Man, those folks walking by at the back of the lecture sure missed out on what may be best lecture on trapped ion computing for the layperson. 😅 Wonderful explanation! 👏👏
I don't mean to be judgmental, but Diana really did a fantastic job in explaining something that's very complicated in the most accessible way. Science needs more excellent communicators like her! As Feynman said, "If you cannot explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it.".
you saved my live! I've been looking for a good explanation for days because I have to make a presentation for school and now I finally found someone who explains it that I am able to understand it
Haha I'm here for the same reason! I guess it's that of the year again when students are looking for ion trap videos on youtube for their presentations.
Yes. Likewise we are able to compute at may levels...a clear focused observational mind reveals alot. The cosmic forces that people study, be it in science physically intellectually or even spiritually , are reflections of us and the more u observe the more u tap in to wisdom of what you are studying
Good one. thank you. just thinking out loud, so if you trap two ions in a single trap, those are entangled? Can we entangle more ions with multiple traps?
Great presentation. Query: with so many advantages for trapped ions, why are big companies (e.g. Google, IBM, etc.) *still* opting for superconducting quantum computers?
Quantum computing can feel a bit theoretical. Don't even get me started on complex numbers. But this shows you the physical reality behind it. Great Explanation!
ok, but there was no mention of entanglement here so we have to suspect this is just really computing that can exploit the (essentially classical) oscillation properties of captive quantum particles.
Excellent presentation on very interesting Physics! The core concept of "Quantum State Superposition" is generally VERY glossed over and unclear how it actually works. It assumes that this mysterious "state superposition" will somehow "calculate" all possibilities or be *TWO DIFFERENT THINGS* at the same time. After researching Quantum Mechanics to find an answer to the question, I see that Quantum Computers based on "Quantum State Superposition" concept will never work, because it is not REAL. Here is the path of research... Einstein's Photon Energy is *E=hf* ... Anyone can see that the Frequency (Hz) term in that equation requires 1 second of time to elapse in order to get Energy of a Photon, i.e. multiply "h" by a certain amount of wavelengths (or wave periods or cycles) over *1 second of time.* Einstein's Photon must be 300,000,000 meters long, if velocity is speed of light. That's crazy. Einstein's Photoelectric Effect explanation cannot be correct, because the E=hf equation requires 1 second in time and 300,000,000 meters of space to elapse, BUT the Photoelectric Effect starts IMMEDIATELY (with the appropriately prepared metallic surface and correct light waves reaching the surface of the metal.) The Einstein paradox of wave-particle duality of light is NOT explained by the Photoelectric Effect. De Broglie's Electron as a wave (instead of a particle) brought about Schrodinger's Equation. Schrodinger's *WAVE* equation had NOTHING to do with particles (read his 1926 paper). Waves are naturally in a superposition of interference (constructive-additive, deconstructive-subtractive), which is what Schrodinger's equation is doing (i.e. waving, based on Lorentz Electrodynamic concepts -- not Einstein). Particles of matter do not interfere like waves...particles collide with each other. Schrodinger's *WAVE* Equation was getting VERY good answers for the Hydrogen Atom, like spectral line frequencies, intensities, and Stark Effect polarization (without ANY need to invoke a probability or statistical explanation). Quantum Mechanics tried to save the "particle nature" of their own theory after Schrodinger built his WAVE equation. So, Max Born and crew had to save their discontinuous, particle physics theory by promoting an incorrect and unnatural interpretation of Schrodinger's equation, i.e. probability density that describes something about a "particle." Bohr's atomic "Quantum States" concept goes away with the *WAVES* of Schrodinger's WAVE equation (I mean the non-probablistic, original Schrodinger design). *Quantum State Superposition* of a "particle" can only be a integrated into a continuous *WAVE* equation by conceptually getting rid of continuous WAVING and replace it with the _out-of-the-blue_ "probability" density interpretation for a point particle. This seems very forced and not natural. If someone can figure out how to create analog computers by using wave interference patterns, then cool -- that is what these RF based, resonant LC circuit, superconducting loops/trapped IONS are doing. But, they won't be utilizing a mysterious "state of all possibilities" and mysterious *"entangled states"* (entanglement depends on Quantum State Superposition to actually exist). Right now, the "superposition state" of the Qubit is just a simulated, tertiary state, which is more of a Trinary (or ternary) computing device, instead of the normal Binary computer. The "noise" and "decoherence" problems are just the inability to keep this 3rd state steady (the simulated Quantum State Superposition) using these classical, analog Qubits. Building complex error correcting systems on top of these Qubits is just way of trying to simulate the flawed concept of *Quantum State Superposition,* which is _supposed_ to be a "natural state" of the Quantum realm based on probability interpretations.
