as far as I understood, the point of this paper and the experiments is to say: if the teleportation works, this mean an equivalent 2D gravity model would have a traversable wormhole in reality. Its like proving something not available via an equivalent system. Now, this is what I understood. The real issue is if this equivalence is actually real (that is, if the dual system would actually exist)
I read the quanta article, looked into as much of the original paper as I could stomach, watched a Suskind video lecture series on the holographic principle, and then watched Google's reply video/short documentary with interviews from the actual experimentalists. They entangled six pairs of qbits, arranged in a hexagonal lattice, pushed one of the entangled qbits out of coherence with a secondary qbit injection and the mathematical equivalent structure as negative energy into the remaining funnel of entangled coherence. The natural action of the system they spent fifteen years theorizing about, pulled by this pulse, caused the information from that decohered qbit to be teleported to the opposite set of entangled qbits. In my mind, they threw a qbit at their mathematical mechanism and it popped out the other side in physical space. Math construct in, physically measurable response out. Now, the part I have trouble understanding, even now is the claim that a true physical wormhole in 3D holographic space MUST be the conclusion based on the outcome of this experiment. Sure, I believed in connected black holes years ago, but ER=EPR implies that quantum computers wouldn't work WITHOUT wormholes. Maybe that's why they haven't yet really surpassed classical computers, we aren't thinking teleportation-aly enough. 🤯 What an important implication.
The implication here is that this result is the first one to ever link relativity to quantum mechanics in a way that allows some kind of actual overlap! 🤯🤯
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems suppose i come up with a theory of something never observed, but which final formula coincides with the pendulum motion. does this mean that pendulums certify im correct? no. it simply means that its a nice math coincidence but doesn't mean the dual phenomenon exists. also ads2 has nothing to do with our world. tho the energy principle applies as well. also the mu coefficient is supposed to be what in our world?
I think you missed a key point. They injected negative energy into the wormhole to stop it collapsing. Negative energy is so far not observable/creatable in world but in the model it made the wormhole work.
i was also hoping for a little more discussion on the negative energy shockwave and its physicality as i have long considered the bounding from below of the energy operator to have been an ad-hoc decision in the initial formulation of QM
This is wonderful, thank you! My hackles went up when I watched the video they released on their "wormhole", but withheld judgement as I'm not qualified to call BS in this area.
Thank you for the breakdown of this, I watched the Santa Barbara Qbit video and have been so interested, never went to college but am super interested in this for some reason. This breakdown was very understandable for me, I really appreciate it.
Is the complexity, portrayed by the SYK model, necessary for holography? A recent comment on the paper appears in arXiV, proving that their machine-learning-simplified model does not thermalize (and thus incorrect). What is your take on this?
Im not even qualified to talk about the subject, but the amount of blatant sophistry in the video they released on it i mean really all it was is a add campaign to gain funding
All I can say about the paper's claim is: 1. Ok, initially the two particles are entangled, "non-locality of entanglement" or "disentanglement" may occurred inside the wormhole, so where is justification of the paper if either of the phenomenon occurred or not? 2. Of course the particle that pop up in the other side of the wormhole is entangled with the other particle due to "non-locality" nature, my question is what exactly the information they extracted by doing those operations inside the wormhole, if so then we have the tools for "Time travel" :) 3. From the results of the paper, I saw those beautiful gaussian like graphs, ok good, but are they they informing "Entanglement sudden death" result while the particle is inside the wormhole? If so, then we have deterministically access information inside wormhole? Not convinced other than the beauty of the paper graphs.......
I love headline videos, but they are very superficial to help the public understand and don’t cover what’s really being picked apart and looked at by academics to review findings. It’s nice seeing someone cover these so I can read the papers and not have it go over my head.
what we want to know is if the partical is moving from one spot to another faster then light could.... are they connecting space in any way for the partical transfer
To my understanding, General Relativity defines distances and directions you can move locally (ds2=dx2+dy2+dz2-c2dt2)... but there is nothing that guarantees that if you fold spacetime over itself that it connects in any way. It could be that we calculate that the (x,y,z,t) position is the same, but in reality you simply get to two different places depending on the route you use to get there. Very boring, but avoids the various paradoxes of having "shortcuts" to distant locations...
Awesome review. Thanks! I'm more sympathetic to the results - if only because this kind of experiment is a *prerequisite* for future explorations of quantum gravity in a lab, and the results hint that *the best is yet to come!* By the way, I've heard that the experiment was done on a 72-qubit version of Sycamore (as opposed to the 53 qubit version previously used).
The issue is they didnt use real space "de Sitter space" but instead they used "anti-de Sitter" "The actual universe is de Sitter space, an ever-growing sphere driven outward by its own positive energy. By contrast, AdS space is infused with negative energy - resulting from a difference in the sign of one constant in the equations of general relativity - giving the space a “hyperbolic” geometry: Objects shrink as they move outward from the center of the space, becoming infinitesimal at an outer boundary. Maldacena showed that space-time and gravity inside an AdS universe exactly correspond to properties of a quantum system on the boundary (specifically a system called a conformal field theory, or CFT)." So while it is interesting this isnt proof that it "does" exist within ADS space. "Renate Loll, a noted quantum gravity theorist at Radboud University in the Netherlands, also emphasized that the wormhole experiment concerns 2D space-time - the wormhole is a filament, with one spatial dimension plus the time dimension - whereas gravity is more complicated in the 4D space-time that we actually live in. “It is rather tempting to get entangled in the intricacies of the 2D toy models,” she said by email, “while losing sight of the different and bigger challenges that await us in 4D quantum gravity. For that theory, I cannot see how quantum computers with their current capabilities can be of much help … but I will happily stand corrected.” Due to the fundamental differences it may not be possible to same thing to happen in our 4d space compared to the 1 or 2d space used for this experiment.
It seems to me, the real significance of this quantum circuit, is not that it makes an approximate transfer of a quantum state, and not instantaneously, but at the speed of the quantum transfer and circuit; but that the maths that unify entanglement and quantum tunneling hold up - thereby at least partially unifying relativity and quantum theory. Not being in that field, that's what sounds like is being claimed to me.
I think it just makes ER=EPR a real thing and not just a theory right? I'm not college educated but have taken a large interest in this subject because the patterns so I am not very articulate I apologize.
@@freshfavorites7212 Right. Another vid explained that it shows ER = EPR, or entanglement = wormholes - the former being a quantum finding, and the latter being a relativity finding.
Are you saying Google will now be able to send me marijuana through a worm-hole ? Or will the sender and the receiver both need to be already entangled ( i.e. stoned ) at each end ? Sounds pretty far out either way. What if it's legal at one end but not at the other ?
What is being traversed? A q-bit traverses a bridge of entanglement? It's not a worm hole right? Unless ER=EPR is proven. Or the information from one q-bit is passed to the other q-bit that its entangled to through this "bridge"
It uses that conjecture (ER=EPR) so make another model, which is simulated on a quantum computer on a very small scale. So its quite far from making an actual wormhole.
Wouldn’t the activation energy required to overcome the null energy at the entrance of a worm hole be a perturbation of the local space-time energy tensor? If so, wouldn’t that distortion interact with coupling of paired particles? Seems that at the very least an order of magnitude calculation should be done comparing particle entanglement and energy tensor perturbation.
