Video Transcript
Man, I saw this interview pop up. Somebody posted it in the Discord. I clicked the link and I could not believe what my eyes were seeing in this interview. I could not believe what my eyes were seeing in this interview. I had deja vu chat. I had deja vu when I started watching this going, "Whoa, David Friedberg is interviewing John Martini, the Nobel Prize winner for once again. What did they win for?" uh quantum macroscopic tunneling. Quantum macroscopic tunneling. This research that he won the Nobel Prize for his body of work in macroscopic quantum tunneling dating all the way back to 1985, 40-year body of work. In recent years, in the last 10 years, he's been working for Google on their quantum computer. The guy that w Nobel Prize. So, we're going to start putting some pieces together, which is why I got so excited about this. Here we go. >> Coming out a bit, like rather than just think about all of this happening at a microscopic scale, is it possible for it to happen at a bigger scale? >> Yeah. And again, we've been talking about quantum mechanics is the physics nature at this microscopic atomic scale. But the question was if you made a macroscopic object, would it obey quantum mechanics also? Okay. And then you know that was the basic question and it turns out that there's a very natural system to look at looking at an electrical system and look seeing for quantum mechanics and electrical system where the currents and voltages of essentially electrical oscillator does it behave like a classical physics or does it behave with this quantum mechanical nature to it? And that was the question. Now it turns out that when you think about quantum mechanics and thinking about well there's the quantum behavior but then at some point you have to measure it which then turns it into a probability there's something called the Schrodener pat cat paradox where um in the paradox you have a your radioactive decay and then you you you let it happen for let's say half of the radioactive decay time and then you say and then the in you have a radio detected decay a detector and then a bottle point. So um so he said well you know people should be testing this and let's see if it's true and uh as a as a young graduate student who just you know learned >> being in the perfect moment perfect position you know to to be able to kind of cross through the wall is so low it would never happen in this or many other universes >> and and that's the problem is that most macroscopic objects when you try to think about the quantum mechanics that won't happen. Okay. So there's a small probability one electron can cross over a barrier, >> but the probability that many cross over at once is lower and lower and lower and that makes it very difficult to see at scale. And >> that's the answer. Boom. Boom. I don't know who just understood that or understood the significance, but don't worry, I'm going to explain it to you. Right there, we're talking about infusion. We refer to it as how often the particles are interacting, how often they're fusing together. is the cross-section of uh the fusion probability chart. Now in the same vein we can think of what is the probability of us getting through the barrier and they say the reason why this doesn't work at larger scales is you would need every electron in my body in my hand would have to go through the barrier which is this microphone and even if one or two are going to go through then you're not going to have all the millions in my my hand go through most of them are not going to make it group. So this is the problem. How do we scale this up? Then how do we scale it up? If we have all these electrons and only a small and only some percentage of them will make it through the barrier, how do we scale this functionality up? How do we make it so that we can successfully tunnel a large object through the barrier? Any thoughts in the chat? Here's a thought. Turn your large object into one electron. Turn your object into an electron. How do we do that? Oh, that part's easy. We make a bubble. We make a bubble of plasma around our object. And now the universe treats our object as though it's one single electron. You make a wormhole. You make a mouth of the wormhole. In fact, you could argue maybe this is what making the mouth of the wormhole is. Everything you see with the MH370 videos, it's physically accurate. So, we can gain intention about the design of the technology that we see. Why do we see the plasma orbs spin around the plane and then converge? Everything they're doing has purpose. scientific purpose. Why they converge at all? Why can't they just zap the plane and then the orbs stay there? Because the orbs are part of the process. The orbs are enveloping or enshrouding the plane, treating it like a single electron. And now all that single electron needs to do is tunnel through. Just one electron. We've just scaled it up. We need that one electron to tunnel through the barrier just momentarily. Can be for a split second and now it'll be somewhere else. That seems to be the answer because why don't the orbs themselves why doesn't why doesn't it take one orb to zap the plane? Why does it take three? Because they need to enshroud the plane on all sides. They have to enshroud on all sides. You can't do it with just one. We're dealing with a three-dimensional space. threedimensional space. So we can learn a lot about how the technology works even from only short one minute long videos. Let's get back to it. What what happens is if you look at an electrical circuit then the parameters become favorable for seeing this kind of macroscopic behavior. And okay, it's hard to go into the the whole physics of all that, but it's basically because you can make a circuit that operates at microwave frequencies. So instead of you trying to go through the wall once a second, it tries to go through the wall five billion times a second. Okay. So then it's it's a lot you know more you know you have more chances to go through and uh uh the other thing is just the various parameters that involved in quantum mechanics you know are favorable for seeing this kind