April 7, 2025 • 36 mins
Join The Audit as we explore the cutting-edge world of quantum computing with information security architect, Bill Harris. Quantum technology is advancing at breakneck speed, pushing the boundaries of computation, while Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) is making encrypted communications nearly unbreakable.
As multiple sectors race to integrate quantum and AI, cybersecurity experts are racing to implement quantum-resistant encryption before traditional cryptographic methods become obsolete. Beyond the technical breakthroughs, quantum computing is also raising profound questions about reality itself.
In this episode, we discuss:
- The rise of 1,000-qubit machines and persistent error challenges
- How QKD is reshaping secure communication worldwide
- Microsoft’s Majorana particle claims—fact or hype?
- NASA’s mysterious quantum shutdown in February 2024
- Google’s research into quantum and unexpected findings
- The cybersecurity arms race to counter quantum decryption
Quantum computing isn’t just the future—it’s here, and it’s reshaping everything from cybersecurity to our understanding of the universe. Don’t miss this deep dive into the most mind-bending technology of our time!
Like, share, and subscribe for more in-depth cybersecurity insights.
#QuantumComputing #Cybersecurity #Encryption #AI #ParallelUniverses
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Joshua Schmidt (00:04):
You are listening to the Audit presented
by IT Audit Labs.
My name is Joshua Schmidt, yourco-host and producer.
Today we're joined by NickMellum, eric Brown and our
information security architect,bill Harris at IT Audit Labs.
Thanks for joining us today,bill.
How are you doing?
I'm doing well, thank you.
Can you just give us a slightbackground on you?
I don't think we've ever reallylearned about about bill.
I want to hear just a littlebit about how you got to be an
(00:26):
uh, information securityarchitect.
Bill Harris (00:28):
He also has another title I'm gonna think I'm about
to get one right now.
What is what?
Joshua Schmidt (00:33):
is it?
I think it's badass mofo that'sthat's it.
Bill Harris (00:38):
That's the one I just got.
Um.
So yeah, I got into informationtechnology a few decades ago
and really getting closer andcloser to security in such an
evolving field, I decided topick up my CISSP in 2018 and
I've really just been enjoyingthe ride and all of the
(00:58):
innovations that are happeningin the space.
So I keep coming back to thesecurity area.
Joshua Schmidt (01:02):
How did?
Bill Harris (01:03):
you meet Eric.
I've known Eric since we wereback in college, so we've both
grown our careers together Sincethe Umbro shorts days.
Nick Mellem (01:12):
I was waiting to say it, you got me.
Joshua Schmidt (01:16):
So today we're talking about Quantum, bill.
What have you got for us?
I know we did a session onQuantum I think last year, or
maybe it was a year and a halfago, but there's been some
developments.
So I'd love to hear about thattoday and what you found
recently.
Bill Harris (01:30):
Yeah, you bet.
So last time we talked aboutthe theories behind quantum and
then I want to bring it forwardto the next, like the last
couple of years or so, wherequantum has seen some progress,
but is it really quite there yetand what are the use cases
today for quantum?
Where is it going to gotomorrow and how has it evolved?
What advancements have reallybeen done in the quantum space
(01:52):
over those last couple of years?
I want to talk a little bitabout that and really what 2025
is looking like for quantum.
Joshua Schmidt (01:58):
That's great.
We could use some explanationsaround quantum, still confusing
to me.
Bill Harris (02:05):
I don't know about Eric and Nick nick, but uh, yeah
, confused as ever well, if youweren't confused, you're not
listening hard enough, so that'sokay because, um, if you're, if
you're confused, and that'syou're really, you're really
listening to, um, to kind of howthings are supposed to work.
So just a real quick refresher,uh, on kind of how this whole
thing works right.
So quantum really works on,works on the idea of coherence,
and in quantum computing yourbit can be a zero and a one at
(02:30):
the same time until you observeit, and then it decoheres into
either a zero or a one.
And the way quantum computingworks is that you're really
trying to keep it in thatquantum state for as long as
possible so that you can get anaccurate reading on it.
And what we'll talk about heretoday is the different things
that people are doing to get amore accurate qubit so they can
(02:52):
get better readings on it andreally drive those error rates
down, because error rates arewhat's killing the potential of
quantum computing.
So much time is spent trying tocorrect those errors, right.
Eric Brown (03:04):
Hold on, bill.
We're 30 seconds in right andthis is already gone.
Nick Mellem (03:10):
We have a one and a zero, then it turns into
whatever it wants.
Eric Brown (03:13):
So, nick, a buddy of mine, once had a phrase that
said I can explain it to you,but I can't understand it for
you.
I feel Bill is doing that to usright now.
Nick Mellem (03:25):
We'll see what he has to say.
I'm sure we'll understandexactly what's going on when
Bill's finished with us today.
Bill Harris (03:29):
Hopefully.
Well, it's not going to be arehash of the last session,
which is when I did a muchdeeper dive into quantum,
because I don't want to justrehash the same material right,
it's going to be a little bitdifferent angle.
Joshua Schmidt (03:40):
Just to round out this part of the
conversation, bill, is it kindof like the double slit
experiment, where if you'reshooting a particle, is it
through a double slit, dependingon who's observing it, or when
it's observed it's either aparticle or a wave.
Bill Harris (03:54):
That is exactly it.
So as soon as you observe thatparticle, you are changing it
just by the act of observing it.
So it's very odd stuff.
There is not a really thoroughunderstanding of how it works,
especially when you get intosome of the subparticles that
drive quantum.
So there's a lot here that Idon't understand, because
(04:14):
there's a lot here thephysicists don't understand as
well.
Joshua Schmidt (04:15):
Cutting edge stuff Cool.
Bill Harris (04:17):
So today the fastest quantum machines are
just about a little above about1,000 or so qubits and they're
trying to push into that 2, 2000qubit mark.
That is still nothing.
Because of those high errorrates, in order to really get a
useful quantum computer with theerror rates that we're seeing
today, you're going to needsomewhere probably around 20
(04:39):
million qubits using quantumbased algorithms, right Like
like Shor's algorithm, andthere's a few others that you
can use.
If you were to get those errorrates down and eliminate some of
those error rates, come up withquantum readouts that you could
capture much more accurately,then maybe a 20,000 qubit
computer would work.
And we'll talk about kind ofwhy that mattered as far as why
(05:03):
Microsoft was going after theMajorana particle in their
quantum machine and how thatfactored into those error rates
and getting a machine that couldoperate at far fewer qubits.
Really, the whole thing you'llsee on the right side of the
screen here.
So really the whole thing isdriven by a combination of
governments, is driven by acombination of governments.
(05:24):
China is a big factor in this,the United States, parts of the
European Union, as well asprivate sectors.
One of the leaders here is AtomComputer, along with IBM,
google.
They're all getting in there,and there's a certain ego factor
here too, because even thoughwe don't have a practical use
(05:45):
for a quantum computer withinthe next several years, at least
it's almost like a marqueething for them.
Right Dodge didn't need tobuild the Viper back in the
nineties, but it reallyincreased the cache of their
name, and so it is going to be.
With quantum, it's like whoeverkind of gets to that first
milestone and the next one,they're going to see their star
(06:05):
rise, and so that's part of thereason.
Nick Mellem (06:08):
Bill.
What's the first milestone?
What are we trying to get to?
Bill Harris (06:12):
The first milestone was just building that quantum
computer and having it execute aquantum operation.
Now the milestones are hey, canthese quantum machines solve
problems?
Google was one.
They just they posted somethingthat their Willow quantum
computer did recently where itsolved a problem that would take
(06:32):
a classical computer severalseptillion years to solve.
It was a useless mathematicalproblem, but it was still
impressive.
Right, it was just.
They're all trying to show thisquantum superiority with these
very particular problems rightnow, but none of it is useful,
outside of a few little edgecases which we're going to talk
(06:54):
about here really shortly.
Joshua Schmidt (06:55):
So, bill, when we're talking about actual use
cases for these, there's nothingreally tangible being pushed to
market at this point, is there?
Or is it just kind of an armsrace, sort of along the lines of
AI or something like that?
Bill Harris (07:10):
Yeah, so there is in terms of quantum computer.
No, there's nothing reallytangible happening right now,
with maybe one exception, andit's not a quantum computer, but
it's quantum key distribution.
And it's not a quantum computerbut it's quantum key
distribution which uses quantummechanics to protect the
exchange of security keys.
