samaritans spirits, people that notice will come earlier..
Anyway justice was done, he was guilty.
@@SPVLaboratoriesNDT had to have been to the island too.
Love this format for the show. Very engaging.
I'm new to this field... no major background in physics or maths but have a degree in Computer Science. As such it's my first experience of Seth. He's clearly great at putting ideas across, but what struck me is how similar he looks to the scientist in the original Independencd Day movie! Theg were spot on with casting!
I love UA-cam. The sharing of knowledge is amazing.
The older he gets, the crazier he looks. You just have to love Seth Lloyd!
Reminded me of Dr Brakish Okun (Brent Spiner in Independence Day).
That look gives off dirty old man vibes 🫤
@@lynd9028 Only if you have those kinds of fantasies. Thankfully, I don't have that.
@@asterixx6878 fantasies? More like nightmares!
Seth Lloyd is teaching at MIT, so make sure your kids do not go there. Brain damage might be irreversible.
Brian . As usual, brilliant, eloquent and simplified for people like us. By the way, do you keep track of how many times you take off and wear your glasses..
It's always fun when we catch those little quirks in a presentation. Brian definitely knows how to keep us engaged :D
If you can break something down that clear, you got it. And I understood that QC trades one problem for another: yes, Qbits feature superposition, but you’re ending up with quasilions of solutions and now you gotta figure out which one is the right one
You’ve got it! Quantum computing does introduce a new layer of complexity with superposition, where you can have a vast number of potential solutions, but the real challenge lies in ‘collapsing’ to the correct one. The trick is developing algorithms that effectively sift through these probabilities-it's a completely different way of computing compared to classical computers!
Yup. If you remember the double-slit experiment where the photons creates an interference pattern. Quantum computing is orchestrating an interference pattern that cacels out wrong answers and amplifies right answers.
You've provided seen it by now but the 2nd most recent video addresses your concern.
@@TechnologyBeyondTomorrow-TBTyoy mean AI?
Brian - I first began listening to you when I bought Fabric of the Cosmos on iTunes and listened to it on my iPod click-wheel while biking during my undergrad (circa 2006ish). I can't thank you enough for doing these WSF presentations and making them available to everyone for free!
He's not interested
Brian. Thank you.
Please do a series on the engineering, tools and methods people use to measure qbits
Great request! Hope he takes a dive into that.
Ppl hate on Brian Greene but dudes fr legit a great spokesperson and physicist
Who is hating on him?
Never seen a single hate post on Brian. Genuinely curious.
String theorists in general get smack from certain people such as Eric Weinstein who r salty n claim that their theories aren't being listened to (because they don't provide accuracies and predictions akin to ST). But I haven't seen any hate directed to Brian specifically.
I was watching a video on Tensors. At the end of the video, the UA-cam algorithm auto-selected this video, but not at the beginning, it went to a point toward the end that perfectly answered a question I had in my mind about Quantum computing completely overriding all other less useful information.
Almost as though the background AI search algorithms are leading us to an actual Quantum computational state by natural progression.😃 I like it!
Make the slit stage out of 1 to 5 atom layer thick sheets of graphine and the wave pattern will reduce or vanish. You will have a 2 slit pattern.
Here's why. In stage 1 of the experiment: the electrons are already ommiting with randomly different vectors out of the cathode. As they hit the inner treshold of the edges of the slits on the plate in stage 2: they ricochet into different vectors, and either fail to enter the slits opening; or they enter the slit at an angle [having reflected off the imperfect inner edge of the slits opening] they then ricochet off the inner sides of the slits like tennis balls in a tunnel. As they exit the slit(tunnel) they have one; of a finite number of trajectories. This is what creates the wave like interference pattern on the screen. The relatively blank spaces between the bands of particles on the screen is geometricly correspondent to the width of the slits in the plate, the range from the plate, and the limited number of trajectories out of the slit that lead to the screen. Simply ricochets.
You nailed it, the pin hole camera comes to mind.
Is it practically done
We need to play more with this
@AX-sq5vm Whattayamean?
