1
00:00:01,460 --> 00:00:12,490
[Auto-generated transcript]
Hello and welcome to the Oxford Playhouse.

2
00:00:12,730 --> 00:00:19,190
My name's Marcus Du Sautoy. I'm the Simonyi professor for the public understanding of science here in Oxford.

3
00:00:19,210 --> 00:00:26,230
And each year we host a lecture here at the Playhouse to celebrate science for the public.

4
00:00:26,230 --> 00:00:31,330
And, uh, it was a lecture first started by my predecessor, Richard Dawkins.

5
00:00:31,330 --> 00:00:36,360
And I just counted up how many we've done. And it turns out we've done 25.

6
00:00:36,370 --> 00:00:39,640
This will be the 25th lecture. So nice to celebrate.

7
00:00:39,940 --> 00:00:44,589
 and we're actually going to celebrate, another anniversary because,

8
00:00:44,590 --> 00:00:49,419
this is actually the hundredth anniversary of the discovery of quantum physics.

9
00:00:49,420 --> 00:00:56,079
And this is the quantum physics. Yeah. So I, I felt we should have a lecture, which celebrates, this anniversary and explores,

10
00:00:56,080 --> 00:00:59,860
 you know, what do we think about this, theory 100 years later?

11
00:00:59,860 --> 00:01:03,280
Where is it going? Um, obviously a very difficult theory.

12
00:01:03,280 --> 00:01:09,129
So I thought we needed an incredibly, good lecture to come and explore the ideas of quantum physics with us.

13
00:01:09,130 --> 00:01:14,230
And I'm very lucky to have Philip Ball, who's I think he was an editor at nature for many,

14
00:01:14,230 --> 00:01:18,780
many years, has written some fantastic, books, including Beyond Weird.

15
00:01:18,790 --> 00:01:21,940
I think he is I mean, I love reading his books.

16
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:30,790
I think that he's one of our best, expositor of really difficult scientific ideas isn't scared to push audiences and readers,

17
00:01:30,940 --> 00:01:34,180
into some really, uh, tough, places.

18
00:01:34,450 --> 00:01:38,919
And I think quantum physics is one of those places where you need somebody who really knows what they're talking about.

19
00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:43,690
So, please give a big welcome to this year's Simonyi lecture, Philip Ball.

20
00:01:54,410 --> 00:02:01,430
Thank you, Marcus. Well, I'm very grateful to Marcus for asking me to do me the honour of asking me to to give this lecture.

21
00:02:02,000 --> 00:02:11,750
I first began learning about quantum mechanics about 45 years ago here in Oxford,

22
00:02:12,260 --> 00:02:19,219
where I had the good fortune to be taught by Peter Atkins, um, who was already legendary even at that point.

23
00:02:19,220 --> 00:02:24,670
And I remember that Peter began his first lecture on quantum mechanics by saying that there are, 

24
00:02:24,680 --> 00:02:31,970
maybe half a dozen people in the world who understand quantum mechanics, from which I suppose we were to infer that Peter was one of them.

25
00:02:32,540 --> 00:02:39,560
And I'm now here to tell you about it. And I understand that Peter is now in the audience, so no pressure there.

26
00:02:40,610 --> 00:02:47,870
But I'm going to rescue myself by appealing to another authority, some might say in authority without parallel.

27
00:02:47,870 --> 00:02:55,460
And Peter at least will be pleased to hear that that's not God who Einstein was, uh, famously apt to invoke on this subject.

28
00:02:56,090 --> 00:03:01,309
Neither is it Einstein himself who never quite made his peace with quantum mechanics.

29
00:03:01,310 --> 00:03:09,650
Um, the authority I am going for is Richard Feynman, who in the very year that he won the Nobel,

30
00:03:09,650 --> 00:03:15,050
shared the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on an aspect of quantum theory,

31
00:03:15,170 --> 00:03:20,720
said this I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

32
00:03:21,500 --> 00:03:27,770
Now, quantum mechanics does have a reputation for being impossibly hard, as Marcus just said.

33
00:03:27,770 --> 00:03:32,040
And, um. It's not the mathematics though.

34
00:03:32,060 --> 00:03:38,420
That's the problem. Here is some of the quantum math being done by the pioneer of the subject, uh, Niels Bohr.

35
00:03:38,840 --> 00:03:44,690
And for some of you, sure, this might look pretty tough stuff, but Feynman could do all of this.

36
00:03:44,690 --> 00:03:49,220
Fine. The maths wasn't the problem. The trouble was, that is all he could do.

37
00:03:49,940 --> 00:03:56,660
What he couldn't understand is what the maths was telling us about the nature of the world.

38
00:03:57,790 --> 00:04:07,649
And there's still no consensus about that today. As you've just heard, this year is the 100th anniversary of the first version of quantum mechanics,

39
00:04:07,650 --> 00:04:14,400
which was devised by Werner Heisenberg and his colleagues in 1925 to mark that centenary.

40
00:04:14,430 --> 00:04:22,589
Nature magazine commissioned a survey of what physicists today think about the, uh, meaning of the theory.

41
00:04:22,590 --> 00:04:29,730
And this is the headline. Physicists disagree wildly on what quantum mechanics means about reality.

42
00:04:30,420 --> 00:04:35,370
And, um, one of the key questions in that poll was, uh,

43
00:04:35,370 --> 00:04:43,889
to ask which of the various different interpretations of quantum mechanics the respondents believed, um, this is the result of that poll.

44
00:04:43,890 --> 00:04:47,070
And you can see that there's there's clearly a favourite here.

45
00:04:47,250 --> 00:04:50,969
Um, and I'll come back, uh, later on to what that is.

46
00:04:50,970 --> 00:05:01,830
But its dominance is hardly very convincing, particularly as only half of those who support it, uh, felt at least fairly confident in doing so.

47
00:05:02,250 --> 00:05:13,470
So given all of this, what hope is there that the rest of us are going to understand this 100 year old cornerstone of the framework of modern physics?

48
00:05:13,860 --> 00:05:23,069
Well, I want to suggest to you that we can at least do better than Feynman's admission of bafflement or defeat.

49
00:05:23,070 --> 00:05:30,330
Some might say we don't have all the answers to what quantum mechanics means, but we do have better questions.

50
00:05:30,570 --> 00:05:37,350
We have a clearer sense today than Bore or Feynman had of what's important and what's not.

51
00:05:37,860 --> 00:05:42,810
So we have better questions, and sometimes that's really how science advances.

52
00:05:43,770 --> 00:05:46,889
But in this celebratory year, I want to take, first of all,

53
00:05:46,890 --> 00:05:53,940
to tell you a little bit about what actually happened in 1925, because quantum theory itself began earlier than this.

54
00:05:53,940 --> 00:06:05,849
It was launched in 1900, when Max Planck in Berlin found that he could explain how warm bodies radiate heat by

55
00:06:05,850 --> 00:06:12,840
assuming that the energies of their vibrating atoms could only change in discrete steps,

56
00:06:12,990 --> 00:06:22,380
like the rungs of a ladder, rather than smoothly and continuously, and prank called these discrete little packets of energy quanta.

57
00:06:22,890 --> 00:06:25,799
Now, this is a strange way for energy to behave.

58
00:06:25,800 --> 00:06:32,760
It's a bit like saying that if you pedal your bike harder, your speed will only increase, not gradually,

59
00:06:33,090 --> 00:06:39,030
but in a series of abrupt jumps, because there are some speeds that nature permits and some speed.

60
00:06:39,060 --> 00:06:45,000
The nature doesn't. But Planck didn't worry very much about invoking this rather strange idea,

61
00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:49,799
because he was just using these quanta as a mathematical trick in his equations.

62
00:06:49,800 --> 00:06:53,220
He wasn't positing them as a feature of nature itself.

63
00:06:53,790 --> 00:06:57,899
Five years later, however, Albert Einstein did just that.

64
00:06:57,900 --> 00:07:07,260
He said, we should take these quanta seriously, and he said that we should regard light itself as little packets of energy,

65
00:07:07,290 --> 00:07:13,440
each having an amount of energy proportional to the frequency of the light waves.

66
00:07:13,980 --> 00:07:21,510
This was much more peculiar. Einstein was in effect saying that light was both a wave with a particular

67
00:07:21,510 --> 00:07:25,740
frequency and a wavelength that in the visible spectrum determines the colour.

68
00:07:26,130 --> 00:07:34,710
Both a wave and a stream of these little packets of energy, these little light particles which became known as photons.

69
00:07:35,430 --> 00:07:46,500
And then in 1912, Niels Bohr showed that Einstein's idea could explain why atoms emit and absorb light only at particular frequencies,

70
00:07:46,680 --> 00:07:50,910
but said that these emission frequencies correspond to the,

71
00:07:51,210 --> 00:07:58,380
um, the energy change as the electrons in the atoms hop between the allowed quantum

72
00:07:58,380 --> 00:08:05,130
energy state and those quantum atom explained various experimental observations.

73
00:08:05,130 --> 00:08:12,959
In particular, the. These allowed energy states of electrons seemed to supply an answer to the long standing

74
00:08:12,960 --> 00:08:19,620
puzzle of why different chemical elements show repeating patterns of chemical properties,

75
00:08:19,620 --> 00:08:22,620
as reflected in the periodic table of elements.

76
00:08:23,430 --> 00:08:28,379
But this early quantum theory was really just a very makeshift, um,

77
00:08:28,380 --> 00:08:35,700
and sometimes contradictory mixture of the old classical physics and these new quantum ideas.

78
00:08:35,700 --> 00:08:40,859
And what scientists really wanted was a clear and consistent mathematical theory that

79
00:08:40,860 --> 00:08:46,770
would enable them to calculate quantum properties for genuine quantum mechanics,

80
00:08:47,130 --> 00:08:53,580
to replace the old Newtonian mechanics that we use and continue to use in the everyday world.

81
00:08:54,210 --> 00:09:00,510
So ball gathered together a team of young physicists at his institute in Copenhagen to try to come up.

82
00:09:00,530 --> 00:09:04,670
With such a theory. And one of them was Werner Heisenberg.