(07:31):
So this is using the propertyof quantum mechanics that we
just discussed, that as soon asyou observe the quantum state,
you're changing it.
So you look at the photon, youchange it, and so the way this,
this, this, works is that ifyou've got and I think it's
usually called Jane is trying tosend her, you know her, her key
(07:54):
to her public, he's going toJohn down a fiber optic link,
that is.
That is now a quantum key, andif anyone would observe that
photon on its path, they wouldchange that photon and then Jane
would immediately know thatsomeone was snooping.
So this makes interception ofelectronic information
(08:18):
impossible.
So this is one area where theyare doing it.
Today, verizon has a systemlike this set up in the
Washington DC area, china has asystem set up in their cities
and South Korea also has asystem set up and they're using
it.
So that's one good use case.
But again, it's not a quantumcomputer per se, and they're
using it.
Joshua Schmidt (08:38):
So that's one good use case.
But again, it's not a quantumcomputer per se, but it's using
the quantum theories and thequantum physics to create an
extra level of security, andthat's called quantum key
distribution.
That's right, that's right.
Bill Harris (08:46):
Yeah, the other thing that quantum computing is
doing is it's driving thesecurity people absolutely nuts
right, and so they're sopetrified that this is just
going to break RSA encryptionand the Internet's going to come
the Internet's going to be allclear text here shortly that
they're scrambling to get aheadof this, and so they're coming
up with these really innovativeencryption algorithms.
(09:07):
Nist just approved a few basedon Lattice framework.
They've got their Kybersencryption algorithm that
they've recently approved, alongwith a few others.
They're also approving some newhashing algorithms that'll be
quantum safe, and IBM hasreleased for marketing a number
of quantum safe encryptionmethods for their infrastructure
(09:29):
.
So you can buy quantum safeencryption today, and I think
that's a really, really greatbulwark against what's coming.
Nick Mellem (09:38):
Bill, do you think we really know that it is, in
fact, quantum safe if we don'tknow its full potential yet or
where it's going to be?
Bill Harris (09:45):
It's a, it's a good point.
So I mean, I guess, becauseit's all theoretical, we don't
have a quantum computer powerfulenough to actually test it.
So I think your point is spoton.
The math suggests that it willbe quantum safe, because the
mathematics that they're using,yeah cannot quickly be solved by
any type of polynomialequations, which really is where
(10:05):
quantum excels I said like Iknow what I'm talking about.
Eric Brown (10:09):
You know, it's really humbling though right,
because, like you know, as hegoes down this path, I think to
myself that often or sometimesI'll find myself in a situation
where I'm rambling about somesort of security crap that most
people don't care about MFA orDDoS or you know one of these
(10:33):
other acronyms that you know wejust kind of use daily and you
know, the lay person just kindof glazes over on that stuff.
And that's honestly what'shappening here with all this
quantum business.
We can't observe it.
It's not good enough.
Yet the computers look cool Atleast the picture that Bill's
got there, if that's a quantumcomputer.
Bill Harris (10:54):
Yeah, they're beautiful.
So, and just a quick refresher,this over here is you know, all
these little cryogenic tubesare passing refrigerant as they
go down and down towards thechip at the very bottom and
they're keeping that chip frozen, almost frozen really, to near
absolute zero, where you achieve, finally, achieve
(11:14):
superconductivity, and that chipexists.
It's a coexistence of differenttypes of superconductors under
that extremely low temperature.
The only other way to really doit would be to put it under
very high pressure and then,over top of this chandelier they
usually put well, they have toput a shroud to keep all the
(11:36):
noise out, because your cellphone going by any type of
magnetic interference, soundinterference, it'll upset the
qubits and the operations thatare occurring within.
Joshua Schmidt (11:49):
For our audio-only listeners.
We're looking at achandelier-style quantum
computer here that looks to bemade out of precious metals, or
it's very golden, and it's gotprobably about six or seven
layers to it with lots of wirescoming down.
It kind of looks like a crossbetween a chandelier and maybe
like a tech jellyfish of somesort, but um it's like some out
(12:10):
of some out of a sci-fi movie orsomething one of the things
that I I kind of relate it tobecause I'm also have a hard
time making that leap into thequantum thinking and the physics
.
Um, but you know, we can look ata glass of water.
The glass is half empty or halffull.
It's kind of our take or ouropinion that we're bringing to a
physical situation.
(12:31):
But you know, this seems likethis philosophically goes beyond
materialism when we get intoquantum, where there's just
nothing exists except for matterand movements, but seems like
there's an x factor here, withthe participant involved helping
create a reality, or it's justgoing way beyond materialistic
(12:51):
science at this point it's thereligion of quantum is what I'm
hearing.
Nick Mellem (12:57):
I just want to know how long in my lifetime am I
going to have a quantum chip inmy iphone?
Eric Brown (13:03):
that's two years.
Yeah, two years I'm sure.
Bill Harris (13:06):
Yeah, no, no, two years.
Well, that's.
And that's why it's like,because all really, when you,
when you look at a quantumcomputer you just heard I gave
you the size of three to fivefeet.
The chip itself is about thesize of a regular PC chip.
All the stuff around it is thestuff that keeps it cold.
So you don't getsuperconductivity, you don't get
quantum unless you can keep itunder very high pressure or very
(13:29):
, very cold temperatures.
As a result, everything thatgoes around quantum is very
large and it consumes a lot ofelectricity to keep it at that
state okay, so where is this allgoing, uh?
Joshua Schmidt (13:41):
I was just gonna ask that yeah, where are we at
now today, bill after uh, someof the recent advancements since
our last podcast on this topicso there, um.
Bill Harris (13:50):
So a couple things.
First, I want to be sure thatwe understand where they're
trying to get to and, um, one ofthe things I think they're
doing and I'll pick out a fewthings is quantum AI is becoming
a thing.
They're also using artificialintelligence to augment quantum
computing to drive the errorrates down.
(14:10):
So they're getting quantumcalculations back, they're
applying it to an AI algorithmand they're helping that.
They're trying to use that toeliminate some of the errors and
drive up the error correctionimprovements.
You're also seeing quantumgetting into the financial space
.
The financial space is reallyinteresting because the banks in
particular are so interested inquantum.
(14:32):
Why is that?
Because quantum does such agood job of calculating huge
amounts of data and if the bankscan use quantum and combine
that with artificialintelligence, it can start to
predict market fluctuations andthat could potentially rewrite
the economy in ways that wedon't we really can't predict.
(14:55):
So it's a space we shoulddefinitely watch closely there
as, as this technology develops.
Nick Mellem (15:02):
Do you think anybody's thinking about like
the actual need for this for thegeneral consumer?
I get it for, like you know,different areas that you brought
the banks for you.
I, you know, let's our kids.
Kids are using this in 50 years.
What is there a benefit to themto actually have that in their
iPhone?
Are they getting somethingextra?
Do we even want the mainstreamto have this kind of power?
Bill Harris (15:24):
No, so no one's really thinking about that right
now.
Just because the quantumalgorithms are so limited in
their function.
You don't program a quantumcomputer, of course, like you
would program a PC.
You don't program it to giveyou 10,000 frames per second in
your latest game.
Its uses are just extremelyfocused on two particular things
(15:48):
, and so it'll never be areplacement for a classical
computer.
It won't.
It just can't do everything aclassical computer can do.
It's just there's a few thingsthat it does extraordinarily
well.
Nick Mellem (15:57):
That makes more sense when you say it that way.
A classical computer can do.
It's just there's a few thingsthat it does extraordinarily
well.
Eric Brown (16:03):
That makes more sense when you say it that way
that it's not actually replacingwhat we have now.
I think I remember from thefirst time you were on Bill you
need a classical computer tocontrol the quantum computer.
Bill Harris (16:11):
That is absolutely correct.
Yes, yes, you do.
The two go hand in hand.
And then the data that comesout of the quantum computer is
also analyzed by a classicalcomputer.
Joshua Schmidt (16:20):
Why is that, bill?
Is it just the nature of theactual physics of the quantum
computers, or is there a reasonthat you could easily explain as
to why that won't replace aclassical computer?
Bill Harris (16:33):
Sure, when you think about quantum computing,
think about it in terms of math,and so there might be a dozen
or two dozen useful algorithmsthat run on the quantum computer
.
