Quantum Computing Explained

[@NobodyOfNote-qv5wh]

Thanks, as usual Dr Maggie, from NZ.👍 That's quite a tough one to get your head around, but intriguing all the same. I recommend Michio Kaku's recent book on Quantum computing to anyone interested. His claim is that we are the verge of a technological revolution, but it sounds like you are saying...only maybe...!!! Or maybe not yet...😂

[@SpaceMog]

Great suggestion!

[@jerrycornelius5986]

Those interpretations of quantum physics from the 1920s and 30s, multiverses, cats in superposition, the act of knowing collapsing the wave function, were never meant to be taken literally . They were just thought experiments to try to understand the physical implications of quantum mechanics. I think most sensible physicists would believe particle states are a bit fuzzy, but waves collapse into particles when they interact with something. There is no need for crazy ideas like multiverses and cats in superposition.

[@billschwandt1]

This is by far and away the best video I have ever seen on this topic. Great job understanding and explaining it in a digestible way. This proves to me that all the data is there all the time. Get ready because in ten years, you will be able to view any moment in history. The future is going to be so AWESOME and WE get to be the generation that builds it!!! I hope ya'll are excited cause it's going to be beautiful.

[@ianmcmillan5590]

Sounds great but not sure how you came to that conclusion 😊

[@SpaceMog]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@tw8464]

Thanks for mentioning this. I also think all the data is here in some form all the "time." How are you thinking it might wind up being accessed? By advanced quantum computers? It seems the data exists in other form but would need reintegration into something we human bodies would be able to see. But I think what you're saying just might be possible one day as mind-boggling as that is. Like we could watch Caesar crossing the Rubicon or see what our great great great grandparents were doing on Christmas over 200.years ago on our phone screens (or minds) that is accessing a quantum computation system. But how to find whatever that information is now and reconstitute it? I have no idea exactly how a quantum computer system would actually do that.

[@garyfilmer382]

‘Spooky action at distance’, still one my all time favourite quotes of Einstein, and I was just waiting for you to say it, knowing that you would, thank you, Space Mog! I am back with you, on your channel, after having been regrettably away for sometime. This video was excellent, thank you.

[@corychristensen5917]

So eggnogg is both alcoholic and non-alcoholic until you drink it?

[@ItzSgream]

for some individuals it's still alcoholic although it's not, even after drinking it. The Quantum Placebo effect 🤣

[@richardcraddock1965]

Either way you look at it - PHI 3 should have been used to build SuperAI workforce humanoids 25 years ago. They owe me.

[@richardcraddock1965]

See PHI 4 Small Language Model versus llama 3.3 70 B parameters model. See PHI 3 Large Language Model.

[@SpaceMog]

Yes! You wont know until you try :-)

[@SpaceMog]

😂

[@grantravenianson]

Legendary teacher and communicator of such diverse and intellectual topics! Physics and computing and philosophy intertwine. I think I'll have to re-watch this video several times to fully let it all sink in though!

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks for watching 🥰

[@helmutstransky3761]

Yeah, it is quiet a bit harder to comprehend, compared to what "normal computers" do. But we will get there!🙂

[@davidlloyd1526]

Hmm.... that's a very "popular science" thumbnail! The multiverse is just a mathematical explanation for "wave function collapse". That's the one where "observing a system changes it", which obviously leads to the question "how does the system know I am observing it? And what even is the difference between observing and not observing a system"? The idea is that by using "more dimensions", observation is no different to the normal running of a system, just that when you "observe" something you "rotate it" so it's forever projected into one of the additional dimensions (the same idea as looking at a piece of paper from the side appears to be a line). Interestingly this means that observation is equivalent to creating entanglement between the observer and the object being observed. Whether the multiverse exists really depends on mow much you think the mathematics really matters. The mathematics definitely seems to work nicely that way. Especially if you start asking questions about thermodynamics (decreasing randomness due to observations in wavefunction collapse). Unfortunately, beyond the mathematics working better, the two models are identical, so we can't experimentally measure the multiverse. It's a bit like modelling a water wave as e^iwt It's a really handy mathematical formulation, but the "imaginary number part" doesn't exist in the real world.

