How Quantum Computers Break Encryption | Shor's Algorithm Explained

Поділитися
Вставка

КОМЕНТАРІ • 5 тис.

  • @12gabriel3
    @12gabriel3 5 років тому +2637

    My brain waves superpositioned in a way that only the neurons which did not undertand got positive interference

    • @stratos5372
      @stratos5372 5 років тому +188

      You sir, you got the point of the video.

    • @Nilguiri
      @Nilguiri 5 років тому +2

      ¡Olé!

    • @nonscience3842
      @nonscience3842 5 років тому +159

      Since you were able to isolate the non-understanding neurons, subtract them from your results to get total understanding of the video.
      You're welcome.

    • @jdsmooth2j
      @jdsmooth2j 5 років тому +4

      Hahaha 🤣

    • @Mcspazz731
      @Mcspazz731 5 років тому +1

      5Head

  • @ghufranullah
    @ghufranullah 5 років тому +16717

    Hey, that's a lot of minutes of physics.

    • @henryjiang9664
      @henryjiang9664 5 років тому +224

      ghufran ullah Exactly 17.5 minutes. Though I’m not complaining.

    • @bloodikiwi9707
      @bloodikiwi9707 5 років тому +157

      wait. that’s illegal

    • @kyleeversfield8276
      @kyleeversfield8276 5 років тому +210

      Actually pretty much half of the video was purely minutes of maths and not physics.

    • @dantebg100
      @dantebg100 5 років тому +18

      Hey, that's pretty good!

    • @ACLozMusik
      @ACLozMusik 5 років тому +163

      It's only a minute of physics if run in a Quantum Computer

  • @henrygao4487
    @henrygao4487 5 років тому +4728

    As a physics student I clicked into this thinking it's just another super basic introductory video...
    Ends up thoroughly reviewing 2 weeks of solid materials from my quantum computing class
    Edit: Highly recommend a quantum computing class if you can take one! More of a math class than physics but still super interesting

    • @anjalimittal5706
      @anjalimittal5706 5 років тому +28

      how is quantum computing classes ? I'm thinking to take them in my college next year

    • @tubester358
      @tubester358 5 років тому +67

      @@anjalimittal5706 I myself have only attended an introductory class of a course that I ended up not taking, far as I recall half the syllabus was theoretical introductory subtopics before they get to the gates and how quantum computers are/work

    • @lukefernandez3492
      @lukefernandez3492 5 років тому +14

      AJ Ok

    • @sampattuzzi
      @sampattuzzi 5 років тому +43

      I wish my lecturer in Quantum Computing taught it this well. I finally get it. Only 6 years late!

    • @gabe8168
      @gabe8168 5 років тому +29

      @@AJ-ds5gf why are you mad? Are you jealous that he didn't drop out of school?

  • @bluesy22
    @bluesy22 4 роки тому +850

    Him: "...and here's the clever part."
    Me: "WHAT WAS THE REST OF THIS?!"

    • @danielyuan9862
      @danielyuan9862 3 роки тому +38

      getting to the clever part

    • @ДмитрийАвиО
      @ДмитрийАвиО 3 роки тому +19

      Its can even get complicated, when your first language isnt English, but Russian...

    • @csquaredfilms
      @csquaredfilms 3 роки тому +1

      @@ДмитрийАвиО well you’re doing better than all the russian people who cant speak english at all so

    • @Misitan
      @Misitan 2 роки тому

      @@ДмитрийАвиО I can confirm you're Russian
      Source: your name and first 5 words

    • @ewthmatth
      @ewthmatth Рік тому +2

      ​​@@danielyuan9862 you misunderstand. The above commenter is saying that it ALL seems clever (i.e. Complex and complicated) to them.

  • @cannaroe1213
    @cannaroe1213 5 років тому +3970

    Me at the half mark: "This couldn't get anymore complicated."
    minutephysics: *_"Fourier Transforms!"_*

    • @bicpentameter4895
      @bicpentameter4895 5 років тому +56

      Imma just code a basic version of this real quick

    • @sumitkumar12
      @sumitkumar12 4 роки тому +53

      Quantum Fourier Transformation

    • @Benedocta
      @Benedocta 4 роки тому +92

      The fourier transform is definetely the simple part of this.

    • @OskaIvanovichSmirnov
      @OskaIvanovichSmirnov 4 роки тому +9

      Me after concepts of concepts back to back: 🤯

    • @kartikayrai5774
      @kartikayrai5774 4 роки тому +1

      lmao same

  • @Asocialite__
    @Asocialite__ 5 років тому +1434

    0:59 With you so far
    1:02 Shor's Algorithm... never heard of it but I can dig it
    3:57 Ok... just explain what Shor's Algorithm is...
    7:31 Uhh....
    8:56 Ok wait, stop
    11:52 Ok man, you just keep talking, I'm gonna go write a comment

    • @vms_kt
      @vms_kt 5 років тому +23

      Has this been marked a top comment yet? It needs to be.

    • @Firebreak_2
      @Firebreak_2 5 років тому +9

      i slept mid video

    • @taylorg6632
      @taylorg6632 5 років тому +7

      The official history of this video xD

    • @davidcook4823
      @davidcook4823 5 років тому +6

      I feel attacked.

    • @astralfall3628
      @astralfall3628 5 років тому +6

      Followed this to a T. Around 11 mins in i decided to read the comments

  • @DanDan-yy5bo
    @DanDan-yy5bo 5 років тому +257

    I‘m gonna be honest, at a certain point I didn’t understand it anymore, but just the fact that I understood half of it is good enough and it just shows how good you explain things. Great channel, keep it up!

    • @30weekoldwomber61
      @30weekoldwomber61 5 років тому +3

      It's an overview.plus you dont know anything about the computer itself, so its not really possible to understand everything just from this video, only if you have studied many different pieces separately already.

    • @davidvondoom2853
      @davidvondoom2853 5 років тому +2

      Ya, I feel like you need to understand what a quantum computer is and how it works, to understand the second half of the video.

    • @DanDan-yy5bo
      @DanDan-yy5bo 5 років тому

      David von Doom I actually get that a quantum computer works by randomly searching off data, while a normal computer does it in an order, and that this is due to super position, but it‘s hard to understand not knowing much about electronics and computers in particular.

    • @30weekoldwomber61
      @30weekoldwomber61 5 років тому

      @@DanDan-yy5bo No I dont think it does anything randomly. I dont know how it works too be upfront, but if it was random the computation would be random in its results. For want of a better metaphor, imagine a hypercube, hard to picture in your mind, but easier to compute. Quantum computers can make use of extra "dimensions" exponentially based on the number of qubits it has available...that's a metaphor still...
      My point is only that its not random, just complex and very different to how classical computing works. I wish I knew more and I dont understand it myself.

    • @PatchyE
      @PatchyE 5 років тому

      @@DanDan-yy5bo Oh you don't need to know any electronics to understand quantum computer. You only need to know some basic quantum physics.

  • @brenorocha6687
    @brenorocha6687 4 роки тому +361

    It's amazing to see that someone can grasp such difficult concepts well enough to make this "simple" explanation. I don't have the knowledge to understand, but I still can have an idea of what it's about. And it's even more reassuring to see comments from physics students who find this video useful in addition to their study material. Thank you very much and keep the good work!

  • @idndyzgaming
    @idndyzgaming 5 років тому +2782

    "I'm going to attempt to explain"
    *me: brain explodes*

    • @MrRolnicek
      @MrRolnicek 5 років тому +40

      Yea, every other video he explains something ... quantum encryption he ATTEMPTS to explain

    • @CosmicErrata
      @CosmicErrata 5 років тому +12

      Yours exploded? Mine was removed from existence!

    • @anonymoususer19
      @anonymoususer19 5 років тому +21

      I am a physics and maths guy and still get lost

    • @filipantoncik2604
      @filipantoncik2604 5 років тому +7

      That's nothing to worry about. It took me a long time to understand anything in my lectures on quantum chemistry/advanced math. This stuff takes just buttload of time and a lot of different sources since it gets super abstract and we have nothing to relate it to. Even after a couple of years, I would consider myself not even a newbie in this field.
      Just take some facts that interest you from the vid and general idea and ignore the math for a bit. Like these:
      - Cryptography is based on us lacking raw computational resources to crack the encryption
      - Using some clever math, you can skew this encryption by removing the unwanted "stuff" using cool quantum properties
      - Your browser history is safe for the foreseeable future, since getting quantum computers to actually work, with reasonable qbits (computational power) is hella hard

    • @anonymoususer19
      @anonymoususer19 5 років тому

      Filip Antončík ok but how does the quantum computer cancel the wrong stuff out that’s physically impossible to do with artificial intelligence

  • @TheIronflame
    @TheIronflame 5 років тому +366

    This was one of the best explanations I've seen of /exactly/ how quantum computers can be faster at certain problems.

