Quantum computing explained with a deck of cards | Dario Gil, IBM Research

Quantum computing explained with a deck of cards | Dario Gil, IBM Research

We have a very exciting
last talk coming up. Dario Gil will take us
into a quantum world. Dario is the Vice President
of Science and Solutions at IBM research, where he
leads over 1,500 engineers that are researching in technologies
and physics, math, health care, life sciences and others. And while some of
you will think, a quantum world,
that’s too far out, I’m very sure Dario
will tell us otherwise. So come up here
on stage, please. Thank you. Thank you. I was joking with
Mark that we couldn’t pick an easier topic to end
the day, on quantum computing. But I’ll try to make it
entertaining, and hopefully easy to understand. I’m going to start
with a reference to this term of beautiful ideas. And it came from hosting
a filmmaker about a year and a half ago, in the
laboratory I just showed you. At the TGA Watson Research
Center in Yorktown Heights. And he was a filmmaker
that directed this documentary called
Particle Fever, that I don’t know if you’ve had
a chance to watch, but I highly recommend it. It’s about the team
that was pursuing the discovery of
the Higgs boson, in the largest physics
experiment ever conducted. And a major
character in the film is a professor from Stanford. And at the beginning
of the film, he said something that
really captivated me. He said, “The thing that
differentiates scientists is a purely artistic ability to
discern what is a good idea, what is a beautiful idea,
what is worth spending time on, and most importantly,
what is a problem that is sufficiently interesting,
yet sufficiently difficult, that it hasn’t yet been solved,
but the time for solving it has come now.” ” So I want to tell you about
this beautiful idea, whose time for solving it has come now. And that is the possibility
to create quantum computers. If you look at how
we have created the basis of the
information revolution, and you trace it back to
other beautiful ideas, like what Shannon
taught us, to think about the world of
information abstractly. If you look at an old
punch card and DNA, we’ve come to appreciate that
both carry something in common. They carry information. And Shannon told us
that this world of bits could be decoupled from its
physical implementation. That was really interesting. But in fundamental
ways, it went too far. Leaving too much physics out. So here is two scientists that
work at IBM Research, Charlie Bennett on the right, continues
to work in our laboratory, And is an IBM fellow. And they asked the
question, at the time, of is there a fundamental
limit to how efficient number crunching can
be, computing can be? And when they asked that
question as physicists, they ended up with a
very surprising answer. And they found the
answer to be no. It turns out, that
number crunching can be thermodynamically reversible. These led to an
exploration of, what is the relationship between
physics and information? And there was a
now-famous conference that was jointly organized
between IBM research and MIT at Endicott house,
where this topic was explored in more detail. And the plenary speaker was
none other than Richard Feynman. And Feynman proposed
in that conference, that if you wanted
to simulate nature, we should build a
quantum computer. And I’m gonna explain
you what that means, and how it’s created, and the
problems that it will solve. But first I’ve got to tell you,
what is a fundamental idea? The fundamental
idea, just like we have bits in the
classical world, that can be a zero or a one. In a quantum computer,
you have qubits, which stands for quantum bits. Now, the difference
is that there can be a zero, a one, or
both at the same time. That exploits a principle
of quantum physics called superposition. And it sounds weird and
crazy, but it’s true. Now to give you this unease that
you should feel when you talk about quantum information,
and quantum computing, I’m gonna give you a
very simple example. A thought experiment that
also happens to be true. So let’s imagine that we’re
going to solve this problem. The problem involves,
you have four cards, three are identical, one is
different, one is a queen. We shuffle the cards, and
we put them face down. And the problem we’re
going to solve together, is find the queen. We’re going to be
assisted by two computers. One is a classical computer,
one is a quantum computer. So what we do, is
we turn them down, and we load them into memory. So we use four memory slots. The cards are
identical, we put zeros. The one that has a
queen, we put a one. So in our four slots, we
will have three zeros, and one is a one. We load them on