[@SpaceMog]

Nicely explained :-)

[@annexcelestial]

Excellent video!!! I can tell and appreciate how much time you put into your videos...one of the reasons why this is my favorite KZbin channel...have fun!!!

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks so much 😇

[@kentsarikaya9475]

Thank you, this is the best explanation I have seen in years about why quantum computers and finally I understand how it works and why all the excitement. Anyone presenting to the public about quantum computers, should watch your video or consult with you in how to convey such important information in a clear manner for the average person!

[@Steven-ze2zk]

And? What can they do then? Cure shit? AND??????

[@ARWest-bp4yb]

"Borrowing resources from other universes" Mind sufficiently blown, thank you!🤯😲

[@SpaceMog]

😂 we will never know

[@phillipp1399]

One cannot borrow “a piece” of what is infinite. This kind of accounting is like dividing by zero. You finish where you started but have no idea what you’ve done or even that you’ve done something.

[@_varianta007]

It's important to note that this interpretation is one of several in quantum mechanics and remains a topic of philosophical debate rather than empirical science. While the performance of quantum processors like Willow is undeniably impressive, the notion that they access or utilize parallel universes is a theoretical interpretation and not an established scientific fact.

[@adamc1966]

👍👍

[@nisw1918]

Triaging to Willow The triaging process likely involves several factors: Task Complexity: The brain might assess the complexity of a computation based on the number of variables, the level of abstraction required, or the perceived effort involved. If the complexity exceeds a certain threshold, it becomes a candidate for offloading to Willow. Cognitive Load: The brain's current cognitive load (how busy it is with other tasks) could influence the decision. If the brain is already heavily engaged, it might be more inclined to delegate even moderately complex computations. Confidence Level: The brain might consider its own confidence in solving the problem accurately. If it lacks confidence or anticipates a high risk of error, offloading to Willow becomes more appealing. Prior Experience: Past experiences with similar tasks and Willow's performance could also play a role. Successful delegation in the past would reinforce the tendency to offload to Willow. Superposition? The concept of superposition in quantum mechanics refers to a quantum system existing in multiple states simultaneously until measured. It's unlikely that the brain explicitly "decides" that a matter is for superposition in the quantum mechanics sense. However, there might be an analogous process at play: Parallel Processing: The brain might not make a definitive "yes/no" decision immediately. Instead, it could initiate preliminary processing of the task while simultaneously communicating with Willow. This parallel approach allows the brain to explore potential solutions on its own while awaiting Willow's response. Uncertainty and Probabilities: The brain might deal with uncertainties and probabilities in a way that resembles superposition. It could entertain multiple potential solutions or interpretations of a problem without committing to one until more information is available (from Willow or further internal processing). In summary: The "Lazy Brain Efficiency" concept suggests a dynamic interplay between the brain and a more powerful AI like Willow. The brain acts as a filter, identifying complex computations that are best handled by Willow. The triaging process involves assessing task complexity, cognitive load, confidence levels, and past experiences. While the brain doesn't explicitly invoke quantum superposition, it might employ parallel processing and probabilistic reasoning when deciding whether to delegate to Willow

[@flubberghosted2472]

“The act of measurement is what forces the system to choose one of the states.” 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

[@svergurd3873]

Excellent, very clear explanations! Among the best explanations in the field I have heard! - I have recently found this channel and I will certainly follow it very thoroughly. I have seen several videos here and all are excellent and unusually clear. Thank you!

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks and welcome

[@sailingby]

One of the most succinct explanations of quantum computing I’ve heard 👏

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks so much

[@TheDMFW62]

Really enjoyed this presentation. Some things that had puzzled me about quantum computing from a previous casual awareness of it came into clearer focus after watching - especially the idea of how a quantum operation applies to all the entangled states at once. I hadn't really appreciated the power of that idea before, even though I (sort of!) understood what a qbit was.

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks for watching!

