How Quantum Computers Could Change the World 

PS this video stays up

Can you make a video on how quantum computers would influence gaming in the future?

@@ColdFusion why was it taking down?

serious work

Qubits bro... Quantum Binary Digits...not Cubits

Hold my Qbits

dude thats awesome

This video exists in a state of quantum superposition

You need to upload the video quantumatically to get it to work

There's still an audio glitch in the video. xD

We're the lucky ones

You're not too early if you jump right on in now. Otherwise, then yeah you're right, you'll be too late

The Greys from Beta Reticuli went from harnessing fire to exploring the entire Milky Way Galaxy in ONLY 17 Earth years !! SO SHUT THE "F" UP , Earthling Punk !!!!

It's a quantum upload, you never know if the video will exist or not.

@@ChristianIce LOL

@@ChristianIce 🤣🤣 i laughed so hard on that one

Third times the charm? jeez my social media dopamine triggers enough already...

@@ChristianIce 😂

While i agree, i think it can become hard to do so in a short video without having audience already being educated on the topic somewhat. MinutePhysics did do a video on that and i thought it was incredibly well explained ... but there were a lot of people in the comments that couldn t follow.

Thank you That's the main thing How to manipulate it to your advantage. That's the whole essence of engineering

I agree with Björn. Too much fancy graphics and very little regarding what QC are, what they do or where progress with QC is at the moment.

You just explained quantum computers. The rest is the bra-ket mathematics developed by Paul Dirac and can get *very* complicated *very* fast.

You're making a good point. I didn't really understand the process either.

Modern science has completely failed to understand entanglement so far. I think it's naive to say for certain that instant communication isn't possible within the laws of physics when phenomena like entanglement suggest that we don't yet fully comprehend the fundamental laws of the universe.

@@bucky13 - Newton probly had the best grasp of what it is to live in our 3D 5sense existence. everything else is surmising.

​@@bucky13 Try to invent the protocol yourself. It's impossible to transmit any meaningful information using only entangled particles because the message you're sending is completely random. You know what you sent, you just can't control it. Go to the wikipedia page for quantum teleportation and it states you also need a traditional method of communication to go with the entangled particles in order for anything to be transmitted. Google any quantum encryption protocol and you'll see they all involve traditional methods of communication to go with the entangled particles. If instant communication was possible it would break a ton of laws of physics.

@@umnikos, it would break the laws of physics as we know them today...look at all we humans have discovered in the past few hundred years... ...maybe in the future someone will discover a "loophole" in physics that makes instantaneous communication via quantum entanglement or some other so far undiscovered phenomenon possible?

In October 2017, IBM demonstrated the simulation of 56 qubits on a conventional supercomputer, increasing the number of qubits needed for quantum supremacy. (Wiki) Qubit is basically electron so.. Yea.. Video is really poorly done in terms of research..

Just exciting atm. You need almost absolute zero temps to control quantum particles at them moment.

Not much. The hardest equation solved by a quantum computer in practice was 5+7 - in theory though we are breaking 2048-bit encryption and - apparently - simulating the universe.

So in the lab our capabilities are hindered by scalability. For the super conducting method it's riddled with interference partly but not only due to higher than absolute zero temperatures. Other methods show promise, but what's the best way to trap light

no u

@@x000s2 interesting!

Robert Oschler the other two were dogs

I stopped to this comment, you have an idea!

re-uploaded re-upload my dude

My god, my whole life is a lie.

*Joe Swanson,* this was the 3rd time

@@willmorrell488 it was an re upload deep fake the whole time

No one is perfect. I'm sure he will edit the video or make a correction

I'm no expert but imagine this A sound producing machine that when onn is entangled with my vocal cord will obviously communicate what I say instantly without any equipment. Isn't this instant communication?