And these algorithms, you knowsomething like, you know
parenthesis, you know R to thepower of five minus W, and you
(16:55):
know kind of all this stuff,right, and so that's how you're
just putting data into thatalgorithm and you're getting
something out of the other end,right, and so now you can
imagine how how incrediblyfocused this thing is.
And you can't, you can't justlike write a PowerShell script
for it, right, right, it doesn't, it doesn't work that way at
(17:17):
all.
Joshua Schmidt (17:18):
It's just solving very specific, mostly
polynomial math math problemsokay, so that's why it will be
good for weather forecasting,drug development, financial
modeling, um, you have a coupleof other other things here to
traffic optimization and, um,and the artificial intelligence.
Is that what's kind of puttingthe guardrails onto the quantum,
(17:38):
then, and taking the place ofclassical computing to kind of
optimize, uh, how it'sfunctioning?
Bill Harris (17:45):
yes.
So artificial intelligencestill has a little bit of a
problem with dealing with hugevolumes of data.
This is where quantum reallyexcels.
A classical computer typicallydeals in exponential math.
For a classical computer to gobreak a password that is 10
(18:06):
characters long, and let's sayit's using 70 or so possible
characters within that password,it can cycle through that
password in about 2.8quintillion operations.
Ok, so that's, that's a longtime.
Now quantum with its polynomialmath.
What quantum does is it takes.
It'll do that in the squareroot of that number.
(18:28):
It's using quadratic equationsto solve the problem.
So instead of, instead of oftwo point eight quintillion,
it's doing it in about one pointeight billion operations.
That is why quantum is faster.
It's not faster.
It doesn't go through this databecause it's moving bits around
(18:48):
.
Faster, it's going through thedata because it needs to do far,
far fewer calculations,approximately the square root of
all the calculations that aclassical computer has to do.
Joshua Schmidt (19:00):
So it's not going to like turn my um audio
engineering processes down tolike seconds instead of minutes.
For example, when I, when Iproduce a music track and I have
to bounce out assets or a video, for example, it can take 10
minutes.
You know, um so it's not goingto be able to necessarily make
those computer processes faster,that's's not on the horizon.
Bill Harris (19:23):
No, in order for it to do that, you'd have to find
some type of an algorithm thatwould do that.
Okay, yeah, and there theclassic computer is just going
to be far more practical,because, even though it's going
through a lot of data, it'sreally not going through that
much data.
Joshua Schmidt (19:40):
So I know that they've been working hard on
this.
In the background, we don'thear much about quantum compared
to AI, for example.
There's been a lot ofinvestments made, but what have
you seen come to fruition in thetech space as far as quantum
goes?
I know there was some recentnews and I have a hard time
pronouncing this it's Majorana,yep, majorana.
Bill Harris (20:05):
Majorana particle yep.
Joshua Schmidt (20:10):
Okay, and named after a physicist, I assume.
But is this Microsoft kind ofgetting a little over their skis
here and trying to roll out aPR story for some extra prep, or
is this actually like somethingthat's usable in, usable in the
, in the market or will be inthe near future?
Bill Harris (20:27):
okay.
So, yeah, a lot's been saidabout this.
Microsoft still has their pressreleases posted out there.
Um, a lot of a lot ofinformation on on the majorana
qubit.
The way it's important tounderstand.
The majorana qubit employs adifferent state of matter than a
traditional model does.
So you've got the fourobservable states of matter
(20:49):
solid, liquid gas and plasma.
Then beyond that you have otherstates of matter and then the
Majorana particle uses what'scalled a topological state of
matter.
Topological state of matter,and in physics the topology
refers to the ability to alter astructure, bend it, twist it.
(21:10):
You just can't tear it apart,but you bend it and you twist it
and it will maintain itsmolecular principles, its
molecular properties.
Now, the reason that's soimportant is because that makes
this Majorana particle veryresilient to noise and that
reduces your error rates.
So if they can do that and it'sa very difficult thing to do,
(21:34):
because now they're working witha different state of matter and
they're working with this newparticle and they're trying to
line everything up and so whatthey've done is they've taken,
at their superconducting levellayer, they've taken aluminum
and that's their superconductorand that's sandwiched in with
some doped semiconductors tofunnel the photons through them.
(21:58):
Microsoft claims that they havebeen able to execute some
quantum operations with that,and so they've claimed that well
, they've kind of gotten intothe first gate of the Meyer on a
particle.
They're not claiming they'vedone all of it, but they're
saying they've gotten throughthe first part of it.
(22:19):
Now that has come under a lotof scrutiny and we're not so
sure that they have.
So scientists who are lookingat this and looking at the
papers have noted that the thetests that Microsoft have has
performed are inconsistent withwhat they would expect to see
from the Majorana particle.
So there's a lot of doubt there, and this isn't the first time
(22:41):
Microsoft's been challenged onsomething and they've had to
withdraw one or two papers inthe last several years, from
what I understand.
Eric Brown (22:49):
So, nick, this seems to me like there's kind of
these new things coming up Right, remember, when we were growing
up, there was the five sensessenses, right, you had touch,
(23:13):
taste, sight, vision and smell,right.
Then, somewhere along the line,they came up with umami and
they invented like the sixth one, which was umami, which
apparently you can only get incertain foods.
Not sure, I still don't knowwhat it is, but now what I'm
(23:37):
hearing from Bill is thatthey've invented several new
states, right Beyond the plasma,the liquid, the gas, the solid.
So I mean, that's interestingin and of itself.
It's like you could just inventstuff and call it what you want
Well to be clear.
Bill Harris (23:49):
I mean, it's in Microsoft's teensy defense.
Microsoft isn't claiming thatthey invented a topological
model that already existed inphysics.
They're claiming that they areexploiting a topological model
to enable quantum operationsacross the Majorana particle.
And that's what scientists aresaying.
No, we're not quite so sure.
(24:09):
That's really what's happeninghere, can you?
Eric Brown (24:11):
explain to me what umami is.
Joshua Schmidt (24:13):
Oh, I'm a little bit of a home chef.
It's not a sense, it's more ofa flavor, right?
So there's savory, meaty,richness, salty, sweet.
I don't remember all the thingsthat your tongue can sense, but
umami is supposed to be thatmouth-filling kind of savory
that you can't quite put yourfinger on.
It'd probably be betterdescribed by you know when it's
(24:35):
missing.
If you had a soup that wasreally thin and not very
satisfying, it'd be missing thatumami, that richness.
Eric Brown (24:46):
It's like the quantum right it's either on or
it's off.
It's either there, it's missing.
So it's kind of the quantumversion of taste I like that.
Joshua Schmidt (24:53):
I think you're on this.
That's a great way to put it.
That's that'd be a cool namefor a quantum computer umami you
heard it here first, folks wejust came up with a name for one
of your cats Done Done.
Stop the recording.
Nick Mellem (25:08):
If there wasn't Our work here is done.
We didn't even need a quantumcomputer for that the six
hairless cat.
Eric Brown (25:16):
Umami.
Joshua Schmidt (25:19):
Are we back to Schrodinger's cats again?
Is that how?
Nick Mellem (25:21):
we came to share Umami Umami.
Joshua Schmidt (25:23):
Umami, that's right.
Bill Harris (25:31):
So I got one more thing that actually goes into
philosophy a little bit here.
So I want to call out somethingthat Google uncovered and then
something that NASA uncovered.
So Google was doing somequantum operations.
This wasn't that long ago Ithink it might have been last
year and there's a blog on theirpost about it that said they
(25:56):
got some unexpected results thatthey believe lend credence to
the theory of parallel universes, believe lend credence to the
theory of parallel universes,and they put this right out
there on their blog and theywrote a bit about it, which I
found really surprising.
But what was even stranger wasthat there is this story
circulating and the story itself.
(26:17):
The first part of the story istrue NASA shut down its quantum
computer in February of 2024,because they got some unexpected
results that they saidchallenge contemporary thinking.
And they shut it down and, withno further comment, they began
looking into it.
Eric Brown (26:36):
Well, hold on a minute.
Is that like the CatholicChurch shutting down science in
the 1400s because the sun is nolonger the center of the
universe?
Bill Harris (26:47):
Well, not necessarily so what people?
It might be that, but you'redoing what people are doing,
right?
People were wondering well,what's happening here?
So imaginations have really runrampant and the stories right
now range from something likewell, they just found some new
math they're trying to resolveto, they've stumbled into some
(27:10):
alternate reality, or they havestumbled across some type of
extraterrestrial intelligence.
Eric Brown (27:17):
Yes, like the movie Contact.