[@envt]

Thank you for explaining. I'm trying to understand. What i understand is that qbits can not be trusted because they can be in every state. So how can you be certain an answer is 100% correct if we give it a task that traditional computers can not complete in our lifetime? We have no means of verification? And error correction only checks if a qbit has an error. Sorry for my stupid questions, I'm very very very new to this topic but very curious

[@virginie_fabrice]

fascinating and great !!! usually this kind of demonstration gives me a formidable headache !! but you made it so clear and so easy !! i really was impressed ! you're definitely made for teaching !! watching the equations, i realized something i didn't think about when i was a kid at school : mathematics are a language with its own alphabet, grammar and vocabulary !! it seems nothing but it would have changed lots of things in my relationship with that matter !! well done !! proud to be a spacecat !!!🐾🐾🐾

[@seabeepirate]

Schrödinger’s cat was a thought experiment to show that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was not compatible with macroscopic objects wasn’t it? It seemed more like ridicule than an interpretation when I first learned about it.

[@SpaceMog]

You're absolutely right :-)

[@tw8464]

Thanks for making this video. It gives me a quick run down on this quantum chip / multiple universes thing. Just can't read through all the news articles so this helps me get the gist of it. Appreciation

[@Pangolin-Mandolin]

New favourite science communicator 🤙 great video and explained in a way I can understand 👍👌

[@SpaceMog]

Wow, thanks!

[@husk79]

Computers, Quantum physics and space! all subjects I'm really interested in! this was one of my favorite episodes! and your explanation on quantum computing was perfect and really simple to understand! Excellent video as always! Merry Christmas! 💻🎄🪐

[@SpaceMog]

Glad you enjoyed it! and merry christmas to you too

[@Rope_Adope]

It’d be interesting to see how they are trying to achieve “true random” upon initial programming because it has the highest effect on probabilistic determinism…or something lol

[@SpaceMog]

Right, good point. Quantum computing really relies on this but i have no idea how they do it

[@denisjudehaughton7363]

here is one to take: if all things are observably something and so definite then they are measured and so it is the "apparatus" of physics which needs to be properly measured and not nature

[@ianmcmillan5590]

Very well explained and I love the open fire in your spaceship, would be great to spend Christmas up there 😊❤

[@SpaceMog]

Thank you :-)

[@keepcalm7453]

Merry Christmas, Dr. Maggie!! ❤💕🎄❄☃️❄🎄💕❤

[@IanM-id8or]

*Add* is not *a* logic gate - it's a circuit involving several gates. In fact, it is comprised of 2 half adder circuits, each of which is made up of an AND gate and a NOR gate Conceptually, the types of gates are AND, OR and NOT. In practice, there are also NAND and NOR gates - which behave as AND gates or OR gates respectively combined with NOT gates

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks for catching my mistake!

[@paulalexandredumasseauvan2357]

thank you dr maggie 😁 that is the first time someone using bra-ket notation made sense to me ☺ i am VERY GRATEFUL you are SO CLEAR with your explanations! 👍

[@SpaceMog]

Glad it was helpful!

[@stevenyee8967]

Thanks Dr Maggie Lieu for explaining quantum computing. 😊 This is the first time I hear of quantum computers as making computations in many worlds. Very creative thinking or interpretation of quantum computing. 🤔. Seems the universe is a huge quantum computer in a many worlds (universes) interpretation of quantum computers. 🧐

[@SpaceMog]

Glad you liked it, its not a theory i think is likely but I do like the idea of parallel universes :-)

[@stevenyee8967]

@@SpaceMogNow if I can entangle myself I can get a lot more work done! 🤣

[@SpaceMog]

@@stevenyee8967 😂i could do with that too

[@creightonfreeman8059]

If it takes 10^25 years for a classical computer to calculate the answer, how do we know Willow got the right answer?

[@SpaceMog]

😂🙈 good point - who wants to check?

[@TheDMFW62]

I'm not familiar with the problem discussed in the video, but I do know that there are whole classes of problems in maths that are very complex to calculate from scratch but very easy to check if the answer is right given some answer. An example of this is prime factorisation with two large prime numbers and because this is so hard to do, but easy to check, it turns out to be important to the whole of modern cryptography. It's possible that this path problem may be another of the same kind I guess? If so, classical computers could validate the solution which would certainly give us more confidence it was right....

