Introduction to Quantum Computing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Support What's a Creel? on Patreon: / whatsacreel
Office merch store: whats-a-creel-3.creator-sprin...
FaceBook: / whatsacreel
This video is an introduction to Quantum Computing!
Quirk Quantum Simulator:
algassert.com/quirk
IBM Quantum Experience:
www.ibm.com/quantum-computing...
IBM Quantum Computer image from Wikipedia.
Software used to make this vid:
Gimp:
www.gimp.org/
Blender:
www.blender.org/
Audacity:
www.audacityteam.org/
OBS:
obsproject.com/
Davinci Resolve 16:
www.blackmagicdesign.com/prod...
OpenOffice:
www.openoffice.org/
With simpler circuitboards, if you touch them wrong they break. With quantum computers, if you look at them funny they break.
"if you look at them funny they break."
I've had regular computers that were pretty much like this hahahaha
HAHAHAHHAHA
I love your enthusiasm and awe :D
Cheers mate, thanks for watching :)
I have only recently discovered your channel. I love every video and that old school style, please never change and keep up the great work, one of the best channels on the whole UA-cam as far as I’m concerned.
So, I was labouring under the illusion that instead of a CPU, the quantum computer had a black cat in a box at the centre. Now I learn that in fact it is so much weirder. Instead, it is super parallel i.e. it computes all possible paths at once. All you have to do is know which result is the right one. How do you know which result is correct? You run the problem through a classic computer first but you will find the quantum computers is quicker. So much simpler than trying to get a black cat to go into a box. Great video. No sarcasm or irony implied , I really enjoyed it. Stay healthy, guys.
It's sooo mind boggling. At some point we'll have to trust the quantum computer because we won't be able to compute the answer with a classical! Cats in boxes and quantum mechanics go hand in hand :)
Tech Support Call in 2050 - So, you're quantum computer isn't working? Have you tried turning it off and on again?
But it is already off and on!
my quantum computer is returning all 1s, pls help
And I must also commend the (I assume blender?) animations. A far cry from the monophonic assembler tutes of old (but they were good too!)
Cheers mate! Blender indeed!! Thanks for watching mate :)
Basically, in classical computing, your input is deterministic, so your output is deterministic. No matter how many times you read the output, it is the same because the input is the same. In quantum computing, your input is not deterministic, so every time you read the output, it is also different. This means repeated reading of the output will give you a distribution of all possible outputs given all possible inputs. The useful output of a quantum computer is a distribution.
I still don't get the difference between the quantum computer and say a computer with 256 cores and 512 threads running the same program on each thread with slightly different values for the bits chosen? Would that not simulate the quantum effect enough for simple computes? And would it not be much simpler to program and get curves out of these programs? I don't know if you're someone who'd know this but just asking anyway. Maybe I need to get my hands on one of the new AMD chips and give her a try. lol
"In quantum computing, your input is not deterministic"
The output you get from a quantum algorithm running on a quantum computer is, by all means, *100% deterministic* .
Please, let's not confuse everyone with the Copenhagen Interpretation (or as I call it: the wrong interpretation).
@@remicaron3191 Quite simply, a classical computer scales linearly with the number of cores, while a quantum computer scales exponentially with the number of qbits. A quantum computer with 256 qbits could represent 2^252 states at the same time. Just imagine: your suggested classical computer could guess 256 passwords at a time, while the quantum computer could guess 2^256 passwords at a time. This ist a HUGE performance gain; at least for some specific problems. Veritasium also made a great video about quantum computing: ua-cam.com/video/g_IaVepNDT4/v-deo.html
THE CAT'S OUT OF THE BAG GET IT BACK IN WE NEED TO GET THE QUANTUM COMPUTER WORKING
@@LemonChieff Sorry, but you're both clueless.
12 years ago, I was listening to the radio, and they had a computer science professor on answering callers' questions. I called in to ask about how far off until we have quantum computers. He laughed and mockingly told the audience that it's a fantasy some people believe in but it will never happen. But here we are.