    • @Dezomm
      @Dezomm 5 років тому +4

      Agreed, I've known the gist of it but now I feel like I actually get it. Obviously there's much more to it but now I feel like I could at least explain it to someone else, which I wasn't able to before watching this.
      Thank you minutephysics

    • @poopsmcgee2k6
      @poopsmcgee2k6 5 років тому +13

      This guy pretending to get it

    • @perhapsso1909
      @perhapsso1909 5 років тому +6

      @@poopsmcgee2k6 it makes sense in the video. Although simplified, it should give you a basic idea.

    • @justinl2009
      @justinl2009 5 років тому

      @@perhapsso1909 Wait, this is basic? Jesus, I can't even imagine the advanced form.

    • @callofdutymuhammad
      @callofdutymuhammad 5 років тому

      @@justinl2009 Did a course on it a few years ago by accident (thought it was a good idea) 2 weeks in, I realise this shits basically all voodoo when you go into depth. But after that i've finished higher physics/maths/cs so maybe if i try going in depth again ill gain a better understanding.

  • @WAMTAT
    @WAMTAT 5 років тому +1631

    I think I follow. Smart computer makes maths go fast. Fast math is equal to no more computer security.

    • @samuelmatheson9655
      @samuelmatheson9655 5 років тому +133

      QUICK MATS

    • @kevinzhu6417
      @kevinzhu6417 5 років тому +106

      alex do good. smart boy know latest developments in computer security

    • @dellarosa24601
      @dellarosa24601 5 років тому +11

      alexander williams underrated comment is underrated

    • @redhunter8731
      @redhunter8731 5 років тому +16

      Not exactly. Computer security is still possible it would have to evolve.

    • @moondust2365
      @moondust2365 5 років тому +29

      It actually goes both ways. Quantum computers calculate faster math. That faster math can be used to _en_ -crypt or _de_ - crypt. So, no worries...

  • @jellovendigar
    @jellovendigar 3 роки тому +95

    I love how he makes very hard concepts approachable. Now I’ll share this video with anyone who thinks quantum computers are basically magic

    • @jansenart0
      @jansenart0 3 роки тому +12

      Fails to explain where the math and the physical reality coincide. And the explanation of Shor's Algorithm in this video does not require QM at all.
      "being cleverly arranged" "set up a quantum mechanical computer"
      A block diagram represented by blue fuzz and black dots.
      That still requires all guesses to be fed into it to generate "destructive interference among guesses".... somehow.
      i. e. magic.

    • @Данилтычкрейзи
      @Данилтычкрейзи 2 роки тому +3

      still magic for me

    • @rightwingsafetysquad9872
      @rightwingsafetysquad9872 Рік тому

      But the crux of the video is "because quantum computers are magic this works faster".

    • @Arun-vl7tk
      @Arun-vl7tk 6 місяців тому +1

      This vid is what convinced Quantum computers are magic lol

  • @akatsukilevi
    @akatsukilevi 5 років тому +2030

    Me: I'm safe! My computer is using RSA-256 to store passwords
    Quantum computer: Hold my P

  • @sagetmaster4
    @sagetmaster4 5 років тому +604

    Really appreciate how much effort you put into this, thanks

    • @BillAnt
      @BillAnt 5 років тому +3

      Yeah well, the title of this video is a bit misleading.
      Let me explain... just because we might get super fast quantum computers in the future, Internet Security will NOT be destroyed instantly. Why? Simply because of a little thing called "Timeout Delay (TD)" and "Two Factor Authentication (2FA)" during the Challenge/Response phase.
      Timeout is an artificially introduced delay in the log-in process (including in real time browsing encryption), specifically if you enter the first password incorrectly (or the browser send the incorrect NONCE response), there could be a 5 second timeout, and with each subsequent wrong entry the timeout delay may be increases with a predetermined amount or exponentially (similar to the iPhone's screen lock method), therefore rendering any super-fast quantum computer useless. In other words you may be able to generate all the password combinations possible in a short time, but you won't be able to enter it in a short enough time, that is before you die. ;)
      Two Factor Authentication takes it a step further, incorporating the Timeout Delay, and it also sends a temporary password/prompt to a second device completely separate from log-in device, and without the proper authentication even the correct password will not work.
      Both of these methods can be easily implemented into any website's log-in process (including browser encryption), practically nullifying the advantages of the fastest quantum computers on Earth, so Internet Security will NOT be destroyed just yet. ;D

    • @calebjiang4056
      @calebjiang4056 5 років тому

      @@BillAnt there's no need to brute force the password when you can brute force the secure element where the password is stored.

    • @BillAnt
      @BillAnt 5 років тому

      @Caleb Jiang < Well sure, IF you have access to that secure enclave (for example in the iPhone it's impenetrable thus far).
      Karim Alibhai < I certainly understand that, I was just making an illustration with a regular password login which is quite similar in mechanism (challenge response wise) so most people would understand. Plus there are way too many "IF"s in capturing real time traffic. And let's suppose that quantum computing will becomes available, rest assured clever browser designers will implement countermeasures against real time traffic snooping such as encrypted dummy packets which will simply trip up even quantum computers by bogging them down with useless computations.
      One of the best countermeasures against brute force hacking is a "timeout", meaning that there's a programmed time lapse between restries which renders even quantum computers useless, there's nothing to try till the timeout is over.

    • @BillAnt
      @BillAnt 5 років тому

      Karim Alibhai < Right, but you still can't inject an NONCE challenge no matter what tool you have till quantum computing becomes available. And by then browser makers would have already implemented methods to trip up even quantum computers by various techniques including timeouts during the challenge/response phase. I rest assure you, you can sleep just fine tonight that none's gonna steal your real time traffic as long as it's encrypted by industry standard methods.

    • @BillAnt
      @BillAnt 5 років тому

      @Karim Alibhai < Well obviously government sponsored spying taps the "data pipe" at the source and even use Zero Day OS exploits and other backdoors to read your data BEFORE it even gets encrypted by the browser. So yeah my advice is don't do anything illegal and you'll be fine. ;) (not talking to you specifically but in general) Oh and as far as cloud based storage, anyone who stores their contacts, messages, etc in a Google account for example is probably the least safe place since upon a subpoena they'll decrypt it in a heart beat.

  • @davidmelendezsoto7528
    @davidmelendezsoto7528 5 років тому +3298

    I watch this when I’m feeling too smart
    To remind myself that I’m not really smart

    • @mywither7878
      @mywither7878 5 років тому +60

      In watching this, I expected exactly that, but I felt extra smart instead, I think I may be delusional in my understanding of this stuff, what's your opinion?

    • @johnclever8813
      @johnclever8813 5 років тому +23

      Mywither
      I don’t know, but I’m currently in my freshman year of high school writing a paper about Fourier Transforms, so I also felt extra smart. It’s crazy how often they show up.

    • @johnclever8813
      @johnclever8813 4 роки тому +2

      Patriot Spring
      Really?

    • @mryup6100
      @mryup6100 4 роки тому +1

      @Patriot Spring wowww

    • @someone-vk6gk
      @someone-vk6gk 4 роки тому +6

      I'm just abuse myself I don't feel smart yet here I am

  • @nicoleisgoddess
    @nicoleisgoddess 4 роки тому +3

    This is by far the best description of quantum computing for nonprofessionals I have found on youtube

  • @TheDekalibrierer
    @TheDekalibrierer 5 років тому +994

    As a student who had to learn Shor's Algorithm for an exam: Thank you for this video!
    I finally have an intuitive understanding of that the algorithm is trying to achieve, and how. Of course, I had to invest an extra couple of hours to be able to actually calculate this stuff correctly, but even when you reach that point, I found that you still lack that "feeling" for what is actually happening in front of you while you're doing all of this.
    This video helped with that part, it's the easiest way to explain what is actually going on, you get this really good and informative overview, without being interrupted after every step because you have to do some laborous matrix transformation again. :)

    • @skittybug6937
      @skittybug6937 4 роки тому +39

      I don't even understand this comment.

    • @cheekybambony
      @cheekybambony 4 роки тому +10

      Man how did you do this? I think to understand all that stuff you have to start thinking like a quantum computer.

