1 00:00:04,440 --> 00:00:12,280 Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there, 2 00:00:12,280 --> 00:00:15,720 Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. 3 00:00:15,720 --> 00:00:19,119 Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech 4 00:00:19,200 --> 00:00:25,120 Speaker 1: are you. Today's tech stuff tidbits is what's a cubit? Well, 5 00:00:25,280 --> 00:00:28,880 Speaker 1: he's this little orange guy who jumps up and down 6 00:00:28,880 --> 00:00:33,120 Speaker 1: a pyramid like structure while trying to avoid snakes. He 7 00:00:33,159 --> 00:00:38,520 Speaker 1: also has a habit of cursing. Wait, sorry, I'm being 8 00:00:38,520 --> 00:00:44,000 Speaker 1: told by the Yeah, okay, no, sorry, guys, got that 9 00:00:44,120 --> 00:00:49,120 Speaker 1: totally wrong. That's Cubert. A cubit is something else entirely, 10 00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:54,640 Speaker 1: I know cringe jokes. Also, Originally I thought maybe I 11 00:00:54,640 --> 00:00:56,920 Speaker 1: would go a different way with that, and I would 12 00:00:57,120 --> 00:01:02,080 Speaker 1: talk about cubits being a unit of measurement used to 13 00:01:02,240 --> 00:01:06,800 Speaker 1: build arcs in Biblical times. But you see that joke 14 00:01:06,920 --> 00:01:10,360 Speaker 1: about what a cubit is, Well, it existed in two 15 00:01:10,480 --> 00:01:14,160 Speaker 1: states simultaneously, but ultimately, when it came time for me 16 00:01:14,200 --> 00:01:18,200 Speaker 1: to choose which joke to use, it had to collapse 17 00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:22,560 Speaker 1: into a single state, which is the Cubert joke. And 18 00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:26,160 Speaker 1: that whole bit about collapsing into a single state. I 19 00:01:26,200 --> 00:01:28,840 Speaker 1: can't promise it'll make more sense later. But I can 20 00:01:28,959 --> 00:01:32,720 Speaker 1: promise we're gonna talk about it all right. So to 21 00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:36,840 Speaker 1: understand what a cubit is. Cubit, by the way, actually 22 00:01:36,840 --> 00:01:40,679 Speaker 1: stands for quantum bit. Well, it stands to reason that 23 00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:44,119 Speaker 1: first we have to understand what a bit is. Now. 24 00:01:44,160 --> 00:01:47,200 Speaker 1: Way back in nineteen forty eight, in the early days 25 00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:51,600 Speaker 1: of computer science, a man named Claude Shannon published a 26 00:01:51,640 --> 00:01:57,400 Speaker 1: work titled A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Shannon was mentored 27 00:01:57,440 --> 00:02:01,640 Speaker 1: by a guy named Van Var Bush that I really 28 00:02:01,680 --> 00:02:05,680 Speaker 1: need to dedicate at least one episode, but probably multiple 29 00:02:05,720 --> 00:02:11,080 Speaker 1: episodes two at some point, very important person in tech 30 00:02:11,160 --> 00:02:14,600 Speaker 1: in general played a large part in some really historic 31 00:02:15,720 --> 00:02:21,400 Speaker 1: and sometimes terrible technological events in history. I have actually 32 00:02:21,400 --> 00:02:24,040 Speaker 1: dedicated an episode to Claude Shannon in the past, so 33 00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:26,119 Speaker 1: if you go and do a search in the Tech 34 00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:30,960 Speaker 1: Stuff archives, you'll find an episode just about him. But anyway, 35 00:02:31,160 --> 00:02:36,040 Speaker 1: in this work, Shannon proposed a basic unit of information, 36 00:02:36,520 --> 00:02:41,520 Speaker 1: a binary digit or bit. The bit exists in one 37 00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:46,680 Speaker 1: of two states. It is either a zero or a one. 38 00:02:47,280 --> 00:02:49,760 Speaker 1: Shannon's work goes into a lot of other territory with 39 00:02:49,840 --> 00:02:54,399 Speaker 1: a fascinating treatment on communication theory that fundamentally changed how 40 00:02:54,520 --> 00:02:58,120 Speaker 1: communication engineers think about the subject, but it gets really 