Just one Word for this explanation: AMAZING!
Everyone in Computer Science should watch it.
I'll be recommending it to all my friends and colleagues.
Thanks.
Sadly, quantum computing isn't really a thing in computer science classes.
Wow ive watched a few of your videos so far, honsetly super impressed, easily my new favourite computer science channel. Honestly seems like you should have more subscribers, your videos are such good quality and so interesting. I wish I found this channel earlier but im just glad I found it :D Cant wait to finish binging a lot of your videos
Probably I would skip watching if this was explained by someone else, but YOU explain so clear that even 5 year old kid would get it. I've enjoyed watching how deeply you've dived into this stuff. THANKS FOR EXPLANATIONS AND DEMONSTRATION!
This is by far the best video for explaining this, its weird to get your head round but actually is very simple logically.
great vid & animations! would love to see more quantum computing content!
Awesome video creel!
Welcome! Thanks for watching :)
Scrap my suggestion from last video this is a very good topic - an inspired thought!
Cheers mate, thanks for watching :)
So what’s an actual practical algorithm and how does it compare to a traditional one. So far, i have yet to see a instance of a practical application. The theory is nice don’t get me wrong but show me the money
I think the whole world is thinking that! I do hope it works out soon :) Practical applications are few and far between. Quantum Computers are still an academic thing. Really interesting though! There's plenty of research into algorithms that will theoretically be possible. Shor's algorithm is maybe the most famous example. Anywho, fingers crossed that the clever bees over at IBM and Google come up with goods soon! Cheers for watching mate :)
I don't know too much about practical algorithms besides Shor's algorithm for factoring numbers, but I'm a physicist and I can say one thing physicists are really excited about is using quantum computers to simulate other quantum systems. For example, say you're trying to do some nuclear physics or something, you can set up the quantum computer to simulate the atomic nucleus and then measure whatever information you want since the Q-bits are all easily accessible. There are a lot of things that are too hard to calculate and too hard to measure in reality, but if you had a good enough quantum computer you could just simulate the problem and easily see the answer.
@@Reddles37 sounds awesome, can you give me an example of something a quantum computer can calculate.
Great vid!
Amazing video!
4:01
"If you flip a coin, you will get heads."
- creel
muito legal, vc explica muito bem otimos efeitos 3d
I just saw this video last night and you had me in the morning logging into IBM! You can build circuits and do some Python stuff. I see all these gates but I don't understand what is the purpose of rotating the cubits, from a programming point of view. All I have learned so far (tested) is that if you don't run the Hadamard Gate (Superposition) you don't get a balanced result, but like 98% 0s and 2% 1s. I really would be great if you do a series of solving some simple but interesting math problems with the QComputer using Pyhton (I don't like Python that much and I believe it is neither your favorite language but that's what they offer). If you don't do the series, which book would you recommend for an intermediate/veteran programmer but really ignorant about Quantum Computers. Thanks again for another great video!
In your example of using cubits to go through a maze, it demonstrates parallel processing, not quantum computing. Quantum computers would return all possible solutions by treating each cubit as a simultaneous process, not a separate process. It's almost like there is only one cubit in multiple places at multiple times so that no matter how many cubits are used they are all the same cubit in a super position of possible outcomes. Is this right?
Yes, that's why he said that we then need to find a way to amplify the correct result. That's actually the hard part. You need to set up the circuit such that the wrong results cancel out. This is possible because the qubit is not just a probability (real number), but a phase (complex number).
@@KohuGaly In the case of the maze example, I'm pretty sure we don't know a way to amplify the correct result. The problem is, you can't just discard the wrong attempts (that would violate unitarity!), you need to exploit some structure in the problem that allows the wrong attempts to cancel out. There are only a handful of problems (factoring, simulating QM, ...) for which we know of such an algorithm.
