The world’s most popular software for quantum computing.
Qiskit makes it easier to get started in quantum computing. It does so through Qiskit patterns: intuitive, repeatable sets of steps for quantum workflows. These patterns are modular, and can be combined in different ways to achieve different goals.
Join us for engaging lectures, tips & tricks, tutorials, community updates and access to exclusive Qiskit content!
This @Qiskit video "might" have been in error by saying that, with entangled particles, one can tranfer quantum information, one to the other. 1) I don't think there is transfer, rather there is simply an instantaneous fact of the matter, caused by the measuring device (no hidden variables). I would call it a transition from potential to actual, instead of, as she said, "a transfer of quantum information." 2) I don't think there's such a thing as "quantum information." Once the "quantum particle" attains information, upon measurement, it is not quantum. It is quantum precisely because, prior to measurement, the "quantum particle" has zero properties (to be generous, zero "definite" properties). Because the "thing" has no information, it is better said that it has no properties at all, instead of "no definite properties." Given this, there is no info there to transfer, thus there is no such thing as quantum information. Once the measuring device, or blade of grass, or anything local, collapses a wave function (a potential), the entity only then, for the first time, has information, and only THEN can it "transfer" information, like any object of everyday NON-quantum physics. I would add that we might soon start adjusting our language such that we don't say things like "These things have probabilities," rather we say "The probabilities of the "concept" of quantum particles". We should stop thinking of quantum particles as "things" and that is because such a framing coerces us to reify the non-existant, in other words to make classical the quantum, or in other words to define potentials as actuals.
Just had to come back to this presentation. I recently started working on the Josephson TWPAs as I transitioned from working on cryogenic memory chips. Many thanks.
Guys, RU-vid is international platform and english is the language of the knowledge. Why the fuck do you set region restrictions on your example page so that they are not accessible without US VPN?
"Now, in quantum mechanics we say there exists this thing called the wave function which describes all the properties of your Quantum system and upon measurement it collapses into a single quantity that was only described probabilistically before you measured it." Good Gal! Best, most succinct, rendition of wave function collapse l've ever read. WFC's reaIly just like snagging a flipped coin. Its position is indeterminate tilI you snag it. The coin position wasn't fixed tiIl you snagged it and stopped it. In the same way your quantum properties aren't fixed tiIl you 'snag' the system by measuring it. Good Gal! Thx. Man. This quantum mex is SO counterintuitive. Crazy.
I think there is a little bit of terminology gap. What meant here as simulating classically a qubit is sampling from measurement time output distribution of a quantum circuit. This is a bit distinct technique and doesn't imply to have quantum advantage on the classical host hardware.
Listen to what Commercial Pilots say about the A.I. they have access to, now. (It's far inferior to Human ability.) I'm not a scientist; I'm an engineer. Engineers are better than Scientists, oviously.
While I get that AI itself will benefit from quantum computing, aren't they kinda achieving many of the theoretical benefits we hope quantum computing will have already? Like protein folding for example. More and more theoretical benefits of quantum computing are being 'eaten up' by machine learning algorithms today. How do you see this?
No informations is transfered beyond the speed of light because their values where predetermined in the entanglement, so your result measuring one or the other will be the same. So better analogy will be sealing to envelopes with opposite results, you only know they are opposite, and then dispatch them to two far away from each other receivers. No magic.
What happens if white noise increases exponentially as the number of qubits rises? Does it indicate that quantum computing is limited to doing computations on a few qubits? If affirmative then the hype given to quantum computation in terms of speeding up quantum computation exponentially is doomed akin to the hype given to string theory in solving quantum gravity.
Is there a way of applying gates only on a subspace of qubit states? For eg: if I have a state as a superposition of 00,01,10,11 basis states, but I only wish to apply a gate to the subspace spanned by 00 and 01 space, while the other subspace is invariant (G acting on a|00> +b|01> +c|10> + d|11> is just G(a|00> +b|01> ) + c|10> + d|11> )?
This should be possible as long as G is unitary. For instance, the CNOT gate only acts on states |10> and |11> where the left qubit is control and right qubit is target.