the two computers. Now we has to write a program
to find the queen, find the one. How would it be
done classically? You would go and
pick a random number, you don’t know where it is. You go look under that memory
slot, see if it’s a one, if not, you go to the next
slot, and so on, and so on. On average, it would take you
the equivalent of 2 and 1/2 turns to find it. It turns out, that with
a two-qubit quantum computer for this
problem, you can always solve it in one shot. So that uneasy feeling
that you have now, should be an explanation that
quantum computer is not just about building a
faster computer. It is building something
that is fundamentally different than a
classical computer. Now, a way to think about
it, an abstraction of it, is that a quantum
computer is always going to have a classical
computer next to it. They have to go together. So you have a classical
set of bits, right? The problem that you’re
trying to explore. And what that quantum computer’s
gonna allow you to do, is to explore these
exponential number of states. These 2 to the n, where n is a
number of qubits that you have. So now, we have relatively
small quantum computers, with few qubits. But just think of the
number, that by the time you have 50 qubits, you
have 2 to the 50 states. That’s a phenomenally
large number. But in the end, after you
explore these number of states, you go back to a
classical output. A string of zeros and
ones, that you interpret with a normal computer. So why is this interesting? And I think in this
audience, I don’t need to explain in
great detail, you know, what exponentials mean,
and why 2 to the 50 is a very large number. But it’s still, I think
it’s an interesting way to communicate
the power of this, and I like to map
it to some problems. But I like to go after
this apocryphal story that actually, IBM
used in the 1960s to explain to people the
power of exponentials. And it had to do
with the person who invented chess, that goes
to the emperor, and says, well here’s his wonderful game. And asks, what do
you want in return? And the person who
invented it says, give me a grain of
rice on the first day, for the first square,
and the second day you give me twice as much. And on the third square, third
day, you give me twice as much as the day before. And the emperor agrees
promptly that that seems quite reasonable. And after a week you
only have 127 grains. After a month,
you have more rice then you’ll eat in your
lifetime, for sure. But just by the time you get
to the end of the chessboard, you have more rice
than Mount Everest. So there are a large
number of problems in the world that have this
characteristic, that they blow up exponentially. And a dirty secret in
the world of computing is that we obviously talk
a lot about all the things that computers can solve, and
can solve a lot of things. But then, there’s
a lot of things that computers can not solve. And very interestingly, they
cannot solve it now, nor ever. And the reason is because they
have this exponential built into them. So take as an example, this
fairly simple equation. Factoring. So if I have a number,
M, that is made out of the multiplication of
two large prime numbers. And I only give you M, and
I ask you find me p and q. It turns out, that that
is phenomenally difficult to solve. There’s no other way but to
divide it sort of sequentially, by prime numbers. So in fact, it’s
so difficult, we use it as the basis
of all encryption. But, if you had a very large
universal fault-tolerant quantum computer, which
is many, many years away, you could solve that
problem in seconds, what would take billions of
years in a classical computer. That tells you something
about the power of what is going to be possible. Take chemistry, as a problem. Because it also has
this characteristic, that it blows up exponentially,
if you try to calculate it. This equation that you see
here is very interesting, because it’s predicted
to occur at the ocean floor near volcanic
sites, and famously has been hypothesized to be the
basis of the formation of life on Earth. But if you take a molecule
like iron sulfide, and you try to do relatively
simple calculations with a normal
machine, it turns out, that we’re not very accurate. And the reason is
that molecules form when electron orbitals
overlap, and the calculation of each orbital requires a
quantum mechanical calculation. So for that simple
molecule, you have on the order of 76 orbitals,
and two to the power of 76, is intractable with a classical
computer, so we can not solve it. Again, on this theme of our
assumptions that computers solve everything,
but they don’t. If you look at calculating
for example, the bond length of a simple molecule
