Тёмный

What Quantum Computing Isn't | Scott Aaronson | TEDxDresden 

TEDx Talks
Подписаться 41 млн
Просмотров 80 тыс.
50% 1

Quantum computing, a subject as fascinating as it is intriguing. To many also an incomprehensible one. Do you know what a computer is? And what it isn't? In his fascinating and entertaining talk, Scott Aaronson elucidates the potential and the limits of quantum computing. In a sober fashion, he gives an overview of the state of research, telling us not only what we could expect from quantum computers in the future, but also what we probably shouldn't. Scott Aaronson is the David J. Bruton Centennial Professor of Computer Science at The University of Texas at Austin, USA, and director of its Quantum Information Center. He is well-known for his “complexity zoo,” which helps to classify problems that can be solved by computers, both quantum and classical, according to how hard it is to solve them.
Scott is an accomplished academic researcher who published dozens of influential papers and won various notable awards, like the Alan T. Waterman Award in 2012. Before his current position at UT Austin, he taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for nine years. In 2004, he received his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley and held positions at the University of Waterloo and the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
Furthermore, Scott is well-known for his ability to explain complex topics in quantum computing to a general audience. He writes a popular blog, “Shtetl-Optimized,” has composed several famous essays, co-authored webcomics, and published a book “Quantum Computing since Democritus.” This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx

Опубликовано:

 

22 май 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 111   
@batcathatsatchat
@batcathatsatchat 6 лет назад
Scott Aaronson is a breath of fresh air when it comes to explaining QC. It was painful to watch the Microsoft keynote a month or two ago where the "parallel solutions" explanation was given several times as the power of QC.
@xanthirudha
@xanthirudha 5 лет назад
Go to Y Combinators channel, they have life saving content
@puffin88
@puffin88 Год назад
But if each possible solution is represented by a unique sum of probability amplitudes (with the goal that only one of those sums is non-zero) then why isn't it reasonable to describe that as "all the possible answers are tried at once"?
@Kodak__
@Kodak__ 7 месяцев назад
@@puffin88 "Eliminating all the wrong answers" (through destructive interference of the probability amplitudes) would be a much better simplistic description.
@jamesjensen5000
@jamesjensen5000 Год назад
We are currently at the “vacuum tube stage” in development of quantum bits and quantum computing... and, there are several methodologies being studied leading to development of quantum-computing... some want to pursue photonic chips, some want to create nano antennas or rectennas, some want to study social organization of quantum bits, some want to grow organic computers from graphene, some want to move on from ones and zeros... some just want more research money.
@Crystaldish60
@Crystaldish60 6 лет назад
Excellent talk! It’s good to hear someone from the cutting edge explain things in layman's terms rather than relying on science writers or journalists to do it.
@r6600
@r6600 4 года назад
One of the best TEDx talks I've seen.
@korakys
@korakys 6 лет назад
Quantum computing is something I kind of want to grasp at least the outlines of but often end up chucking in the too-hard basket. Short explainers like this help me, so thanks.
@milk2percent416
@milk2percent416 6 лет назад
My friend you are in a quantum super position as we speak. In another universe you achieve the unachievable in another superposition, but thats all parallel and doesnt matter
@joeltemp
@joeltemp 6 лет назад
Thanks for an interesting talk!
@pguti778
@pguti778 6 лет назад
Scott, great talking !!! Very good in explaining something that everyone is filling their mouths saying it's magic!!!!!!!
@anonymous.youtuber
@anonymous.youtuber 5 лет назад
This is the first talk about quantum computers that shed at least some light on this topic. Great talk, thank you very much !
@nnejiemmanuel4354
@nnejiemmanuel4354 2 года назад
Hi Claire Nice name
@deeplearningpartnership
@deeplearningpartnership 6 лет назад
Good talk.
@kindle139
@kindle139 3 года назад
This dude is awesome
@trapped-ion
@trapped-ion 5 лет назад
Fantastic!
@xyzxyzuvwuvw7633
@xyzxyzuvwuvw7633 5 лет назад
this guy is our hero
@ahmadaam12
@ahmadaam12 6 лет назад
Am I the only one who thinks this guy is freaking hilarious ? hahahahahahaha
@jasenspace
@jasenspace 5 лет назад
Smarter than you
@michelef406
@michelef406 4 года назад
You should check out "Quantum Computing Since Democritus", you'll get plenty of this humour
@SuperIdge
@SuperIdge 6 лет назад
Entertaining!
@greywolf271
@greywolf271 Год назад
Next to Sabine Hossenfelder talking about quantum physics, this is the next best thing I have listened to.