Hi, you mentioned the following: "Einstein's Photon Energy is E=hf ... Anyone can see that the Frequency (Hz) term in that equation requires 1 second of time to elapse in order to get Energy of a Photon". Could you explain further *why* that equation "requires 1 second of time to elapse" in order to get the energy of a Photon? I checked for the definition or general meaning of frequency and Wikipedia states "Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time.". When searching for the *frequency of a photon* I encounter the following: "The frequency of a photon is defined as how many wavelengths a photon propagates each second." So if a photon would have a frequency of 5 MHz, it means that in one second it propagates 5 Million wavelengths. How does all of this imply that the equation E = hf requires 1 second of time to elapse in order to get the energy of a photon? The fact that frequency is measured in seconds is a convention and does not implies anything about the time that some equation *requires*, as far as I am concerned. E = hf satisfies the dimension of energy "M * L^2 * T^-2" (Mass, Distance^2, Time^-2). If you have some insights, feel free to share them.
@@Airaldi ** Yes, I have a video on my channel for beginners that walks you through it. ** This is correct, but realize that the UNIT is in Hertz (electromagnetic waves (or cycles) per second). PER SECOND is the physical unit of the frequency term that is 1/t ... t = 1 second with Hertz. ** Yes, wave length or ELECTROMAGNETIC wave length PER SECOND. ** How long does it take to get 5 million wavelengths (or EM cycles) to occur? If you are going to plug in 5 million into the e=hf equation, what is the time to produce that 5 million? Instant? or One second? ** This is where you are incorrect. If you want to dig deeper into the history of e=hf and how it was derived, you can watch the video. ** Yes, the video explains the unit analysis problem and opens a major concern for unit based physics math and the OSCILLATING / ROTATING realm.
@@itsbs I would be interested in watch that video, could you point out exactly which video it is? I am intrigued by your position about the "unit analysis problem".
Man, those folks walking by at the back of the lecture sure missed out on what may be best lecture on trapped ion computing for the layperson. 😅 Wonderful explanation! 👏👏
Diana's presentation was Downright Phenomenal!! I wish I had a golden buzzer to press right now lol.
I don't mean to be judgmental, but Diana really did a fantastic job in explaining something that's very complicated in the most accessible way. Science needs more excellent communicators like her! As Feynman said, "If you cannot explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it.".
Greatest video I have ever watched... Thank you!
Thank you thank you thank you.
It's super clear explanation, no junk.
I watched this to get an understanding of how the linear ion trap works in mass spec... thank you so much very clear and skilled presentation
you saved my live! I've been looking for a good explanation for days because I have to make a presentation for school and now I finally found someone who explains it that I am able to understand it
Haha I'm here for the same reason! I guess it's that of the year again when students are looking for ion trap videos on youtube for their presentations.
Diana has a very linear and well detailed explanation that is easy for everyone to understand, congratulations, great video.
Finally someone actually explaining how a quantum computer works instead of just telling the fundamental concepts of q bits
I am really amazed the details she presented and mesmerising explanation. Thank you so much.
One of the greatest presentations ever! My passion is reinvigorated!
Really fantastic.. Clear cut explanation. Thank you.
Very intuitive explanation. Thank you!