83
00:09:05,580 --> 00:09:15,060
Who? In the summer of 1925, took a trip to the little island of Helgoland off the German coast in the North Sea.

84
00:09:16,080 --> 00:09:19,540
Heisenberg was at that time. This was in the summer.

85
00:09:19,560 --> 00:09:29,120
He suffered a terrible bout of hay fever, and it was known that the sparsely vegetated Helgoland could give you a respite from that.

86
00:09:29,130 --> 00:09:32,880
There was very little pollen, uh, on this island. So there he went.

87
00:09:32,880 --> 00:09:40,410
And while he was there, Heisenberg made the conceptual breakthrough that allowed him and his colleagues, Max born,

88
00:09:40,410 --> 00:09:46,950
who was at that stage his actually his boss in getting Gunn and Pascual Jordan to

89
00:09:46,950 --> 00:09:52,649
work out a complete theory of quantum mechanics that was published later that year.

90
00:09:52,650 --> 00:09:58,440
In fact, I have a feeling it may have been in November of 1925 that they published, uh, the Big Paper.

91
00:09:59,040 --> 00:10:03,359
Now, um, so this is Helgoland, uh, where Heisenberg went.

92
00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:07,919
And these photos are actually mine because I went to Helgoland this June to take

93
00:10:07,920 --> 00:10:14,459
part in a centenary conference that brought together really an amazing cast,

94
00:10:14,460 --> 00:10:18,330
all really of the leading experts in the world on quantum mechanics.

95
00:10:18,330 --> 00:10:21,420
So it was a weird and a wonderful meeting.

96
00:10:21,690 --> 00:10:25,040
Um, you see, Helgoland is actually really tiny.

97
00:10:25,050 --> 00:10:32,610
It's basically just a rock in the North Sea. And, um, it doesn't have any big hotels, doesn't have a big fancy conference centre.

98
00:10:32,610 --> 00:10:38,580
So this meeting of all these, you know, Nobel laureates took place in the local town hall.

99
00:10:38,940 --> 00:10:43,379
And, um, someone said that if the ferry that took us there from Hamburg had sunk,

100
00:10:43,380 --> 00:10:46,230
then that would really be the end of quantum mechanics for a generation.

101
00:10:47,190 --> 00:10:54,089
Um, well, and I can tell you that the disagreements about what quantum mechanics means were very evident at this meeting.

102
00:10:54,090 --> 00:10:59,940
So we witnessed Nobel laureates flatly contradicting each other about this on this question.

103
00:11:00,270 --> 00:11:04,020
So let me now tell you what the arguments are about.

104
00:11:04,410 --> 00:11:08,729
And I want to start with some of the things that everyone knows about quantum mechanics.

105
00:11:08,730 --> 00:11:15,600
And when I say everyone, it's everyone in quotes. So if you didn't know any of those things, these things yourself, don't worry all.

106
00:11:15,690 --> 00:11:20,879
But what I mean is that these are notions that you will very quickly encounter the moment

107
00:11:20,880 --> 00:11:25,830
you start looking into what is popularly said and written about quantum mechanics.

108
00:11:25,950 --> 00:11:30,150
So first of all, we're told quantum mechanics is weird.

109
00:11:31,490 --> 00:11:38,690
That things behave differently in the quantum world, and, um, they don't quite make sense.

110
00:11:38,870 --> 00:11:45,710
And here are some of those weird behaviours. So first of all, quantum objects can be both waves and particles.

111
00:11:45,770 --> 00:11:52,500
This is wave particle duality. Quantum objects can be in more than one state or one position at once.

112
00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:57,290
They can be both here and there. Say and this is known as quantum superposition.

113
00:11:58,300 --> 00:12:03,280
You can't simultaneously know exactly two properties of a quantum object.

114
00:12:03,640 --> 00:12:11,590
This is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Quantum objects can affect one another instantly over huge distances.

115
00:12:11,740 --> 00:12:18,280
This is so-called spooky action at a distance, and it arises from a phenomenon called quantum entanglement.

116
00:12:18,970 --> 00:12:23,740
You can't measure anything in the quantum world without disturbing it.

117
00:12:24,010 --> 00:12:31,810
Um, and so quantum the the human observer can't be excluded from the theory, and it makes quantum mechanics unavoidably subjective.

118
00:12:32,230 --> 00:12:36,250
And then everything that can possibly happen does happen.

119
00:12:36,730 --> 00:12:40,690
And that there are two separate reasons why this claim sometimes made.

120
00:12:40,750 --> 00:12:45,670
One of them is rooted in Feynman's work itself, which seemed to say that quantum particles,

121
00:12:45,880 --> 00:12:49,810
as they go through the world, they take all possible paths available to them.

122
00:12:50,050 --> 00:12:55,600
The other reason for saying this comes from the controversial many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics,

123
00:12:55,600 --> 00:13:02,890
which says that every time a quantum object faces a choice of what where it can go or what state it can have,

124
00:13:03,070 --> 00:13:08,440
it takes both choices splitting the entire universe into separate worlds.

125
00:13:09,940 --> 00:13:15,970
Well, now here's the thing. Quantum mechanics itself doesn't say any of these things.

126
00:13:17,050 --> 00:13:20,410
They are attempts to say what quantum mechanics means.

127
00:13:20,590 --> 00:13:23,740
Some of them are misleading. Some of them are plain wrong.

128
00:13:23,830 --> 00:13:28,810
Some of them are just unproven assumptions or into interpretations.

129
00:13:29,710 --> 00:13:34,930
Whatever quantum mechanics does or doesn't mean, I think it's time to change this record.

130
00:13:34,930 --> 00:13:41,229
It's time to stop falling back on these tired old cliches and metaphors that we tell about it,

131
00:13:41,230 --> 00:13:48,310
and to look more carefully and more closely at what quantum mechanics does and doesn't permit us to say.

132
00:13:49,120 --> 00:13:54,129
And the first point to realise is that there's a big difference between the quantum theory, the mathematics,

133
00:13:54,130 --> 00:13:59,920
and the mechanics that scientists use all the time to predict stuff at the quantum

134
00:13:59,920 --> 00:14:03,790
level so that they can make devices like laptops and cell phones and so on.

135
00:14:04,390 --> 00:14:09,340
There's a difference between that and the interpretation of the theory.

136
00:14:10,000 --> 00:14:16,480
And this is what's so hard to grasp, because normally the interpretation of a scientific theory is kind of obvious.

137
00:14:16,750 --> 00:14:26,860
Newtonian mechanics tells us about how things like tennis balls and spaceships move, what path they take through space as forces act on them.

138
00:14:27,010 --> 00:14:30,820
And we don't have to ask, what do you mean by object?

139
00:14:30,850 --> 00:14:37,510
What do you mean by path? It's kind of obvious that's not so for quantum mechanics.

140
00:14:37,750 --> 00:14:40,510
And let me give you a glimpse of why.

141
00:14:40,810 --> 00:14:49,120
To predict what a quantum object will do, how it will behave in place of Newtonian mechanics in place of Newton's equations of motion,

142
00:14:49,450 --> 00:14:56,829
scientists now generally use the equation that was dreamed up by Erwin Schrödinger in late 1925.

143
00:14:56,830 --> 00:15:04,270
He published it in early 1926 to describe the idea that quantum particles can act like waves.

144
00:15:04,570 --> 00:15:11,590
So Schrödinger's equation was really another way to do quantum math from the one that Heisenberg originally proposed.

145
00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:18,340
Now, Heisenberg was very competitive. He didn't like Schrodinger's equation at all, but everyone else did, and everyone else used it,

146
00:15:18,340 --> 00:15:22,990
and they tend to use it now because it's very much easier to use than Heisenberg's method.

147
00:15:23,500 --> 00:15:30,850
But unlike Newton's equations of motion, the Schrodinger equation doesn't give us a trajectory for the quantum particle.

148
00:15:31,180 --> 00:15:39,309
Instead, it uses something called a wave function, and the wave function can be used to figure out what we might find.

149
00:15:39,310 --> 00:15:44,650
Uh, an object doing an object like an electron, where we might find data, what properties it might have.

150
00:15:44,980 --> 00:15:52,720
Um, if we, if we measure them. So a typical, uh, wave function for a particle might, might look something like this.

151
00:15:53,110 --> 00:16:01,270
Um, what does that mean? Well, it's often said or often implied that it means that the particle was kind of smeared out over space.

152
00:16:01,840 --> 00:16:09,070
And it does kind of look that way, doesn't it? But this isn't showing us the density of the particle in space.

153
00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:16,870
It shows us, in effect, what the possible outcomes of measurements of the particles properties,

154
00:16:16,870 --> 00:16:24,730
like position can, could be, along with the relative probability that we'll get that particular outcome.

155
00:16:25,760 --> 00:16:29,510
So the wavefunction doesn't tell us where we'll find the particle.

156
00:16:29,570 --> 00:16:34,470
It tells us the chance that we might find it at a given position in space.

157
00:16:34,490 --> 00:16:43,580
If we look the bigger the amplitude of the wave function at any of these points, then the more likely it is that we'll observe it at that point.

158
00:16:44,060 --> 00:16:51,950
And this is what. So what about quantum mechanics? It seems to point in the wrong direction compared to other scientific theories,

159
00:16:52,100 --> 00:16:58,820
not down towards the system that we're studying, but upwards towards our experience of it.

160
00:16:59,510 --> 00:17:07,460
It says nothing. Or perhaps I should say it says nothing obvious about what the quantum system itself is like.

161
00:17:07,640 --> 00:17:12,700
So in other words, the wavefunction is not a description of a quantum object.

162
00:17:12,710 --> 00:17:18,230
It is a prescription for what to expect when we make measurements on that object.

163
00:17:19,440 --> 00:17:26,280
But it's even more peculiar than this, because the wavefunction doesn't tell us where the particle is likely to be at any instant,

164
00:17:26,280 --> 00:17:30,240
which we then might, you know, verify or disprove by making measurements.

165
00:17:30,660 --> 00:17:37,320
The wave function tells us nothing about the particle itself until we make the measurement.

166
00:17:37,710 --> 00:17:47,340
Strictly speaking, we shouldn't really talk about the particle at all in terms of, uh, a except in terms of the measurements that we make on it.

