Your "amazon" invocation could not be processed - you did not specify a valid Amazon URL

>> ^dgandhi:

Electrons are "comparing" electric fields when they settle into a state, otherwise they couldn't obey their physical laws.
Physical laws are not obeyed, they are enforced. electron movements are completely deterministic, like billiard balls, they roll down hill, they don't decide if/when to do so.


Wow.. just wow. Let's just say you shouldn't have started with the electron as an example of deterministic or comparison to Newtonian physics....

Since you are so sure of your deterministic world.. then promise me you'll never ever use a quantum computer in your lifetime. Because it might involve elections sensing and comparing themselves to others.. And it also might involve random non-deterministic events.

Supercomputers have accomplished increased computing power though increasing parallelism for years. Personal computers currently have no need for increased speed in most cases, so there hasn't been a big push for faster PCs. For most people, computers are already fast enough.

Most of the recent trends, other than parallelism, have been reducing the size of computing while maintaining processing power. The latest cell phones are much more powerful than three years ago, for instance. We already have working prototypes of computerized clothing, and the progress in driverless vehicles over the past few years has been amazing.

Yes, we are nearing the end of advances in transistor-based computing, but quantum computing is also nearing functionality. There are still a few issues to work out, but that is only a matter of time as (limited) working QCs have already been demonstrated.

Of course, a lot of this is demand-based. We've had very functional voice-interface computing for years, but no one has really found a viable market for it. Right now I'm much happier typing than speaking when I'm writing a paper or programming, but that may change as computers gain the ability to do more on their own. Who knows how the current economic problems with affect demand-driven innovation though.

Like I said, most of this is a question about timing, not about ability. Biology is effective, but very inefficient. It is only a matter of time before we create computing that is both more effective and more efficient than what has been created through evolutionary processes. It may happen by 2030, or it maybe be 2060, but with the constant advances in medicine it is very likely that we will all be around to see it happen (again, assuming nothing catastrophic happens along the way).

I would use gravity waves. It may be the only type of energy that can travel across all of them. However we are still far from building good detectors.

I was thinking the other day about this. I think our reality is closer to "the matrix" than people realize. We may be entirely be inside a quantum computer which is seeking "something" (I do not know what). I am guessing this because it seem too strange to me that the universe behave in such a nice mathematical way and it is seeking every possible outcome. To be honest it sounds like something a programmer would do to seek the perfect answer for a particular problem.

The universe looks very grandiose to us to be so, but it may be because we are so undeveloped. May be for super intelligent creatures this is nothing more than a screensaver.

I don't understand your point.

My impression is the following: the consensus in physics is that collapsing the wave-function does indeed have physical meaning and it is not just a mathematical construct. If this is where you take issue then, we will have to just disagree. I think the remainder of your comment merely supports what is called the Coppenhagen Interpretation.

Ask a quantum computing researcher "How come your relaxation times are so short?" And they will say, the thermodynamic noise in our system is collapsing the wave-function of our qubit.

Some of this stuff is up to interpretation, others not so much.

Here is a nice experiment about what I am talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

>> ^Irishman:
The 'collapse of the wave function' is a mathematical term relating to a measurement being taken of a quantum system. NOT that they don't interact - this is wrong, the opposite in fact is true.

Ok, folks. Here's my take.

Initial impressions: Each interview is very shortened and not always as thorough as should be expected, but nothing is outright incorrect. I'm getting the distinct impression that this video is cutting out hours and hours of interviews to get a few little blips of speech that are being slapped together by layman TV people to get the nice easy piece they want. For example, I'm not particularly sure why Professor Lloyd is brought in, he seems to be speaking to an entirely different set of questions than the video is supposed to be asking.

Eric, the roulette table is in reference to the Schrodinger wave equation and its implication in wave function collapse. In theoretical terms, the video is putting forward an interpretation of such an event, specifically Everett's many worlds hypothesis. If you want an explanation, I can put one together for you, but altogether it's a reasonable (albeit not the most widely-held) hypothesis, insofar as quantum mechanical hypotheses are.

Overall, the video just seems to be very disjointed and sloppy. Each speaker is cohesive individually, but the leaps the video is making are not connected and occasionally simply off-topic.

I'm tempted to leave this video in the Science Channel because it's at least making people ask questions. The question "Are there parallel universes?" is one that is still in the hypothesis stage without substantial data in support of or against an answer either way, so it falls within the softer side of science, the part not yet locked down by solid evidence. In this sense, the video is still in keeping with scientific principles.

I am, however, concerned that this video does seem to be misleading in that it is presenting a number of phenomena and theories that are not quite topical or sufficiently linked as to be topical to the specific question of whether parallel universes exist, and doesn't place them appropriately. Why are they getting into entanglement theory? Why are they talking about quantum computers? ....I don't really know. Hell, they don't even distinguish a change in topics when they move from the "Dang there could be multiple versions of you within the same universe because the universe could be infinitely big" theory to the "Holy crap there could be multiple universes because there could be branching due to quantum decoherence" theory. Bad bad bad. Naughty TV show.

In short, I think I see both sides of the argument here. KP, you're right, I think the scientists are cool and damn smart (and Seth Lloyd is fucking BALLER) and their research and theories are great. Irishman and Jonny, you're right, the overall video is being screwed up by crappy TV program producers/editors and their regrettable fill-in voice-overs. I'm at a loss for what to do. I think I'll come back, see how a few more people weigh in, and then decide whether this video stays or goes.

P.S. If you happen to think a video in the Science Channel is questionable, please let me know via profile comment or email. I happen to be SWAMPED in my own research, and I don't have near enough time to clean out all the swill from the channel as throughly, as often or as quickly as I would like.