    • @enderb0t
      @enderb0t 3 роки тому +1

      Okay you English major

    • @iveharzing
      @iveharzing 3 роки тому +25

      @@cheekybambony It mostly comes down to preliminary knowledge: you have to study the parts before you're able to understand the whole.
      It's hard to understand integration if you've never heard of a function before.
      It's hard to understand Shor's algorithm if you've never heard of a Fourier Transform before.
      It's hard to understand Fourier Transforms if you've never heard of Complex numbers.
      Etc etc.......

    • @Twisted_Code
      @Twisted_Code 3 роки тому +1

      Yeah I know how you feel. Sometimes I watch Tom Scott's tech videos for topics I already think I understand, but the explanation often lets me solidify my understanding.

  • @SofosProject
    @SofosProject 5 років тому +831

    *sees 17 minute time*
    Boy I'm in for a ride.

    • @sasdagr8
      @sasdagr8 5 років тому +14

      -minutephysics-
      minutesphysics

    • @russdill
      @russdill 5 років тому +4

      And the music ran out after the first minute.

    • @ChIbIDahKIlla
      @ChIbIDahKIlla 5 років тому +1

      *holds his own beer*

    • @munster355
      @munster355 5 років тому

      Especially when it's about quantum physics...

    • @pkeric2626
      @pkeric2626 5 років тому +1

      russdill lmao did‘nt even notice

  • @kittybeans8192
    @kittybeans8192 5 років тому +333

    I remember when this channel was MINUTE physics...
    no regrets.

    • @christopherrowley7506
      @christopherrowley7506 5 років тому +18

      if you pronounce minute with emphasis on the second syllable, minute as in really small, then the quantum stuff is still on topic..........

    • @wwtapsable
      @wwtapsable 5 років тому +1

      youtubes algorithm kills that junk

    • @Blox117
      @Blox117 5 років тому +1

      its still called minutephysics

    • @PlasmaMongoose
      @PlasmaMongoose 5 років тому

      If they could post this video on a quantum computer, it would only take a minute to watch again.

    • @jongyon7192p
      @jongyon7192p 5 років тому

      17.5 minutephysics

  • @splodeyferret
    @splodeyferret 3 роки тому +39

    Incredible and impressive that a whole video on breaking industry standard encryption with quantum computers doesn't mention prime numbers... it's like you figured that it was an extra complication that didn't need to be there for the purposes of this video, and you're right!

    • @theworm7156
      @theworm7156 11 місяців тому +3

      I mean whenever he talks about the big numbers used in encryption he’s talking about prime numbers

  • @Cailus3542
    @Cailus3542 5 років тому +555

    13:59 "...and I'm oversimplifying a touch here."
    ...Uh huh. 0_0

    • @taylorg6632
      @taylorg6632 5 років тому +14

      But I gots an A+ on coloring homewaork!! ^(ovO)^

    • @DrexYiii
      @DrexYiii 5 років тому +6

      I saw this comment while watching at the point of 13:59. Lol

    • @xsuperpigx
      @xsuperpigx 4 роки тому +1

      Taylor G I nearly got detention for not colouring in my homework once... it wasn’t fun.

    • @vsiegel
      @vsiegel 3 роки тому

      Who would ever simplify quantum mechanics? We know many explanations, but all of them are already simplifications!

  • @Fuzzycuffsqt
    @Fuzzycuffsqt 5 років тому +159

    Ooooh. Now I understand.
    That box full of little dots is where the maths come from.

    • @agiar2000
      @agiar2000 5 років тому +24

      **Slaps lid of box.**
      "This bad boy can fit so many maths in it."

  • @CalculusPhysics
    @CalculusPhysics 5 років тому +380

    i would definitely love to hear more about the Quantum Fourier Transform!

    • @MackyMuse
      @MackyMuse 5 років тому +2

      Chloe loser

    • @stardustreverie6880
      @stardustreverie6880 5 років тому +44

      Chloe winner

    • @vivek7154
      @vivek7154 5 років тому

      Is this a thing?

    • @recklessroges
      @recklessroges 5 років тому +4

      Before QFT I would start with ua-cam.com/video/spUNpyF58BYv/v-deo.html (though if you're watching MP, you probably already have.)

    • @Inujasa88
      @Inujasa88 5 років тому

      Does this really exist? Is this really a thing?

  • @MrBenMcLean
    @MrBenMcLean 3 місяці тому

    This was a great explanation of quantum computers and Shor's Algorithm. One of the best things about it is how it explains things in terms of the pure math without trying to interpret the metaphysics implied by quantum physics for us, which so many explanations fall prey to doing.

  • @cogenerate
    @cogenerate 5 років тому +1021

    Here's how quantum computers will break even the strongest encryption ridiculously easy. Now, buy our sponsor's product... encryption.

    • @eclipserepeater2466
      @eclipserepeater2466 5 років тому +70

      And that's why the video ends with "but encryption still works for now!"

    • @shaqmaverick
      @shaqmaverick 5 років тому +4

      @@eclipserepeater2466 it could bypass cryptocurrency? genius

    • @xylophonezebra2104
      @xylophonezebra2104 5 років тому +13

      Would have been epic if this ended with a plug for Bitcoin.

    • @xylophonezebra2104
      @xylophonezebra2104 5 років тому +4

      Kampfarsch, tell that to Intel 🙂

    • @tudornaconecinii3609
      @tudornaconecinii3609 5 років тому +34

      Kampfarsch quantum computers exist right now. It's just that they are billions of times weaker than binary computers atm because we don't know how to stably stack qubits together yet.

  • @sydswift4989
    @sydswift4989 5 років тому +1364

    Just send the data in plaintext. When the hackers assume you've done the right thing and transmitted encrypted data, they will try to decrypt it and just end up garbling it.

    • @ridermcdonald
      @ridermcdonald 5 років тому +212

      Syd Swift Reverse Psychology at its finest🤣

    • @thehiddenninja3428
      @thehiddenninja3428 5 років тому +125

      Very true! No hackers would actually look at the data transmitted

    • @vanillacokejunky
      @vanillacokejunky 5 років тому +174

      i know its a joke but clearly you guys have never seen a packet sniffer like wireshark in action. its immediately noticeable when something is sent in plain unencrypted text. i mean i guess you could speak in code and send that over plain text like "Mother Goose has landed" but that defeats the purpose of using the technology in the first place.

    • @sydswift4989
      @sydswift4989 5 років тому +159

      @@vanillacokejunky I have used wireshark before, and you're right, if you know which packet you're looking for then it would be easy to see that its unencrypted, but if you were to write a script to automate the process of decrypting large amounts of data then you might miss that and just skip right to processing it through your algorithm. One way to "fool" someone using this "method" would be to send a bunch of encrypted arbitrary data before the unencrypted data to make them assume that it is all encrypted. I'm not proposing anyone should transmit unencrypted data for the record, but it's a fun thought experiment.

    • @muhammadammarrasyid5780
      @muhammadammarrasyid5780 5 років тому +22

      This some mind game sh*t

  • @ncedwards1234
    @ncedwards1234 4 роки тому +618

    Me: Follows the explanation to the end
    Also me at 14:53: Oh, g stands for guess

    • @-ireeri-3956
      @-ireeri-3956 4 роки тому +1

      Woooo

    • @ElGrecoOB
      @ElGrecoOB 4 роки тому +9

      I remember g being used as shorthand for "generator" in my number theory course. But I must admit that I was not able to completely follow the details...

    • @TheTck90
      @TheTck90 4 роки тому

      I watched this after my relativity course and kept thinking g is a metric tensor

    • @chrisdejager
      @chrisdejager 4 роки тому +7

      And I kept seeing 9 instead of g :)

    • @lazyer0511
      @lazyer0511 4 роки тому +12

      And p stands for power

  • @SimranVishal-i6e
    @SimranVishal-i6e 5 місяців тому

    This was unarguably the best video on how quantum algorithms work and what exactly quantum computers do. Hats off

  • @theCodyReeder
    @theCodyReeder 5 років тому +2299

    Why do I get the feeling we're about to break the game?

    • @mineteam0
      @mineteam0 5 років тому +206

      We are in the endgame of computer science now.

    • @hajmola7605
      @hajmola7605 5 років тому +12

      Oh look who's here!

    • @godfreypoon5148
      @godfreypoon5148 5 років тому +6

      It's because that guy in the sketches with the laptop keeps vomiting. Sooner or later he's gonna get some in the laptop and then it's all over.