like calcium monoflouride, we still get it off
by a factor of two, even using the largest
supercomputers in the world. To me, this has been
very interesting, this recognition of all these
problems we cannot solve. It’s also true in
optimization problems, that are the basis of
logistics and routing, and you know,
portfolio optimisation. There’s tons and tons of
problems in which at best we do approximations, but
we’re far from optimal, because a number of
possibilities is enormous. So if there’s one message I
want to be able to come across, it’s that we have these
easy problems, which is the world where
classical computers fit, and the problem it’s solved. But then there these other
hard problems, that go outside. And if you don’t
believe that p equals np, which I would say the
majority of mathematicians don’t believe that that is the
case, that those problems are hard for a reason, the only
avenue to go and tackle that, aside from approximations,
will be to the creation of quantum computers. So where are we? We believe that small
practical quantum computers are going
to be possible, and we’re building them now. It requires reinventing
the whole stack. The device is different. It’s not the
traditional transistors. As an example,
this is the device we use for that
quantum computers that we create at IBM, based
on superconducting Josephson junctions. And you’re seeing an example
of one of these device, is superconducting device. And because it’s
superconducting, you have to cool it. So this is what a small
quantum computer looks like. What you’re seeing
here is something called a dilution refrigerator. And this quantum processor
sits at the bottom of this refrigerator,
at the nice temperature of 15 millikelvin. So that is colder
than outer space, where we have to put this
quantum processor in. This is what, for example,
a 16-qubit quantum processor looks like. And you know, inside,
you see the square where the qubits are, and you
see these squiggly lines, which is these coupling
resonators that allow you to send information
uncoupled to the qubits, To send the information. This is what the
wiring looks like, into the refrigerator going
into a quantum processor. There’s these coaxial
cables, because the way you send information
to a quantum processor, is through a series of
microwave pulses, that go in, and then you’re
able to take it out. Now, if you look at pictures
of what computers were like, right, in the ’40s
and the ’50s, it’s kind of like where
we are today, right? That’s what, you know,
quantum computer, that’s the signal processing
required to actually send all those signals down
the coaxial cables, it looks like that. But we’ve also seen
this movie before, in the sense that we know
how much progress we have made from those early system. And while we don’t anticipate
that quantum computers will be on your phone, because they
require cryogenic cooling, we definitely
believe that access to quantum computers
in the cloud will be something that people
will be able to leverage, behind the scenes,
even not knowing. Because we believe that,
we created a small quantum computer last year, and we
made it available to the world. In something called the
IBM Quantum Experience. And all of you can go and log
in and have access to this. It’s available for free. It’s a 5-qubit machine. And since we launched it,
we have over 36,000 users from over 100 countries
that have been doing it. And 15 scientific
publications have gone on it, and people are learning how
to program, and to learn about this new world, and
what is being created. And you can actually
run things on this. So I was telling you about
these chemistry problems. So this is an example of
the expected theoretical calculation, and the actual
calculation, on a small quantum machine, of hydrogen.
So we’re starting to solve small problems. And what is coming in the years
ahead, in the next few years, will be machines that
no classical computer will be able to emulate. Because by the time you
have order of 50 qubits, think about that, that’s
2 to the 50 states. And no classical machine
will be able to emulate what that can do. And that is new territory. And that’s the territory
we’re all going to enter. And now is the most
interesting part, because it’ll be the path of
discovery of what we can do, and what value we can
create, on problems we couldn’t solve before. So I’ll close with
Feynman, who proposed this original idea of creating
these quantum machines. In his inimitable
style, he said, “Nature isn’t classical,
dammit, and if you want to make a
simulation of nature, you better make it
quantum mechanical, and by golly, it is a
wonderful problem, because it doesn’t look so easy.” Thank you.