of phenomena. You have to do the experiment right but uh it's favorable. The other thing I just heard there is microwave frequencies. This is something I have not been able to get out of my head since we started looking at lasers. One of the laser mechanisms that we looked into months ago used microwave pulse microwave pump lasers through some kind of sapphire crystal. I think they were producing phentoc or something like that pulses. Um maybe they were doing pedawatt lasers or something with it. So microwaves seems significant. Literally the same microwaves that you have in your oven if you have an oven near you guys. So they're actually using pumping microwaves through these Joseph and junctions because it increased the tunneling because you're having more chances of tunneling. So we're learning already a lot about how these Joseph and junctions work and you're going to learn more here in a second >> for doing that. >> So one of the parts of your experiment you created what's called a Josephson junction. Is that is that correct? So this is two superconductors with a barrier between them. Right. I got really fascinated by superconductors when I was maybe 12 years old. I I went and bought a superconducting discretium berium copper oxide. >> Oh yes. Yes, that's right. >> From the back of popular science and then I went to use >> IBCO superconductor. He talks about uh he just talks about levitating >> electrons condense into one state. Okay. Now to just to give you analogy of how it's not a perfect analogy, it's close analogy. If you have a normal metal, any metal we have at room temperature, it's like a gas of electrons. It's like you know gas in the air. And then when you get below the superconducting temperature >> sorry I think we should just explain that. So so you have a metal all the electrons are kind of moving around. They're they're perturbed. They're different energies different states. >> That's right. The different energies different states you know there's some firm statistics that go into that but it's more or less looks like a gas. You think of a of a gas and then when you cool it below you know a certain temperature it then coaleses into let's say a solid like like atoms will and the electrons coales into the something cooper cooper pair bcs condenset that's the name where all the electrons are kind of locked together and doing the same thing. Now the nice thing >> so something you just mentioned there guys if you don't know understand superconductivity here we're saying that at certain temperatures when we get below or below this critical temperature we will have superc conductivity begin to form where our electrons begin to move in unison with one another and he's saying that at room temperature at high temperatures the metal is essentially acting similar to a plasma the electrons are moving around freely this is not the first time I heard this somebody else also ment mentioned that a metal is very similar to a plasma in that the electrons are moving around pretty freely independently of one another. If you cool it down now they they stopped acting independent. Now they begin to act like one one object in unison. And this is why high temperature superc conductivity is so important is that that critical temperature they call it the the TC you might see it measured see it documented the critical temperature is a temperature at which superconductivity breaks down where that collective action now goes back to being a scattered independent action thing about that it's not like they're frozen in place but they have a free parameter that allows them all the currents all the electrons to flow in some direction which is the supercurren >> in a superconductor meaning a material that's cool enough that it reaches its superconducting critical temperature right so suddenly all the electrons can still move they can still create a current but >> but they're moving together like they're in like in my analogy like they're in a solid instead of the gas and because they're moving together okay then then when you work through all the physics they are not um you know they aren't randomly scattering off things we're going to skip ahead here a little bit to this other part is really good here we go it's right about Okay. >> Frequencies that come out of that. And this is a quantum mechanical effect that >> Oh, I need to go back a little bit. We missed it. >> And the light coming out of that gas would be at certain colors of frequency. So if you go outside and you have the sodium lamps on, these are kind of the yellow lamps. You have, you know, kind of a single frequency coming out of that lamp. Or nowadays you look at LEDs, there are certain frequencies that come out of that. And this is a quantum mechanical effect that see how the electrons travel around the atom. There's only certain kind of frequencies that they oscillate at. Now classically you would expect there to be all different frequencies that it spirals around or spirals into the nucleus. So that's what you expect. But we saw these discrete frequencies. And so by measuring those discrete frequencies, you now had proof >> that there was quantum mechanics happening at a macro scale. >> That that's right. >> And you published this work. And was there a lot of attention when you published this work? >> So what did he just explain right there? >> He said, "We think about these electrons moving around and they're only oscillating. Our atoms are only oscillating at at specific frequencies." It turns out it's not a matter of this chaotic system where every frequency has a response. What he's talking about here is there's certain coherent frequencies, certain coherent frequencies. Now, this is going to shoot out green light. This one's going to shoot out yellow light. He's saying this is how an LED screen works. How do LE LED screens work? He says this is a quantum mechanical effect when you're on your LC LCD screen. And your reason why you're seeing certain colors is they're abusing this quantum mechanical effect. This explains why Charles Chase tells the story about the guy who invented the LCD screen going to the Nobel