When I started writing children’s books, they were for my own children. Since I never stop singing the praises of science, I wasn’t much concerned about how scientifically literate they would be. But how am I doing outside my own family? I don’t know! That’s where you come it đ

# Tag: education

## Quantum Entanglement for Toddlers

I wrote a book a while back called Quantum Entanglement for Babies. But, now all those babies are grown into toddlers! I’ve been asked what is next on their journey to quantum enlightenment. Surely they have iPads now and know how to scroll, and so I give you Quantum Entanglement for Toddlers, the infographic!

Below is a lower-res version. Here is a high-res versionÂ (5MB). Contact me for the SVG.

## Entry Points for Learning Quantum Computing

Desiree Vogt-Lee maintains a list of quantum computing resources called Awesome Quantum Computing. It is indeed awesome and comprehensive. Here I am looking to answer the question *where do I ***start*** with quantum computing? *with a more concise list of my current favourite entry points.Â

But, before we get started, a general piece of advice if you want to study quantum computing (or anything else for that matter): **learn more maths**. More? Yes. More. It doesnât matter how much you already know. In fact, Iâm going to go learn some more maths after writing out this list. (Iâm not joking â the next tab in my browser is Agent-based model – Wikipedia.)Â

Now â in order of some sense of difficulty â here are my favourite recommendations for starting points on learning quantum computing.

# Undergraduate

The academically minded might be looking for a more traditional approach. Donât worry. Got that covered by **Quantum Computer Programming**, a course lectured at Stanford University. Other standard lecture notes include those by **David Mermin** and **John Preskill**. The former is more computer-sciencey while the latter is more physicsy.

If you want to do some real quantum programming, **The Quantum Katas** by Microsoft Quantum is a set of tutorials on quantum programming using the Q# programming language. While it does start with the basics, there is a steep learning curve for those without a background in programming.

**Quantum computing for the very curious** by Andy Matuschak and Michael Nielsen is like an electronic textbook with exercises that use spaced repetition to assist in remembering key facts. This is an experimental learning tool, which at the time of writing, is still under construction.Â

# Highschool

**“Thinking Quantum”: Lectures on Quantum Theory** by Barak Shoshany is a set of about 16 hours worth of lecture notes which was delivered to highschool students at an international summer school. Though it is more focused on quantum physics, the first half will give you all the basic tools needed to start analysing quantum algorithms. It is quite mathematical so the reader would have to be comfortable with some mathematical abstraction. However, much of the field of quantum computing comes from a physics background and the ideas and language of quantum physics are pervasive.Â

**The Quantum Quest** by members of the QuSoft team is a web class which contains videos, lecture notes, and a pared down version of Quirk. It starts with the basics of probability and linear algebra and quickly gets you up and running with quantum circuits and algorithms.

**Quirk** by Craig Gidney is a quantum circuit simulator. It is incredible expressive and provides many useful visualisations. This tools is simple enough for anyone to start creating quantum circuits. However, interpreting the output does require some guidance and knowledge of probability.

If you prefer the video playlist approach, **Quantum computing for the determined** by Michael Nielsen is a series of short YouTube videos going over the basics of quantum information. However, if you are not putting pen to paper yourself, you are not likely to absorb the necessary mathematics to understand quantum computing.

# Primary / C-Suites

**Quantum Computing for Babies** by me and whurley.Â

## My Speech to 500 Australian Teenage Schoolboys About Mathematics

I suppose I should start with who I am and what I do and perhaps why I am here in front of you. But Iâm not going to do that, at least not yet. I donât want to stand here and list all my accomplishments so that you may be impressed and that would convince you to listen to me. No. I donât want to do that because I know it wouldnât work. I know that because it wouldnât have worked on me when I was in your place and someone else was up here.