Remember that, tony Foster,tony Foster.
Joshua Schmidt (27:21):
Great flick.
Nick Mellem (27:23):
Yes, I had it sitting back here for like six
months and I finally threw itout.
Joshua Schmidt (27:28):
Get it out, because I'm bringing it there.
Here we go.
Have you heard of the Mandelaeffect?
Nick Mellem (27:32):
The Mandela effect, I want to say yes, but go ahead
, Hit us with it, josh.
Joshua Schmidt (27:38):
This has gone on like wildfire over the last
probably five plus years on theinternet.
Have you heard of it, bill?
I've where, I'm not where.
Maybe it was a big.
What's the?
What's the particle acceleratoraccelerator in switzerland
called?
Is it the big?
The large hadron collider?
Yeah, yeah, the.
The theory goes that cernstarted messing with that.
(27:59):
We slipped into a differenttimeline.
So there's people that rememberthings inaccurately.
If and and nelson mandela uhdying is one of those where some
people remember him passingaway and then some people
remember him being released fromprison.
Another example would be thebernstein bears.
The way it's spelt, thebernstein bears or the bernstein
(28:20):
Bears.
It goes into pop culture,verbal cues like mirror, mirror
on the wall from Snow White.
It's actually magic mirror onthe wall.
So they're saying that weslipped into a different
timeline at some point.
Eric Brown (28:34):
I'm going to use this in my next argument at home
with my wife, right when it'slike I'm constantly, I'm like yo
, you're in a differentdimension here.
Joshua Schmidt (28:50):
That's the best.
Use right where it's like.
Bill Harris (28:51):
I'm constantly wrong, like yo you're in a
different uh dimension here, somaybe that's you know lending
some credence to uh to this.
So it's funny you should saythat, because that's exactly
kind of where some of thesearguments are going is they're
they're drifting off intoquantum memories and the theory
that you actually never reallydie, because at every juncture
in your life you likeSchrodinger's cat, you either
(29:12):
live or you die, and so aversion of yourself will live in
perpetuity, as it alwaysjunctures off, and so you'll die
an infinite number of times,but there's always another one
of you out there in some type ofan alternate universe.
So it's really diving deep andI don't believe any of it, but
(29:32):
it's just interesting thoughtmaterial.
You really took us there Josh.
Joshua Schmidt (29:37):
Yeah, well, hey, you know that's my job.
Nick Mellem (29:40):
I should not have thrown away that hat.
Eric Brown (29:42):
Why did they shut it down if they found something
interesting?
Bill Harris (29:46):
They didn't understand the results, and so
the results they got from theirquantum machine did not
correlate with theirunderstanding of physics, or
they just didn't like what theygot back.
Eric Brown (30:01):
Now I have a question, bill, for you, maybe
it's more for Josh, bring it on.
Why are the aliens alwaysprobing us?
Joshua Schmidt (30:13):
Well, yeah, that's a great question.
I wasn't prepared to answerthat one.
Eric Brown (30:17):
Well, as a UFO enthusiast or whatever you're
calling them I guess you can'tcall it a UFO anymore I don't
know whatever it's called.
Joshua Schmidt (30:23):
Yeah, that's a great question I always joke
about.
If they're so intelligent, whyare they always crashing and
leaving stuff behind?
I don't know.
I think one explanation couldbe that there's so many
different variations of them, orthere might be less intelligent
ones, less advanced ones, thatare actually curious about our
(30:44):
biology.
There's also some wild theoriesout there that they can't
reproduce, they can no longerreproduce or they become asexual
to the point where they need toextract some sort of biological
material from us or some dna toperpetuate themselves.
I mean, you know, you can go assci-fi on that as you want, uh,
(31:05):
but uh, you know, for everycrazy question there's a million
quick, crazy answers.
Uh, what else do you got for us, bill?
In terms of like, I know thatthey were afraid of their
results.
Perhaps, maybe they wereshocked by them, that they
thought that they could bealtering the fabric of
space-time.
Was that like a valid concern?
That seemed to be what theirfocus was Absolutely yeah.
Bill Harris (31:30):
So there was some concern that one of the
speculations is that they werepoking at the Higgs field.
You might have heard of theHiggs boson particle, which is
the particle that makes up,really, the fabric of the
universe.
It's one of the fundamentalones and they were poking at
that field.
And when you do that in amanner that you don't really
(31:53):
understand the physicssurrounding it, then you begin
to wonder is there a butterflyeffect, right?
Are you affecting somethingelsewhere in the world, or are
you changing the trajectory ofsome other timeline?
Absolutely crazy stuff, and Iguess, if you're dealing with
quantum, that we don't reallyfully understand.
(32:14):
Sure, they're all validquestions, but that was indeed
one of the concerns.
Eric Brown (32:25):
So it's kind of like play stupid games, win stupid
prizes.
We didn't know what was goingon.
Bill Harris (32:28):
Yes, that's right, and that kind of stuff happens
inside of a quantum computer.
It's like you're not justpassing electrons back and forth
, you are doing some reallycutting edge things and you're
poking at these subatomicparticles.
Nick Mellem (32:43):
Is NASA going to turn that thing back on?
Bill Harris (32:46):
Yeah, what's so weird about NASA is that they're
not talking about it, and itwould be so simple if they would
just issue some statements, butwe haven't heard.
Joshua Schmidt (32:56):
That brings up a question I had about just
security ramifications, nationalsecurity.
I know DARPA's been involvedwith Quantum.
I think Microsoft was one oftwo companies that was chosen to
work with DARPA on this On alocal scale and a worldwide
scale.
Can you think of any attackvectors this might create?
Nick Mellem (33:14):
The limits are.
There's no limit.
Bill Harris (33:16):
Yeah, I would agree with that.
It's probably no limit becausewe don't know enough.
I think the potential attackvectors could vary from the
technical as we understand it tothe absolutely outlandish.
You know when you start we weretalking about it earlier.
You know quantum memories andsuch.
Eric Brown (33:35):
It could just really go off the rails, gentlemen.
I'm still working with users,trying to keep them to not store
passwords in spreadsheets.
Use MFA, lock your credit,right, like we're at the basic
level here.
So quantum, you know?
Like quantum in theory of like.
Oh, they may crack the SSL, thecrypt Good, so what Right.
(33:58):
Ssl decrypt Good, so what Right?
Let's focus on getting ourcredits locked passwords into a
password manager and MFA.
Nick Mellem (34:09):
It's a good question, Josh, but the thing
that I can't stop thinking aboutis the weapons that you might
build.
What kind of weapons is thisthing going to create?
We split the atom, we got theatom bomb.
What is this thing going tocome up with?
We're talking about getting todifferent timelines with our
wives at home.
What kind of bombs are we goingto start dropping on people
because of this?
Eric Brown (34:29):
If you poke that Higgs boson, it's going to poke
faster.
Nick Mellem (34:32):
We might not even have any computers to hack
anymore.
After this thing gets done,shut it down.
Eric Brown (34:38):
Shut it down.
Nick Mellem (34:40):
It's like Chernobyl .
I don't know if you are a Rickand Morty fan, you guys but a
lot of this has been explored incartoon format on that show
already.
The Simpsons probably has anepisode about quantum computing
and it's probably spot on.
Joshua Schmidt (34:55):
Everything from Schrodinger's cat to the Mandela
effect, to, yeah, higgs boson.
Eric Brown (35:00):
To the Ambien effect too.
Nick Mellem (35:03):
I think we should probably just call it for today.
Joshua Schmidt (35:06):
I love this.
Thank you, Bill.
This has been really fun.
What a wild convo today.
I love it.
Nick Mellem (35:14):
I think this is what happens when you don't
really know what you're talkingabout, right?
You're just like trying to takeit in and you just never know
where we're going to go.
That's how I feel, yes.
Bill Harris (35:24):
At least you know what's going on Bill.
Joshua Schmidt (35:28):
We'll leave it there.
Thanks so much, bill, forjoining us today.
You've been listening to BillHarris talk about quantum.
We also have Eric Brown andNick Mellon, as usual.
My name is Joshua Schmidt,co-host and producer.
You've been listening to theAudit presented by IT Audit Labs
.
Please like, share andsubscribe.
Tell a friend.
We have video up on Spotify nowand we're publishing every
other week on YouTube withshorts in between.
(35:50):
See you soon.
Eric Brown (35:53):
You have been listening to the Audit presented
by IT Audit Labs.