@PedroGonzalez-ev4jg
@PedroGonzalez-ev4jg 4 года назад
Gracias todo el universo es vidad inteligente total millones de años y que evolución gracias Pedro x desde Miami
@bdjeosjfjdskskkdjdnfbdj
@bdjeosjfjdskskkdjdnfbdj 3 года назад
this guy makes me wanna go into algorithm research
@timmmychanga
@timmmychanga 3 года назад
I love it
@texantom49
@texantom49 5 лет назад
Ok n what about d-wave and Geordie Rose in his explanation and I quote " what the machine does is extract resources from these other parallel dimensions or universe" ??? My problem is he's the only one that talks about what these things do in that regard nobody else has touched on this!!
@edanmaor
@edanmaor 6 лет назад
Excellent and interesting talk! I wonder - is there anyone working on the so-called non-conservative hypothetical of - what happens if quantum computing can't be done? I mean obviously the way in which things fail will be informative, but I wonder what are the serious theories *against* quantum computing working, and if there are any, would they be testable in some other way?
@ashes2ashes3333
@ashes2ashes3333 6 лет назад
So algorithms like prime factorisation (shors algorithm) or searching, or a few others are proven to be possible. So it is proven that there are problems that quantum computers can work on. We also can experimentally achieve quantum computing with a very limited number of quantum bits - quantum computers do technically already exist, it’s just that they have like 5 working (entangled) bits at max. The point is that quantum computers can be proven to work and have been built on the small scale. Why would you assume they don’t work? EDIT: this is coming from someone who works in a lab where we do have quantum entangled qubits, and the initial conditions in our experiments states are reproducible, although currently we have to improve our fidelity (basically accuracy) and need to add one component to our ion trap called single ion addressing to turn it into a universal quantum computer. It is an extremely strange viewpoint to take that quantum computers may be impossible, because the science on how they work and the experimental tests of it are so well fleshed out...
@eclecticcoach6490
@eclecticcoach6490 6 лет назад
Great talk .... very refreshing very informative
@williamhird4770
@williamhird4770 5 лет назад
In order for a QC to "compute" something, the qubits have to be completely isolated from the environment they are in so they only "react' with each other. This will be shown to be impossible because everything interacts with everything else at some fundamental level, so a QC will never be able to achieve the "quantum speedup" that the current theories claim they will.
@pol...
@pol... 5 лет назад
High Physics postgrad here. What the guy was referring to is not so much whether Quantum Computers can or cannot do certain things, but that if it turns out to be essentially impossible to create quantum computers, that would mean that physics as we know it is wrong. However small quantum computers have been successfully created, so I do not think that is likely to happen.
@poorfa4s
@poorfa4s 5 лет назад
I want to ask the question in a slightly different way to perhaps get a more efficacious/relevant response. For me, it is not so much pertinent to ask if they can work, but rather if they can be efficient enough to put to use. If it takes more work, space, effort, energy, and material to make them work as opposed to a classical computer, then we're wasting our time. So the proper question is: can they be more efficient than what we have?
@edgeeffect
@edgeeffect 3 года назад
I'm not a physicist or even a very good electronics engineer or computer scientist (although I do try hard with the latter two)... but I get the feeling that Quantum Computing is going to be CS's alternative to economical / sustainable fusion power.... It's going to be one of those fields that requires more money, more research, more money, more research, more money, more research and is perpetually "just a couple of years away now"
@leonardoplacidi6313
@leonardoplacidi6313 2 года назад
This talk is still modern and always funny.
@saisrikargollamudi7892
@saisrikargollamudi7892 6 лет назад
Great Video, by the way Google has launched it's 72 qubit machine in March 2018.
@pol...
@pol... 5 лет назад
Damn, I might enter QC research in a couple of years. I just hope that it is not too developed by then hahah
@macdeep8523
@macdeep8523 5 лет назад
I will develop further
@charlesbingham2084
@charlesbingham2084 6 лет назад
I love it More exciting if it doesn't work Re write all the physics books
@FreakinKatGaming
@FreakinKatGaming 4 года назад
All that would happen is someone would just make it sound more sophisticated and complex, then make up a couple words to explain small nonsense no one cared about and doesn't make any change only waste more time and get high with the private funding they rack in
@SuperIdge
@SuperIdge 6 лет назад
Cool dude
@alexeymaybozhenko2352
@alexeymaybozhenko2352 3 года назад
Amazing lecture considering its duration to be just 15 minutes long
@jeromejean-charles6163
@jeromejean-charles6163 4 года назад
AT 7:24 : I am not sure that SUDOKU is NP ?
@rbarreira2
@rbarreira2 3 года назад
You can check a solution to a Sudoku problem very quickly: just check that there are no repeated numbers in each row/column/square. This can be done in linear time, which is polynomial time, therefore Sudoku is in NP.
@alejobrcn6515
@alejobrcn6515 8 месяцев назад
Le doy la razón, hay muchos locos de plaza, hablando de física cuántica, dimensiones y espiritualidad...
