Endgame Quantum Computing Unlocked?

[@marjorietench3925]

Stop bringing Elon into this discussion…he had nothing to do with this technology or breakthru.

[@mackenzieclarkson8322]

yes lets normalize ignoring that man in any future related discussions whatsoever unless he or one of his companies is directly related

[@igor.t8086]

[4/4] While the previous paragraph explored “mental states” of one qubit (which may be in an idealistic *“superposition”* of _many quantum states at once_ - unlike “normal”, “classical” objects and people, I observe), this one will deal with entanglements between qubits and how they operate “in unison”… Although I previously thought that this “infinitude of quantum states” per one qubit is good-enough to store lots of data, I’ve been told that one needs multitude of entangled qubits to perform any meaningful computation… *The “entanglement”* is this magical connection between qubits, something akin to telepathy (artistic freedom in describing the universe), whereby two or more qubits are enchanted and in trance, sharing their “collective consciousness” among them (I don’t share the enthusiasm with panpsychists about this, and yet find it explanatory to use the description - how opportunistic and hypocritical of me). “This enables them to store lot more of information…” (Von Neumann entropy? Quantum entropy? Beats me…) [Proper scientists will tell you that quantum entanglement between qubits is just the _statistical correlation_ *(a.k.a. Bell inequalities)* between their values when measurement is performed - which is _kinda_ boring definition… That’s why I confabulated a little…] However, qubits are - as any normal matter is - susceptible to noise, which kills their *coherence,* and so they, the qubits, are kept at extremely low temperatures in quantum computers to be viable for computations… No measurement (except weak, partial measurement) must be done - until the very end of calculation - and if you respect them, qubits will tell you whatever you need to know about the universe … provided you have a quantum computer with cryogenic chamber, quantum algorithm that embodies your _yes-or-no_ question and you know how to operate the whole QM contraption, to begin with… | [This paragraph may very well be discarded in its entirety as a joke, but I’m not rewriting it… So, the entanglement is covered…] That’s where the *Google’s announced technological breakthrough* kicks in, Kevin’s A.I.-provided metaphor suddenly explodes like a (benevolent) “literary supernova” and the power of quantum computing briefly becomes comprehensible to everyday folks: *E.C.C.* Namely: Google’s breakthrough in devising an _efficient quantum error-correcting code_ has prolonged quantum coherence - that is, has lengthened qubits’ readout time (which is a good thing)… In other words: Lowered noise makes connecting bigger clusters of qubits (or quantum chips) possible. More entangled qubits - more processing power. As mentioned before, unlike classical, the quantum computation is performed “in bulk”, “all hands on deck”, with multiple entangled qubits working in unison… For that, you need *coherence* among qubits, as you want them to perform like a beautiful symphonic orchestra… You know, before the maestro shows up on stage and starts conducting the piece, all musicians are there, mostly seated, rehearsing for themselves _incoherently_ with respect to others, thus making *noise* rather than symphony… However, they need to warm up like the athletes need to warm up and strengthen their muscles prior to the run… Once the conductor shows up and raises his/her hand, just prior to the expected crescendo - everything gets briefly quiet - and then it begins… Musicians play their part respecting the same rhythm, the same clock - otherwise it would be just noise instead of harmony. Exactly the same thing with qubits… That said - and despite being as beautiful as it sounds - as technologically challenging as it really is - as intellectually stimulating as any pursuit of knowledge truly and always is - I am not that much enthusiastic about quantum computing… (“Yes!” said Kevin, with familiar sporting gesture…) The A.I. pursuit and even the classical programming - coupled with some armchair-philosophical physics of everything - are much more appealing to me… And there lays this one aspect why diversity is good for everyone: We need many supporting facets of our one-life-structure covered…

[@Eidi920]

The expert was great, but the hosts were kind of obnoxious. Too much interjecting humor that wasn't funny.

[@APerchOfPillows]

Is quantum computing capable of helping fight against click bait?

[@changedNameSorry]

I'm not sure, but your comment essentially tagging the video, might help.

[@igor.t8086]

[1/4] Kevin is so _“arts & humanities”_ adorable (and here I’m channeling my “inner Kara Swisher”) when he’s reporting on his “research” carried out with the help from A.I. chatbots; so adorable… What is most important (in this regard) is that he has (finally) dealt with his “innermost terrors” - _codename Sydney_ ;) And, Kevin, I liked that “quantum orchestra E.C.C. analogy” so much; more on that - later on… At the same time, Casey introduced some “big boys club” / (benevolent) “STEM artillery” concepts such as _Boolean logic_ (wow!) and brought them to the table - which really impressed me (if not shocked, utterly)! Go, Casey! And, the mentioning of the _Jungian “collective unconsciousness”…_ (Although, to what ends?) And, then - the cathartic pull-out-of-the-magician’s-hat move with _“Doctor Strange and the (Marvel’s) Multiverse of Madness”…_ (I mean - what else)!? Although, and aside from the fact how beautifully picturesque it is, I would be unsure of the movie’s potential didactic qualities in teaching general public about concepts in quantum mechanics… (I had to watch the film twice - with pleasure, though - just to grasp the meaning of half of its content.) That said, I am 100% sure that nobody at _The New York Times_ (who’s younger than 30) has ever seen the movie. The same holds for “The Matrix”, the Wachowskis’ epically & cosmically ingenious trilogy, without the aforementioned constraint (i.e. without the 30-year limit). And, there you go: the proverbial “societal _corpus callosum_ severed” phenomenon - a.k.a. the example of lost synchronization (communication) between the left and the right hemispheres (of the human society) - on display… *Lateralization* it is… But now, “the public educator” archetype (or the functionally equivalent “algorithmic class-interface prototype”) in me wants to speak… [O.M.G., look how deep that sentence was; I’m way more literary sophisticated than Claude… (Positive sarcasm, because (any) A.I.’s writing is flawless these days.)] So, _quantum versus classical_ (because quantum is the challenger here)… What is the main difference between quantum computation and classical computation? […]