41 00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:01,760 Speaker 1: technical really quickly, and I honestly would have to study 42 00:03:01,800 --> 00:03:04,760 Speaker 1: it for days to feel comfortable even talking about it 43 00:03:04,800 --> 00:03:07,640 Speaker 1: in a way where I didn't feel I was getting 44 00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:12,200 Speaker 1: it all wrong. So rather than blindly lead you into 45 00:03:12,320 --> 00:03:15,440 Speaker 1: a discussion that I would likely get completely wrong, we're 46 00:03:15,480 --> 00:03:19,079 Speaker 1: going to move on to something else that's equally complicated. 47 00:03:19,600 --> 00:03:22,520 Speaker 1: But for our discussion, the important thing is the bit 48 00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:26,280 Speaker 1: zero or one. You can think of it as no 49 00:03:26,919 --> 00:03:31,280 Speaker 1: or yes, or off or on. It's as basic as 50 00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:34,600 Speaker 1: you can get. By grouping bits together, you can express 51 00:03:34,639 --> 00:03:39,080 Speaker 1: more complex information. So one bit has two states. If 52 00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:42,280 Speaker 1: you have two bits, you have four states. You can 53 00:03:42,360 --> 00:03:47,400 Speaker 1: express zero, zero, zero, one, one, zero, and one one. 54 00:03:48,000 --> 00:03:51,440 Speaker 1: With three bits, you've got eight possible states. Four bits, 55 00:03:51,640 --> 00:03:55,400 Speaker 1: you've got sixteen possible states. By the time you get 56 00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:58,360 Speaker 1: up to eight bits, it's two hundred and fifty six states. 57 00:03:58,400 --> 00:04:01,560 Speaker 1: So you see how adding one bit to a string 58 00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:06,040 Speaker 1: doubles the number of states that string can express compared 59 00:04:06,040 --> 00:04:09,440 Speaker 1: to when it was one bit fewer. All right, So 60 00:04:10,080 --> 00:04:12,800 Speaker 1: then we get into an era in which computer scientists 61 00:04:13,000 --> 00:04:17,200 Speaker 1: start working with this concept in a practical way, and 62 00:04:17,279 --> 00:04:21,479 Speaker 1: after a while, computer scientists begin to agree on other stuff, 63 00:04:21,880 --> 00:04:25,880 Speaker 1: like the idea of eight bits representing a bite. This 64 00:04:26,240 --> 00:04:28,919 Speaker 1: wasn't always the case. There were some who proposed six 65 00:04:28,960 --> 00:04:32,479 Speaker 1: bits rather than eight, et cetera. But we're gonna skip 66 00:04:32,520 --> 00:04:36,840 Speaker 1: way ahead and talk about processors for a moment. Processors 67 00:04:37,160 --> 00:04:41,120 Speaker 1: take data in the form of bits and execute operations 68 00:04:41,400 --> 00:04:45,919 Speaker 1: on that data to create output, like mathematical operations, and 69 00:04:45,960 --> 00:04:49,000 Speaker 1: those operations come from a program. The program is really 70 00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:51,880 Speaker 1: just a set of instructions that the processor is meant 71 00:04:51,880 --> 00:04:56,440 Speaker 1: to follow while working with this data, and it generates 72 00:04:56,480 --> 00:04:59,400 Speaker 1: some sort of result. And a lot of factors determine 73 00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:02,839 Speaker 1: how fast the processor is, like how much data it 74 00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:07,039 Speaker 1: can process within a given amount of time. Now, generally speaking, 75 00:05:07,440 --> 00:05:10,720 Speaker 1: the more bits the processor can accept at once, and 76 00:05:10,760 --> 00:05:13,680 Speaker 1: the higher the clock speed of the processor, which really 77 00:05:13,720 --> 00:05:17,400 Speaker 1: means the number of operational steps the processor can complete 78 00:05:17,440 --> 00:05:20,120 Speaker 1: in a second. Well, then the more powerful the computer 79 00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:23,839 Speaker 1: is and the faster it will solve problems to a point, 80 00:05:24,320 --> 00:05:27,920 