They say they used neg energy to keep the wormhole stable and open but am i right in saying that negative energy is not possible in our universe and that we would have to find our negative universe to be able to use negative energy and thats not possible.....so in essence they used something that we will never be able to use because it doesn't exist in our positive energy universe am I right in saying that?
No, it's a mathematical correlation between two frameworks called ADS-CFT correspondence. Though this was originally discovered in the context of string theory.
Thanks. I saw a headline for this and immediately thought it might be a sign that "teleportation wormhole created" would be replacing "faster than light travel discovered" as the new bi-weekly clickbait headline, knew that the mental focus needed to sorta-kinda understand it was more than I wanted to expend at the time especially for something most likely not as advertised, and, if indeed true I would most likely be hearing more about it in short order. Thanks for the clarification. I think I sorta-kinda understand it but without spending an entire evening grappling with ideas spread over multiple sources. Would such a successful experiment support the idea of a holographic universe? Looked at your other videos and subscribed - but please don't start making those shocked TH-cam face thumbnails. If Rodin made his Gates of Hell today it would be those TH-cam faces surrounding the door and not the representations of tortured souls.
I believe we need an amended Invisible/Holographic Principle of the Multiverse. Two sides of the same coin. A duality within a duality. The Holographic Principle works well within our and other individual universes, but an Invisible Principle will begin at the outer invisible horizon of our universe and expand out beyond the observable curtain of the cosmos and out into the Multiverse. A dual track pair of inverse principles combining the universe to the Multiverse.
Can they extend life of qubits before decoherence, by transporting energy out( since energy in is a cause of decoherence? ) Just an uneducated thought?
great video thanks. They seem to be claiming that the signal is very strong which to them indicates they are seeing exactly what they hoped to and even more clear than they were prepared for. I can only look on hopefully that we unlocked some new avenues to study gravity and in some senses probe the walls of entanglement. I heard someone say this could be indicating that ER = EPR which I also find quite insane... I can only hope. I like to hear your skepticism. That is of course the logical stance. If there is truth here, we should see quite the buildup of related articles. I'd like to see someone repeat this on a different quantum computer. As a software dev, my immediate thought is to slap this program into another computer and run it again. The math is done. Port it to another machine.
Imagine you make a computer model with 2 goals- imitating the real world and teleportation. Considering we do not understand seven a fraction of how things work- don’t you think the people who programmed the simulation might have made a system of physics well within their understanding and woefully void of how physics actually works in real life ? All for the result of telling uneducated morons that we can teleport in theory now.
Yes, it is nonsense. The model was made using predefined algorithms under models based on unsolved theoretical speculation, in a subject related to something theoretical.
i hate quantum physics it allows so much speculation, and so very little applications but it really shine when describe things we already know in different ways how is it quantum phisicist never predicted superconductors? how is it first we discovered them and then only after quantum phisicist filled millions of papers trying to describe it? why does it feel quantum phisic's only able to "predict" what we've already achieved experimentally?
its a good point, some things are so bizzare that no theorist would dare predict them... its a question of how much you believe your own theory sometimes
@@marcosalazar4682 I think you might have replied to the wrong comment. Worms was a game in which you commanded a unit of militarised earthworms armed with explosives. The "wormholes" it made were literal holes in a virtual game world, and that's the joke.
@@SineN0mine3 yeah I get it my bad. It just happens to be the argument being made against the experiment. People claiming its a simulation just as much as the simulation of a wormhole in the game worms is a simulation.
Besides the issue with the violation of energy conditions, the attempts for theoretical constructions of "traversable" wormholes have revealed several other serious problems, like the need for topology change, the potential violation of causality, and the instability issues. While some of these issues can be avoided in the context of this duality, I haven't seen the latter issue ( the serious instabilities that are associated with the existence of Cauchy horizons that seem to be unavoidable in the interior of the wormhole, if this is rendered traversable , even briefly..) really being addressed. These wormholes are not "shortcuts", because a signal that passes through, takes a longer time ( from the external perspective) to reach the other side, that it does when transmitted through the ambient spacetime, so they seem to avoid causal inconsistencies. But the instabilities, that cause the collapse of the wormhole, are usually the meanest villains in these scenarios... I understand that these are not fully developed toy models in unrealistic set ups, though..and , moreover, there is no actual spacetime wormhole ( regarding this recent controversy). But these issues are not still there in the "spacetime" part of the duality?
Actually it works 2 quantum entangled atoms creates a worm hole between them automatically. It can then be propped open and traversed by a single cubit.
The amount of nonsense in science media made me completely lose faith in it a long time ago. I don't have the patience to sort out what's actually happening from what is bs
No particles whatsoever are being passed through the wormhole. Only information of the entangled pair of particles is being passed through the wormhole. The information spirals through the quantum gate network, disappears and then reappears in the OTHER quantum network. There are some miraculous things you can do with quantum programming. They already have the ability to use superposition and entanglement to manipulate and transfer information. but this technique blows the doors off my understanding of quantum programming. I have casually been going through the quantum IBM experience tutorial and can’t wait to design my own quantum black hole. Still researching the geometric pattern of the gates and the significance of seven nodes. Can anyone elaborate on this?
My specialty is what they call a “Quantum Listener”, where a Quantum connection entangles from a non-paired source, non-locally; to explain in English: normally you need to bring a pair together to quantum entangle something, I can skip this “bring together” step and just directly entangle from harmonic synchronization using molecular spin control.
@@ceoof601 1: this isn't pseudo anything; this is molecular physics. 2: I am not getting paid to be your professor of chemistry, if you want to be a metallurgical engineer you will require putting in the work yourself and actually learning your periodic table properties. 3: You will require a Master’s Degree in electrical engineering. 4: You require a flexible mindset if you want to mentally visualize Nth-Dimensional Vector Fields to actually visualize a Molecular Spin across all 720-angular-degrees. 5: You must be able to compute at least basic algebra.
@@totalermist Actually, they asked for multiple lectures, which you'd know if you actually read my complete response; therefore, no I will not "chill". They were lucky I even listed what knowledge they required to understand what knowledge they require, I usually just turn off these notifications.
i appreciate that you took the time to break things down. but i can't help but wonder if your opinions, not your observations, are biased because of your partnership with ibm. it's public knowledge that ibm and google's quantum computing efforts are in direct competition, and have on more than one occasion publicly clashed.
We have no partnership with IBM. If you look at our other videos we are not exactly super impressed with IBM either. There is a lot of hype at the moment .
Im a blackhole, when I eat all the food, that information is kinda lost forever, except through my discreet secretion (gas/fluids and radiation), so as to not make any information paradoxes 😌☝
Sure it can be reproduced, its done on a programmable quantum computer. Its certainly not a real wormhole, just a simulation, but even then we have a few doubts of whether its really conclusive evidence. Don't think these guys will have any problems with funding!
I’d say don’t worry about it. Less than 99% of people that agree or disagree with it don’t know what the hell they are even agreeing/disagreeing with. They are just making guesses. Which is what the people that established the theory are doing in the first place, just at higher resolution. 🤷♂️
An analog of a wormhole was created in a quantum computer simulation, that’s all this ever was, it’s like saying a computer that simulates star formation actually created a star inside the computer, it’s absurd
Its more absurd how every abstract, barely grasped concept in science, get blown out of proportion by those who do not specialise in the fields. A chatbot being invented sparked Ai domination articles.
