The Insane Mechanism of a Quantum Computer?

[@MrBendybruce]

Clearest explanation of Quantum Computers I've seen. Great job Arvin.

[@hqcart1]

I've seen way better

[@MrBendybruce]

But that's only because you are way smarter than everyone else

[@hqcart1]

@@MrBendybruce Thank you!

[@amanak65]

No doubt at all.

[@EinsteinKnowedIt]

So true 👍. With a little voodoo, everything is clearly understood. 😅

[@PranavKothare]

This is the first video that I've seen that doesn't just talk about the hype behind quantum computers or ELI5 qubits, but rather bridges the gap between the two domains (physics and computer science) in a meaningful way.

[@daarom3472]

Check out Scott Aaronson Lex fridman or Sean Carroll

[@dandwyer3919]

As an electrical engineer for 35 years this is the simplest clearest explanation of a quantum computer I've ever seen amazing job Arvin

[@JR-ng9yo]

AGREED! I've been an EE for 45 years... studied some QM back at school... but this beats Matt, Sabine and many others. Clear, concise... and specifically addresses issues that are commonly misunderstood, and not explained by others. Thanks, Arvin!

[@soulextracter]

@@JR-ng9yo And yet it still seems like he doesn't really explain it fully. He says that since the qubits are in a super position, the computer can check every path in a maze at once, but when you measure the result, the wave collapses and you get a classical answer. But how does it check several paths at once by just casually existing in constant spin? And how does it determine the correct path? I know he said that they use constructive interference to enhance the correct waves, and destructive to cancel out the incorrect ones. But how do you know which ones those are if you don't get an answer until it's all done anyway. I don't get it.

[@JR-ng9yo]

@@soulextracter "how does it check several paths at once"... This is done using "parallelism". Imagine having fifty 8X11 sheets of clear plastic, each with a random number of ink spots on it randomly distributed across it. You are asked to find which single ink spot out of all spots on all 50 sheets is closest to the top right corner of its sheet. You could number all sheets 1-50... use calipers to measure each spot on each sheet to the upper right corner... you could probably simplify by disregarding many dots and only measuring those that look closest... you could keep notes on sheet number and distance... and eventually derive the answer. *OR* you could stack all 50 sheets into a pile... and *look thru all sheets at once* and quickly determine which dot out of all dots on all 50 sheets is closest to its upper right corner! That, my friend, is *PARALLELISM* !

[@SNSISNSJISEJSJS]

😮😮😮💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀BRUH I'm also an electrician but I am also a programmer but I completely do not understand it

[@yeet7135]

*"What makes a quantum computer fundamentally more powerful?"* Simple, it has the word 'quantum' in it.

[@bobthedog3337]

If you order one from Amazon, you only know if you have it when you open the box and look. You might have a dead cat. Or not.

[@Lysirell]

@@bobthedog3337 Your comment is gold lmao

[@Lell19862010]

Does it have graphene inside?

[@Zonydeep]

Yes makes no sense.

[@JR-ng9yo]

*Arvin, your vids keep getting better And BETTER!!* This one answers questions I've had for years that no other vid I've watched addressed (and I've watched A LOT!). You seem to understand where people's misconceptions are. You've also scooped other publishers with the most current news! You have a knack of explaining things clearly and concisely, making your talks the easiest in this field to understand! You ROCK!! Keep it up!!

[@vm-bz1cd]

Fantastic ! 👏 one of the best and simplest explanations of quantum computing I have seen..

[@ganeshnimbalkar2792]

This is the first video I will recommend anyone, If they want to know what is quantum computer. Your explanations are clear and concise.

[@vittoriolufrano9814]

This was an Amazing explanation!

[@jonathancunningham4159]

You coveted this topic way more in depth than other sources. This is why I love this channel. No matter how much you think you understand something, you always learn something new. Thank you! Also, the animations were top notch!

[@velonaut303]

This by far the best explanation I've found. Amazing job.

[@MeowtronStar]

Finally a verbal explanation and example of quantum computing that actually makes sense instead of sounding like buzzwords.

[@mikepoulin3020]

I asked my friend if I should build a quantum computer and he gave me infinite answers, so I slapped him until he gave me a yes or no answer....

[@kai6179]

Love it. Seams like it's exactly how it works.

[@alexejfrohlich5869]

i guess threatening to kill his cat didn't work either?