    • @SamuelLay
      @SamuelLay 5 років тому +19

      And now you've made me lose the game!

    • @BothHands1
      @BothHands1 5 років тому

      Hopefully we have some time before that happens. lol

  • @redditatnight3222
    @redditatnight3222 5 років тому +191

    Movie script: **Has some tech they can't explain**
    Scriptwriters: *"Quantum"*

    • @ravenous9577
      @ravenous9577 5 років тому +5

      Reddit at Night yeah pisses me off tbh

    • @MinecraftCoolCreeper
      @MinecraftCoolCreeper 5 років тому +5

      Endgame spoiler alert:
      Yeah marvel endgame using "quantum mechanics" to try to describe time travel while making zero sense

    • @AnthanKrufix
      @AnthanKrufix 5 років тому +5

      "Do you guys just add 'quantum' to everything?" ~Antman and the Wasp

    • @_BangDroid_
      @_BangDroid_ 5 років тому

      Firefox *_Quantum_*

    • @meltice_official
      @meltice_official 5 років тому +1

      I know enough to make conversations... Rip black widow

  • @StarboyXL9
    @StarboyXL9 5 років тому +1383

    My girlfriend really enjoys quantum physics. She said that her physics professor really taught her some "super positions"

    • @viceversadetroit
      @viceversadetroit 5 років тому +215

      but he lacked the necessary mechanics?

    • @Baigle1
      @Baigle1 5 років тому +113

      how to get an A+

    • @survivor6940
      @survivor6940 5 років тому +71

      That is actually a funny dad joke...

    • @isaacdavis1363
      @isaacdavis1363 5 років тому +152

      he has a quantum dick that can be hard and soft at the same time

    • @JITCompilation
      @JITCompilation 5 років тому +34

      Okay.
      *unzips*

  • @tauhidzaman2826
    @tauhidzaman2826 4 роки тому +7

    Thanks for making this video. I took a class with Peter Shor and I still didnt understand his algorithm. But this video makes it so clear. Great work!

  • @sunglow9835
    @sunglow9835 5 років тому +278

    9:46
    Lets just take a moment admire the marker changes in this part. Like goddamn, that looks satisfying!

    • @marcoottina654
      @marcoottina654 5 років тому +4

      ​@plastic bottle or his eyes are in a super position.
      Or super observation.
      ahah

    • @AnonMedic
      @AnonMedic 5 років тому +2

      Looks even better if you slow it down a bit

    • @simopelle
      @simopelle 5 років тому

      put video speed to 0.5x

    • @SubduedRadical
      @SubduedRadical 5 років тому +1

      :O
      It's a superposition of markers! Sorta!
      Good catch. I was so mesmerized by the information, I didn't even see the colors. It's all math to me.

  • @CodyOsborn1
    @CodyOsborn1 5 років тому +140

    I was lost about two minutes in, but kept watching because it was fascinating!

    • @ntwede
      @ntwede 5 років тому +13

      Hey, it's called minute physics. That means you understood two whole videos! Good on you.

    • @alanlahay8693
      @alanlahay8693 5 років тому

      Same

  • @pranshusrivastava8353
    @pranshusrivastava8353 5 років тому +30

    I got a phone call in the middle of the video. I cut it, and came back, and had just missed 10 seconds of the video. I had to go back 2 minutes to understand it again. That said, excellent video!

  • @JacklynnInChina
    @JacklynnInChina 2 роки тому +1

    Every now and again I forget how shor's algorithm works, and every now and again this video comes up in my recommended and reminds me. Solid review of the quantum computing section of my survey of computer science. Love your videos

  • @pensive955
    @pensive955 5 років тому +1788

    me: *understands nothing*
    also me: *nodding along* yes, yep that's what I thought

    • @reyariass
      @reyariass 5 років тому +57

      "Ahuh... carry the one- yes, i was about to tell you to do that."

    • @lordmaximillius3431
      @lordmaximillius3431 5 років тому +7

      😂🤣🤣 on jah...I'm fucking dead

    • @jamestheotherone742
      @jamestheotherone742 5 років тому +14

      Not to worry, even the people that created it were the same way, they just realized that everyone else would have the same reaction and no one would admit it made no sense, not even the people who write checks and give out grant money.

    • @DrMrPersonGuy
      @DrMrPersonGuy 5 років тому +2

      @@jamestheotherone742 What about it makes no sense?

    • @Kalenz1234
      @Kalenz1234 5 років тому +15

      It was easy to follow the logic.
      I just have no idea about how the math works.
      How does a shared factor of the factors give you the factor?

  • @flisboac
    @flisboac 5 років тому +91

    Felt like I was back at my Number Theory class in CS. Scarily amazing stuff.

  • @heavenbuilder2365
    @heavenbuilder2365 5 років тому +64

    I'd tried reading up on Shor's algorithm before, but this is the first time I've actually understood it! Thank you so much!

    • @twister5752
      @twister5752 5 років тому +3

      that makes one of us

    • @youngalwyn1124
      @youngalwyn1124 5 років тому

      Lucas the Shepard - you’re kidding, aren’t you

  • @AlexLiYT
    @AlexLiYT 2 місяці тому +1

    I can't be the only one finding it hard to keep track of what all the letters mean. Aside from that this was really well explained.

  • @someone-mh1bo
    @someone-mh1bo 5 років тому +880

    You should make a new channel called MinuteCS.

    • @PoweDiePie
      @PoweDiePie 5 років тому +65

      17minuteCS.

    • @NetAndyCz
      @NetAndyCz 5 років тому +32

      Seriously, it will take two years and we will see hour long videos here.

    • @artispeedy
      @artispeedy 5 років тому +7

      This is more like MinuteAlgebra.

    • @nurdboy5060
      @nurdboy5060 5 років тому +10

      Minute computer science?
      Thats great
      He can make a playlist rather than a new channel

    • @jamestheotherone742
      @jamestheotherone742 5 років тому +2

      Nothing really CS here except for the "Magic Box" quantum computer he holds up as the solution to all of the flaws in this idea.

  • @Ngamotu83
    @Ngamotu83 5 років тому +1539

    I'm just going to pretend I understood even a minute of all this.

    • @Guztav1337
      @Guztav1337 5 років тому +116

      You don't have to understand per se, just get the general idea:
      1. There is math for turning crappy guess into better guess. (slow on a normal computer)
      2. Quantum computing, can make multiple guesses at the same time. (fast)
      3. Destructive interference with all the wrong guesses leaves you with the right guess. (get right guess fast)
      4. This method can break internet privacy and security, exposing everybody's data. Because it can guess correct fast.
      It's like using all the keys in the world at once to unlock your door, and one of them will be correct, and you can instantly find the correct.

    • @TinfoilHatWearer
      @TinfoilHatWearer 5 років тому

      Me too.... 😞

    • @RamkrishanYT
      @RamkrishanYT 5 років тому +8

      I actually understood the first minute where he says that he's going to 'attempt' to explain it. In that segment, the author is saying that he will try to explain Shor's algorithm in the next segment.

    • @VidVwr00
      @VidVwr00 5 років тому

      This just taught me everything I forgot

    • @SuperShekky
      @SuperShekky 5 років тому

      You have a poor brain

  • @friedpickles7924
    @friedpickles7924 5 років тому +2497

    Does that mean that naming my porn folder as *Homework* wont work anymore?

    • @amateurprogrammer25
      @amateurprogrammer25 5 років тому +281

      No that will continue to not work just like it always has

    • @macronencer
      @macronencer 5 років тому +165

      Hey it kind of IS homework. In a way.

    • @amateurprogrammer25
      @amateurprogrammer25 5 років тому +68

      @@macronencer um....
      say more about that

    • @Ghorda9
      @Ghorda9 5 років тому +107

      @@amateurprogrammer25 Studying anatomy for art/film/painting/etc.

    • @MatthewChenIsAwesome
      @MatthewChenIsAwesome 5 років тому +13

      @Raphael yes, but if there were no net displacement, then no work would be done! You must always remember to stop exerting force in a location that was different than the start!

  • @JamesonHuddle
    @JamesonHuddle 2 роки тому +7

    I'm gonna be honest I only understood a tiny bit of the math but the overall concept is really cool and I am really excited about the future of computing both quantum and "regular." Thanks for the video

  • @infinitelyexplosive4131
    @infinitelyexplosive4131 5 років тому +102

    I've taken an intro QM course and some basic math, and after watching this video I'm now left with the strange feeling of knowing many of the words he's saying but having no idea how they work together in this context.