I wish when you started explaining things that you prefaced it with 'this is what we currently think' or 'this is what the current theories point to' as it seems like you are making a lot of assumptions from the get go
@@SineN0mine3 Thanks for asking. You are correct. Discussions from all perspectives ought to be welcome. This comment of mine came from a sense of irritation which is really just projection; the issue I think is that I feel people make category errors when "debunking" points of view which are not internal to their particular discipline. I am trying right now to articulate and examine this in myself because it's important to the process of interdisciplinary and cross-cultural communication. I do it too. Of course experts ought to address the broader context and implications and the popular misconceptions about a theory they understand. That's why I am wrong here. But there's more to it. I trust my emotions; I am irritated for a reason. But it probably doesn't have a lot to do with the group that made this video. It's cultural. I am going to unpack it for my own sake from here, without trying to escape my own responsibility... Fingers crossed heh I don't like it when people are condescending about subject matter expertise, even when discussing matters with their peers. But it's really unnecessary for scientists to discourage metaphysical speculations from non-scientists about the metaphysical or philosophical implications of a theory whose internal details are beyond their comprehension. Because anything we are discussing is likely to be a working problem, not a solution. Wormhole physics is a perfect example. The role of consciousness in the collapse of the wave function is similar. But in both cases, an understanding of the mathematics appears to lead to a false sense of certainty regarding its accuracy, or its fit, among the initiated. Another example is the mystery of gravitation and the large scale structure of the cosmos. I think the ones on the cutting edge of these theoretical difficulties are the ones most susceptible to being misled by the elegance of an equation to equate it with truth, rather than merely an observant speculation on the way to a theory. For me the quantum computation of the wormhole pulse is just a mathematical model, showing that many assumptions are correct about the importance of entanglement in connecting black holes in cosmological physical reality, if it actually happens there. Here. Wherever. Since the qubit is an entangled computational model, the model could be run on a quantum computer, and it worked. Pretty straightforward. So I hear technological people worried about people having the wrong ideas about wormholes, space, models, reality, black holes, and so on. Everyone trying to clarify not what it means, but what it does not mean, according to their worldview. When I saw the original team, including the programmer who ran the models, discuss their results, I was excited by the idea that the overlap of these disciplines, despite our still incomplete understanding of energy in all its forms, implies something magnificent: that wormholes existing between entangled black holes, such as might have been the very first form of condensate matter in the first second of universal expansion; such an ancient primordial network of entangled singularities is very similar to a quantum computer, with every singularity a qubit. Qubits, moreover, which are spectral and harmonic, not merely binary like our technological ones. And these forming a network simply as a description of expanding spacetime and mass energetic phenomema precipitating out of creation itself. This is a description of what might be a universal brain, a cosmological neural network, the very first effects of which therefore might be something akin to consciousness. Uh ... A god? A demiurge? A hive mind? It's an awesome prospect with many possibilities really. If true -- actually whether that crazy speculation, that whimsical game of connecting dots which could not conceivably be farther apart from one another, is true or not, it is something that everyone ought to discuss freely. That's what I think. So I am irritated when the presentation is designed to discourage speculation instead of examine it. Very fine line there though...hm I am a lover of science and of yoga too, in a religious sense. I get irritated when religious people disdain logic or maths or physics; and equally so when materialists dismiss anything from slightly outside a narrow range of acceptable thoughts about physics or mathematics. And let's face it, scientists are just as schismatic as millenarian apocalyptic cults, mathematicians versus physicists is a trope older that Catholic v Protestant. So we're all humans. Primates to be technical. I think the truth is that none of us knows what the eff is going on. And I hope I don't get so cranky that I stop listening to people, but I am still just a monkey. An old cranky monkey. 🐒
Thanks for the thoughts! We strive to be open minded about all realms of thought, and agree that we are basically monkeys on a ball of rock. These videos are a nice way to learn about what is happening in various fields of physics and beyond and it seems there are a few people out there that find them useful. So very happy to do them!
I'm kind of a dum dum when it comes to quantum mechanics, but if a wormhole connecting two points in space could be created, what is to stop a "wormhole" from connecting two points in time as we know space and time are coupled in such a way to make them inseparable? And if we've already proven that time travel could only be achieved through FTL speeds, which is impossible, it kind of makes sense that wormholes would also be impossible. And of course negative energy just isn't a thing. I'm just spitballing here, but it seems like the universe really does not want us to break it. I think the closest thing to a wormhole we will ever conceive of is "traversal" into a black hole. To achieve something like negative energy, it would take some kind of weird reverse gravity on the scale of a black hole. Maybe a white hole. Fun stuff to think about.
Oh. That cleared it right up. Clear as mud. The good news is that there are people intelligent enough to grasp these concepts and even build these systems. I’ve always been amazed at human ingenuity. I really like watching videos about how computers work. It’s incredible to me that using materials from the earth like sand, and metals paired with logic rules, one and zeros, photolithography etc. humans are capable of building computer chips from silicon. The process of designing, building chips with many different layers invisible to the naked eye is so fascinating. I’m sure if you’re watching videos like this then you probably already know how chips are made. But if by chance you don’t I would encourage you to watch some videos about photolithography, computer chips, silicon wafers, how memory works, here are a couple I like. th-cam.com/video/g8Qav3vIv9s/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/5Mh3o886qpg/w-d-xo.html
From what I’ve seen it isn’t necessarily creating a literal wormhole, but rather proving a gravity model that connects ER and EPR theory. Using a quantum computer would make sense, considering a quantum computer uses quantum mechanics to process information and is also one of the few places in which we can observe quantum physics. It’s like putting an equation into Desmos, you didn’t create a literal wormhole, but you plotted one on a mathematical slate.
so you come right out and say that you dont understand the most crucial part of the process. How can you be in a position to evaluate whether it's nonsense?
Thanks for the question! So the main controversy regarding this paper is whether there really was a wormhole created in the quantum computer. We didn't really discuss this point because it seems absolutely obvious that this is at best a simulation, and not even a simulation of the wormhole itself, but of a dual model. Performing it on a quantum computer doesn't add any more realism to the simulation, it could have easily been done on a computer from the 1970s, maybe earlier. There has been discussion of this point elsewhere if you want to check it out scottaaronson.blog/?p=6871 bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/wormholes-quantum-computers/ We raise a few other questions too regarding whether just seeing the asymmetry is really conclusive proof that it is wormhole physics. Happy to admit that we don't understand every detail of the paper, so feel free to contribute any thing that we may have missed!
@@NYUQuantumTechnologyLab really? so there is nothing actually "happening" at the "quantum level"? This is just a math simulation?? I'm a software engineer, so at first glance that's what I assumed it must be, but then I thought, why wouldn't they just do it on a regular computer? Surely this quantum computer must actually "provide" some kind of "real" gateway into the "quantum world".... but if that is not the case, then using the sycamore computer to do this research must mainly be in service of obfuscating this fact to the public at large, which in turn would probably be in the service of publicity.
@@lorenfulghum2393 Yes. The quantum computer just does a quantum mechanical simulation, rather than a classical computer which simulates the equations. Either way its a simulation. Taking away the quantum mechanics for a minute, if you simulated the orbits of the planets around the Sun you would not say that you made a solar system in your computer. Its similar to this case, but maybe even one more step removed, as the simulated model is a dual model which requires another step of mapping. I guess we should have spelled it out more clearly in the video, but thanks for raising the point.