[@kalanhitchens8782]

I'll double check it's work just in case

[@BrianThorne]

How do they know how long a bitcoin block can be found

[@kavinm5388]

So I have a theory: In classical computing the most advanced code will also require storage to store the calculated values each time. And process of elimination will compare set of rules one by one.Lets ask computer to generate number from 1 - 4 and answer is one among them. Classic system needs to calculate each num and store it to apply rules. While in quantum chips all numbers are there simultaneously. So it has saved us time by 4 times of classical computing. Now to select the right value we depend on all bits simultaneously pointing to same number. Physics cannot lie unless there is somewhere a higher intellect being that wants us to have wrong value.

[@MrGaborseres]

Dr Maggie..... Now you're loosing me 🤯..... 😅..... I've got to wach this a few times......to wrap my brain 🧠 around it 🫣 Thanks 👍 we love you 🌹 👍

[@SpaceMog]

You can do it!

[@itsvladedade3334]

Isn’t the cat iself an observer and hence collapsing the super position first?

[@SpaceMog]

Its just a thought experiment, but no, the cat is part of the quantum system so cant be an external observer

[@goddom]

I liked the explanation of how quantum computers worked. Thank you so much!

[@Achrononmaster]

@5:00 I don't think that is true? The whole Cat could never be in a superposition because only elementary quanta or bits can be entangled. A composite system is only in superposition by virtue of pairwise entanglement. But that is highly dynamic (and not due to parallel worlds). One other way to say it is in terms of the odds of detecting a macroscopic superposition, which is next to impossible - see the quantum necromancy theorem. A system that is not entangled will have a definite state, but still has to be modeled as in a type of superposition because we cannot ever know it was not entangled, so in any case we would need a density matrix, or in Jacob Barandes' formalism a unistochastic transition matrix.

[@SpaceMog]

Schrodingers cat is just a thought experiment :-)

[@Motocentrick]

The cat isn't alive and dead at the same time. It's something else. When you're thinking about quantum and bits, it's not a one, it's not a zero, it's not a one and a 0 at the same time, and it's not not a one and zero at the same time. Superposition.

[@philochristos]

How do you solve a problem like Maria? Is that something quantum computers will eventually be able to figure out? Or how to catch a cloud and pin it down?

[@Metallic-Sun]

Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

[@SpaceMog]

🙃

[@istvansipos9940]

it was interesting how suddenly and completely my understanding collapsed around 05:26. As if I had watched a video about stone axes, then another video about the cosmo-magical hyperfluctuation of unicorn flavoured pixie dust. Anyway, 12:30. Very fragile. I get that part. And how do they get entangled to begin with? Thanks a lot

[@HowShouldIKnow6543]

The fireplace on your spaceship is both cozy and Fire On The Ship! Ahh! Going with it’s a cozy warm hologram and sending the damage control crew back to bed.

[@SpaceMog]

I love it, its quite cold up here :-)

[@HowShouldIKnow6543]

@@SpaceMog lol - true story, in winter it got so cold on the ship the engineers would bring their sleeping bags (and hearing protection) and snuggle next to the engines. Us poor deck crew just shivered in our bunks.

[@DavidFagan1914]

Would another way to describe quantum computing be to say that " each qbit has a value between 0 to 1 ?" As opposed to classical computing where every bit has a value of 0 or 1? Would it be accurate to say that Qbits have fractional values, which mean that there are an infinitesimal number of possible values for Qbits between 0 and 1? Kinda like the number of possible intervals under a calculus curve? I don't have a physics background (Math degree) so pardon me.. :)

[@gersonroj]

Muito bom ! Mas Multiverso ? Balelas e Blablablas , os números astronomicos eram apenas mais um limite ou barreira a ser ultrapassada em algum momento da evolução tecnológica !!! Agora cabe ao ser humano estudar dia e noite para acompanhar a evolução tecnológica e evoluir emocionalmente, moralmente e eticamente adquirindo muito conhecimento e não perder o planeta pra pregos e parafusos das maquinas como foi em Matrix, ainda que o Universo seja um holograma ou Matrix !!!