    • @nutbuster3862
      @nutbuster3862 5 років тому +7

      infinitelyExplosive Words I learned from this video: Numbers, Shor's lightsaber, Hi, ?, N.

    • @xyz.ijk.
      @xyz.ijk. 5 років тому +2

      Exactly!

    • @utvara1
      @utvara1 5 років тому

      There is no way the next thing humanity achieves is even more mathematical computational power. So lame. Where are new vehicles, new materials, new engines, new EFFICIENT and COST EFFECTIVE sources of power, underwater settlements, medical revolutions, home acessories.
      It is rape of human resources and talent pool to invest more into this field and I just know it will fail and it should fail. I want regeneration, flying cars and trips to Moon and not better hd porn or quicker pc fuck that garbage.

    • @shanematthews1985
      @shanematthews1985 5 років тому +3

      Isn't that the point though, they say if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you actually don't understand it

    • @nutbuster3862
      @nutbuster3862 5 років тому +10

      utvara1 but that "better pc" will help do all the things you just said you want.

  • @marcorizza274
    @marcorizza274 5 років тому +18

    Thanks for disabling the background music during the explanation, much appreciated

  • @tehnomsthewalrus
    @tehnomsthewalrus 5 років тому +331

    Take a drink every time he says "superposition"

    • @LachezarTsv
      @LachezarTsv 5 років тому +8

      I am drunk af

    • @JackLe1127
      @JackLe1127 5 років тому +1

      I think my brain is in a superposition state

    • @Kalenz1234
      @Kalenz1234 5 років тому

      A shot* A drink every time leaves you for dead.

    • @jamestheotherone742
      @jamestheotherone742 5 років тому

      Take a shot every time he says "if" and "but"

    • @pokemoncatch6727
      @pokemoncatch6727 5 років тому

      You must of pee’ed your self watching this video

  • @NobodyYouKnow01
    @NobodyYouKnow01 Рік тому +1

    I’d like to thank you for the detailed explanation you provided in this video. I wouldn’t have understood Veritasium's video today without this one.

  • @marcushendriksen8415
    @marcushendriksen8415 5 років тому +75

    "Are you _sure_ this encryption is unbreakable?"
    "Shor I'm sure!"

  • @frank16999
    @frank16999 5 років тому +385

    Me after hearing the words Fourier Transform for the first time after completing an engineering degree: *Hello darkness my old friend*

    • @Luis0n7i
      @Luis0n7i 5 років тому +7

      Hahahaha same here :'v

    • @chuachenghong7788
      @chuachenghong7788 5 років тому +3

      Lucky you. I have to deal with fourier transform since year 1.

    • @mojolotz
      @mojolotz 5 років тому

      *shudders*

    • @ifer1280
      @ifer1280 5 років тому

      I just spent five minutes looking for the word convolution. I remembered the math, but not the name!

    • @harunkivril7186
      @harunkivril7186 5 років тому

      Industrial Engineer ?

  • @markthompson8777
    @markthompson8777 5 років тому +39

    This is an unreal video. Very complex theorem explained in a clear stepwise way. 10/10

  • @comoli8609
    @comoli8609 4 роки тому +17

    I did a project on shors algorithms problems and benefits, instead of trying to explain what it did, I just summed it up with "using math" 😂.

  • @jocabulous
    @jocabulous 5 років тому +509

    damn they really left that computer computing for 2000 years

    • @nicholascomet8528
      @nicholascomet8528 5 років тому +4

      jacob henke gotta be a simulation though, because computers have only been around for like 2 centuries at maximum.

    • @jocabulous
      @jocabulous 5 років тому +156

      t h a t s t h e j o k e

    • @tejastakalkar7924
      @tejastakalkar7924 5 років тому +20

      I don't think so... Because the computer would stop computing if there is a power shortage even for single day in those 2000 years....and it will have to start again from the scratch 😪

    • @gweltazlemartret6760
      @gweltazlemartret6760 5 років тому +79

      @@tejastakalkar7924 : 2000 years for 1 computer.
      1 year for 2000 computers.
      1 day for 730 000 computers.
      Big numbers.

    • @collinhoben3793
      @collinhoben3793 5 років тому +12

      @@nicholascomet8528 r/whoosh

  • @JD-mz1rl
    @JD-mz1rl 5 років тому +47

    11:50 that moment when you realize they've come up with something more substantial to teach in the text books since you've graduated from college

  • @freddyfredrickson
    @freddyfredrickson 5 років тому +319

    I think a commodore 64 will crack a 1000 digit encryption code before I will understand this video.

    • @techgeeknzl
      @techgeeknzl 5 років тому +3

      I'm sure it could do it, given a large enough spool of tape to swap to.

    • @catchara1496
      @catchara1496 5 років тому +1

      Brendon Green *but would it be faster*

  • @jcolinmizia9161
    @jcolinmizia9161 4 роки тому +27

    The scary part of this is that breaking encryption is no longer a mathematical or scientific question, it’s an engineering question.

    • @bloonspy2260
      @bloonspy2260 Рік тому +3

      but all engineering questions are really fundamentally math and science questions

    • @TheMrVogue
      @TheMrVogue Рік тому

      @@bloonspy2260 but all math and science questions are ultimately questions

    • @codinghub3759
      @codinghub3759 Рік тому +2

      ​@@TheMrVoguebut all questions are fundamentally sentences

    • @PurpleBaldGuy
      @PurpleBaldGuy Рік тому

      ​@@codinghub3759but all sentences are fundamentally words

    • @m_affiliates
      @m_affiliates Рік тому

      ⁠@@PurpleBaldGuy but all words are fundamentally letters

  • @squidpai_
    @squidpai_ 5 років тому +30

    introducing a new youtube channel:
    seventeenandahalfminutephysics

  • @panaural
    @panaural 5 років тому +49

    Quantum computing does not break encryption. It breaks a select subset of encryption algorithms, primarily used for key-exchange. AES, the algorithm currently used to encrypt almost all data on the internet, is already resistant against Shor's algorithm. And quantum-safe ways for key-exchange are also readily available.

    • @sentjojo
      @sentjojo 5 років тому +7

      But it does break a lot of legacy techniques. Which isn't a problem so long as people actually install updates and continue to move to safer algorithms

    • @panaural
      @panaural 5 років тому +16

      @@sentjojo Not installing updates is already causing serious security/privacy problems. The availability of quantum computing is not going to change that, nor will it make people suddenly follow a strict update-policy. The worse it will do is lull people into a false sense of security once they _have_ patched their encryption-frameworks again quantum-attacks.

    • @rizzaxc
      @rizzaxc 5 років тому +3

      well to use AES you still need either RSA or Diffie-Hellman. I'm not sure if DH key exchange is gonna be affected by QC, but RSA definitely is

    • @panaural
      @panaural 5 років тому +5

      @@rizzaxc AES operates independent of the key-exchange algorithm that is used, so it does not _depend_ on RSA or DH. For DH, there is a quantum-safe variant available called 'supersingular isogeny key exchange'. So effectively, nothing will break. Files/data already encrypted using AES will remain safe. That is, of course, assuming that we will eventually be able to keep 4096+ quantumbits (needed to run Shor's algorithm for 2048-bit RSA keys) entangled without decoherence. Which is also debateable atm. But that is another discussion entirely ;)

    • @rizzaxc
      @rizzaxc 5 років тому +1

      @panaural wrong, AES doesn't depend on RSA or DH, but the use of it does. you need an effective key exchange scheme for symmetric encryption, and as stated I'm not aware whether DH is gonna be affected, but RSA definitely is. Also, the pain of updating everything to be QC-resistant is also going to be a threat

  • @anthonyaportela217
    @anthonyaportela217 5 років тому +147

    You should do a video on how quantum computing can also save encryption

    • @dddmemaybe
      @dddmemaybe 5 років тому +38

      *links the password via quantum entanglement to a single arbitrary particle on Mars.*

    • @frankschneider6156
      @frankschneider6156 5 років тому +20

      Quantum cryptography doesn't save encryption, but just allows you to detect, if the message (eg the key exchange) has been eavesdropped on. There are actually commercial system available for this, but it doesn't "protect" the encryption, if you use the key anyway.
      What you mean are PQC-algorithms, which don't use quantum computers, but just use problems, that can't be solved by quantum computers efficiently. (quantum computers can't solve all NP problems).