Now, of course you can tell by my accent that I wasnât literally down there. I was in Canada. And I sure as hell wasnât wearing a tie. But I imagine our priorities were fairly similar: friends, getting away parents, maybe sports (in my case hockey of course and yours maybe footy), but most importantlyâŚ mathematics! No. Video games.Â

I donât think there is such a thing as being innately gifted in anything. Though, I am pretty good at video games. People become very good at things they practice. A little practice leads to a small advantage, which leads to opportunities for better practice, and things snowball. The snowball effect. Is that a term you guys use in Australia? I mean, it seems like an obvious analogy for a Canadian. Itâs how you make a snowman after all. You start with a small handful of snow and you start to roll it on the ground. The snow on the ground sticks to the ball and it gets bigger and bigger until you have a ball as tall as you!Â

Practice leads to a snowball effect. After a while, it looks like you are gifted at the thing you practiced, but it was really just the practice. Success then follows from an added sprinkling of luck and determination. Thatâs what I want to talk to you about today: practice.

I donât want to use determination in the sense that I was stubbornly defiant in the face of adversity. Though, from the outside it might look that way. You can either be determined to avoid failure or determined to achieve some objective. Being determined to win is different from being determined not to lose.Â

There is something psychologically different between winning and not losing. You see, losing implies a winner, which is not you. But winning does not require a loser, because you can play against yourself. This was the beauty of disconnected video games of 80âs and 90âs. You played against yourself, or maybe âthe computerâ. That doesnât mean it was easy. Iâll given anyone here my Nintendo if they can beat Super Mario Bros. in one go. (Iâm not joking. I gave my children the same offer and they barely made it past the first level). It was hard and frustrating, but no one was calling you a loser on the other end. And when you finally beat the game, you could be proud. Proud of yourself and for yourself. Not for the fake internet points you get on social media, but for you.Â

I actually really did want to talk to you today about mathematics. What I want to tell you is that, when I was your age, I treated mathematics like a video game. I wanted to win. I wanted to prove to myself that I could solve every problem. Some nights I stayed up all night trying to solve a single problem. You know how they say you canât have success without failure? This is a perfect example. The more you fail at trying to solve a maths problem, the more you understand when you finally do solve it. And what came along with failing and eventually succeeding in all those maths problems? Practice.

Well I don’t know much about the Australian education system and culture. But I’m guessing from Hollywood you know a bit about highschool in North America. I’m sure you know about prom, and of course about Prom King and Prom Queen. What you may not know is that the King and Queen’s court always has a jester. That is, along with King and Queen, each year has a Class Clown â the joker, the funny guy. I wasn’t the prom king, or queen. But I did win the honour of class clown.

When I finished highschool, I was really good at three things: video games, making people laugh, and mathematics. I promise you, there is no better combination. If there was a nutrition guide for the mind, it would contain these three things. Indeed, now more than ever before, you need to be three types of smart. You need to be quick, reactive, and adaptive â the skills needed to beat a hard video game. You need emotional intelligence, you need to know what others are thinking and feeling â how to make them laugh. And finally you need to be able to solve problems, and all real problems require maths to solve them.Â

There are people in the world, lots of people â billions, perhaps â who look in awe at the ever increasing complexity of systems business, government, schools, and technology, including video games. They look, and they feel lost. Perhaps you know someone that can’t stand new technology, or change in general. Perhaps they don’t even use a piece of technology because they believe they will never understand how to use it.Â

You all are young. But you know about driving, voting, and paying taxes, for example. Perhaps it looks complicated, but at least you believe that you can and will be able to do it when the time comes. Imagine feeling that such things were just impossible. That would be a weird feeling. You brain can’t handle such dissonance. So you would need to rationalise it in one way or another. You’d say it’s just not necessary, or worse, it’s something some “other” people do. At that point, for your brain to maintain a consistent story, it will start to reject new information and facts that arenât consistent with your new story.Â

This is all sounds far fetched, but I guarantee you know many people with such attitudes. To make them sound less harmful, they call them “traditional”. How do otherwise “normal” people come to hold these views? It’s actually quite simple: they fear, not what they don’t understand, but what they have convinced themselves is unnecessarily complicated. I implore you, start today, start right now. Study maths. It is the only way to intellectually survive in a constantly changing world.