Awesome! Learned what a quantum computer really is! Every scifi movie has a reference to these, well not every but most of them, and I am pretty sure they don't know what it really is 😀
If the qubits/particles were in all states at once then you could run the program once and get the answer, but you can't, you have to run it dozens of times, sometimes hundreds or even thousands, because it really isn't in all states at once. The wave function does not represent a real physical state but is only visible when you have ensembles of qubits or particles or whatever and add together all the possible paths/values they can take on. Saying that a qubit can be in multiple states at once because ensembles of qubits can have many different values is like saying a coin is both heads and tails at once because if you have an ensemble of coin flips the probability distribution converges towards 50% heads and 50% tails. The reason you can do things like amplify desired results comes down to quantum nonlocality. Qubits can affect all other qubits at once without needing a medium allowing for much more efficient information processing than could be done classically, the CHSH game is a prime example of how this works in action. Qubits still only are ever in one place at a time, they can just interact with other qubits that are in another place.
I love those "Jon Lovitz" "Yeeahh..."
Could you make a video about getting started with Google Mock framework? I have a lot problems with getting it worked on windows. I downloaded last version from github, but I couldn't add it nether to visual studio 2019 or CLion.
I want to see how to make it done, step-by-step when I use MingGW or MSVC compiler, because I want to get a better approach of writing a code with Test Driven Development. Thanks a lot for your materials.
I'm curious also If it possible to use MASM x64 assembly on linux?
Sorry mate, I'm not familiar with it :( Well, cheers for watching anywho :)
Schrodinger is proud of the inventors who invented Qbits
very cool cheers :D
Welcome, thanks for watching :)
Quick question to resolve ambiguity - at 8:00 it was never mentioned that the example suggests dependant probabilities of the bits - i.e. the probability of one Q-bit is different depending on the value decided for the other. Is this an oversight or does this actually occur in quantum computers?
It is true that the probabilities for one Q-bit depend on the values of the other, thats what it means for them to be entangled. For example, you can have the standard case of entanglement of ( |11> + |00> ), where both Q-bits have a 50% chance of being 0 or 1 but they will always match each other.
That's really the wrong way to think about it though, it is better to think about probabilities for each comination of all the bits like he describes.
pls pls pls make it a series mate instead of 1episode!!!😭❤️
I think it would be better to represent a qbit as whirligig, measurement as photo, determining direction of spin and entanglement on example of multiple pendulum synchronization phenomena.
But how are the weighted operationsmade possible?
To be honest I didn't understand your explanation about the difference between bits and qbits. After all, if I do not know the value of a classical bit, I can still assign probabilities to each state based on knowledge about the underlying algorithm producing them, but that doesn't make those bits qbits. For everyone else who struggles with his explanation, here is an alternative explanation which might be helpful.
1. Every classical bit is a boolean variable. You might not know its value, but you know with absolute certainty that it has *some* boolean value assigned to it (either true or false). Operations on bits might change their value, but not your certainty about those bits having some boolean value assigned. In Python you might implement a classical bit like this
*Bit = lambda state: lambda: state*
2. Qbits on the other hand are not boolean variables, but random boolean generators. Whereas previously you knew with absolute certainty that the classical bit has some boolean value assigned to it, you can't be so sure with the qbit. However, now you can be absolutely certain that the qbit has *some* probability assigned to it that enables it to generate boolean values according to that probability. Operations on qbits do not affect their boolean value (because they don't have one), but the probability assigned to them. In Python you might implement a qbit like this
*QBit = lambda probability: lambda: random.uniform(0,1) > probability*
(this explanation *only* holds, if you look at a qbit across multiple runs of the same program. If you look at a qbit inside a single instance of a program, then it is more like a probability that converts into a classical bit once you read it.)
Yes, sorry! I wanted the quantum maze to fill in all paths and the correct path to become brighter. It's like the way water would solve a maze, or electricity. I actually made a maze out of Lego, with water flowing through it. I put food colouring in at the start. And it quickly solves the maze, with the colouring showing the path! Maybe a video about that would be fun?