That wasn't really the problem with the EPR paper. The problem is that three relativists didn't notice that they had a case of relativity at work. Neither did Bell... until the last few sentences of his paper. Those sentence invalidate basically everything that came before them, but those who believe in Saint Bell never read that far.
Bells theorem is based on assumptions that are emotional. Bell called super determinism "implausible" because he feared an emotional concept of "free will" was at stake. As if somehow a "human" is unbounded by causality. A thorough definition of "free will" can define causality as a cause and requirement of the human concept. Alice and Bob are both the same species, educated the same, planned an experiment together in the past, and exist in each other's light cone, yet somehow their actions are completely independent from both each other and the universe..? Those type of assumptions almost begin to become nonsensical when compared to super determinism.
It is an interesting presentation though too brief to understand the principle of the experiment. I am intrigued what is that white statue-like object on the middle shelf on the left side. That is relevant. But the image is too blurred to distinguish it.
There is nothing inconsistent with realism here. The particle is in a Quantum State and gets reduced. The other particle is in a Quantum State and gets reduced too. One has spin up and the other spin down. The reduction of the Wave Function works the same way everywhere so why would the states be incompatible? I don't understand that. You can assume that the Quantum States are real and that the reduction is a law of Physics that is the same everywhere in our region of spacetime.
At about 6:40 you start with AxBx + AxBy +AyBx - AyBy but you don't actually explain what Ax or Bx is. Then you factor the terms to (Ax+Ay)Bx + (Ax-Ay)By. But looking at the four terms I would think you'd have to factor it to Ax(Bx + By) + Ay(Bx - By) So I don't understand the nuts and bolts of your explanation. Sorry.
1. AxBx etc. are measured values. 2. You can factor in both ways - doesn't matter. 3. Let's say Ax=Ay=Bx=By=1. Then you get 2 for the CHSH value. And there's no way to get more than S. But yeah, explanation is very simplified and you won't get to nuts and bolts from that.
FTL communication hypothetical: Pairs of entangled particles are isolated into chronological order, one set remains on Earth and the other is placed aboad a craft that moves many lightyears out into space. If one outpost made a measurement that specifically mimics binary code to effect the other outpost's particle set, would that not technically transmit the inverse code instantaneously? 🤔
@@a2sbestos768 Hmmm 🤔 maybe I'm not explaining this clearly. This technique has already been tested for encryption from satellite to the ground communication. It's not a question of it working or not, but rather if at such a distance the effect would appear instantaneous or not?
@@orpheuscreativeco9236 Particle state change "should" appear instantaneous, yes. But you wouldn't be able to communicate a message like that. You'd need another channel. And if you use one, that's quantum teleportation I think.
Some lingo that may be useful! 1. Bell State A Bell state in quantum computing is a special type of entangled state where two qubits are linked such that the state of one qubit instantly influences the state of the other, no matter the distance between them. 2. Superposition The principle that a qubit can exist in multiple states (0 and 1) simultaneously, rather than being in a single state like a classical bit. 3. Hadamard Gate A basic operation that transforms a qubit into an equal superposition of its 0 and 1 states, creating a state where the qubit has a 50% chance of being measured as 0 and a 50% chance of being measured as 1. 4. The CNOT (Controlled NOT) Gate A two-qubit operation where the state of the second qubit (target) is flipped if the first qubit (control) is in the state 1, otherwise, the target qubit remains unchanged. 5. Pauli Operators A set of three basic matrices (Pauli-X, Pauli-Y, and Pauli-Z) used to describe quantum gates that can change the state of a qubit by flipping its state, rotating it, or inverting its phase. In quantum computing, operators like ZZ, XX, and YY perform specific transformations on qubit states, altering their properties such as phase, amplitude, or entanglement.
Hello sir in the last estimation technique, in post processing and plotting I got a value error of "x and y must have same first dimension, but you have shapes (1,) and (9,)" And I have another question that any job id can I use which is already completed in ibm platform in post processing technique ?
For the first issue, it looks like your input for x in the plotting function needs 9 elements. For the second, do you mean can you run a circuit without error mitigation first, and then later decide to add error mitigation? Perhaps in some cases, but many error mitigation methods require additional circuits to be executed at runtime to be effective (for instance, readout mitigation requires calibration circuits), so generally, you should apply error mitigation at runtime.