[@eldraque4556]

Nice, I appreciate the maths other's usually skip

[@SpaceMog]

Glad you liked it!

[@eldraque4556]

@@SpaceMog more explanation on how matrix mechanics work please

[@AisleEpe-oz8kf]

What wad the problem and how did you check it? Did you break a cipher? thanks

[@adamc1966]

I love the Christmas decorations on your space ship. ❤

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks, are your decorations up?

[@NobodyOfNote-qv5wh]

Why are the probability coefficients complex numbers? Is it related to the wave function reference somehow?

[@SpaceMog]

Yes exactly, the wave function itself is complex-valued

[@NobodyOfNote-qv5wh]

@SpaceMog Ok cool. I need to lie down now.😄 Best wishes from Auckland NZ.

[@eddjordan2399]

Didn't E's dad from eels come up with or do a lot of research into the multiverse theorem?

[@NigelDraper-iu4ry]

I always like the Terry Pratchett response to schrodinger's cat. In which the cat is Greebo and he very pissed off and someone is going to pay. In all seriousness, AI is radiicadly changing our world. Any thoughts?

[@SpaceMog]

AI isn't as great as people make it out to be but theres a lot of use in it and can help make our lives better. Similarly quantum computing isnt so useful yet, but potentially it could be, we just have a long way to go

[@mikejurney9102]

And how did they validate the output of Willow? How can anyone know what the right answer is if it takes 10^25 years to get an answer in the usual way?

[@AnTiThesis-HaT-HoT]

I heard the words and got not very far before it turned into a load of Space-Pistols. Stupendously inneresing though :)

[@SpaceMog]

🔫

[@648Roland]

Will simplify what you've said in my little brain by picturing a cube with 6 sides/states plus a separate inside and outside state though know it's not right.

[@SpaceMog]

🙃

[@wezmasta]

What frequency are you recording your voice on? I got to listen from 5 feet away

[@rudolfglaser9664]

Hmm - isn't there a limit to the speed of light for quantum computers? Because when it comes to accessing other verses, this circumstance should make everything that has to do with speed absurd.

[@SpaceMog]

Correct - but its just parallelisation - its like having a really good supercomputer

[@ahmedsakr9593]

The multiverse theory lacks proof or evidence, and it’s a huge stretch to imagine that multiple universes exist just because we don’t fully understand how quantum collapse occurs. It’s like assuming every time you flip a coin and get heads, an alternate universe spawns where it landed tails. The idea sounds imaginative, but without any foundation in evidence, it borders on absurdity.

[@shifterzx]

Kind of like religion, right? Absurd indeed

[@truytayaba2415]

Thank you for sharing and explaining

[@SpaceMog]

My pleasure!

[@theemissary1313]

It hurts my brain to reconcile the random quantum nature with an ordered application, but like Einstein, I acknowledge the evidence that it works (as if it needed my permission or approval!) and that it requires people unbelievably smarter than me to do it. Also, moving away from reality, is it me, or does the fact a super corporation, with sometimes questionable ethical practices, is funding the research into encryption busting, quantum super computing sound like a James Bond villain plot...?

[@NobodyOfNote-qv5wh]

Not just you!!😄

[@SpaceMog]

🤣 it is mindboggling stuff - even the people doing it dont understand 🙈

[@JoeyPierce]

Excellent, thank you.

[@SpaceMog]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@RampAgentX]

good topic doc... "septillion" , will google.

[@JohnnyWednesday]

I hope it's an indication of our reality being a simulation - information from between our timesteps as it were - that'd be so cool! if anybody discovers the infinite money cheat? please let me know.

[@SpaceMog]

It could be :-)

[@AisleEpe-oz8kf]

How did you get 5 minutes of run time out of 67 micro seconds? What universe is this machine in?

[@TheIAMINU]

Actually the three logic gates are AND , OR , and NOT ...

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks for the correction 😇

[@YousufAhmad0]

12:54 I think that's actually even 2 degrees colder than space (-270C average)!

[@hughmac7423]

Last time I put a cat in a box, it wanted to escape and did escape.

