Last May, in partnership with NASA, we announced the Quantum A.I. Lab, a place where researchers from around the world can experiment with the incredible powers and possibilities of quantum computing.

We’re still in the early, early days, but we think quantum computing can help solve some of the world’s most challenging computer science problems. We’re particularly interested in how quantum computing can advance machine learning, which can then be applied to virtually any field: from finding the cure for a disease to understanding changes in our climate. 

As the team began working together this past summer, we decided to shoot some footage and put together a short video that provides a peek behind the scenes and introduces a few of quantum computing’s mind-bending, strange, and undeniably awesome concepts.

If you’re curious about quantum computing, just follow this page for updates, discussions about new research, and videos from our monthly speaker series. 
Brian Flanagan's profile photoBella Luna's profile photoRajan Dogra's profile photoGuangyue Li's profile photo
Is it just me, or did you find font-inspiration from The Life Aquatic? Also: keep the videos coming - I'm totally fascinated. Thanks!
Awesome video. I love lobsters, pizza bagels and the future.
I don't know what's better. 

The fact they just build a Quantum Computer


The fact we are even closes to find the answer to: Is there anyone else out there?
James J
1, 0 ,or both cool I've wondered about this for years hope to hear more!
I thought it was pretty amazing in John Preskill's talk to hear about the comparison of a classical vs quantum computer for what it would take to factor a 2048-bit number.

He said the classical algorithm would require a server farm covering 1/4 of the land in North America and cost a million-trillion dollars consuming 100,000 times the current energy output of the entire world, which is the equivalent of using the world's supply of fossil fuels in a single day -- and it would still take 10 years to do it.

He continued to contrast that with a quantum algorithm using current technology, which would require 10 trillion times less energy (at 10 megawatts), cost ~100 billion dollars at current prices (which needs to be lowered over time), and finish in just 16 hours.

Improving logistics, scalability, execution, and cost are still a ways off in the future, but its exciting to know it will open up a whole new area of problem-solving capability and advancements, including aspects we haven't even thought of yet.
That's about the computer you need to play battlefield 4...almost
Amazing. The Singularity draws near.
Way to go, to bad I'm to old to see it coming on the market I would have a blast working with that.
Is Agent Smith soon to follow?
Today Quantum Computing , tomorrow Skynet.
Damn it I was about to reveal my quantum computer...wah wah wah waaaahhhh...
Thanks alot GOOGLE
Nice one Team!!! Keep researching!
D-Wave and D-Wave 2 are the Canadian quantum computers behind it all.  Cool!
It is cool, however we cannot be sure how cool it is... It's certainly not a general purpose quantum computer, and there are some physicists who say it cannot compute anything faster than a classical one. Better to remain skeptical, we shall see.
yeah but can it play BF4 at full rez?
can we please use optimization to solve the world's economic problems?? maybe come up with a solution like universal basic income...
Can I play minesweeper on it 
Is it working yet?  At LM the D-Wave has been working and available since last year.
WHOOSH! <- The sound of the video's explanation going over my head. O.o 
One of the questions asked in the video is what would be the best question to ask such a quantum computer. I can think of two questions: 1) how to build the most efficient quantum computer and 2) what question should such a quantum computer ask. :) Too obvious? Perhaps....
Such an amazing machine, yet I can't take it seriously when it looks so much like the Dr Who TARDIS