@TheMrSlyxx
@TheMrSlyxx Год назад
Will quantum computers run some kind of centralized super A.I.?
@jimbeam6994
@jimbeam6994 5 лет назад
He is not nervous 😬.. it's his shtoyl...he is varsity professor and has great public speaking skills. See his other talks
@choochoochoofkncoolasfthew3076
The study of what I can’t do guy
@michaelgodsonsirens
@michaelgodsonsirens 5 лет назад
i like his shirt
@SuperIdge
@SuperIdge 6 лет назад
It doesn’t lie
@SuperIdge
@SuperIdge 6 лет назад
Attractive guy!
@heitorsantos2685
@heitorsantos2685 4 года назад
PODERIA SER USADO PARA ENCONTRAR A CURA DAS DOENÇAS E PROBLEMAS SOCIAIS PARA JUSTIFICAR OS GASTOS
@kchannel5317
@kchannel5317 3 года назад
When carl grows up after stealing Jimmy's computer project.
@unidorsalicosahedron7416
@unidorsalicosahedron7416 4 года назад
Would it be wrong to call him a lil' adorkable?
@PeterMorganQF
@PeterMorganQF 6 лет назад
Perhaps we could agree to call it "Hilbert Computation", given that it's all about Hilbert spaces and the non-commutative algebras of operators that act upon them, not specially about woo-oo quantum theory? One has Hilbert spaces and non-commutative algebras of operators in classical signal analysis, for example, because of the omnipresence of fourier analysis, so that could equally well be a model of the Hilbert space mathematics. Hilbert computation perhaps should be taken to imply that we use mostly or only projective operators, so it's a particular restriction away from signal analysis in full generality, but hey. But then, QFT=signal analysis -modulation of the vacuum state and measurement of those modulated states- is my thing.
@golagaz
@golagaz 5 лет назад
you missed the physics there. You need physical objects to operate in Hilbert space i.e., quantum mechanics.
@silvomuller595
@silvomuller595 2 года назад
Ah damn why did I go for Biology :(
@takuya7523
@takuya7523 6 лет назад
Who did he refer to as not embracing the future?
@korakys
@korakys 6 лет назад
Trump, and presumably his voters too.
@charlesbingham2084
@charlesbingham2084 6 лет назад
If u think Trump is the problem your way off
@texantom49
@texantom49 5 лет назад
And the dudes referring to people like Elon Musk and myself who think every bit of this is out of control and we need to take a step back and make sure that we are creating a future where we can coexist with all of this new tech... I refer you to Geordie Rose go listen to the lecture he gave in Canada quite frankly his statements were terrifying
@anonymous.youtuber
@anonymous.youtuber 5 лет назад
Charles Bingham that is an interesting remark. Maybe Trump is the symptom, not the disease. Thanks for making me realize that.
@Leonardo-ql1qu
@Leonardo-ql1qu 3 месяца назад
QUMPUTER - From now on, let's call them QUMPUTERS. Much better than the tongue twister 'Quantum Computers'!
@PedroGonzalez-ev4jg
@PedroGonzalez-ev4jg 4 года назад
La verdad siempre esperé gue Dios la revelaría un día tantos años en secreto siempre acompañado por aviones y helicópteros siempre que salía en el mayor secreto le doy gracias a Dios por la verdad gracias Pedro x desde Miami
@LydellAaron
@LydellAaron 3 года назад
At 5:35 Dr. Aaronson suggests n^2 steps to factor an N-digit number. I can just about imagine a log(n) step solution for an N-digit number using traditional counting methods. I can also imagine a O(1) solution for a dynamic circuit. Need to build a system to test and prove it of course. Some friends and a whiteboard to work out a specific method I have in mind.
@russellcoleman1923
@russellcoleman1923 2 года назад
No you can't. This is prime Dunning-Kruger effect; if what you said is true then you could make millions and completely overhaul the field of cryptography. I'll be waiting for your paper.
@FadoodleX
@FadoodleX 6 лет назад
I divided the video into 30 second segments, chose six of those randomly for detailed analysis of the number of "uuuu"s and "um"s, and extrapolated to the full video length. My estimate is about 200 "uuu"s and "um"s, with standard error +/- 20. Not bad, but probably not close to a record for a TEDx talk.
@kallyjon
@kallyjon 6 лет назад
Did you count how many times he moves his weight from left foot to right foot
@peterscott8747
@peterscott8747 6 лет назад
But what you weren't able to count was the number of simultaneous uuu's and um's whose amplitudes cancelled each other out allowing you to see the solution...it was very meta of him....
@jonatanivan6202
@jonatanivan6202 6 лет назад
But did he break the dancing intensity record?
@milk2percent416
@milk2percent416 6 лет назад
Peter Scott very meta is an understatement. Id estimate extremely, maybe even at an ultimate level of meta.