Anyway, my Blender 3D skills are only so-so, and I had to settle with little marbles. Currently quantum computers aren't able to do that at all since they only have a few qubits and decoherence messes everything up... Hopefully the quantum computers can become more reliable in the near future! Thanks for watching :)
Without entering into the details of the quantum mechanics framework (and thus Hilbert spaces math), the tricky part about a qubit is that the way one chose to measure it is not constrained to a single question (0 or 1) for instance you can ask if it is in the state |0)+|1) or |0)-|1) and infinitely many other ways, as many as points on the surface of a sphere to be precise. If you only have many copies of a single qubit there will always be a way to measure it that will systematically return the same answer for all copies.
But the really important part is intrication : take a two qubit state |01)-|10), if you measure the first bit and get a 0/1 the other will always be in the 1/0 state. At a first glance this seems fine, but it is not : as long as you measure the first and the second qubit in the same way you will always get anti-correlated results with 50/50 probabilities for both results. The individual qubits don't have a state of their own anymore : you need to look at both of them to understand the whole thing.
It can be shown that the full statistics of intricated states is not reproducible with classical means, no matter how you chose to represent the two qubit, this is Bell's theorem, but there is no way to explain it without getting into some algebra.
Note that this does not mean that quantum mechanics can't be simulated on a classical computer in a practical way, some of it can and understanding how far classical computation can go is an open question as far as I know, even the role of intrication in quantum computing power is poorly understood though there is hints that it is a core aspect of it, but the shear diversity of classical information that can be stored in a quantum state is just so huge that it seems unlikely to be possible for all problems. The question is : are those problems interesting and if so can they be solved on a practical quantum computer ?
So in quantum, a bit is a string- wait a minute- I've been using quantum all along... with this great new language called Javascript that uses something called "dynamic typing" which basicly means...uhm... it basicly means quantum computing is just fuzzy logic with ufo typing tacked on.
Quantum computing causes my neurons to generate superposition between |this is impossible to understand> and |I am just dumb> with little bias toward second option
so instead of a bit we have essentially any decimal value between 0 and 1? and the quantum function return value is rounded to the whole number
rather than rounded, it treats it as probability. If you have 0.8 - if you just round it, you would expect to always get 1, but instead, if you run it 100 times, you would expect to get 1 out 80 times.
- at least, this is how I understand it.
- also, they interact in more complex ways, so they are not just real numbers 0-1, as they 'are' when on their own.
It's a bit more complicated than that. A state of qubit is a linear combination of 0 and 1 states, where the coefficients are complex numbers:
|Q> = a * |1> + b * |0>
Such that "a" and "b" are complex numbers and squares of their magnitudes add up to 1.
A square of the magnitude of the coefficient gives you the probability. For example:
|Q1> = 0.7*|1> + 0.7*|0>
has 50/50 chance of being 1 or a 0. The same is true of:
|Q2> = - 0.7*|1> - 0.7*|0>
However, Q1 and Q2 have opposite phase. Logical XOR of the two values would be pure 1.
No, basically is just normal computing but whit a real random RNG
Does this mean I can continue to use branching for my applications?
Well, if you wanna branch, then you also want to check for a condition, and if that condition's based on the value of a qubit, then you just observed its value, so tough luck. 😉
@@sindrenm Yea, good point. I had just watched on of these videos here on branchless programming and how much better it is on classic computers, so I was kind of just making a snarky comment because these quantum apps should all run "at once". However, now that you bring it up, perhaps one cannot branch in a quantum application?
Do you have a physic degree? I'm a developer with a Comp Sci degree, doing Java/Python/Node, whatever really? do you think a physics degree will be necessary to understand quantum computing?
I have a computer science degree. I don't think you need a physics degree to do quantum computing. In the same that we don't need a degree in electronics engineering to code a normal computer. It might help, though...?