Thanks for the Tracey Day of Prof. Brian's interview with Seth Lloyd. MIT and Boston U people and Harvard really are great places.
I am not an specialist but I think 100 to 900 years in qubits could be possible to have and be able to use and benefit the completely full potential of the result on quantum mechanics in the quantum computer. I am positive, I would love to work to make that possible even sooner! Thank you for the information.🙏🏽
Wow, although i didn't understand a bit in start but i really got engaged with the beautiful explanation to all those questions, doubts and probabilities.
That’s exactly how quantum stuff works! At first, it’s like trying to learn a new language where nothing makes sense, but then you get hit with that 'aha!' moment. Once you grasp even a tiny part of it, you can’t help but dive deeper. Glad you stuck with it-quantum can be such a fascinating rabbit hole once you get engaged.
It was great to see that the guest did not commit to answering ANY question directly. The most complex problem solved with Q compute is a child's division problem. That is all. If they had anything more to show, they would be dancing to heaven with it. I hate it that QM computer people and, in fact, most of the physics community is so dishonest. The fact that their coherence times are still low and that quantum memory is yet to be implemented are just "details" according to them. The problem is that once one community makes it a norm to make egregiously outrageous claims of success or promise of solving problems in unreasonable timeframes, other communities follow sut since funding comes from the same aggregate. This has vitiated the whole academic research system.
Honestly, I would have to agree with everything Seth said except I don't believe that these computers might never be as useful as we hope. I believe that we'll see the Technological Singularity within 5 to 15 years.
I also don't believe that memory is an issue. I believe that the quantum state alone can be used as the memory and if external quantum memory/quantum RAM is necessary then it really is only just a detail that we don't yet have it.
Scientific research is now firmly embedded in the post truth era. It's a damn shame.
The initial double slit experiment was conducted by Thomas Young, an English scientis,1801. This demonstrated the wave property of light.
I hang out with thomas youngs great great grandson all the time he works for amazon
Correct. I am sure the speakers are aware that it was early 19th (and not 20th) century when Young contributed that important milestone. I wonder if they were referring to the same experiment performed with electrons entities that were considered particles rather than waves at the beginning of 20th century?
@@Hihello45682that is so cool!
Finally computer geeks who understand quantum physics and reality. Thanks for this information!
24:30 quantum computing talk starts
Why does the conversation about quantum computing only start here?! 27:09
Why does the conversation about quantum computing only start here?! 27:09
Hype is generally associated with something negative.
Many see quantum computing's advent as marking a paradigm shift from classical, or conventional, computing. 30:03
Buzz is generally associated with something positive.
i love Doc Brown, such a smart man and his playful sense of humour makes the information a little more accessible, sometimes. Enjoyed that presentation
Very good content. The last 20 or so minutes really help us laypeople get sense of the state of the field.
I love this channel. I always say...one of the best things I did was learning English .
Seth is absolutely brilliant! Have to be careful when people sell QC. And, as usual Brian is the best explanator of physics on this planet!
Absolutely-Seth Lloyd is brilliant, but as with any emerging technology, we do need to be cautious about overhyping quantum computing’s capabilities. The field has immense potential, but there are still significant hurdles to overcome, like error correction and qubit stability. As for Brian Greene, his clarity and passion are unparalleled when it comes to explaining physics!
Love these science events, love these discussions and more importantly we all Love ❤️ Brian. For me he's the best science communicator today. Better than Susskind, degrasse Tyson and even Sean ..I forget his last name.
Yes, brilliant as Sean Carroll is, Brian is the gold standard.
Looking forward to this 👍
Feynman said no one understands QM, because Hilbert space is so vast. The real problem is how does infinite complexity can rearrange its sequence of actions when determinism is partly satisfied and partly reality remains probabilistic. As for life and consciousness, infinite lotteries were won in a row.
great graphics and even greater host asking good questions.
Agreed! The graphics really help bring the abstract concepts to life, and the host asks the kinds of questions that make the subject feel approachable. It’s a powerful combination when explaining something as challenging as quantum computing.