1. These guys aren't scientists of any description whatsoever and I don't know what they're doing on any Science Channel. - Irishman

Franco Wong - Dr. Franco N.C. Wong is a principal investigator in the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Max Tegmark - is a Swedish-American cosmologist. Tegmark is an Associate Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he belongs to the scientific directorate of the Foundational Questions Institute.
Seth Lloyd - is a Professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, and he has made contributions to the field of quantum computation and proposed a design for a quantum computer.

So unless MIT is some fly-by-night operation handing out jobs to any lunatic off the street, I believe you are mistaken.

2. It absolutely, categorically, scientifically does NOT contain one single piece of experimental data to back up the claims. - Irishman

Did you not see Dr. Wong experimenting with lasers and splitting photons, or do you think that was all for show? I'm sure they just let him shoot lasers all day without presenting any data.

3. Is this now the level of the VS Science Channel? - Irishman

If you're so dismayed by the quality of science sifts here, I don't believe anyone's created a ScienceSift.com web site yet. Don't let me stand in the way of your greatness.

4. [T]hen add a presentation that claim that some crazy scientists idea is fact, without having any real proof. - Bovan

See Points #1 and #2

5. 50 million people voted for Bush - twice. It doesn't mean he's a good president. - jonny

You're right. 74 upvotes don't guarantee quality whatsoever, nor was I trying to imply that. However when you call a video "crap", then you're strongly suggesting that 74 people like crap. Though 50 million people voted for Bush, TWICE, I'm not prepared to call all 50 million of them retards. It's just not my style to insult huge swathes of population like that. Maybe I'm too sensitive.

6. This is bullshit. - Mycrofthomlz

As with jonny's original remark, I downvoted your comment. If you'll check, I didn't downvote Irishman's first comment, because at least he offered some explanation, and I even upvoted sineral's and neuralnoise's comments because they at least attempt to justify their opinions. If I want "This is bullshit" comments I can go directly to YouTube. Maybe these guys are all full of it, as I don't have the background in physics to properly question them. However I don't think they're loons who have no idea what they're talking about either.

So is what they're saying "bullshit", or is this video's presentation of the material "bullshit", or what? I mean YOU'RE the scientist. When you attend a symposium is that how you refute someone's hypothesis or research?

I don't expect a treatise, but more than "This is bullshit" would be nice, especially since we allegedly pride ourselves on thoughtful discourse here. Otherwise I would just prefer that you downvote and then walk away. Where is your downvote, BTW? Please do it. That will not offend me. Insulting comments do.

***I am no saint. I also sometimes write things I shouldn't. Please downvote my comments when I do so.***

After that quantum computer fella finished, did anyone else think of the HHG's Infinite Improbability Drive?

i think nano, custom designed materials are gonna change the equation in a decade or so. the potential of these in energy convertion apps is enormous. think superconduction at room temperature, quantum computers, hi density information storage, very efficient solar panels and energy storage technology, controled chemical reactions and nano assembly... things are going to explode all over

rychan:

While I see that throwing 80 cores at a problem satisfies (or creates) geek penis envy, I would like to point out that we have been adding processing power to AI problems for decades, with absurdly little to show for it.

The belief that if we just keep doing the same type of thing faster we will eventually get to intelligence does not hold much water. While adding speed may be a necessary aspect of moving to functional AI, it very well may not.

Until we have a functional AI model which allows us to do some of the things any mammalian brain can do, like reliable visual object identification, we really have no idea what it will take to make that happen.

We could all just sit around and through out geeky ideas (quantum computing, fuzzy logic, more power, massive parallelism, fractal-chaos based decision making, etc) but until they work, we really don't know which of them will work to solve this problem. I'm not saying it should not be built, I'm just saying it's not revolutionary.

Yeah.. the second explanation was more for the people who have more than a popular understanding of quantum mechanics. Many of my friends work in quantum computing, so I have seen countless presentations on the subject.

Tell me which parts confused you, I will start slowly and work in the details a little more gently.

Nate

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I enjoyed your explanation of the "quantum computer".

I'd enjoy it more if I knew what the heck it meant. I'm not the only one that doesn't understand it, but I'm not afraid to admit it. Cool stuff, nonetheless. What studies would I have to pursue to get a better grasp on these "quantum" concepts. I feel that I understand them and I don't at the same time

I enjoyed your explanation of the "quantum computer".

I'd enjoy it more if I knew what the heck it meant. I'm not the only one that doesn't understand it, but I'm not afraid to admit it. Cool stuff, nonetheless. What studies would I have to pursue to get a better grasp on these "quantum" concepts. I feel that I understand them and I don't at the same time

Actually that "quantum computer" is a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectrometer, or NMR. It's used to look at the structure of molecules - there's no "quantum calculation" behind it at all. These things have existed since 1950's.

This quantum computer looks like a keg. So I have to ask: would it be possible to really have a quantum keg? With quantum beer? With quantum beer that allows me to be drunk and sober at the SAME TIME?

That'd put me on top of my game at a party.

Sort of Rotty... The idea is that with an array of qubits you can calculate all the possible outcomes of a given scenario, faster that any other method because you can exploit the nature of decisions. In a binary world, we store information as yes or no, in a quantum world things are superpositions of yes and no (think of it as yes, no, maybe yes, maybe no and everything in between).

You are probably now supremely confused, but like my electrodynamics professor I will plow ahead... So what is stopping quantum computing? Why if this guy makes it seem like a reality is it not on the market yet?

Ah, this is a good question. The biggest problem confronting quantum computing is coherence times. Or in other words, the time a state can be represented as either a yes, no, or superposition thereof is quantum mechanically limited, because of thermal fluctations and other details, which I will not elaborate on. The reality is that quantum computing is coming a long, but don't expect anything for while... a long while.