Speaker 1: but there are some computational problems that are much harder 81 00:05:27,960 --> 00:05:31,760 Speaker 1: to solve than others, and even a fast processor can 82 00:05:31,800 --> 00:05:35,240 Speaker 1: get bogged down by them and it becomes impractical or 83 00:05:35,320 --> 00:05:40,839 Speaker 1: even impossible to compute that problem. So, for example, there's 84 00:05:41,000 --> 00:05:44,720 Speaker 1: the famous traveling salesman problem, which is a type of 85 00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:51,320 Speaker 1: NP hard computational problem. The NP stands for nondeterministic polynomial time. 86 00:05:51,920 --> 00:05:53,800 Speaker 1: But we don't need to really get into all of that. 87 00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:57,680 Speaker 1: The traveling salesman problem presents a list of cities and 88 00:05:57,680 --> 00:06:01,680 Speaker 1: it asks the question, what is the shortest route starting 89 00:06:01,720 --> 00:06:06,000 Speaker 1: from the salesman home city to each of these cities 90 00:06:06,480 --> 00:06:10,000 Speaker 1: and then back to home without visiting a city twice. 91 00:06:10,440 --> 00:06:13,279 Speaker 1: What's the shortest route that you can take? Well, for 92 00:06:13,320 --> 00:06:15,720 Speaker 1: a computer to solve that question, it would need to 93 00:06:15,760 --> 00:06:20,719 Speaker 1: calculate the route using every possible combination, and that route 94 00:06:20,720 --> 00:06:24,039 Speaker 1: obviously gets more complicated as you add more cities to 95 00:06:24,120 --> 00:06:26,720 Speaker 1: the list, and a sufficiently large list would keep a 96 00:06:26,760 --> 00:06:32,880 Speaker 1: computer busy for a really long time, like months or years, 97 00:06:33,279 --> 00:06:36,600 Speaker 1: or decades or centuries, depending on the complexity of the problem. 98 00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:42,400 Speaker 1: So that's an issue, right. You cannot easily solve this 99 00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:47,120 Speaker 1: class of computational problems with a classical computer. But what 100 00:06:47,240 --> 00:06:50,039 Speaker 1: if you could design a computer that could potentially solve 101 00:06:50,080 --> 00:06:57,000 Speaker 1: this problem in a flash by essentially calculating every route simultaneously. 102 00:06:57,760 --> 00:07:00,680 Speaker 1: Now we're getting into the possibilities offered up by quantum 103 00:07:00,720 --> 00:07:05,159 Speaker 1: computing and the cubit. The cubit is a quantum bit, 104 00:07:05,279 --> 00:07:08,120 Speaker 1: and like a bit, it can have a value of 105 00:07:08,400 --> 00:07:12,200 Speaker 1: zero or one, though we represent them asket zero and 106 00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:14,600 Speaker 1: cut one states. But I'm gonna leave it there because 107 00:07:15,120 --> 00:07:19,680 Speaker 1: describing representation and notation in an audio only podcast is futile. 108 00:07:20,120 --> 00:07:22,760 Speaker 1: I'd be like, okay, then you have a little squiggly line. 109 00:07:23,040 --> 00:07:25,120 Speaker 1: None of that would make any sense, so we're gonna 110 00:07:25,200 --> 00:07:27,680 Speaker 1: leave it there for now. But here's the thing. A 111 00:07:27,760 --> 00:07:32,240 Speaker 1: cubit can also have both values at the same time 112 00:07:32,280 --> 00:07:36,760 Speaker 1: and technically all values in between, and hold those values 113 00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:41,400 Speaker 1: in superposition until the system collapses and the cubit assumes 114 00:07:41,520 --> 00:07:44,720 Speaker 1: one or the other states. And which one it assumes 115 00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:48,280 Speaker 1: is based on probabilities. So it may be that it's 116 00:07:48,320 --> 00:07:50,360 Speaker 1: a fifty to fifty, which means half the time the 117 00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:52,080 Speaker 1: cubit would be a zero and half the time the 118 00:07:52,120 --> 00:07:54,200 Speaker 1: cubit would be a one. It doesn't have to be 119 00:07:54,280 --> 00:07:56,520 Speaker 1: fifty to