At least these guys are honest and rational on the state of quantum computing, and not exaggerate and get over-hyped on what can quantum computing do.
Quantum computing can calculate the mass of the proton in real time in every water molecule twice, which requires on the order of 1e16 or more classical computations. ;-)
The only question is whether we can make this programmable, not how powerful it is.
There is problem with two slit experiment:
1) the photon source that shoots
2) the two slits
3) the receiver board
4) the measuring device
All these variables. How accurate they are.
1) The source that shoots photons: does this shoot straight? What is the effect of air molecules interacting with one photon at a time?
2) two slits: how thin are they? What happens photos touch edges of slits?
3) no issues here
4) device that observes photon : how does this work?
This is the problem I have with all these talks, they don’t explain that sort of detail and it leaves question marks in my brain.
@@glennet9613pick up a physics book and youll find out... A 40 minute talk isnt going to teach you quantum mechanics... Been there done that it takes time and effort
1) photon path can be manipulated
2) varying stardards are use to build up a calibrated scale but that makes it vary the reading of photons. My theory is divergence
3)
4) fluorescence screens light up when hit by photons
in decades of scientific rigour no one has ever thought of these points you've brought up..
There is no problem, you just need to do your own research about it.
Excellent discussion. But noise of often completely ignored. When you 300 qbits you have to do a ton of reruns and ‘error correction’ so you really have very very few real bits. Until this noise issue is solved
The kind of professors I would give my whole tution fee to learn from
at 16:26 there is something that struck me.... there are waves always everywhere and the particle just rides these waves and gets detected at a specific location..
Brian Greene makes for an amazing scientific communicator!
Quantum computing holds immense promise, potentially revolutionizing fields from cryptography to material science. However, while the hype suggests we're on the brink of a quantum revolution, the reality is that many challenges such as error rates and qubit stability remain unsolved. Are we truly close to realizing the full potential of quantum computing, or is the excitement outpacing the technological advances needed for practical, scalable solutions?
I can't remember where I heard it but I remember hearing that technological advancements in quantum computing are developing at an exponential rate. With that said it's becoming more evident that AI could help us with this endeavor.
Spot on! While the hype surrounding quantum computing is exciting, the reality is that we’re still facing significant challenges, such as error rates and qubit coherence times. The technology holds incredible promise, but the path to scalable, practical quantum computers is still a work in progress. It’s an exciting field to follow as researchers continue to push boundaries!
Agreed
Why do I always get fusion vibes from this?
You may imagine bowmen are shooting their arrows to a target. If they are shooting arrows to the target an arrow in every 15 minutes. The arrows may hit the center more, but if they shoot an arrow in every 20 seconds, then the arrows may hit randomly around the center.
I may think the conditions from the paths and source are making a patterns. This concept may apply to every things in the universe. It is really hard to keep movements consistently because the conditions are continuing to change any moment.
I love this analogy! It really does capture how patterns can emerge in complex systems, even when things appear random. The universe is full of shifting variables, and it’s fascinating how this principle echoes across different scales.
This was a great talk about Quantum computer and its algorithmic functions. I watched it 3 times to understand little about Quantum computer. Professor Brian Greene asked some great questions but the answers weren't convincing. Quantum mechanics and Quantum entanglement have big role in Qubits algorithm. Quantum entanglement which was spooky action for great Albert Einstein, but His General Relativity also interacts with modern Particle Physics to predict theory of Single Graviton Particle which is outstanding.
The Single Graviton Particle is completely different from other particles. It is million times powerful than all other observable particles. The entire gravity force has only one particle and that's the Single Graviton Particle which controls entire Earth's gravitational force and Its objects not to collide with one another. Its mass, energy, light and power is beyond the imagination. A beautiful article can be written about theory of Single Graviton Particle to predict Its energy density and functions.
Professor Brian Greene said well" you don't need to calculate the number, you need to understand the dynamical process"
Very insightful! Quantum entanglement is indeed a critical aspect of quantum computing, and its implications in algorithms are vast. I love how you tied Einstein’s "spooky action at a distance" to the modern search for the graviton. There's still so much to explore in the quantum realm!