@@lorenfulghum2393 I also find them difficult to understand as a software engineer. Just the concept of a qubit makes zero sense from a classical perspective.
interesting, thanks for pointing this out. I think the problem was a "balance audio" setting that sounds harmless but involves unnatural compression. One to avoid for the future.
Pay no attention to the token black guy or the Japanese guy. Seriously tho, why are they there if they don't talk or even have an emotion. Just let it be you and the indian guy since you two are the only people in this conversation.
It violates a condition but how do we know that that condition doesn't have a way around it we don't have complete physics yet I hate how scientists and physicists in the modern day assume that they have all of the knowledge that they can have and understand how things work that's not true we did not complete physics new equations mathematical formulas and Designs are being created to this day but there's a lot of scientists physicists and regular people in the community that think we have physics complete we do not do not assume anything is impossible until it is proven otherwise
While we shouldn't assume anything is impossible unless there is evidence for it, we can safely assume most things that break the laws of physics as we know them are at least less likely than those that don't, by a significant margin.
If you understood any of it, you would also understood "double slit experiment" mental fallacy. Not to even talk about 200+ years latter. But none of you truly understand, what it is that you do with your mathematical knowledge in relationship with reality. Like all these cartoonish pictures drawn here, even though human beings have an ability to draw, that do not mean that what they draw has anything to do with reality, even less that it is reality. Bugs Bunny can never more be(just as human false picture of one self), other than reference. So you will keep making cartoonish computer universe, for as long you do not understand or want to understand. But it will always stay computer made fantasy, like cartoons on a piece of paper. Only way we will be able to impose it as reality among our selves, will be in dogmatic way. A belief, not a fact. And if you understood anything from history of human kind, you would also understood why is that so. Why Ego always takes better of us. Why is Ego/false picture of one self. And as such, hes desire to impose it self as real. Where all that materialistic, animalistic, beast like, primitive, superficial, ignorance, arrogance, e.t.c. comes from. Who is the devil. Fallen angles. And much, much more. But religious fanatics do not like science fanatics, because they are the same. They all desire power and dominance. Not the truth, nor the peace or love. 99,99% of what humans think, imagine, do and are is a lie. But hey, it is popular at the moment that black holes, dark matter and rest of the science fiction it is actually science. So only thing i can desire for humanity is to say good luck. We will need it, a lot more than we can even assume. IT is not lack of understanding and knowledge, it is black holes in reality? IT is dark matter, not our lack of understanding and knowledge? Maya is about reality as a dream, not about human mental state? Odin`s blind eye is about wisdom, not about self-denial? And so on , and so on... But do not listen to me. Who am i, to tell anyone what is what. What kind of a ruler is that, who says "I do not know", or " I do not understand"? Other slaves(those who serve, but desire to rule) would never respect such ruler. You have to lie to immature children, they require certainty and security. Even if it`s nothing more than a lie. They will fight for it, they will even kill and die for it. And imagine them selves as heroes sacrifice, for a noble cause. That`s not sick? Right? After all we are the ones who observe, reality depends on it. Not other way around. Right? We are the Gods. We just forgot it. Haha ... Never in human history, human beings ware good. Even less, in understanding the difference between wishful thinking and reality. So it always takes a long time and lots of evil done, before ignorant and arrogant id...ts come even close to understanding of something we call rational or logical thinking. Before reality becomes undeniable. Before stupid cretins stop and say, ok we may have being wrong. Before our idiocy becomes so stupendously huge, that no amount of denial can hide it any more. Jesus Christ, may God help us. Because we, most certainly can`t. God bless you.
@@freshfavorites7212 Yep, am aware that most of the people are just intelligent enough to remember and repeat only. Slavery has it`s reasons. That`s why none likes to even start a conversation about voluntary aspects of it. So when conversation is beyond them, any critic is mocked. Sheep has no other way to voice lack of intellect than noise.
@@AdrianBoyko It is nothing more than an attempt to find out the truth. For some people. So they come up with all kind of theories. Most of them are nothing more than ridiculous fantasies and attention seeking. But it is reasonable to check out all options, no matter how impossible they sound. One have to dig through a lot of human crap that we call lies. And if you do not drown in it, you just mite see the light and bread some free air. God bless you.
as far as I understood, the point of this paper and the experiments is to say: if the teleportation works, this mean an equivalent 2D gravity model would have a traversable wormhole in reality. Its like proving something not available via an equivalent system. Now, this is what I understood. The real issue is if this equivalence is actually real (that is, if the dual system would actually exist)
Agree with your comments!
I read the quanta article, looked into as much of the original paper as I could stomach, watched a Suskind video lecture series on the holographic principle, and then watched Google's reply video/short documentary with interviews from the actual experimentalists. They entangled six pairs of qbits, arranged in a hexagonal lattice, pushed one of the entangled qbits out of coherence with a secondary qbit injection and the mathematical equivalent structure as negative energy into the remaining funnel of entangled coherence. The natural action of the system they spent fifteen years theorizing about, pulled by this pulse, caused the information from that decohered qbit to be teleported to the opposite set of entangled qbits. In my mind, they threw a qbit at their mathematical mechanism and it popped out the other side in physical space. Math construct in, physically measurable response out. Now, the part I have trouble understanding, even now is the claim that a true physical wormhole in 3D holographic space MUST be the conclusion based on the outcome of this experiment. Sure, I believed in connected black holes years ago, but ER=EPR implies that quantum computers wouldn't work WITHOUT wormholes. Maybe that's why they haven't yet really surpassed classical computers, we aren't thinking teleportation-aly enough. 🤯 What an important implication.
The implication here is that this result is the first one to ever link relativity to quantum mechanics in a way that allows some kind of actual overlap! 🤯🤯
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems suppose i come up with a theory of something never observed, but which final formula coincides with the pendulum motion. does this mean that pendulums certify im correct? no. it simply means that its a nice math coincidence but doesn't mean the dual phenomenon exists. also ads2 has nothing to do with our world. tho the energy principle applies as well. also the mu coefficient is supposed to be what in our world?
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems ps i still find these experiments and ideas outstanding. im just being cautious on the extrapolation interpretation
I think you missed a key point. They injected negative energy into the wormhole to stop it collapsing. Negative energy is so far not observable/creatable in world but in the model it made the wormhole work.
i was also hoping for a little more discussion on the negative energy shockwave and its physicality as i have long considered the bounding from below of the energy operator to have been an ad-hoc decision in the initial formulation of QM
NASA claimed gravity itself creates negative energy.
@@nickduplaga507 if anyone knew what gravity is, because they still dont.
The casimir effect?
He specifically said "I don't competed understand it", which seems like an important point
This is wonderful, thank you! My hackles went up when I watched the video they released on their "wormhole", but withheld judgement as I'm not qualified to call BS in this area.
Why, it's BS to the core, just relate!
Thank you for the breakdown of this, I watched the Santa Barbara Qbit video and have been so interested, never went to college but am super interested in this for some reason. This breakdown was very understandable for me, I really appreciate it.
Is the complexity, portrayed by the SYK model, necessary for holography? A recent comment on the paper appears in arXiV, proving that their machine-learning-simplified model does not thermalize (and thus incorrect). What is your take on this?
I love how the video has someone from pretty much every race. Don't know why that makes me smile but it does!
I noticed that also.....most diverse quantum team ever....i wonder if that was on purpose...
