How Does a Quantum Computer Work?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 26 вер 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 7 тис.

  • @LeSuperModeste
    @LeSuperModeste 5 років тому +5182

    Wasn't expecting Loki to do an explanation about quantum computing

    • @PeanutDopey
      @PeanutDopey 5 років тому +195

      The tesseract must have brought him here

    • @dineshvyas
      @dineshvyas 4 роки тому +16

      C'mon you stoll my thought.

    • @allank8497
      @allank8497 4 роки тому +16

      Bro that guys creepylookin af

    • @無名兄弟-i7m
      @無名兄弟-i7m 4 роки тому +27

      I low key wasn't expecting it either.

    • @rasmitdevkota5295
      @rasmitdevkota5295 4 роки тому +2

      @@無名兄弟-i7m random (dumb) question: the hanzi/kanji in your username looks quite complicated, that's not your actually name is it?

  • @silvertakana3932
    @silvertakana3932 3 роки тому +4489

    Classical computer: true, false
    Quantum computer: maybe

    • @feritperliare2890
      @feritperliare2890 3 роки тому +409

      I prefer yesn't

    • @math.radical
      @math.radical 3 роки тому +42

      lol this poppped up in your recommendations lol this way made 8 years ago-

    • @pumpkinclouds3049
      @pumpkinclouds3049 3 роки тому +49

      PERHAPS

    • @syllight9053
      @syllight9053 3 роки тому +26

      Bruh as a programmer imagine we have individually force the bool to the system

    • @Alex-qd7ly
      @Alex-qd7ly 3 роки тому +8

      Bruh….

  • @BM-jy6cb
    @BM-jy6cb 4 роки тому +649

    That's the first time I've 'got' how quantum computers work. -'it's not the speed of the individual operations, it's the number of operations it takes to reach the result.' No magic. Andrea is a superb scientist. I love his explanations. Thank you!

    • @Shatlord
      @Shatlord Рік тому +1

      Agreed

    • @what9418
      @what9418 Рік тому +5

      Well, even though some explanation is done, I still don't understand what an operation is and how it affects a qubit's state. And how operations mutualy use those states. And how one programs a set of operations anyways.
      If I'm not mistaken, a qubit only holds the intermediate states between the beginning and ending of a sequence of operations. And after you read it the state is gone.
      I'd interpret this as operations can't read qubits either but just influence it. Sounds a bit like analog values getting amplified and dampened until the outcome is reached.
      Anyways, if you understand it better then please let my know

    • @HonkiePlonkie
      @HonkiePlonkie 11 місяців тому

      @@what9418 I just came here for the free headache. Good night.

    • @sharathnb
      @sharathnb 10 місяців тому

      Yes, even now I realise why they are used in HPC - high performance computers for parallel computing..

    • @sswulffable
      @sswulffable 2 місяці тому

      Just WHAT do you mean "no magic" ????
      This electronic engineering is BEYOND magic !!!
      Absolutely Astronomical out of this universe ...

  • @Misayah29
    @Misayah29 3 роки тому +1818

    Really like how this professor teaches. He's very understandable.

    • @matthewmcb1089
      @matthewmcb1089 3 роки тому +167

      I disagree, I didn't understand anything, although I don't think that is the Professor's fault...

    • @mmehdi3437
      @mmehdi3437 3 роки тому +63

      To be fair he didnt get into any details, it was just general information about the topic

    • @vittorio1159
      @vittorio1159 2 роки тому +53

      @sr1nu he's italian and I think he works in Australia, so it's a superposition of the italian and australian accent

    • @sabakandashvili5373
      @sabakandashvili5373 2 роки тому +15

      @@mmehdi3437 you want him to explain whole quantum physics in a youtube video? He talks very understandably and he's probably a great teacher. he knows what he's talking about.

    • @xtraspecialj
      @xtraspecialj 2 роки тому +2

      If you're talking about the long hair dude on the whiteboard then you smoking rock... He didn't make a lick of sense to me. I've watched it twice now and have no clue how it works nor how it could be better than a standard computer.

  • @jassging
    @jassging 8 років тому +8804

    it's amazing I don't even understand a single bit.

    • @mario6148
      @mario6148 8 років тому +934

      Neither do quantum computers.

    • @pedro3161
      @pedro3161 8 років тому +402

      Write these two comments in history books.

    • @ganjanaut6038
      @ganjanaut6038 8 років тому +40

      It's just really fast computing, the quantum state stuff is just on and off just faster"slower" (think of space time slowing down) like a dimming switch on a light. An easier computing way would be to have a computer register 5 and 0 as on and off 1-4 and 6-9 as quantum numbers (dimensional movement) no such thing as quantum it's just really fast. The photon pairing example can be just seen as gluons and bosons(slower)

    • @ganjanaut6038
      @ganjanaut6038 8 років тому +8

      +Ganjanaut moores law continues

    • @ganjanaut6038
      @ganjanaut6038 8 років тому +5

      +Ganjanaut LSRSL

  • @borhanzadeh1699
    @borhanzadeh1699 6 років тому +1033

    Epic accent: Check
    Epic hair: check
    Epic soul patch: check
    This dude's got it down

  • @deepmeyt
    @deepmeyt 5 років тому +2938

    The comments section:
    100% : I don't understand
    100% : I understand
    .. And that's quantum computing

    • @BigUriel
      @BigUriel 5 років тому +184

      That is true until you actually read the comments.

    • @trilexi
      @trilexi 5 років тому +31

      Underated comment

    • @redsusoverparadise2700
      @redsusoverparadise2700 5 років тому +65

      Its called understandn't

    • @manda3dprojects966
      @manda3dprojects966 5 років тому +29

      That's true and false at the same time

    • @ifstatementifstatement2704
      @ifstatementifstatement2704 4 роки тому +6

      Aashish Singh so you understand then? Lol. I measured your state and saw that you understood. Maybe next time I measure, you don’t understand lol.

  • @xuanyuquah983
    @xuanyuquah983 4 роки тому +632

    I lost it at the when he started explaining about the coefficient part

    • @izzad777
      @izzad777 3 роки тому +47

      I totally don't understand the diagram at 3:01 and his explanation onwards.

    • @jayadevashok2070
      @jayadevashok2070 3 роки тому +6

      same

    • @atharvkaushik
      @atharvkaushik 3 роки тому +4

      math sucks :(

    • @darkferiousity
      @darkferiousity 3 роки тому +41

      Where he was describing N qubits? All N is is a variable that is representing how many of something there are for instance if you might own 2 cars and someone else owns 3 cars you can describe both situations with both people owning Ncars where in your case N = 2 and for the other person N = 3. A coefficient is just a variable number placed before something that multiplies it. So what he was saying is if you have 1 qubit it can be in both positions at the same time called a superposition. where as classic computers can only be in one position at a time. As you add more qubits the positions can be multiplied exponentually. So he was saying if they have 300 qubits which means N = 300 and that 300 qubits can produce 2^N or 2^300 possible positions in comparison to classical computations.

    • @JS-gw5bg
      @JS-gw5bg 3 роки тому +7

      Agreed. I keep looking for simpler videos but they're either not in depth enough or too complicated for me to understand.

  • @robertbohrer7501
    @robertbohrer7501 6 років тому +1348

    Yes, but how does the computer *actually* work? How does it store a qubit? How does it entangle the qubits? How does it read the basis state? How is he algorithm strucured?

    • @sonofblessed
      @sonofblessed 5 років тому +23

      These are my questions, too.

    • @overseer3072
      @overseer3072 4 роки тому +29

      Einstein spooky theory

    • @KoolMonkE
      @KoolMonkE 4 роки тому +30

      Top 10 questions that even science cannot answer.

    • @misterae6430
      @misterae6430 4 роки тому +5

      @@jcf20010 Shut up im smart!

    • @zeydalynn8634
      @zeydalynn8634 4 роки тому +1

      @@jcf20010 This was literally the next video suggestion for me

  • @dkrIlI
    @dkrIlI 3 роки тому +122

    almost 8 years since the video was made and i still think this is one of the best explanations i can find for my tiny brain to comprehend the basic definition of quantum computing.

    • @glendisshiko8182
      @glendisshiko8182 2 роки тому

      Its amazing that last week a 500 qubit quanum computer was developed

    • @nazalmoideen
      @nazalmoideen Рік тому +2

      ​@@glendisshiko8182 So that's the same as 2^500 classical bits? Amazing.

  • @Brandon33akahk
    @Brandon33akahk 7 років тому +589

    I have what scientists call QI or Quantum Intelligence, which exists in two states, before you measure it, I am both Intelligent and not, but once you measure it, what you find is that I am not intelligent 99% of the time. By the way, I don't even understand this enough to make an appropriate metaphor, and this is the 1% trying it's hardest here.

    • @novavii9663
      @novavii9663 5 років тому +5

      Haha

    • @sanjayg6842
      @sanjayg6842 5 років тому +4

      Lol

    • @joshualee1685
      @joshualee1685 4 роки тому +16

      At least you were able to make a proper analogy

    • @sharkracer
      @sharkracer 4 роки тому +4

      Couldn't that also be called SI? Schroedinger's Intelligence? :)

    • @jain4613
      @jain4613 4 роки тому +2

      brilliant!