We are experts at assessingrisk and compliance, while
providing administrative andtechnical controls to improve
our clients' data security.
Our threat assessments find thesoft spots before the bad guys
do, identifying likelihood andimpact, while our security
control assessments rank thelevel of maturity relative to
(36:16):
the size of your organization.
Thanks to our devoted listenersand followers, as well as our
producer, joshua J Schmidt, andour audio video editor, cameron
Hill, you can stay up to date onthe latest cybersecurity topics
by giving us a like and afollow on our socials and
subscribing to this podcast onApple, spotify or wherever you
(36:38):
source your security content.
You are listening to the Audit presented
by IT Audit Labs.
My name is Joshua Schmidt, yourco-host and producer.
Today we're joined by NickMellum, eric Brown and our
information security architect,bill Harris at IT Audit Labs.
Thanks for joining us today,bill.
How are you doing?
I'm doing well, thank you.
Can you just give us a slightbackground on you?
I don't think we've ever reallylearned about about bill.
I want to hear just a littlebit about how you got to be an
(00:26):
uh, information securityarchitect.
Bill Harris (00:28):
He also has another title I'm gonna think I'm about
to get one right now.
What is what?
Joshua Schmidt (00:33):
is it?
I think it's badass mofo that'sthat's it.
Bill Harris (00:38):
That's the one I just got.
Um.
So yeah, I got into informationtechnology a few decades ago
and really getting closer andcloser to security in such an
evolving field, I decided topick up my CISSP in 2018 and
I've really just been enjoyingthe ride and all of the
(00:58):
innovations that are happeningin the space.
So I keep coming back to thesecurity area.
Joshua Schmidt (01:02):
How did?
Bill Harris (01:03):
you meet Eric.
I've known Eric since we wereback in college, so we've both
grown our careers together Sincethe Umbro shorts days.
Nick Mellem (01:12):
I was waiting to say it, you got me.
Joshua Schmidt (01:16):
So today we're talking about Quantum, bill.
What have you got for us?
I know we did a session onQuantum I think last year, or
maybe it was a year and a halfago, but there's been some
developments.
So I'd love to hear about thattoday and what you found
recently.
Bill Harris (01:30):
Yeah, you bet.
So last time we talked aboutthe theories behind quantum and
then I want to bring it forwardto the next, like the last
couple of years or so, wherequantum has seen some progress,
but is it really quite there yetand what are the use cases
today for quantum?
Where is it going to gotomorrow and how has it evolved?
What advancements have reallybeen done in the quantum space
(01:52):
over those last couple of years?
I want to talk a little bitabout that and really what 2025
is looking like for quantum.
Joshua Schmidt (01:58):
That's great.
We could use some explanationsaround quantum, still confusing
to me.
Bill Harris (02:05):
I don't know about Eric and Nick nick, but uh, yeah
, confused as ever well, if youweren't confused, you're not
listening hard enough, so that'sokay because, um, if you're, if
you're confused, and that'syou're really, you're really
listening to, um, to kind of howthings are supposed to work.
So just a real quick refresher,uh, on kind of how this whole
thing works right.
So quantum really works on,works on the idea of coherence,
and in quantum computing yourbit can be a zero and a one at
(02:30):
the same time until you observeit, and then it decoheres into
either a zero or a one.
And the way quantum computingworks is that you're really
trying to keep it in thatquantum state for as long as
possible so that you can get anaccurate reading on it.
And what we'll talk about heretoday is the different things
that people are doing to get amore accurate qubit so they can
(02:52):
get better readings on it andreally drive those error rates
down, because error rates arewhat's killing the potential of
quantum computing.
So much time is spent trying tocorrect those errors, right.
Eric Brown (03:04):
Hold on, bill.
We're 30 seconds in right andthis is already gone.
Nick Mellem (03:10):
We have a one and a zero, then it turns into
whatever it wants.
Eric Brown (03:13):
So, nick, a buddy of mine, once had a phrase that
said I can explain it to you,but I can't understand it for
you.
I feel Bill is doing that to usright now.
Nick Mellem (03:25):
We'll see what he has to say.
I'm sure we'll understandexactly what's going on when
Bill's finished with us today.
Bill Harris (03:29):
Hopefully.
Well, it's not going to be arehash of the last session,
which is when I did a muchdeeper dive into quantum,
because I don't want to justrehash the same material right,
it's going to be a little bitdifferent angle.
Joshua Schmidt (03:40):
Just to round out this part of the
conversation, bill, is it kindof like the double slit
experiment, where if you'reshooting a particle, is it
through a double slit, dependingon who's observing it, or when
it's observed it's either aparticle or a wave.
Bill Harris (03:54):
That is exactly it.
So as soon as you observe thatparticle, you are changing it
just by the act of observing it.
So it's very odd stuff.
There is not a really thoroughunderstanding of how it works,
especially when you get intosome of the subparticles that
drive quantum.
So there's a lot here that Idon't understand, because
(04:14):
there's a lot here thephysicists don't understand as
well.
Joshua Schmidt (04:15):
Cutting edge stuff Cool.
Bill Harris (04:17):
So today the fastest quantum machines are
just about a little above about1,000 or so qubits and they're
trying to push into that 2, 2000qubit mark.
That is still nothing.
Because of those high errorrates, in order to really get a
useful quantum computer with theerror rates that we're seeing
today, you're going to needsomewhere probably around 20
(04:39):
million qubits using quantumbased algorithms, right Like
like Shor's algorithm, andthere's a few others that you
can use.
If you were to get those errorrates down and eliminate some of
those error rates, come up withquantum readouts that you could
capture much more accurately,then maybe a 20,000 qubit
computer would work.
And we'll talk about kind ofwhy that mattered as far as why
(05:03):
Microsoft was going after theMajorana particle in their
quantum machine and how thatfactored into those error rates
and getting a machine that couldoperate at far fewer qubits.
Really, the whole thing you'llsee on the right side of the
screen here.
So really the whole thing isdriven by a combination of
governments, is driven by acombination of governments.
(05:24):
China is a big factor in this,the United States, parts of the
European Union, as well asprivate sectors.
One of the leaders here is AtomComputer, along with IBM,
google.
They're all getting in there,and there's a certain ego factor
here too, because even thoughwe don't have a practical use
(05:45):
for a quantum computer withinthe next several years, at least
it's almost like a marqueething for them.
Right Dodge didn't need tobuild the Viper back in the
nineties, but it reallyincreased the cache of their
name, and so it is going to be.
With quantum, it's like whoeverkind of gets to that first
milestone and the next one,they're going to see their star
(06:05):
rise, and so that's part of thereason.
Nick Mellem (06:08):
Bill.
What's the first milestone?
What are we trying to get to?
Bill Harris (06:12):
The first milestone was just building that quantum
computer and having it execute aquantum operation.
Now the milestones are hey, canthese quantum machines solve
problems?
Google was one.
They just they posted somethingthat their Willow quantum
computer did recently where itsolved a problem that would take
(06:32):
a classical computer severalseptillion years to solve.
It was a useless mathematicalproblem, but it was still
impressive.
Right, it was just.
They're all trying to show thisquantum superiority with these
very particular problems rightnow, but none of it is useful,
outside of a few little edgecases which we're going to talk
(06:54):
about here really shortly.
Joshua Schmidt (06:55):
So, bill, when we're talking about actual use
cases for these, there's nothingreally tangible being pushed to
market at this point, is there?
Or is it just kind of an armsrace, sort of along the lines of
AI or something like that?
Bill Harris (07:10):
Yeah, so there is in terms of quantum computer.
No, there's nothing reallytangible happening right now,
with maybe one exception, andit's not a quantum computer, but
it's quantum key distribution.
And it's not a quantum computerbut it's quantum key
distribution which uses quantummechanics to protect the
exchange of security keys.
(07:31):
So this is using the propertyof quantum mechanics that we
just discussed, that as soon asyou observe the quantum state,
you're changing it.
So you look at the photon, youchange it, and so the way this,
this, this, works is that ifyou've got and I think it's
usually called Jane is trying tosend her, you know her, her key
(07:54):
to her public, he's going toJohn down a fiber optic link,
that is.
That is now a quantum key, andif anyone would observe that
photon on its path, they wouldchange that photon and then Jane
would immediately know thatsomeone was snooping.
So this makes interception ofelectronic information
(08:18):
impossible.
So this is one area where theyare doing it.