fifty, however, so this is one of those 120 00:07:56,560 --> 00:08:00,880 Speaker 1: weird quantum effects that Schrodinger wanted to poke at with 121 00:08:01,040 --> 00:08:06,840 Speaker 1: his cat thought experiment see Early quantum physicists theorized about 122 00:08:07,080 --> 00:08:14,200 Speaker 1: superposition that certain quantum stuff can hold multiple states simultaneously 123 00:08:14,840 --> 00:08:17,560 Speaker 1: until something disturbs them, at which point they collapse into 124 00:08:17,640 --> 00:08:22,480 Speaker 1: a single state. Schrodingsher's absurd example was that of a 125 00:08:22,560 --> 00:08:25,640 Speaker 1: box containing a kitty cat and then a time release 126 00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:29,720 Speaker 1: method of making the kitty cat unalive, as you might 127 00:08:29,760 --> 00:08:34,520 Speaker 1: say on TikTok. But this time release method would be unpredictable. 128 00:08:34,840 --> 00:08:38,480 Speaker 1: It might trigger five minutes in or it might hold 129 00:08:38,480 --> 00:08:42,439 Speaker 1: off for hours. So you've got this box, thirty minutes 130 00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:46,319 Speaker 1: have passed. Is the cat alive or dead? Well, if 131 00:08:46,360 --> 00:08:48,040 Speaker 1: we were to think of the cat as being in 132 00:08:48,080 --> 00:08:51,000 Speaker 1: a quantum state, you could argue the cat is both 133 00:08:51,120 --> 00:08:54,160 Speaker 1: alive and dead at the same time. And it's only 134 00:08:54,200 --> 00:08:57,400 Speaker 1: when you open the box and observe the system do 135 00:08:57,480 --> 00:09:01,480 Speaker 1: the possibilities collapse into one reality. And in this reality 136 00:09:01,520 --> 00:09:03,800 Speaker 1: we're gonna say the kitty cat lives. Because I've always 137 00:09:04,000 --> 00:09:08,640 Speaker 1: hated this thought experiment, Shrodinger was trying to say this 138 00:09:08,800 --> 00:09:12,480 Speaker 1: idea was ridiculous, And of course, on the classical level 139 00:09:12,480 --> 00:09:15,600 Speaker 1: of cats and cars and cigar boxes and stuff like that, 140 00:09:16,160 --> 00:09:18,840 Speaker 1: all the stuff we can see and touch and manipulate, 141 00:09:19,600 --> 00:09:22,920 Speaker 1: it is absurd. But at the quantum level, it holds 142 00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:28,160 Speaker 1: true quantum effects can exist in two states simultaneously. It's wild, 143 00:09:28,720 --> 00:09:32,320 Speaker 1: but it is true. So if you could harness something 144 00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:36,440 Speaker 1: that works on the quantum level, like electrons, for example, 145 00:09:36,920 --> 00:09:39,800 Speaker 1: and you could use some feature of electrons such as 146 00:09:39,840 --> 00:09:43,600 Speaker 1: their spin where they spin up or spin down, you 147 00:09:43,640 --> 00:09:46,560 Speaker 1: could use that to serve as a cubit, And in 148 00:09:46,600 --> 00:09:49,720 Speaker 1: a properly isolated system, you could use a bunch of 149 00:09:49,800 --> 00:09:54,679 Speaker 1: cubits to run algorithms specifically designed for quantum systems, and 150 00:09:54,720 --> 00:10:00,280 Speaker 1: these cubits, by occupying all states simultaneously, could generate all 151 00:10:00,320 --> 00:10:03,080 Speaker 1: possible outcomes in the time it would take to solve 152 00:10:03,280 --> 00:10:06,160 Speaker 1: you know, the hardest one. Another way to think about 153 00:10:06,160 --> 00:10:08,200 Speaker 1: it is that if you have a bite, that is 154 00:10:08,400 --> 00:10:11,480 Speaker 1: eight bits that are strung together, you can have one 155 00:10:11,960 --> 00:10:14,880 Speaker 1: of two hundred and fifty six values. If you have 156 00:10:15,440 --> 00:10:19,520 Speaker 1: eight q bits, then you can have all two hundred 157 00:10:19,559 --> 00:10:23,160 Speaker 1: and fifty six values at the same time, at least 158 00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:26,200 Speaker 1: until you measure it, at which point it loses coherence 159 00:10:26,200 --> 00:10:29,160 Speaker 1: and settles into a single value and becomes one of 160 00:10:29,200 --> 00:10:31,840 