Phew that was a bit depressing. Let me give you a more fun and trivial example. Just this weekend I flew from Sydney to Bendigo. The flight was scheduled to be exactly 2 hours. I was listening to an audiobook and I wondered if I would finish it during the flight. Seems obvious right? If there was less than 2 hours left in the audiobook, then I would finish. If not, then I would not finish. But here’s the thing, audiobooks are read soooo slow. So, I listen to them at 1.25x speed. There was 3 hours left. Does anyone know the answer?

Before I tell you, let me remind you, not many people would ask themselves this question. I couldn’t say exactly why, but in some cases it’s because the person has implicitly convinced themselves that such a question is just impossible to answer. It’s too complicated. So their brain shuts that part of inquiry off. *Never ask complicated questions* it says. Then this happens: an entire world â no most of the entire universe â is closed off. Don’t close yourself off from the universe. Study maths.

By the way, the answer. It’s not the exact answer but here was my quick logic based on the calculation I could do in my head. If I had been listening at 1.5x speed, then every hour of flight time would get through 1.5 hours of audiobook. That’s 1 hour 30 minutes. So two hours of flight time would double that, 3 hours of audiobook. Great. Except I wasn’t listening at 1.5x speed. I was listening at a slower speed and so I would definitely get through less than 3 hours. The answer was no.Â

In fact, by knowing what to multiple or divide by what, I could know that I would have exactly 36 minutes left of the audiobook. Luckily or unluckily, the flight was delayed and I finished the book anyway. Was thinking about maths pointless all along? Maybe. But since flights are scheduled by mathematical algorithms, maths saved the day in the end. Maths always wins.

How about another. Who has seen a rainbow? I feel like that should be a trick question just to see who is paying attention. Of course, you have all seen a rainbow. As you are trying to think about the last time you saw a rainbow, you might also be thinking that they are rare â maybe even completely random things. But now you probably see the punchline â maths can tell you exactly where to find a rainbow.

Here is how a rainbow is formed. Notice that number there. That angle never changes. So you can use this geometric diagram to always find the rainbow. The most obvious aspect is that the rainbow exits the same general direction that the sunlight entered the raindrop. So to see a rainbow, the sun has to be behind you.

And there’s more. If the sun is low in the sky, the rainbow will be high in the sky. And if the sun is high, you might not be able to see a rainbow at all. But if you take out the garden hose to find it, make sure you are looking down. Let me tell you my favourite rainbow story. I was driving the family to Canberra. We were driving into the sunset at some point when I drove through a brief sun shower. Since the sun was shining and it was raining, one of my children said, “Maybe we’ll see a rainbow!”

Maybe. Ha. A mathematician knows no maybes. As they looked out their windows, I knew â yes â we would see a rainbow. I said, after passing through the shower, “Everyone look out the back window and look up.” Because the sun was so low, it was apparently the most wonderful rainbow ever seen. I say apparently because I couldn’t see it, on account of me driving. But no matter. I was content in knowing I could conjure such beauty with the power of mathematics.

I could have ended there, since I’m sure you are all highly convinced to catch up on all your maths lessons and homework. However, since I have time, I will tell you a little bit about what maths has enabled me to get paid to do. Namely, quantum physics and computation. Maybe you’ve heard about quantum physics? Maybe you’ve heard about uncertainty (the world is chaotic and random), or superposition (things can be in two places at once and cats can be dead and alive at the same time), or entanglement (what Einstein called spooky action at a distance).

But I couldn’t tell you more about quantum physics than that without maths. This is not meant to make it sound difficult. It should make it sound beautiful. This is quantum physics. It’s called the Schrodinger Equation. That’s about all there is to it. All that stuff about uncertainty, superposition, entanglement, multiple universes, and so onâit’s all contained in this equation. Without maths, we would not have quantum physics. And without quantum physics, we would not have GPS, lasers, MRI, or computers â no computers to play video games and no computers to look at Instagram. Thank a quantum physicist for these things.

Quantum physics also helps us understand the entire cosmos. From the very first instant of the Big Bang born out of a quantum fluctuation to the fusing of Hydrogen into Helium inside stars giving us all energy and life on Earth to the most exotic things in our universe: black holes. These all cannot be understood without quantum physics. And that canât be understood without mathematics.