This is awesome. 30 mins well spent.
Yes. Likewise we are able to compute at may levels...a clear focused observational mind reveals alot. The cosmic forces that people study, be it in science physically intellectually or even spiritually , are reflections of us and the more u observe the more u tap in to wisdom of what you are studying
Very well done. Wish she mentioned how the ions are entangled.
Amazing talk, the best I have watched on ‘quantum computing’. Great work 👍🏻👍🏻
The best video on TH-cam!
Excellent video and explanation! Wow.
Great and well explanation, thanks a lot
Very nicely explained, Thank you
Excellent articulation and narration
Good one. thank you. just thinking out loud, so if you trap two ions in a single trap, those are entangled? Can we entangle more ions with multiple traps?
"If you cannot explain it to the 5 year old, you didn't understand it enough." - Albert Einstein
AND she ingrained it in her veins.
Great presentation. Query: with so many advantages for trapped ions, why are big companies (e.g. Google, IBM, etc.) *still* opting for superconducting quantum computers?
But there was no mention of quantum entanglement how can we relate???
Super well explained thanks Diana!
Brilliant explanation!
Quantum computing can feel a bit theoretical. Don't even get me started on complex numbers. But this shows you the physical reality behind it. Great Explanation!
Wow. Never thought this was possible.
Very clear explanation thanks for uploading this
Beautifully explained!
Excellent talk, thank you!!
i wish i were one of those audiences there
real fantastic explanation
Very well explanation 😎
great speech
excellent explanation...
Nice explanation, please share to all
Amazing!!!!
how do you know theres only one atom there? i dont think that was explained properly, but what do you expect for quantum.
ok, but there was no mention of entanglement here so we have to suspect this is just really computing that can exploit the (essentially classical) oscillation properties of captive quantum particles.
amazing
The applaud in the end should have been 10 times louder!
how come 2 to the 80 power is bigger than the total number of atoms in the observable universe, I guess you meant 10 to the 80 power.
The first public traded company for ion trapping quantum computer ticker symbol IonQ. Invest in this stock is like investing in Tesla in 2011.
Well explanation
One day all the world's information will be on one particle beam, controlled by diamonds.
"...like factoring very large prime numbers" 🤗
Now I understand how to make the Quantum Gate. You need the Gate to build computers.
Basic inertia trapping beings.......💔within REST of CREST wave. Relative. Reflexive.
Two viewers voted down believing atoms should remain free
Excellent presentation on very interesting Physics!
The core concept of "Quantum State Superposition" is generally VERY glossed over and unclear how it actually works. It assumes that this mysterious "state superposition" will somehow "calculate" all possibilities or be *TWO DIFFERENT THINGS* at the same time.
After researching Quantum Mechanics to find an answer to the question, I see that Quantum Computers based on "Quantum State Superposition" concept will never work, because it is not REAL. Here is the path of research...
Einstein's Photon Energy is *E=hf* ... Anyone can see that the Frequency (Hz) term in that equation requires 1 second of time to elapse in order to get Energy of a Photon, i.e. multiply "h" by a certain amount of wavelengths (or wave periods or cycles) over *1 second of time.* Einstein's Photon must be 300,000,000 meters long, if velocity is speed of light.
That's crazy.
Einstein's Photoelectric Effect explanation cannot be correct, because the E=hf equation requires 1 second in time and 300,000,000 meters of space to elapse, BUT the Photoelectric Effect starts IMMEDIATELY (with the appropriately prepared metallic surface and correct light waves reaching the surface of the metal.) The Einstein paradox of wave-particle duality of light is NOT explained by the Photoelectric Effect.
De Broglie's Electron as a wave (instead of a particle) brought about Schrodinger's Equation.
Schrodinger's *WAVE* equation had NOTHING to do with particles (read his 1926 paper). Waves are naturally in a superposition of interference (constructive-additive, deconstructive-subtractive), which is what Schrodinger's equation is doing (i.e. waving, based on Lorentz Electrodynamic concepts -- not Einstein). Particles of matter do not interfere like waves...particles collide with each other.