Speaker 1: the two hundred and fifty six possibilities. But while in 161 00:10:31,920 --> 00:10:37,800 Speaker 1: superposition it's all of them. However, it gets weirder, and 162 00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:51,040 Speaker 1: I'll explain after we come back from this quick break. Okay, 163 00:10:51,080 --> 00:10:54,120 Speaker 1: what could be weirder than superposition? Well, I haven't talked 164 00:10:54,160 --> 00:10:59,160 Speaker 1: about entanglement yet. All right. For this explanation, let's imagine 165 00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:02,360 Speaker 1: that we have two cubits, and we'll say our cubits 166 00:11:02,360 --> 00:11:06,400 Speaker 1: are in the form of electrons and their direction of spin, 167 00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:09,360 Speaker 1: so the electrons can spin either up or down. And 168 00:11:09,440 --> 00:11:12,320 Speaker 1: let's say I've prepared the cubits so that right now 169 00:11:12,360 --> 00:11:16,160 Speaker 1: they're both spinning down, and we'll call that the zero 170 00:11:16,320 --> 00:11:19,760 Speaker 1: state versus the one state for this example, So both 171 00:11:19,840 --> 00:11:24,040 Speaker 1: cubits are spinning in the zero state, cubit A and 172 00:11:24,120 --> 00:11:28,959 Speaker 1: cubit B. Now, if I apply an oscillating magnetic field 173 00:11:29,160 --> 00:11:33,200 Speaker 1: to cubita a magnetic field at a frequency proportional to 174 00:11:33,280 --> 00:11:36,360 Speaker 1: the energy difference between cubit a's zero state and its 175 00:11:36,360 --> 00:11:40,600 Speaker 1: one state, I can actually rotate cubit A. I can 176 00:11:40,800 --> 00:11:45,240 Speaker 1: rotate its spin. And the presence of cubit B complicates 177 00:11:45,280 --> 00:11:47,520 Speaker 1: things a little bit, because these two cubits create their 178 00:11:47,559 --> 00:11:50,439 Speaker 1: own magnetic fields. I have to take into account cubitb's 179 00:11:50,480 --> 00:11:55,280 Speaker 1: magnetic field as I apply this external magnetic field to 180 00:11:55,440 --> 00:11:58,240 Speaker 1: rotate cubit A. But I can do that and then 181 00:11:58,280 --> 00:12:01,720 Speaker 1: move Cubita into superpositions. So now Cubita is both zero 182 00:12:01,800 --> 00:12:04,840 Speaker 1: and one at the same time. All right, Now let's 183 00:12:04,920 --> 00:12:08,200 Speaker 1: move on to cubit B. Now, remember I started with 184 00:12:08,240 --> 00:12:12,240 Speaker 1: both cubits in the zero state. They're both spinning down. Well, 185 00:12:12,240 --> 00:12:15,200 Speaker 1: now I apply the magnetic field I would need to 186 00:12:15,320 --> 00:12:19,600 Speaker 1: use to rotate cubit B if Cubita were still in 187 00:12:19,800 --> 00:12:24,920 Speaker 1: the zero state, except Cubita isn't in the zero state anymore. 188 00:12:25,080 --> 00:12:27,800 Speaker 1: Or rather it is, but it's also in the one 189 00:12:27,840 --> 00:12:31,760 Speaker 1: state because I've put Cubita into superposition. Well, now, when 190 00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:35,520 Speaker 1: Cubita is in zero, cubit B will rotate to one 191 00:12:35,679 --> 00:12:39,240 Speaker 1: because of this oscillating field I've put on it. But 192 00:12:39,480 --> 00:12:42,040 Speaker 1: when cubit A is in the one position, cubit B 193 00:12:42,160 --> 00:12:45,320 Speaker 1: will stay in the zero state because I would have 194 00:12:45,360 --> 00:12:48,760 Speaker 1: needed to use a different frequency in my magnetic field 195 00:12:49,120 --> 00:12:52,319 Speaker 1: to make cubit be rotate if Cubita is in the 196 00:12:52,360 --> 00:12:57,080 Speaker 1: one state, so cubb also goes into superposition. If Cubita 197 00:12:57,520 --> 00:13:00,800 Speaker 1: is zero, then the rotation worked, and if cubit B 198 00:13:01,000 --> 00:13:05,200 Speaker 1: is one, then the rotation didn't work. But Cubita is 199 00:13:05,240 --> 00:13:08,520 Speaker 1: technically both, so the rotation both did and didn't work 200 00:13:08,559 --> 00:13:11,960 Speaker 1: at the same time. The two cubits are entangled, and 201 00:13:12,000 --> 00:13:14,520 Speaker 1: the state of one depends upon the state