    • @anthonyaportela217
      @anthonyaportela217 5 років тому +2

      @@frankschneider6156 sounds like you're just being pedantic. The no cloning theorem allows a way in which a sender and recurved can ensure that their line of communication is secure before sending any sensitive information. Secure quantum key distribution is completely provable.
      Edit: also I never said that quantum cryptography could save encryption. I said quantum computing would, which relies on entanglement and it's implications. One of these implications is the no cloning theorem which is the backbone of QKD.

    • @frankschneider6156
      @frankschneider6156 5 років тому +4

      Anthony Aportela
      May I quote ? "how quantum computing can also save encryption".
      I agree with the rest of what you said and am quite familiar with e.g. BB-84, but using quantum computers to protect encryption from quantum computers is completely unnecessary. Every cheap laptop can do that far better. Just don't use a vulnerable cipher. Done. That easy.
      Another thing: you should be VERY careful with proofs, when it comes to security. The old saying "If it's provably secure, it's probably not" exists for a reason. Typically the logic is"secure because maths", in quantum cryptography, it is "secure because physics", which seems pretty convincing.
      Problem: real world proofs are always based upon assumptions (of which in the real world a multitude are implicit and never formally stated). Just undermine a single assumption and your proof is toast. But because it has been "proven" people will still believe something to be secure, because it has been "proven to be secure", while in reality it is not. Security proofs are of course true (and I'm not stupid enough to argue the no-cloning theorem could be violated, because it can't ) but are still generally not worth a lot.
      E.g. I can mathematically proof that every 12+ character password is highly secure and the chance of breaking it is negligible. We both know that in reality, that's far from being true.

    • @bean_TM
      @bean_TM 5 років тому

      Already exists

  • @kenedi987
    @kenedi987 2 роки тому +2

    Great vid, thanks minutephysics! Been following your channel since I was 9 or 10 and now I'm going into uni and your content is still great and useful.

  • @mhe0815
    @mhe0815 5 років тому +257

    Thank you. After watching this, I feel smarter and dumber at the same time now.

    • @mizaelflores2360
      @mizaelflores2360 4 роки тому +24

      quantum intelligence

    • @skittybug6937
      @skittybug6937 4 роки тому +18

      @@mizaelflores2360 Schrodinger's IQ.

    • @cameosix7077
      @cameosix7077 4 роки тому +18

      Your IQ is in a superposition

    • @marek419
      @marek419 3 роки тому +1

      I feel like that after learning anything new lol

    • @Rhidayah
      @Rhidayah 3 роки тому

      So, now you can change your password account?

  • @S4R1N
    @S4R1N 5 років тому +396

    Quantum hacking, A.K.A 'Shor's Lightsaber'.

  • @DarkThomy
    @DarkThomy 5 років тому +66

    The fact the bass stops playing one minute in scares me somehow..

  • @commanderzander580
    @commanderzander580 3 роки тому +12

    This can be used against asymmetric encryption, but not symmetric encryption, which is what most data uses. Symmetric encryption takes a random string of letters and numbers, and uses that string to mash up the data in specific ways that you can't undo without knowing what the string is. No factoring is involved, and you can't use Shor's algorithm. However, getting your secret string to someone you trust usually DOES include asymmetric encryption. But if the quantum attacker missed the key exchange, you can't break in by doing this.

    • @gotnoname3956
      @gotnoname3956 11 місяців тому

      It can't be even used against asymmetric encryption in general. Only for the encryption that are using factorization. For lattice based algorithm there is no usage at all for it. And there are several asymmetric encryptions that are not based on factorization.

    • @enochliu8316
      @enochliu8316 9 місяців тому

      @@gotnoname3956 Some of those asymmetric encryptions, like DH and ECC, are also vulnerable to Shor's alg.

    • @gotnoname3956
      @gotnoname3956 9 місяців тому

      @@enochliu8316 DH and ECC are not lattice based and therefore not some of the ”those asymmetric encryptions”. CRYSTALS-Dilithium would be one example with a lattice based algo. Asymmetrical encryptions are obviously not quantum resistant in general but that was (hopefully clearly) not my point 😅

  • @Lazarosaliths
    @Lazarosaliths 5 років тому +25

    That's a special time dilation minute-physics!!!
    WoW my brain fried while trying to keep up!!

  • @jaiyash0
    @jaiyash0 5 років тому +179

    My neurons destructively interfered while watching this

    • @matheusbarbosa700
      @matheusbarbosa700 5 років тому +1

      Yeah man i lost my mind and no understood a fuck

  • @inciaradible7144
    @inciaradible7144 5 років тому +17

    Thanks a lot for this; I've tried to understand the algorithm prior to this video, and why it's such a breakthrough, but it always devolved into something extremely complicated that was hard to understand.

  • @cern1999sb
    @cern1999sb 2 роки тому

    This contains a better intuitive description of the quantum Fourier transform than was given to me by my quantum computing module at university

  • @vedantchaudhari7123
    @vedantchaudhari7123 5 років тому +637

    I made a program that can guess passwords of 2 digits.

    • @SingularityHRT
      @SingularityHRT 5 років тому +242

      You are on Your way to decrypt Quantum Encryption.

    • @MsSonali1980
      @MsSonali1980 5 років тому +58

      Just keep up the good work.

    • @yashuppot3214
      @yashuppot3214 5 років тому +22

      Thats simple as there is only 100 possibilities.

    • @stacklysm
      @stacklysm 5 років тому +14

      @@yashuppot3214 Nice

    • @lmaonoidea
      @lmaonoidea 5 років тому +11

      @@yashuppot3214 99*
      Lol sorry that bothered me a lottt

  • @mikes333
    @mikes333 5 років тому +253

    Me before watching video: "Man, this is gonna be cool, I'm totally going to focus on this one!"
    Me after watching video: "bplbpllbhbhblblblblblblbllblblblblllbllbbpppppphhhhh...." (drool dripping down side of chin...)

    • @elvis_mello
      @elvis_mello 5 років тому +6

      After you accept it will hurt profoundly in your brain, you start to like it.
      Trust me, I'm a physics major.

    • @mikey5396
      @mikey5396 5 років тому +2

      I recommend you watch a video from "Primitive Technology" as an antidote to this gibberish.

    • @Blox117
      @Blox117 5 років тому +1

      my condolences for your brain damage

    • @ShantalhaitianPrincess
      @ShantalhaitianPrincess 5 років тому

      Elvis Amandio this sounds very sexual

    • @elvis_mello
      @elvis_mello 5 років тому

      @@ShantalhaitianPrincess It's a concept that can be applied to a wide range of situations.

  • @harikishore2514
    @harikishore2514 5 років тому +310

    It might take me crap ton of time to understand what you said in 17 minutes.

    • @fulcrum2951
      @fulcrum2951 5 років тому +10

      The entire video is an encryption

    • @Guztav1337
      @Guztav1337 5 років тому +19

      You don't have to understand per se, just get the general idea:
      1. There is math for turning crappy guess into better guess. (slow on a normal computer)
      2. Quantum computing, can make multiple guesses at the same time. (fast)
      3. Destructive interference with all the wrong guesses leaves you with the right guess. (get right guess fast)
      4. This method can break internet privacy and security, exposing everybody's data. Because it can guess correct fast.
      It's like using all the keys in the world at once to unlock your door, and one of them will be correct, and you can instantly find the correct.
      EDIT: Note, that we know the method but do not have a powerful quantum computer yet. Stay tuned for developments.

    • @de0509
      @de0509 5 років тому

      Let me guess. 2000 years? Because Im guess that thats the same for me

    • @tarek3735
      @tarek3735 5 років тому

      @@Guztav1337 why not just use genetic algorithm?

    • @DouglasEKnappMSAOM
      @DouglasEKnappMSAOM 5 років тому

      @@de0509 The biggest quantum computer is owned by Google and has 72 q-bits.!!! If I understand this correctly, that breaks all encryption NOW!

  • @Owen_loves_Butters
    @Owen_loves_Butters 2 роки тому +7

    For anyone having trouble understanding this video:
    It's not your fault. Quantum mechanics is one of the hardest fields of science to understand. Explaining the depths of Shor's algorithm (or really any quantum algorithm) in a way that a lay person can understand is, in my opinion, utterly impossible. I have a very loose grasp on what he's saying, but that's based on heaps of previous knowledge on quantum mechanics. I need to do some research on Quantum Fourier transforms.
    Understanding complex things like this without preliminary knowledge just isn't gonna happen. You need to understand the parts to understand the whole. You can't build a car if you don't know what an engine is. You can't understand how a computer works if you don't know what a transistor is. And you can't understand Shor's Algorithm without knowing how a quantum computer works, which you can't know until you know what a superposition is, etc.