@nullvoid12
@nullvoid12 5 лет назад
You could have Quantum Computer to do that!
@arcusmc
@arcusmc 3 года назад
Hilarious guy. Very interesting presentation. What about using these quantum properties to communicate large distances faster than the C? Pipe dream or is there something there?
@schweppesyt
@schweppesyt 3 года назад
:)
@bullittdbourbon
@bullittdbourbon 4 года назад
Rather than disproving something people say, how about setting the goal to understanding how quantum particles work. It is science afterall. He himself ended the talk with advocating accurately learning & reporting, there's a lot of dishonesty going on.
@maurosousa7834
@maurosousa7834 2 года назад
Good to see his passion on the subject but unfortuntelly the results are the same: too much talk, and nothing was said.
@YNVNEone
@YNVNEone 6 лет назад
Ahahahahaha.....
@peterpetrov6522
@peterpetrov6522 4 года назад
This guy is hilarious! "But why is he pacing back and forth and saying ugh all the time" some would ask. Ugh because on planet Earth humans express emotions and make jokes; it's hard to explain. It's not a cause for concern though.
@421sap
@421sap 2 года назад
B''H, Christ, Jesus, Amen.
@iankane1733
@iankane1733 6 лет назад
Very insteresting topic, but this guys seemed like he was nervous or something. It was hard to watch at points.
@peersvensson9253
@peersvensson9253 6 лет назад
He's not nervous, this is just how he is
@iankane1733
@iankane1733 6 лет назад
Peer Svensson Sorry, didn't mean to offend. Very interesting topic!
@iankane1733
@iankane1733 6 лет назад
Peer Svensson I'm glad he spoke about it. He's probably an extremely intelligent person. Much more intelligent than I am!
@peersvensson9253
@peersvensson9253 6 лет назад
Oh no, none taken :)
@imbatman8472
@imbatman8472 6 лет назад
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
@FadoodleX
@FadoodleX 6 лет назад
That's why it's called Quantuuuuuuuuum Computing!
@raulocasio
@raulocasio 5 лет назад
In 1969 everyone though that before 2000 we will live in other planets, but we are very far from that. Quantum seems more like a dream than a fact, controlling energy at such deep details is kind of science fiction.
@deadduck8307
@deadduck8307 4 года назад
Good talk, but having my PhD in probability, I'd like it to be known that indeed probabilities CAN be negative. The interpretation goes like this: Let E be the event where a tree falls in the forest, makes a sound, and we do not observe the sound. Then by classical probability, the P(E)=0 since by the definition of E, we cannot observe it. Yet, we know this E happens quite often. We say then that E is owed an observational debt, that is P(E)
@andresgoens
@andresgoens 3 года назад
that's interesting! does this generalization to negative probabilities correspond to real negative amplitudes in QM?
@deadduck8307
@deadduck8307 3 года назад
@@andresgoens If you're referring to the quantum wave function, then yes. In fact, the literature I am aware of discussing negative probabilities make specific mention to the quantum world where negative probabilities are not a contradiction nor evidence of a mistake, but the norm where it would be odd to not have them. Of course I'm reminded of a paper showing that for any generalized random variable X (one w/ negative probabilities), there exists classical random variables Y and Z such that X+Y=Z. What this implies is that negative probabilities suggests a problem in measurement (i.e. we've defined and are measuring the wrong variable X as opposed to X+Y which would be classical). It's an interesting idea to think that QM physicist are simply measuring the wrong thing.
@naverno
@naverno 4 года назад
Quantum computing isn’t computing
@veraalex7446
@veraalex7446 3 года назад
it is in a sense
@qualquan
@qualquan 5 лет назад
not too good
@gabrielkellar1935
@gabrielkellar1935 6 лет назад
Uhuhuhuhuhuhuhuuuuuhuuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh
@kevinoduor9841
@kevinoduor9841 5 лет назад
UUUUMM UUUUMM M AAAAA
@randy-mw5dq
@randy-mw5dq 5 лет назад
This guy like all the rest who get up in front of a bunch of people and try to make some sense of quantum computing. They really don't know what they have or its true intention they stumble over themselves to convince people that it's a good thing, what they don't believe is the chaos quantum computing is going to lead too.
@pablolostum
@pablolostum 6 лет назад
Yes, the topic he's talking about it so interesting but this guy has zero speech skills, is very annoying.
@amrtvideo
@amrtvideo 4 года назад
How embarassing. hahaha When someone has double-talk propensity they can babble on about protons and other fantastical excerpts from bs books; what is the practical application of your Nerd Wet Dream.
@choochoochoofkncoolasfthew3076
The study of what I can’t do guy
Далее
АНТИГЕЛИК. МАКСИМАЛКА УАЗИКА
00:40
The Quantum Internet | Stephanie Wehner | TEDxVienna
15:05