Im not even qualified to talk about the subject, but the amount of blatant sophistry in the video they released on it i mean really all it was is a add campaign to gain funding
I gave a thumbs down because I agree.
If you’re not qualified then just don’t give your opinion, “I haven’t studied much physics but I know the earth is flat!1!11!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!”
@@easports2618 i dont need a degree in seeing shit come out of people's mouths, if you actually read my comment this should be pretty clear
Quantum quicksilvery Quacksalber: you can fool some people some time....
@@easports2618 no. #1 poor 1!
Thank you guys for breaking this down in a way that makes sense to someone with only a basic understanding of the subject.
great to hear!
All I can say about the paper's claim is:
1. Ok, initially the two particles are entangled, "non-locality of entanglement" or "disentanglement" may occurred inside the wormhole, so where is justification of the paper if either of the phenomenon occurred or not?
2. Of course the particle that pop up in the other side of the wormhole is entangled with the other particle due to "non-locality" nature, my question is what exactly the information they extracted by doing those operations inside the wormhole, if so then we have the tools for "Time travel" :)
3. From the results of the paper, I saw those beautiful gaussian like graphs, ok good, but are they they informing "Entanglement sudden death" result while the particle is inside the wormhole? If so, then we have deterministically access information inside wormhole?
Not convinced other than the beauty of the paper graphs.......
I love headline videos, but they are very superficial to help the public understand and don’t cover what’s really being picked apart and looked at by academics to review findings. It’s nice seeing someone cover these so I can read the papers and not have it go over my head.
Who's the guy in front middle?
what we want to know is if the partical is moving from one spot to another faster then light could.... are they connecting space in any way for the partical transfer
To my understanding, General Relativity defines distances and directions you can move locally (ds2=dx2+dy2+dz2-c2dt2)... but there is nothing that guarantees that if you fold spacetime over itself that it connects in any way. It could be that we calculate that the (x,y,z,t) position is the same, but in reality you simply get to two different places depending on the route you use to get there.
Very boring, but avoids the various paradoxes of having "shortcuts" to distant locations...
Awesome review. Thanks! I'm more sympathetic to the results - if only because this kind of experiment is a *prerequisite* for future explorations of quantum gravity in a lab, and the results hint that *the best is yet to come!* By the way, I've heard that the experiment was done on a 72-qubit version of Sycamore (as opposed to the 53 qubit version previously used).
Ah, thanks for the correction! They only used 9 qubits so I guess it doesn't really matter :)
The issue is they didnt use real space "de Sitter space" but instead they used "anti-de Sitter"
"The actual universe is de Sitter space, an ever-growing sphere driven outward by its own positive energy. By contrast, AdS space is infused with negative energy - resulting from a difference in the sign of one constant in the equations of general relativity - giving the space a “hyperbolic” geometry: Objects shrink as they move outward from the center of the space, becoming infinitesimal at an outer boundary. Maldacena showed that space-time and gravity inside an AdS universe exactly correspond to properties of a quantum system on the boundary (specifically a system called a conformal field theory, or CFT)."
So while it is interesting this isnt proof that it "does" exist within ADS space.
"Renate Loll, a noted quantum gravity theorist at Radboud University in the Netherlands, also emphasized that the wormhole experiment concerns 2D space-time - the wormhole is a filament, with one spatial dimension plus the time dimension - whereas gravity is more complicated in the 4D space-time that we actually live in. “It is rather tempting to get entangled in the intricacies of the 2D toy models,” she said by email, “while losing sight of the different and bigger challenges that await us in 4D quantum gravity. For that theory, I cannot see how quantum computers with their current capabilities can be of much help … but I will happily stand corrected.”
Due to the fundamental differences it may not be possible to same thing to happen in our 4d space compared to the 1 or 2d space used for this experiment.
It seems to me, the real significance of this quantum circuit, is not that it makes an approximate transfer of a quantum state, and not instantaneously, but at the speed of the quantum transfer and circuit; but that the maths that unify entanglement and quantum tunneling hold up - thereby at least partially unifying relativity and quantum theory. Not being in that field, that's what sounds like is being claimed to me.
I think it just makes ER=EPR a real thing and not just a theory right?
I'm not college educated but have taken a large interest in this subject because the patterns so I am not very articulate I apologize.
@@freshfavorites7212 Right. Another vid explained that it shows ER = EPR, or entanglement = wormholes - the former being a quantum finding, and the latter being a relativity finding.
Are you saying Google will now be able to send me marijuana through a worm-hole ? Or will the sender and the receiver both need to be already entangled ( i.e. stoned ) at each end ? Sounds pretty far out either way. What if it's legal at one end but not at the other ?
😆😆😆😆
Simple, go through the wormhole towards other end where marijuana is legal, smoke it and comeback!
What is being traversed? A q-bit traverses a bridge of entanglement? It's not a worm hole right? Unless ER=EPR is proven. Or the information from one q-bit is passed to the other q-bit that its entangled to through this "bridge"
Is the paper more trying to say that entanglement and wormholes are the same thing, at least regarding information?
It uses that conjecture (ER=EPR) so make another model, which is simulated on a quantum computer on a very small scale. So its quite far from making an actual wormhole.
Wouldn’t the activation energy required to overcome the null energy at the entrance of a worm hole be a perturbation of the local space-time energy tensor?
If so, wouldn’t that distortion interact with coupling of paired particles?
Seems that at the very least an order of magnitude calculation should be done comparing particle entanglement and energy tensor perturbation.
They say they used neg energy to keep the wormhole stable and open but am i right in saying that negative energy is not possible in our universe and that we would have to find our negative universe to be able to use negative energy and thats not possible.....so in essence they used something that we will never be able to use because it doesn't exist in our positive energy universe am I right in saying that?
Is that claim from simulated wormhole on quantum computer show any connections to unifying quantum mechanics with gravity 🤔
No, it's a mathematical correlation between two frameworks called ADS-CFT correspondence. Though this was originally discovered in the context of string theory.
If it were, it'd be the babystep sidequest to the foundation of the foundation to the answer
I like the diversity. One black one white one Indian one Asian. Pretty cool.
Thanks. I saw a headline for this and immediately thought it might be a sign that "teleportation wormhole created" would be replacing "faster than light travel discovered" as the new bi-weekly clickbait headline, knew that the mental focus needed to sorta-kinda understand it was more than I wanted to expend at the time especially for something most likely not as advertised, and, if indeed true I would most likely be hearing more about it in short order. Thanks for the clarification. I think I sorta-kinda understand it but without spending an entire evening grappling with ideas spread over multiple sources.
Would such a successful experiment support the idea of a holographic universe?
Looked at your other videos and subscribed - but please don't start making those shocked TH-cam face thumbnails. If Rodin made his Gates of Hell today it would be those TH-cam faces surrounding the door and not the representations of tortured souls.
Again - I read it somewhere and I click this video to get the facts, good job! and thank you
thanks for always watching!
I believe we need an amended Invisible/Holographic Principle of the Multiverse. Two sides of the same coin. A duality within a duality. The Holographic Principle works well within our and other individual universes, but an Invisible Principle will begin at the outer invisible horizon of our universe and expand out beyond the observable curtain of the cosmos and out into the Multiverse. A dual track pair of inverse principles combining the universe to the Multiverse.
Can they extend life of qubits before decoherence, by transporting energy out( since energy in is a cause of decoherence? ) Just an uneducated thought?