167
00:17:47,700 --> 00:17:51,089
So in other words, quantum mechanics, um, in quantum mechanics,

168
00:17:51,090 --> 00:17:59,100
it looks as though measurements or observations don't reveal reality, but in a sense produce it.

169
00:18:00,200 --> 00:18:07,879
One way of speaking about that is to say that before we make a measurement, uh, wave function might be this typically spread out broad thing,

170
00:18:07,880 --> 00:18:12,620
but when we make a measurement and find the particle to be in a particular place,

171
00:18:13,070 --> 00:18:18,620
then the wavefunction suddenly switches to being a sharp spike just at that place.

172
00:18:19,130 --> 00:18:24,770
And this change is often called, for obvious reasons, collapse of the wave function.

173
00:18:25,190 --> 00:18:28,280
But we have to be careful about what that means.

174
00:18:28,460 --> 00:18:35,300
What it doesn't mean is that the particle itself goes from being kind of smeared out in space, to being sharply defined.

175
00:18:35,300 --> 00:18:40,010
When we make a measurement of it, all we can say is that before the measurement,

176
00:18:40,490 --> 00:18:45,319
there were different probabilities that a measurement would reveal it in different places.

177
00:18:45,320 --> 00:18:49,820
Whereas after the measurement we can say for sure it's here and it's not there.

178
00:18:50,690 --> 00:18:58,069
Our knowledge is what has changed. And some researchers think that this is really, uh, what quantum mechanics is,

179
00:18:58,070 --> 00:19:04,790
that it's a theory describing how our knowledge about the world changes when we intervene in it,

180
00:19:05,570 --> 00:19:14,480
and that we can deduce anything about what the world was really like before we had that knowledge of it, before we made an observation.

181
00:19:15,140 --> 00:19:25,400
Now, this account of quantum mechanics is more or less the one that was given by Baugh and Heisenberg and their collaborators in, uh, Copenhagen.

182
00:19:25,400 --> 00:19:27,620
And it's known as the Copenhagen Interpretation.

183
00:19:27,800 --> 00:19:34,610
And going back to that, uh, nature poll, that is the one that proved to be, uh, the most popular today.

184
00:19:35,180 --> 00:19:40,040
I'm not saying that that means it's right that the Copenhagen interpretation is right.

185
00:19:40,190 --> 00:19:46,129
In fact, I think we can safely say that the version of it that was promoted by Baugh and Heisenberg

186
00:19:46,130 --> 00:19:52,220
isn't any longer sufficient in itself to fully explain what quantum mechanics means.

187
00:19:52,220 --> 00:20:01,130
But I don't like you that this interpretation has the following virtue that it tells us where our confidence about meaning has to stop.

188
00:20:01,850 --> 00:20:12,080
As it stands, quantum mechanics doesn't permit us to say anything with confidence about reality beyond what we can measure of it.

189
00:20:13,180 --> 00:20:13,509
Now,

190
00:20:13,510 --> 00:20:23,140
one reason why some physicists don't like the Copenhagen interpretation and prefer other ones is this mysterious business of wavefunction collapse.

191
00:20:23,590 --> 00:20:32,300
The problem is that there's absolutely no mathematical prescription within quantum mechanics itself for how collapse happens.

192
00:20:32,380 --> 00:20:36,880
You have to kind of add it in by hand, and that just feels really unsatisfactory.

193
00:20:37,210 --> 00:20:45,910
And in fact, um, some physicists, including Roger Penrose here in Oxford, uh, believe that this is precisely actually what we should do,

194
00:20:45,910 --> 00:20:52,510
that we should add to the Schrodinger equation another term that describes collapse,

195
00:20:52,510 --> 00:20:59,050
and that we need to recognise that collapse is a real physical process that happens and that needs to be put into the theory.

196
00:20:59,740 --> 00:21:05,290
Others prefer the many worlds interpretation in which there is no collapse,

197
00:21:05,290 --> 00:21:13,690
but rather there is this splitting of the entire universe into parallel, mutually inaccessible worlds.

198
00:21:13,930 --> 00:21:20,770
Uh, whenever a classical outcome is, is, is manifest ever manifested from a quantum system?

199
00:21:21,160 --> 00:21:25,960
Well, some physicists find that rather extravagant resolution of the problem.

200
00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:30,640
But the challenge, really, and it's a challenge that still, as yet unmet,

201
00:21:30,850 --> 00:21:37,480
is to find an experimental way to distinguish between these alternative interpretations.

202
00:21:38,290 --> 00:21:38,919
Personally,

203
00:21:38,920 --> 00:21:47,440
I think the wavefunction collapse is is really just an outdated way of talking about the puzzle of what measurement is in quantum mechanics,

204
00:21:47,440 --> 00:21:51,190
and I'll explain later why I think that we can now do without it.

205
00:21:51,190 --> 00:21:57,159
But I just want to point out that, in fact, collapse was never a part of Bohr's interpretation anyway.

206
00:21:57,160 --> 00:22:01,950
It's often assumed many physicists just think it is, because that's what the textbooks seem to say.

207
00:22:01,960 --> 00:22:06,550
But in fact, Bohr didn't like the idea of collapse. He never referred to it himself.

208
00:22:06,730 --> 00:22:14,230
For him, it was just a clumsy way of saying that the quantum world of probabilities and our classical world,

209
00:22:14,380 --> 00:22:23,290
in which we make measurements and get definite outcomes, that these are two different complementary aspects of reality.

210
00:22:24,550 --> 00:22:30,790
Now, just as theirs is popular but misleading idea that quantum objects can be in many places at once.

211
00:22:31,360 --> 00:22:36,070
Sometimes we're told, too, that they can be in two or more states at once.

212
00:22:36,310 --> 00:22:46,390
They can be this and that. And these ideas arise from the possibility that quantum objects can be placed in these so-called superpositions of states.

213
00:22:46,720 --> 00:22:53,050
And I'm going to illustrate, uh, what that really means, uh, using a quantum property called spin.

214
00:22:53,380 --> 00:23:01,660
Um, and this is, uh, so some, uh, particles have spin and it's a little bit like, uh, so they're spinning, but it's not quite that.

215
00:23:01,660 --> 00:23:09,250
It's a special quantum version of that. And for these purposes, you can just think of it as something that makes some particles, like electrons,

216
00:23:09,490 --> 00:23:16,680
act like little magnets with a north and south pole that can be oriented in different directions.

217
00:23:16,690 --> 00:23:25,960
So let's denote those are just up or down. Um, and because you just have these, these this binary, uh, possibility, it's got to be this or that.

218
00:23:26,320 --> 00:23:31,840
Um, then we could use, uh, this property to encode information in binary form.

219
00:23:32,050 --> 00:23:36,040
Um, we could say that, you know, up represents a one, down represents a zero.

220
00:23:36,040 --> 00:23:42,790
And that is the basis of all quantum information technologies today, such as quantum computers,

221
00:23:42,790 --> 00:23:49,780
in which spins or other quantum states are used as quantum bits or qubits to encode information.

222
00:23:50,770 --> 00:23:54,040
But quantum spins can be not just up or down.

223
00:23:54,190 --> 00:23:57,310
That's to say, a qubit encoding either a one or a zero.

224
00:23:57,460 --> 00:24:00,880
They can be in a superposition of up and down states.

225
00:24:01,150 --> 00:24:11,470
So as a spin qubit placed in a superposition like this is often said to be in both states simultaneously a one and a zero simultaneously.

226
00:24:11,770 --> 00:24:16,360
Um, so that's the way it's often talked about, but that's not quite right.

227
00:24:17,370 --> 00:24:22,410
Remember that a wave function only tells us what we can expect when we make a measurement.

228
00:24:22,560 --> 00:24:32,010
And so a better way of saying it in this case, is that a measurement on this qubit could yield an outcome of up.

229
00:24:32,310 --> 00:24:35,969
Or it could yield an outcome of down both all possible outcomes.

230
00:24:35,970 --> 00:24:38,430
And in fact they're the only possible outcomes.

231
00:24:38,700 --> 00:24:46,110
But what the qubit is like before we make that measurement is something that quantum mechanics does not tell us about.

232
00:24:47,330 --> 00:24:52,330
Now, Schrodinger and Einstein didn't like any of this at all.

233
00:24:52,340 --> 00:25:00,800
They the idea that some quantum property was not just unknown in print in practice, but actually unknowable in principle.

234
00:25:00,890 --> 00:25:05,270
Before we look, that just seemed to them to contravene common sense.

235
00:25:05,750 --> 00:25:14,239
Um, that's what prompted Schrodinger in 1935 to come up with his famous thought experiment, in which a quantum event could,

236
00:25:14,240 --> 00:25:20,000
depending on how it comes out, either up or down, say, could either kill or not kill a cat.

237
00:25:20,270 --> 00:25:30,409
And Schrodinger argued that Borje and his Copenhagen crew were basically saying that unless we actually make a measurement on this cat,

238
00:25:30,410 --> 00:25:37,870
unless we actually open the box in which it's kept and look at it, it can be simultaneously both alive and dead.

239
00:25:37,880 --> 00:25:42,050
And that just seemed inherently a nonsensical thing to suppose.

240
00:25:43,180 --> 00:25:48,880
All I'm going to say here about that is that Schrodinger's Cat two is often misrepresented.

241
00:25:49,150 --> 00:25:55,090
For one thing, when you really think it through, this thought experiment doesn't really make sense.

242
00:25:55,430 --> 00:26:03,970
Um, but in any event, the Copenhagen interpretation didn't say that the cat is both alive and dead before you open the box to look at it.

243
00:26:04,240 --> 00:26:12,250
It says that when we open the box, or if we open the box, we might find that the cat is either alive or dead.

244
00:26:12,520 --> 00:26:16,420
It is silent about the state of affairs. Before we do that.

245
00:26:17,810 --> 00:26:20,950
What's more important is Einstein's response, um,

246
00:26:20,960 --> 00:26:27,950
to this matter of how measurement seems or observation seems to conjure reality into concrete existence.