[@igor.t8086]

[3/4] So, why do quantum computers have such theoretical advantage over classical approach? As mentioned in the conversation, the answer is in *the “nature of the beast”.* _Classical computers,_ classical processing units of any kind (e.g. CPUs, GPUs, TPUs, NPUs, FPUs - engineers are quite consistent with the naming), classical computer communications etc. - these all deal, you’ve guessed it, with *“classical bits of information”* (i.e. the smallest meaningful piece of data) - namely, the *“it’s true”* and *“it’s false”* logical operands, that is, logical values of *one* (1) and *zero* (0), respectively. On top of that, as Casey mentioned ;), *the Boolean algebra* is laid, with logical functions such as AND, NOT, OR and XOR - which all operate with *1s* and *0s.* And despite the parallelism in classical computing and classical data transmissions - _the parallel processing,_ which is BTW quite heavy and quite ubiquitous in some classical applications, say, video processing and gaming, but which is also well established in general program execution in modern CPUs for decades - “classical stuff” has to be accessed and processed in some order (not randomly, not stochastically, not “in bulk”), while each processed classical bit and each classical collection of bits - i.e. *bytes* and bigger packages - all have “finite”, known value at any point along the processing pipeline (processing queue). Classical (structured, procedural and object-oriented) programming - no matter how virtuous or inadequate/poorly-written the produced software may be - is _deterministic_ (except for the halting problem which is non-deterministic)… *Quantum computing* (ignoring its shortcomings such as high current price, unavailability of algorithms and natural delicateness of QM itself) does all the processing on the conceptually totally different terms… First of all, and as mentioned, *the quantum bit* (qubit) is _“both 0 and 1”, “neither 0 nor 1”_ and _“any possible fractional combination of 0 and 1”_ - all *at the same time* (until you measure it)! *How weird is that!?* So, then (I conclude), quantum bit is, sort of, whatever you want it to be (between and including the logical values of 0 and 1) - until measurement is done! Of course, there is a _“unitarity constraint”_ (all probabilities of quantum states at any moment in time must add up to 100%), but the whole thing is still weird! Yet, to know the value and the result of any calculation, you must measure the qubits, right? Utterly logical. Weirdly enough, you will get _a random result_ with each *quantum measurement* (this is colloquially known as the goddamn “quantum measurement problem in multicolor action” ;) [Just kidding; the problem is _why_ and _how_ the quantum infinity of possibilities collapses into one concrete, classical value that we see after the measurement.] So, how do you circumvent this “undesirable randomness” of quantum? Well… *A)* You perform many, many measurements - but only when absolutely necessary (you don’t want to disturb the qubits); and *B)* you devise your quantum algorithm wisely so that probabilities of returning the correct result stack up together well (i.e. reinforce each other “in a good way”)… How weird is that, mind you!? That’s _probabilistic_ versus _deterministic,_ quantum versus classical. But, that’s not the end of this magical, _alchemical_ weirdness of quantum mechanics (my designation)…

[@jaredlukes7687]

I wish every single person who covered this damn chip would remind everyone it does NOT operate at room temperature, or in a conventional computer at all. these images of it being held in the hand is causing quite a mess out there

[@garad123456]

but remember how normal computers were room-sized just a cuppa decades ago?

[@hardfork]

What future applications do you imagine for quantum computing?

[@chihchang1139]

porn or bust

[@kautzz]

hope it makes my vacuum robot smarter. "what has quantum ever done for me?" was a sick burn 😆

[@SirCutRy]

Help with predicting natural disasters, mainly weather-related, such as hurricanes. Basically make it faster to create preparedness and evacuation plans. We could be more certain about the conditions that are going to be present at each location, as well as where and when the hurricane is going to make landfall.

[@imacg5]

@@SirCutRy Just an intrusive thought: the most accurate weather prediction machine would be a weather / climate disaster making machine.

[@spendthriftmcduck4325]

Cracking the cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme. Then creating quantocurrency. Won’t be long thereafter before everyone is complaining about all those Qubitcoin farmers forcing up the price of Willow chips (and refrigerant) with demand far outstripping supply.

[@jackjmaheriii]

Does is run Crysis?

[@jajajjajjaajjaa]

The go to nonexistent topic in an attempt to convince people theirs a better future ahead.

[@GregorDotUS]

After many years of observing science shows on TV, radio, podcasts, I'm surprised that hosts still feel the need to take the "aw shucks, this is all fake, can it really be true?" posture which, is everywhere and all times demonstrates an intuition that we have to dumb everything down.

[@muzehack]

If this is the first computer to calculate it and any other computer would take more than the life of the earth to calculate, how do they know it's correct?

[@imacg5]

15:30 they ask the same question here. The answer is "you have to build an evidence-based case, but you can't directly verify it."

[@gabrielhassan9942]

maybe watch the video you comment on

[@Kalumbatsch]

Problems that take forever to solve but have easily checkable solutions are very common. If that wasn't the case with, for instance, cryptography, you couldn't use it for anything. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. If you had a quantum computer that could find the prime factors of very large numbers, you couldn't do it with a classical computer but you could quickly check the result.

[@chris25861]

What is this have you been hacked

[@GiovanneAfonso]

he looks like a backend software engineer

[@geaca3222]

I love you guys 👍

[@junkname9983]

Google is overhyping their miniscule achievement after spending billions of dollars on it.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

A wee bit too weird. Not funny.