[@dc174]

@Mike Poulin 😂

[@michaellastname4922]

@@alexejfrohlich5869 only had a 50-50 chance....

[@SaiSS961]

😂🤣

[@HassanGaba1]

Up until now I may have seen 2 dozen videos about quantum computers on KZbin, and when I saw the notification for this video, I almost skipped it. But Im glad I didn't skip this video because this is the most comprehensive explainer video about quantum computers on KZbin right now. Im kinda shocked you were able to condense all the information in less then a 15 min video

[@joemato]

Been searching long time for KZbin videos that could explain to me in simple way the difference between a quantum computer against a classical one. Arvin explained it very well. I think the reason why most failed it's because they want to scale up the the understanding of laymen like me to their level, which may never happen, instead of the other way around.

[@seanyiu]

Hi Arvin, Awesome Video. Better than anything from Google or IBM in trying to explain the gist of a Quantum Computer and that means better than anything out there, period. You covered all the key principles that matter to a holistic understanding. Really props to you !

[@ArvinAsh]

Much appreciate. Glad it was helpful!

[@srijantiwari8152]

Very interactive . Learned a lot from this

[@servalkitty5862]

In what way was it interactive?

[@krisdouglas6536]

Amazing ! Can’t wait for the next part.

[@maheshBasavaraju]

I never understood before how quantum computing worked. I finally understood today.. thank you Arvin !!!

[@debasisdas7682]

Thank you for offering crystal clear views for a starter

[@dray7579]

Wow arvin im speechless especially that last bit about the universe.

[@tasonovin]

Q

[@manuelmartinez-gq4ij]

I’ve been away for a bit, but glad to be back. I’ll get caught up on your education. Your a gift and I appreciate your efforts.

[@sadderwhiskeymann]

great vid!! can't wait for the follow up!

[@cesarjom]

This video was a special one, very good way to explain quantum computing using basic principles of QM.

[@frankhoffman3566]

Very good explanation with very understandable animation. "A quantum computer takes all possible paths at once". Well done

[@cosmoslogic9088]

I have always said this for real Arvin Ash is the man with the total plan Thank you Sir

[@KamilsView]

Awesome video/presentation. Can't wait for the next part!

[@arjunsahi123]

What an explanation. I tried searching some videos but couldn't able to understand that clearly until I saw this. Thank you 😊

[@efispass6630]

Awesome as always, can't wait for the next video my friend! If all the educators were like you!

[@Bobbias]

I seriously hope you're working towards explaining shor's algorithm. I've never actually seen a proper explanation of the math behind it, but if anyone can explain that in a way to follow way, it'd be you.

[@helmutalexanderrubiowilson6835]

interesting analogy about time... present is the input future is the output. So there is sort of logic behind the theory about our universe it can be a massive simulation

[@kjthompson6513]

Excellent! A simple explanation of quantum computing equals understanding. Nice!

[@johanneskrv]

Very good video. One of the best explanations I've seen.

[@GururajBN]

Output is in superposition. Picking the right option is the trick. This is still at equation stage. Never say impossible! Excellent presentation of a very esoteric topic.👌

[@kylorenkardashian79]

3:20 the overall graphics were fantastic & intuitive

[@leifefrancisco7316]

Great job man! You answered all my questions.

[@drewz9807]

Great video as always. A couple of questions: 1) I can understand how a quantum computer can process data to achieve a desired result, but how does one encode the data in a qbit? Is this possible to do without interacting with a quantum state? 2) the algorithm used to increase success chance of measuring the desired outcome: does this mean that the computers user must know the desired outcome prior to doing any computation?

[@mreatboom1314]

1) Actually you can't. The phone book is thus not a really good example because you wouldn't be able to encode the data in your computer. The maze is a good one because the information is easy to encode 2) Of course no or it wouldn't be interesting. For some algorithm the solution is hard to find but easy to check (prime number for instance) so you could just check. For others it's not and here you would just repeat a lot the algorithm until you are confident enough you have the right anwser

[@MsCodename84]

this topic reminds forgotten analog computers, its interesting that some deprecated technologies not useless in some new researches

[@Zonydeep]

What quantum objects are actually used? How do algorithms know the correct quantum state?

[@abdulrazak9945]

Awesome explanation!! Thanks much Arvin.

[@Nawwar1980]

This channel is the best on youtube.

[@noahway13]

Is my brain a quantum computer? I don't search every phone number I know for the correct owner, I don't search every single face I know to recognize Arvin Ash.