If you think of everything as fields, and "particles" as excited areas of a field, then things are still confusing, but not quite as confusing.
Plus our brains are quantum computers! Our brains use a lot of shortcuts to process information, quantum mechanically, for us to understand.
As our brains evolve, along w/ technology, we'll have a better, and eventually even complete, understanding of what happens at the quantum level. Considering we continue to have the ability to evolve/advance at any rate.
If you take all of that into account, just remember, I'm not a physicist, even though physics is my favorite thing! 🍻
No really. With classical random fields, you would only have to distinguish between thermal and Lorentz-invariant noise. Quantum computers are continuous systems and will never be fully error corrected. We knew this by the 30s. It's like these guys have never investigated the standard model.
Our brains are classical meat computers, definitely not quantum computers. My brain can't even multiply 4.123 x 12.582 without a piece of paper. It definitely isn't processing with bazillions of Q bits.
I love the enthusiasm! Thinking of particles as excited areas of fields does clear up some of the mystery, but quantum mechanics is still a mind-bender. And you’re right about our brains being incredibly powerful information processors-it’s almost poetic that we’re using our own quantum systems to understand the quantum world. Maybe one day we’ll figure it out, but for now, we’re just chipping away at the surface. Keep geeking out on physics-it’s how we evolve too!
The brain itself is too big to be entirely quantum but all chemical processes are in the end a combination of quantum effects and statistical processes. When you talk about many molecules, you are at a level where you look at rates. If quantum effects played too much a role in the brain to make it fancy the brain and the body would be way more fragile. On the other hand the biochemistry itself takes quantum effects into account but only on a level of chemical reactions. In the end the question is - when you have many reactions at the same times probability turns into rates. Let's say quantum mechanics allows for different reactions happening at the same time and you get certain probabilities for them. Yet to have resilience in a physical world you need tons of redundancy. Seeing the body as a big chemical machine if individual quantum effects were so strong that it would strongly influence decisions then the human body and mind would be incredible fragile. It already is incredible fragile compared to most stable chemical structures due to its complexity but still has amazing repair mechanisms. What I mean is the following - you have to distinguish between all the fancy spooky stuff in quantum information that allows for more information storage and processing, quantum randomness, classical randomness and quantum chemistry. Quantum chemistry describes how small reaction mechanisms look like and some of those effects may play a part. But this is just normal physics, that chemistry is quantum, is old and known. If you want to look at the fancy stuff in quantum information you need to look at very isolated systems. Entanglement in systems as complex as biochemical systems might play some role but it still is rather neglectable compared to the complexity of the system as a whole. If your brain was a quantum computer somehow you could not live. So for forming new synapses in the brain I'd rather bet on statistical mechanics combined with some optimizations by quantum chemistry.
So, hype it is.
Yeah, it's easy to feel like quantum computing can get wrapped up in the hype sometimes. It’s such a wild frontier! But I think that’s what makes it exciting too-there’s so much potential, but also a lot we’re still trying to figure out. The key is balancing that sense of wonder with some healthy skepticism.
Quantum computers 1/√2 ( |may> + |may not> ) be realized.
Wish UA-cam comment section had latex support 😶😶😶
Seth Lloyd is the genius of our time.
Seth Lloyd truly is a genius. His work on quantum computation has pushed the boundaries of what we thought possible, and his ability to communicate these ideas in such a fascinating way makes him a standout. We’re lucky to have minds like his working on these cutting-edge technologies.
He's nuttier than a fruit cake
Brian Green has studied at the William Shatner school of hand movement and facial gestures.
Haha, I never thought of it that way, but now I can’t unsee it! Brian Greene's passion definitely comes through in his gestures.
Such a fascinating conversation!
Never knew lucius malfoy is interested in physics. I always thought he's just one of Voldemort's mage followers
He had to change profession after Voldemort got defeated
Lucius Malfoy dabbling in quantum mechanics... now that’s a crossover I never expected! 😄
Thank you Brian and Seth!