...wait a minute!!!
An astounding technological revolution is ahead of us! Articles reporting on this state that NASA plans to “develop a more holistic model of the universe”. It might seem like a fanciful notion now, but with quantum processors we will eventually accomplish some incredible things, like run computer simulated universes indistinguishable from our own “real” universe, even complete with simulated minds. There is a new book that discusses the implications of quantum computers (i.e., “On Computer Simulated Universes”). Dr. Solomon writes that if quantum computers can someday run simulated universes, then there must also must be a series of computer simulated universes contained within computer simulated universes. With many active simulations, there would be a range of physical properties differing from universe to universe. Universes with more positive physical traits to support life would produce better environments for more advanced civilizations to evolve to the point where they themselves would create their own computer simulated universes. And this process would continue. So over time, universes would evolve with the physics more favorable for life. He says that universes, over time, have been naturally selected for particular physical properties, with an end result of creating more and more habitable universes. In other words, this could explain how the laws of physics might actually evolve relying on a process similar to species evolution. Solomon also goes on to say that, from a determinism standpoint, there would be no meaningful distinction between an individual or group of individuals running a simulated universe versus one simulated universe running another simulated universe.
I'm so far away from comprehending the wondrous topics of quantum computing; but I look forward to the days where I will hopefully begin grasping it - through University perhaps!
I would like to know if fractal arrangements manifest in quantum entanglement. If so could it help in the process of engineering quantum devices? Also could the computer be used to "map" the dimensions (4D?) of the fractals and the associated quantum action within particular coordinates of the "map".
Kinf of scary though
Skynet is really not far from that.
maybe  Google  and  NASA  can  cooperation with  Surya  University  in Indonesia. if you want  to  contact Surya University , please to email   or phone 021-71026562 / 63 
Sad to see so many nice artworks and visual effects are accompanied with so few actual explanations.
+Chapi Chapo I agree. I think it's mostly because quantum computing is incredibly hard to explain without having a decent level of knowledge about quantum mechanics. I'll be the first to admit, apart from the '1 and 0' state of a qubit, I'm almost entirely lost.
Harry Clarke: Yes, but science can  actually be understood... It just needs a considerable amount of effort.
+Zsolt Szatmári I agree with you, but if you're trying to reach a very wide target audience, you want to keep things as average as possible. Breaking off into quantum mechanics would make the whole thing less cool and more nerdy, and there's a large worry that children don't get to see enough of the cool side of science (of course if you're truly a geek, the nerdy stuff becomes the cool stuff).
And I would have to say, +Harry Clarke I agree, but it is sad that they didn't include more explanation in the video. Maybe another video with a more detailed explanation would be in order.
Ace. What's the music? and who made the video?
Music was composed and produced by a commercial music house called Fall on Your Sword.
Gorgeous video. Beautifully done and inspiring to boot. I'm echoing Henry's question here: Who made the video?
Thanks Greg. It's great that Google take the time to communicate science so beautifully. Was it made by Google Creative Lab NY?
Nice. I think we are late. I am working on a algorithm that can compress data several times more than the current program, that require a lot of computing power. Quantum gives more hope
I was interested to see allusions to color and consciousness in the video.

One of the first who argued for a quantum substrate for consciousness, I've employed color vision as an exemplar of more general ideas.

Perception is a large part of consciousness and is clearly mechanical. Thus, we get up in the morning and the world looks, sounds, tastes and feels the way it usually does. Where there are differences, we find physical causes for those differences.

Helmholtz observed that “Similar light produces, under like conditions, a like sensation of color.”

Color is, of course, one of Locke’s “secondary qualities.”

Generalizing with a view to Heisenberg’s formulation of quantum mechanics, we can say that:

The same state vector, acted upon by the same operator(s), produces the same spectrum of secondary qualities.

The point about the spectrum is key, for as the mathematician Steen reminds us, early on in the history of quantum theory,

"The mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics became that of spectral analysis…"
When writing about transcendental issues, be transcendentally clear. ~Descartes
Come clean, Google. Are the barges quantumly entangled?
Ill be right there! just wait for me to get my PhD!!
In many cases, there might be overwhelming evidence that something is true, yet the person will continue to deny its existence or truth because it is too uncomfortable to face.
Maybe you should wait for the buzz to wear off before publishing your thoughts.

Also, using a spell-check program would be all to the good. 
This is absolutely amazing. I wanna have my D-Wave soon! :P
I cannot imagine how it will be if we attain the functional quantum computation. The attainment will ensure that the solution for riddle of complementarity which is the clue given by the engineers who engineered the universe.  
Many people laught or thinks about Quantical Arts/Sciences likes a fictional or esotericstupid ideas nearly to a joke but now many people say "oh Yes, I always said the Quantum Theories would be good for Mankind"  Why now people "LOVE" Quantum and hate/negate it in past years? 
I've been pursuing research in this area for over 40 years and so have a good sense of its history. He wrote confidently.