@@aravind2624 That makes no sense

@@aravind2624 Entanglement is extremely fragile and you lose it immediately after you measure the particle. Also big systems cannot be entangled due to decoherence. Entanglement doesn't mean your vocal cord duplicates someone else's vocal cord. It's impossible to send information using entanglement, because nothing is communicated at all. It's like sending half a pair of gloves to the other side of the world. If the person receives a right-handed glove, he knows the other side must be left-handed. So what? That's no information at all. And imagine that after just looking at the glove you destroy it. The way entanglement works is that the two people can make independent measurements, and when they meet again in person or via radio waves, they can exchange their notes and realize that they were indeed entangled, but that was already known anyway. You cannot do anything to a particle to change anything about its entangled pair (you cannot influence the other half at all). Therefore there's no communication whatsoever. And quantum teleportation is no instant communication, either. The only thing you can achieve is to make it impossible for a 3rd party to eavesdrop on the communication.

@@aravind2624 OP is correct, it has been proven that entanglement does not provide any way to communicate faster than light. In order to get "information" from entangled bits, there must be a side channel of information transfer (that is limited by light speed) that tells the other side what their observation means. Otherwise, as op stated, no "information" has been transferred... only a state... but that state has no context and thus no information.

@@cppguy16 You can absolutely send information using entanglement... you just need a separate light speed limited side channel to do it. And if you are limited by such a light speed side channel, the benefit to use entanglement is eliminated as you can just as easily use the other channel. also " The only thing you can achieve is to make it impossible for a 3rd party to eavesdrop on the communication." is wrong.... the person is able to eavesdrop... they just cannot eavesdrop without changing the quantum state and thus making it clear that at some point that information was intercepted. So in effect that information will be discarded and transmitted again... but "eve" can still eavesdrop, she just cannot do so secretly.

Not really... ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/a-preview-of-bristlecone-googles-new.html

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Martyr4JesusTheChrist If you are posting about D-Wave not being quantum computer you are kinda right. It's using quantum annealing (using properties of quantum mechanics to find "global minimum") not quantum gates, but Google with its bristlecone is using quantum gates. At least learn something about it man.. Edit: I'm doing bachelor thesis on possibilities of quantum cryptography so I think I know at least something about it :)

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist I'm studying quantum cryptography and you "used to code". I'll let everyone reading this decide on their own who probably knows more.

Temp Name put it on here then

Make a video.

@@curt9733 With comments like yours, it baffles me how American owe $ trillions in student loan debts.

Alright. This will be my own half-speculative interpretation, which may be quite heavily biased, so don't take it too close to heart, but at least give it a shallow read. Each particle is a collection of waves (aka wavefunction), similar to those you see on a pond, just in 3d. It's important to note here, that there is no real limit to their amount. One particle can even consist out of many waves moving into different places with different distances between wave peaks (wavelengths) and different wave heights (amplitudes). Some may spread circularly, some may go almost in a straight line, some may interfere with one another and create weird patterns. Now, when we add new particles to our scenario, they will overlap, but despite that they will stay as separate entities. Well, think of it as something like layers in Photoshop, where each layer is a particle and particles' wavefunctions are drawn on those layers. Peaks are drawn as red and valleys are blue, while "water level" has color in-between of those two - a purple. Particles do not exist at purple parts - if you try to "touch" them there, you will pass right through; red and blue are fine though. Quirky part here, is that those red and blue parts, if they belong to the same type of particle, when laid one on top of the other can "interfere" and create purple color (cancel each other out and make particle at this point untouchable) or give rise to redder red or bluer blue. That's not how color mixing works though, but don't mind that. Act of "touching" a particle is called measuring, and it can be done, for example, via virtual photons (electromagnetic force). Those are particles, that are responsible for attraction and repulsion of charged particles. Imagine two simple straight waves going one into another, left one is a charged particle and right one is a virtual photon. Right wave has a chance of getting absorbed by the left one and increasing it's momentum towards the right. That chance is proportional to how much those waves intersect. And it looks like, as if after gaining new momentum that left wave is now cut down to the section of that intersection and it now takes up less space, meaning that particle is now more defined. This whole phenomenon is called wavefunction collapse and it cuts all unnecessary wavefunction instantly (this speed is what got Einstein so spooked). Or something along these lines. Honestly speaking, I am not too sure, these thought experiments are just too tough. And it's not just me, even actual quantum physicists themselves don't have good enough mathematical description of what is happening. Heck, even a deterministic definition for measurement does not yet exist, so people are free to make-up stuff about how "observer" (entity, touching the particle via virtual photons, created with it's electromagnetic field) always has to be a living person. And now if I were to try to explain what actually entanglement is by using terms I've described, I'd say at it's most basic level it's something like a bunch of compound waves. Wave A and B partially belong both to particles C and D - they are those particles overlapped on top of one another - their superposition. If you try to touch wave A and by doing so you collapse particle C(or D), then that remaining wave B is made only out of particle D(or C). No actual data can be transferred this way. So, wanna know how quantum computing works? For example, quantum computer can use some _regular_ photons as qubits. Photons, for info, push charged particles in two opposite directions at "peaks and valleys", perpendicularly to their motion direction; and angle of those directions is called polarization. I put quote marks there because 2 photons stop interacting with stuff around them only when at those peaks or valleys their push-directions are opposite one to another. Anyway, quantum computers pass photons through devices (gates), that rotate (by 45/90/180 degrees) and mirror those polarizations, so that the chance of final polarization having a certain value (either 1 or 0 - vertical or horizontal) after passing through a polarization filter can be tweaked. Like, if you rotate polarization 1 by 90 degrees you'll have 0, and if you had a polarization 0.5, you'll still have a polarization 0.5, that has 50/50 chance of passing as 0 or as 1 through the filter. This is an unusual way of computing things, that is very different from classical methods, and it allows for some extremely efficient algorithms. Also there's, again, an entanglement gate. It's usage in quantum circuits can be weird and quite complex, but it can be extremely useful. Actual quantum computers don't really use photons much, though they use similar principles.