And now I use the maths of quantum physics to help create new computing devices that may allow us to create new materials and drugs. This quantum computer has nothing mysterious or special about it. It obeys an equation just as the computers you carry around in your pockets do. But the equations are different and different maths leads to different capabilities.Â

I don’t want to put up those equations, because if I showed them to even my 25 year-old self, I would run away screaming. But then again, I didn’t know then what I know now, and what I’m telling you today. Anyone can do this. It just takes time. Every mathematician has put in the time. There is no secret recipe beyond this. Start now.

## The real magic of quantum computing

By now you have read many articles on quantum computing. Congratulations. You know nothing about quantum computing.

There is a magician on stage. Itâs tense. Maybe itâs a primetime TV show and the production value is super high. The celebrity judges look nervous. There is epic build up music as the magician calls their assistant on stage. The assistant climbs into a box that is covered with a velvet blanket. Why a blanket? I mean, isnât the box good enough? What a pretentious asâŚ forget it, Iâm ruining this for myself. OK, so the assistant is in the box with their head and legs sticking out. What the fuck? Who made this box, anyway? Damn it, Iâm doing it again. Thenâoh shitâis that a saw? Whatâs going to happen with that? Fuck! No! The assistantâs been cut in half! And then the quantum computer outputs the answer. Wait, what? Where did the quantum computer come from? I donât knowâquantum computing is magic like that.

By now you have read many articles on quantum computing. Congratulations. You know nothing about quantum computing. I know what you are thinking: *Whoa, Chris, I wasnât ready for these truth bombs. Take it easy on us. *But I see a problem and I just need to fix it. Or, more likely, call the rental agent to fix it.

You probably think that a qubit can represent a 0 and a 1 at the same time. Or, that quantum computing takes advantage of the strange ability of subatomic particles to exist in more than one state at any time. I can hardly fault you for that. After all, we expect Scientific American and WIRED to be fairly reputable sources. And, Iâm not cherry picking hereâthese were the first two hits after the Wikipedia entry on a Google search of âWhat is quantum computing?â Nearly every popular account of quantum computing has this â0 and 1 at the same timeâ metaphor.

I say metaphor because it is certainly not literally true that the things involved in quantum computingâthose qubits mentioned aboveâare 0 and 1 at the same time. Why? Well, for starters, 0 and 1 are *defined* to be mutually exclusive (that means itâs either one OR the other). Logically, 0 is defined as [NOT 1]. Then 0 AND 1 is equal to [NOT 1] AND 1, which is a false statement. â0 and 1 at the same timeâ just doesnât make sense, and itâs false anyway. Next.

OK, so whatâs the big deal? We all play fast and loose with words. Surely this littleâŚ let me stop you right there, because it gets worse. Much worse.

The Scientific American article linked above then deduces that, âThis lets qubits conduct vast numbers of calculations at once, massively increasing computing speed and capacity.â Thatâs a pretty big logical leap, but Iâd say itâs a correct one. Letâs break it down. First, if a qubit can be 0 and 1 at the same time then two qubits can be 00 and 01 and 10 and 11 at the same time. And three qubits can be 000 and 001 and 010 and 011 and 100 and 101 and 110 and 111 at the same time. AndâŚ well, you get the picture. Like mold on that organic bread you bought, exponential growth!

The number of possible ways to set some number of bits, say *n* of them, is 2^{n}âa big number. If *n = *300, 2^{300} is more than the number of atoms in the universe! Think about that. Flip a coin just 300 times and the number of possible ways they could land is unfathomable. And 300 qubits could be all of them* at the same time.* If you believe that, then it is easy to believe that quantum computers will just calculate every possible solution to your problem at once and pick the right answer. *That *would be magic. Alas, this is not how quantum computers work.

Lesson 1: donât take a bad metaphor and draw your own simplistic conclusions from it.