[@SpaceMog]

you forgot the poison! ☠️

[@susanmaddison5947]

Hi, my fellow Spacecats! You must look at my ruminations on how the Great Purr generated the Schroedinger equation, with all its undulations and sinuous sine waves - and therewith, generated the multiverse. With our best wishes to all Spacecats, -- Susie, high priestess of the Cat Cult.

[@adama8570]

We can´t say "the maths works" when we can´t even work out the area of a circle (ie a finite number of decimals for Pi)!

[@SpaceMog]

we can its just pi - we can represent it with a symbol and that solves all the problems :-)

[@adama8570]

@@SpaceMog Not if the problem is complete accuracy from a quantum perspective. Furthermore a 50/50 quantum probability, which is crucial for superposition, is totally out of the question in reality.

[@BRUMARTUBE]

If you are willing to believe that 2+2=4, or that the notion of being a prime number is absolute, then you have to believe in all computations, and assuming no more digital mechanism than Darwin did implicitly in his theory of evolution, it can be shown, in elementary arithmetic, that the physical laws arise from a statistic on all relative computations. I thought I was refuting Mechanism, until I read Everett's formulation of QM, which confirms Mechanism in cognitive science. It is more a zero universes theory, than a "many-world", but it is still a many computations/histories theory, quite similar to Griffith and Omnes interpretation of Everett. The idea that there is one universe is as much speculative than many. With Mechanism, there is 0 universes, but a lot of computations, whose existence is not more demanding than the existence of all prime numbers, or all natural numbers.

[@kooskroos]

If the coherence time is only 68 microseconds how can it perform a computation that took 5 minutes? 1 second = 1 million microseconds...

[@SpaceMog]

Thats a really great question! I was hoping someone would ask that. The coherence time (68 microseconds) refers to the duration for which the qubits maintain their superposition and entanglement. Each sequence of operations must be completed before significant decoherence sets in but solving the problem runs the same quantum circuit (the sequence of quantum operations) many, many times. Each run is independent. The 5 minutes is the total time for the experiment, not the duration of a single coherent quantum computation. An analogy is juggling, you may be able to juggle for 5minutes, but you can only keep any ball in the air for 1 second at a time :-)

[@pavanm361]

Thanks for the info.

[@relaxedrelaxed]

Thank you Superstar Doctor!! Just Awesome!

[@The_Isaiahnator]

This is both exciting and scary.

[@SpaceMog]

yes 😂🙈

[@Asporez]

Maybe we simply do not understand numbers that big. I am sitting here struggling with my x, y vectors when updating rotation.

[@SpaceMog]

Its hard to think in anything more than 4 dimensions 🙈😂

[@michaelmcconnell7302]

i feel like i understand quantum computing way less in 2024 than i did in 1999 😅

[@SpaceMog]

I cant say the same... I was only 9 then :-P

[@peartree460]

What if you put a mirror in with s- dingers cat.... He will always see himself a not be dead.......or is this an ego issue. Also repeat the slit experiment with the detector running but with the lense cap on to correct for electrical interference... I suspect a pile of quantum hypothesis will be dead cats when observed properly.

[@ChrisM-hx9kv]

Commenting to feed the algorithm in this universe 🙃

[@SpaceMog]

Thank you 😊

[@prai777]

So, perhaps this is my 15th video on understanding quantum computing, quantum entanglement etc..and my brain is still saying this..huh😮

[@user-Vida-Locust]

17:39 Here you go

[@kedixsed7095]

I didn't think of myself as very smart before watching this video... Now I think of myself as an absolute dimwit

[@HavardStreAndresen]

I need to do some gardening, to get back down

[@SpaceMog]

😂

[@TheWtfnonamez]

So Google showcases new chip Claims it solved an impossible puzzle that takes ten septillion years to solve. Nobody can call BS on their answer because nobody can solve the "impossible" puzzle. If I was trying to boost my share price I would probably pull a stunt like this..... "I solved an abstract puzzle and it will take everyone else the age of the universe to prove me wrong" Personally I would suggest a few court orders and an FCA investigation because this certainly sounds like a trading issue. In fact it reminds me of this guy who used to sell crappy kitchenware down at the local market in London.