247
00:26:28,580 --> 00:26:37,460
Because in the same year as it's driving his cat, 1935, he and I, Einstein and two junior colleagues, um, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen,

248
00:26:37,760 --> 00:26:43,370
came up with a different thought experiment, which they argued proved that quantum mechanics,

249
00:26:43,370 --> 00:26:48,060
as it then stood, was an incomplete description of reality.

250
00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:52,770
So here is the their paper, um, which they describe this thought experimentally.

251
00:26:52,770 --> 00:26:55,820
It's now known as the EPR experiment.

252
00:26:56,150 --> 00:26:58,430
It's actually the paper is actually pretty hard to follow.

253
00:26:58,520 --> 00:27:03,950
Um, and that's probably because it was written mostly by the Russian Podolsky, whose English wasn't terribly good.

254
00:27:04,280 --> 00:27:11,509
Uh, you can see that from the title, actually. Um, but the experiment was later put into a clearer form by the physicist David Bowen,

255
00:27:11,510 --> 00:27:14,750
and that's the version that most people use to talk about it today.

256
00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:22,190
So in that version, we imagine two quantum particles fired out from a source in opposite directions,

257
00:27:22,520 --> 00:27:27,349
and they have some property that can have only two possible states when it's measured.

258
00:27:27,350 --> 00:27:31,430
So it could be spin, it could be so these particles could be spin up or spin down.

259
00:27:31,730 --> 00:27:40,700
The crucial point is that the way in which they are produced, that means that these two that these properties are correlated in some fashion,

260
00:27:40,850 --> 00:27:46,700
for example, so that if one has a spin pointing up, the other must have a spin pointing down.

261
00:27:46,910 --> 00:27:53,960
We can't specify at the outset which it's going to be, whether it's going to be this way or that way.

262
00:27:54,020 --> 00:27:57,590
But we know for sure that there's going to be this correlation.

263
00:27:57,710 --> 00:28:08,540
So we then know that if we measure the spin of one particle and find, say, that it's up, then we know that the other must be spin down.

264
00:28:08,870 --> 00:28:13,010
And Schrodinger named this, uh, quantum correlation entanglement.

265
00:28:13,280 --> 00:28:17,450
Um, so we say that these two particles are entangled particles.

266
00:28:17,810 --> 00:28:24,320
Now, we can imagine actually this kind of correlation in everyday, um, classical, uh, phenomena.

267
00:28:24,320 --> 00:28:32,240
So say that, uh, we, you and I have a mutual friend and, uh, who buys a pair of gloves and sends us one each.

268
00:28:32,240 --> 00:28:36,200
Weird thing to do, I know, but our friend is a joker. Okay, so he does this.

269
00:28:36,470 --> 00:28:42,830
So if I then open my package and I find that I have the right hand glove, then I know instantly,

270
00:28:42,830 --> 00:28:47,150
without even having to look, that you have received the left hand glove.

271
00:28:48,180 --> 00:28:53,339
But here's the crucial thing. We also would suppose, in that case,

272
00:28:53,340 --> 00:29:01,440
that mine was the right hand glove in the parcel when it was going through the mail and when our friend posted it, and all along.

273
00:29:01,980 --> 00:29:06,840
But according to the Copenhagen interpretation, that is not true for these spins.

274
00:29:07,200 --> 00:29:12,810
Um, that it isn't actually determined until we look at them.

275
00:29:13,380 --> 00:29:15,510
And if that so, then the EPR,

276
00:29:15,510 --> 00:29:24,389
our experiment seemed to be saying that making a measurement on one of these particles instantly fixes what the spin of the other one has to be,

277
00:29:24,390 --> 00:29:28,440
as if there is some kind of communication passing between them.

278
00:29:28,440 --> 00:29:37,800
And this is what Einstein, um, referred to as the kind of spooky action at a distance that standard quantum mechanics seemed to demand.

279
00:29:38,370 --> 00:29:46,770
But Einstein's theory of special relativity had shown that this kind of instantaneous communication,

280
00:29:47,100 --> 00:29:53,850
um, at a distance, is impossible, that nothing no signal, can travel faster than light.

281
00:29:54,510 --> 00:29:59,249
So Einstein argued that quantum mechanics can't be the whole story, that it's incomplete.

282
00:29:59,250 --> 00:30:04,200
And the missing ingredient is often now referred to as a hidden variable.

283
00:30:04,200 --> 00:30:13,140
Some property that, even though we can't ever observe it, somehow fixes a definite orientation for these spins all along.

284
00:30:13,920 --> 00:30:21,300
Well, Niels Bohr, um, came up with a counter argument for why this conclusion of Einstein and colleagues wasn't valid,

285
00:30:21,570 --> 00:30:27,030
and most physicists figured out that May Bohr is probably right, because Bohr is hugely right.

286
00:30:27,030 --> 00:30:30,269
Uh, and, you know, they didn't really look into it very closely.

287
00:30:30,270 --> 00:30:33,150
And the matter just rested there for three decades.

288
00:30:33,630 --> 00:30:40,650
The problem was that it didn't seem possible to distinguish between Boyle's view of events and Einsteins experimentally,

289
00:30:40,650 --> 00:30:44,940
because they both predicted the same measurement outcome, which was just that.

290
00:30:44,940 --> 00:30:48,360
We would see that these two particles have this correlation between them.

291
00:30:49,430 --> 00:30:53,160
So the issue was swept under the rug, um, for several decades.

292
00:30:53,180 --> 00:31:01,880
But then in 1964, uh, the Irish physicist John Bell, whose day job was as a particle physicist at CERN in Geneva,

293
00:31:02,300 --> 00:31:07,940
reformulated the EPR experiment in a way that showed how it could be conducted

294
00:31:07,940 --> 00:31:14,810
for real and how it could distinguish what quantum mechanics alone predicts.

295
00:31:14,840 --> 00:31:19,010
That's both version from what a hidden variables view predicts.

296
00:31:19,010 --> 00:31:28,670
And that's Einstein's version. And those experiments that Bell suggested were first done in the 1970s using lasers to create entangled photons.

297
00:31:28,970 --> 00:31:35,750
And they've been repeated many times since, um, to rule out any possible loopholes in Bell's argument.

298
00:31:35,780 --> 00:31:44,569
In fact, the three recipients of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics were the key figures in those studies.

299
00:31:44,570 --> 00:31:51,770
And these so-called Bell tests have always consistently shown that the prediction from quantum mechanics alone,

300
00:31:52,190 --> 00:31:57,830
uh, is right, and that the hidden variables theories cannot be right.

301
00:31:58,400 --> 00:32:03,590
Incidentally, two of these laureates were at the Helgoland meeting, Anton Zeilinger and Alan Asprey.

302
00:32:03,740 --> 00:32:06,200
Uh, John Clowes was meant to be there, but he couldn't come.

303
00:32:06,560 --> 00:32:14,510
Um, and they were two of those that were just flatly disagreeing about what this implied, uh, for what quantum mechanics means.

304
00:32:15,170 --> 00:32:18,860
So what's wrong, then, with the EPR experiment?

305
00:32:19,070 --> 00:32:29,299
What went wrong with with Einstein's reasoning? Well, it relied on the perfectly reasonable assumption of locality that what happens here cannot

306
00:32:29,300 --> 00:32:36,060
affect what happens over here without some way of transmitting the effects between,

307
00:32:36,140 --> 00:32:40,440
uh, the intervening space between them. That's perfectly reasonable.

308
00:32:40,460 --> 00:32:46,790
But as Feynman once said, quanta, at the quantum level, nature is not reasonable.

309
00:32:47,090 --> 00:32:50,980
Once they are entangled, the fact is that, um,

310
00:32:50,990 --> 00:32:59,000
we can't regard these two particles in the EPR experiment any longer as separate entities, even though they look like that.

311
00:32:59,000 --> 00:33:03,780
They look like two particles travelling in space. As far as quantum mechanics is concerned.

312
00:33:03,800 --> 00:33:08,060
Once they are entangled, they are both parts of, in effect, a single object.

313
00:33:09,420 --> 00:33:18,090
Or, to put it in another way, the spinning orientation of one of the particles isn't solely located somehow on that particle in the way that,

314
00:33:18,120 --> 00:33:21,480
you know the redness of a cricket ball is located on the ball.

315
00:33:21,970 --> 00:33:32,400
Um, it is somehow non-local that property only if we accept Einstein's reasonable but wrong assumption of locality in quantum

316
00:33:32,400 --> 00:33:39,360
mechanics do we need to tell the story in terms of there being some kind of instantaneous communication and effect,

317
00:33:39,600 --> 00:33:43,170
um, across the, the, the distance between the particles?

318
00:33:43,470 --> 00:33:48,210
Quantum nonlocality is the alternative to that view.

319
00:33:49,140 --> 00:33:55,560
And Schrodinger argued that this property of quantum entanglement, uh, that was introduced really by the EPR paper.

320
00:33:55,560 --> 00:33:59,850
He said that this is actually the central feature of quantum mechanics.

321
00:34:00,150 --> 00:34:06,030
So it turns out that the big deal about quantum mechanics is not actually really the quantum at all.

322
00:34:06,030 --> 00:34:13,920
It's not really these quanta, these this, this discrete graininess that the theory imposes on the fabric of reality.

323
00:34:14,160 --> 00:34:22,380
Rather, it's this strange interdependence that quantum mechanics seems to impose on its particles.

324
00:34:22,920 --> 00:34:31,140
Perhaps the best way to think about this is that it's a kind of uniquely quantum way of sharing information.

325
00:34:31,620 --> 00:34:35,820
You know, if I want to share some information with you, if I want to tell you what it was like,

326
00:34:36,030 --> 00:34:41,549
how good landed the summer, then I have to use some classical means, some classical channel to do that.

327
00:34:41,550 --> 00:34:45,090
I can tell you about it, or I can send you an email, or I can send you a letter or whatever.

328
00:34:45,540 --> 00:34:50,280
Um, that information can never be conveyed faster than light,

329
00:34:50,520 --> 00:34:57,329
but quantum particles can share mutual information non-local by spreading it between them,

330
00:34:57,330 --> 00:35:00,480
as though the intervening intervening space just wasn't there.