  • @cretinousswine8234
    @cretinousswine8234 3 роки тому +680

    This video should be titled “Italian Metalhead Explains About Qubits”

    • @nicholas132edm
      @nicholas132edm 3 роки тому +7

      probably romanian tho

    • @felleg4737
      @felleg4737 3 роки тому +11

      @@nicholas132edm no, he was born in Pinerolo, Italy.

    • @distico
      @distico 3 роки тому +9

      LOL most likely prog metal

    • @ricardopieper11
      @ricardopieper11 3 роки тому +2

      He looks like Fabio Lione (power metal singer in Angra and Rhapsody) and his voice is almost exactly like Fabio too

    • @jameshisself9324
      @jameshisself9324 3 роки тому +2

      A 'scientist' trying to look cool just comes off as a pretentious douche. Credibility dubious at best.

  • @debajyotisg
    @debajyotisg 8 років тому +169

    Andrea Morello is my new hero.
    Explains things so nicely!

    • @FKR911
      @FKR911 8 років тому +3

      ikr

    • @Dhirallin
      @Dhirallin 8 років тому +2

      Did veritasium go on a holiday to Australia to make the video? ;) Edit: Oh he's Australian with a Canadian accent...

    • @poppabloodvessel7072
      @poppabloodvessel7072 6 років тому +1

      Debajyoti Sengupta you should check out how nice his hand jobs are.

    • @cosimo9922
      @cosimo9922 5 років тому

      @@Dhirallin he is italian

  • @Bazzabazeman
    @Bazzabazeman 9 років тому +2357

    Tha guy's accent, it's legendary.

  • @braker37
    @braker37 3 роки тому +347

    02:33 - the moment he realized the average viewer won't understand anything. And he was correct.

    • @pigadmiral6642
      @pigadmiral6642 3 роки тому +106

      To him, the average view both understood and didn't understand at the same time

    • @DanyalArcadio
      @DanyalArcadio 3 роки тому +23

      i feel like i kind of understand, but actually not at all

    • @Wraient
      @Wraient 3 роки тому +4

      You know what this is 8 years ago and I wanna learn more about quantum computers but don't have any recent resources

    • @hem9483
      @hem9483 2 роки тому +6

      @@Wraient check IBM’s public resources and documentation on quantum computing.

    • @Wraient
      @Wraient 2 роки тому +2

      @@hem9483 Thanks for letting me know

  • @subzeroelectronics3022
    @subzeroelectronics3022 3 роки тому +14

    Finally someone actually explained how they work! I’ve know for years about how, “it’s nothing like a classical computer, it can have bits in superposition” but no one told me how to read the qbits or how they interact.

  • @ArchangelExile
    @ArchangelExile 5 років тому +126

    0:40 Ping!
    0:57 Ping!

  • @domcarter2327
    @domcarter2327 10 років тому +69

    That physicist thought he was explaining himself but he really wasn't..

  • @mohamedbasha1263
    @mohamedbasha1263 8 років тому +1852

    i lost it at 0:00

  • @gauthierlechevalier1379
    @gauthierlechevalier1379 4 роки тому +64

    For those wandering, why when you add up the coefficients in front of the possible states of the electron spin at 1:35 you don’t find one (which would mean he made an error in the probabilities) , it’s because these numbers are just coefficients, if you want to get the actual probability of getting an electron spin up/down, you have to square the coefficients:
    (0,80)^2 = 0,64
    (0,60)^2 = 0,36
    And when you sum up these numbers you get one.

    • @johncarson5436
      @johncarson5436 Рік тому +1

      What happens when both coefficients are 0.50?

    • @neutra__l8525
      @neutra__l8525 Рік тому +2

      ​@@johncarson5436 From memory it is because of how the probabilities are calculated. Determining the probability is a function of the electron charge and its momentum. I realise that probably means nothing. Its a super abstract concept and is only expressed by the underlying maths.

    • @ilikegeorgiabutiveonlybeen6705
      @ilikegeorgiabutiveonlybeen6705 9 місяців тому

      ​@@johncarson5436this is not a physical state

    • @cmdrriotz5283
      @cmdrriotz5283 8 місяців тому

      No clue what your saying. lol

    • @gauthierlechevalier1379
      @gauthierlechevalier1379 8 місяців тому +2

      @@johncarson5436 if both coefficients are 0,50, than you must have made an error: 0,5 squared is 0,25. There are only 2 possible states for that electron: spin up of spin down, which means that your probabilities don’t add up to 1 but to 0,5 (which means there are other possible states)
      If the probability coefficients are both 0,5 (and not just the simple coefficients) you have a 50% chance of observing that electron spin up, and 50% chance of observing it spin down.
      PS: if the probability coefficients are both 0.5, that means the coefficients are equal to square root of 0.5, so that if you do the math backwards: sqrt(0.5)^2 = 0.5 :)
      I emphasize on not confusing the simple coefficients and the probability coefficients

  • @A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid
    @A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid 9 років тому +106

    I really like that dude, his eyes are so expressive. Bitchin soul patch too.

    • @energy_waves
      @energy_waves 6 років тому +1

      Milky Way Laniakea Superclusterite His eyes are amazing

    • @Wuisini
      @Wuisini 6 років тому

      Milky Way Laniakea Superclusterite if you’re gay that’s cool. You GAY

    • @joshualiu8551
      @joshualiu8551 6 років тому +1

      Im so proud to say he used to be my lecturer

  • @TheCh0senOne
    @TheCh0senOne 11 років тому +28

    Seriously... when this guy looks at the camera I'm sure he can read my mind.

  • @georgiana1754
    @georgiana1754 8 років тому +34

    I admire how accurately and gracefully Andrea dissipates all the myths built around quantum computers.

  • @kazj1728
    @kazj1728 Рік тому +21

    I remember my physics professor at Georgia Tech was building a quantum computer back in the early 2000’s, but it was probably a 2^1 or 2*2 Qbits at that point, 😂. Smarter than I’ll ever be!

  • @maulwurf9414
    @maulwurf9414 5 років тому +133

    0:40 *BING*

  • @bernd_the_almighty
    @bernd_the_almighty 9 років тому +262

    I guess the future is hybrid CPU's.
    Just like we use specialized CPUs called GPUs to render images, we will use QPUs (?) to calculate something which benifits from it, while still using CPUs for all the other cases.

    • @PinguimFU
      @PinguimFU 9 років тому +11

      to better wet expand on your concept i belive the "domestic" application that can benefit the most from these kind of operations are exactly those made by the gpu,that has to process lots and lots of shadows and physics calculations at the same time,or to render a large video,as per say if you encode 2 bits of it at a time or 2000 it doest make a diference,so i belive that we are going to see 2 things from this 1st is quantum based gpu,s and second something faster or even a improvement on ssd,s so that they can keep up with the large amount of data transfers needed to acomodate such power,otherwise your gigantic quantum computer will be as fast as you can transfer data arround...

    • @Bastacat
      @Bastacat 9 років тому +3

      *****
      Or perhaps at some point we will hit a bottleneck,either because of the limitations or the possible price tag as an outcome.You can see it happening right now,instead of going bigger in sheer amount of processing power,developers create techniques to do whatever they want/can with the existing tech.
      Think of it this way: You can stack cards only so high,before they collapse.

    • @ProGamer29RO
      @ProGamer29RO 9 років тому +7

      imagine the cooling you would need...

    • @koffieslikkersenior
      @koffieslikkersenior 9 років тому +4

      Kronguard Price is not a problem. Simple economics say that so long as the demand and supply are high enough, the price will drop. Developpers are creating techniques to harness as much power as possible with existing tech only because of the existence of consoles. Being limited by generations, instead of the continuous evolution of the PC, they have to look for more sophisticated techniques to get as much power out of those machines as possible. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Creating these techniques frees up memory, but being limited and having to spend money on the technical aspect of the game instead of the gameplay and to some degree graphics is not that good.

    • @riveraluciano
      @riveraluciano 9 років тому +7

      You're not considering the nature of GPU's and the way they process information.
      Cpu's work in serial; each line of code is taken in sequence, one by one. Really fast, but still, one by one, and has a few cores dedicated to that.
      Gpu's work in "parallel"; they work with floating point numbers, and can take several lines of code and process them at the same time, it has thousands upon thousands of specialized cores.
      The better an application is optimized for GPU-acceleration, the more "room" is given to a CPU for other processes, and thus the bottleneck someone mentioned can be taken care of.
      Eventually yes, a CPU bottleneck will occur because transistors will eventually reach the limit in manufacturing process, and so will GPU's, but we still have a few years for that, and there's a big chance that by then there will be a different material that will allow for a smaller manufacturing process of the transistors, which will account for that.