I hope most pure hearted people can distinguish between ai and reality robots
Why pure hearted ❤
That’s such a deep thought. As AI continues to evolve, distinguishing between machines and reality becomes more important than ever. It’s a delicate balance, but with the right ethical approaches and pure intentions, hopefully, we can navigate this new era thoughtfully and responsibly.
A single electron itself only form a single spot. The interference pattern is a property of a collection of dots produced by many electrons in the collection. Thus wave nature, if at all, is only exhibited by the collection, so DSE does not say that a single electron is a wave. It may be riding a terrain established by a latent, standing probability wave that is a function of configuration of distances in the experiment. Bohmian mechanics proposes existence of such a wave which is separate from the electron itself. For example if we keep changing the distances in the experiment, for every electron, the pattern may disappear altogether. or become fuzzier.
Great point! Bohmian mechanics does suggest that the wave guiding the electron is distinct. It adds an interesting perspective on how particles interact with probability waves, particularly in setups like the double slit experiment.
Hmm, the title of this video is contributing to the Hype, since out of 44 minutes, only the last 2-3 minutes are about the reality that large scale quantum computers might not be constructed EVER.
My Best take away from the interview. Reality is quantum not classical 🤔🤔🤔
Thank you for this highly informative and insightful session that focused on explaining the most counterintuitive stuffs in layman’s terms
The power of quantum computing comes from it's ability to parallel process, which classical computers can't match, as classical computing requires additional CPU cores to process in parallel. The tradeoff comes from the difference in power to run the stacks. Quantum Computer's can represent 2^N positions per q-bit simultaneous in quantum memory. Which quickly becomes an unimaginable amount of positions to represent at once. But it could be used to model the observable universe, possibly beyond.
Well put! Quantum computers have a parallel processing advantage that can quickly outscale classical machines, thanks to the exponential increase in possible states represented by qubits.
@@TechnologyBeyondTomorrow-TBT Thanks! It's good to know my ramblings aren't total gibberish ☯
@@MatrixVectorPSI Keep it up
Dear Prof Brian Greene
I wish you and all your colleagues the Godess of Wisdom to touch your mind to find all the answers what the science world need to make the human understanding more equip to what it is to be alive somehow.
And how to be a "good human" for the society .
Thank you so much. I imagine my self to have learned some sense of it.
Best
Cleaning Lady
Berlin/ Germany
Indeed, The search for understanding in science is a quest for wisdom! Cheers
So with Quantum we start with the answer!
Exactly! Quantum mechanics really flips things around. Sometimes, you seem to start with the answer-then you have to work backward to understand why. It’s one of those strange, counterintuitive aspects of the quantum world, but it’s also what makes it so mind-bendingly cool.
Thanks for this informative discussion and conversation. I
Nice spin lol But what they always fail to show is that by having such a system are we actually going to solve useful problems better, faster and cheaper? That holy grail remains such a hype
NOW you have to describe what a "particle" really is. By definition that evidently changed from when I was a kid, 60 years ago
Intuitively speaking, one of the basic laws of physics states that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Conversely, it should follow that one object cannot be doing two things at the same time. So, I feel that the idea that a particle can spin up and down at the same time is just an illusion caused by our inability to differentiate a particle’s state at infinitesimally small fractions of time. A camera needs a very fast lens to capture fast moving objects. Similarly, there is a limit to our visual perception and technology where it appears to be in two states at the same time.
The laws of physics are based on observation, not on intuition. State superposition does exist. Bosons are particles that can occupy the same space and energy levels, while fermions cannot occupy the same space with the same energy level (due to what is called Pauli principle). The spin superposition is not caused due to a limit in our measurement, it is a fundamental property of the quantic realm.
God bless you Brian lots of love
Brian really has a gift for bringing these deep, mind-blowing topics to a wider audience, doesn’t he? You can feel the love and passion he puts into explaining these concepts in a way that makes us all want to learn more. Blessings indeed!
Seth Lloyd is the real Doc Brown.