Today, verizon has a systemlike this set up in the
Washington DC area, china has asystem set up in their cities
and South Korea also has asystem set up and they're using
it.
So that's one good use case.
But again, it's not a quantumcomputer per se, and they're
using it.
Joshua Schmidt (08:38):
So that's one good use case.
But again, it's not a quantumcomputer per se, but it's using
the quantum theories and thequantum physics to create an
extra level of security, andthat's called quantum key
distribution.
That's right, that's right.
Bill Harris (08:46):
Yeah, the other thing that quantum computing is
doing is it's driving thesecurity people absolutely nuts
right, and so they're sopetrified that this is just
going to break RSA encryptionand the Internet's going to come
the Internet's going to be allclear text here shortly that
they're scrambling to get aheadof this, and so they're coming
up with these really innovativeencryption algorithms.
(09:07):
Nist just approved a few basedon Lattice framework.
They've got their Kybersencryption algorithm that
they've recently approved, alongwith a few others.
They're also approving some newhashing algorithms that'll be
quantum safe, and IBM hasreleased for marketing a number
of quantum safe encryptionmethods for their infrastructure
(09:29):
.
So you can buy quantum safeencryption today, and I think
that's a really, really greatbulwark against what's coming.
Nick Mellem (09:38):
Bill, do you think we really know that it is, in
fact, quantum safe if we don'tknow its full potential yet or
where it's going to be?
Bill Harris (09:45):
It's a, it's a good point.
So I mean, I guess, becauseit's all theoretical, we don't
have a quantum computer powerfulenough to actually test it.
So I think your point is spoton.
The math suggests that it willbe quantum safe, because the
mathematics that they're using,yeah cannot quickly be solved by
any type of polynomialequations, which really is where
(10:05):
quantum excels I said like Iknow what I'm talking about.
Eric Brown (10:09):
You know, it's really humbling though right,
because, like you know, as hegoes down this path, I think to
myself that often or sometimesI'll find myself in a situation
where I'm rambling about somesort of security crap that most
people don't care about MFA orDDoS or you know one of these
(10:33):
other acronyms that you know wejust kind of use daily and you
know, the lay person just kindof glazes over on that stuff.
And that's honestly what'shappening here with all this
quantum business.
We can't observe it.
It's not good enough.
Yet the computers look cool Atleast the picture that Bill's
got there, if that's a quantumcomputer.
Bill Harris (10:54):
Yeah, they're beautiful.
So, and just a quick refresher,this over here is you know, all
these little cryogenic tubesare passing refrigerant as they
go down and down towards thechip at the very bottom and
they're keeping that chip frozen, almost frozen really, to near
absolute zero, where you achieve, finally, achieve
(11:14):
superconductivity, and that chipexists.
It's a coexistence of differenttypes of superconductors under
that extremely low temperature.
The only other way to really doit would be to put it under
very high pressure and then,over top of this chandelier they
usually put well, they have toput a shroud to keep all the
(11:36):
noise out, because your cellphone going by any type of
magnetic interference, soundinterference, it'll upset the
qubits and the operations thatare occurring within.
Joshua Schmidt (11:49):
For our audio-only listeners.
We're looking at achandelier-style quantum
computer here that looks to bemade out of precious metals, or
it's very golden, and it's gotprobably about six or seven
layers to it with lots of wirescoming down.
It kind of looks like a crossbetween a chandelier and maybe
like a tech jellyfish of somesort, but um it's like some out
(12:10):
of some out of a sci-fi movie orsomething one of the things
that I I kind of relate it tobecause I'm also have a hard
time making that leap into thequantum thinking and the physics
.
Um, but you know, we can look ata glass of water.
The glass is half empty or halffull.
It's kind of our take or ouropinion that we're bringing to a
physical situation.
(12:31):
But you know, this seems likethis philosophically goes beyond
materialism when we get intoquantum, where there's just
nothing exists except for matterand movements, but seems like
there's an x factor here, withthe participant involved helping
create a reality, or it's justgoing way beyond materialistic
(12:51):
science at this point it's thereligion of quantum is what I'm
hearing.
Nick Mellem (12:57):
I just want to know how long in my lifetime am I
going to have a quantum chip inmy iphone?
Eric Brown (13:03):
that's two years.
Yeah, two years I'm sure.
Bill Harris (13:06):
Yeah, no, no, two years.
Well, that's.
And that's why it's like,because all really, when you,
when you look at a quantumcomputer you just heard I gave
you the size of three to fivefeet.
The chip itself is about thesize of a regular PC chip.
All the stuff around it is thestuff that keeps it cold.
So you don't getsuperconductivity, you don't get
quantum unless you can keep itunder very high pressure or very
(13:29):
, very cold temperatures.
As a result, everything thatgoes around quantum is very
large and it consumes a lot ofelectricity to keep it at that
state okay, so where is this allgoing, uh?
Joshua Schmidt (13:41):
I was just gonna ask that yeah, where are we at
now today, bill after uh, someof the recent advancements since
our last podcast on this topicso there, um.
Bill Harris (13:50):
So a couple things.
First, I want to be sure thatwe understand where they're
trying to get to and, um, one ofthe things I think they're
doing and I'll pick out a fewthings is quantum AI is becoming
a thing.
They're also using artificialintelligence to augment quantum
computing to drive the errorrates down.
(14:10):
So they're getting quantumcalculations back, they're
applying it to an AI algorithmand they're helping that.
They're trying to use that toeliminate some of the errors and
drive up the error correctionimprovements.
You're also seeing quantumgetting into the financial space
.
The financial space is reallyinteresting because the banks in
particular are so interested inquantum.
(14:32):
Why is that?
Because quantum does such agood job of calculating huge
amounts of data and if the bankscan use quantum and combine
that with artificialintelligence, it can start to
predict market fluctuations andthat could potentially rewrite
the economy in ways that wedon't we really can't predict.
(14:55):
So it's a space we shoulddefinitely watch closely there
as, as this technology develops.
Nick Mellem (15:02):
Do you think anybody's thinking about like
the actual need for this for thegeneral consumer?
I get it for, like you know,different areas that you brought
the banks for you.
I, you know, let's our kids.
Kids are using this in 50 years.
What is there a benefit to themto actually have that in their
iPhone?
Are they getting somethingextra?
Do we even want the mainstreamto have this kind of power?
Bill Harris (15:24):
No, so no one's really thinking about that right
now.
Just because the quantumalgorithms are so limited in
their function.
You don't program a quantumcomputer, of course, like you
would program a PC.
You don't program it to giveyou 10,000 frames per second in
your latest game.
Its uses are just extremelyfocused on two particular things
(15:48):
, and so it'll never be areplacement for a classical
computer.
It won't.
It just can't do everything aclassical computer can do.
It's just there's a few thingsthat it does extraordinarily
well.
Nick Mellem (15:57):
That makes more sense when you say it that way.
A classical computer can do.
It's just there's a few thingsthat it does extraordinarily
well.
Eric Brown (16:03):
That makes more sense when you say it that way
that it's not actually replacingwhat we have now.
I think I remember from thefirst time you were on Bill you
need a classical computer tocontrol the quantum computer.
Bill Harris (16:11):
That is absolutely correct.
Yes, yes, you do.
The two go hand in hand.
And then the data that comesout of the quantum computer is
also analyzed by a classicalcomputer.
Joshua Schmidt (16:20):
Why is that, bill?
Is it just the nature of theactual physics of the quantum
computers, or is there a reasonthat you could easily explain as
to why that won't replace aclassical computer?
Bill Harris (16:33):
Sure, when you think about quantum computing,
think about it in terms of math,and so there might be a dozen
or two dozen useful algorithmsthat run on the quantum computer
.
And these algorithms, you knowsomething like, you know
parenthesis, you know R to thepower of five minus W, and you
(16:55):
know kind of all this stuff,right, and so that's how you're
just putting data into thatalgorithm and you're getting
something out of the other end,right, and so now you can
imagine how how incrediblyfocused this thing is.
And you can't, you can't justlike write a PowerShell script
for it, right, right, it doesn't, it doesn't work that way at
(17:17):
all.
Joshua Schmidt (17:18):
It's just solving very specific, mostly
polynomial math math problemsokay, so that's why it will be
good for weather forecasting,drug development, financial
modeling, um, you have a coupleof other other things here to
traffic optimization and, um,and the artificial intelligence.