of the other, 202 00:13:14,679 --> 00:13:17,920 Speaker 1: and they're opposite. Even if we were to separate these 203 00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:20,600 Speaker 1: two cubits and we were to put them at either 204 00:13:20,880 --> 00:13:24,800 Speaker 1: end of the universe, they would remain entangled as until 205 00:13:24,800 --> 00:13:27,880 Speaker 1: we observed them or something else disturbed them, at which 206 00:13:27,880 --> 00:13:31,360 Speaker 1: point we would lose coherence and the state becomes either 207 00:13:31,480 --> 00:13:34,120 Speaker 1: zero or one, and the state of the other one 208 00:13:34,160 --> 00:13:36,600 Speaker 1: would be the opposite of the one you observed, even 209 00:13:36,600 --> 00:13:38,040 Speaker 1: if it's on the other side of the universe. So 210 00:13:38,080 --> 00:13:40,040 Speaker 1: if you went to one end of the universe and 211 00:13:40,080 --> 00:13:41,679 Speaker 1: someone went to the other end of the universe with 212 00:13:41,760 --> 00:13:44,080 Speaker 1: the other one, you've got Cubita, they've got cubit B. 213 00:13:44,400 --> 00:13:46,840 Speaker 1: You observe Cubana, you see that it's zero. You know 214 00:13:46,920 --> 00:13:50,760 Speaker 1: that cubit B was a one crazy, even though they 215 00:13:50,760 --> 00:13:52,880 Speaker 1: were all the way across the universe from each other. 216 00:13:52,920 --> 00:13:55,600 Speaker 1: Einstein hated this. By the way, he couldn't get the 217 00:13:55,600 --> 00:13:58,440 Speaker 1: math to prove that it didn't work, but he hated 218 00:13:58,480 --> 00:14:00,959 Speaker 1: the idea, and he called it spook key action at 219 00:14:00,960 --> 00:14:06,920 Speaker 1: a distance in quantum computing entanglement creates a really counterintuitive opportunity. 220 00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:11,440 Speaker 1: You can code for two bits that have unknown but 221 00:14:11,679 --> 00:14:15,480 Speaker 1: opposite states, Like you don't know if cubita is a 222 00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:18,120 Speaker 1: zero or a one, but you do know that whatever 223 00:14:18,200 --> 00:14:21,200 Speaker 1: it is, cubit b is the opposite. And that might 224 00:14:21,240 --> 00:14:23,760 Speaker 1: not sound useful at the surface level, but it opens 225 00:14:23,840 --> 00:14:28,520 Speaker 1: up opportunities that simply aren't possible with classic computers. So, 226 00:14:29,320 --> 00:14:33,120 Speaker 1: for a subset of computational problems, the ones that are 227 00:14:33,240 --> 00:14:36,960 Speaker 1: really hard for classic computers, a quantum computer with sufficient 228 00:14:37,040 --> 00:14:41,320 Speaker 1: cubits and the right algorithm you need both can turn 229 00:14:41,400 --> 00:14:45,240 Speaker 1: what would be a massive challenge into a metaphorical piece 230 00:14:45,280 --> 00:14:49,320 Speaker 1: of k Now. For other computational problems, a quantum computer 231 00:14:49,360 --> 00:14:52,760 Speaker 1: would be no better than a classic computer, and depending 232 00:14:52,880 --> 00:14:55,600 Speaker 1: on the number of cubits the quantum computer has at 233 00:14:55,600 --> 00:14:58,840 Speaker 1: its disposal, it might be equivalent to a really, really 234 00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:03,880 Speaker 1: bad classical computer. The thing is, some interesting and potentially 235 00:15:04,000 --> 00:15:07,720 Speaker 1: dangerous problems might be simple for a quantum computer to unravel, 236 00:15:07,960 --> 00:15:12,160 Speaker 1: problems like classic encryption techniques. So a typical approach to 237 00:15:12,320 --> 00:15:16,440 Speaker 1: encryption involves using mathematical operations and a really large number 238 00:15:16,800 --> 00:15:20,600 Speaker 1: to scramble a message. Only someone with the proper key, 239 00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:24,240 Speaker 1: can reverse this process to get the unscrambled message and 240 00:15:24,280 --> 00:15:27,840 Speaker 1: to guess the value of the key that unscrambles everything 241 00:15:27,920 --> 00:15:31,000 Speaker 1: would take a really, really long time. How long depends 242 00:15:31,040 --> 00:15:33,480 Speaker 1: upon the strength of the encryption, but if we're talking 243 00:15:33,520 --> 00:15:37,520 Speaker 1: like military grade, you could be there forever. But with 244 00:15:37,560 --> 00:15:40,320 Speaker 1: a quantum computer that has a lot of cubits and 245 00:15:40,360 --> 00:15:43,560 Speaker 1: the right algorithm, you could potentially solve for the encryption 246 00:15:43,720 --> 00:15:46,960 Speaker 1: key in just a few minutes. This is why quantum 247 00:15:47,000 --> 00:15:50,480 Speaker 1: computers could spell the end of our current methods of encryption. 