Comments (100)

  1. I'm not sure (quantum uncertainty) this guy knew what was he talking about. He didn't seem comfortable with the slides, skip any real explanation, went for the chess story and basically avoided explaining at all! What a joke.

  2. Can I use it for bitcoin-mining?

  3. He did go over the most important slide, but it was probably an accident. Surely if he wasn't happy with it, he wouldn't have included it in the first place.

  4. Marketing at its best… over 100 Countries..

  5. 1:30 give me a fucking break! There are so many scientists that spent their entire life studying things that look totally banal and stupid to almost everyone but their work form an important basis for something totally different later on. Science does not have to be interesting or beautiful and most importantly it doesn't have to be solving a problem. One might just want to be understanding something and documenting everything. I've already watched this stupid video a year ago and disliked it. So why the hell YouTube/Google still trying to show this to me!?? WTF!!!

  6. A useless non-explanation. But, there is enough traction here to guess that maybe IBM and others do understand it and the upside really does seem to be astonishing. NOW…Will someone PLEASE explain how the hell it works?

  7. This is stupid. Nothing explained. Don't waste your time.

  8. No, it's not explained here. This video is full of generalities. Maybe it's OK for your average click-baity article. But not for anyone who understands how classical computers work. For instance, how would a logical OR or AND gate work with those Q-Bits? Also how would you convert classical bits into Q-Bits? And then what? How would you make them compute or produce any result? It seems like no video can explain it that I can understand.

  9. I mean yes, if I load the bits, and use a normal algorithms, it also takes one shot to read a two bit coordinates of the queen. Where is the quantum advantage? I don’t think those examples are good. There is another video on the card 1 shot queen quantum spotting. And again, two qbits are put in the blur state, 1 first filter (let’s give it a quantum feeling) entangles the two qbits to hide the queen on the last position, then another complex filter is applied, then the two qbits are measured and collapse on 11 queen on the last position. So no gain against simple algorithme, more filters, same bites to read….. not a good example at all. They should emphasize the fact that having entanglement in complex system, once collapsed, can solve for multiple states at once, but I am still looking for a good example. If someone has one?

  10. why not use a deck of cards instead ?

  11. CLICKBAIT !!!! There is ONE example of a quantum computer picking a card, one of four, compared to a classical computer. That's it. The rest of the video is an explanation of the CAPABILITIES of quantum computing.. ZERO explanation of the process itself.

  12. *HoverBoards outta here*: Dab!

  13. He gets right up to the point of almost addressing the title (explaining quantum computing) about the 6:15 mark when he notes that it could find the queen in 1 step. Then at 6:27 you see him skip past a slide with graphics on it and also skip the explanation as to WHY it can do it in one step. That one slide he skipped past would have been all we needed to see to give the answer the title of this video claims it gives.


  15. Totally mistaken title. There's a quick reference to it in the video but it is not explained.

  16. A lot of talk with no substance. As they used to say in the old TV ads, "Where's the beef?!" His card example explained noting, except to tell us how fast quantum computing is. If you haven't watched this video yet, save 17 minutes of your life and find something more educational, I wish I had!

    As for the quantum computer they offer, it doesn't work. I tried the circuit and it shows the job running, but never finishes. Another 5 minutes of my life I will never get back.

  17. Things I learned from this video is that the use of Qubit(Quntum Bits) allows supercomputers to simulate more states(0,1,both) than classical computer(0,1). Thereby quantum computer can solve problem with exponential complexity (On^m) in less time than classical computers.

    To do so quantum computer make use of Josephson effect in Superconductors which requires temperature cooler than outer space. Use of superconductors in quantum computer makes them impractical to use as personal computer. However we can use clouds to crunch numbers in one of this quantum computer.

  18. By the time the video got started, I thought to myself: "how long it will take until he mentions an Ashkenazi?"

    It took 4 minutes.

  19. Maybe the explanation only collapses in to reality when we viewers are not looking at the screen,
    or something like that.

