A (Gentle) Introduction to Quantum Computing

In today's episode of Theories of Everything, Curt Jaimungal speaks to Maria Violaris for a gentle introduction to quantum computing, diving into quantum no-go theorems, Schrödinger's cat, the nature of quantum entanglement, and how these concepts lay the foundation for the future of computational science.

LINKS MENTIONED:

Timestamps:
00:00 - Introduction
00:59 - Maria’s Background
04:20 - Quantum No-Go Theorems
09:55 - Schrödinger's Cat
13:41 - Theory Independence & Loopholes
17:21 - Uncertainty Principle (Entanglement)
23:11 - Qubits (Quantum Bit)
31:58 - Bell’s Theorem (Quantum Entanglement)
45:12 - Locality & Realism
49:04 - Bell’s Theorem Continued…
01:00:06 - GHZ States

TOE'S TOP LINKS:
- Become a YouTube Member Here:

#quantumphysics #science #physics #quantumcomputing #theoreticalphysics

[SpitFireX]

Talking about "listeners being experts in various fields like physics..." etc. I'm a chef. I love science, but I'm a chef. I found this channel with the Mirror/Big Bang video. Expect your audience to be more board than you think, m'dude. I full understand the concepts of superposition and even how quantum computers work. Heck, I had a bud that got me into Microsoft Ignite 2017 due to his industry connects and got a pic with their quantum computer mock-up. We all have our hobbies. One of mine is being as educated I can without the ability to pursue this type of academia for a living. I am an awesome chef tho. Don't rule out the regular dude when discussing your listeners. I'm sure we're a fringe bunch but we exist.

[anatolytsinker]

Thank god for real science on this channel again

[nickknowles]

Tx for having her, her channel is awesome btw, lot of really smart young academics on there

[charlesprabakar]

A Good introductory overview of QM!

While I agree with most of the explanations, however, when it comes to the idea of ruling out local realism ( aka local hidden variable theories) using bells inequality, here is my take

-- Unless and until we solve the so called measurement problem including the question of how classical reality emerges from quantum reality convincingly, we can not rule out local realism ( aka local hidden variable theories) using bells inequality theorem!

For example, one way our hidden variable theory answers this question is by modeling the whole reality (quantum reality without the backdrop of spacetime + classical reality with emergent spacetime) and by simultaneously solving the measurement problem using our CPT(α, Φ) function mechanism, where α is a quantum hidden variable, and Φ is classical hidden variable.

Turns out, this CPT(α, Φ) function mechanism is buried within the unsolved problems of Clay institute (including Riemann hypothesis) in the form of new math/physics via q-analog dualities of Langsland program covering 5+ disciplines of math!

And more specifically, it boils down to discovering the dynamic rescaling/renormalization scale of universe called CPT(α, Φ) function, as it rescales and renormalizes naturally for every ST coordinate without we manually doing it.

In other words, the fully formed quantum universe is the macro level initial condition and α is the boundary condition that limits its infinite boundary to a finite boundary -- all orchestrated by our CPT function.

In other words, the missing link here is our “CPT(α, Φ) function driven dynamic rescaling/renormalization mechanism” -- and it turns out, this dynamic rescaling mechanism is inbuilt within our CPT(α, Φ) function(aka Riemann hypothesis meta proof) including various sub disciplines of math via the 5+ unsolved problems of Clay institute and Langlands program.

Simply put


And if I may drive home this point using Feynman’s famous quote —> You might say the 'hand of God' wrote alpha (α), although 'we don't know how He pushed His pencil!”

Well, here is how God must have pushed/breathed into it (as if it is a balloon), before birthing our universe & humans using the holographic q-analog duality principle of our i-TOE’s CPT(α, Φ) function.


(Note -- When it comes to the underlying duality behind these spectrums, we have hypothesized that the whole 144 spectrums correspond to the tetrahedron S4xS3 group of order 144, with the following 6 sub groups (with an overlapping 8 representing the Gaussian integer lattice points shared among all groups)

1.1 Z/4Z×Z/5Z (with an order of 20 representing regular matter of standard model with 20 elementary particles (17+ 3 yet to be discovered as we had predicted in our Yang Mills mass gap proof). Not to mention, this co-primes Z/4Z×Z/5Z group is also the foundation of our 5th proof of Riemann hypothesis as explained above)

1.2 A4×A3 (with an order of 36 hypothesized to be representing a new spectrums or a manifestation of one of the other spectrums)

1.3 D4×D3(with an order of 48 hypothesized to be representing a new spectrums or a manifestation of one of the other spectrums)

1.4 Z/6Z×Z/4Z (with an order 24 hypothesized to be representing dark matter) spectrums

1.5 D6×Z/2Z (with an order of 24 hypothesized to be representing dark energy spectrums in alignment with Racah-Wigner coefficients and its W(D6) duality group representation where our S4xS3 group is a sub group))

1.6 S3×Z/4Z (with an order of 24 hypothesized to be representing a new spectrums or a manifestation of one of the other spectrums)

2. Then these needled-nibs start injecting the QVF fluid/ink/thread in the form of Higgs field wrapped ellipsoid lattice sliced particles using its “Φ governed eigen-valued 5AITGE origin formulas”, after breaking the symmetry, per α=r/R logic)

3. These injected ellipsoid particles then get integrated as elliptical orbits of planets & stars(per our Hodge C proof) in such a way that gauge gravity can emerge by them orbiting like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion.

