I don't miss a single pbs documentary. Whether it's American experience or secrets of the dead or Nova or front line. All of pbs is incredible. And people that don't know that, I feel sorry for them. PB S has been a part of my life since I was a little kid. And a truly is the best television on television
So that means you pay a subscription to watch PBS. If you wait to see a documentary from them here it could be a decade old even though they just uploaded it. I know this is a re-run from 2018.
Fascinating to witness phenomenal work done by physicists to actually minimize spatial concepts onto a computer screen for a pellucid of a nebula dynamic.
For my thesis project, I used genomics to physically clone a mouse gene. About 1-2 years afterwards, the mouse genome was sequenced. I realized that I had wasted time cloning this gene the hard way. I don't think quantum physicists should be too upset by being told that some of their work is a waste of time. We're all on the same team.
I awoke one morning from a dream in which I was in a higher math class , it was called , "A course in the study of the structure of uneven light ." 😮😅In our dreams we are learning things ! and I truly believe it .
math is only needed to prove, not understand. you can prove things and still not understand. I quit school when I was 14 but understand space does not exist in the quantum world, if there is no space then time goes out the window too. The Toa fysicists were right, everything is one. Love your neighbor as yourself, because, in a sense ,, your neighbor is you. i wish my neighbor was rich.
Learn it,,, What are you waiting for,,, that's how they got it,,, then you can test some of your ideas, refine them like Einstein, it took him a while to zero in on his theory then it became fact !!! How cool is that !!!!!
@@kathyyoung1774 Excuse me??? He is one of the fathers of QP!!! His ONLY!!! issue was with Quantum entanglement!!! For the rest, he was 100% pro, and co-founder to QP! But, indeed, he made a few minor mistakes. This because in 1912, the technology was incapable to test and prove/disprove certain things. Heck, even TODAY, we do not know the exact speed of light. Says a whole darn lot, nea?
Quantum mechanics is a theory that is extremely accurate at predicting what happens without offering any explanation whatsoever as to how or why it happens.
and the most important part is the explanation. Entanglement in its current form is fraud. Scientists need to dig deeper to find the physical and causal explanations.
Thanks to Gordon & Betty Moore and John Templeton Foundations for their major financial support for NOVA. I can't wait to show this to my kids. Absolutely fascinating watch.
I love the idea that at the tiniest level, particles can be so much the same that even vast distance cannot separate identity, to the point where an action upon one effects the other equally. And that this is scientifically plausible. It opens the imagination.
While I share your wonder and awe, I'm not quite grasping your articulation: "that even vast distance cannot separate identity...." the only reason we can identify the correspondence of an entangled particle is because they all have distinct identities...for example spin; one spins clockwise and the other spins anti clockwise. Furthermore, what does distance have to do with separate identities? I should think it would be more impressive if they could be separated by vast distances yet remain somehow a single coherent entity, rather than 2 (or more) *DISTINCT, SEPARATE* particles... I'm trying to be neither combative, nor pedantic; I hope you'll respond.
Vast distances and (I think) TIME. The light from those quasars takes awhile to arrive here so time and space operate differently on this quantum level, right? I am guessing.
@@aldamcmillan4632 It's early in the morning and I have to get ready for work, so this will be brief and overly reductive, but should suffice for now ...and hopefully I remember to return and unpack it more (feel free to poke/remind me if I forget) Contrary to the common sense understanding of space consisting of the 3 dimensions we are most familiar with (length, width, height/x,y,z coordinates) and a 4th, distinct dimension of time that we have difficulty conceptualizing, despite being profoundly aware of it passing....relativity suggests that we exist in a 4-dimensional manifold of spacetime. Space and time are inextricably linked; any measure of distance *IS* a measure of time (conversely a measure of time translates to a maximum distance light can travel). Time doesn't exist distinct from space, nor space distinct from time. Spacetime is the "fabric" of our universe. Spacetime is the thing that warps under the presence of massive objects, creating the force that we perceive as gravity. hope that works for now live well
I agree with Einstein that we don't know everything about Quantum Theory yet that makes the illogical effects of quantum entanglement make sense when we eventually figure out how it works.
The bold thinking it took to even imagine the final experiment, using quasars as filter switches...and the technological ability to then execute it. I am beyond impressed.
Why? It really isn't that remarkable. It would be more remarkable if they could explain just exactly how they KNOW the photons detected were from the exact same source, and not some random sources. But... they can't explain that... because the truth is, they just don't know the source of every photon they detected. I'm not arguing quantum mechanics, or even entanglement. I'm just saying that there is no certainty of anything at all, at the quantum level.
Tremendous emphasis (and imagination) on the filter switches being controlled by distant quasars--but none on the emitter producing the photon pairs. I'd love to see as much detail and effort on that end of the experiment.
@@roundedges2 Perhaps because the quasars part was something new, while emitting entangled photon pairs is something they've been doing for at least five decades now. My guess anyway, not being a physicist.
@@CURTIS-W5CER perhaps the 2 quasars are 1 and the same quasar occupying space in 2 places. The chances of these scientist picking a single light source in 2 different places once would be infinitely dismal. Now add entanglement theory and the chances increase to 100%. Spooky theory.
