Page 1 of Quantum computing

Do you have 10 mins to spare.

Do you get this?

I don't think I'm particularly thick but I don't.
It's a Ted talk, which are usually good but maybe this one's above my pay grade.

Snaps

I was fine (ish) till 5:10 in then lost :)

Quantum computing just like all technology can be dangerous. These scientists are experimenting with the unknown, without considering the risks.

Many talks about quantum computing using D wave computers (already built) and say that they have a tie in to parallel universes. This can end up like a pandoras box, opening us in the physical reality to changes happening.

This then brings us onto the Mandela Effect, a recent phenomena, which has been discussed before on this website, where people are noticing changes (allthough most are quite minor changes) to their own personal timestream. Many would put it down to bad memory, but it may not be, as there are so maany noticing changes.

Another finger pointing cause for the Mandela Effect is the Cern Large Hadron Collider  whos experiments might also be causing parallel universes or timelines to merge. we just do not know the cause, hence the finger pointing to scientists meddling with the unknown.

The funny thing about the mandela effect is that there are thousands of examples out there on youtube, but it only needs one or two that affect yourself to realise that there has been changes recently.

As always, it is hard to accept things bordering conspiracy or weird things happening, but who knows what makes this world's reality, and how it really operated, and scientists just blunder on blindly, regardless to the consequences. 

Link to mandela effect quantum computers....
https://www.nanalyze.com/2016/10/mandela-effect-quantum-computers/  

Link to our thread on the mandela effect...
https://www.myreviewer.com/Forums/General/t892288/Who-lay-down-with-the-lamb/page1

Quote:
bandicoot says...
"bandicoot (Elite) posted this on Sunday, 13th January 2019, 11:53
Quantum computing just like all technology can be dangerous. These scientists are experimenting with the unknown, without considering the risks."
It was scientists experimenting that got us all the way from Arpanet to you being able to talk boll***s on here.


Snaps

I've got a vague understanding about some aspects of quantum physics and I've read a bit, but because it goes against our normal, everyday experiences, it's really hard to get a handle on.

The shroedinger's cat analogy explains it a bit: Is the cat alive or dead in the box after the poison is or isn't released? According to quantum physics, the cat is in both states of being alive and dead until we open the box to see for ourselves. The act of opening the box and observing affects the result because quantum uncertainty says that 'messes up' the outcome. In real life quantum circumstances, it is not possible to predict the position of a quantum particle because we can know it's velocity or direction but we can't know both. Every time we try to observe it, it affects the position, unlike predicting the position of a tennis ball with hawkeye would in 'normal' large scale physics. I know this doesn't make sense, but you just have to accept it! See also 2 slits light experiment for more bewildering outcomes.

As I understand it, when we try to predict a heads or tails outcome and observe the result by looking at the coin, we have affected the result and messed it up. The result is invariably 50/50 correct/wrong because of evening out of probability. The quantum computer (somehow) does not look at outcomes and does not observe reality like we have to in the non-quantum (large scale) world so it does not affect results but is still able to calculate (somehow) outcomes. The video suggests it has a theoretical 100% accuracy!

The video doesn't really go into any depth about how this works so we don't have much chance understanding it and if they did it I suspect it would be well over our heads anyway.

Bandi: people used to think that we would suffocate at speeds over 20mph so thought the first trains would kill us. They had no clue about science either.

This item was edited on Sunday, 13th January 2019, 14:35

Quote:
Alfie says....The shroedinger's cat analogy explains it a bit:
i blame that shroedingers cat for every time i look at my winning lottery ticket, it turns out a loser.

You have both won and lost the lottery until you look at your ticket.

I wonder whether a quantum computer could predict the winning numbers? Sounds like it could (seriously)?

Quote:
alfie noakes says...
"I wonder whether a quantum computer could predict the winning numbers? Sounds like it could (seriously)?"
I keep meaning to make a neural network and train it with past numbers to see if it can predict future ones, but never do. :)

It would just give you random numbers anyway, so the odds wouldn't be any better.


Editor
MYREVIEWER.COM

My Flickr Photostream

Maybe, if you did enough test detailing the start position of each ball, how they reacted when the drum spins and where they ended up...still incredibly difficult to do in my humble opinion anyway due to too many variables...

---------

Si Wooldridge
Reviewer

http://synth.myreviewer.com

It would work if there was a pattern but we just couldn't see it, but they spend a lot of time doing statistical analysis on lottery machines to make sure they are random.

But it would be an entertaining thing to try! Pointless but entertaining.


Editor
MYREVIEWER.COM

My Flickr Photostream