Quantum: Current State 2023 (Quantum pt2) - Computerphile

Continuing our look at the world of quantum, we're looking at the application of quantum technologies, from quantum cryptography to quantum computing. Victor V. Albert is a Theoretical physicist at University of Maryland and NIST.
Victor V. Albert: @victorvalbert on Twitter
/ computerphile
/ computer_phile
This video was filmed and edited by Sean Riley.
Computer Science at the University of Nottingham: bit.ly/nottscomputer
Computerphile is a sister project to Brady Haran's Numberphile. More at www.bradyharan.com

[@AwesomeCrackDealer]

This is extremely refreshing. He's not exagerating anything, only giving us the facts without hyping it up

[@TheJimmyCartel]

Episode 2 would go a long way in this video title

[@MichaelOfRohan]

I dont know if it was already there but he did write pt2

[@tramsgar]

Victor has this rare talent of using only as many words, and the best words, to still describe something in the most simple of ways. Awesome.

[@BytebroUK]

I'm going to have to kinda disagree on that. This is my first vid from this person and my take-away was that if he'd been my tutor in college I'd likely have switched/drifted off. He absolutely does know his stuff, but the lecture/presentation style was a bit stream-of-consciousness thing. My slightly ASD brain likes things presented more clearly. Sorry for disagreeing here :(

[@dwagner6]

@@BytebroUKalso agree. Obviously very smart and know his field, but…hard to focus on what he’s saying

[@realityveil6151]

Dang it! You looked at the state of quantum. It was both working and not working at the same time and now they have to start all over again.

[@nicksamek12]

How do the classical algorithms compare to the quantum in terms of computing efficiency when looking at the computing/sim?

[@Ziferten]

Take a drink every time he says "utilize"...

[@shubhamjain3093]

😂

[@usun_development3947]

South Koreans published 2 days ago a second study confirming creation of room temperature super conductors (they already patented materials). If it's true, it seems like a breakthrough for commercial quantum computers based on superconducting circuits.

[@pierreabbat6157]

"Classical cryptography" used to include permutation ciphers and (mono/poly)alphabetic substitution ciphers, some of which, like Enigma, required a machine, but not public-key ciphers. Now, if it can be done on a non-quantum computer, it's classical?

[@NuclearCraftMod]

I’d say the key distinction is that quantum cryptography uses quantum information such as qubits, rather than classical information such as bits.

[@thesenamesaretaken]

"classical" to physicist is a generic term for "physics before quantum mechanics". But yeah it must be frustrating when two fields come together and realise they're both accustomed to using the same word in different ways.

[@odysseus9672]

Superposition does not require discreteness. The Fourier transform wouldn't work if it were required.

[@wipsypap]

It always comes with security/cryptography topics that an attacker 'just so happens' to eavesdrop on a communication. Can anyone point me to resources explaining the most common methods of eavesdropping on a line?

[@chodlabite1383]

Google edward snowden...

[@brettbreet]

Interesting to note the superposition of misspelled letters on his paper. But despite many thousands of views, it appears the system hasn't collapsed into one discrete option! xD

[@HoSza1]

"New classical stuff." Our compamy develops new and classical products. Customers get to choose one.

[@pierreabbat6157]

Why do you use kets but not bras?

[@regbot4432]

Ok so now it became too wild. From a previous video I deduced that in case of superposition we can do a snapshot and we have a guarantee of getting some state with 50% probability (in the case presented in the video). It is logical. But this other thing, presented here, that allow us to get an info if somebody else did a snapshot? This is beyond my comprehension. I hope that somebody will eventually figure out some intuitive way of describing this.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Since measurement modifies the quantum state, it can change the outcome probabilities of later measurements. In the case of quantum cryptography, this effect allows the two communicating parties to deduce if there is some eavesdropper measuring the qubits mid-transmission.

[@teamacio9043]

To read a sealed letter you need to break the seal. If you, get a letter with broken seal you know someone read it already.