4. The decoherence of frames & symmetry breaking/shifting phenomenon makes the threading process to advance into the next lattice

5. This threading process then ends up knotting the thread like the sewing machine (aka knot theory duality)

6. Sure enough, this decoherence & symmetry breaking/shifting phenomenon is what preserves the continuity of the threads with causality (thanks to the shared Hilbert space)

7. Similarly, our CPT(α, Φ) function is hypothesized to cause the asymptotic freedom/safety phenomenon to occur within the 137 spectrums

8. However interactions do occur among the particles of 7 valence orbital spectrums, up to the UV energy cut off limit of BBR graphs.

9. Likewise, the limits of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is hypothesized to be caused by our CPT(α, Φ) function limit as well.

10. The energy cutoffs assumed by Wilson's EFT & HHG processes is also hypothesized to be caused by our CPT(α, Φ) function limit as well.

This brings us to the visual simulation of these 10 decoherence steps, by mapping the rules of our 5th Riemann hypothesis proof (aka mod 4 rules of Gauss' quadratic reciprocity theorem, where 1 mod 4 ruled prime numbers can be factored uniquely using two gaussian integers, in such a way that the rings formed by it with a square root of its radius hitting 8 lattice points in the complex plane with 4 complex conjugates) to the rules of Conway's game of life.

For example, under this mapping, the 4 complex conjugated quadruples of the 8 latticed points of the each of the 137 rings (as per our 5th RH proof) collapse with their respective conjugate to birth the classical Hodge latticed particle, so that gauge gravity can emerge by them orbiting smoothly like the frames of Muybridge’s Horse in Motion!


-- Conway’s rule ”any live lattice with fewer than 2 neighbors dies” mapped to our i-TOE’s rule χ(1 mod 4) = 1.
(Note: Mathematically, this is equivalent to the complex conjugates of the Gaussian integer factors of the particle/anti particle pairs of quantum lattices collapsing to birth its classical equivalents)

-- Mapping Conway’s rule “any live lattice with 2 or 3 live neighbors lives” to our i-TOE’s rule χ(3 mod 4) =-1
-- Mapping Conway’s rule “any live lattice with more than 3 neighbors dies” to our i-TOE’s rule χ(2 mod 4) =0

Welcome complementary POVs

[wwkk]

Looking forward to part 2! hopefully, some more time will be given to superdeterminisitic interpretations!

[Achrononmaster]

@59:00 if you dig into Tsirelson bounds you should find a single common aspect, which is that it always comes down to a bipartite structure to reality. The principle of macroscopic locality is too loose and permits going above Tsirelson. Although computing the bound is extremely hard and seems to be a case-by-case thing (it might be generally undecideable) in all cases there is an approach that takes measurements as fundamentally have a tensor product structure. Just imho I take this as yet more evidence in favour of ER=EPR and spacetime realism, and that the non-traversable wormhole ER-bridges are _fundamental_ — not the mystical entanglement at some undefined spacetime boundary in FRLW. In other words, van Raamsdonck and Susskind have it completely backwards.

[Isaac-rlvm]

Everything is beautiful(including her)!

[Achrononmaster]

@20:00 I think it is confusing to confound HUP with entanglement in Bell-Aspect experiments. The measurement is local, so Alice's instrument does not disturb Bob's conjugate variable. This is why the entanglement correlation is valid. HUP does not enter the picture, it applies only to localized systems and a single particle. An entangled state or system is not a localized single particle. Particles can get self-entangled of course, as in a single particle Two Slit or Mach-Zehnder experiment, but that just tells you elementary particles possess their own ER-bridge, they are not Bell pairs in the interference experiments. Does anyone teach this at School, or should open a 'Teach QM Good' clinic?

[NotNecessarily-ipvc]

1. Information and Local Realism:

To prove that information is locally real, we need to define what we mean by "information" in this context. Let's consider a definition:

Definition: Information is a measure of the state of a system that can be transmitted and received within the constraints of special relativity.

Theorem: Information, as defined above, is locally real.

Proof:

a) Consider two spatially separated events, A and B.
b) Let I_A be the information content at A, and I_B be the information content at B.
c) By the principle of causality and special relativity, any change in I_B due to A cannot occur faster than the speed of light.
d) Therefore, information respects locality.
e) The state of the system carrying the information (e.g., particles, fields) has definite values before measurement, satisfying realism.
f) Thus, information, as we've defined it, is locally real.

2. Dimensionality and Entropy:

Hypothesis: 0D (dimensionless) entities are associated with perfect negentropy, while higher dimensions allow for the interplay of entropy and negentropy.