Well, cheers for watching mate, have a good one :)
You need to look at the field of quantum information, that is the study of the structure of the quantum mechanics framework, usually with a focus on finite dimensional systems. This implies reading through a lot of linear algebra within Hilbert spaces, so you may have to start here.
But if you want to get out of a maze (or a stage on a video game) and you don't particular how long it takes, always go left - and you will get out! There is your default state.
I've been searching for a good explanation of Quantum Computing. I agree that quantum states are fantastical science, but in practice every explanation I've heard seems to distill down into "it uses floats instead of bits." This video lightly touched on what the real impact is when it explained (at 12:35) that there is "amplification" that can happen before a bit state is read. The statement is nebulous, though, and I find it hard to hold on to anything more salient than "so it takes 7 seconds to divide 1024 by 2" (and get the answer a bit wrong besides). I'd welcome more videos on the topic, as I still haven't found the clarity I'm looking for on the topic.
Yea. I looked into this extensively a couple of years ago and .... I am not even fully convinced quantum computers compute anything. Happy to be wrong but it is all very ambiguous. I decided to have another look now and see if it is clearer yet. Granted this a couple of years old video ... but I like @Creel's coding videos so I thought I'd give it a shot. The problem is it all seems highly theoretical ... where is the practical usage of this. Or is it fancy theory on top of fancy theory (it can happen). I did build a little "simulator" for superposition calculation/demonstration before and found an interesting mathematical part which did seem to indicate there is something to all this (i.e. what they say in the theory ... I was just trying to show it in a clearer way). But then I got distracted and lost interest for a while. I should probably review that and see if I can update it - as its kinda the key point all of this is based on. @Chris did yo get any more clarity on this subject yourself? :)
May I be allowed to make a small correction. Your original idea of using a spinning coin to model the qbit is actually how it was first explained to me. While it spins, it reads both 0 and 1, in a kind of motion blur. To read the coin, you must stop it spinning. Thats how the reading-collapse of the wave function was explained to me by a polish dude with a heavy-metal accent. Aside:He would always listen to Laibach or Rammstein at volume-11, so noone would enter his space when he didn't want them to. The problem is, I really like all Krautcore, I met my wife at a Rammstein concert, so his plan didn't work with me:End. Anyway, think of your fingers (or the electronic shutter of your smartphone camera) 'frame/grabbing' the coin. The benefit of this analogy is precisely BECAUSE it avoids quantum weirdness by emphasizing quantum modelling.
I'm having trouble seeing how this can handle normal data such as letters and numbers and not just bang out a probability of what state a qbit is in. Or is this just a probablity machine. I have no idea what sort of programs these things could run except for probabilities. Or, I just have no idea at all!
yeah
How many FPS can a quantum computer achieve in CS.Go?
None,for it is not made for it.
@@theterribleanimator1793 :)
@@miaudottk9080 :)
You will miss half of your shots because random.
@@epicm999 :)
Imagine being yes and no at the same time. That's actually a thing and it is quite intense indeed.
Women are already in a quantum superposition of yes and no.
ok. as far as i got it: there is a highly paid computer scientist, who asks his very expensiv quantum computer, how much is 1 and 1, and then he programs the probability function to return 2 with a higher probability.
after the result is returned, he boast about the speed of his computer.
I still don't understand why its better than parallel computers, we have GPU, some neural computers coming up.
About labyrinth solver. I did simple pathfinder before with tutorial, all it did is checked cell with neighbour cell and added number that represent distance from start, at the same time it checked if it reached destination if yes it choose path with least distance. I think for this job could exist parallel computer (for 2d or 3d space) that checks lot of cells at the same time.
Does this mean quantum computers are a type of nondeterministic turing machine?
mnyeahh
And the departure.
This was great. Thanks very much. A new take on how to describe QC.
I'd love to see an example from an algorithmic and time complexity perspective. Personally I struggle to understand how in the maze situation there are less resources being used than a classical computer. I should probably put some effort in and actually read some PDFs on this!