[@cerealpeer]

and what does this say about undecidability in an increasingly complex problematic diametric

[@cerealpeer]

dialectic phylogenaecally in a fractal compositional web of thought cloud

[@cerealpeer]

cryptographicly this gets keys moving on one time links in blockchain

[@cerealpeer]

using 5g and satellite with microwave transmission you can backpropagate with fiberoptic through time

[@mcg6762]

Utilizing the word utilizing a LOT

[@thepeff]

I feel like there's always too much review in these kinds of videos that there's never any room for learning something new. Lots of videos already have what this video has

[@2vnews902]

Use a Quantum computer to better engineer a regular computer.

[@Lion_McLionhead]

The big question is whether this is still the next big thing or if it's going the way of blockchains.

[@dxutube]

Use PET to examine PET on your PET.

[@nUrnxvmhTEuU]

This video doesn't seem too useful. It's fine if one wants to learn the keywords to search in order to learn about quantum computers, but that's about it. There wasn't a single clear explanation in the video.

[@horsied]

don’t you think if it was easily explainable quantum would be widely available? Quantum is only able to be built by the leading scientists and rich people that can afford to do the research. People that work in this field go to school learning the very basics to advanced ideas for at least 4 years

[@nUrnxvmhTEuU]

Well, since the video is titled "Current State 2023", I would at least expect the video to give some kind of quick rundown of what happened in quantum computing in the last year or two. Instead there are haphazard mentions of things from the '10s, '90s and even '50s. I know some quantum physics (I've had four semesters of QM) and I didn't learn anything new from this video. I'm quite sure that if I had not learned QM, I would still learn nothing. I don't know, I'm confused... the video is just so incoherent...

[@nUrnxvmhTEuU]

​@@nickelchlorine2753 "entanglement is many-body superposition" Yes, that's what is usually meant by entanglement. Non-entangled state is one which can be factored into two independent single-particle states. If you do a non-trivial superposition of the particles' states, the system's state will no longer be factorizable into the two single-particle subsystems, hence we say it's an entangled state. However, I've also heared the term entanglement used to refer to a non-factorizable superposition of different *quantities* of the *same particle*. For example, the Stern-Gerlach apparatus is said to induce "spin-path entanglement", since it introduces a "quantum correlation" between spin and position, so that you can no longer work with each of them separately. I think this is much clearer once you write this out in the mathematical formalism, but I didn't want to throw a bunch of jargon and equations at you. (Although I feel like I still did...) But if you're interested, I can totally provide you with the equations!

[@Jasruler]

@@nickelchlorine2753divergence in language is going to happen when new fields pop up and people need to figure out how to explain things to non-specialists. It’s the spherical cow type of thing.

[@PlanckRelic]

The "current state" is the 4 technologies currently used to make qubits and the largest (in qubits) systems yet designed on these technologies. That is the top-line state of the field. It's a nascent field, user applications and the like really aren't here yet, not at significant scale. Any more detail on the technical side would require heaps more time to state coherently for a broad audience

[@user-iu1xg6jv6e]

1st and 2nd at the same time

[@dinf8940]

the body language when he tries to put positive angle on things 🤣🤣🤣 yep, muh quantum computing gonna totally work all right 🤣🤣🤣 still, impressive that you got someone who actually talks about state of it honestly...

[@theencryptedpartition4633]

Americans in Computerphile?

[@nHans]

I don't think Computerphile has a lot of British options. The one British computer scientist that I know of was chemically castrated by his own government and forced to commit suicide.

[@drdca8263]

@@nHans “forced to commit suicide” sounds like an odd phrasing to me

[@nHans]

​@@drdca8263 Sounds fine to me. Makes explicit the agency of the government in causing his death. It's a pretty common phrase, and has been used to describe the manner in which Socrates, Seneca, Nero, Brutus, Mark Anthony, various samurai, Rommel _et al_ died. By any chance, do you work in the PR department of the British government?

[@utdgrant]

1st and 2nd

[@SnirDavid]

You guys can do better

[@madhusudantiwari3232]

2nd

[@shreyasrd2034]

1st

[@hansdieter4537]

I'ma firing my quantum lazor.

[@elliotgillum]

2nd