  • @justinz9024
    @justinz9024 9 років тому +1299

    Well that explains a lot, still don't know a thing

    • @LemonsCS
      @LemonsCS 9 років тому +7

      +Justin Zh I came on here to find out why people were so hyped about it and what it could do but i guess that info just isnt here.

    • @MrGoatflakes
      @MrGoatflakes 8 років тому +48

      +-=[Kuledude Gaming]=- You have to understand the properties of 2^n. Think of it this way. Put a grain of rice on the first square of the chest board. Double it it for the next square, adding 2 grains of rice, 4 for the second, 8 for the third and 16 for the forth and so on. When you reach the last square you will have (2^64)-1 or 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains of rice, a pile of rice the size of Mount Everest and 1000 years of the entire world's rice production at 2010 levels.
      So, if you manage to build a quantum computer with n bits, and manage to keep those n bits entangled, it can represent 2^n states. So 4 for n=2, 256 for n=8 and 9 trillion at n=64. So in other words you can do much more for less. But only for certain (important) types of problems, because you need to be able to collapse all these states out to one you can actually read.

    • @LemonsCS
      @LemonsCS 8 років тому +7

      Uh... very long, much words, very confusing. XD Anyways, i think i got what you mean, but not sure.

    • @LemonsCS
      @LemonsCS 8 років тому +1

      uh ok? xD

    • @LemonsCS
      @LemonsCS 8 років тому

      xD

  • @helmutalexanderrubiowilson6835
    @helmutalexanderrubiowilson6835 3 роки тому +44

    professor Morello is amazing he can explain this complex concepts so easily... the rockstar of Physics

    • @RabbitConfirmed
      @RabbitConfirmed 2 роки тому +1

      The minute I saw him in the video, I felt like this dude has some really good energy. Just someone you would immediately trust! A genuine but also extremely smart person! People like that are very rare.

  • @gwyn.
    @gwyn. 9 років тому +105

    Don't understand a thing but still watching.

    • @gwyn.
      @gwyn. 9 років тому +24

      Now i understand it but still watching.

    • @VK-pk8uz
      @VK-pk8uz 9 років тому +2

      Nethkrill Vesta You've been watching for two months? Dedication, my friend.

    • @gwyn.
      @gwyn. 9 років тому +6

      Victor Kyrg Oh yes, my friend. These science videos are like ganja to me. lol

  • @thepussygrabbingfamilyvalu557
    @thepussygrabbingfamilyvalu557 8 років тому +195

    this is the best explanation of qbits i've ever heard. thanks!

    • @thetherorist9244
      @thetherorist9244 5 років тому

      cubits in the bible.....get it??

    • @ahmadsaffi2227
      @ahmadsaffi2227 5 років тому +1

      Agreed, this was very well explained.

    • @hihtitmamnan
      @hihtitmamnan 5 років тому

      don't pretend you understood it...
      kidding, i just don't get it. i understand the computation power reference, but i don't get what superposition means and how to use it

    • @leohangrai7298
      @leohangrai7298 5 років тому

      Guys, this is really a great explanation of Qubits and the best one I've seen so far.
      I suggest that you guys look at some videos on the basic properties/phenomenons of Quantum particles/physics before diving into Quantum Computers.

  • @SuperTf2rocks
    @SuperTf2rocks 8 років тому +302

    Why do I like veritasium dressed as phosphorus atom so much?

    • @Moto2h
      @Moto2h 8 років тому +24

      What I like even more is referring to Derek as "Veritasium". Which I will do every day from now on.

    • @stavroshouiris
      @stavroshouiris 8 років тому +16

      ping

    • @pluransart1795
      @pluransart1795 8 років тому

      +Mikolaj Gackowski Dr. Derek Muller

    • @mattydread6114
      @mattydread6114 8 років тому

      Vacso Kagazzle Laloobay Hoophorn Wacago Seiliu bb

    • @petergao96
      @petergao96 8 років тому +3

      I think I heard someone laughing below their breath when he was the phosphorus the first time around.

  • @fish4115
    @fish4115 3 роки тому +91

    Finally, with this I can run task manager at 60 fps

  • @TacoSt8
    @TacoSt8 8 років тому +594

    veritasium dressed as a phosphorus atom is my fetish

    • @chaossspy6723
      @chaossspy6723 5 років тому +4

      Omygod

    • @evilelf6188
      @evilelf6188 5 років тому +18

      phos-play

    • @mihirsahu4519
      @mihirsahu4519 5 років тому +16

      So are your gonna ask him to put his huge electron in your vacant orbital?

    • @applimu7992
      @applimu7992 4 роки тому +3

      this does not deserve any of the ~500 like it has

    • @suntzu1409
      @suntzu1409 3 роки тому +1

      @@vivekbarjod6815 who says hes gay?

  • @LuLu-fx8it
    @LuLu-fx8it 5 років тому +457

    When you accept to wear in a big red atom disguise, that's the moment when we know you're truely dedicated to you channel!

    • @auredio6838
      @auredio6838 3 роки тому +1

      Its not an atom its a proton

    • @eeevoo
      @eeevoo 3 роки тому +2

      @@auredio6838 He is talking about Phosphorus, so no its not a Proton

    • @kajvanveen5302
      @kajvanveen5302 3 роки тому +1

      i dress up like this every day

    • @auredio6838
      @auredio6838 3 роки тому

      @@eeevoo oh

  • @aaroncadena6398
    @aaroncadena6398 6 років тому +252

    i watched this three times, just enough to gain 3% of what he is explaining. Im taking what little i have learned and protecting my sanity.

    • @anthonywillis7634
      @anthonywillis7634 4 роки тому +2

      Lol

    • @royhsieh4307
      @royhsieh4307 3 роки тому +14

      well i watched it three times and i am already at a superposition

    • @101perspective
      @101perspective 2 роки тому +2

      You just need to watch it 97 more times:)

    • @reincwan
      @reincwan 2 роки тому +1

      @@royhsieh4307 🤣🤣🤣🤣

    • @endgamez7621
      @endgamez7621 2 роки тому

      @@101perspective hmm

  • @kanishkjaiswal7260
    @kanishkjaiswal7260 8 місяців тому +1

    Just loved that he did explain in the technical but understandable terms, and as a highschool physical chemist student, I understand all this very well.
    Also love the nutsell telling that it just won't be improving our classical computing like browsing web or stuff

  • @MaxOnTrack
    @MaxOnTrack 10 років тому +41

    That long haired guy is an example of a great communicator; I think it's very easy for similarly intelligent guys to spew tech talk that passes over many heads

    • @robertofontiglia4148
      @robertofontiglia4148 10 років тому +17

      And on the side, his accent is great...

    • @Varmint111
      @Varmint111 10 років тому +3

      Agreed.

    • @janiszambars6132
      @janiszambars6132 10 років тому

      They could of chosen a professor from Cambridge, most I've seen are great explainers.

  • @SpeckyYT
    @SpeckyYT 5 років тому +77

    I was thinking:
    "Wait... is he italian?"
    Me controlling that he has an italian name:
    "Yes"

    • @bathbombman
      @bathbombman 4 роки тому +10

      he was half italian until you saw this video

    • @kangkanlahkar9045
      @kangkanlahkar9045 4 роки тому

      How do you differentiate a westerner? For an Indian guy, all westerners are the same

    • @sebasagudelo50
      @sebasagudelo50 4 роки тому +5

      That's raci...!! Kidding. By the accent; sounds very romance (as in romance languages), the way he speaks, the hard pronunciation of consonants, the intonation, the way he constructs his sentences and some words he uses. Also the name is a big hint, but you as an Indian probably have some of these features in your speech as well. There are Europeans who look noticeably different (i.e. Spaniards-Norwegians) but in some places they are really different to tell apart, even from Americans, and that's because it's a society built mainly by European immigrants that mixed maybe as much as in Europe itself.

    • @dragsterbixing2584
      @dragsterbixing2584 4 роки тому +2

      @@kangkanlahkar9045 I guess by their accent, am an Indian btw

    • @master1900mc
      @master1900mc 3 роки тому +2

      @@kangkanlahkar9045 as an italian, I knew he was italian before reading his name. He just speaks in the same way most italians do while speaking english at school. I don't know the specific features that make me say so, he just sounds italian. That's the way we speak I guess

  • @ArtisanTony
    @ArtisanTony 8 років тому +655

    He talked me out of building one.

    • @napnip
      @napnip 6 років тому +24

      Me too. I was gonna run Windows 95 on mine. Damn.

    • @vitulbansal4319
      @vitulbansal4319 6 років тому

      hahahah

    • @mibrahim4245
      @mibrahim4245 6 років тому

      what do u mean ? :P

    • @susanasanjuan4629
      @susanasanjuan4629 5 років тому +2

      一排污3哦2U切E 865 . , 0.,0000009.00=0
      w。
      .,, ,. :-);):D 可哦E

    • @jayrodathome
      @jayrodathome 5 років тому

      Don’t bother. Can’t even run Crysis... har har har.

  • @that_girl_jess
    @that_girl_jess Рік тому +9

    I would love to see another video from you on the advancements (if any) made in quantum computing !