Great point, yes the maze example is easily solvable by a classical computer. It's just the strange method that quantum computers use. Cheers for watching mate!
I *think* it uses less resources because it only collapses the state at the end. So basically at every turning point the Qbits are still in a superposition state that describes them "going both left and right".
20:00 how can you have this perfect result without 1% of noisy random states on a real quantum computer?
I once flipped a coin and had it land on it's side, it broke the rule, it wasn't in one of the 2 expected states after completion. Gotta wonder what the odds of this are, guess a quantum computer could sort that out in no time.
Show quantum sorting algorithm
9:00 UA-cam compression dying lels
And Quantum computers are surely interesting. I came across a paper on programming language for it. Though I was dumb to understand, people surely are gearing up
I think that's something about his video quality... 🥴
Part 2?
So, a quantum computer can only tell you it got there, the answer. It cannot tell you how it got there?
10 years later there will be a PowerShell Module for Quantum Computing. 50 years later, some Terraform that creates quantum systems. 1,000 years later mutli-time/dimension computing for 0 wait time. 10,000 years later, Microsoft still offers SharePoint and it still sucks.
It already exits, it’s called Q#
G’day
Many worlds theory?
I love it!! It seems sooo crazy at first, but then I think about it for a while, it explains so much more than Copenhagen. It just makes sense. Plus, Hugh Everett was one of the main proponents of it, and he was the father of the Bus Stop Boxer! Lead singer of the band The Eels.
Great music, fascinating interpretation of QM :)
great, not much progress for IBM, you submit your job on punched cards and collect your output later :D
damn, all this to get 20 extra frames on doom.
I dont get it.
If you're interested, I have some constructive criticism with educational videos like these: don't act confused about the material you're teaching. By questioning what you're saying, I question your understanding in the first place, and and no longer lee the video as a valid source of knowledge. If it's for dramatic effect, I would recommend omitting it. If you genuinely don't understand what you're saying, then you didn't do enough research to make this video in the first place.
It’s just a presentation tool. I recommend a great talk from Microsoft if you want more information on these topics: ua-cam.com/video/F_Riqjdh2oM/v-deo.html
The presenter really knows his stuff!
@@WhatsACreel That video popped up in my suggestions after watching yours. I agree, it had some great stuff. Thanks anyways!
I wonder it it's cultural. I personally vastly favour the approach of showing humility and doubt - rather than being overly confident. "Confidence" has been taught as a corporate/business skill to mask doubt. From my experience, the most confident opinions tend to be the least knowledgeable, and those with deep knowledge tend to be the most careful about how they express their ideas and thoughts.
? isn't the value of Heads, Heads 69 ?
Thx a lot for the talk! Be careful, your hair is burning...
Let me get this straight. There are things that are not computable, which is common knowledge. Such as the halting problem.
You are saying quantum computers can compute things that are not computable with classical computers. That means that there are problems that are not solvable by classical computers but with quantum computers.
The logical conclusion is that we can not simulate a quantum computer, nor can we explain quantum mechanics with a mathematical model of any complexity, because a classical computer would be able to handle any (classic) mathematical model we throw at it. But a quantum computer can do more.
Is that what you mean?
@@leeroyjenkins0 So, if I understand this correctly, quantum computers can do what a normal one could do with massive parallelism without nearly as many resources.
Also as a side note, I like your name.
@@leeroyjenkins0 Oh, well that makes sense. Guess the hard part is finding an algorithm that returns the answer instead of every result.