[@SpaceMog]

Yup that pretty much sums it up 😂🙈

[@macgonzo]

If they can get Willow to run Doom, then I'll be impressed 😂😂

[@farhanaf832]

What if we entangled 2 or more quantum computers 😅

[@SpaceMog]

I have no idea, but would be an interesting experiment - then the computation times would scale accordingly - just think of the number of calculations we could do with n quantum entangled computers 🙈😂

[@huskytzu7709]

I like your words magic woman

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks 😊

[@wulphstein]

What about all the other universes using the same technology?

[@nevzatulu3533]

Your new christmas background is so cute and you seem more gorgeous in front of that, love it!

[@JohnnyWednesday]

Beauty comes from base-2 numbers and wave/particle duality

[@SpaceMog]

Oh thank you!

[@SpaceMog]

😅

[@bitegoatie]

The possibility that a state exists is no demonstration of the existence of that state. That sort of silliness has been analyzed and shoveled into the dung heap since at least Kant's work. Yet we have otherwise-intelligent physicists proudly telling us reality is under no obligation not to be preposterous and that universes get created every time some guy scratches his butt (oh, the power that ape has in his fingertips boggles the mind). Let us extend our thanks to such misusers of mathematics for showing us how not to use our reasoning tools. Happily, nothing about potential quantum computing (as yet, nothing publicly announced exists fully answering to that designation, though there are little functioning models) depends on the many-worlds interpretation of QM - which is good, because a lot of invested money would be set to be flushed into another universe if there were such a dependency.

[@WhiteEagle-369]

Thank you.

[@jeffcrites8184]

I find the Many Worlds interpretation inelegant. And yes, I'm pretty sure the Universe DOES care what I think. 🤔

[@chrisbaird5160]

Most physicists who believe in the many worlds interpretation see it as a much more elegant and straightforward take on quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation stide steps the many worlds interpretation with some very complicated, and some say, contrived, mathematics. If Occam's razor holds true the many worlds interpretation would be the right one, as the math is far simpler, and more straightforward.

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks for your take :-)

[@alias5026]

10²⁵ years of classic computing time means that the solution is unknown: for 10²⁵ years. How can anyone know, that "willow" is right and has the identical result? (An iPhone with -272⁰ Celsius on the ear... perhaps in a parallel universe 🤩)

[@ChadKovac]

How long does it take to recreate William Shakespeare?

[@ZeroAlligator]

Scientists recommend this one weird trick to stop adjacent universes from borrowing your resources.

[@WINGRIOT]

I've subscribed...

[@SpaceMog]

Thanks a bunch!

[@StanTheObserver-lo8rx]

Anton and Sabine haven't even mentioned it.

[@SpaceMog]

Sabine probably thinks of the multiverse as much as she thinks about theoretical particles :-)

[@higreentj]

I agree with Deutsch that the Higgs quantum scalar field proves the existence of a multiverse.

[@vibehighest]

wow. your voice

[@B-mg1pr]

Nah, Google's Willow chip isn't proving parallel universes - it's just really good at math! Just because it can process multiple quantum states at once doesn't mean it's phoning other dimensions for help. That's like saying my calculator is accessing alternate realities just because it can do complex equations! 😄

[@mickmccrohon]

So this is, but also isn't, over my head?

[@SpaceMog]

You get it! 😊

[@Kelticfury]

Machine learning, AI, Quantum computing, multiversal connections, all run by corporations like google. What could possibly go wrong?

[@ricardoabh3242]

My first impression before the vid… is …nope

[@SpaceMog]

🤣 and after?

[@StanTheObserver-lo8rx]

I asked A.I. if its true that Google proved there are multiverses? It said no. Go ahead ask it.

[@SpaceMog]

You cant argue with the AI 🙃

[@ChirpyXC]

That AI isn't quantum yet

[@DavidNulty-j9z]

8:55🫤

[@NullScar]

I peeked i to a parallel universe, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt. 👕 Also: superpositioned mammal = T-pose.

[@BrianThorne]

Blink three times if they are going to hurt you

[@mrlithium69]

Willow Dunnit

[@SpaceMog]

😂

[@willrose5424]

Time to buy everything with quantum. 😂