  • @GigaGalacticGamer
    @GigaGalacticGamer 10 років тому +15

    0:40 - "bing" that made my day.

  • @MrBronsonNY
    @MrBronsonNY 9 років тому +193

    No computer is out of the realm of the blue screen of death!

    • @sweiland75
      @sweiland75 9 років тому +19

      +carlos carrion Any computer that does not run on Windows

    • @brokenmatrix366
      @brokenmatrix366 9 років тому

      +sweiland75 they still can crash though

    • @pezpeculiar9557
      @pezpeculiar9557 9 років тому

      +sweiland75 OS X has crashed on me a few times. Linux too.

    • @sweiland75
      @sweiland75 9 років тому +1

      wowitsbryce
      They do not have the BSOD

    • @pezpeculiar9557
      @pezpeculiar9557 9 років тому

      sweiland75 BSOD?

  • @katakis1
    @katakis1 5 років тому +4

    He does a great job at explaining it. Picks his words with great care. Now I want to know which types of calculations would benefit from quantum computing.

  • @ethernitcz
    @ethernitcz 3 роки тому +3

    This is the most amazing ~6-minute explanation of quantum computing principle that I had ever seen.

  • @babatulani6361
    @babatulani6361 8 років тому +502

    but can it run crysis 3 at ultra?

    • @iAmTheSquidThing
      @iAmTheSquidThing 8 років тому +28

      +yrjosmiel73 If they're talking about it being good for massively parallel operations, I can imagine it may actually be applicable to GPUs.

    • @cjdrey
      @cjdrey 8 років тому +18

      +yrjosmiel73 As far as I know, no truly working quantum computer exists right now, so probably not. But then again, I won't know until I've searched for it. It is currently in a state of superposition.

    • @thepope2412
      @thepope2412 8 років тому +1

      +cjdrey Google has recently made a quantum computer, just look it up.

    • @butterfinger4393
      @butterfinger4393 8 років тому +1

      +yrjosmiel73 nope . Crysis wasn't made for quantum computers and like the guy said it may be slower cuz it would use power just to convert to traditional code. Maybe when quantum PCs become more relevant can the cry engine use it's advantages.

    • @tamimiemran9705
      @tamimiemran9705 8 років тому +4

      +yrjosmiel73 asking the right questions

  • @chongzm1
    @chongzm1 8 років тому +195

    0:39 Ping

  • @theJMBgamer
    @theJMBgamer 9 років тому +24

    What I'm still having trouble understanding is how can we get useful results out of a machine whose state is based in probability and chance. I've been looking up answers all day, but very few make sense to me.

    • @porthos1000000
      @porthos1000000 9 років тому

      My thoughts exactly

    • @vedametatron
      @vedametatron 9 років тому +2

      Pretty much they are accessing the a wave function superposition meaning every possible answer you can think of and they are also with holding information on how powerful this machine really is .this machine is precognitive and it's been around and in use longer than they say it's accessing information from every source of possibilities that exists . Oh and it does so much more .

    • @thexavier666
      @thexavier666 9 років тому

      Alex Enschede You mean to say we can solve TSP with O(n^a) complexity with quantum computing?

    • @VanHoenheim
      @VanHoenheim 9 років тому +5

      To summarize what they said in the video, the computer starts with all possible states, putting all possible states through your algorithm as the variables and simultaneously calculating all possible results, and then you read the result, but by reading it, only one result is created, influenced by probability, because you can only read 1 or 0 and not the probabilities of superpositions.
      For example, lets take a formula like a = (x && !y) || z. Lets say, for simplicity, we assign just one bit to each number on the right hand side, so x, y, and z equal either 0 or 1. If you calculated with a quantum computer it would calculate everything at once.
      x | y | z | =a
      0 | 0 | 0 | =0
      1 | 0 | 0 | =1
      0 | 1 | 0 | =0
      1 | 1 | 0 | =0
      0 | 0 | 1 | =1
      1 | 0 | 1 | =1
      0 | 1 | 1 | =1
      1 | 1 | 1 | =1
      I'd assume that every bit starts at 50% chance of being 0 or 1, so a would have a 62.5% chance of being 1. I'm not sure, but from what they were saying I think they may have some kind of method of checking each line of the table one at a time. I'm still not sure myself, it's a confusing field and I haven't yet found any absolutely complete explanation.
      Basically, this could be used for powerful algorithms that consider every possibility at once. For example, a physics engine that calculates everything about a particle with every possible starting condition and then applies those calculations to each individual particle within the simulation at each tick of the clock; it would be like having parallel processors for each of the thousands or millions of particles in your simulation. This could be used for everything from gaming to theoretical physics simulations.

    • @stensoft
      @stensoft 9 років тому +2

      A basic example would be trying to obtain cryptographic secret key that matches known public key (this is mathematically possible but requires billions of years on classic computers). So you set the quantum computer so that all results will initially have the same probability and then you check it against the secret key with carefully designed algorithm. All possibilities will be evaluated at the same time and the correct result will increase its probability. Read the qubits and repeat the calculation a few hundered/thousand/million times. Then check the values on classic computer in order of how often they appear and you will find the result probably in a few seconds.

  • @Bigsupreme2000
    @Bigsupreme2000 Рік тому +7

    I have more simpler analogous example for everyone to understand here.
    Mr X can understand 1 question from one of the 3 people throwing questions at him, at a time. So he will take 3 turns to understands all 3 ppl 1 by 1.
    But here we have the genius Mr . Y. He has the special ability to absorb all 3 questions at the same time. Why wait 1 by 1 when you could take all at once ?? !! Awesome isnt it??
    Now 2 Mr X (2 bits) will understand 2 questions at a time.
    But 2 Mr Y (2 qubits) will understand 2^2^6=256 questions at a time !! Because they can superimpose their input ability in exponential!!
    Keep adding Mr. Y (the qubit) and you get the capability to absorb billions of times larger amounts of questions in 1 go. Freaking awesome !!
    Done.
    ------
    Now talk about why they so large and ultra expensive??
    Quantum computer basically lifts the limits of hardware construction. Current cpu design is such that it can only be some mm thick.
    But quantum computer breaks this limit and goes all way up in hardware, thus you se those huge quantum CPUs.
    More simple: Like intel or Amd cannot make faster cpu by increasing cpu size, it's counter productive and that cpu will not work. Like your brain cannot be the size of an elephant to make it more powerful, it will err and die.
    But quantum cpu can be made as bigger as you want and it's processing power will keep multiplying exponentially!!! Thus it breaks the limits of current microarchitecture and utilizes full hardware possibilities in all directions.
    But the problem of cost and power consumption will remain there...it will all depend how much semiconductor technology advance, allowing some smaller quantum computers still millions of times faster reach to the public. Will take some decades though.
    Until then, we will only see them installed in big tech firms.

  • @MrYuenH
    @MrYuenH 10 років тому +27

    i didnt understand anything, but was oddly compelled to keep watching...

  • @WhiteHeart_infosec
    @WhiteHeart_infosec 9 років тому +139

    that long heir guy looks like a head of Vampire club xD

    • @timhow
      @timhow 9 років тому +2

      You just made my day

    • @SWiTFSHoW
      @SWiTFSHoW 8 років тому

      +mheboob khan hahahaha

    • @NessieAndrew
      @NessieAndrew 8 років тому

      +mheboob khan I live in Transylvania!

    • @anstykarkada
      @anstykarkada 6 років тому

      hair*

  • @Yoni0505Blogspot
    @Yoni0505Blogspot 9 років тому +9

    so basically you need (n * precision)^2 normal bits to determine a single qbit.
    For example with regular 32 bits floating point variables you'll need 128 bits to determine 2 qbits.

    • @xSniperU
      @xSniperU 9 років тому +2

      yoni0505 Yeah !
      it means we can play GTA 99999 With high or ultra .. also we can watch 4K or 99K on any phone
      or any small device
      THE Future

    • @h.franzen4186
      @h.franzen4186 9 років тому +4

      xSniperU Did you even watch the video? ua-cam.com/video/g_IaVepNDT4/v-deo.html 6:23

  • @biswaruppramanik2007
    @biswaruppramanik2007 6 місяців тому +1

    UA-cam suddenly decided to recommend this cool video after 10 years 😅

  • @TheSinnerReloaded
    @TheSinnerReloaded 8 років тому +1258

    Basically you won't be able to watch porn faster, but it'll solve your math homework in a blink of an eye.

    • @mikikiki
      @mikikiki 8 років тому +22

      +1992mikern porn makes you stupid and impotent.

    • @harkdandy
      @harkdandy 8 років тому +1

      It should take far less than 300 milliseconds though..

    • @1992mikern
      @1992mikern 8 років тому +45

      Faster is better. I accomplish the same task in 300 milliseconds that takes other men 7 minutes

    • @harkdandy
      @harkdandy 8 років тому +9

      1992mikern lmao u bust after 300ms? XD

    • @ulisesroman7259
      @ulisesroman7259 8 років тому +22

      The NSA would be able to crack your Gmail password in the blink of an eye.