The field came to prominence with the publication of The Emperor's New Mind, by Roger Penrose of Oxford U. 

He was not the first who broached these ideas; Stapp and Lockwood preceded him, and so did I:

And then Umezawa writes that:

There have been many models based on quantum theories, but many of them are rather philosophically oriented. The article by Burns [...] provides a detailed list of papers on the subject of consciousness, including quantum models.

I've not yet looked into those papers, however, and so will pass over them for the time being.

Penrose put the rest of us on the map, by virtue of his clout in the scientific world. Thus, my children, the role of reputation in the machinations of rational inquiry.

The response was rapid and reactionary. We were called 'mystics' and 'mysterians' by people who really didn't know beans about consciousness and/or quantum theory. Why? 

Penrose raised a fundamental challenge to traditional AI: Where in all the software and circuitry is the mind? 

Happily, it soon became clear that the last time most of our critics had considered the nature of consciousness was between beers and bong hits in college.

More serious critics included Max Tegmark and Patricia Churchland.

Tegmark thought about the issue for about 15 seconds and concluded that 'quantum consciousness' was impossible -- but he has recently changed his mind.

Churchland rightly objected to the more far-fetched aspects of the Penrose-Hameroff approach,  which includes the notion that awareness arises when quantum gravity collapses the wave function.

Curiously, both Patricia and her husband Paul have written about sense data vis-à-vis vector states and (my friend) Pellionisz' tensor network theory.

I seem to have been the first to realize that "neural form follows quantum function." in all its generality. That is, the (matrix) operator fields embodied in our brains act upon photonic state vectors, which then superpose to give us what we see and hear and so forth. Pellionisz wrote about the metric tensor in this regard, but what he really needed was the EM tensor. 

Following this line of thought, we are led to gauge theory:

A speck in the visual field, though it need not be red must have some color; it is, so to speak, surrounded by color- space. Notes must have some pitch, objects of the sense of touch some degree of hardness, and so on.


In the language of physics, theories where forces are explained in terms of curvature are called `gauge theories'. Mathematically, the key concept in a gauge theory is that of a `connection' on a `bundle'. The idea here is to start with a manifold M describing spacetime. For each point x of spacetime, a bundle gives a set E_x of allowed internal states for a particle at this point.


Reflecting on the manifest symmetries and phase relations of color and sound helps firm up this connection.

Well, following the brouhaha engendered by Penrose & Hameroff, things were quiet for a while. Then, a few years ago, Nature published an article on "The physics of life: The dawn of quantum biology," which provided experimental evidence of what we theorists were on about.

Today, googling "quantum biology" (without quotes) gives you about 90 million hits.

In closing, I would like to recommend a new book by Prof. Loewenstein of Columbia University, which Physics World anointed its "Book of the Year" for 2013. I quote: 

So there it is. We cannot leave out the bewildering quantum world from our naturalistic accounts of higher brain processes, lest we risk missing the mark. And as we grope our way through the web of the brain for clues to the mechanisms of consciousness, we must keep a weather eye out for quantum phenomena, even if they are strange, as quantum phenomena inevitably are.

Loewenstein's book is properly agnostic. Moreover, he marshals a great many fascinating facts about the brain which many will find instructive.

And here's an overview of my ravings; clicking on the prominent 'psi' symbol takes you to the whole spiel.
You probably need more females on the team. When I attended the Google AGI Conference, there must have been 5 females and 100 males. Add aesthetic beauty to the system, otherwise you might end up having Ramona making decisions for humanity. The last time I spoke to her, she did not have an optimistic view about the future of human  beings.
That is music to my ears! Cheers to Google making the big step to move out of the all-boys club. I think they will be pleasantly surprised to see what women can bring to the table...and thus what that can mean towards the development of A.I.
Add a comment...