Given your state transfer description, would it be a more apt comparison to say that they demonstrated a Quantum Newton's Cradle?
Yes its a bit more like that. Shove something in one end and hope it comes out in tact the other
great video thanks. They seem to be claiming that the signal is very strong which to them indicates they are seeing exactly what they hoped to and even more clear than they were prepared for. I can only look on hopefully that we unlocked some new avenues to study gravity and in some senses probe the walls of entanglement. I heard someone say this could be indicating that ER = EPR which I also find quite insane... I can only hope. I like to hear your skepticism. That is of course the logical stance. If there is truth here, we should see quite the buildup of related articles. I'd like to see someone repeat this on a different quantum computer. As a software dev, my immediate thought is to slap this program into another computer and run it again. The math is done. Port it to another machine.
Imagine you make a computer model with 2 goals- imitating the real world and teleportation.
Considering we do not understand seven a fraction of how things work- don’t you think the people who programmed the simulation might have made a system of physics well within their understanding and woefully void of how physics actually works in real life ? All for the result of telling uneducated morons that we can teleport in theory now.
Yes, it is nonsense. The model was made using predefined algorithms under models based on unsolved theoretical speculation, in a subject related to something theoretical.
i hate quantum physics
it allows so much speculation, and so very little applications
but it really shine when describe things we already know in different ways
how is it quantum phisicist never predicted superconductors? how is it first we discovered them and then only after quantum phisicist filled millions of papers trying to describe it? why does it feel quantum phisic's only able to "predict" what we've already achieved experimentally?
You are not just a clown, but the entire circus. Thanks for the laugh.
its a good point, some things are so bizzare that no theorist would dare predict them... its a question of how much you believe your own theory sometimes
There was an old PC game called Worms that created many wormholes on the PC.
Ah here it is the "they just made a simulation" argument again. They literally teleported an electron and that can't be denied.
@@marcosalazar4682 I think you might have replied to the wrong comment. Worms was a game in which you commanded a unit of militarised earthworms armed with explosives. The "wormholes" it made were literal holes in a virtual game world, and that's the joke.
@@SineN0mine3 yeah I get it my bad. It just happens to be the argument being made against the experiment. People claiming its a simulation just as much as the simulation of a wormhole in the game worms is a simulation.
There's a wormhole in my vodka tonic.
Better fill it up again.
Good video, might want to find a smaller room to record in, or throw some blankets on the wall, lol.
Besides the issue with the violation of energy conditions, the attempts for theoretical constructions of "traversable" wormholes have revealed several other serious problems, like the need for topology change, the potential violation of causality, and the instability issues.
While some of these issues can be avoided in the context of this duality, I haven't seen the latter issue ( the serious instabilities that are associated with the existence of Cauchy horizons that seem to be unavoidable in the interior of the wormhole, if this is rendered traversable , even briefly..) really being addressed.
These wormholes are not "shortcuts", because a signal that passes through, takes a longer time ( from the external perspective) to reach the other side, that it does when transmitted through the ambient spacetime, so they seem to avoid causal inconsistencies.
But the instabilities, that cause the collapse of the wormhole, are usually the meanest villains in these scenarios...
I understand that these are not fully developed toy models in unrealistic set ups, though..and , moreover, there is no actual spacetime wormhole ( regarding this recent controversy).
But these issues are not still there in the "spacetime" part of the duality?
Actually it works 2 quantum entangled atoms creates a worm hole between them automatically. It can then be propped open and traversed by a single cubit.
how the hell does the swap operation work
There is a standard quantum circuit for that to exchange the qubits it consists of 3 CNOT gates.
The amount of nonsense in science media made me completely lose faith in it a long time ago. I don't have the patience to sort out what's actually happening from what is bs
Thank you for this explanation! This has filled in some gaps in my understanding
Great to hear!
The Quanta magazine article and video are really good on this subject
No particles whatsoever are being passed through the wormhole. Only information of the entangled pair of particles is being passed through the wormhole. The information spirals through the quantum gate network, disappears and then reappears in the OTHER quantum network. There are some miraculous things you can do with quantum programming. They already have the ability to use superposition and entanglement to manipulate and transfer information. but this technique blows the doors off my understanding of quantum programming. I have casually been going through the quantum IBM experience tutorial and can’t wait to design my own quantum black hole. Still researching the geometric pattern of the gates and the significance of seven nodes. Can anyone elaborate on this?
My specialty is what they call a “Quantum Listener”, where a Quantum connection entangles from a non-paired source, non-locally; to explain in English: normally you need to bring a pair together to quantum entangle something, I can skip this “bring together” step and just directly entangle from harmonic synchronization using molecular spin control.
P. S. I would thumb up your video, except I don't agree " Is the wormhole in Google's quantum computer actually ... "nonsense"? ".
can you explain further or post a link that explains this, very skeptical of this probably hippie pseudoscience
@@ceoof601 1: this isn't pseudo anything; this is molecular physics.
2: I am not getting paid to be your professor of chemistry, if you want to be a metallurgical engineer you will require putting in the work yourself and actually learning your periodic table properties.
3: You will require a Master’s Degree in electrical engineering.
4: You require a flexible mindset if you want to mentally visualize Nth-Dimensional Vector Fields to actually visualize a Molecular Spin across all 720-angular-degrees.
5: You must be able to compute at least basic algebra.
@@BlueNEXUSGaming Dude, all they asked for was a link, not a lecture🤦♂
@@totalermist Actually, they asked for multiple lectures, which you'd know if you actually read my complete response; therefore, no I will not "chill".
They were lucky I even listed what knowledge they required to understand what knowledge they require, I usually just turn off these notifications.
i appreciate that you took the time to break things down. but i can't help but wonder if your opinions, not your observations, are biased because of your partnership with ibm. it's public knowledge that ibm and google's quantum computing efforts are in direct competition, and have on more than one occasion publicly clashed.
We have no partnership with IBM. If you look at our other videos we are not exactly super impressed with IBM either. There is a lot of hype at the moment .
my favorite quantum computer debunking channel :P very interesting analysis as always
Thank you!
I really liked the video. One thing you guys could have done better is put everyone's name at the start of the video
Im a blackhole, when I eat all the food, that information is kinda lost forever, except through my discreet secretion (gas/fluids and radiation), so as to not make any information paradoxes 😌☝
I have a singular question: Can, it be reproduced?
Second question: Do you believe them?
But what they really want to know is, will you fund them?
Sure it can be reproduced, its done on a programmable quantum computer. Its certainly not a real wormhole, just a simulation, but even then we have a few doubts of whether its really conclusive evidence. Don't think these guys will have any problems with funding!
The short answer is Yes, it's completely bool(ean) shit.
Dang this is like the quantum tech justice league all assembled
I’d say don’t worry about it. Less than 99% of people that agree or disagree with it don’t know what the hell they are even agreeing/disagreeing with. They are just making guesses. Which is what the people that established the theory are doing in the first place, just at higher resolution. 🤷♂️
do not question master Byrnes -- he never guesses. only certainty.
The basic statement is that entanglement is equal to a wormhole.
An analog of a wormhole was created in a quantum computer simulation, that’s all this ever was, it’s like saying a computer that simulates star formation actually created a star inside the computer, it’s absurd
Its more absurd how every abstract, barely grasped concept in science, get blown out of proportion by those who do not specialise in the fields.