  • @michaelstewart1526
    @michaelstewart1526 8 років тому +5

    Its interesting that he says they can be both 0 and 1 at the same time. I'd venture to say that, they are not 0 and 1, at the same time. Instead, they are interchanging, just at such a rapid rate it is perceived as being at the same time.

  • @BoomBrush
    @BoomBrush 7 років тому +150

    its taken me almost 4 years to understand anything said in this video

    • @mario2872
      @mario2872 6 років тому +7

      Enlight me pls, i dont have 4 years, i wanna know now :D

    • @revolutionnow5227
      @revolutionnow5227 5 років тому +8

      @@mario2872 haha. Nice . Each of our messages is a year apart . I'm gonna go jack off now . Be back in a year

    • @dinkleberg794
      @dinkleberg794 5 років тому +4

      Revolution NOW Ur gunna whack it for a year?

    • @revolutionnow5227
      @revolutionnow5227 5 років тому +1

      @@trilexi 1 hour

    • @belstar1128
      @belstar1128 4 роки тому +1

      @Mario A quantum bit can be used to count faster than a normal bit because a normal bit can only go on or off but a quantum bit can go on off or half off so it is just better for some things.

  • @brunobraun7384
    @brunobraun7384 3 роки тому +11

    1:09 the sound of turning needle other way

  • @serriayisasia
    @serriayisasia 10 років тому +79

    how in the hell did I manage to understand that?

    • @kvisful
      @kvisful 10 років тому +43

      You must know english language.

    • @ThanhNguyen-vk5kf
      @ThanhNguyen-vk5kf 10 років тому +6

      quantum physics and computer science too

    • @thecuriousboi
      @thecuriousboi 10 років тому

      becuz ur fucking pretty

    • @serriayisasia
      @serriayisasia 10 років тому +1

      ***** wouldn't that imply the opposite

    • @JustLikeRAV
      @JustLikeRAV 10 років тому +6

      listen the sentences carefully and the moment you realize you're loosing the track start again from where you remember the last thing you fully understand!

  • @hamedkadkhodaie7715
    @hamedkadkhodaie7715 5 років тому +87

    So, basically, it's good for making huge combinations in a short time period, but not for transforming information, because the position of each electron has to be measured every time. So it's good for storing data and data analysis, as I understand. Think of a grid of electrons that can go up and down, instead of the classic bit, where the electrons have to go back and forth.

    • @costas3953
      @costas3953 3 роки тому +3

      Summarised it all perfectly in 3 sentences.

    • @Diana_L.
      @Diana_L. 3 роки тому +15

      In other words, good for brute force computations.

    • @hamedkadkhodaie7715
      @hamedkadkhodaie7715 3 роки тому +1

      @@Diana_L. Yes in other words :)

    • @Diana_L.
      @Diana_L. 3 роки тому +7

      @@hamedkadkhodaie7715 So, what they're doing is basically trying to design more efficient heuristics by exploiting quantum properties. Unlike classical algorithm design, which is mainly concerned with reducing the asymptotic complexity of the problem itself.

    • @hamedkadkhodaie7715
      @hamedkadkhodaie7715 3 роки тому +2

      @@Diana_L. exactly you explained it better than me

  • @thefakebrit6378
    @thefakebrit6378 8 років тому +42

    Cool. I always thought Quantum Computers are the perfect thing to replace traditional silicon-based computers. Turns out I was wrong. Thanks a lot for the very helpful information!

    • @lextr3110
      @lextr3110 6 років тому +1

      you was stupid as hell.. that's what you was..

    • @Mikelica69
      @Mikelica69 2 роки тому

      Cant wait to play quantumm Minecraft

  • @CorncropTv
    @CorncropTv Рік тому +1

    With every incremental discover in technology we get these huge leaps forward, i can't imagine what people will eventually invent with it.

  • @Jgeraus
    @Jgeraus 7 років тому +8

    So quantum computers aren't fast due to their individual operations being faster, but due to the fact that they require far fewer operations. Very insightful. Imagine a classical program that outputs you the quickest route to get from your house to the store. It must analyze every possible path there in order to compare and determine which path is shortest. It does this incredibly quick, however it requires enormous amounts of operations to give you the answer. A quantum computer, on the other hand, can process every possible path simultaneously, therefore requiring far fewer operations in the first place.

    • @carloshoratio5100
      @carloshoratio5100 7 років тому +3

      That's the right idea, but there's a catch. While the quantum computer can process each path simultaneously, only the information about one path can be retrieved. When the state of the qubits is measured, it collapses the superposition into a regular, non-superposition state. That is, all the information about the other states vanishes and it is essentially as if you had only analyzed one path. There are still ways to gain useful information out of the superposition (depending on the problem), they're just not always obvious and the information might not necessarily be useful.

    • @hatemel-kharashy8856
      @hatemel-kharashy8856 5 років тому

      @Trius IBM has a framework called Qiskit that you can use to write quantum computer software and you can run your code on their quantum computer connected to the cloud too. Here is the link and they also have video series on UA-cam explaining this.
      qiskit.org/

    • @coolguy284_2
      @coolguy284_2 4 роки тому

      @@hatemel-kharashy8856 I think in the future computers would have 3 processor types: CPU for the main processing, GPU for intensely parallel processing, and a quantum processing unit for all this quantum stuff.

    • @snyld
      @snyld 4 роки тому

      I just understand that there will be excessively combination per second. so this can be used for password cracking? is that right? because electrons move insanely per second which means that we can't know where an electron is but they can make 4 meaningful letters. The electron move randomly and insanely so this is the case. Per a moment a 1 letter will be observed and it will give signal. But per second, there will be nearly endless moment because electrons move so fast. There will come nearly endless and random signals per second because of the movement of the electron. The electrons move so fast that we can't even determine where it exactly is. So, it is not matter how long your password is, it will be detected very very very quickly. They can define the letters, numbers and characters to that system and easily solve your password. Because all of the possibilities will be just numbers near the infinity. Number divided by infinity equals zero. Actually maybe the number of letters (4 electron positions) are not the case. The number of the moments and randomness are the cases. It might be just 2 positions too. They are just making use of the randomness and speed of the electrons andthey achieve endless number of combinations. If I understand it correctly.

  • @muathbulbul
    @muathbulbul 7 років тому +11

    This is the first time I actually understand the real difference between a Quantum computer vs a legacy one! Thank you heaps!

  • @eXtremeDR
    @eXtremeDR 9 років тому +5

    My thesis is that every result is based on the same quantum principle. Any result has to be handled as: true, false, both, none.

    • @TheiLame
      @TheiLame 9 років тому

      ***** interesting

  • @olee_7277
    @olee_7277 3 роки тому +2

    This is the best explanation I have heard yet of how quantum computing actually works and what it is good for

  • @thedivinityman
    @thedivinityman 10 років тому +8

    Anyone else notice that the numbers did not add up to 1 but the percentages added up to 100%. he messed up on his probability, the numbers were 0.80 and 0.60 which add up to 1.40, while the percentages were 64% and 36% which add up to 100%, he did the percentage math correctly, but did not do the probability part correctly.

    • @unhott1893
      @unhott1893 10 років тому +59

      0.8 * 0.8 is 0.64. 0.6 * 0.6 is .36.
      0.64+0.36 = 1
      those values were not the probabilities but, think of them as a weighting coefficient. when you multiply by the complex conjugate you get the probability. since these numbers do not contain i, the complex conjugate is itself.

    • @TheBscit
      @TheBscit 10 років тому +11

      Oh man! We got a genious here!!!!!!!

    • @EvanWatterscache
      @EvanWatterscache 10 років тому

      TheBscit It's called "i" learn it in Adv. Algebra II. Imaginary numbers, they were a bitch. If that "i" refers to something from Calculus then I have no idea what he's talking about.

    • @blizzard0508
      @blizzard0508 10 років тому +2

      Evan Watters the number "i" is and always will mean the same thing. Sqrt(-1).

    • @VinceBlas
      @VinceBlas 10 років тому

      They're called Born probabilities. Oversimplifying: The probability of measuring a certain outcome is equal to the squared modulus of the given "weight" (or amplitude). Aaron Miller is correct.

  • @VeNoM0619
    @VeNoM0619 10 років тому +5

    That guy is amazing(ly brilliant). He explains it well enough, despite the language barrier.

  • @308-blackout
    @308-blackout 8 років тому +39

    yeah but...can it run crysis?

    • @OldFellaDave
      @OldFellaDave 5 років тому +2

      Only at 800x600 on Medium, shadows off

  • @ent2220
    @ent2220 10 місяців тому

    It's amazing how well the professor explained it! High level overview, while also mentioning all the relevant stuff.

  • @w2110942004
    @w2110942004 11 років тому +4

    One of the best explanation I ever heard!!!

