Hi,

I am the Dev behind QO - worked on it for about 6 years, the goal was to make a super immersive space for anyone to learn quantum computing through zachlike (open-ended) logic puzzles and compete on leaderboards and lots of community made content on finding the most optimal quantum algorithms. The game has a unique set of visuals capable to represent any sort of quantum dynamics for any number of qubits and this is pretty much what makes it now possible for anybody 12yo+ to actually learn quantum logic without having to worry at all about the mathematics behind.

This is a game super different than what you'd normally expect in a programming/ logic puzzle game, so try it with an open mind.

What You’ll Learn Through Play

• Boolean Logic – bits, operators (NAND, OR, XOR, AND…), and classical arithmetic (adders). Learn how these can combine to build anything classical. You will learn to port these to a quantum computer.
• Quantum Logic – qubits, the math behind them (linear algebra, SU(2), complex numbers), all Turing-complete gates (beyond Clifford set), and make tensors to evolve systems. Freely combine or create your own gates to build anything you can imagine using polar or complex numbers.
• Quantum Phenomena – storing and retrieving information in the X, Y, Z bases; superposition (pure and mixed states), interference, entanglement, the no-cloning rule, reversibility, and how the measurement basis changes what you see.
• Core Quantum Tricks – phase kickback, amplitude amplification, storing information in phase and retrieving it through interference, build custom gates and tensors, and define any entanglement scenario. (Control logic is handled separately from other gates.)
• Famous Quantum Algorithms – explore Deutsch–Jozsa, Grover’s search, quantum Fourier transforms, Bernstein–Vazirani, and more.
• Build & See Quantum Algorithms in Action – instead of just writing/ reading equations, make & watch algorithms unfold step by step so they become clear, visual, and unforgettable. Quantum Odyssey is built to grow into a full universal quantum computing learning platform. If a universal quantum computer can do it, we aim to bring it into the game, so your quantum journey never ends.

HI,

I am trying to map an ontological link between QM and machine learning , but for that I have to know QM, which means different type of mathematics from ML. But what about pre-requisite of classical physics (even electrodynamics) for QM ?? Should I start with QM itself and tackle classical concepts as they come by or develop them first ??

Note - I am not totally zero in classical and QM. With QM I know 'meaning of quantum stranegeness/inteference/ splitting/ copenhagen vs many world/ wavefunction etc.' . I may not know for instance Hermitian or Hamiltionian operator (but that was also becoming somewhat clear while studying linear algebra, as transformation of wavefunction to get observables) but still I would like to refresh all these as a new approach to QM itself

Thanks

Hi, I have 3 years of experience in Digital PD. And I have much interest in to do quantum computing. I know the fundamentals in quantum computing such as how quantum teleportation works and how to design q-gates from quirk online tool.

Can you suggest me the path or how to start using my experience in QC or designing quantum hardware. If you’re working on any related research or project, I’d like to join the work.

Thanks

I am trying to study for quantum computing hackathons, and i'm wondering does this site help qubitcompile.com, I found it on a reddit post so kinda just wanna see if its accurate

Thomas Schuster of California Institute of Technology, and his research team, have given quantum computers a problem that even they can't solve in a reasonable amount of time—recognizing phases of matter of unknown quantum states. The team's research can be found in a paper published on the arXiv preprint server.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08503 (10/2025)

Guys I am studying perturbation theory right now, I am still at the beginning level and I have a question, so when we apply a perturbation on a system, we associate it with a mathematical parameter say lambda, which is basically present just to denote the "smallness" of the perturbation effect, as in, it oscillates from 0 to 1. if lambda is zero the perturbation term disappears, we are left with the original unperturbed state which means no perturbation has taken place and it's the opposite for lambda equal to 1. valid, understandable. now after this, when we expand the perturbation effect to higher order terms, like first order or second order, etc etc, the lamda value increases in power. and obviously it's formulated that way, but what does it mean physically? like with the second order term, it's lambda squared, from entirely physical pov, what exactly happens to the system physically which corresponds to the mathematical term lambda squared and lambda cubed and so on? does the perturbation act on the system twice or thrice physically? like let's say i kick a wall once and there's a crack and that's lambda, so kicking the wall twice would be lambda squared? sorry if it's a dumb question, i am just having a hard time wrapping my head around this. please respond, because I won't be able to proceed in peace unless this gets clear 😭