I think I'm done. It may be a bad lengthy explanation, it's not really academic and writing it out for hours made me want to die, but hey, at least it's something. Also, yes, I did not address issues in the video directly and may have made them seem bigger than they really are. It's just that I can't keep calm when feeling quantum pseudoscience incoming. And no, my stuff is semi-science, not pseudo-science. Hopefully.

True, otherwise this would be a violation of the speed of light being the fastest anything can travel. Even information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Nonetheless, perhaps we don't entirely understand our universe. Instant communication would be revolutionary.

Martyr4JesusTheChrist sorry I misread your comment last time. While those articles don't say instant communication is possible so they are not the sources, you're right. I'm starting to question coldfusion's reliability as well

No you can't your gtx 2080 will play better than that.

Microsoft should improve visuals atleast release a global ray tracing update.

I think it would load up 60million by 60million world all at the same time

MIMIK Yeah instant communication isn’t possible. When one of the two entangled particles is measured, the other (on the opposite side of the universe) collapses onto exactly the opposite state. This happens instantly, however, it cannot be used to transmit information because the outcome of the measurement is unknown before the measurement takes place.

Yeah

there is your mistake, thinking that a human mind thought up and created these things.

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist *Romans **1:22* _"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"_ *GOD bless ✝️🙏♥️*

*Yes. It. Does.*

​@@oo7moses gtfo you damn troll

@@kamel3d *Yes. It. Dose.*

@@oo7moses Thats enough out of you.

*No. It. Not* I wanna hear more out of Martyr4JesusTheChrist too 😂

Günter OfFuture examples for the stupid ppl plz

​@@nightsniper8381 Like there isn't even a debate today about using entanglement for instant communication. There is "action at a distance" (correlation), but our understanding is that it cannot be used to send information instantly en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