248 00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:54,400 Speaker 1: A person with access to a sufficiently powerful quantum computer 249 00:15:54,720 --> 00:15:58,480 Speaker 1: and that pesky algorithm would then hold the skeleton keys 250 00:15:58,480 --> 00:16:01,400 Speaker 1: that fit all the digital encrypt locks that are out there, 251 00:16:01,840 --> 00:16:04,840 Speaker 1: which is kind of spooky. And for that reason, researchers 252 00:16:04,880 --> 00:16:08,480 Speaker 1: are working on quantum encryption methods that can stand up 253 00:16:08,480 --> 00:16:12,000 Speaker 1: to quantum computers that you know, uses a different approach 254 00:16:12,040 --> 00:16:15,040 Speaker 1: to scramble those messages so that they stay safe from 255 00:16:15,160 --> 00:16:19,480 Speaker 1: all but the intended recipient. Also, I started talking about 256 00:16:19,600 --> 00:16:23,160 Speaker 1: Claude Shannon as the guy who popularized the term bits, 257 00:16:23,160 --> 00:16:27,360 Speaker 1: although Shannon himself gave credit to John Tukey, whom Shannon said, 258 00:16:27,480 --> 00:16:30,280 Speaker 1: use the term bits in a memo, but Shannon's is 259 00:16:30,320 --> 00:16:33,600 Speaker 1: the first earliest you know, published work to use the 260 00:16:33,680 --> 00:16:37,280 Speaker 1: term bits. But who coined cubit, Well, that would be 261 00:16:37,280 --> 00:16:41,880 Speaker 1: Benjamin Schumacher, who submitted an article titled quantum Coding in 262 00:16:42,000 --> 00:16:46,000 Speaker 1: nineteen ninety three to Physical Review. The article actually published 263 00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:50,520 Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety five. Schumacher is a theoretical physicist. By that, 264 00:16:50,600 --> 00:16:53,440 Speaker 1: I mean he's a real physicist. He's not theoretical, but 265 00:16:53,520 --> 00:16:57,840 Speaker 1: he works in theoretical fields, including quantum information theory. He 266 00:16:57,960 --> 00:17:02,200 Speaker 1: did for quantum information theory what Shannon did for communications theory, 267 00:17:02,600 --> 00:17:05,280 Speaker 1: with about half a century separating the two, which is 268 00:17:05,320 --> 00:17:10,600 Speaker 1: pretty darn cool. And so that's the basics on cubits. 269 00:17:11,000 --> 00:17:12,720 Speaker 1: And if you were to come up to me and 270 00:17:12,760 --> 00:17:15,560 Speaker 1: say do you understand this? Do you understand why it happens? 271 00:17:15,560 --> 00:17:18,520 Speaker 1: I would honestly tell you no. But then when we 272 00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:22,600 Speaker 1: get down to quantum effects, that's just the truthful answer 273 00:17:22,640 --> 00:17:25,600 Speaker 1: for everybody. We can say that definitely happens, that we 274 00:17:25,680 --> 00:17:30,040 Speaker 1: have the experimentational evidence to show that this does happen. 275 00:17:31,160 --> 00:17:34,879 Speaker 1: Why it happens, that's a question that we're still trying 276 00:17:34,920 --> 00:17:37,560 Speaker 1: to answer, and maybe we'll never come up with it, 277 00:17:37,800 --> 00:17:41,440 Speaker 1: but it's really cool to look into it. Now, if 278 00:17:41,440 --> 00:17:44,480 Speaker 1: you'll excuse me, I have a game of Hubert to 279 00:17:44,520 --> 00:17:54,280 Speaker 1: get back to tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For 280 00:17:54,400 --> 00:17:59,240 Speaker 1: more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, 281 00:17:59,359 --> 00:18:01,359 Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.