  • @DJbassrevolution
    @DJbassrevolution 9 років тому +13

    I understand that quantum computers are using probability instead of solidly well defined positions which allows quantum computers to increase computing power exponentially instead of multiplicative. Since Moore's law is ending instead of creating quantum computers why don't we use variable voltages in transistors as as more states then just on and off 1 and zero. Like if you know anything about transistors there on state is within some range of voltage and the off state is also within some range of voltage called the threshold voltage. Well why don't we make computers slightly more precise so that there are maybe 4 voltage ranges instead of just two. Use a 4 number system instead of binary this would make computers far more powerful and wouldn't require a complete materials or computing revolution.

    • @GiantZombies69n
      @GiantZombies69n 9 років тому

      This is more along the lines of what I was thinking. But I really don't have much in depth experience with components so I didn't know if something like this would actually be possible.

    • @dadojovanovic98
      @dadojovanovic98 9 років тому +4

      You realy don't understand the architecture of a regular CPU....Hi works only beacuse trasistors understand two states(power ON and power OFF) there is no alternative just YES or NO. To do this, what you think, you need to develop some new kind of transistor and that wouldn't be a transistor anymore.

    • @zachkorman166
      @zachkorman166 9 років тому +11

      Actually transistors do act like a variable resistor between certain ranges, he's right. The issue is they do not act reliably in that regime. With HIGH versus LOW, there can be a range under which a transistor is closed or open. In that grey area where the metaphorical switch is not fully open or closed, things get very uncertain and complicated. It would be incredibly difficult to utilize that property of transistors for many, many reasons. Manufacturing uncertainty would be enough to throw off any individual transistor in a set so that it doesn't read the same value as its neighbor under the same applied voltage to the gate.

    • @yadeemkool5895
      @yadeemkool5895 9 років тому

      I believe you would need a larger voltage since there is always a small threshold above 2 different voltage to represent 1s or a 0s so if we are going to add more states there has to be more voltages to fill the gaps and then we will need transistors which are able know 3 or more states and that's where it all fails.
      What i really want is a light based mother board. But to make this any good we would need extremely fast conversion between electricity and light which i don't think will ever be possible.

    • @TheMrmadskillz
      @TheMrmadskillz 9 років тому +4

      There is no reason why we couldn't, it's just that the payoff isn't anywhere near as high. Both ideas have similar problems - stability and programming - that binary doesn't have because it's as simple as it gets. Using binary is like using triangles in computer graphics. Since triangles can only exist on one plane (in terms of filling in the shape when given the vertices), while other shapes could have ambiguity, they're ideal for precision (getting the same thing every time), but not for accuracy/efficiency (it takes a lot of triangles to approximate a circle). Similarly, binary is always right (in terms of mechanical calculations, floating point is irrelevant), but it's relatively limited.
      It would be possible to compute in base 4, and we could do so with essentially the same architecture that we currently use, but it would require far more accurate and expensive technology that would still be incredibly finicky (say, if you wanted to overclock it). Secondly, we'd need to create a new operating/logic system to account for the differing outputs, as any conversion would waste the potential. Based of what was said in the video, switching to base 4 would increase efficiency, as the gradience of each output would need its own measurement - more information - but that number would strictly double (currently when computing, each place value is recorded in a separate bus lane, so the effect only applies to each output). While these hurdles are even larger in terms of quantum computing, it's still just a one-off, and the benefits increase exponentially as opposed to multiplicatively (by that, I mean that the equation for the information density of a q-bit is 2^2^n, as opposed to just x^n. Even if we were to move into hexadecimal, it would only take 5 bits for the quantum computer to win out).
      However, (as far as I can tell) the benefit of voltage gradience is density as opposed to speed (it would only really improve memory bus width, but physical bottlenecks would still render that pointless, if not, worse than they already are), and one one the major problems/bottlenecks in quantum computing is the need to convert it back to binary, so if this were to be mastered, the quantum equation could be rewritten to 2^x^n. (Again, this part is outside of my knowledge)
      Of course, this is just an educated guess based off my understanding of how classical and quantum computers work in theory, as well as a brain dump to organize my thoughts on the matter. I could be completely wrong, and I'd love to be informed about that last part.

  • @mordant221
    @mordant221 9 років тому +174

    Beyond me, lol

    • @OverlordZephyros
      @OverlordZephyros 9 років тому +19

      Mordant Victor my brain just exploded lol

    • @imafackinjunglist
      @imafackinjunglist 9 років тому +3

      +BennyDACHO I have zero qualifications and i can grasp it.

    • @imafackinjunglist
      @imafackinjunglist 9 років тому +13

      No, I'm just saying that you dont need to do computer science to grasp this concept.
      No need for being pretentious.

    • @imafackinjunglist
      @imafackinjunglist 9 років тому +1

      BennyDACHO
      And I lied.
      I do have qualifications just they are in the automotive industry, not anything worth while.

    • @imafackinjunglist
      @imafackinjunglist 9 років тому +1

      Lol! I have now! But no i do not think that is myself.
      I have had a natural interest in physics since i was 15 and was reading books such as goldie locks theory which actually introduced me to the multiverse theory, string theory and thus quantum mechanics which now incorporates string theory to make the multiverse theory possible.

  • @ralfw77
    @ralfw77 7 місяців тому

    Love the clarity the prof has and the nice silliness of breaking it down to my level 😀

  • @sebastianreynold5473
    @sebastianreynold5473 6 років тому +14

    "Does anyone would like to take a break?" Me: Please, let me out of here..

  • @comatose9907
    @comatose9907 4 роки тому +10

    The "one type of computing" they never seem to tell you is brute force decryption.

  • @artiomqwerty7539
    @artiomqwerty7539 8 років тому +66

    Didn't know that Weird Al became a physicist.

    • @rohitk8797
      @rohitk8797 8 років тому

      lol

    • @noahcantor6588
      @noahcantor6588 8 років тому

      LOL

    • @ericosales1897
      @ericosales1897 7 років тому

      lol

    • @chainsaw2701
      @chainsaw2701 7 років тому +1

      If you get an answer from a quantum computer how can you verify the info is even correct? It's basically an educated guess, isn't it ?

  • @sohamgayen4858
    @sohamgayen4858 2 роки тому +4

    Well, I never expected it to be like this. I got the idea of quantum computing (last year - 2020) even before I came across this vid. My basic concept was to make components smaller than what it is today. So small that it would use sub-atomic particles to process information, like some sort of hyper computer. Now I came to know that these computers actually exist and are "not" suitable for personal use.

  • @blade09
    @blade09 9 років тому +22

    OHH SO THATS WHAT MY PROFESSOR MEANT WHEN HE SAID MAGNETIC SPIN what theheck you explain it so simply my prof didn't bother telling us what magnetic spin was exactly

    • @qiwi111
      @qiwi111 9 років тому +50

      He probably didn't even fully understand it, so he couln't explain it. As Einstein said: If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

    • @ravekid23
      @ravekid23 8 років тому

      +s vashi Many professors don't go into detail because they want you to research on your own.

    • @TheALPHA1550
      @TheALPHA1550 8 років тому

      +qiwi111 What about people who do not do well at explaining?

    • @jks2389
      @jks2389 8 років тому +1

      +s vashi Its not quite that simple, if you watch the explanation of spin with this same guy on the secondary channel you'll see what I mean. The 'spin' of an electron (and in fact every other particle) is a purely quantum property that has nothing to do with magnetism in the fundamental sense. So while the electron's spin has a magnetic interaction, the neutron's spin, for example, does not. So your term 'magnetic spin' is a misnomer. Hope this helps.

    • @dreggory82
      @dreggory82 5 років тому

      @@qiwi111 no, it's not this simple. This video makes it look like actual rotation to align with a magnetic field. Electron spin is a very unfortunate name. It is a purely quantum effect and does not have a classical equivalent. It's not a tiny solar system. For example I read a paper somewhere that said that a 360 degree rotation of a magnetic field was not enough to return the state of an electron to its original state. It took another 360 degrees. So 720 degrees rotation to return to its original state. But I bet I'm oversimplifying it too, I'm still learning about it and I have a degree in physics. Your professor probably didn't want to lose the whole class and have everyone throwing their desks and walking out. Read more about this topic it gets crazy.

  • @jarelprecila599
    @jarelprecila599 Рік тому +3

    This guy made me realize that my top-of-the-class awards in first to fourth grade didn't really reflect my intellectual capacity. The more he explained it the farther I got from grasping it.