Try this one out from Forbes: âA bit can be at either of the two poles of the sphere, but a qubit can exist at any point on the sphere.â Spot on. This is 100% accurate. But, wait! âSo, this means that a computer using qubits can store an enormous amount of information and uses less energy doing so than a classical computer.â The fuck? No. In fact, a qubit cannot be used to store and retrieve more than 1 bit of data. Again, magic, but not how quantum computers work.

Lesson 2: donât reduce an entire field to one idea and draw your own simplistic conclusions from it.

I can just imagine what you are thinking right now. *OK hotshot, how would *you *explain quantum computing? *Iâm glad you asked. After bashing a bad analogy, Iâm going to use another, better analogy. I like analogiesâthey are my favorite method of learning. Teaching by analogy is kind of like being in two places at the same time.

Alright, Iâm going to tell you the correct analogy between quantum physics and magic. Letâs think about what a magic trick looks like abstractly. The magician, who is highly trained, spends a huge amount of time choreographing a mechanism which is then hidden from the audience. The show begins, the âmagicâ happens, and we are returned to reality with bafflement. If you are under 20, then you also take a selfie for the Insta #fuckyeahmagic.

Now here is what happens in a quantum computation. A quantum engineer, who is highly trained, spends a huge amount of time choreographing a mechanism which is then hidden from the audience. The show begins, quantum computation happens, and we are returned the answer to our problem. Tada! Quantum computation is magic. Selfie, Insta, #fuckyeahquantum.

Letâs dig into this a bit deeper, though. Why not uncover the quantum computerâopen the boxâto reveal the mechanism? Well, we canât. If we âwatchâ the computation happen, we expose the quantum computer to an environment and this will break the computation. The kind of things a quantum computer needs to do requires complete isolation from the environment. Just like a magicianâs trick, if we reveal the mechanism, the magic doesnât happen.

*OK, fine. The âmagicâ will be lost, but at least I could understand the mechanism, right? *Sure, thatâs right. But hereâs the catch: a magician spends countless hours training and preparing for the trick. Knowing the mechanism doesnât help you understand how to actually perform the trick. Nor does seeing that the mechanism of quantum computing is some complicated math actually help you understand how it works. And don’t over simplify itâwe already know that doesn’t work.

Letâs look at the example of a sword swallowing illusionist. If you donât know what Iâm talking about, itâs exactly how it soundsâa person puts a sword the length of their torso in their mouth down to the handle. How one figures out they have a proclivity for this talent, I donât want to know. But whatâs the explanation? Donât worry, I already googled it for you, and itâs simple: âthe illusionist positions their head up so that his throat and stomach make a straight line.â Oh, is that it? Iâm suddenly unimpressed. So now that you too know how to swallow a sword are you going to go and do it? I fucking doubt it. That would be stupidâabout as stupid as reading a few sentence description of some âexplanationâ of quantum computing and then declaring you understand it.

Lesson 3: donât place your analogy at the level of explanationâplace it at the level of the phenomenon. Let your analogy do the work of explanation for you.

If you like figures, I have prepared a lovely summary for you.

Well there you go. Quantum computing isn’t magic, but it can put on a good show. You can learn about how to do the tricks yourself and even perform a few with a little more effort. I suggest starting with the IBM Quantum Experience. Or, start where the real magicians do with Quantum Computing for Babies đ

## One is the loneliest prime number

You canât prove 1 is, or is not, prime. You have the freedom to choose whether to include 1 as a prime or not and this choice is either guided by convenience or credulity.

I occasionally get some cruel and bitter criticism from an odd source. Iâm putting my response here for two reasons: (1) so I that I can simply refer them to it and not have to repeat myself or engage in the equally impersonal displeasure of internet arguments, and (2) I think there is something interesting to be learned about mathematics, logic, and knowledge more generally.

It all started when I wrote a very controversial book about an extremely taboo topic: mathematics. In my book ABCs of Mathematics, âP is for Primeâ. The short, child-friendly description I gave for this was:

A prime number is only divisible by 1 and itself.

I thought I did a pretty good job of reducing the concept and syllables down to a level palatable by a young reader. Oh, boy, was I wrong. Enter: the angriest group of people I have met on the internet.

