These lectures will help you with quantum computing, if you take that at your university it will help to know some quantum mechanics.

I'm doing the exact opposite. Wish the current university system would't be so rigid in terms of courses you have to take.

change majors

I'm taking a Quantum Computing grad class right now, and this guy is everything. He makes this so much easier to understand. I wish I'd majored in physics :'(

Check what spin conservation means. There are 5 of them.

that's a classical solution, it fails in practice

THIS STATE IS UNFUCKED..tarizable

Laughed out loud as well. Right after that: "this is a funny state". Right. The state is funny. Great stuff :)

Justin P why not? Cant one do tensor products of 3 vectors if you want? It gives a order 3 tensor but mathematically it seems a well defined operation.

Justin P The polydynamics of the movement generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(...) as you said?

Justin P I use (//)

It's a honor to meet you living being...

Fluid theory (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) decanted selfover hexagon...

tensor product operates in hilbert space, which has a real-valued norm. it also scales dimension. Given a 2-d, orthonormal basis: x=[1,0]^T and y=[0,1]^T where ^T is transpose of vectors then the tensor product of x and y gives a vector z = [0,1,0,0] ^T which is 4-d. That's how groups of entangled qubits can hold exponentially more data.

Came to the comments to see if anyone else picked up on that, gave me a good laugh

You know less about Quantum Mechanics.And read Bell's statements even after his theory. He said There may be more on Entanglement which Einstein implied

@@soumyaadhikari9842 ever heard of sarcasm? 🤔

@@_DD_15 Okay I didn't get your sarcasm.Can you elaborate on what you are saying?

@@_DD_15 I don't think sarcasm means what you think it means bro

Theoretically it shouldn't depend of the timing(the math is such), but who knows. Also there are uncertainty relations in qm.

Spooky action at a distance makes an assumption that the world as we perceive it is the same as it actually is. But the previous lectures show quite clearly that this is not the case. Consider the lecture that has a single photon going 'up' and 'down' at the same time, then interfering with itself. This can't happen if the world is as we describe it to be and ignore that it could be otherwise.

Yes.

I don't think this would happen it's on a very low level like photon and that's why they are spinning and it doesn't matter what chemical state they have..

Angular momentum is only conserved if the background is both empty and flat. A sugar solution does, for instance, not conserve angular momentum. Neither does a magnetic field and you can bet your life on it that parallel transport in curved spacetime also changes it.

The captions are available on MIT OpenCourseWare at ocw.mit.edu/8-04S16 and in our collection on the Internet Archive at archive.org/details/MIT8.04S16/.

You can understand them as specific vectors of a vector space.

hahahah

She’s busy practicing superposition.

3 years later and this comment still has aged like fine wine

Underrated comment

Maybe seeing the earlier videos might help you. Here is the playlist: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oKd-jdurytq0kYU.htmlsi=vxYg8cX6ogfu7wWi. You can also find course materials on MIT OpenCourseWare at: ocw.mit.edu/8-04S16. Best wishes on your studies!

Yes, and the Pauli Exclusion principle is a direct consequence of relativity. More precisely, one can derive quantum mechanics entirely from relativity and Kolmogorov's axioms for ensembles of independent systems.

@@lepidoptera9337 You mean I'm right? I get butterflies every time I think of it!

@@jackbidnik9642 I meant that you made a lucky guess. ;-)

@@lepidoptera9337 Wonderful news about PEP and Kolmogorov's synthesis of relativity and QM. So there's no further need to search fo the TOE? By the way, I know somebody named Pat, that Kolmogorov could buy a vowel or two from.

@@jackbidnik9642 Awh, you are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. We had the theory of everything since 1630, by the way. Can you guess what I am referring to? ;-)

yes a ket is a Vector

what does this mean?

There's no such thing as half particles, only subcomponents of a quantum system. The states he's describing for superpositioned or even entangled quantum states are wave functions that describe the whole system, composed of the superpositions of the pure state wave functions of the subcomponents. Seems more like a case of confused listener.

These exist

You can have as many entangled particles as you want. But determining if a particular state is entangled or not is very hard for more than 2 particles states (this is an open problem, to make an algorithm to determine this).

Particles don't have states. More importantly, particles do not even exist. What does exist are quanta of energy that get exchanged between systems. These quanta do NOT denote states. At best one could say they denote state transitions. In atomic physics we say that a hydrogen atom (system 1) has states that we denote as s, p, d, f etc. and the measurable quanta are the quanta of light that these atoms emits into the electromagnetic field (system 2) when they transition between e.g. a p and an s state. A quantum mechanical ensemble of hydrogen atoms can then be said to be in a superposition of all possible states and the quanta of light that it emits are the hydrogen spectrum. You will, unfortunately, not see this discussed properly in most QM textbooks. You will only find out about this (not so little) complication by reading an actual atomic or nuclear physics textbook.

@@lepidoptera9337 "particles don't exist" - reader Terminator

@@zack_120 Ma! Another person just raised his "total absence of intellectual curiosity" flag. ;-)

@@lepidoptera9337 hope you don't vanish in next seconds 😁

@@zack_120 Nah, I am here to give you as much attention as you require to warm up that cold basement of yours. ;-)

They don't look the same at all to me. Watch the right hand serif.

@@stephenanastasi748 That's actually helpful, thanks.

@@foobarbecue Your welcome. I just wish the rest of it were as easy. Good stuff, though.

It can be constructed and measured. Basically some systems naturally evolve non entangled states in entangled ones, and we use that to construct these weird states

Because conservation laws exist.

actually it doesn't and here's why; Here's a better explanation of quantum spin. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j9-Ke9Cf0qzOp3k.html and a better explanation of entanglement kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bdSDmLNqt6rWZIU.html Have a look please leave a comment let me know what you thought

You don't have to trust the equation experiments have proved entanglement many times. You can buy a kit and do the experiments yourself at home it cost a couple thousand though.