[@mosenwani]

Great explanation comes from great understanding.

[@ISK_VAGR]

Arvin… still impress me with your clear explanations. How can a quantum computer determine what is the culprit (“pathogenic protein) of a disease when we evaluate 12K different proteins using proteomics for example? I ask this because I imagine that things get complicated when there are more than one answer. For example different proteins involved.

[@ArvinAsh]

It would find the most likely answers, provided you have some idea of what the answer should look like.

[@Cdictator]

My favorite physics channel on KZbin

[@amanak65]

You're one of the best out there Arvin. Love all your videos. Keep going and keep spreading them A1 quality info.

[@Barnardrab]

The thing I can't wrap my head around is the concept of probability. Classical computers depend on precision. If a single bit is off, the program or even the entire operating system could crash, or suffer a memory leak. With that in mind, I would expect quantum computers to crash frequently because of their use of probability.

[@bryanpascual3543]

that's why they have to be cooled to near absolute zero so the probability of in between 0 and 1 can be easily collapsed into a single state. remember he stated that any temperature above absolute zero could fluctuate the result and make the qubit unstable.

[@ryoheiweil4714]

First, on the note of probability; the inherent probabilistic nature of quantum measurement means that our measurement outcomes at the end of computation in the gate-based QC model are going to be probabilistic. As a result, when using a quantum computer, it will often not suffice to conduct a single runthrough of our computation, but multiple (although of course this will depend on the program in question) so we can get multiple shots and then look at the measurement statistics. Second, you make a great point about precision and how if a single bit is off, the program could crash entirely; this is a great observation. Indeed, if we run a quantum computer without accounting for such errors, given enough qubits and enough quantum gates, the chance that an error will occur becomes almost unavoidable (even if the probability for a single given error is small). As you postulate, this would result in the computation being doomed and the final result useless. To address this exact concern, the entire field of quantum error correction and quantum codes has been established. Indeed, there exists a landmark result in the field (The Threshold theorem) that given a sufficiently small enough physical error rate, we can use quantum error correction to make our logical noise arbitrarily small. Here is the wiki page for this result en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_threshold_theorem and for its derivation you can refer to standard texts in the field (e.g. Nielsen and Chuang's Quantum Computation and Quantum Information). Hope this helps!

[@henryzhang7873]

The program would not crash, but may produce garbage output. For example, lets imagine you have a 2 qubit computer with a single gate: CNOT. This gate reverses the second bit if the first bit is on. So, 00 -> 00, 01 -> 01, 10 -> 11, 11 -> 10. The second bit will become the XOR of the first and second bit. Let's say you initialize the first bit with 25% 0 and 75% 1, and the same with the second bit. If you then measure the second bit after the CNOT operation you can find it in either 0 or 1, however if you repeat the measurement it can change. If you repeat the measurement an infinite number of times (in practice a large number will suffice), then you will find that the probability of a 0 will be 62.5% (0.25*0.25+0.75*0.75) and a 1 will be 37.5% (0.25*0.75+0.75*0.25). This means that given that input distribution, the bits will be XOR 37.5% of the time. However, let's say the computer screws up sometimes and can end up randomly in 0 or 1 with 5% probability each. So 90% of the time it computes correctly, and 10% of the time it will either flip to 0 or 1. Then you will find a 0: 5% + 0.9 * 62.5% = 61.25% and a 1: 5% + 0.9 * 37.5% = 38.75%. So as you can see, the noise will introduce error into your results, but will not cause the computer to crash.

[@incognitojuggernaut4411]

How are they so sure of superposition? Because whenever they measure the spin it is either clock wise or anti clockwise. So how do they know that superposition exists?

[@henryzhang7873]

@@incognitojuggernaut4411 Electrons are not the only way to make a quantum computer. You can use photons as well. Superposition just means that the same scenario can give rise to multiple different outcomes when observed. It isn't necessarily 50/50. You will need to look at the Bell inequality experiments. If you measure at 90, 180, or 270 degree off-axis polarization, the Bell equations give the same outcomes as the hidden variable model. It's the points between that deviate.

[@craigo8598]

Thanks Arvin, great video and very clear, and the hat is so gangsta!

[@Theconnecteduniverse]

Very clear explanation!!!!

[@martir.7653]

I don't get the explanation of qubits. In classical *analog* computers, a signal can also have values anywhere between 0 and 1, represented by different voltage levels. Surely there must be something more to how qubits work?