331
00:35:00,930 --> 00:35:07,650
The catch is that this mutual information can never be used to actually send a signal to send a message,

332
00:35:08,100 --> 00:35:17,310
so I can't find out something in one place and somehow use quantum entanglement to instantly communicate it to another place that's not allowed.

333
00:35:17,370 --> 00:35:23,640
Um, that prohibition is fundamental to quantum mechanics, and it's known as the no signalling condition.

334
00:35:24,120 --> 00:35:25,319
And I'm going to come back to that.

335
00:35:25,320 --> 00:35:33,750
But first, I have a little bit more to say about entanglement, because Einstein thought it revealed a failure of quantum mechanics, but in fact,

336
00:35:33,750 --> 00:35:42,090
it supplies one of the reasons why I think that our understanding of the theory today has moved on since the time of Born Einstein.

337
00:35:42,660 --> 00:35:51,550
You see, the problem with the quantum, with the Copenhagen interpretation was that it left this business of, uh, measurement a kind of mystery.

338
00:35:51,570 --> 00:35:56,370
So on the one hand, we have these quantum probabilities of possible outcomes,

339
00:35:56,370 --> 00:36:01,469
and on the other hand, we have definite outcomes of measurements made with classical instruments.

340
00:36:01,470 --> 00:36:05,580
We know with big kit which give us a definite this or that.

341
00:36:05,730 --> 00:36:12,450
The particle is either here or it's there. And Bo insisted that we just have to accept that we need both of these views.

342
00:36:12,450 --> 00:36:16,409
We need the quantum to explain the behaviour of atoms in their particles,

343
00:36:16,410 --> 00:36:24,120
and we need the classical to talk about our own world as we experience it, what we can actually determine to be real.

344
00:36:24,690 --> 00:36:27,510
But this seemed really unsatisfactory.

345
00:36:28,350 --> 00:36:35,430
How can it be that we need these two incompatible frameworks for understanding the world, rather than just a unified view?

346
00:36:35,820 --> 00:36:41,280
And in any case, when then does quantum stop and classical start?

347
00:36:41,700 --> 00:36:47,759
In these days we've been able to see quantum behaviour and some pretty big objects, for example,

348
00:36:47,760 --> 00:36:59,670
in nanoparticles made of thousands and thousands of atoms or in loops of superconducting wire, um, that, uh, figure as big as a bacterium.

349
00:36:59,910 --> 00:37:06,989
And, um, this was actually first shown in the work that won this year's Nobel Prize in Physics.

350
00:37:06,990 --> 00:37:12,510
And these loops of superconducting wire are now used as quantum bits in quantum computers.

351
00:37:12,810 --> 00:37:20,250
So there's no good reason that we have to think that quantum mechanics somehow stops working at some particular size scale.

352
00:37:20,430 --> 00:37:24,480
It just gets harder and harder to see quantum effects that things get bigger.

353
00:37:25,110 --> 00:37:32,069
Well, it actually seems that entanglement holds the key to this so-called measurement problem,

354
00:37:32,070 --> 00:37:35,700
and it's allowed us to start filling in the missing bits.

355
00:37:35,700 --> 00:37:37,470
In the Copenhagen interpretation.

356
00:37:38,040 --> 00:37:45,960
You see, measurement is all about getting information out of a quantum system and into the measuring apparatus or more generally,

357
00:37:46,080 --> 00:37:52,050
out into some big and big sort of messy environment made of lots and lots of atoms.

358
00:37:52,350 --> 00:38:01,650
Entanglement provides the means for doing that, because it enables the quantum system to share information about itself with other particles.

359
00:38:01,830 --> 00:38:05,399
And in fact, um, so here we have the quantum object.

360
00:38:05,400 --> 00:38:08,730
We need to get the information out into its environment and in.

361
00:38:09,050 --> 00:38:17,410
Argument is what let that happen? Because in fact, entanglement happens inevitably whenever a particle interacts with another.

362
00:38:17,410 --> 00:38:26,230
And so it is, um, uh, what allows the quantum system to get information about itself out in the end to the, its environment.

363
00:38:26,710 --> 00:38:30,190
And there's now a pretty well worked out theory for how this happens,

364
00:38:30,190 --> 00:38:39,890
for how information about the properties of a quantum object get broadcast into its environment via entanglement between the two.

365
00:38:39,910 --> 00:38:48,340
And it turns out that in that process, what starts off as quantum behaviour ends up looking like classical behaviour,

366
00:38:48,610 --> 00:38:54,129
the interactions between the quantum object and its environment spread to the quantum mass,

367
00:38:54,130 --> 00:38:59,350
so to speak, spread the quantum mass of the object into the surroundings through entanglement.

368
00:38:59,680 --> 00:39:08,290
And what this does is it produces an imprint of the object in the environment and the imprint of that object in a specific state,

369
00:39:08,740 --> 00:39:10,660
which we can then access.

370
00:39:10,930 --> 00:39:17,860
And for us, these imprint, you know, in regular life, these imprints are often in the form of photons that our eyes can register.

371
00:39:17,860 --> 00:39:22,329
So you're seeing imprints of me. You're not in some sense seeing directly me.

372
00:39:22,330 --> 00:39:29,950
You're saying imprints of me that I'm leaving in my environment via the photons that are scattering from my body to your eyes,

373
00:39:29,950 --> 00:39:32,290
and each of you is seeing a different imprint.

374
00:39:32,320 --> 00:39:39,580
The photons that go into your eyes are different from the photons going into the your your neighbour's eye.

375
00:39:40,540 --> 00:39:46,090
And in this process, the quantum is in in a quantum object, a superposition, say,

376
00:39:46,390 --> 00:39:50,950
get spread and diluted in the environment so that we can't make it out anymore.

377
00:39:50,950 --> 00:39:54,190
And what we're left with is just classical behaviour.

378
00:39:54,250 --> 00:40:01,800
And this process is called decoherence. And it's the key to a theory of quantum measurement.

379
00:40:01,830 --> 00:40:08,430
You could say that that really classical physics is just what quantum physics looks like when you're six feet tall,

380
00:40:08,430 --> 00:40:11,370
and when you experience it via this decoherence.

381
00:40:11,700 --> 00:40:18,900
Now, I don't think we can say yet that this theory of environmental entanglement, if you like, and of decoherence,

382
00:40:19,140 --> 00:40:25,310
I don't think it yet gives us a complete explanation of quantum measurement, but I think it gets us a lot of the way there.

383
00:40:25,320 --> 00:40:28,860
And if you're interested to find out more, I would recommend this book.

384
00:40:28,890 --> 00:40:34,890
It's just very recently been published by one of the pioneers of this aspect of quantum theory, boy, Jack Zurek.

385
00:40:35,970 --> 00:40:40,379
So you can maybe start to see that that at the deepest level,

386
00:40:40,380 --> 00:40:47,450
quantum mechanics today isn't about wave functions and collapse and wave particle duality.

387
00:40:47,460 --> 00:40:51,750
It's the theory of what can and can't be done with information.

388
00:40:51,960 --> 00:40:58,470
And that is precisely where some scientists now think we can get at the essence of what quantum mechanics means,

389
00:40:58,590 --> 00:41:04,800
not from the old ad hoc intuitions about waves and particles and Schrodinger equations and so on.

390
00:41:05,040 --> 00:41:13,710
But by thinking about how information can be encoded, transferred, manipulated and read out in quantum systems.

391
00:41:14,190 --> 00:41:19,470
And if that sounds a bit like computer science, that's no coincidence.

392
00:41:19,710 --> 00:41:25,380
We've all heard, now, I'm sure, about these quantum computers being made by the likes of IBM and Google,

393
00:41:25,920 --> 00:41:32,160
which are expected to be able to do some kinds of computation much faster than our conventional classical computers.

394
00:41:32,760 --> 00:41:37,799
But here's the thing this isn't simply a case of applied science and technology

395
00:41:37,800 --> 00:41:42,690
emerging from pure and fundamental science in quantum information theory.

396
00:41:42,810 --> 00:41:47,190
That interaction goes both ways. So on the one hand,

397
00:41:47,190 --> 00:41:52,260
it's because quantum bits can be entangled so that they share mutual information

398
00:41:52,410 --> 00:41:56,370
much more profoundly and much more efficiently than classical bits can.

399
00:41:56,370 --> 00:42:02,219
It's because of that that quantum computers potentially have this greater computational power,

400
00:42:02,220 --> 00:42:05,460
so that they might be able to solve some problems in minutes.

401
00:42:05,700 --> 00:42:10,890
That would take the best classical computers today longer than the age of the universe.

402
00:42:11,730 --> 00:42:19,050
But the problems faced by engineers of quantum computing problems like how to correct for the random errors that arise,

403
00:42:19,500 --> 00:42:25,920
um, that these problems come about because of fundamental features of quantum theory.

404
00:42:25,980 --> 00:42:33,780
So quantum error correction itself is hard because of a prohibition similar to that no signalling condition.

405
00:42:33,780 --> 00:42:38,010
I mentioned earlier, a prohibition called the no cloning theorem,

406
00:42:38,220 --> 00:42:45,480
which says that you can't make copies of a quantum state that you don't know about because you haven't measured it yet.

407
00:42:45,480 --> 00:42:48,810
And that means you can't make backup copies of your quantum bits.

408
00:42:49,080 --> 00:42:53,130
Um, to in case you get errors in some of them.

409
00:42:53,820 --> 00:42:58,139
So as a result, by addressing problems in quantum information technology,

410
00:42:58,140 --> 00:43:06,660
we're finding out some things about the fundamentals of quantum mechanics itself and acquiring a new language to talk about that.

411
00:43:06,780 --> 00:43:08,940
A language of quantum information.

412
00:43:09,820 --> 00:43:17,260
And in that spirit, I want to offer you a way of thinking about one of the features that's hardest to grasp and to articulate about quantum mechanics,

413
00:43:17,530 --> 00:43:26,110
how it is that the information we obtain from measurements seems to depend on the questions we ask and how we ask them.

414
00:43:26,440 --> 00:43:29,710
That's really what Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle says.

415
00:43:29,740 --> 00:43:40,000
It says that we can only know some things about quantum objects if we accept that that very knowing renders other aspects totally unknowable.