@@TechnologyBeyondTomorrow-TBT No relation to Christopher or Harold.
Why was so easy understanding wave-particle duality with this video? 😂😂😂. Thank you guys
Love Brian Green and his book "The Elegant Universe" is one of the best pop. science books I've ever read, but he do move and talk like someone making an impersonation of Brian Green on snl ;)
When intuiting 0 and 1 (as a QUBIT) represented at the same time, we can use colour i.e. if 0 = Red and 1 = Blue then 01 is Magenta (the mix of Red and Blue). Any colour (frequency) is just a representation of some proportion of the three primary colours.
lovely guest
Most excellent discussion!
Absolutely! It was an engaging discussion, for sure!
They always talk about "the potential to transform the way we live"... do we want to transform the way we live? Why?
Double slit experiment: using classical slits for a quantum experiment… I doubt our tech is sending single photos. Through 100 baseballs each shot through 2 slits and it’ll make a “wave” as well. Can you explain how they’re sending single photons and not what looks like a single photon?
hmmm! In the double slit experiment, photons can indeed be sent one at a time, and the interference pattern still emerges due to their wave-like nature. The tech used in these setups is highly sensitive and designed specifically to control and detect single photons. It's mind-boggling, but even baseballs would behave differently due to their much larger mass and classical nature.
A single photon is reacting with all the other single photons as if they all went though the slits together rather than over a time span. Maybe because they were closer in time. A foreign article says there is no time to the photon leaving a star and reaching your eye to light, and a scalar report reaches ach to the star with no time. ANOTHER WORDS it all happened the moment it left the star.
It’s amazing how concepts like time behave so differently for photons. Their "timeless" journey from a distant star to our eyes is a fascinating thought.
Questions - Do the slits in the wall have a particular width, depth, shape to them. Are they like a fortress type slit, narrow on the inside, going wider to the outside..? Do the particles bounce off the insides of the slits or pass straight through? Is there any interference of the particle on the way towards the slit? What's causing the initial spin of the particle/electron..?
They don't really spin an the slit is not really a slit. Both are metaphores. The slit experiment has been replicated multiple times with different starting conditions and it always shows the same results.
@@johndemtopics1377 I see, so their descriptions are like two pigs in a frying pan. One of them says 'pass me the salt,' and the other says, 'what do you think I am, a radio!?' So none of them spin plates and the slit in their eyes are black as marble. Cheers for clearing that up for me! 🙂👍
@@Feverstockphotoyou could phrase it like that😅 what i was trying to say is that the whole quantum world is for real for real not explainable with words. There is a very sound level of mathematical knowledge needed to describe the world of the small and to be honest i am not yet having a grasp on the theory in the slightest. Using imaginary numbers and linear algebra to calculate a probabilty is just a nutshell description. Talking about QT is pretty exciting but practicing it is very tasking. Hence why we call it spin but it is not really spinning in a classical sense. Calling it by mathematical terms is just not useful for communicating with other people that may not want to do the math.
@@johndemtopics1377 Cool yeah, I think I understand what you mean, some things can be tricky to explain. I tried telling my parents when I was young that I wanted to be a physicist but I couldn't work out how to get the bubbles into the lemonade 🙂👍
Excellent questions! The slits in quantum experiments, like the famous double-slit, do have specific properties, and the setup is incredibly sensitive. Photons interact with their environment in fascinating ways, even when it seems like they’re traveling in a straight line. Air molecules, the slit edges, and even the way we observe can influence the outcome. These minute details make quantum experiments so mind-blowingly complex but also reveal the deep, intricate nature of reality.
Talking about quantum computation and showing an animation of the Fourier Transform is priceless .. ;)
Right? The visuals can help us 'see' what’s happening in these quantum processes, which is priceless when trying to wrap our heads around such complex ideas.
Seth, as an argument QM works, foregoes proof, telling the audience to "... suck it up..."
It doesn’t work, have never worked and will never work. The problem is no one dare touching these fanatical priests of papers upon papers. New now, “spins up and down at the same time” … suck it up. (?!!) It is evilness sucking up resources of societies for personal gains as fame, power and money.