[@vibaj16]

1, A classical computer doesn't actually use that in between value. It just counts any voltage below a threshold as 0, and anything above it is a 1; and 2, a quantum computer uses superposition to try every possibility at the same time, while a classical computer has to try one operation at a time

[@pinocleen]

The answers missed the "analog" part of the question so, the difference is that qubits are superimposed sets and friendly to algorithm manipulation, which is what gives it its power.

[@drdca8263]

Indeed. The video did not explain it. Here is an *actual* explanation. First, you need to understand the concept of a vector space. A vector space is a set of things where you can scale them by a number, and add or subtract them. The things in a vector space are called vectors. There is a more precise way to define vector space, but the precise details are just the things one would expect from making the description I just gave precise. An example of a vector space is like, the space of triples of 3 numbers, like (x,y,z) , where you can like, say 2.5 * (1,4,2) = (2.5,10,5) , and (2,1,11) + (1,1,1) = (3,2,12) . Another example of a vector space is just "the real numbers". In quantum mechanics, (or at least one of a couple of mathematically equivalent ways of describing it), the state of a system is always a vector in a certain vector space. This vector space is of a certain kind, called a "Hilbert space". A Hilbert space is a vector space where you have a concept of the length of a vector, and also a concept of vectors being perpendicular, and the Pythagorean theorem works, and also if you have an infinite sum of vectors which should converge, then there actually is a vector for it to converge to (this last property is something you don't really need to worry about for this explanation). In quantum mechanics, the vector which describes the current state of a system always has length 1. An example of this is what he was *trying* to get at when he said that alpha^2 + beta^1 = 1 (though really he should have said that |alpha|^2 + |beta|^2 = 1 in case alpha or beta had an imaginary component) Now, you need to know what a linear operator (aka linear function aka linear map) is. Now, a linear combination of a collection of vectors is just a sum of the vectors each multiplied by some number. For example, 2 * (2,11,2) + 4 * (1,2,3) is an example of a linear combination of (2,11,2) and (1,2,3) . Another example would be 2 * (2,11,2) + 0 * (1,2,3) . The linear combinations don't have to just be between 2 vectors either, they can have as many as you want. A linear combination of vectors from some vector space, will always be a vector from the same vector space. [side note : the "dimension" of a vector space is the smallest size a set of vectors from that space can be, such that every vector in that vector space can be expressed as a linear combination of vectors from that set.] A linear operator is a function which takes input an element of some vector space, and has outputs elements of some vector space (often but not always the space it takes input from, and the space it gives output in, are the same space) such that, it sends linear combinations to corresponding linear combinations, in the sense that, well, I'll give an example, that will be easier. If A is a linear operator, then A( 5 * (1,4,2,7) + 2.1 * (1,1,2,2) + 3000 * (4,3,2,1)) = 5 * A((1,4,2,7)) + 2.1 * A((1,1,2,2)) + 3000 * A((4,3,2,1)) . And, note: A doesn't "know" that its input was in the form of a linear combination of the set of vectors I expressed there, all the info A gets is the vector (12007.1, 9022.1, 6014.2,3039.2) (which is what that linear combination I wrote evaluates down to. I kind regretting picking not-nice numbers in that example) Now, in quantum mechanics, basically everything is done using linear operators. In particular, time evolution, the "given what things are like now, what will they be like in 2 seconds" (or, any given amount of time) is a linear operator. So, if the computer state is a linear combination of some state and another state, then because time evolution is linear, after the computer does stuff, the computer state ends up being in a corresponding linear combination of what time evolution would do to the corresponding components, and the relative coefficients between them. Now, suppose that we have some vectors in the Hilbert space for our quantum mechanical system, and let's say these vectors are named, idk, banana, Zamboni, purple, and Sasquatch, and they each have a length of 1. Suppose that purple and banana are perpendicular, so then (by the Pythagorean theorem ) the lengths of ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple + (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) and ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple - (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) each have a length of 1 (because (1/(sqrt(2))^2 = (1/2) , and (-1/(sqrt(2))^2 = (1/2) , so in both cases we get (1/2) + (1/2) = 1 ) Ah, now there's something I should have probably mentioned earlier (it gets a bit confusing trying to explain just enough linear algebra to explain quantum mechanics while simultaneously explaining the quantum mechanics) : measurement! When there is a discrete set of possible measurement outcomes, we can associate with each one, a component of the state. For each possible outcome, there is a linear operator (a projection operator, as it happens) which sends any state to a component of that state which corresponds to that measurement outcome, and if you add up the components that these different operators give of the original state, they add up to the original state, and furthermore, each of these components are perpendicular to each of the other components. The square of the length of each of these components corresponds to the probability of measuring that outcome. That these add up to 1 represents the fact that "definitely there is something that happens", and also that this is by adding up squares of lengths of perpendicular things, is because of the Pythagorean theorem again. So, if there is a measurement we are doing which has possible outcomes "purple" and "banana", then, well, I named these measurement outcomes after the vectors I used before, so I hope it isn't too much of a surprise that I want the "banana" component of ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple + (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) to be (1/sqrt(2)) * banana , and the "banana" component of ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple - (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) to be (-1/sqrt(2)) * banana . Note the minus sign! But, in both cases, if we take the square of the length of the "the observed outcome is banana" component, in both cases, we get (1/2) (if instead of (-1/sqrt(2)) we instead had like, (sqrt(-1)/sqrt(2)) , well, technically we would multiply it by its complex conjugate, which is (-sqrt(-1)/sqrt(2)), and so the product would still end up being (1/2), but you can also just think of it as "we take the absolute value before we square it." But also, I'm getting into unnecessary details, you don't have to worry about this part.). (similarly a (1/2) chance of "purple" in both cases, but I showed "banana" to demonstrate what happens with the minus sign). Ok, now, suppose that the time evolution operator U, which sends a state to what the state would be after (say) 3 seconds, suppose it sends Sasquatch to ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple + (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) , and suppose it sends Zamboni to ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple - (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) . Because U is linear, it will send (1/(sqrt(2))) * Sasquatch + (1/(sqrt(2))) * Zamboni to (1/(sqrt(2))) * ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple + (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) + (1/(sqrt(2))) * ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple - (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) which simplifies down to (1/2) * purple + (1/2) * banana + (1/2) * purple - (1/2) * banana = purple . While, on the other hand, it will send (1/(sqrt(2))) * Sasquatch - (1/(sqrt(2))) * Zamboni (note the minus sign!) to (1/(sqrt(2))) * ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple + (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) - (1/(sqrt(2))) * ((1/sqrt(2)) * purple - (1/sqrt(2)) * banana) which simplifies down to (1/2) * purple + (1/2) * banana - (1/2) * purple + (1/2) * banana = banana . This is the sort of thing that he is talking about when he talks about the positive and negative interference. Sasquatch and Zamboni would each individually produce a superposition of purple and banana (two different superpositions, but if one measures whether banana or purple, the probabilities would be the same, though if one measured a different question the two could be distinguishable), but different linear combinations of Sasquatch and Zamboni result in either the purple components having negative interference and canceling out while the banana components have positive interference and become more likely, or visa versa, depending on which linear combination of Sasquatch and Zamboni is used. Ok, it is midnight, I probably shouldn't have taken the time to write all this on a youtube comment? But, if you have any further questions, let me know.