Is that what's kind of puttingthe guardrails onto the quantum,
(17:38):
then, and taking the place ofclassical computing to kind of
optimize, uh, how it'sfunctioning?
Bill Harris (17:45):
yes.
So artificial intelligencestill has a little bit of a
problem with dealing with hugevolumes of data.
This is where quantum reallyexcels.
A classical computer typicallydeals in exponential math.
For a classical computer to gobreak a password that is 10
(18:06):
characters long, and let's sayit's using 70 or so possible
characters within that password,it can cycle through that
password in about 2.8quintillion operations.
Ok, so that's, that's a longtime.
Now quantum with its polynomialmath.
What quantum does is it takes.
It'll do that in the squareroot of that number.
(18:28):
It's using quadratic equationsto solve the problem.
So instead of, instead of oftwo point eight quintillion,
it's doing it in about one pointeight billion operations.
That is why quantum is faster.
It's not faster.
It doesn't go through this databecause it's moving bits around
(18:48):
.
Faster, it's going through thedata because it needs to do far,
far fewer calculations,approximately the square root of
all the calculations that aclassical computer has to do.
Joshua Schmidt (19:00):
So it's not going to like turn my um audio
engineering processes down tolike seconds instead of minutes.
For example, when I, when Iproduce a music track and I have
to bounce out assets or a video, for example, it can take 10
minutes.
You know, um so it's not goingto be able to necessarily make
those computer processes faster,that's's not on the horizon.
Bill Harris (19:23):
No, in order for it to do that, you'd have to find
some type of an algorithm thatwould do that.
Okay, yeah, and there theclassic computer is just going
to be far more practical,because, even though it's going
through a lot of data, it'sreally not going through that
much data.
Joshua Schmidt (19:40):
So I know that they've been working hard on
this.
In the background, we don'thear much about quantum compared
to AI, for example.
There's been a lot ofinvestments made, but what have
you seen come to fruition in thetech space as far as quantum
goes?
I know there was some recentnews and I have a hard time
pronouncing this it's Majorana,yep, majorana.
Bill Harris (20:05):
Majorana particle yep.
Joshua Schmidt (20:10):
Okay, and named after a physicist, I assume.
But is this Microsoft kind ofgetting a little over their skis
here and trying to roll out aPR story for some extra prep, or
is this actually like somethingthat's usable in, usable in the
, in the market or will be inthe near future?
Bill Harris (20:27):
okay.
So, yeah, a lot's been saidabout this.
Microsoft still has their pressreleases posted out there.
Um, a lot of a lot ofinformation on on the majorana
qubit.
The way it's important tounderstand.
The majorana qubit employs adifferent state of matter than a
traditional model does.
So you've got the fourobservable states of matter
(20:49):
solid, liquid gas and plasma.
Then beyond that you have otherstates of matter and then the
Majorana particle uses what'scalled a topological state of
matter.
Topological state of matter,and in physics the topology
refers to the ability to alter astructure, bend it, twist it.
(21:10):
You just can't tear it apart,but you bend it and you twist it
and it will maintain itsmolecular principles, its
molecular properties.
Now, the reason that's soimportant is because that makes
this Majorana particle veryresilient to noise and that
reduces your error rates.
So if they can do that and it'sa very difficult thing to do,
(21:34):
because now they're working witha different state of matter and
they're working with this newparticle and they're trying to
line everything up and so whatthey've done is they've taken,
at their superconducting levellayer, they've taken aluminum
and that's their superconductorand that's sandwiched in with
some doped semiconductors tofunnel the photons through them.
(21:58):
Microsoft claims that they havebeen able to execute some
quantum operations with that,and so they've claimed that well
, they've kind of gotten intothe first gate of the Meyer on a
particle.
They're not claiming they'vedone all of it, but they're
saying they've gotten throughthe first part of it.
(22:19):
Now that has come under a lotof scrutiny and we're not so
sure that they have.
So scientists who are lookingat this and looking at the
papers have noted that the thetests that Microsoft have has
performed are inconsistent withwhat they would expect to see
from the Majorana particle.
So there's a lot of doubt there, and this isn't the first time
(22:41):
Microsoft's been challenged onsomething and they've had to
withdraw one or two papers inthe last several years, from
what I understand.
Eric Brown (22:49):
So, nick, this seems to me like there's kind of
these new things coming up Right, remember, when we were growing
up, there was the five sensessenses, right, you had touch,
(23:13):
taste, sight, vision and smell,right.
Then, somewhere along the line,they came up with umami and
they invented like the sixth one, which was umami, which
apparently you can only get incertain foods.
Not sure, I still don't knowwhat it is, but now what I'm
(23:37):
hearing from Bill is thatthey've invented several new
states, right Beyond the plasma,the liquid, the gas, the solid.
So I mean, that's interestingin and of itself.
It's like you could just inventstuff and call it what you want
Well to be clear.
Bill Harris (23:49):
I mean, it's in Microsoft's teensy defense.
Microsoft isn't claiming thatthey invented a topological
model that already existed inphysics.
They're claiming that they areexploiting a topological model
to enable quantum operationsacross the Majorana particle.
And that's what scientists aresaying.
No, we're not quite so sure.
(24:09):
That's really what's happeninghere, can you?
Eric Brown (24:11):
explain to me what umami is.
Joshua Schmidt (24:13):
Oh, I'm a little bit of a home chef.
It's not a sense, it's more ofa flavor, right?
So there's savory, meaty,richness, salty, sweet.
I don't remember all the thingsthat your tongue can sense, but
umami is supposed to be thatmouth-filling kind of savory
that you can't quite put yourfinger on.
It'd probably be betterdescribed by you know when it's
(24:35):
missing.
If you had a soup that wasreally thin and not very
satisfying, it'd be missing thatumami, that richness.
Eric Brown (24:46):
It's like the quantum right it's either on or
it's off.
It's either there, it's missing.
So it's kind of the quantumversion of taste I like that.
Joshua Schmidt (24:53):
I think you're on this.
That's a great way to put it.
That's that'd be a cool namefor a quantum computer umami you
heard it here first, folks wejust came up with a name for one
of your cats Done Done.
Stop the recording.
Nick Mellem (25:08):
If there wasn't Our work here is done.
We didn't even need a quantumcomputer for that the six
hairless cat.
Eric Brown (25:16):
Umami.
Joshua Schmidt (25:19):
Are we back to Schrodinger's cats again?
Is that how?
Nick Mellem (25:21):
we came to share Umami Umami.
Joshua Schmidt (25:23):
Umami, that's right.
Bill Harris (25:31):
So I got one more thing that actually goes into
philosophy a little bit here.
So I want to call out somethingthat Google uncovered and then
something that NASA uncovered.
So Google was doing somequantum operations.
This wasn't that long ago Ithink it might have been last
year and there's a blog on theirpost about it that said they
(25:56):
got some unexpected results thatthey believe lend credence to
the theory of parallel universes, believe lend credence to the
theory of parallel universes,and they put this right out
there on their blog and theywrote a bit about it, which I
found really surprising.
But what was even stranger wasthat there is this story
circulating and the story itself.
(26:17):
The first part of the story istrue NASA shut down its quantum
computer in February of 2024,because they got some unexpected
results that they saidchallenge contemporary thinking.
And they shut it down and, withno further comment, they began
looking into it.
Eric Brown (26:36):
Well, hold on a minute.
Is that like the CatholicChurch shutting down science in
the 1400s because the sun is nolonger the center of the
universe?
Bill Harris (26:47):
Well, not necessarily so what people?
It might be that, but you'redoing what people are doing,
right?
People were wondering well,what's happening here?
So imaginations have really runrampant and the stories right
now range from something likewell, they just found some new
math they're trying to resolveto, they've stumbled into some
(27:10):
alternate reality, or they havestumbled across some type of
extraterrestrial intelligence.
Eric Brown (27:17):
Yes, like the movie Contact.
Remember that, tony Foster,tony Foster.
Joshua Schmidt (27:21):
Great flick.
Nick Mellem (27:23):
Yes, I had it sitting back here for like six
months and I finally threw itout.
Joshua Schmidt (27:28):
Get it out, because I'm bringing it there.
Here we go.
Have you heard of the Mandelaeffect?
Nick Mellem (27:32):
The Mandela effect, I want to say yes, but go ahead
, Hit us with it, josh.
Joshua Schmidt (27:38):
This has gone on like wildfire over the last
probably five plus years on theinternet.
Have you heard of it, bill?