Schrodinger's *WAVE* Equation was getting VERY good answers for the Hydrogen Atom, like spectral line frequencies, intensities, and Stark Effect polarization (without ANY need to invoke a probability or statistical explanation).
Quantum Mechanics tried to save the "particle nature" of their own theory after Schrodinger built his WAVE equation. So, Max Born and crew had to save their discontinuous, particle physics theory by promoting an incorrect and unnatural interpretation of Schrodinger's equation, i.e. probability density that describes something about a "particle."
Bohr's atomic "Quantum States" concept goes away with the *WAVES* of Schrodinger's WAVE equation (I mean the non-probablistic, original Schrodinger design). *Quantum State Superposition* of a "particle" can only be a integrated into a continuous *WAVE* equation by conceptually getting rid of continuous WAVING and replace it with the _out-of-the-blue_ "probability" density interpretation for a point particle. This seems very forced and not natural.
If someone can figure out how to create analog computers by using wave interference patterns, then cool -- that is what these RF based, resonant LC circuit, superconducting loops/trapped IONS are doing. But, they won't be utilizing a mysterious "state of all possibilities" and mysterious *"entangled states"* (entanglement depends on Quantum State Superposition to actually exist). Right now, the "superposition state" of the Qubit is just a simulated, tertiary state, which is more of a Trinary (or ternary) computing device, instead of the normal Binary computer.
The "noise" and "decoherence" problems are just the inability to keep this 3rd state steady (the simulated Quantum State Superposition) using these classical, analog Qubits. Building complex error correcting systems on top of these Qubits is just way of trying to simulate the flawed concept of *Quantum State Superposition,* which is _supposed_ to be a "natural state" of the Quantum realm based on probability interpretations.
So your main gripe is that you don't trust quantum theory?
@@sebastianosorio5584 *
Hi, you mentioned the following: "Einstein's Photon Energy is E=hf ... Anyone can see that the Frequency (Hz) term in that equation requires 1 second of time to elapse in order to get Energy of a Photon".
Could you explain further *why* that equation "requires 1 second of time to elapse" in order to get the energy of a Photon? I checked for the definition or general meaning of frequency and Wikipedia states "Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time.".
When searching for the *frequency of a photon* I encounter the following: "The frequency of a photon is defined as how many wavelengths a photon propagates each second."
So if a photon would have a frequency of 5 MHz, it means that in one second it propagates 5 Million wavelengths.
How does all of this imply that the equation E = hf requires 1 second of time to elapse in order to get the energy of a photon? The fact that frequency is measured in seconds is a convention and does not implies anything about the time that some equation *requires*, as far as I am concerned. E = hf satisfies the dimension of energy "M * L^2 * T^-2" (Mass, Distance^2, Time^-2).
If you have some insights, feel free to share them.
@@Airaldi **
Yes, I have a video on my channel for beginners that walks you through it.
**
This is correct, but realize that the UNIT is in Hertz (electromagnetic waves (or cycles) per second). PER SECOND is the physical unit of the frequency term that is 1/t ... t = 1 second with Hertz.
**
Yes, wave length or ELECTROMAGNETIC wave length PER SECOND.
**
How long does it take to get 5 million wavelengths (or EM cycles) to occur? If you are going to plug in 5 million into the e=hf equation, what is the time to produce that 5 million? Instant? or One second?
**
This is where you are incorrect. If you want to dig deeper into the history of e=hf and how it was derived, you can watch the video.
**
Yes, the video explains the unit analysis problem and opens a major concern for unit based physics math and the OSCILLATING / ROTATING realm.
@@itsbs I would be interested in watch that video, could you point out exactly which video it is? I am intrigued by your position about the "unit analysis problem".
She sounds like two people
Hahaha. Are you sure, you forgot to tell them its a Gas.
Everything is.or has gas in it
Even you hahaha