[@vibaj16]

@@drdca8263 you could've linked to a wikipedia article. A youtube comment can't hope to ever be very well formatted

[@pinocleen]

@@drdca8263 Mr. Zamboni, do you take credit card or paypal? great stuff +1

[@kushagr7132]

Instead of using electrons If we use neutinos or gluons We can calculate more fast than square root steps?🤔

[@ArvinAsh]

No, what quantum particles you use will make no difference. The algorithm is what makes the difference.

[@lidarman2]

One analogy that I can think of is a quantum computer is sorta like using a large magnet to find the needle in the haystack--The magnet uses it's properties to search the whole stack at once.

[@ArvinAsh]

That's an interest analogy. Thanks.

[@Hansulf]

Nice! Now the hard part: explaining how the hell you go from qbits to the algorithm

[@ganindunanayakkara8970]

Thank you, the best explanation I've seen so far!

[@innertubez]

As usual Arvin Ash provides the best explanations - clear and understandable. I’m just curious about the limits of quantum computation with regard to Grover’s Algorithm. Square root is an amazing improvement for searching data points, but seems like little help with a googol data points or, say, a Graham’s Number of data points.

[@dilipdas5777]

Happy teacher's day from India. You are a great teacher

[@keep_walking_on_grass]

this is mindblowing

[@mimArmand]

Thank you, Arvin, but how the number of iterations is reduced by the square root of the classical one? Something is missing here!