A chatbot being invented sparked Ai domination articles.
Thank you for sharing!
No worries!
There is a table game called "Snakes and Ladders". It is a "simulation," that proves wormhole teleportation!!
Interesting way to conduct a seminar. Is this an extreme form of egalitarianism?
They did not create an actual working wormhole. They only made a working wormhole in a digital sandbox.
I wish when you started explaining things that you prefaced it with 'this is what we currently think' or 'this is what the current theories point to' as it seems like you are making a lot of assumptions from the get go
Google's opinion of Google, has always exceeded reality.
Im just an interested viewer, no idea why or how i landed here.. anyways just fyi, very reasonable explaination that even an amateur could follow ;)
Ugh, I was so close to reducing suffering as well.
Debunking a mathematical model is just such a great way for intelligent people to waste their time.
In what sense is it a waste? How else would we discover which models are worthwhile and which ones aren't?
@@SineN0mine3 Thanks for asking. You are correct. Discussions from all perspectives ought to be welcome. This comment of mine came from a sense of irritation which is really just projection; the issue I think is that I feel people make category errors when "debunking" points of view which are not internal to their particular discipline. I am trying right now to articulate and examine this in myself because it's important to the process of interdisciplinary and cross-cultural communication. I do it too.
Of course experts ought to address the broader context and implications and the popular misconceptions about a theory they understand. That's why I am wrong here. But there's more to it. I trust my emotions; I am irritated for a reason. But it probably doesn't have a lot to do with the group that made this video. It's cultural. I am going to unpack it for my own sake from here, without trying to escape my own responsibility... Fingers crossed heh
I don't like it when people are condescending about subject matter expertise, even when discussing matters with their peers. But it's really unnecessary for scientists to discourage metaphysical speculations from non-scientists about the metaphysical or philosophical implications of a theory whose internal details are beyond their comprehension. Because anything we are discussing is likely to be a working problem, not a solution.
Wormhole physics is a perfect example. The role of consciousness in the collapse of the wave function is similar. But in both cases, an understanding of the mathematics appears to lead to a false sense of certainty regarding its accuracy, or its fit, among the initiated. Another example is the mystery of gravitation and the large scale structure of the cosmos. I think the ones on the cutting edge of these theoretical difficulties are the ones most susceptible to being misled by the elegance of an equation to equate it with truth, rather than merely an observant speculation on the way to a theory.
For me the quantum computation of the wormhole pulse is just a mathematical model, showing that many assumptions are correct about the importance of entanglement in connecting black holes in cosmological physical reality, if it actually happens there. Here. Wherever. Since the qubit is an entangled computational model, the model could be run on a quantum computer, and it worked. Pretty straightforward.
So I hear technological people worried about people having the wrong ideas about wormholes, space, models, reality, black holes, and so on. Everyone trying to clarify not what it means, but what it does not mean, according to their worldview.
When I saw the original team, including the programmer who ran the models, discuss their results, I was excited by the idea that the overlap of these disciplines, despite our still incomplete understanding of energy in all its forms, implies something magnificent: that wormholes existing between entangled black holes, such as might have been the very first form of condensate matter in the first second of universal expansion; such an ancient primordial network of entangled singularities is very similar to a quantum computer, with every singularity a qubit. Qubits, moreover, which are spectral and harmonic, not merely binary like our technological ones. And these forming a network simply as a description of expanding spacetime and mass energetic phenomema precipitating out of creation itself. This is a description of what might be a universal brain, a cosmological neural network, the very first effects of which therefore might be something akin to consciousness. Uh ... A god? A demiurge? A hive mind? It's an awesome prospect with many possibilities really.
If true -- actually whether that crazy speculation, that whimsical game of connecting dots which could not conceivably be farther apart from one another, is true or not, it is something that everyone ought to discuss freely. That's what I think. So I am irritated when the presentation is designed to discourage speculation instead of examine it. Very fine line there though...hm
I am a lover of science and of yoga too, in a religious sense. I get irritated when religious people disdain logic or maths or physics; and equally so when materialists dismiss anything from slightly outside a narrow range of acceptable thoughts about physics or mathematics. And let's face it, scientists are just as schismatic as millenarian apocalyptic cults, mathematicians versus physicists is a trope older that Catholic v Protestant. So we're all humans. Primates to be technical.
I think the truth is that none of us knows what the eff is going on. And I hope I don't get so cranky that I stop listening to people, but I am still just a monkey. An old cranky monkey. 🐒
Thanks for the thoughts! We strive to be open minded about all realms of thought, and agree that we are basically monkeys on a ball of rock. These videos are a nice way to learn about what is happening in various fields of physics and beyond and it seems there are a few people out there that find them useful. So very happy to do them!
@@NYUQuantumTechnologyLab 🙏
Talk about the negative energy
Bro it's the big bang theory get yourselves a penny frfr 100
I'm kind of a dum dum when it comes to quantum mechanics, but if a wormhole connecting two points in space could be created, what is to stop a "wormhole" from connecting two points in time as we know space and time are coupled in such a way to make them inseparable? And if we've already proven that time travel could only be achieved through FTL speeds, which is impossible, it kind of makes sense that wormholes would also be impossible. And of course negative energy just isn't a thing.
I'm just spitballing here, but it seems like the universe really does not want us to break it.
I think the closest thing to a wormhole we will ever conceive of is "traversal" into a black hole. To achieve something like negative energy, it would take some kind of weird reverse gravity on the scale of a black hole. Maybe a white hole. Fun stuff to think about.
Google has a new encabulator!
Oh. That cleared it right up. Clear as mud.
The good news is that there are people intelligent enough to grasp these concepts and even build these systems. I’ve always been amazed at human ingenuity. I really like watching videos about how computers work. It’s incredible to me that using materials from the earth like sand, and metals paired with logic rules, one and zeros, photolithography etc. humans are capable of building computer chips from silicon. The process of designing, building chips with many different layers invisible to the naked eye is so fascinating. I’m sure if you’re watching videos like this then you probably already know how chips are made. But if by chance you don’t I would encourage you to watch some videos about photolithography, computer chips, silicon wafers, how memory works, here are a couple I like.
th-cam.com/video/g8Qav3vIv9s/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/5Mh3o886qpg/w-d-xo.html
From what I’ve seen it isn’t necessarily creating a literal wormhole, but rather proving a gravity model that connects ER and EPR theory. Using a quantum computer would make sense, considering a quantum computer uses quantum mechanics to process information and is also one of the few places in which we can observe quantum physics. It’s like putting an equation into Desmos, you didn’t create a literal wormhole, but you plotted one on a mathematical slate.
Homie needs to stop whispering his affirmations lmao it's giving me anxiety, just agree, disagree, or say a complete sentence.
Thank you
Did you really need four people and half an hour to make these points?
yes
There is no such thing as a wormhole, and qbits are not entangled particles.this idea/paper is NONSENS.
I've been traversing wormholes all my live in computer games. But i never noticed them. i was in one world then i was in another.
It is : Nonsense
so you come right out and say that you dont understand the most crucial part of the process. How can you be in a position to evaluate whether it's nonsense?