  20. WATSON, on a scale of one to ten how incomprehensible is this video?

  21. Really interesting talk. But the title is misleading and click baity,

  22. I don't get it, but qubits are curious. They are both 1 and 0 . Are they more 1 than 0 at a particular time?

  23. Please, please, please keep the fucking Chinese from stealing this technology.

  24. What a rambling talk full of non sequesters and incomplete explanations. He may know what he’s talking about but he explains nothing about how quantum computing works and the deck of cards is NEVER explained. The relevant slide appears in the background but is never looked at.

    Don’t waste your time on this pointless ramble.

  25. What a rip,, nothing here!

  26. Quantum headache, just like Black Holes. Let's get back to reality and try to solve constipation.

  27. Came for an explanation of how it works, left disappointed.

  28. Can you access information from a parallel universe on a quantum computer

  29. Come up with something that sounds amazing, act like its possible, say it is already here or coming in a near future and keep pushing its amazing properties without proof or recorded facts of any kind, tell the audience a story so they forget to wait for the proof, pretend you have a theory that is proof enough, tell everyone to give you money and subscribe and buy your stuff, then tell them how amazing your product is, when its here.. which is tomorrow.

  30. No. No explanation. The more I see videos on "How quantum computing works" the more I think QC is a fake idea for stupid investors. To explain QC you must start from explaining Shor algorithm.

  31. It seems IBM doesn't understand Q Computing yet, search for D'wave guys.

  32. Thank you IBM for pionnering into the Quantum computing

  33. 16 qubits? D-wave is already making 1000 qubit computers, in production.

  34. What the heck…there was a slide that was on-screen for a FRACTION of a second that seems to have had the explanation of how the quantum computer could solve the card problem – it's at 6:28 in the video. You can see the right side of the slide shows how some sort of entanglement does it. But he doesn't mention it – we get a complete non-sequitur in the talk – and the entire talk boils down to: "Quantum computers are great" – and ZERO explanation. Even the text description of the talks says that he explains how the quantum computer solves problems using a deck of cards…and he doesn't. This is a totally useless talk. What happened? Was there a problem in the video? Did he have chop the key bit out to save time? WTF???

  35. What a con artist. Millions of dollars for research will be taken from gullible investors . With nothing to show for it.

  36. Every one here sees that he didn't answer the one burning question that brought everyone here. How does it work what is the logic?
    His answer: you always ate bread and egg. Now you eat just bread and you can think it's bread or its eggs. 2 is not 1 idiot.

  37. i loved the part where he said @9:04 harsh truth

  38. But does it play video games tho

  39. Makes claims; explains nothing.

  40. Yeah, but will it play Crysis?

  41. Dario Gil, you are the worst lecturer on the planet. You don't deserve your job. know your limits and delegate this job to someone worthy. I mean, you really really stink. You made me feel disturbed and killed the wonder kick I was on watching physics videos on YouTube. i mean you are so awful that I quit watching videos on this topic because you KILLED the delight. I mean, you are really really really awful to destroy the wonder and fun of science in my soul. You are evil. Walk away from lecturing. Just…walk…away.

  42. wow, its so unreal ,
    Quantum , Quantum

  43. What about a Qbert? 🙂

  44. The idea that manipulating an exponential number of states to any degree of precision is kind of impossible might be correct.
    This guy just gives it that snake oil look.

  45. Not a deck of cards. Four cards used. Quantum explanation: quantum computer can find the Queen in 1 try. Now I understand quantum computing so I'll be applying for a job as a research scientist at MIT tomorrow.

  46. Most of the critic here is correct, he does not explain simple concepts and instead paints such wide strokes that no one, unless you are already familiar with quantum mechanics, can understand.

    In fact, in the quantum world a particle can exist as both positive and negative and it's not until you observe it that you can know which is it. There is also quantum tunnelling whereas a particle can instantaneously, faster than the speed of light, move through a solid object and instainously appear on the other side. There is also quantum entanglement where particles are linked so that if one is flipped from positive to negative, the linked particle, even if a light year away, will instantaneously flip from positive to negative. Yes, the information would travel and flip the entangled particle faster than the speed of light.