  • @condescendingonlineman2136
    @condescendingonlineman2136 5 років тому +325

    >minute physics
    *>over 17 minutes*

    • @bernardchapman1002
      @bernardchapman1002 5 років тому

      My cell phone is very small so I see it as minute

    • @viceversadetroit
      @viceversadetroit 5 років тому

      correction, that would be one minute to the power of 17. lol

    • @EpicScizor
      @EpicScizor 5 років тому

      @@viceversadetroit (1 minute)^17 = 1 minute^17
      I, uh, don't know what a 17-cubed minute is, but its not 17 minutes.

    • @viceversadetroit
      @viceversadetroit 5 років тому

      @@EpicScizor it was a joke not literal but I guess that's lost on you

    • @TPJSM794
      @TPJSM794 5 років тому

      > Condescending online Man
      > Pedantic

  • @supimzazz
    @supimzazz 5 років тому +58

    I wonder how many don't understand a single thing of this but yet watch it cause the video is entertaining.

    • @aomafura3374
      @aomafura3374 5 років тому +1

      I lost it halfway through lol

  • @YCCCm7
    @YCCCm7 5 років тому +454

    Internet: *Uses encryption.*
    Quantum Computers: It's free real estate.

    • @harikishore2514
      @harikishore2514 5 років тому +3

      Lol. Good one.

    • @dwardoyangy6586
      @dwardoyangy6586 5 років тому +11

      Quantum Computers: hold my superpositions

    • @MeadowBrook2000
      @MeadowBrook2000 5 років тому +5

      @g00gle minus That's the stupidest way ever.. instead you have to acess facebook database of servers and made the decryptions there, you don't need to have some trashy algorithm telling you to wait

    • @__nog642
      @__nog642 5 років тому +8

      @g00gle minus This is not about guessing passwords; did you even watch the video. All they would have to do is sit on public wifi and listen to passing traffic. Usually, on most sites, like facebook, you are protected by HTTPS which uses SSL/TLS encryption, but those use RSA for the initial key exchange, which can be cracked as mentioned in this video. So all the attacker needs to do is save all the network communication, take it home to their quantum computer, break all the RSA encryption to get the symmetric keys, then use the symmetric keys to read all the data sent between you and the sites you visit. That includes your facebook password, if you logged into facebook while they were listening (or at least a password hash, which can still be used to log in in that case). No password guessing involved.

    • @Execuor
      @Execuor 5 років тому +2

      @g00gle minus they don't need to guess your password they could break into facebooks network steal the login database and then use the algorithm to decrypt your password in a very short amount of time. Or they could do a man in the middle attack and listen in to your whatsapp messages, record everything and break the encryption later.

  • @n-da-bunka2650
    @n-da-bunka2650 Рік тому

    4:39 - Position of enlightenment. Truly needed NOTHING else in this video other than this one 10 second snippet! Thanks!

  • @Lavie_Azure
    @Lavie_Azure 5 років тому +16

    I understood what you tried to explain, but at the same time, I didn't. That's quantum physics for you

  • @bencrossley647
    @bencrossley647 5 років тому +196

    *This video is exactly 1 minute long!*
    ...if you travel at 0.99836 × c.

    • @oneofmanyparadoxfans5447
      @oneofmanyparadoxfans5447 5 років тому +2

      How far in the future will I end up, though?

    • @Bunny-go9wf
      @Bunny-go9wf 5 років тому +15

      @@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447 16.5 minutes.

    • @oneofmanyparadoxfans5447
      @oneofmanyparadoxfans5447 5 років тому

      @@Bunny-go9wf Traveling 99.836% the speed of Light in a vacuum? Did you make sure to double check your maths, there?

    • @jonbowman7686
      @jonbowman7686 5 років тому +10

      ​@@oneofmanyparadoxfans5447 The lorentz factor is about 17.5 (which should be the length of the video), so yeah they did their math pretty much right

    • @oneofmanyparadoxfans5447
      @oneofmanyparadoxfans5447 5 років тому

      @@jonbowman7686 I guess when condensing such a short interval of time there's not as much distortion occurring.

  • @lsb2623
    @lsb2623 5 років тому +146

    BY SHOR'S BONES! This is the challenge to enter Sovengarde!

    • @vividandlucid
      @vividandlucid 5 років тому +26

      Have you seen those Computer Scientists from Hammerfell? They have quantum computers. Quantum computers!

    • @merlinious01
      @merlinious01 5 років тому +5

      @@vividandlucid
      Curved computation!

    • @lsb2623
      @lsb2623 5 років тому +14

      @@vividandlucid do you visit the quantum lab in the cloud district often? oh what am I saying..... of course you dont.

    • @monkeymanmillionaire
      @monkeymanmillionaire 5 років тому +5

      I used to be a quantum physicist like you, then I took an arrow in the knee.

    • @lsb2623
      @lsb2623 5 років тому +1

      @Ishmam Masud - Cuz I Can wow ... total easy mode player.

  • @Cenox1000
    @Cenox1000 3 роки тому +1

    I'm a student currently working on a lecture about this algorithm. Video helped a lot. Thanks :)

  • @ylissotato
    @ylissotato 5 років тому +40

    Awesome video! Now just to get my hands on a quantum computer to try this out....

    • @paulleimer1218
      @paulleimer1218 5 років тому +3

      Well, you actually can, through IBM Q

  • @DonNikita
    @DonNikita 5 років тому +64

    1:00 *chill music in the background stops*
    ok some serious shit is about to come

  • @Yeeeeet__0
    @Yeeeeet__0 5 років тому +47

    "We've glossed over a ton of details"
    14:37

  • @jhb1493
    @jhb1493 3 роки тому +2

    I worked at a major Telecom as a PM a while back, and one day my boss asked our team to brainstorm potential future issues or threats that the company might not be prepared for.
    I mentioned two things, both of which seemed obvious: pandemics and this.
    He said Quantum Computing was "science fiction" and, as for pandemics, this "isn't the middle ages". He still works there, I do not.

  • @Edukate95
    @Edukate95 5 років тому +122

    5:19 "... and here's the clever part."
    I'm obviously not very clever if things didn't get tricky until now.

    • @mywither7878
      @mywither7878 5 років тому

      That is an oof, my Edukate.

    • @NumbBlaze
      @NumbBlaze 4 роки тому

      Fucking love this comment, I laughed out loud

  • @1111skip1111
    @1111skip1111 5 років тому +47

    It might be fun to note that quantum computing won't necessarily compromise your passwords and other encrypted traffic.
    Because first of all; the moment quantum computing technology becomes available it would be very cost ineffecient to just set about brute-forcing random encrypted traffic. It will thus only be usable by a government or university. Who generally aren't that interested in your personal data. (Though this could depend on the government in question).
    It'll probably take a while before running tasks on a quantum computer becomes available for public use.
    Secondly; encryption using factorisation of numbers is already a rather dated method and better encryption algorithms already exist and are more widely used on modern platforms.
    It would only pose problems for old websites who haven't updated their encryption methods and websites who are just too lazy to be bothered with it. Though these websites do still exist in plentiful amounts.

    • @tomlandon209
      @tomlandon209 5 років тому +1

      That's a relief!

    • @ZiggyGrok
      @ZiggyGrok 5 років тому +24

      Two facts that break your bubble: (1) Shor's algorithm can be used to solve the discrete logarithm problem too (which is the basis of EC crypto), so every standardized cryptosystem for asymmetric crypto is broken by Shor's algorithm. AIUI, EC will actually break faster since fewer qubits are needed to hold the required state. (2) Symmetric crypto & hash functions weaken due to Grover's algorithm on quantum computers, but not nearly as badly -- merely increasing key/digest sizes by 2x is enough to defeat the speedup.
      But yes, there are efforts underway to define, cryptanalyze, and standardize quantum-safe asymmetric crypto algorithms to replace RSA/DH/ECDSA/ECDH/etc. (Some are already known, but have severe usability issues.)

    • @GammaFn.
      @GammaFn. 5 років тому +4

      @@ZiggyGrok Huh, I hadn't heard of Grover's Alg, thanks for metioning it. Also, that's actually crazy that EC will break faster than RSA.
      I know of a few alg attempts based on knot theory and group theory, and I've seen that they have been pretty poor as of yet.

