I see no evidence that his knowledge is any better than a layman's, and this really feels like a promotional piece.<p>It's pretty sad that people are surprised or impressed when a politician has a layman's understanding of something in science.
While this seems planted and trite (much like the "because it's 2015" answer), I have to confess that I don't get quantum computing.<p>A qubit can hold multiple values, it seems. Okay, that's a data density improvement (presuming a quibit is as dense as a traditional bit). How does that improve computing power (especially by the many magnitudes)? Do you multiply a qubit of infinite values against a quibit of infinite values and have all possible results? I just don't see the bridge from data density to a revolution in computing power.<p>Note that I'm not saying this as a cynic. I <i>know</i> that this is happening, and a lot of very smart people are excited by it. I just have never seen an explanation that bridges data density to calculation speed.
Looks to me he used a bunch of buzzwords followed by a humble brag.<p>In reality it isn't so weird for a leader to know about quantum physics, like if you asked Angela Merkel I bet she will actually explain the concept. So I don't get all this hype.
Trudeau is reasonably smart, and admitted his knowledge was basic. It's everyone else that's acting ridiculous.<p>>“I was flabbergasted,” Laflamme says. “I don’t know how he does in other subjects, but in quantum physics, he knows the basic pieces and the important questions.”<p>Maybe he read a single article about quantum theory in an issue of Popular Science. Maybe, before an event at a facility where he knew he would be speaking, he spent fifteen minutes reading something he asked an aide to give him, so he could speak intelligently about it.
I agree it is sad that people are making a big deal about a politician seeming to have a basic grasp of a science that is not well understood, but at the same time a high level understanding is really all he should have.<p>I think that ideally politicians should be working at a high level of abstraction (like any manager/executive in any field, especially technical). This means having a high level, big picture understanding of a field and the major benefits and hurdles to overcome.<p>Having a deep understanding of one area like this would make people in that field happy maybe, but it would not necessarily make him better at making big policy decisions and balancing the needs of the quantum computing industry with the other industries and the needs of the country.<p>The problem is that politicians generally tend to only be good at one thing: politics. A good leader would strive to understand at a high level all of the topics that involve policy decisions, with the intelligence to dive deeper if need be or be able to understand and verify the advice of an expert in that field and make educated decisions. This is usually not the case, but when it is we shouldn't deride someone for only having a topical knowledge of our own fields.
The statement itself is pure technobabble.<p>"A regular computer bit is either a one or a zero, either on or off. A quantum state can be much more complex than that, because as we know, things can be both particle and wave at the same time and the uncertainty around quantum states allows us to encode more information into a much smaller computer."<p>To be sure, there are statements in there that are correct, but they don't connect up to a coherent description of the science behind QC. In short: I see words, I do not see understanding.<p>What is distressing or embarrassing though is the scientist who blatantly kowtows to Trudeau:<p>“I was very impressed he made an attempt,” said Dr. Lucien Hardy. “He got it spot on.”<p>No. He didn't get it "spot on". But I suppose if the prime minister is spearheading an initiative to fund you you'd better not embarrass him. But that sort of political play is not how you're <i>supposed</i> to do things in science.