You see, by the given definition, I had to include 1 as a prime number since, as we should all agree, it is divisible only by 1 and itself.

Big mistake. Because, apparently, it has been drilled into peopleâs heads that this is a grave error, a misconception that can eventually lead young impressionable minds to a life of crime and possibly even death! It might even end up on a list of banned books!

By a vast majority, people love the book. I am generally happy with the reponse. The baby books I write are not for everyoneâI get that. And I do try to take advice from all the feedback I receive on my books. There is always room for improvement. But the intense emotions some people have with the idea of 1 being a prime number is truly perplexing. Here are some examples:

I actually love the book, but there is a big mistake. The number 1 is not a prime number! The book should not be sold like this and needs to be reprinted.

and

1 IS NOT PRIME! How could a supposed math book have an error like this in it? I am disgusted!

Yikes. So what gives? **Is 1 prime, or not?** The answer is:** thatâs not a valid question**.

Let me explain.

First, letâs look at a typical definition. Compare to, for example, Wikipediaâs entry on prime numbers:

A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number greater than 1 that cannot be formed by multiplying two smaller natural numbers.

Much more preciseâno denying that. Itâs grammatically correct, but probably hard to parse. I wanted to avoid negative definitions as much as I could in my books. But thatâs beside the point. The reason 1 is *not* a prime is that the definition of prime itself is contorted to exclude it!

OK, so why is that? Well, the answer is probably not as satisfying as you might like: *convenience*. By excluding 1 as prime, one can state other theorems more concisely. Take the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, for example:

Every integer

greater than 1either is a prime number itself or can be represented as the product of prime numbers and that, moreover, this representation isunique, up to (except for) the order of the factors.

Now, this statement would *not* be true if 1 were a prime since, for example, 6 = 2 Ă 3 but also 6 = 2 Ă 3 Ă 1 and also 6 = 2 Ă 3 Ă 1 Ă 1, etc. That is, *if *1 were prime, the representation would not be unique and the theorem would be false.

However, if we *do* chose to include 1 as a prime number, all is not lost. Then the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic would still be true *if* it were stated as:

Every integer is a prime number itself or can be represented as the product of prime numbers and that, moreover, this representation is unique, up to (except for) the order of the factors

and the number of 1âs.

Which version do you prefer? In either case, both the definition and theorem treat 1 as a special number. Iâd argue that in this context, the number 1 is more of an annoyance that gets in the way of the deeper concept behind the theorem. But in mathematics you must be precise with your language. And so 1 must be dealt with as an awkward special case no matter which way you slice it.

So, is 1 prime, or not? Well, it depends on how you define it. But in the end it doesnât really matter, so long as you are consistent. And understanding **that** is a much bigger lesson than memorizing some fact you were told in grade school.

The definition given in ABCs of Mathematics is not *“*wrong” any more than all of the other simplifications and analogies I have made are “wrong”. But, in case you were wondering, the second printing will be modified with the hope that everyone can enjoy the book. Even the angry people on the internet deserve to be happy.

## David Wolfe doesn’t want you to share these answers debunking quantum avocados

Everyone knows you need to microwave your avocados to release their quantum memory effects.

Recently, I joined Byrne and Wade on Scigasm Podcast to talk about misconceptions of quantum physics. Apparently, people are wrong about quantum physics on the internet! Now, since the vast majority of people donât listen to Scigasm Podcast [burn emoji], I thought Iâd expand a bit on dispelling some of the mysticism surrounding the quantum.

### Would it be fair to say quantum physics is a new field in the applied sciences, though it has been around for a while in the theoretical world?

No. That couldnât be further from the truth. There are two ways to answer this question.

The super pedantic way: all is quantum. And so all technology is based on quantum physics. Electricity is the flow of electrons. Electrons are fundamental quantum particles. However, you could rightfully say that knowledge of quantum physics was not necessary to develop the technology.