Thanks for the question! So the main controversy regarding this paper is whether there really was a wormhole created in the quantum computer. We didn't really discuss this point because it seems absolutely obvious that this is at best a simulation, and not even a simulation of the wormhole itself, but of a dual model. Performing it on a quantum computer doesn't add any more realism to the simulation, it could have easily been done on a computer from the 1970s, maybe earlier. There has been discussion of this point elsewhere if you want to check it out
scottaaronson.blog/?p=6871
bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/wormholes-quantum-computers/
We raise a few other questions too regarding whether just seeing the asymmetry is really conclusive proof that it is wormhole physics. Happy to admit that we don't understand every detail of the paper, so feel free to contribute any thing that we may have missed!
@@NYUQuantumTechnologyLab really? so there is nothing actually "happening" at the "quantum level"? This is just a math simulation?? I'm a software engineer, so at first glance that's what I assumed it must be, but then I thought, why wouldn't they just do it on a regular computer? Surely this quantum computer must actually "provide" some kind of "real" gateway into the "quantum world".... but if that is not the case, then using the sycamore computer to do this research must mainly be in service of obfuscating this fact to the public at large, which in turn would probably be in the service of publicity.
@@lorenfulghum2393 Yes. The quantum computer just does a quantum mechanical simulation, rather than a classical computer which simulates the equations. Either way its a simulation. Taking away the quantum mechanics for a minute, if you simulated the orbits of the planets around the Sun you would not say that you made a solar system in your computer. Its similar to this case, but maybe even one more step removed, as the simulated model is a dual model which requires another step of mapping. I guess we should have spelled it out more clearly in the video, but thanks for raising the point.
@@NYUQuantumTechnologyLab I think I need to understand better what a quantum computer actually does.
@@lorenfulghum2393 I also find them difficult to understand as a software engineer. Just the concept of a qubit makes zero sense from a classical perspective.
Mmm yes. I do believe understand what you're talking about, my fellow very intelligent people. Yes I am also very smart.
Why still use 2d representing of space time, let's use 3d visual representations of all space time diagrams. Its 2022
im the guy in back fr fr
DEAR GOOGLE
I HAVE A COMMENT FOR EVERY SOUL ON EARTH
BUT GOOGLE
DON'T
YOU
NO
NO
NO
WHAT YOU ARE DOING 4FREE
AND+AMEN
You know the dude in Queens gambit that's a bit of a prick with people around him?
Get a cowboy hat 🤠
Yep
yes
Yes, it’s nonsense.
Great talk, thanks for break down. Sadly your students seem as engaged as a bunch of middle school kids. That's got to be tough.
Or they're deep in thought and not comfortable on camera.
White, asian, brown, black
They didn’t that’s what I thought what a nothing urger
yes. saved you 34 minutes
Your audio is pumping so badly, I am not going to listen - Audio compression - it's not quantum physics - It can be understood ! ;-)
interesting, thanks for pointing this out. I think the problem was a "balance audio" setting that sounds harmless but involves unnatural compression. One to avoid for the future.
Pay no attention to the token black guy or the Japanese guy. Seriously tho, why are they there if they don't talk or even have an emotion. Just let it be you and the indian guy since you two are the only people in this conversation.
You are evil
@@NYUQuantumTechnologyLab In case my words don't let you know.
Lol, these guys look like racially diverse tv show cast
It violates a condition but how do we know that that condition doesn't have a way around it we don't have complete physics yet I hate how scientists and physicists in the modern day assume that they have all of the knowledge that they can have and understand how things work that's not true we did not complete physics new equations mathematical formulas and Designs are being created to this day but there's a lot of scientists physicists and regular people in the community that think we have physics complete we do not do not assume anything is impossible until it is proven otherwise
While we shouldn't assume anything is impossible unless there is evidence for it, we can safely assume most things that break the laws of physics as we know them are at least less likely than those that don't, by a significant margin.
traversable warm hole huehuehuehue
Thank you for your insightful comments! (facepalm)
@@NYUQuantumTechnologyLab always!
I saw nyu and I just had to say no thanks
Wow!
Blah blah blah l
If you understood any of it, you would also understood "double slit experiment" mental fallacy. Not to even talk about 200+ years latter.
But none of you truly understand, what it is that you do with your mathematical knowledge in relationship with reality. Like all these cartoonish pictures drawn here, even though human beings have an ability to draw, that do not mean that what they draw has anything to do with reality, even less that it is reality. Bugs Bunny can never more be(just as human false picture of one self), other than reference. So you will keep making cartoonish computer universe, for as long you do not understand or want to understand. But it will always stay computer made fantasy, like cartoons on a piece of paper. Only way we will be able to impose it as reality among our selves, will be in dogmatic way. A belief, not a fact.
And if you understood anything from history of human kind, you would also understood why is that so. Why Ego always takes better of us. Why is Ego/false picture of one self. And as such, hes desire to impose it self as real. Where all that materialistic, animalistic, beast like, primitive, superficial, ignorance, arrogance, e.t.c. comes from. Who is the devil. Fallen angles. And much, much more.
But religious fanatics do not like science fanatics, because they are the same. They all desire power and dominance. Not the truth, nor the peace or love. 99,99% of what humans think, imagine, do and are is a lie. But hey, it is popular at the moment that black holes, dark matter and rest of the science fiction it is actually science. So only thing i can desire for humanity is to say good luck. We will need it, a lot more than we can even assume.
IT is not lack of understanding and knowledge, it is black holes in reality? IT is dark matter, not our lack of understanding and knowledge? Maya is about reality as a dream, not about human mental state? Odin`s blind eye is about wisdom, not about self-denial? And so on , and so on...
But do not listen to me. Who am i, to tell anyone what is what. What kind of a ruler is that, who says "I do not know", or " I do not understand"? Other slaves(those who serve, but desire to rule) would never respect such ruler. You have to lie to immature children, they require certainty and security. Even if it`s nothing more than a lie. They will fight for it, they will even kill and die for it. And imagine them selves as heroes sacrifice, for a noble cause. That`s not sick? Right? After all we are the ones who observe, reality depends on it. Not other way around. Right? We are the Gods. We just forgot it. Haha ...
Never in human history, human beings ware good. Even less, in understanding the difference between wishful thinking and reality. So it always takes a long time and lots of evil done, before ignorant and arrogant id...ts come even close to understanding of something we call rational or logical thinking. Before reality becomes undeniable. Before stupid cretins stop and say, ok we may have being wrong. Before our idiocy becomes so stupendously huge, that no amount of denial can hide it any more.
Jesus Christ, may God help us. Because we, most certainly can`t.
God bless you.
Hey man, Elvis might be in Vegas tomorrow you should check it out I'm sure he would love to see you.
Hey, what’s your take on QAnon?
@@freshfavorites7212 Yep, am aware that most of the people are just intelligent enough to remember and repeat only. Slavery has it`s reasons. That`s why none likes to even start a conversation about voluntary aspects of it. So when conversation is beyond them, any critic is mocked. Sheep has no other way to voice lack of intellect than noise.
@@AdrianBoyko It is nothing more than an attempt to find out the truth. For some people.
So they come up with all kind of theories. Most of them are nothing more than ridiculous fantasies and attention seeking. But it is reasonable to check out all options, no matter how impossible they sound. One have to dig through a lot of human crap that we call lies. And if you do not drown in it, you just mite see the light and bread some free air.
God bless you.
Saša Radetić you mean you want to hold a intelligent conversation by insulting people first? Seems to me you are not as intelligent as you think.
Your two friends that didn't talk look kind of clueless
it is in fact nonsense