    He does not explain these facts. Additionally, he skips over explaining how a quantum computer would beat you every time in the card game. It was part of his lecture, you can see the slide at 6:28 but instead of explaining how this would work, he simply skips over it. Additionally yet again, he doesn't get into the math of encryption MPQ and only gently glances over it. There was more than enough time in this video to do all of this… just cut out the blah blah blah and intro and just get to the math and quantum mechanics, not a full blown doctoral thesis, but at the very least a simplified explanation.

    Tyson, Segan, Hawkin, Kaku and many others can explain these complex theories in a simply way. I guess as the old saying goes, if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough.

  47. As everyone's pointing out, he doesn't explain quantum computing using a deck of cards, not by a long shot. That's just unfortunate clickbaiting in the title, but I found the video interesting anyway, mainly because it talks about a few things that we can't do with classical computers.
    Anyway, one thing I wanted to point out is that he says he doesn't believe we'll have quantum computing on our phones because they require cryogenic cooling, but that may not remain true if we discover room-temperature superconducting. That would be very exciting.

  48. I can not fault the speaker, it was a decent introductory talk on quantum computing, but that damn title is straight up click-bait.

  49. Synergetics and Bucky Fuller.

  50. People Watch 'OBLIVION' OR 'TRANSCENDENCE' and run the 'F' away …………do you hear me don't accept this!.. Run, Run, resist! DO YOU HEAR ME!

  51. I thought Peter Sellers was dead?

  52. Quantum computing is not explained, it is, at best, illustrated. Big difference.

  53. Nowadays we have (I mean they have) 2000 Q-bit computers. What can they do ? Still not enough to break crypto ?

  54. FFS I am 2:30 in and no sign of any explanation yet… Oh FFS, he explained nothing by the end of it. WTF how come all these quantum computing researchers just state the things computers could do and never explain, idiot lecturer

  55. M = p * q

    "We use it as the basis of all encryption"


  56. Yep, I made the same mistake watched the video first.

    Here's a video from Linus tech tips that explains it in a more simple way.

  57. I think its gonna end up being Fusion Technology that solves the Quantum problem.

  58. There was not a "Deck of Cards' LITERAL explanation… it was a reference to the term "deck of cards'. Quantum Mechanics cannot be explained with an actual DECK OF CARDS.

  59. Not bothering to watch this based on the comments, as I've watched other "Quantum computing explained" videos with the same result

  60. They. Don’t want us to know what they are accomplishing or not accomplishing

  61. This was actually a great video, but very unfortunately titled. If you have some semiconductor knowledge, this is a good introduction to the idea of quantum computing – because you can then understand exactly the implications of his words. Not for the general audience though.

  62. He couldn't bloody well explain it..

  63. I could tell right off that this was BS.

  64. Correct title: Classical computing explained with a deck of cards.

  65. Won't it be funny when in 20 years we no longer hear about Quantum Computers and we look into it and see articles about how this was all a scam to milk massive corps and govts of money.

  66. Peter Sellers lives!

  67. You must be slow if you didn't catch this SIMPLE explanation..

  68. I can explain quite straightforward what quantum computing is: my wife when does the monthly bills is at the same time happy and angry.

  69. i understood it
    But i didn't understand it

  70. He doesn't explain how quantum computers flips the cards or counts them. He just says " in one shot" … Horrible explanation 🤦🏽‍♂

  71. One can't explain quantum objects with classical objects. It just doesn't work that way.

  72. There is no such thing as quantum computing. It does not exist.

  73. What a waste of time. Completely disrespectful

  74. Too bad IBM Q makes you surrender your PII in order to "experience" quantum computing. WTF?

  75. At 12:04 he said "If you don't believe that P = MP……" instead of "M = PQ"

  76. I didn’t know rice grew on Mount Everest.

  77. We should let the Quantum Computer itself find the best way to explain how Quantum Computing works, by analyzing every possible explanation in the entire universe and give us the optimal answer 🙂
    This might still take a year or two with 1000000 qubits or so.
    OR, it might be that it is IMPOSSIBLE to use a Quantum Computer, who knows?