416
00:43:41,220 --> 00:43:49,140
The American physicist John Wheeler, who studied under Baugh and actually had Feynman as a student, actually had voice recognition as well.

417
00:43:49,470 --> 00:43:57,480
Wheeler developed a wonderful metaphor for illustrating this idea of how answers about what's real can

418
00:43:57,480 --> 00:44:04,020
emerge from the questions we ask in a way that's perfectly consistent and rule bound and non-random,

419
00:44:04,200 --> 00:44:09,420
but without requiring there to be a pre-existing truth underneath it all.

420
00:44:09,660 --> 00:44:12,870
So you, I'm sure you know the game of 20 questions.

421
00:44:12,870 --> 00:44:18,630
So one player leaves the room and everyone else agrees on a person, and then the person comes back in,

422
00:44:18,660 --> 00:44:25,170
the questioner comes back in and starts asking questions to find out, to see if they can find out who that person is that we've decided on.

423
00:44:25,290 --> 00:44:32,700
And the questions have to have just a yes or no answer. Okay, just one of their just a spin up or spin down is a quantum game, you know?

424
00:44:33,000 --> 00:44:38,489
So imagine that you are the questioner and you've gone out and then you've come back in and you start asking your questions of,

425
00:44:38,490 --> 00:44:44,129
you know, people in turn. And, um, they give you answers, yes or no, depending on the question.

426
00:44:44,130 --> 00:44:52,920
But you find that after you've asked a few questions, it's taking the answer a longer and longer to figure out whether to say yes or no.

427
00:44:52,980 --> 00:44:59,280
Well, that's kind of weird. But, um, anyway, you keep going and you figure out you're getting close to who it is, and finally you think,

428
00:44:59,310 --> 00:45:03,060
you know and you say it's Richard Feynman, and everyone says, yes, it's Richard Feynman.

429
00:45:03,060 --> 00:45:06,660
And you all laughed and the game is over. But then you say, well, what was going on?

430
00:45:06,660 --> 00:45:10,680
Why was it so difficult for you to, you know, come up with the answer?

431
00:45:10,710 --> 00:45:16,260
Uh, later on in the game and they explain what they really did while you were out of the room.

432
00:45:16,860 --> 00:45:23,040
They didn't decide on Richard Feynman. They didn't decide on any particular person at all.

433
00:45:23,760 --> 00:45:31,860
What they agreed to do was that everyone had to make sure that the answer they gave was consistent with all the previous ones,

434
00:45:32,040 --> 00:45:37,110
in the sense of that they knew it would fit somebody who was well known.

435
00:45:37,590 --> 00:45:43,010
So, you know, to begin with, it's easy. The first question might be, you know, is it male or female?

436
00:45:43,470 --> 00:45:46,560
Because it has to be yes or no. Uh, is it's the person female.

437
00:45:46,770 --> 00:45:50,370
And the answer, uh, you know, the answer I could choose at random.

438
00:45:50,670 --> 00:45:55,950
So they just say no. Okay, fine. But then every subsequent answer has to be consistent with that.

439
00:45:56,190 --> 00:46:00,749
And so of course the options become more and more constrained as the questions proceed.

440
00:46:00,750 --> 00:46:07,200
And it takes longer and longer for the answer to figure out who's going to still fit all of these answers so far.

441
00:46:07,620 --> 00:46:16,680
And everyone was forced, by the nature of the questions asked, to converge on the same final outcome, the same person.

442
00:46:16,980 --> 00:46:23,280
If you had asked different questions, you would have probably ended up with a different final answer.

443
00:46:23,580 --> 00:46:31,920
There never was a preordained answer. You brought it into being and in a way that is fully consistent with the questions you asked.

444
00:46:32,310 --> 00:46:39,780
And what's more, the very notion of there being an answer um, only makes sense when you play the game,

445
00:46:39,780 --> 00:46:43,859
when you ask the questions, if you'd come back in and said, oh, you know what, I can't be bothered.

446
00:46:43,860 --> 00:46:49,290
Just tell me who you thought of. There is no meaningful answer that anyone could have given at that point.

447
00:46:49,770 --> 00:46:52,080
That is what quantum mechanics is like.

448
00:46:53,220 --> 00:47:02,940
It's a theory of what is and what is not knowable, and how these knowns are related and how they depend on the questions we ask.

449
00:47:03,600 --> 00:47:14,070
And I like to think about this as a distinction between a theory of illness and a theory of, if not, quantum mechanics doesn't tell us how a thing is.

450
00:47:14,730 --> 00:47:22,530
It tells us what with calculable probability, what it could be, what the possibilities are along with.

451
00:47:22,530 --> 00:47:27,329
And this is crucial, along with a logic of the relationships between those could.

452
00:47:27,330 --> 00:47:30,810
So if, if this, then it has to be that and so forth.

453
00:47:31,200 --> 00:47:37,110
And what this means is that to truly describe the features of quantum mechanics as far as we currently can,

454
00:47:37,770 --> 00:47:41,340
we should replace all the conventional isms with.

455
00:47:41,350 --> 00:47:47,729
If so, we should say, for example, not here, it is a particle, there it is a wave.

456
00:47:47,730 --> 00:47:53,910
We should say if we measure things like this, the quantum object behaves in a manner we associate with particles.

457
00:47:53,910 --> 00:47:58,410
But if we measure like that, like that, it behaves as if it's a wave.

458
00:47:59,160 --> 00:48:00,960
And we we should say not.

459
00:48:01,200 --> 00:48:10,440
The particle is in two states at once, but rather if we measure it, we will detect this state with probability x and that state with probability y.

460
00:48:11,720 --> 00:48:16,490
This, if nasty, is perplexing because it's not what we've come to associate with science.

461
00:48:16,490 --> 00:48:26,480
We're used to science telling us how things are, and if there are ifs in there, that's usually because we're just because of our own ignorance.

462
00:48:26,990 --> 00:48:30,440
But in quantum mechanics, the ifs a fundamental.

463
00:48:31,730 --> 00:48:35,450
Is there. And is this behind the.

464
00:48:35,450 --> 00:48:43,040
If this. Well that's possible. And simply by admitting as much, we're going beyond the simplistic view of the Copenhagen interpretation,

465
00:48:43,040 --> 00:48:48,200
according to which there's really nothing meaningful to be said beyond the results of observations.

466
00:48:48,440 --> 00:48:53,140
But if there is something like that, if there is a fabric of reality we can talk about,

467
00:48:53,150 --> 00:49:03,620
it's not going to be like the business of everyday life in which objects have intrinsic, non contextual, localised properties.

468
00:49:03,920 --> 00:49:07,130
It will not be a common sense illness.

469
00:49:08,480 --> 00:49:13,700
Quantum mechanics, then maybe the machinery that we humans need.

470
00:49:13,730 --> 00:49:18,890
Here we are at scales pitched midway between the subatomic and the galactic.

471
00:49:19,010 --> 00:49:28,940
At this scale, it's the kind of theory we need to try to compile and to quantify information about a world that has this character,

472
00:49:28,940 --> 00:49:31,970
a world that seems at its finest grain,

473
00:49:32,420 --> 00:49:38,960
incredibly sensitive to the touch, liable to spring off in unpredictable directions,

474
00:49:39,410 --> 00:49:46,160
a world that's not yet quite fully defined, not yet fully real to our classical senses.

475
00:49:46,520 --> 00:49:52,790
Quantum mechanics embodies what we have learned about how to navigate in such a place.

476
00:49:53,780 --> 00:50:02,359
And at any rate, it's vital that we understand that this, if not, doesn't imply that the world, this world,

477
00:50:02,360 --> 00:50:09,470
our world, our home, that it's holding anything back from us, it's hiding reality behind some kind of fuzzy veil.

478
00:50:09,710 --> 00:50:14,030
It's just that classical physics has primed us to expect too much from it.

479
00:50:14,630 --> 00:50:18,900
We've become accustomed to asking questions and getting definite answers.

480
00:50:18,920 --> 00:50:21,950
You know, what colour is it? How heavy is it? How fast is it moving?

481
00:50:22,400 --> 00:50:27,620
Forgetting the almost ludicrous amount that we don't know about everyday objects.

482
00:50:27,860 --> 00:50:37,520
We figured we could go on asking questions like that forever, questions that seem perfectly reasonable and expect to get answers at ever finer scales.

483
00:50:38,000 --> 00:50:44,450
And when we discovered that we can't, we felt shortchanged about nature when we pronounced nature weird.

484
00:50:44,870 --> 00:50:51,560
Well, that won't do anymore. Nature does its best, and we need to adjust our expectations to that.

485
00:50:51,680 --> 00:50:54,860
We need to go beyond weird. Thank you.

486
00:51:07,860 --> 00:51:13,190
Thank you so much, Billy. Uh, we got, uh, chance for some time for questions from you.

487
00:51:13,200 --> 00:51:16,990
Um. Uh, so we've got a roving mic. Um, but I just saw.

488
00:51:17,580 --> 00:51:22,980
You just set me up. This whole lecture was basically so I could tell my favourite quantum joke, if you'll indulge me.

489
00:51:23,250 --> 00:51:26,579
Um. Which if Eisenberg's bombing down the motorway, um.

490
00:51:26,580 --> 00:51:31,409
And gets pulled over by the police, and, uh, the policeman says, do you know how fast you were going?

491
00:51:31,410 --> 00:51:39,570
And, uh, he says, no, but I knew exactly where I was. And then the policeman says, well, you were going 120km an hour and says, oh, now we're lost.

492
00:51:40,260 --> 00:51:44,310
Uh uh, but then there was Schrodinger in the back of the car and, uh, the guys.

493
00:51:44,520 --> 00:51:48,870
Do you mind if I check your boot? And he flips open the boot. Oh, my God, there's a dead cat in here.

494
00:51:49,140 --> 00:51:54,540
The Schrodinger says, well, now it's dead. It's gone. Anyway, so, um, uh, maybe that's a joke.

495
00:51:54,540 --> 00:51:58,310
Doesn't make any sense now, but having that big red cross on it.