QM really does force us to rethink our classical intuitions :D
Well, actually because the proof that QM works is essentially just that the weird results come from actual experiments. What QM does, is to describe it. As with all theories in physics, it is essentially a simple set of rules that successfully describe all sorts of experimental results.
And to show how QM reconstructs the experimental results is just too technical for a general audience. Even for someone with sufficient mathematical knowledge, it would be roughly 5 minutes describing the rules and ~20 minutes writing code that reflects the mathematical description of the rules to create some type of visualization for a particular experiment, and another ~ 5 minutes explaining why the visualized results fit the experiment. And that would already be a proper university tutorial session.
Great job prof Greene Thoroughly enjoyed although I Should admit that I did not quite understand a lot of it . Lets keep politics out . Keep up the excellent work
Keeping politics out of it and focusing on the science definitely makes for a more enjoyable experience. Glad you enjoyed it despite the complexities!
Not true. There are equally valid, deterministic, interpretations of QM which state that particles are in defined states and positions at all times.
Dr. Seth Lloyd reminds me of a spitting image of Dr. Brackish Okun (played by Brent Spiner) from the movie Independence Day (1996). LOL
This might be the first time I found the show a bit disappointing. Mostly just a recap of QM, I would have liked to hear a bit more about the actual quantum computing.
Quantum computers are the string theory of engineering.
We tried "shut up and calculate" for many years, and sure, we got good technology that we can not do without in our modern societies, but it is time to also do fundamental research and understand what goes on fundamentally. The discussion at times seemed to be dismissive of the latter. Experimental physicists may be ok with that, but I was slightly disappointed in Brian's take on this. Copenhagen interpretation was a PR forced idea by mostly Bohr, etc. Luckily, Sean Carroll, Tim Maudlin, and David Albert are forging ahead and beyond to understand it. Also, Stephen Wolfram is using a computational approach (Branchial space).
I think Brian cares about the importance of exploring the fundamentals of physics it was just not super relevant to a 40 minute conversation about QC
@Kwayzar_ I know. But I am talking about discussion at 22:20. I think this attitude that we do not need to know is what was promoted by Bohr and had stopped progress in terms of fundamental understanding of QM. Luckily, no more Shut up and Calculate ONLY, but ALSO try to find what is actually happening. And don't get me wrong, shut up and calculate gave us all the modern technology on the basis of which our modern societies run.
37:30 i was waiting for this question, they should start with this..
So quantum computing immensely increases computational results of varying probability amplitudes-both positive, negative and anywhere in between-per computing cycle which can then be leveraged informationally based on their probabilistic character at a moment of observation?
Exactly! Quantum computing leverages these probability amplitudes across many possible states in parallel. It’s like exploring countless possible solutions all at once, and then using observation to narrow down the most relevant outcome.
We're still using base-2 mathematics and qubits instead of base-3 mathematics and qutrits.
Qutrits get 1.58 times the information density per unit than qubits. That matters.
Are we surprised at our lack of explanatory power?
Interesting point! Qutrits, which use base-3 rather than base-2, could indeed offer greater efficiency. It’s a field that’s still being explored and might yield significant advancements in the future.
Considering that ternary computers lost out to binary computing, it's not that certain that base 3 computers would unlock any kind of revolution.
What a conversation between 'Taoists' would look like!
I believed that i understand a little bit of quantum mecanics, so I opened this video to learn more, now i don't understand anything about quantum mecanics
Who's here and not here in 2024?
Best case study for gentrification uprising
That’s an unexpected link! Care to elaborate on that thought?
I like the way they describe bits as "0 or 1" and qubits as "0 and 1", but it might also make sense to think of qubits as an inclusive "or". Makes me wonder what would happen in a case that outputs both true and false. From a computing perspective, all conditional statements at that qubit would essentially return true. That's not exactly how to think of it from a quantum perspective. It just goes to show that applying classical computing logic to the idea of "neither true nor false" just doesn't hit right. Quantum computers actually have to be logically distinct.