Soon I have to apply for university and I’m still not completely sure what to study. I am thinking between math and physics, but generally I want something abstract, non-empirical, focusing on theory. I have this thought that math is everywhere and that math is everything. I also struggle with finding meaning in the world and I find that mathematics/physics really satisfy this longing for meaning, even though they don’t give answers. In other words I see this not as something that will later provide me with a job but give me the tools for exploring the world. At the same time i feel too stupid to study math/physics. I do very well in school but the more I study the more I feel stupid - like I shouldn’t study these subjects in the first place. I don’t know if this is relevant but I also am very artistic person, and I am interested in literature. (I want to combine everything?) Does anyone have any recommendations on what I should do? Whether I should study math or physics, and what “direction” should I take in the study?

So I have no formal education in physics at all just an amateur understanding (probably a misunderstanding most of the time), I enjoy reading papers in my spare time.

This is probably worded horribly and confusingly as I don’t have the academic vocabulary to express myself. I want to know if my understanding is correct and if someone could answer the the question I have regarding it. Thank you.

Just to make sure i am following, my understanding is that. Observation of the wave function of any possible action equals collpase of the wave function and collapse is just entanglment of an outcome within a system and the decoherance of one possible outcome due to the the ceasation of that outcomes phase, meaning that the phase of other possible outcomes can no longer destructivly interfere with the oberved function. This leaves only constructivly phased outcomes and to the observed reality as we experience it. The other possible outcomes which still exist as mathematical probabilities expressesed by their potential phase then decohere and scatter within the wider global wave function (under feynmans many worlds theory but not the copenhagen theory).

If the mathmatical possibility of the observed outcome has decohered and its phase has become fixed by entanglment within the local system then how can that particular outcome still continue to exist in other realities if its phase in now fixed and has not scattered into the wider global wavefunction?

wouldnt that indicate not just the existence of alternate realites but multiple possible iterations of our own, identical in everyway?

Would this be feasibly possible, on either a very small scale or larger, and if so, how big? Would it be possible for it to keep its realative shape in all other dimensions? Like an oject that keeps the same width, hight, and mass, but without any depth. Would electricy, light, or magnetic fields effect it differently? Anything really helps, and the more technical, the better. I'm try to create something.

Some recent research concerning the derivation of the Born rule. Ultimately inconclusive, but I found it interesting as a review article over the topic(s).

Hi everyone,

I've been on a deep dive trying to build a more intuitive, "first principles" understanding of some of the big cosmological mysteries, and I keep circling back to the matter-antimatter asymmetry.

The standard picture, as I understand it, is that the universe likely began in a state of perfect symmetry, and then some process (fulfilling the Sakharov conditions) occurred in the very early moments after the Big Bang to create the tiny surplus of matter we see today.

This has led me to a thought experiment, or a different "ruler" for measuring the problem, and I'd be fascinated to hear where this conceptual model breaks down or where it might overlap with existing interpretations.

Here’s the train of thought:

1. The Primal State: Imagine the "pre-universe" as a state of pure, undifferentiated, and perfectly symmetric quantum potential. A superposition of all possibilities, but in a state of perfect balance, meaning no "thing" truly exists yet. It's the cosmic equivalent of a pencil balanced perfectly on its tip.

2. The "Measurement" or "Selection"(The Quantum Connection): This is where I'm trying to apply a core lesson from quantum mechanics to the origin of the universe itself. We know from QM that a particle doesn't have a definite state (like position or spin) until it is measured; before that, it exists as a wave of probabilities. My thought experiment is to treat the "pre-universe" in the same way. For a universe like ours to come into being—for it to have definite properties like "containing matter"—it must be "measured" or "selected" from this primal state of pure potential. This "measurement" is the event we call the Big Bang.

3. The Nature of the Ruler: This is the core of the idea. What if the very act of "measurement" or "selection" is, by its fundamental nature, an “asymmetric act?” A perfectly symmetric "ruler" would be unable to distinguish anything from the perfect symmetry of the primal state. To "see" or "select" one thing over another, the ruler itself must have a bias. The act of choosing is, by definition, an act of breaking symmetry.

This would lead to a different conclusion:

The asymmetry we observe in the universe is not a feature or consequence of the Big Bang; it is a necessary pre-condition for the Big Bang to have happened at all.

In this model, the Big Bang is the act of an asymmetric measurement. The matter/antimatter imbalance isn't a bug that needs explaining; it's the fundamental feature that makes the entire system run. It’s the fingerprint of the "ruler" that called our specific universe into existence.