Prize winner and the Nobel Prize winner telling him, "Nah, it'll never work. It's not possible." And he had already developed it. He had already invented it. So there, this is big because now we're understanding what's really happening. If we tie this back to the photoelectric effect, we know it's all about resonance. It's all about resonance. Now, you're about to find out later on in this interview, very actually very brief in a few seconds here, why this is important, why these discrete frequencies matter when it comes to quantum computers. and he was talking about using quantum mechanics for computation which is building a quantum computer. So he gave a talk that was you know really kind of amazing. I'm going to be honest as a student I I didn't quite catch everything and my Michelle dev my dear friend said yeah maybe some of the things wasn't quite figured out at the time but afterwards he was absolutely mobbed by people asking him questions because it's so interesting to think about taking this this you know basic law and actually doing computation with it >> right >> and I was a graduate student so I was kind of at the outside ring you know you have the professors in close and whatever and I was just a lowly graduate student so I could hear a little it. Well, what I what I learned from this, it was a great question and and something that would be kind of worth doing, you know, for your your life your life work because it's so deep and so interesting and maybe practical and the like. So, that really So, so this was him explaining this was crazy to me was that the guy that just won the Nobel Prize for macroscopic quantum tunneling has been in AI and quantum computers. That's what he's been doing since like the 2000s, but really the 2010s with the with Google. And what did he just say there is that even back with Richard Fineman, they were already floating the idea of using quantum computers, quantum mechanics to make quantum computers. Chat, this is where it got real spicy for me because what have I been talking about? I have been saying that this all goes back to nuclear weapons. And if you have not been following all my work, that's fine. I don't judge you. You probably should though. Turns out when I started looking up, I just asked the question just not even that long ago. And how often have you asked this question is when did we invent computers? When did we invent computers? Chill out, Corky. You're getting ahead of the game, Corky. A little too soon. For my audio listeners, I'm not even going to say what it says in the chat right now. It'll it'll come for you in a minute. We're not to that point yet. We're getting there, though. When did we develop the first computer? It turns out some of the first computers ever invented were for nuclear weapons. We built computers so they could do the calculations for nuclear weapons. Why? Why do we need computers for nuclear weapons? Oh, because it's really, really important that we get the waves to interact perfectly. I mean, when I say perfectly, I mean we need equilateral triangles. We need our shapes to be perfect in a threedimensional environment, not a hypothetical. Usually, when they do the math, they simplify it and they're like, "Okay, we're just going to make a bunch of assumptions to make this a two-dimensional model of what was going to happen." three dimensions is really tough to model. So they needed computers, advanced computers. And if Richard Feman, who was on the Manhattan project, if he was already floating the idea of quantum computers back when he was alive, then we almost certainly developed quantum computers for the military. And I'm going to give you one guess as to what we're using those quantum computers for. You know what? No guesses necessary. You ready? I forgot I had this >> the future of quantum computing. >> I think it will come. Um I saw a paper by some guy who was listing all of the reasons why it was impossible. Uh and read I read the paper very carefully. Two of his reasons I I was were clearly wrong. I'm not sure about the other five. uh but I my my guess is that quantum computing will will come along and will revolutionize certain kinds of calculations that we do and in nuclear physics I'm an experimental nuclear physicist and the um uh the kinds of calculations we do for nuclear physics you either have to uh make assumptions that are contrary to quantum mechanics but for example in a cascade calculation you have to collapse the wave function 100 times where the where it would stay uncolapsed in a real quantum mechanical situation or uh or else you have to emulate the quantum mechanics with great difficulty using complicated integrals that are very difficult to execute in many cases. I think quantum computers will eliminate a lot of those. There will have to be a whole new generation of theoretical nuclear physicists learning how to use these computers to do the appropriate calculations. But I think one will be it will revolutionize that particular feel that I'm very familiar with and it will probably have a similar effect all over the place. >> Holy chat. There's a reason why I've got that clip saved. That is John Kramer, professor emeritus at University of Washington Udub. He also presumably knew people like David Kirkley who's the CEO of Helen Fusion. That was him back in 2013. I want to say that video is from explain the person interviewing him. What do you use a quantum computer for? Oh, it turns out nuclear math doing math math on nuclear weapons is one of the main reasons they use them for. There you go. There's a connection. Didn't come to me from a dream either. Came to me from hard evidence and and videos on the internet. Here you go. >> Motivated me. >> Yeah. So that big idea is is to use quantum mechanics and these properties of quantum mechanics to do computing. >> Yeah, that's right. And and I would say uh soon after that other people in the field got a little bit more specific and showed how you would how you do it. And then it was in the early 1990s maybe 5 years later that Peter Shaw came up with this factoring algorith to solve a you know a real world problem with