    • @wills242
      @wills242 Рік тому

      That’s good. Hang in there man

  • @محمدالشمري-م6س9ط
    @محمدالشمري-م6س9ط 5 років тому +25

    the summary:
    the quantum computation - for now- can be used only for huge amount of data processing but can not be translated into our classical computational systems
    that means we need an inter-translation system to connect between both worlds
    I believe that what are we going to see in the near future

    • @davidwuhrer6704
      @davidwuhrer6704 4 роки тому +4

      A quantum computer can do everything a classical computer can do, just much slower and using much more energy.
      And, somewhat ironically, to program a QC and read out its results, you need a classical computer anyway. (Well, not really, but it does make things easier.)
      The hope is that the qubits can hold superpositions of bit vectors, and resolve them into defined results.
      This would be done via quantum gates, which are logic gates for quantum states.
      And because a qubit can hold a superposition which is only stochastically defined until it is measured, you don't need to backtrack through all possible permutations to find a consistent configuration. At the end it can only hold a state that the computation allows. And that means it should be able to do some computations over large sets faster than a classical computer ever could. Quantum computers are basically their own class of computational complexity.
      But until quantum supremacy is confirmed, it might not actually be any faster. In practice you have to deal with decoherence, which happens whenever a quantum particle interacts with anything else. And the more qubits you have, the more it will happen when you don't want it to happen, which is why you also need quantum error correction. You have to do the calculation several times, compare the results, and test them. And it might just be that that erases quantum supremacy. In theory it shouldn't, and if it does, new physics is required.
      On the other hand, if quantum supremacy is confirmed, new maths will be required. And so far, a few pre-existing fields of mathematics have been sufficient to serve physicists well.

    • @007fearmonger
      @007fearmonger 4 роки тому +1

      Well Google made it happen

    • @WilliamStewart1
      @WilliamStewart1 4 роки тому

      @@007fearmonger We can't confirm there claims though.

  • @avishbangia2693
    @avishbangia2693 8 місяців тому

    Really cool how he made this video 10 years ago with a broad level of understanding and it's just gaining major relevance in 2024.

  • @Lucasmsmpro
    @Lucasmsmpro 3 роки тому +14

    I didnt think it would be that hard to move a compass needle but his "ehh" just proved it was hard

  • @MaxLohMusic
    @MaxLohMusic 8 років тому +24

    yo mang i've scoured youtube and not a single actual in-depth explanation of why it is able to solve problems faster. namely how is an algorithm designed such that measuring the states yields an actual answer and how do you even know how to interpret that answer. Everyone is just like "well herp derp I got an intro and now I know how they work"

    • @MaxLohMusic
      @MaxLohMusic 8 років тому +6

      Tiwaking Tiwaking They solve certain SPECIFIC problems like integer factorization faster. Problem is no one has ever come up with a concise yet thorough explanation as to how they achieve this.

    • @MaxLohMusic
      @MaxLohMusic 8 років тому +6

      *****​ that's exactly what i mean by bs hand wavy explanation. It doesn't really explain how it happens. And though you may have followed the gist of the explanation, you still really have no idea exactly why an exponential growth in possible superposition states actually translates to faster problem solving. it is obviously more involved than just increasing the amount of working memory.

    • @dg5059
      @dg5059 8 років тому +11

      +Max Loh Its BS and handwavy because its exceptionally complicated. If you want a thorough understanding of how quantum computers work, you aren't going to get it from a 6-7 minute youtube video. You probably need at least a masters degree. This video is VERY simplified because otherwise nobody outside of the field would have any hope of understanding what was going on.

    • @MaxLohMusic
      @MaxLohMusic 8 років тому +8

      Dan Albrecht Perhaps so. I was hoping for something that might help us actually understand the idea, without getting technical. Because really all they did was explain that the number of possible states stored grows exponentially, not explain how that's even leveraged to solve anything faster, and then some people are claiming that they "understood" the explanation just because they grasp the concept of exponential growth.
      For example, for "why does diffusion happen" the hand-wavy explanation would be "particles tend to state of disorder", but it's much more informative to explain that the reason this happens is there are so many more disorderly states over time so it's just a matter of probability -- then a layperson can completely understand how this works without delving into any equations.
      Similar explanations are available for many other physical phenomena and computer science problems. But maybe for quantum computing there is no such middle ground.

    • @dudeskidaddy
      @dudeskidaddy 8 років тому +2

      +Max Loh Totally agree! I've been casually looking for this explanation myself for years and have yet to come upon it. Namely how does one setup an optimization problem to leverage qbits and how do you then read qbits to get the answer. I don't think the reason is hasn't been explained is because "it's technical" and I really don't want a watered-down non-technical answer. I'm sure that equally complex things have been explained both in video and in literature. For some reason this one has been elusive. I mean no one has even tried to explain it. Weird.

  • @lotgc
    @lotgc 3 роки тому +3

    I still don't understand how the randomness of superposition helps in calculation.
    Y'know what? This is magic. That's the only reasonable explanation. I'm gonna go look for witches now.

  • @chupacabra6944
    @chupacabra6944 9 місяців тому

    “The speed is not in the amount of operations that it can perform but just in the amount of operations it needs to get to the mathematical result”. He couldn’t have been explained better, this is awesome.

  • @mikeg4972
    @mikeg4972 5 років тому +57

    "The bit can be a zero or a one at the same time"
    I don't get it.

    • @Michael12HM
      @Michael12HM 5 років тому +11

      Mike G you can blink and breathe at the same time.....understood??

    • @Poverty_Welder
      @Poverty_Welder 4 роки тому +16

      @@Michael12HM you can breathe but breathe at the same time

    • @janicep1508
      @janicep1508 4 роки тому +7

      I always struggled with the quantum physics theory that says an object can be two places at the same time.

    • @mikeg4972
      @mikeg4972 4 роки тому +3

      Having a background in computer hardware and software, it's hard for me to imagine a bit that can be both high and low at the same time.

    • @MicahHenning
      @MicahHenning 4 роки тому +47

      @@mikeg4972 There is a famous thought experiment called Schrödinger's cat. In this experiment, a cat is in a box with a radioactive source and a poison. If an atom from the radioactive source decays, a Geiger counter detects the decay, triggers a relay, and releases a poison that kills the cat. If an atom doesn't decay, the cat is alive. Because the situation is dependent on the superposition of the radioactive element, an observer can't really know whether the cat is alive or dead until they look in the box. Therefore, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Now, there are lots of interpretations that make this paradox a non-issue (and you can read about them on the wikipedia page) but the point is that you can't know the state of a subatomic particle until it's observed, but the act of observing it affects its state. This makes sense because if you want to measure the position of a particle, as an example, the methods needed to observe it (i.e. a visual observation depends on photons) will move the particle as they interact with it.
      It's not that a qubit is actually both one and zero at the same time, it's just that we don't know what the state is until it's observed, but observing it will give us the wrong answer because our observation modifies its state. So instead we think about it as a probability space. If we know the probability that a given qubit is 1, and that probability is, say, 85%, and we rerun the algorithm maybe a few dozen times and the mean probability that qubit is 1 is still around 85%, then we can be reasonably certain that the value really is 1, and we never need to look at it.

  • @alexandria4167
    @alexandria4167 4 роки тому +26

    Everyone is talking about their understanding or the accent, can we appreciate the fact that Derek dressed up as a phosphorus atom? ❤️❤️❤️

    • @danchisholm1
      @danchisholm1 3 роки тому +1

      yes indeed! and ive never seen him comment on that choice ever since.

  • @Nerobyrne
    @Nerobyrne 10 років тому +20

    So, I still don't know how quantum computers work.
    How does the computer actually use the quantum states to do calculations?
    Or is it just a metaphor, and it still works with normal electric switches?
    Because theoretical information is useless, we need ACTUAL information!
    Really wish someone would explain it to me ....

    • @wolflegion_
      @wolflegion_ 10 років тому +2

      For as far as I understand. When you have 2 qbits, they are not yet defined as up up, down down, up down, down up, until you read them. So on 2 qbits you can store 4 combinations. The only problem, and that is what is keeping us from having quantum computers, is that we can not yet be sure that we read the state that we want to read.

    • @Nerobyrne
      @Nerobyrne 10 років тому

      ***** Thanks, I think I get it a bit more now ^.^
      Maybe I can ask a physics major or professor about it some day ...

    • @wolflegion_
      @wolflegion_ 10 років тому

      Nerobyrne :') I wouldn't trust my answer to much, I haven't finished highschool yet. It's just what I think it means.

    • @evandavis5223
      @evandavis5223 10 років тому +3

      This might make the explanation a bit easier for some: The classical bit system allows for information to be stored in binary, or base 2. This means for each bit there can only be 2 possible entries, 0 or 1. The qbits allow for 4 possible entries making it a base 4. The decimal system we use every day is base 10 (0-9). This means that more information can be stored in a smaller space. As for how to calculate anything with the data, I still can't get my head around being in both possible states at once. Quantum mechanics is beyond me for now.