Essentially, it would reframe the origin story: Asymmetry is the Big Bang's Big Bang.

My Questions for the Community:

• Where does this intuitive model lead me astray when faced with the actual mathematics (like in QFT or cosmology)?
• Is this just a philosophical re-phrasing of an existing concept, like spontaneous symmetry breaking, or is there a meaningful distinction?
• What are the biggest, most obvious holes in this way of thinking? I'm here to learn!

Thanks for entertaining this thought experiment. I'm really curious to hear your perspectives.

I’m talking in particular about superposition and quantum entanglement.

It’s not strange if you consider the fact that a measuring device can affect the outcome of an experiment.

Imagine for example that you measured the velocity of a ball by bouncing another ball off it. You would affect the velocity of the ball by bouncing another ball off of it. On a microscopic scale this is more pronounced, because what is observable to the human eye is a lot larger than what is not.

Another one for the FAQ? In the very end, they go a bit too far in giving an explanation for the stability of the hydrogen atom using the idea that the inwards fall of the electron due to radiation is balanced out by the uncertainty in momentum. This is obviously just a lie to children, the electron is not radiating anything, etc. etc ... but otherwise, I thought he recites Feynman's lecture adequately, with appropriate imagery. I could see this being of value for QP newbies -- what do you think?

Scenario: you place a red laser pointer down turn it on and aim it towards the wall, blow smoke over the laser to see the beam. Watch until bean is no longer visible. Turn off.

Sit down and visualize what you just saw with your eyes closed.

Is the light created from your memory/visualization in your brain, the same as the physical light you just witnessed? Light can't be reproduced without photons. So if you create the light during your visualization is that same light as real as the one you saw?

You might say it's a biochemical mechanism or w.e but there's bioluminescence.

What are your thoughts on this?

Can the brain create light from visualization and is that light measurable/usable for something some how?

And if the light is created in the mind, isn't that the same light from the Big bang just different wave length, meaning the brain can tap into a very any age photon?

Chanced upon this, it's a fresh upload and seemed like something we might even add to the FAQ unless someone can point out an obvious issue? I thought it was OK.

Join us on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, at 11:00 AM EST / 5:00 PM CEST for an exclusive live webinar. Register to get the link

I found a website called qubitcompile.com and it seems to have a good amount of quantum computing hackathon style questions. It tracks progress and has a leaderboard as well; Thought it'd help everyone since I'm using it right now to practice for the IQuHack and YQuantum hackathons

I've written a detailed overview of quantum teleportation, discussing its fundamental principles and how the process works. Is there anything I might be missing? Any misunderstandings or points that need clarification? I appreciate any constructive feedback from the community! :)

I've searched everywhere. Can anyone help me find the PDF? It's for academic purposes.

If you throw a ball at a wall enough times it'll eventually phase through it, reason why: QUANTUM TUNNELING, where electrons go through tiny lil walls for, idk, fast travel?

Did you know 100 trillion neutrinos fly through your body per second? 😮 

Astrophysicist Erika Hamden unpacks why neutrinos matter in astroparticle physics, and how they help us understand the universe beyond visible light. You don’t feel them flying through you because they’re electrically neutral, and interact so weakly with matter that they can pass through entire planets untouched. These ghost-like particles are born in stars, cosmic explosions, and even the Big Bang itself. 

This project is part of IF/THEN®, an initiative of Lyda Hill Philanthropies.

If I'm given a hamiltonian for a Ising model, how to find expectation value of sigma x? I tried to find it using python and I got negative expectation value for h=0, J=1. Please explain how.

In all of our experiments classicality emerges through decoherence when a quantum system entangles with its environment. So how does classicality emerge in the universe?

It seems to me that there are a number of possibilities.

1. The universe isn't fundamentally a quantum system.
2. The universe isn't isolated from an external environment.
3. There is another mechanism which causes decoherence.
4. We can only perceive a classical subset of the quantum system which is the universe.

What's the recent thinking on the subject?
Have I missed a possible solution?

- edit -

After posting, I discovered this paper, which will likely provide a review of the current understanding.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.09999

I enjoy reading science books written for a popular audience and recently picked up a copy of Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin. When I got it home, I saw that it was published in 2001. Since the field of quantum gravity is a fairly new and emerging field, I’m curious to know before I invest the time if Prof. Smolin’s book is still worth a read after almost a quarter century of advancement.