496
00:51:58,540 --> 00:52:05,130
Um, anyway, do we have to ask? Put your hands up if you'd like a question, uh, to ask Bill, and, uh, we'll get a mighty you.

497
00:52:06,560 --> 00:52:10,040
Or they've all been bamboozled. Great.

498
00:52:10,040 --> 00:52:14,390
There's a hand up here is going to start us off. So there's a mind for you.

499
00:52:14,990 --> 00:52:19,240
Hi. Um, an elaboration on the Schrodinger. Uh uh, paradoxes.

500
00:52:19,250 --> 00:52:23,120
Weakness, friend, where an observer observes an observer and it's claim.

501
00:52:23,120 --> 00:52:29,220
That's a recent experiment that Harriet Walter established that can be no objective view of reality, uh,

502
00:52:29,330 --> 00:52:35,270
and that different observers will come up with different views, uh, on the on the same physical situation.

503
00:52:35,630 --> 00:52:39,080
Is this a myth, uh, or is this the case?

504
00:52:39,650 --> 00:52:43,490
No, that that is exactly right. That seems to be what it's telling us.

505
00:52:43,490 --> 00:52:47,990
So this experiment, this is actually a much more interesting experiment than Schrodinger's cat,

506
00:52:47,990 --> 00:52:54,200
and it's the one that physicists now spend much more time thinking about or people interested in the foundations of quantum physics,

507
00:52:54,410 --> 00:52:59,090
which is, um, so there was a physicist called Eugene Fechner who came up with this.

508
00:52:59,090 --> 00:53:02,610
So he imagined, um, someone doing an experiment.

509
00:53:02,690 --> 00:53:06,589
And it could be the starting of captivating, could just be measuring a spin in a lab.

510
00:53:06,590 --> 00:53:09,739
So his friend is in the lab doing the experiment,

511
00:53:09,740 --> 00:53:14,420
making a measurement to see if this thing that is in a superposition, to see if they measure up or down.

512
00:53:14,720 --> 00:53:25,940
And, um, they the friend does the measurement and gets a result and posts a little message under the door of the lab saying, I've got a result.

513
00:53:26,480 --> 00:53:34,970
So we know the measurement has been done. But as far as Victor outside the lab is concerned, he doesn't know, uh, what the result is.

514
00:53:35,330 --> 00:53:45,920
So quantum mechanics seems to insist that that being the case, the friend is in a superposition as well of having measured both up or down.

515
00:53:45,920 --> 00:53:53,870
There is no way that Victor can say anything more about the friend than that, um, with the information that he has.

516
00:53:53,870 --> 00:53:57,529
So he has to know that the measurement has been done, but somehow it hasn't.

517
00:53:57,530 --> 00:54:01,430
Somehow it's put the friend in a what seems to be a superposition as well.

518
00:54:01,550 --> 00:54:07,370
And you can imagine an infinite sort of series of the, you know, the boxes where people, you know, don't know.

519
00:54:07,370 --> 00:54:12,920
Vigna kind of tells another friend that it's been done, but, you know, once he knows the result and so on.

520
00:54:13,220 --> 00:54:20,600
So, uh, um, what what when you pursue this, uh, sort of logic through to, uh, its conclusion,

521
00:54:20,600 --> 00:54:25,970
what it seems to indicate is that it's possible in a situation like this for,

522
00:54:26,300 --> 00:54:31,700
uh, one person to have one, uh, set of results, uh,

523
00:54:31,700 --> 00:54:36,590
about what has been done and another person to have another set, and they're incompatible with each other.

524
00:54:36,920 --> 00:54:46,070
Um, but both have to be regarded in some sense as truth that the, the, the actual result, the outcome seems to be observer dependent.

525
00:54:46,340 --> 00:54:50,690
That just seems very strange. But that's what vagueness, friends, seems to imply.

526
00:54:50,690 --> 00:54:58,370
Um, there have been arguments made for, you know, that this we just have to accept this as an element of quantum mechanics, uh, as well.

527
00:54:58,520 --> 00:55:07,729
Um, there are, in fact, on the ferry back from Helgoland, uh, I that I had a long discussion with, uh, a few others about that.

528
00:55:07,730 --> 00:55:09,049
There was someone there who was very,

529
00:55:09,050 --> 00:55:15,560
very keen to see a fitness friend experiment actually done and had ideas about how it could be done using photons.

530
00:55:15,560 --> 00:55:18,080
So you could actually put some of this to the test.

531
00:55:18,200 --> 00:55:24,590
So I'm kind of optimistic that actually we might find a way to carry out a thought experiment like that.

532
00:55:25,690 --> 00:55:30,660
Thank you for the presentation, first of all. Um, my question is a little philosophical.

533
00:55:30,670 --> 00:55:40,480
I just want you to know this. Can I, at any point, can we be really understand the nature of the universe, or should I rather say the universe?

534
00:55:40,750 --> 00:55:48,730
Let us understand its nature itself. Or should you rather say these words will allow us to understand.

535
00:55:48,740 --> 00:55:53,670
Yeah. Uh. Underst understand itself. Like I.

536
00:55:54,000 --> 00:56:04,760
I mean, in, in in the end, this is what it comes down to that people wonder is quantum mechanics something that we can actually get an intuition for?

537
00:56:05,090 --> 00:56:10,819
Or do we have to just resolve ourselves to what seem to be these, these paradoxes, all these things that,

538
00:56:10,820 --> 00:56:15,860
you know, we can't kind of picture we can't picture what quantum nonlocality means.

539
00:56:15,860 --> 00:56:22,340
We can describe it in equations. But how can it be that, you know, the properties of this object are also kind of in this object.

540
00:56:22,970 --> 00:56:26,299
So that is absolutely the question.

541
00:56:26,300 --> 00:56:28,760
You know, can we develop an intuition about this?

542
00:56:29,300 --> 00:56:37,310
Some people have talked about in fact, I think Bob Coke is uh, in, in Oxford two has uh, sort of made steps along this direction.

543
00:56:37,310 --> 00:56:43,459
Some people think if we start teaching quantum ideas really early on in education,

544
00:56:43,460 --> 00:56:47,150
maybe even at primary school, you know, there are ways that you could do this.

545
00:56:47,600 --> 00:56:55,940
Will we be able to develop an intuition at that stage that, you know, we can't easily get once we're set in our ways?

546
00:56:56,360 --> 00:57:05,870
Um, and the other possibility is that because it's now possible to actually do to explore these ideas using quantum computers,

547
00:57:05,870 --> 00:57:07,729
you can you can use them on the cloud.

548
00:57:07,730 --> 00:57:15,110
IBM, for one, makes their quantum a part of their quantum computing resources available on the cloud to schools and others.

549
00:57:15,320 --> 00:57:19,760
So you can, you know, carry out, uh, some of these kind of experiments, basically,

550
00:57:20,150 --> 00:57:25,670
um, will that allow people to develop a better intuition about quantum mechanics?

551
00:57:25,970 --> 00:57:28,610
So I don't know the answer to that.

552
00:57:28,610 --> 00:57:36,169
Um, it's certainly I think I'm too old to, you know, really feel I'm ever going to get an intuition for these things.

553
00:57:36,170 --> 00:57:39,830
And I feel like there are some things you just have to accept. That's the way it is.

554
00:57:40,160 --> 00:57:43,730
But it would be fantastic if there comes a point where, you know,

555
00:57:44,690 --> 00:57:53,180
it does seem possible for us to not just know that this is so because we're told, but to intuit why it should be.

556
00:57:54,680 --> 00:58:00,200
Maybe it's about, uh, um, making everyone mathematicians because I often feel when I'm looking at quantum physics that,

557
00:58:00,230 --> 00:58:04,500
um, uh, you know, the mathematics, as you say, it's sort of you follow the mathematics.

558
00:58:04,880 --> 00:58:10,370
It's it's not that complicated. It's when you then try and translate it into natural language that, um,

559
00:58:10,370 --> 00:58:15,589
and interpret what, what the non computing, uh, measurement means suddenly becomes.

560
00:58:15,590 --> 00:58:20,749
I can't know one thing if I know another. Yeah. And I might, I might upset you here, Markus.

561
00:58:20,750 --> 00:58:22,040
Because there are people.

562
00:58:22,370 --> 00:58:28,410
This may probably not what you're saying, but there are people who say you can't understand quantum, uh, quantum mechanics unless you do the math.

563
00:58:28,430 --> 00:58:29,710
You just have to learn the math.

564
00:58:29,720 --> 00:58:34,610
You just have to be able to solve the Schrodinger equation, and, you know, you're never going to understand it otherwise.

565
00:58:35,330 --> 00:58:39,500
And I feel like that's, um. That's not quite.

566
00:58:39,500 --> 00:58:45,110
I'm not satisfied with that. I think, um, it's true that, you know, you can.

567
00:58:45,410 --> 00:58:48,739
I mean, doing the math is not the same as having an understanding.

568
00:58:48,740 --> 00:58:53,690
And that's why we're still arguing about it, as you say, you know, and I as I say, the math isn't that hard.

569
00:58:53,870 --> 00:59:02,060
You know, you can you can learn it. So I, I don't think that I, I'm not happy with the idea that, oh, you just have to learn the math.

570
00:59:02,070 --> 00:59:05,090
And that's the only way you'll get to understanding quantum mechanics.

571
00:59:05,330 --> 00:59:10,430
I think the math is a way of kind of, you know, not having to look at.

572
00:59:10,430 --> 00:59:17,810
It's the old, the cliche, um, that sort of arose in the, in the 1970s, I guess it was 1980s, actually.

573
00:59:18,110 --> 00:59:22,130
Uh, was the idea that quantum mechanics became about shut up and calculate.

574
00:59:22,400 --> 00:59:28,880
Yeah, stop worrying about these philosophical problems or what seemed like philosophical problems, and just do the math because it works.

575
00:59:29,330 --> 00:59:35,149
Um, and happily, that that situation has changed.

576
00:59:35,150 --> 00:59:36,590
And there are people now, you know,

577
00:59:36,590 --> 00:59:44,419
it's now no longer unfashionable or actually career damaging to ask these sorts of questions seem philosophical and actually,

578
00:59:44,420 --> 00:59:50,480
in some cases, to start to be able to see how you might be able to do experiments to, to, to get at them.

