Quantum Computing & the Entanglement - John Preskill

[@riverwalktalesofterror8045]

This was by far the best Quantum Entanglement explanation I have ever seen.

[@Ulterior1980]

one of the best speakers on quantum theory

[@tjdowning4263]

This is a great lecture for anyone interested in the fundamentals of quantum computing.

[@mrpregnant]

Quantum Entanglement is pervasively known as The God Effect, it’s the synchronicity between spatially separated particles on an infinitesimally subatomic scale regardless of their distance. When entanglement occurs, there’s a correlation between their momentum, velocity and spin in their state of entanglement, and their speed in which information propagates between particles seem instantaneous, regardless of their fluctuation in space. An inseparable relationship first introduced by Erwin Schrodinger in 1935.

[@nathanfstinson9754]

+Mr Pregnant - ? First introduced by Erwin Schrodinger?' Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment, the cat in the box is neither alive nor dead until the box is opened and observed. /Quantum Twins always have opposite spin regardless of their positioning in space time. 1935 EPR Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox. Indeed the soul and ( God? cosmic muffin?) may indeed be made of Quantumly entangled Particles.

[@rainertheraven7813]

God is not amused about all the Qteleportation hoaxes.

[@nodoxplz]

I love that he just casually drops that he has a coordinate system named after him

[@chaosordeal294]

I used to think that entanglement would allow for communication, but think about this: you and I can watch the same TV show or look up at a clock tower from two distant positions and see precisely the same thing. This does not allow us to communicate.

[@tonystead8288]

An awesome presentation on quantum computing.

[@stargenemolly]

At about 48 minutes, Preskill defines the Monogamy of entanglement in such a way that reminds me of the complementarity between position and velocity in QM, where the location X of a particle and its momentum p_X obey X times p_X = or > hbar/2 . Ie: Implying ~Entanglement_Alice+Bob times Entanglement_Alice+Charles is ~equal to some fundamental quantifiable constant? Where the magnitudes of the two different entanglements have a reciprocal relationship to one another which is quantifiable and in some sense has an importance equal to hbar/2 itself? In fact, is the limit in some sense equal to hbar/2?! Is this implicit in his lecture?

[@xinyujiao4464]

Is it because the system has not interacted with the environment that the environment has no information about the system, or is it because the environment has no information about the system that we say the system has not interacted? Actually, even if there is interaction between the system and the environment, so long as at the end, the environment acquires no information of the system, then the system stays the same. Perhaps this is because the system and the environment evolves together in a unitary fashion.

[@jameswilson9011]

it seems that you could purposefully corrupt part of the combined state to transfer information like morse code by chunking parts out of the congruency

[@BangkokBubonaglia]

I realize this lecture was done way back in 2013, but I am curious to know when Leonard Susskind made the proposal that Adam and Charlie were actually the same thing and connected by an ER bridge? Was that before or after this lecture?

[@merlinjones2660]

What are dimension is saying via schrodinger, s cat is one cannot have a wave without a matter particle to produce said wave or both are dead in energy terms for we live in an energy interaction dimension

[@puppetsock]

Pause and enjoy the new era folks. We can now virtually attend a lecture by a world renowned specialist on a highly esoteric subject. Over 30 thousand views. So cool.

[@jessiechristian6855]

We already have a quantum computer - the human neocortex. If you listen to this lecture back to back with one of Jeff Hawkins lectures on cortical information processing, it is plainly obvious that the structure of the neocortex is precisely an optimized quantum computer. All of the electrical impulses that flow through our senses convey information about the external environment to the cortex where it is stored as correlations of sparsely distributed synaptic activity. Such a configuration allows the state of the environment to be continuously flowing into the brain in a way that does not allow the environment to gain much information about the state of the brain. This allows the brain (specifically the neocortex) to be redundant enough against errors and noise as to reliably perform an authentic _quantum simulation_ of its external environment. What does it feel like to be a quantum computer running a simulation of its environment? Exactly what it feels like to be _conscious_.

[@RVGENomini]

You speak with a level of certainty that is completely foreign to the average scientist.

[@jiansenxmu]

tip: speed up by 1.25X

[@ManintheArmor]

I think a better analogy for decoherence would be something akin to a massive army of mooks. Imagine, all those mooks traveling in the same direction or performing the same action. Suddenly, one guy screws up and the entire system falls appart. Without proper insulation or sufficient energy, the system is scrambled by outside noise. In high temperature, high pressure systems such as neutron stars or larger, coherence is easier because of how massive the system is, able to tolerate more shock from smaller threats. Cold systems are vulnerable because any amount of energy will immediately disturb harmony within that system. I'm starting to think that, provided any system reached a frequency that produced harmonious vibrations with imperfections absent, it may be possible to produce super conductivity in other materials of interest. I'm also curious about any link between super conductivity and quantum entanglement, as well as the forces that allow lasers and sasers to function. Then again, I could just be seeing phenomena where none exist. Still, it seems worth thinking about.

[@RichHandsome]

So did you figure it out ?

[@andrewboyd5775]

+ManintheArmor I like your thoughts about this.

[@laurelhendry8805]

Thanks for sharing. Like it

[@pierusa123]

Thank you.

[@vijayantv]

Awesome. thank you very much for sharing.

[@AnilKumar-mz8dj]

what is this beaver in real system? could it be a computer program or some other system?

[@crazieeez]

Quantum gates like controlled NOT, Hadamard to correct the error.

[@02shahana]

thanks......

[@magnuswootton6181]

How the hell are u supposed to get 1 photon of light when its a frekin wave.

[@martinspangolsen]

Where's Niels Bohr???

[@ricomajestic]

+Martin Spang Olsen Speaking non-sense!

[@stevenlaube1246]

with in the system if Quantum Entanglement was constant the ball is a part of the box and there for the copy should identical an inversion ,inversion defined as Quantum Entanglement meaning the system is ,and reducing the information to boundary's like colour boundary0 used by image processor, are you shitting me ? angular polarisation can give if 1 degree is used as a state 360 different possible states in 1 degree of the elemental unit ,the noise

[@wowcolors]

the analogies are too abstract, bever and dragons... Would help a lot to use the real terminology or a more advanced analogy.

[@probablechoices]

Cool :)

[@raymondservant2859]

the nature is made by god,satan you or angel ,,,this man or woman ,i thank you the creator,,,super fantastik,,,,so deep ,and unbelievable,,,look only at a bird ,a rainbow,a smile from your new born baby ,But plane, petrolum and lazy person will kill the creator by theyr technolog i m not against physique i love that ,,but but but what a man or woman can do with all of these teaching,, stop and ask yourself ARE YOU GOD ,,, AUREVOIR SORRY FOR MISTAKES I M FRENCH FROM QUEBEC

[@michaelchurch4461]

eintein

[@paulh7855]

Quantum computing will soon be the thing of the past.....................obsolete

[@qualquan]

very poorly presented using a lot of jargon

[@homo-sapiens-dubium]

where is john postskill?