    • @y2ksw1
      @y2ksw1 5 років тому +1

      Skip If a feasible way is found to crack RSA, all of the signatures have no value.

    • @MrBrockmiester
      @MrBrockmiester 5 років тому

      @Scott Schmit does that mean ElGamal is also broken. Is it based on discrete logarithms as well? I know it uses fields, but does it also use Galois fields?

  • @sunathkhadikar6287
    @sunathkhadikar6287 5 років тому +8

    This video is GOLD !! I thank you for every second of it.

  • @keokawasaki7833
    @keokawasaki7833 4 роки тому +6

    Too neat!!!
    I am a programmer and I would totally love to write algorithms for quantum computers.

    • @codelif
      @codelif 3 роки тому

      yep, if that comes out to be a job description. "Quantum Programmer"

  • @ajmalnajath1399
    @ajmalnajath1399 5 років тому +978

    mybrain.exe has encountered an unexpected error.

  • @marei2222
    @marei2222 5 років тому +137

    10:00
    Me: that idea sounds fine, I mean, that’s better than I could think up
    Henry: NO. We need to do something clever
    Me: **feels magnitude of inferiority** I thought it was....

    • @hellorin
      @hellorin 5 років тому +1

      Well aren't we all here to alter our definition of clever?
      Although if I get my hands on the damn quantum computer you will need 2000 years to fix it

    • @marei2222
      @marei2222 5 років тому

      Aviel Yamin lol same

  • @stealth9799
    @stealth9799 5 років тому +41

    EDIT: I am only referencing 2:08 in the video. Even though I am, I urge you to check out the wikipedia page on Grover's algorithm, a random search algorithm that is the most efficient at breaking symmetric cryptography in O(sqrt(n)) time which brings AES256 to 128 bits of security; this is still momentous.
    One thing that I would like to add. Near the beginning you said that encryption was like a lock, we can add more but eventually someone will get through. This is not quite true due to the vast size of the numbers we use and the rate at which the problem complexity grows with respect to the problem size. If we take a look at symmetric encryption (this is for simpler calculations. prime factorization is O(exp(sqrt(nlog^2(n))))) which would lead to less nice numbers but it is similar in spirit), the difficulty of breaking the encryption grows with 2^n where n is the number of bits in the key. This is important because a single bit makes the problem twice as hard. Because of this growth rate, we can extremely easily outpace the computational resources of the entire planet. Even if we took all the energy in all the stars in the observable universe to power computer chips made with every atom in the universe, it would still take longer than the age of the universe to crack AES256 encryption. And if someone starts trying, just add one more bit.

    • @Cheng798536
      @Cheng798536 5 років тому +1

      Kai Hicks I fail to understand why quantum computer is ridiculously fast I don't think explain the physical bits. But I agree with you, coding will always be easier then decoding. It's not the just the length of the data, and also the different multiplication they created. If by using super calculating speed you can mimic the encryption fast enough without finding the real answer(which is impossible to even think about at the moment). If it is this easy Software programmer may have to change the way selling product completely to protect their copyright, and everyone will no longer get a full copy of the software but pay to access them online.

    • @Dubanx
      @Dubanx 5 років тому +2

      Yeah, it's effectively impossible to break decent encryption. It's not just a deterrent, it's impossible without some insane improbabilistic amount of luck.
      OP immediately made it clear he did not know what he was talking about with that statement.

    • @lordmaximillius3431
      @lordmaximillius3431 5 років тому

      Send this to me

    • @jason9559
      @jason9559 5 років тому +2

      Is standard encryption breaking you're definitely correct, but quantum computers dont grow their probability space in a 2^n fashion. Its probability space for solving problems grows by a factor n^n where n is the number of qubits you have, and adding another qubits to a Quantum Computer is trivial and has a low resource requirement, once they become scalable and economical, which is why, at the end of the day 1 extra bit does not double problem difficulty for a quantum computer. It barely even registers as a fraction more difficult, but it's practically insignificant for a sufficiently sized Quantum computer.

    • @Kalenz1234
      @Kalenz1234 5 років тому

      @@Dubanx It's possible to be safe against the brute force approach but there are other ways.

  • @macpr0c
    @macpr0c 4 роки тому +11

    My god this video helped me immensely for intuitively understanding the logic behind the Shor's algorithm for my QC course ! Honestly I did not expect such a relatively indepth look at the workings of the algorithm but I was very pleasantly surprised. Thank you.

  • @rodjacksonx
    @rodjacksonx 4 роки тому +82

    Me: Finally! An explanation of Shor's Algorithm!
    *mind blown*
    Me: HOW THE HECK DID SHOR FIGURE THIS OUT?!!!

    • @igorthelight
      @igorthelight 4 роки тому +16

      He had a lot of free time :-)

    • @freyawion5337
      @freyawion5337 4 роки тому

      The algorithm itself makes a lot of sence though, and it is easily checked. The quantum physics here though - yeeeah, not the most sensible thing.

    • @phillipanselmo8540
      @phillipanselmo8540 3 роки тому +10

      by not spending his time on yt and actually studying

    • @proteg30
      @proteg30 3 роки тому

      @@phillipanselmo8540 Yeah this isn't exactly hard to understand

    • @cern1999sb
      @cern1999sb 2 роки тому +2

      Shor created a small but crucial step on top of a lot of existing work. All the non-quantum things had been done before, and he slightly adapted another algorithm called Simon's Algorithm to create his quantum period-finding part for the number to raise the power. Still very impressive stuff, but when you've done a module in quantum computing, you find that most of the algorithms are very small variations on one another

  • @windmillstudio
    @windmillstudio 5 років тому +15

    "One minute" stands for how much of the explanation I understood

  • @keris3920
    @keris3920 5 років тому +27

    Do a follow-up on lattice-based cryptology and how it is the leading candidate for post-quantum computing ciphers.

    • @bigfunny843
      @bigfunny843 5 років тому +9

      Keris I CANT UNDERSTAND THIS AND YOU’RE TELLING ME SOME EINSTEIN BRAINIAC HAS FIGURED OUT HOW TO TOP A TECHNOLOGY THAT DOSENT EVEN WORK THAT WELL YET

    • @chintex_
      @chintex_ 4 роки тому

      I have no idea what this sentence even means.

    • @rajeeshcm5938
      @rajeeshcm5938 4 роки тому +1

      Post quantum crypto will be needed soon

    • @zwergstein2152
      @zwergstein2152 4 роки тому +2

      @@rajeeshcm5938 Quantum Cryptography already exists. In our student lab, we did an analogue to the BB-84 algorithm. It isn't even very difficult to understand compared to this

  • @bowenjudd1028
    @bowenjudd1028 4 роки тому +25

    Me looking at quantum computers: It’s so cute.
    Brutus: We must think of this quantum computer as a serpents egg, not dangerous now but will be later if not dealt with.

    • @ltnthony8791
      @ltnthony8791 3 роки тому

      Shakespeare and quantum computing... Such an elegant blend

    • @Shaun_Jones
      @Shaun_Jones Рік тому

      Well, you can also make quantum encryption that is resistant to this sort of thing; but I’ve only done one course of C# coding and have no idea how that works, so don’t ask me.

  • @collinsigbiks9701
    @collinsigbiks9701 5 років тому +35

    Shor's bones, a handsome algorithm on UA-cam.

    • @michealhigginbotham4036
      @michealhigginbotham4036 5 років тому

      collins igbiks Dragonborn comes in and Fus Roh Dah’s your computer to death, then absorbs all of its data! 😈

  • @balsoft01
    @balsoft01 5 років тому +94

    Shor's algorithm is actually stupendously inefficient compared to other quantum algorithms.
    Edit: he actually said it in the video, I feel stupid now.

    • @Hendo2488
      @Hendo2488 5 років тому +9

      Don't worry, bud. We ALL feel stupid after hearing him break the universe with math... especially when that math is quantum maths. Lol.

    • @kevinzhu6417
      @kevinzhu6417 5 років тому +6

      dont feel stupid theres plenty of people who wouldnt own up to a mistake to protect their ego

    • @yoyokojo651
      @yoyokojo651 5 років тому

      Александр Бантьев stoupendous means extremely impressive, imo wrong word in that context

  • @moea.9120
    @moea.9120 5 років тому +7

    I just went on a 30 minute tangent researching Boötes Void, thanks to this video. 🙂

  • @jacksonlindsey5249
    @jacksonlindsey5249 7 місяців тому

    this probably the best explanation of shor's ever made