579
00:59:51,200 --> 00:59:55,880
It's probably fair to say that I both understand and don't understand what you're talking about.

580
00:59:56,720 --> 01:00:04,580
Um, but as people as smart as you, or perhaps smarter or certainly smarter than me wrestle with all these, um,

581
01:00:05,360 --> 01:00:13,849
bizarre philosophical paradoxes, what sort of practical value is generated or is expected to be generated?

582
01:00:13,850 --> 01:00:20,510
So the quantum computing, uh, I don't know what that is, but I guess it's probably a computer that's way faster than what we have now.

583
01:00:20,780 --> 01:00:26,780
But how does that make a difference for the average person or humanity or industry or whatever?

584
01:00:26,780 --> 01:00:34,610
Like where where do we end up with after we've had all these, uh, arguments and conversations and, and, uh.

585
01:00:35,560 --> 01:00:39,990
Philosophical discussions. Yeah. Well, it's very good question.

586
01:00:40,000 --> 01:00:44,930
I mean, I should say, first of all, that I wouldn't personally, uh,

587
01:00:44,950 --> 01:00:51,870
demand that there be practical applications of asking these questions in order to make them interesting in their own right.

588
01:00:51,880 --> 01:00:58,570
I think it's, you know, it just feels to me it's really interesting to think, well, what is what is reality really?

589
01:00:58,570 --> 01:01:02,590
That seems like a pretty fundamental question, but it does turn out that, you know,

590
01:01:02,590 --> 01:01:09,729
we do now have this quantum computing industry that's, I think, worth something like 4 billion already around the world.

591
01:01:09,730 --> 01:01:15,670
And there are lots of quantum computing firms, and it's just one of several quantum information technologies.

592
01:01:15,670 --> 01:01:21,790
Quantum cryptography is another using these quantum rules to transmit information in a way that you can't,

593
01:01:22,120 --> 01:01:27,370
uh, possibly, uh, eavesdrop on or you can't eavesdrop on without that being detected.

594
01:01:27,370 --> 01:01:29,470
So it's a much more secure system.

595
01:01:29,650 --> 01:01:38,260
And there's actually now a quantum, uh, internet being built that allows information to be, uh, shared this way in China.

596
01:01:38,290 --> 01:01:44,770
Uh, China is leaping ahead in these areas. Has already got a rudimentary network of that sort.

597
01:01:45,190 --> 01:01:51,519
Um, and yes, quantum computers are for certain sorts of problems, not for all, but for certain sorts of problems.

598
01:01:51,520 --> 01:01:53,979
They should be able to solve them much more quickly.

599
01:01:53,980 --> 01:02:01,120
And in fact, this is something that Feynman it comes from an idea from Feynman himself who figured he he just thought,

600
01:02:01,120 --> 01:02:04,599
well, nature itself is obviously quantum at the fundamental level.

601
01:02:04,600 --> 01:02:10,540
So if we want to simulate nature or if we want to simulate materials or molecules to figure out how they behave,

602
01:02:10,750 --> 01:02:17,980
surely we should do it using quantum principles, not with these classical computers, which where it's really clunky to have to make that translation.

603
01:02:18,340 --> 01:02:23,200
And that is one of the areas that quantum computers are likely to be useful for,

604
01:02:23,200 --> 01:02:30,640
for simulating materials so that we can do the sorts of calculations that might point us towards potentially new,

605
01:02:30,760 --> 01:02:33,970
uh, useful new materials or useful new new drugs.

606
01:02:34,390 --> 01:02:39,340
Um, now, it's it's tempting to overhype that, that kind of potential.

607
01:02:39,340 --> 01:02:46,479
And I think what that the truth is, uh, that we're going to end up I think when this, when this industry matures,

608
01:02:46,480 --> 01:02:51,070
we're going to end up with a hybrid of some things being done classically because classical

609
01:02:51,070 --> 01:02:55,719
computers are fine for them and other things being done quantum mechanically on quantum computers,

610
01:02:55,720 --> 01:03:00,970
because they can do those particular things faster. And we'll never know, because it'll all be done in the cloud,

611
01:03:00,970 --> 01:03:07,480
and we'll never know which parts of our research or whatever we're doing was done by quantum or by classical computing,

612
01:03:07,750 --> 01:03:11,170
where it'll just be, you know, more efficient somehow.

613
01:03:11,530 --> 01:03:16,809
So there are these applications of quantum information technology.

614
01:03:16,810 --> 01:03:22,330
And, um, you know, there are others to do with quantum sensors, very fine measurements of, um,

615
01:03:22,330 --> 01:03:28,780
of gravitational fields, for example, that are already, uh, being used in things like GPS system.

616
01:03:29,050 --> 01:03:34,450
So there are applications that, uh, you know, real world applications that, uh, that are going to be useful.

617
01:03:34,870 --> 01:03:36,459
Um, but yeah, I,

618
01:03:36,460 --> 01:03:44,230
I just reiterate that I think it's really important that we wouldn't make that a criterion for whether we pursue these questions or not.

619
01:03:44,260 --> 01:03:49,670
They seem to me just be intrinsically interesting. Thank you.

620
01:03:49,910 --> 01:03:54,770
I'm neither a physicist or a computer scientist, and you've sort of partly answered the question, I think just then.

621
01:03:54,770 --> 01:04:00,560
But I thought that quantum computer was a thing of beauty, but it kind of didn't look real.

622
01:04:01,250 --> 01:04:04,790
But I wondered if there's an infinite number of if isms.

623
01:04:05,360 --> 01:04:11,720
How do you get an accurate answer out of a quantum computer with an infinite number of observers?

624
01:04:13,400 --> 01:04:18,020
Um, okay. Uh, let me break up the quantum computer because it is a thing of atoms.

625
01:04:18,470 --> 01:04:22,010
It looks like it's something from a doctor or a sci fi film.

626
01:04:22,040 --> 01:04:29,080
Um, dev, I don't know if you saw devs was, you know, they made a big thing of their quantum computer in this series, this Alex Garland series.

627
01:04:29,090 --> 01:04:30,530
But that is what they look like.

628
01:04:30,680 --> 01:04:37,760
The weird thing is that the actual computing bit of this, most of this is wiring and cooling, because you have to cool these things down a lot.

629
01:04:37,790 --> 01:04:41,120
The actual computing bit is really it's like the size of a thumbnail.

630
01:04:41,420 --> 01:04:45,709
Um, uh, because it's all being done on these tiny little superconducting loops.

631
01:04:45,710 --> 01:04:50,990
Or sometimes people just use individual atoms or ions as the qubits, but they are real.

632
01:04:51,020 --> 01:04:54,469
Uh, and they do work and they work as, as predicted.

633
01:04:54,470 --> 01:05:02,840
And they're not yet it's controversial, actually, whether they're yet at the stage of doing anything faster than classical computers,

634
01:05:03,050 --> 01:05:07,879
but they're very good reason to believe that they they will be able to do that.

635
01:05:07,880 --> 01:05:12,770
Um, you know, that, that, that they're getting bigger and bigger and more and more powerful.

636
01:05:13,220 --> 01:05:21,120
Um, so, but. The the the outcomes aren't, um, uh, aren't infinite.

637
01:05:21,150 --> 01:05:24,809
What's really happening? You have a set of maybe these days,

638
01:05:24,810 --> 01:05:30,780
it could be up to about a thousand of these quantum bits that are lots of them are all sort of entangled with each other.

639
01:05:30,960 --> 01:05:39,030
And because, as I say, because of that, they can kind of share information in a very efficient way that allows a computation to be done more quickly.

640
01:05:39,240 --> 01:05:44,520
Um, but, you know, there's it's finite, there's already a finite set of outcomes.

641
01:05:44,520 --> 01:05:51,299
And very often the kinds of problems that they do very well are ones of optimisation, where there's lots of possible answers.

642
01:05:51,300 --> 01:05:53,160
But you want to find the one, the best one.

643
01:05:53,190 --> 01:06:00,420
You want to find the one like in logistics, you want to find the route that you know that is most efficient, that saves you the most time.

644
01:06:00,570 --> 01:06:05,790
That's the kind of, uh, problem that quantum computers are likely to be good at solving.

645
01:06:06,060 --> 01:06:14,940
So, you know, there's a finite set of possibilities, but it's just too big for classical computers that have to work through every single possibility.

646
01:06:15,060 --> 01:06:22,500
And once you've got, you know, 100 different elements, the number of permutations of those is just literally astronomical.

647
01:06:22,620 --> 01:06:26,870
And so it takes forever, you know, literally to find the answer.

648
01:06:26,880 --> 01:06:34,950
Whereas with quantum computers, because of this, extra ways that they can share mutual information, you can do it much more efficiently.

649
01:06:34,980 --> 01:06:41,130
So that's really how it's working. Right. Um, I think we're beginning to run out of time on Beaujolais.

650
01:06:41,170 --> 01:06:46,210
So, uh, because we got to hand over the stage to tonight's, uh, production of Arthur Miller's play.

651
01:06:46,460 --> 01:06:50,530
Um, and Phil has done a fantastic job, I think, of putting us in a kind of, uh,

652
01:06:50,550 --> 01:06:55,690
as our audience member said, a kind of superposition of understanding and not quite understanding.

653
01:06:55,690 --> 01:07:03,670
But I'm. I'm hoping that, uh, you've increased the probability that when we collapse you as an audience as you go out, that you'll be more on the.

654
01:07:03,880 --> 01:07:08,650
I think I understood that, um, than the I'm still lost in this kind of world.

655
01:07:08,650 --> 01:07:15,250
So, um, uh, we're going to come and have a drink in the bar afterwards, so we didn't get the chance to ask a question.

656
01:07:15,520 --> 01:07:20,379
Uh, there'll be a chance to, uh, to meet Bill and, uh, uh, quiz him a little bit more, but,

657
01:07:20,380 --> 01:07:25,900
uh, um, let's just give a big round of applause for, uh, a wonderful talk of the quantum.

658
01:07:25,900 --> 01:07:27,070
Well, thank you. Fielded.