  78. Well that was disappointing. How does a quantum computer solve the card puzzle in one move? Does Gil even know? If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it.

  79. i have more rice than mount everest right now

  80. Great a bunch of plebs whining about the brain bleed that is truely understanding quantum computing. You think this is bad try string theory in fine detail.

  81. What I learned is that Quantum computing is very weird, and that it can solve some stuff, but also cannot solve some other stuff..

  82. For anyone looking for better explanations…

    Anyone else want to reply with other links to solid educational talks?

  83. 👨‍💻Everytime i listen i hear 10% of what's been said the rest is driftwood Quantum computers 😳 as a lot us havent a clue let alone get our heads around how a transistor can make a computer work seems alien to us all DO YOU KNOW HOW SMALL THESE TRANSISTORS ARE ? HAVE A LOOK -The dia of a human hair has something like 30,000 Transistor or 300k ? that are made by photo atom printing
    WTF DUDE 😳🤷‍♂️Sometimes you dont need to understand everything but stand back & watch it work is enough 🙂 new batterie new computing power electric cars the world is finally fixing the Pollution problems of the last century
    Engineers scientist all striving & putting there finding on the net for all to see 7 use to build a better world ELON MUSK is on that goal he built a Battery power station in my state sa oz straya 👍🐨🦘& we havent had a Black out since built 2018
    No thanks to out govt who rather THROW Billions 30b 60b ? into some submarines that France are going to build & by the time 1st is built 2035 ? itll be OLD & USELESS WTF And there not using new Battery Tech so useless chit – who needs fooking 10 subs in australia to defend from who? 🤷‍♂️😳👍🦘🐨🚀blaah govts Liberals r wankers took our jobs in the ship builders union 3,000 out work sent to a foreinge country and get on TV & say we CREATE JOBS LIERS FOOKING TOTAL BULLCHITTERS

  84. 11:25 – If the computer can't calculate the bond length how did they get the answer in the first place?

  85. quantum computing is fraud

  86. The comments here are very funny, they are upset because they did not get a comprehensive explanation of quantum computers in a 16 minute video? Who needs years of education and research? Short you tube videos tell me all I ever need to know. I actually have three PhD's all from You Tube University, my doctoral dissertation's can be found in the comment sections. 🙂

  87. That's a really great projection screen. What coating did you use? And what kind of projector?

  88. Where was the deck of cards?

  89. STILL doesn't make sense and is not understandable.

    "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

    I think people that THINK they know what quantum computing is and what it can do and can be used for have quantum entangled brains. (but please do give them more money for research — they will have the problem solved any day now)

    Although, EVERYONE KNOWS that you only need 42 qubits to solve any and all problems of the world so that you know the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.


  90. This guy looks like that one prankster dude from collegehumor

  91. It says 999 comments..i had to do this to be 1000

  92. See my excellent video: Quantum computing explained by taking a shit.

  93. Not only did he not explain it… He explained an idea I had back when I was 16, some 39 years ago… Basically he said there are 3 answers Yes, No and Maybe… I have come to figure out that there is more than that. Yes, No, Maybe yes, maybe no, and just down the line maybe. It will depend on your resolution of using maybe….

  94. I knew most of this already. Where's the explanation of how a quantum computer only requires one try to find the queen?

  95. This lecturer did NOT explain quantum computing but instead described it's potential. That's fine but the title is very misleading.

  96. In fact, he explained nothing. Again, another video on quantum computing full of rubbish talk. At least explain why it is faster than a classical computer without showing the degrees of complexities. Don't waste your time listening to this video.

Comment here