Mathematically:

In 0D: S = 0, N = maximum
In R^n, n > 0: S > 0, N < maximum

3. Proving 0D is Non-Natural:

Theorem: 0D entities are non-natural in the context of classical physics.

Proof:

a) Define "natural" as observable and measurable in classical physics.
b) Classical physics operates in 3D space + 1D time (4D spacetime).
c) 0D entities have no extension in space or time.
d) Therefore, 0D entities are not observable or measurable in classical physics.
e) Thus, 0D entities are non-natural in the classical physics framework.

4. Information in 0D vs. Higher Dimensions:

In 0D: I = constant (perfect information preservation)
In R^n, n > 0: dI/dt ≤ 0 (Second Law of Thermodynamics)

Where I represents information content.

[kwameowusu]

😂😂😂 as a noob to the quantum world there’s nothing gentle about this

[MrJPI]

One of your best interviews! Thanks
I got a funny idea watching this. Bells theorem proves that no local hidden variable theories work.
Ok, but what about, lets say More-hidden variable theory 🙂 Suppose for example that when a pair of entangled spin 1/2 particles is formed they don't have definite opposite spin values (this is true), but there is a random value that is somehow stored in the particles such that when the spins are measured that stored value is realized in the measurement. In this way the particles don't, at least most of the time, have specific spins at least not until the measurements. I need to add 😉 and :-) because this seems a bit amusing to me.

[Achrononmaster]

@11:00 that's a false framing which unfortunately will probably infect the whole seminar, we will see! It does not have to be the case that QM "does not apply to macroscopic systems" (since "collapse" blah, blah, blah). The reality imho is more likely that QM always applies everywhere, but only generally locally, and only over large spacelike separations (so non-locally) if there is persistent entanglement (which there can be, due the ER=EPR bridges, so non-locality is a thing in a Minkowski frame). But since entanglement is monogamous and between qubits (GHZ states a more special case, but still entanglement between elementary bits, i.e., elementary particles) the whole macroscopic system can only be in an _effective_ superposition by virtue of entanglement among it's bits (elementary particles).
So the whole Cat is never both alive and dead. But by some miracle of necromancy you might be a god and engineer a Cat that has it's elementary particles in just such a perfect entanglement configuration that one cannot tell if the Cat is alive or dead for a nanosecond, and can unitarily go back and forth between alive-ish and dead-ish. But hang around a sec and you'll see what fate befell our poor felix.
Barandes' framework makes it much clearer, superposition is not "literal" and disappears when there is a "division event". The PBR case does not tell us the wavefunction is real, it just tells us the entanglement is real and not merely epistemic. The wave function itself is still a fiction.
You see how having a false framing really messes up your account of "reality" and leads to brain worms.

[Achrononmaster]

@1:20:00 don't forget to ask next episode what happens to PBR when the wavefunction is a fiction? It is neither epistemic nor ontic. Jacbob Barandes... recall! Hilbert space ain't real.
"You never go full Everettian."

[GIBKEL]

Kudos for your hard work.
Hard to do but it’s an art to bring each one’s theorem to light. I like your guests but usually it’s by your art; preparation and questions that make it 3-D.
Relateable to this old Quantum brain.
Not sure that they won’t blow up the world though….by bomb, knife or bullet. AI is wicked. I’m ill, but I’m sure I’m too late for the promised beyond the consequences thereof. Glad to be here. Glad you’re here.

[adama]

A detail but time saving is the pronunciation of Z (zed) not almost as C which hampers a lot of otherwise advanced communication! Only an issue in the US but still affecting us in the UK and other countries when discussing science, often with poor sound.

[Thomas.Hacker]

The title is well chosen... How many videos do you think will be coming?❤❤❤

[ode_to_apathy]

I first started getting interested in all this physics stuff well over 20 years ago, and while i love the physics content, I feel i went from learning lots to kind of feeling like it's all complete tosh

[Thomas.Hacker]

The title alone is a hit! Does it say it all? I listen to it and give Gemini the link at the same time, what conclusion will we come to?

[adama]

Having a problem with Heisenberg´s uncertainty principle since no object can have an absolute position because a measurement process always takes time during which the object must move to a certain degree from a quantum perspective. It is like saying there is a camera taking pictures with shutterspeed zero!

As for superposition no object in classical or quantum worlds can have an exact 50/50 probability, this is a mathematical illusion. Just like using Pi for the area of a circle is just an approximation since Pi does not have a finite number of decimals! So nature forces you to either make the area slightly too large or too small depending on your last decimal but you never get it right.

[Henry]

@TheoriesofEverything Curt, in a future video on quantum paradoxes could you ask what happens if we have two entangled particles and we measure two non commuting observables, say spin and momentum. Can I not violate the uncertainty principle if I measure spin and momentum on the two separate particles, but at the same time (particles are close by)? Mathematically you can only put the operators before or after one another but in theory, even by chance, the measurements on the two particles could be simultaneous right?