    • @isodoublet
      @isodoublet 10 років тому +19

      I can't tell you exactly HOW these calculations are performed. To do that, I would have to teach you quantum mechanics. This is not that surprising, even teaching you how a classical computer works would require teaching you about logic gates and stuff. But I'll try to answer your questions in a sort of "high-level" pop science way. I'll try to explain how a classical computer works in a language that will make it easier to "get" what a quantum computer does.
      "How does the computer actually use the quantum states to do calculations?"
      Every computer is essentially a physical system that realizes some model of a computer. The computer you have on your desk uses classical states to represent zeros and ones -- specifically, it uses electrical currents. If you can distinguish between there being a current and there not being a current, for instance, you have two states that you can label "zero" or "one" as you wish. For definiteness, let's say that "there is a current" is the "one" state.
      The second step is to apply some operation on these states: in the abstract they're called "logic gates", and they have simple rules like "and", "or", "not", etc: these are realized by a circuit. An "and" gate is a circuit that outputs a current if both of its inputs receive a current. A "not" gate outputs the opposite of its input, and so on. With these basic operations you can build any classical calculation on binary numbers.
      The third step is to measure the result: let's say your computer isn't very sophisticated and doesn't have anything like a screen. Then you'd take an ammeter to the "outputs" and you measure if there is or isn't a current on each of the output bits. Then you'd know the answer!
      A quantum computer follows the same basic paradigm: you start with a physical realization of a computer model, but you can't use anything quite as simple as electric currents. You have to use objects that obey the laws of quantum mechanics. The video talked about spins, I think spins are way too complicated to explain to the layman. So let's just say you have a quantum switch that can be "on" or "off", or any superposition of the two. Don't think too hard about what a "superposition" is, in practice it just means that there's some probability that when you measure, the switch will either be on or off. This is not a classical probability though, it's not like a coin toss where if you just knew a lot about the dynamics, you could in principle predict the answer. This randomness is fundamental to the system. That's all.
      Then, just like on a classical computer, you encode a problem by "preparing" a quantum state. You're just going to mess with these switches in a way such that they contain the input to a question you want answered.
      Then, just like on the classical computer, you apply operations that correspond to "logic gates". But they're not quite as simple as "and" or "not". Just think that these are a way of changing the quantum switches -- and the probabilities -- in a definite way. You have to be a bit cleverer in choosing what operations to apply because quantum algorithms by nature are a bit harder to design.
      In the end, the third step, if you mucked the probabilities correctly, the answer will pop out when you measure the "output".
      "The only problem, and that is what is keeping us from having quantum computers, is that we can not yet be sure that we read the state that we want to read."
      That's not true, because quantum algorithms are designed in such a way that you don't need to be lucky: you get the right answer with some good probability. Designing such an algorithm can be very hard, as I said, but people can be very smart. The reason we don't have quantum algorithms is that quantum correlations tend to be very delicate and the interaction with the environment spoils the states before the calculation's done. It's a bit like expecting your computer to function inside a thunderstorm (assuming it wouldn't be outright destroyed, of course). There are many ways to protect the states from interference or compensate for the noise, but so far we've only been able to make quantum computers with a handful of qubits. So we can only do silly sounding things like factor the number 15.
      "The qbits allow for 4 possible entries making it a base 4."
      That's not true either, although I see why you're confused. The researcher on the video actually misspoke, he didn't mean 4 classical bits. He meant 4 real numbers (well, really 3, since one of them doesn't matter, but okay). Technically to store one real number, let alone 3, you need an infinite number of classical bits. So qubits can carry a *lot* more information, in that sense. The trouble is though, you can't read them out. It's a theorem that the maximum number of classical bits that can be reliably read out of N qubits is... N. So no free lunch there.
      So, to tl;dr, it's not that quantum computers allow you to store more information, they just allow you to "shuffle" it around in ways that make certain calculations more efficient.

  • @abhijitbhandari621
    @abhijitbhandari621 Рік тому

    More clarity:
    According to the principles of quantum mechanics, an electron can exist in a state of "superposition," where it has both spin-up and spin-down states simultaneously. This means that until a measurement is made, the electron's spin is not in a definite state, but rather is described by a probabilistic distribution that includes both spin-up and spin-down states.
    The concept of superposition arises from the fact that in the quantum world, particles like electrons do not have a definite state until they are observed or measured. Before measurement, their properties exist as a range of possible outcomes that are described by a wave function. The wave function gives the probabilities of different states that the electron could have when it is measured.
    Therefore, an electron can be in a superposition of spin states, which means it has both spin-up and spin-down states simultaneously until a measurement is made, at which point the superposition collapses into one of the two possible states. This is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics and is responsible for many of the peculiar and counter-intuitive properties of the quantum world.

  • @jorgechavesfilho
    @jorgechavesfilho 3 роки тому +2

    Andrea Morello is an amazing teacher! Thanks for that!

  • @Hgbfilms
    @Hgbfilms 10 років тому +8

    von quvantum state!
    two quvantum state!
    tree quvontum state!
    EHEHEH!

  • @cryptoinside8814
    @cryptoinside8814 Рік тому

    This is probably the best explanation from all the comments I dug through......
    "ideally each q-bit should be in either state 0 or 1. That state can be reached by aligning it with or against the magnetic field. They align it by giving each q-bit a coefficient of something, which they didnt explain. Once it is in state 0 or 1, it's just like a classical computer from there onwards."
    My replay....
    Yes, he did not explain the coefficient. But your mentioning of alignment is related to the coefficient does make sense. I just hope that he explains that further. He said, in classical bits, all you have to do is giving 2 number of information (i.e. 00, 01, 10 or 11), but in two qubit system, you need to give 4 coefficient numbers in order to define the state of the two qubit system. Ah, I think you are right....the coefficient is related to the magnetic field. And that's how it is measured or stored. By having a certain amount of magnetic coefficient, the N-qubit system will be forced to be a certain state and that is how it's measured. AHHHHH....

  • @ДмитрийМакаров-х5э
    @ДмитрийМакаров-х5э 6 років тому +5

    Amazing job!
    Greatly appreciate all the work you do, I've never seen anyone who would be able to explain such a complex topic in just 6 minutes

  • @Sirenhound
    @Sirenhound 10 років тому +16

    How would you debug a quantum computer?

  • @FreeStyleCrhymeR
    @FreeStyleCrhymeR 3 роки тому +8

    From what I understand; classical bits can have two positions and can carry the information with combination of these positions. But in quantum computation every qubit can have a unique position(unique mathematical numbers for its position) which can indicate a spesific result, and which can have incredible amount of different combinations. That means a singular qubit by itself can carry the meaning of big amounts of classical bit combinations. As qubits increase and the number of computation steps increases, those dozens or maybe hundreds of qubits can carry the weight of impossible amount of classical bits. But only on that spesific task.
    (please if you got it better correct me)

    • @cryptoinside8814
      @cryptoinside8814 Рік тому +1

      Hey, that is good. Much better explanation than the 4 coefficients he is talking about. I didn't get what he says about having those 4 coefficients for the two qubit, but you explaining it better by saying a single qubit can have many states other than UP or DOWN. For example, if a qubit can have 3 states, i.e., UP, DOWN, MIDDLE, then three number can be represented by these states with a single qubit..... (0, 1, 2). And if you put 2 qbits together then, and each can represent 3 states, then there are 3^2 = 9 possible combinations. If a qubit can have 4 states, i.e. UP, DOWN, MIDDLE UP, MIDDLE DOWN, then 4 numbers can be represented by these 4 different states .... (0, 1, 2, 3). And 2 qubits with 4 states each can have 4^2 = 16 combinations. Then the question is...I thought qubit once it's measured, it is in either UP or DOWN state and other states cannot be measured ?

    • @hondahirny
      @hondahirny 11 місяців тому

      I like how the professor explained part of quantum states, but it really doesn’t help explain WHY it’s better, etc. Thanks for your additional thoughts on the subject 😊

  • @amritraj7640
    @amritraj7640 8 місяців тому +1

    It's amazing how they are using spin quantum nos and superposition principle to determine binary digits.

  • @PatriceDescaillot
    @PatriceDescaillot 10 років тому +5

    First time I can better understand what's quantum computing

    • @xhch6815
      @xhch6815 10 років тому

      Julie Coupard one ticket 2 CERN plz

  • @swastikbiswas8293
    @swastikbiswas8293 4 роки тому +13

    I want to study quantum mechanics to get a long hair like him

  • @russellniebolt1493
    @russellniebolt1493 Рік тому +6

    Bingo! I finally understand the basic difference between classical and quantum computers. The different states of a quantum bit allow fornanwhole lot more variables, etc. to be set for comparison, and much faster because you’re doing stuff at the molecular level informed now. Good stuff. So much more to learn, but after seeing this vid and a few others, I’m much more

    • @jakelautt1944
      @jakelautt1944 Рік тому

      Are we in a simulation? Yes. Did this simulation come from a super powered quantum computer that our ancestors used? Maybe. A different being? Who knows. Whys life in the ratio 1.618? Some entity computed that. What programmed that entity?

  • @rkay.gaming
    @rkay.gaming 4 місяці тому

    Correct me if I am wrong, but what I gathered here are two things.
    1. Quantum computers are more like Quantum storage devices where they store 2^n bits in a space of n bits (thanks to super position)
    1.a Also you don't want to read the values in those bits during a calculation.
    2. You also need a specially tailored algorithm that can store the bits and perform certain sets of classical operations using a proxy quantum operation, like instead of adding a number 5 times, you are able to directly multiply with 5.
    2.b Once the operation is done, you can measure the output and get the answer and the data is lost.

  • @MasterDewey
    @MasterDewey 3 роки тому +5

    3:19 when The Count was counting qubits I was beside myself. "Thrrreee bits, ha ha ha."