I've where, I'm not where.
Maybe it was a big.
What's the?
What's the particle acceleratoraccelerator in switzerland
called?
Is it the big?
The large hadron collider?
Yeah, yeah, the.
The theory goes that cernstarted messing with that.
(27:59):
We slipped into a differenttimeline.
So there's people that rememberthings inaccurately.
If and and nelson mandela uhdying is one of those where some
people remember him passingaway and then some people
remember him being released fromprison.
Another example would be thebernstein bears.
The way it's spelt, thebernstein bears or the bernstein
(28:20):
Bears.
It goes into pop culture,verbal cues like mirror, mirror
on the wall from Snow White.
It's actually magic mirror onthe wall.
So they're saying that weslipped into a different
timeline at some point.
Eric Brown (28:34):
I'm going to use this in my next argument at home
with my wife, right when it'slike I'm constantly, I'm like yo
, you're in a differentdimension here.
Joshua Schmidt (28:50):
That's the best.
Use right where it's like.
Bill Harris (28:51):
I'm constantly wrong, like yo you're in a
different uh dimension here, somaybe that's you know lending
some credence to uh to this.
So it's funny you should saythat, because that's exactly
kind of where some of thesearguments are going is they're
they're drifting off intoquantum memories and the theory
that you actually never reallydie, because at every juncture
in your life you likeSchrodinger's cat, you either
(29:12):
live or you die, and so aversion of yourself will live in
perpetuity, as it alwaysjunctures off, and so you'll die
an infinite number of times,but there's always another one
of you out there in some type ofan alternate universe.
So it's really diving deep andI don't believe any of it, but
(29:32):
it's just interesting thoughtmaterial.
You really took us there Josh.
Joshua Schmidt (29:37):
Yeah, well, hey, you know that's my job.
Nick Mellem (29:40):
I should not have thrown away that hat.
Eric Brown (29:42):
Why did they shut it down if they found something
interesting?
Bill Harris (29:46):
They didn't understand the results, and so
the results they got from theirquantum machine did not
correlate with theirunderstanding of physics, or
they just didn't like what theygot back.
Eric Brown (30:01):
Now I have a question, bill, for you, maybe
it's more for Josh, bring it on.
Why are the aliens alwaysprobing us?
Joshua Schmidt (30:13):
Well, yeah, that's a great question.
I wasn't prepared to answerthat one.
Eric Brown (30:17):
Well, as a UFO enthusiast or whatever you're
calling them I guess you can'tcall it a UFO anymore I don't
know whatever it's called.
Joshua Schmidt (30:23):
Yeah, that's a great question I always joke
about.
If they're so intelligent, whyare they always crashing and
leaving stuff behind?
I don't know.
I think one explanation couldbe that there's so many
different variations of them, orthere might be less intelligent
ones, less advanced ones, thatare actually curious about our
(30:44):
biology.
There's also some wild theoriesout there that they can't
reproduce, they can no longerreproduce or they become asexual
to the point where they need toextract some sort of biological
material from us or some dna toperpetuate themselves.
I mean, you know, you can go assci-fi on that as you want, uh,
(31:05):
but uh, you know, for everycrazy question there's a million
quick, crazy answers.
Uh, what else do you got for us, bill?
In terms of like, I know thatthey were afraid of their
results.
Perhaps, maybe they wereshocked by them, that they
thought that they could bealtering the fabric of
space-time.
Was that like a valid concern?
That seemed to be what theirfocus was Absolutely yeah.
Bill Harris (31:30):
So there was some concern that one of the
speculations is that they werepoking at the Higgs field.
You might have heard of theHiggs boson particle, which is
the particle that makes up,really, the fabric of the
universe.
It's one of the fundamentalones and they were poking at
that field.
And when you do that in amanner that you don't really
(31:53):
understand the physicssurrounding it, then you begin
to wonder is there a butterflyeffect, right?
Are you affecting somethingelsewhere in the world, or are
you changing the trajectory ofsome other timeline?
Absolutely crazy stuff, and Iguess, if you're dealing with
quantum, that we don't reallyfully understand.
(32:14):
Sure, they're all validquestions, but that was indeed
one of the concerns.
Eric Brown (32:25):
So it's kind of like play stupid games, win stupid
prizes.
We didn't know what was goingon.
Bill Harris (32:28):
Yes, that's right, and that kind of stuff happens
inside of a quantum computer.
It's like you're not justpassing electrons back and forth
, you are doing some reallycutting edge things and you're
poking at these subatomicparticles.
Nick Mellem (32:43):
Is NASA going to turn that thing back on?
Bill Harris (32:46):
Yeah, what's so weird about NASA is that they're
not talking about it, and itwould be so simple if they would
just issue some statements, butwe haven't heard.
Joshua Schmidt (32:56):
That brings up a question I had about just
security ramifications, nationalsecurity.
I know DARPA's been involvedwith Quantum.
I think Microsoft was one oftwo companies that was chosen to
work with DARPA on this On alocal scale and a worldwide
scale.
Can you think of any attackvectors this might create?
Nick Mellem (33:14):
The limits are.
There's no limit.
Bill Harris (33:16):
Yeah, I would agree with that.
It's probably no limit becausewe don't know enough.
I think the potential attackvectors could vary from the
technical as we understand it tothe absolutely outlandish.
You know when you start we weretalking about it earlier.
You know quantum memories andsuch.
Eric Brown (33:35):
It could just really go off the rails, gentlemen.
I'm still working with users,trying to keep them to not store
passwords in spreadsheets.
Use MFA, lock your credit,right, like we're at the basic
level here.
So quantum, you know?
Like quantum in theory of like.
Oh, they may crack the SSL, thecrypt Good, so what Right.
(33:58):
Ssl decrypt Good, so what Right?
Let's focus on getting ourcredits locked passwords into a
password manager and MFA.
Nick Mellem (34:09):
It's a good question, Josh, but the thing
that I can't stop thinking aboutis the weapons that you might
build.
What kind of weapons is thisthing going to create?
We split the atom, we got theatom bomb.
What is this thing going tocome up with?
We're talking about getting todifferent timelines with our
wives at home.
What kind of bombs are we goingto start dropping on people
because of this?
Eric Brown (34:29):
If you poke that Higgs boson, it's going to poke
faster.
Nick Mellem (34:32):
We might not even have any computers to hack
anymore.
After this thing gets done,shut it down.
Eric Brown (34:38):
Shut it down.
Nick Mellem (34:40):
It's like Chernobyl .
I don't know if you are a Rickand Morty fan, you guys but a
lot of this has been explored incartoon format on that show
already.
The Simpsons probably has anepisode about quantum computing
and it's probably spot on.
Joshua Schmidt (34:55):
Everything from Schrodinger's cat to the Mandela
effect, to, yeah, higgs boson.
Eric Brown (35:00):
To the Ambien effect too.
Nick Mellem (35:03):
I think we should probably just call it for today.
Joshua Schmidt (35:06):
I love this.
Thank you, Bill.
This has been really fun.
What a wild convo today.
I love it.
Nick Mellem (35:14):
I think this is what happens when you don't
really know what you're talkingabout, right?
You're just like trying to takeit in and you just never know
where we're going to go.
That's how I feel, yes.
Bill Harris (35:24):
At least you know what's going on Bill.
Joshua Schmidt (35:28):
We'll leave it there.
Thanks so much, bill, forjoining us today.
You've been listening to BillHarris talk about quantum.
We also have Eric Brown andNick Mellon, as usual.
My name is Joshua Schmidt,co-host and producer.
You've been listening to theAudit presented by IT Audit Labs
.
Please like, share andsubscribe.
Tell a friend.
We have video up on Spotify nowand we're publishing every
other week on YouTube withshorts in between.
(35:50):
See you soon.
Eric Brown (35:53):
You have been listening to the Audit presented
by IT Audit Labs.
We are experts at assessingrisk and compliance, while
providing administrative andtechnical controls to improve
our clients' data security.
Our threat assessments find thesoft spots before the bad guys
do, identifying likelihood andimpact, while our security
control assessments rank thelevel of maturity relative to
(36:16):
the size of your organization.
Thanks to our devoted listenersand followers, as well as our
producer, joshua J Schmidt, andour audio video editor, cameron
Hill, you can stay up to date onthe latest cybersecurity topics
by giving us a like and afollow on our socials and
subscribing to this podcast onApple, spotify or wherever you
(36:38):
source your security content.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.