Okay, okay, a qbit holds infinite information about tje future... until you read it.
lmfao
When Quantum Computers become mainstream, bogo-sort stops being the classic example of how not to write a sorting algorithm and beats out quick-sort as the fastest. :/
An interesting topic. But I still have my doubts about it. If you read a Q-bit and that sets it's state, where as before you read it, it contains both states... than how could you possibly know it is in both states at once without reading it? I have never been a fan of quantum science and I think the results they see are not because of their theories, but something else. That's what I feel anyhow. I know these quantum computers have limitations which prevent them from operating 100% like modern computers do. Maybe in the future we'll see hybrids of the two. I still have my doubts about them, mainly due to how the theory of quantum mechanics states the base of it all is random (something like that, I am REALLY rusty on it all). The idea of anything random goes against the foundation of science's cause and effect. I know Einstein didn't like it, he is quoted as saying "I do not believe God rolls the dice", he was not talking religion, but talking about Quantum theory and it's randomness.
Quantum mechanics certainly raises some interesting philosophical questions!
Every time we question it with a new experiment, Quantum mechanics shows that it is accurate! I don't think anybody is completely comfortable with that! Mind you, a deterministic Universe is not especially comfortable either...
Must say, it is so great to be a part of this Universe, with all its crazy questions and crazier answers!! Truly a marvelous place! Cheers for watching mate :)
In the end, all science is just our models of, or words for, describing what we can actually observe. If we can generate useful (reliable, verifiable) predictions, we can call that sort of model "the reality". There's nothing to stop you from choosing a different model, but to make it replace the current ones you'd have to show that it predicts better than they do.
There are no fractions or decimals in nature, only ratios and proportions. Quantum computing utilizes an idea that Terry Davis came up with back in 1997 where there is a analog cpu but a digital memory state. Q-bits are analog. All confusion and complexity in mathematics is the direct result of fractions and decimals. Eliminate them and everything in math, cs, and engineering becomes directly related to physical reality and faaaarrrr simpler. Imo anything with the word quantum in it is hiding something very simply explained. Any concept associated with physics is technically factually correct, but they are completely irrelevant facts. Modern physics is the equivalent to teaching a foreign language to someone by describing the shapes of the letters in the alphabet with trigometric equations. Imagine teaching the letter 'A' with the trigometric equations for the angles within the shape. It be impossible to teach someone a foreign language in that manner. 'Quantum computing' is analog cpu utilizing digital memory state. The idea was stolen from Terry Davis, the greatest computer programmer to ever live (not joking, he legit was). Do a deep dive into TempleOS Creel. If you are able to remain unbiased and are actually a legitimate programmer, youll recognize the utter brilliance of it. It is the only possible future where digital electronics do not become slavery devices(like they are now).
quantum computing seem like bullshit to me
Certainly good to keep a healthy dose of skepticism! I hope it's true! We have to wait until someone can demonstrate Quantum Supremacy! Might be a long way off yet... Only time will tell.
@@WhatsACreel for me it's like dark mater, black hole and anti-mater.. and lots of physics theories.. parallel dimensions etc..
all bullshit to steal energy ,time and money from the gullible idiotic masses.. create illusions.. same happens in medicine.. it's all about keeping peoples in the dark age even if they believe they know stuff.. this is why you constantly ear these terms in movies... quantum this quantum that.. dark matter etc... all part of the world wide scam.. true science is kept hidden for themselves and false science promoted.. only those who take the time see thru their bullshit but afterwards impossible to explain to the masses.. they are too brainwashed..
@@lextr3110 sus
Quantum computers are just really expensive random number generators. Not really useful at all since a classical computer can generate pseudo random numbers that are random enough for all practical purposes. Combined with the fact that they need to operate at near zero kelvin, quantom computing is most likely an elaborate scam 🤣
I cant help but be inclined to agree. Expensive random number generators! That might just be it. There are certainly many aspects that smell scam and "emperors clothes" to me. Maybe its just at its infancy and there is something to this, but it is possible there is not. Even Mr @Creel here insists on the "its amazing, mind-blowing, (like) magic" mantra, That's one of the things that really makes m wonder ... its only magic when it is (a) fake or (b) totally not understood. Which one is it here? :)
None of these quantum explanations are anything more than metaphors.