In reality, though, all the technology around us today would not exist without understanding quantum physics. Obvious examples are lasers, MRI and atomic clocks. Then there are technologies such as GPS, for example, that rely on the precision timing afforded by atomic clocks. Probably most importantly is the develop of the modern transistor, which required the understanding of semiconductors. Transistors exist, and are necessary, for the probably of electronic devices surrounding you right now.

However, all of that is based on an understanding of bulk quantum propertiesâlots of quantum systems behaving the same way. You could say this is quantum technology 1.0.

Today, we are developing quantum technology 2.0. This is built on the ability to control individual quantum systems and get them to interact with each other. Different properties emerge with this capability.

### Does the human brain operate using properties of the quantum world?

There are two things this could mean. One is legit and other is not. There is a real field of study called quantum biology. This is basically material physics, where the material is biological. People want to know if we need more than classical physics to explain, say, energy transfer in ever more microscopic biochemical interactions.

The other thing is called quantum consciousness, or something equally grandiose. Now, some well-known physicists have written about this. Iâll note that this is usually long after tenure. These are mostly metaphysical musings, at best.

In either case, and this is true for anything scientific, it all depends on what you mean by properties of the quantum world. Of course, everything is quantumâwe are all made of fundamental particles. So one has to be clear what is meant by the âtrueâ quantum effects.

ThenâŚ there are the crackpots. There the flawed logic is as follows: consciousness is mysterious, quantum is mysterious, therefore consciousness is quantum. This is like saying: dogs have four legs, this chair has four legs, therefore this chair is a dog. Itâs a logical fallacy.

### Quantum healing is the idea that quantum phenomena are responsible for our health. Can we blame quantum mechanics for cancer? Or can we heal cancer with the power of thought alone?

Sure, you can blame physics for cancer. The universe wants to kill us after all. I mean, on the whole, it is pretty inhospitable to life. We are fighting it back. I guess scientists are like jujitsu mastersâwe use the universe against itself for our benefit.

But, there is a sense in which diseases are cured by thought. It is the collective thoughts and intentional actions of scientists which cure disease. The thoughts of an individual alone are useless without a community.

### Is it true that subatomic particles such as electrons can be in multiple places at once?

If you think of the particles has tiny billiard balls, then no, almost by definition. A thing, that is defined by its singular location, cannot be two places at once. Thatâs like asking if you can make a square circle. The question doesnât even make sense.

Metaphors and analogies always have their limitations. It is useful to think this way about particles sometimes. For example, think of a laser. You likely are not going too far astray if you think of the light in a laser as a huge number of little balls flying straight at the speed of light. I mean that is how we draw it for students. But a physicist could quickly drum up a situation under which that picture would lead to wrong conclusions even microscopically.

### Does quantum mechanics only apply to the subatomic?

Not quite. If you believe that quantum mechanics applies to fundamental particles and that fundamental particles make up you and me, then quantum mechanics also applies to you and me.

This is mostly true, but building a description of each of my particles and the way they interact using the rules of quantum mechanics would be impossible. Besides, Newtonian mechanics works perfectly fine for large objects and is much simpler. So we don’t use quantum mechanics to describe large objects.

Not yet, anyway. The idea of quantum engineering is to carefully design and build a large arrangement of atoms that behaves in fundamentally new ways. There is nothing in the rules of quantum mechanics that forbids it, just like there was nothing in the rules of Newtonian mechanics that forbade going to the moon. It’s just a hard problem that will take a lot of hard work.

### Do quantum computers really assess every possible outcome at once?

No. If it could, it would be able to solve every possible problem instantaneously. In fact, we have found only a few classes of problems that we think a quantum computer could speed up. These are problems that have a mathematical structure that looks similar to quantum mechanics. So, we exploit that similarity to come up with easier solutions. There is nothing magical going on.

### Can we use entanglement to send information at speeds faster than the speed of light?

No. Using entanglement to send information faster than light is like a perpetual motion machine. Each proposal looks detailed and intricate. But some non-physical thing is always hidden under the rug.

### Could I use tachyons to become The Flash? And if so, where do I get tachyons?

This is described in my books. Go buy them.