[@ArvinAsh]

Only using the Grover algorithm. There are other algorithms that work differently.

[@emmepombar3328]

@@ArvinAsh You could have provided at elast one example. The fundamental element of a quantum computer is not the qubit, but how an algorithm is applied. And this part, the only part that gives a quantum computer a meaning you totally left out.

[@baileym4708]

Not sure if this is the same question but why does a superposition or wave collapse after measurement or any other interaction? Thank you!!

[@ArvinAsh]

That is a whole video in itself. It is due to decoherence. What is decoherence? See this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYmtapiHbNaHh80

[@baileym4708]

@@ArvinAsh awesome. Thank you so much

[@baileym4708]

@@ArvinAsh The decoherence video you linked actually makes a lot of sense and is very enlightening. Thank you so much for making these videos for people who are mathematically challenged.

[@carlorossi2788]

only mental speculations of the quantum of the moment

[@jjaran1984]

Thank you Arvin amazing explanation

[@maxmuster7003]

The first video that focus the importent stuff. Thx. Now i start to understand how it works.

[@anilkg26]

Perfect explanation. Thank you.

[@usama57926]

Make two separate videos on entropy in thermodynamics and in information theory.....

[@peterpan629]

I really enjoy watching your episodes. Excellent explanation 👍

[@LQhristian]

Great video, very concise explanation!

[@alanboro]

Arvin, a question: At 7:58 the question that’s looking for an answer is “how do I know if I should get a 1 or a 0 as the correct answer?” But during the answer to that question you say that a mathematical trick of wave amplification interference is applied TO the right answer, and destructive interference to the wrong one. Phrased like that there lies a fallacy: how can I apply something TO the right option IF I don’t yet know what the right option is? I’m asking this because I was always intrigued by this very same issue: since qubits are in superposition… how could you work with concrete information to perform logic? I can ask a computer 5+5= because I can have certainty that the digital words representing the 5, the logic sum and the logic equals are perfect representations in binary of their essence. But if a quantum digital word could be “anything”… where do you even start feeding inputs?

[@creativenametxt2960]

I think an analogy to 5+5=??? wouldn't be sufficient, the algorithm would probably be better off by using the normal logic system, meaning the superposition pretty much wouldn't matter from the start. If we look at some other complex algorithms, like factoring a big number into primes, we could get a distribution of results in a superposition. Some of the results will tell us nothing about the factoring, some will get us closer, and the ones that get us closer may share a common thing, like, they might be all multiples of a large number. Then we can make all the results interfere in such a way that the in-sync results with a large common multiple amplify the common multiple and other results more or less cancel out due to being distributed randomly. That's not the whole real 100% true explanation, but that's my understanding of the principle. I would be happy to know the whole story too.

[@alanboro]

@@creativenametxt2960 Thank you for taking the time to explain, I think I'm getting a better picture now.

[@iroh1796]

Thank you Arvin. I love your videos!

[@emilyquisourit]

Another great video. Thank you Arvin! 😊

[@hasanshirazi9535]

You are the man. Great explanation.

[@calvingrondahl1011]

Fission and fusion too. Maintaining a constant fusion reaction for constant power source. Small steps of progress. Bits and Q-bits...

[@shourovesharma8794]

Wow,,. Your explanation is Great 😮

[@kylorenkardashian79]

Arv 🔥 you're always blowing my mind

[@nikhilkatkar2774]

I did not understand- If qubits already maintains superposition(changes values between 0 and 1 all the time) why do we need to cool down the room temperature? Do they hold superposition value for sometime(till we compute) or cooling the temperature makes qubits to hold it till we compute our operations? Please help

[@ArvinAsh]

High temperature inhibits superposition. It needs to be maintained throughout the computation process to work.

[@tarnished7117]

I cannot wait for the cpu video cause I have been wondering about the fundamental processes of a computer for a while now and I can't seem to find much compiled online.

[@Langkowski]

I'm looking forward for the day when a real quantum computer is finally made (Google claim to have one, but we don't hear much from it). For decades now we have heard about countless breakthroughs which says every time "an important step towards a quantum computer".

[@jakublizon6375]

We have real quantum computers. You can buy one, no joke. BUT, of course there is a but, they're extremely expensive, and still very primitive. We're still working with in double digit qubits. We also have a problem with error correction, but that's getting better, very quickly. We're pretty close to commercial quantum computers, maybe within the decade.