Very nice! Thank you!
When we open our eyes the world rendered itself in that moment
When Brian Greene is speaking, I only hear Bill Maher
Reminds me of Monte Carlo simulation on inputs to a business case I did where each variable can be set to vary by a number of standard deviations. Then if you run enough simulations and capture the output (like NPV, revenue, profit) then you get a convergence for maximum, minimum, most likely outcomes. Maybe quantum computer can run this faster ? 🤔
Yes, quantum computers are expected to revolutionize simulations like Monte Carlo, where probabilities and distributions are key. It could process those simulations at speeds that classical computers just can’t match.
Thank you very much!🌈💚🌻🎶
The word they are looking for, when not being able to comprehend spin up and spin down is not Intuition, it’s faith. We must have faith that there are things beyond our comprehension.
What if we considered this classically, but balls passing through the slits are curve balls.
Or imagine it as two slits along 2 identical bowling lanes. One lane will be Spin Up one lane will be Spin down. The bowling ball will curve left or right due to an off center mass but it is random. We also do not know which of the two slits it will pass through on the lane the left slit or the right slit.
Since the path after passing the slit is not straight we would expect an “interference” pattern. There would be locations that would not be possible if the ball was spinning left and passing through the left hole.
The bowling lane example would lack freedom to rotate in the 3rd dimension, but it should produce the interference patterns, without needing to pass both holes simultaneously.
I would think it would make sense to use an object that is traveling along a curved path, because elementary particles have angular momentum and therefore should not be traveling on a linear path.
From WSF to WTF! It's such a pity these regular broadcasts been reduced to a hurried 40 mins. I have enormous respect for Brian Greene and his guests, but these discussions have become increasingly rushed and superficial. This latest talk is a prime example. Top guest, but for just half an hour? Considering there appears to be a live audience, maybe these broadcasts are truncated. I mean, spending quarter of an hour introducing the guest and then regurgitating the double slit experiment (that 99% of people viewing this broadcast will already be very familiar with) would be fine if the discussions lasted for 90 mins plus as they used to. I hate to sound critical because these discussions are an essential gateway into the minds of top scientists and the current discoveries and theories. I hope it is seen as a compliment that we wish these broadcasts were longer.
In case you don’t have 44 minutes and 44 seconds to spare I can save you some time:
43:30 It "may or may not happen.”
Drink everytime when the moderator puts his glasses off and on
Brian's glasses are clearly an important prop :D its more engaging this way
I don’t think it’s a wave and a particle anymore. I think it’s just a wave, but it’s a wave through a medium that we cannot detect.
So why do we talk about probabilities in QM if they can be negative? And what happens if two waves meet at point 0.9 "probability" for each particle? What is then the resulting probability/amplitude? And the last question: aren't these "probability" waves just standard waves (of mass or energy) propagating through space?
Quantum probabilities are a bit counterintuitive. When two waves meet, they can interfere either constructively or destructively, resulting in positive, negative, or even zero probability amplitudes at certain points. It’s part of the magic of quantum mechanics, where probabilities aren't just classical chances, but linked to the underlying wave functions. If two waves meet, we need to add their complex amplitudes. If their amplitudes align constructively, they can reinforce each other, potentially increasing the probability. If they destructively interfere, the result could be smaller or even zero probability at certain points.
The things that can be negative or even imaginary are probability *amplitudes* and not probabilities. The actual probabilities work out all fine and behave as what you would've expect. And when one describes two particles, the wave is actually somewhat like an object that spans across two copies of space they live in, determining the probability for the first AND the second particle to be in their respective locations, and if you're familiar with probability linguo, essentially a joint probability. The essential difference between quantum uncertainties and usually probabilities is that the former combines things by combining those weird probability amplitudes.
They are not waves of mass or energy. They are instead waves encoding the probability of the quantum object being in a certain place if we are talking about these waves being in space. But in fact these waves do not have to be in actual physical space. They can be waves in the "space" of all the possible values of momentum, for example.
What an odd way to close.