@@nightsniper8381 Right now, supercomputers are actually faster at dealing with all the various probabilities in a quantum system than any working quantum computer, due to factors like noise (which qubits are very sensitive to) and low qubit counts limiting how much a quantum computer can simulate at all currently. Those two factors combine such that for each "perfect" qubit as far as theory goes, you need dozens to hundreds of them to actually run the program in real hardware. So real quantum computers currently operating with a hundred or so qubits can only run as well as a theoretical quantum computer with a handful of them. Sooner or later just by throwing enough qubits into a system, the classical computer would be outpaced, but that isn't something that's inherently always true for any size of quantum/classical computer comparison. But that's more of not knowing how the real ones currently operate. Much more grievous is the way qubits are described at all. The idea that a qubit would "read as 1 or 0 at the same time" is such an oversimplification that it is nonsense. When you measure it, it becomes one or the other, so it cannot "read" as both. Binary data both enters and leaves the system, it is only in superposition inside the quantum computer. This is why qubits are a measurement of processing capacity, not of storage. A qubit contains a certain probability of being a 0 or a 1, rather than some nebulous overlaying of 0s and 1s. For instance, 75% 0 and 25% 1. Measure it 4 times and on average you'll get three 0s and one 1. That didn't exactly help us store that information more efficiently, because we had to keep measuring it and logging those measurements somewhere to find out what it even was. And sometimes you'd get nothing but 0 ten times in a row, before getting your 1 out. So you need many many samples to get an approximation of the true probabilities inside the system. So rather than exponentially compressing information inside qubits, we actually need far more binary storage to get the data out again. So 300qubits cannot "store more than the atoms in the universe", although it can process a number that big for certain interactions with other numbers. I specify that caveat because quantum computers do not become faster purely as a follow-up consequence to qubits being able to collapse into more than one value. They do not inherently do more than one calculation at the same time, either. The quantum algorithm has to be designed such that the probabilities you end up with cancel each other out, leaving only one set of probabilities as the correct answer. It can do the same calculation to a lot of numbers if you tune your superpositions right, but it's still doing one operation at a time. Many computing problems seem to not be able to be reduced to probabilities, and then to ones that conveniently have the wrong answers cancel each other out (like the dark patches in the double slit experiment). And even when you do get a problem that can be expressed and run faster in a quantum computer, you have to keep sampling the output as stated before. You then have to tell it to run the program again before you can sample it again. You have to get hundreds if not thousands of samples to have confidence in your output (to avoid results tainted by the aforementioned noise etc issues), and even then you don't get one conclusive number as The Right Answer, you get another set of probabilities to work with. Such as (these numbers purely for illustrative purposes, not rigorous methodology), 80% it's 2, 20% it's 324. So while there are problems the qubits would process faster, you'd lose the time advantage to classical computers by verifying confidence in your output. Only a very small number of problems is overall faster, due to the sheer timescale for classical computers, such as breaking encryption based on large prime factors. But every decade or so so far, classical computers have gotten big enough to take brute force decryption down from centuries to hours on older algorithms, which continually moves the goalposts for quantum computers to beat. That's why the NSA sucks up so much encrypted data - can't break it now, probably can in 20 years. But the hope is that we can get good enough at building quantum computers to overcome these obstacles and make the acceleration of computer power vastly outpace that of classical computers, eventually overtaking them even though the goalposts move. Lastly, "quantum communications" are mostly about ensuring your shared encryption key isn't broken or intercepted, because someone else tampering with it would destroy the entanglement and the keys would become out of sync. It's not actually using the entanglement as a communication channel, but instead as a way to verify the integrity of the security over the classical channel being used. This is not "in debate" but has already successfully been done as a proof of concept last year, to secure encrypted transmissions. It is essentially being used for a seed to create essentially a "one time pad" between the recipients. When you measure your entangled particle it breaks the entanglement and if yours is spin up, the other particle will be spin down. This way you can know what the other side's particle is, to generate your shared key. If it's been tampered with already, you won't end up generating the same keys as each other. That's an oversimplification but at least one that doesn't just handwave it away by saying quantum spooky action at a distance renders fibre optics irrelevant.

Kaitlyn L , but “instantaneous communication” is so much grabbier!

@@kaitlyn__L omg marry me!

If i would like to get proper info, where and what should i look for? any suggestions?

@Martyr4JesusTheChrist AI has a long history, in the past it was called a Golem... I'm worried about "Idiocracy" too, sometimes I believe to live in a simulation, where its "computing power" gets pushed to its limits, resulting in the dumbing down of many NPC,... (Science) fiction, virtuality and religions are part of the spirituality which must be differentiated from the reality and pure logic.

Need to renew in youtube it get banned

Yes, there were some glitches that must have happened during rendering.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Einstein (relativity) was dead set against Quantum Physics but it happened anyway.

Yes, it can with photorealism effect in real time.

Cloak engaged...

Yerrrrrrr

@@FernandoMartinezDesign yeerrrrrrrr