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

Sex robots, maybe within the decade

[@cjay2]

@@jakublizon6375 Who's the 'we'? Just curious.

[@andrewmiller8402]

@@cjay2 humanity, I'm guessing. It always puzzles me too when people say "We". I always assumed it just meant we as in everyone

[@jakublizon6375]

@@cjay2 I kind of thought it was obvious I mean mankind. But I guess it could look like I'm working for a tech company or something. When it comes to these types of breakthroughs, leaps, or whatever you want to call significantly large advances in technology, I take the perspective of us as a species. Like when America (I'd say we) landed a man on the moon, I still consider it human accomplishment rather than a national one. Is that a bad thing in any way? I actually don't know, so I'm curious.

[@adamrafal6587]

Damn! That was REALLY good! Thank you, Arvin!

[@bobd6711]

Brilliantly dumbed-down for consumption. I love this channel!

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Simplicity: Regular computers: (digital); Quantum computers: (analog).

[@josejoaquin1305]

you blow my mind Arvin

[@Jaybearno]

That was an amazing explaination

[@paristeta5483]

Guess i have to wait for the next video to understand this.

[@RR-gr1ni]

Wait, so you need to know the right and wrong results prior to input then? We need to collide the wrong and right answers to the output right? Can you explain?

[@ArvinAsh]

You don't have to know the answer, but you need some idea of which general direction the answer will be, so the algorithm selects answers that are closer to the pattern of the correct answer. It's all probability. The answer that you get will have a higher probability of being correct.

[@RR-gr1ni]

@@ArvinAsh ok thank you Arvin👍❤️

[@adityakumar4869]

Thank you for the video

[@PaintballVideosNet]

Very well explained.

[@djp1234]

I want to know more details about that algorithm. How does it decide what is the correct result?

[@spider853]

next video will cover that as I understood

[@Hansulf]

I found once a video explaining It. A complete mindblow and I cand remember anything of It, except It has something to do with primes and factorization.

[@cybermindable]

In classical computers there are electronic circuits like adders, multipliers etc. that perform the actual computation -- produce outputs from inputs according to some rules. What are the substitutes for the circuits in quantum computer that, say, produce the sum of two numbers?

[@hyperscale5255]

Sir can please explain that how a mirror works at quantum level. (with different wave length) it is still tripping me out and I am very confused about this.

[@esra_erimez]

Both classical and quantum computers also need RGB to work

[@andyc9902]

Lol typical female 😉

[@bryanpascual3543]

quantum RGB: any light in between Red, Green, and Blue

[@andyc9902]

@dafuqawew kek

[@B2PTWO-uq7ik]

😂 RGB? I think one more color is missing

[@jamesjensen5000]

So, photons that are separated along different channels can travel either shorter or shorter distances and on channel could be heated or cooled to mediate the particles thus the paths could reach different exits in the system ate different times... but if one of the exits is blocked, experiments have shown that the incoming photons “organize” and reroute to the open exit.

[@Regularsshorts]

Hey Arvin sir, as you explained in one of your previous video you said that anti matter particle doesn't go backwards in time.but what does it mean when you say a particle goes backwards in time?

[@cosmotalk7227]

It means, that a Particle can't Travel Backwards in Time, so its Related to the Concept of Light Cones in Minkowski Space-time:- Light-Cone is somewhat like the Same model of Hyperboloid Model in Topology(or you can understand it as the Einstein-Rosen Bridge Diagram), on a Light-cone the Particles are in Superposition Mainly(according to Quantum Mechanics), hence, the Equilibrium of the Particle/Probability of the Particle is in many States at the same time, so, as the Particle is in the Present Phase of the Light-cone(or in the Center of the Light cone to visualize), there are mainly Two Directions and 1 Spatial Direction(Hereby to be considered as Space-dimension), the Two Other Dimensions Vertically Up and Down, so, the Upper-Half Plane of this Hyperboloid model is Future Time-like Infinity(I^+) and the Bottom-Half Plane of the Hyperboloid Model is Past time-like Infinity(denoted by I^-), and the Space Dimension is a Regular 2-d Plane which intersects the Upper and the Bottom Portion of this Hyperboloid Model, so, coming back to the Particle, the Particle knows its Previous/Past Path(or Past Null Geodesics for to be more specific) as its has Travelled the along its World-line(hence, Null Geodesic as on the Surface of this Hyperboloid Model which is of Positive Curvature hence, a Spherical Geometry but, mostly Euclidean Geometry, as Surface Calculations are made based upon that the Observer is himself on the Surface of the E^3 Manifold), hence, the Particle Won't travel much of its Past Time-like Curve/Geodesic, it prefers to be in Quantum Entanglement with the Future Time-like Infinity!. Hope this would by a Helpful Explanation!. and for further Discussion visit my channel:- kzbin.info/door/Wrb8Gmb1OewlQeal3s4K5Q Thank you!.

[@Regularsshorts]

@@cosmotalk7227 oh thank you for your time and effort to reply.

[@cosmotalk7227]

@@Regularsshorts Its my pleasure!

[@jasemalhammadi4228]

Many thanks Arvin Can’t wait to see the next video. Perhaps some applications of quantum computers in the next video may make this topic more clear. What about quantum networks? Where can we study or specialize in quantum computers? Apparently it’s not covered thoroughly in university’s program of computer science.

[@IAmNumber4000]

If quantum computers take off and can easily simulate protein interactions, it will enable relatively safe gene editing which will be an absolutely massive development.

[@gregkrueger331]

Isn’t that basically what crispr does? Genuine question.

[@IAmNumber4000]

@@gregkrueger331 Crispr is the protein that removes a section of genetic code and replaces it with another set of genes. The main reason gene therapies or gene editing are dangerous is that it's difficult to predict exactly what an edited gene is going to do in the long term. So if quantum computers were able to simulate the protein interactions that come from an edited gene, it would make it much easier to create new gene therapies.

[@yahoo07100]

Best one I have seen

[@GEMINDIGO]

Fu%king out of it as usual !! Thanks Arvin!

[@mr.expressional6822]

Well now. That was quite helpful.

[@DJSouthFlorida]

Great job 👏

[@saitama22]

Where do you get the information? Can you please suggest to me any source for studying? I also wanna study quantum mechanics but I'm not able to find any place which has simple to grasp content.

[@drdca8263]

If you haven't already, first thing to do is to learn some linear algebra. (You cannot study quantum mechanics without knowing some linear algebra. Quantum mechanics is nearly "the world works according to linear algebra, in the sense that [elaboration goes here]")

[@saitama22]

@@drdca8263 I've learnt leniar algebra many years ago. Even calculus is nearly done. I have good knowledge of mathematics.

[@merendaakina]

Great content as always

[@rahulrustagi6119]

Great video

[@magamindplanet8930]

great video 🔥🔥

[@luckybarrel7829]

I loved this explanation. Also understood how the parts of the computer interact with each other better here. Wasn't expecting it to end with the universe is a simulation theory, but it kinda does make sense to end with here.

[@Dragrath1]

Note that there is a significant difference between a "computational universe" and "simulation theory" whiich he left ambiguous as it can apply to both. A simulation theory requires a physical computer outside the simulated universe but a computational universe is one where the computation is the fundamental bit not built on top of anything but past computations acting on some network array of past logic operations. It is a bit conceptually strange to think of as historically we have always thought of a computer as a physical object performing an operation but in a computational universe the computations are the fundamental building blocks from which familiar properties like space, energy momentum etc. emerge. So rather than a physical computer simulating a system you are more or less projecting a piece of the underlying computational reality which acts as the fundamental building blocks of the universe. That is to say in the computational universe paradigm if the underlying computational simulation is sufficiently accurate i.e. has the right algorithm running on the right network then there is fundamentally no difference between the simulation and the and the simulating universe aside for the snapshot in time. i.e. the simulation is really an observation of the past in such a precise scenario. The catch of course is that the rate of times passage would be identical between the simulating universe and all the simulations so you could only know if you got the right network and algorithm for sure after running the simulation for 13.8 billion years. Other algorithms and starting networks wouldn't be wrong per say they would just show you a different snapshot of the computational universe in essence what is conventionally the "multiverse". Additionally in this paradigm the question of whether math is discovered or invented is rendered trivial as an observation is a frame or reference in space and time and a measurement is a type of acceleration in the space of all possible outcomes of the wavefunction with the observation being a single projection of that higher dimensional object in a lower number of dimensions. It is a very trippy paradigm that is really hard to grasp in fact it is probably fundamentally impossible for the whole system to be represented by our puny brains.