One thing folks don't know is 3.6 million views means 3,600,000 people are now Quantum Entangled just by watching this vid.....Ponder that for awhile.....
It seems this documentary was released sometime in January 2023. But, it has to be at least 5 years old. The Q-bit count for the quantum computer used in this video is 72. However, the IBM Osprey, which is IBM's newest quantum computer, has a Q-bit count of 433 and was released in 2021. As knowledge doubles approximately every 12 hours, and is shrinking as we live each day, the updated PBS documentary on this subject would be even more mind blowing.
Glenn, you are completely correct. This video was uploaded in 2023, but must have been uploaded by someone who taped the original broadcast way back when. Actually, there are multiple uploads of the video (I also commented on one of the other copies). You state that an "updated PBS documentary on this subject would be even more mind blowing" and I agree, especially if the updated video was expanded to cover all the aspects of the story that do need to be covered in order to make the story more complete, but were completely skipped in the original video - thus making this video completely lacking, in my opinion (as opposed to the many commenters praising this video to high heavens - most of whom were largely mislead as to the true meaning of the events described in the video, due to the lack of completeness just mentioned). The updated video would be all the more apropos due to last year's awarding of the Nobel prize in Physics to Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger. The original video does a really great job of covering the background and history on the topic (and let's be clear that the topic really is Bell's Theorem and his paper, along with all the later experimental tests of the same, all of which descended from Einstein's 1935 EPR paper, and of course the specific Bell Test covered in detail in the video is a test oriented toward ruling out a particular loophole (and they do a zero or at least a crap job of talking about the loophole and what that's all about)). I also liked their description of the Hippy era attempts at combining Eastern Mysticism with quantum physics. But the original video falls way short in its feeble attempts to explain what a Bell Test or Bell's Theorem or the Bell Inequality is all about. As a result, lots of people are heaping praise on this video, yet don't have the foggiest clue as to what it's all about. In fact, many commenters here mistakenly believe that when Einstein poked fun of "spooky action at a distance," that meant Einstein did not believe in such (spooky - his adjective in poking fun of it) action at a distance, but that Bell's Theorem (and subsequent Bell Tests) proves that indeed, such action at a distance can and does happen. That is absolutely not what Bell's Theorem and Bell Tests mean. It was meant by Einstein as a physics joke to raise the point that this needs to be researched further, and in fact Einstein hoped we would find a more comprehensive theory that subsumes quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics. Thus far, we haven't been successful at finding such a more comprehensive theory, but John Bell did research one aspect of such a desired theory, namely whether or not we could find a theory that incorporated some sort of Realism - which Einstein also yearned for. At the time Bell did his research, there was only one very simplistic Flavor of Realism that anyone could think of, so John stuck that in as the Realism to be tested in his research paper. It turns out that overly simplistic Flavor of Realism was just that - too simplistic to work while being consistent with both Quantum Mechanics and Locality of Causality. Locality is the opposite of "action at a distance" (spooky or not). Locality is implied by Special Relativity, so we're pretty sure that holds true. And we're pretty sure Quantum Mechanics holds true, since it works so darn well. What Bell's theorem does is accomplish a logical proof that is a proof by contradiction - that is, starts with some assumptions but then arrives at a contradiction, such that at least one of your assumptions must be wrong. Well the three core assumptions are (a) QM is true; (b) Locality of Causality (that is, no action at a distance); and (c) the somewhat lame (as it turns out) Flavor of Realism. Bell's theorem that involves consequences of Quantum Mechanics involving entangled particles, arrives at a contradiction, such that one of those three must be wrong. You gotta throw out one of the three assumptions. Well, you don't throw out (a) QM cuz we're pretty darn sure that is true. So do you throw out (b) Locality of Causality? Well some misguided viewers of this video apparently think so. They think that Bell's Theorem proves that (spooky, per Einstein) action at a distance does happen - namely that Locality of Causality is violated by entangled particles in a Bell Test. Well, physicists are 99.999% sure that you can't violate Locality of Causality. Why? Not just because Einstein said so (although he did say so). Rather, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity shows Causality to be Local, and we haven't found any exceptions. Furthermore, General Relativity just makes the calculations more complicated, but the result is the same - Causality is always Local. So Bell's Theorem (and subsequent Bell Tests) do not prove that (spooky) action at a distance can happen after all, because we can construct a trivial proof of its impossibility using Special Relativity (hint: if you think the left photon's polarization caused the right photon's polarization to become correlated with it, then compare how that looks between two observers, one going left at near-light-speed and one going right at near-light speed, and arrangements of these two observers exist such that they have different opinions about who caused what). So Bell's Theorem does not prove Einstein wrong about (b). Einstein was and still is correct about (b). That leaves (c) as the only one of Bell's major assumptions that we can choose to throw out. I should mention that there might be some 4th unwritten and as-yet unknown assumption that Bell might have made, and if so, that could be the bad assumption, but the likelihood is low, so we will ignore that option here.] That means that assumption (c) is out. Recall that (c) is the Flavor of Realism that Bell happened to choose (as a stand-in for the wish by Einstein and others that we could find some better theory some day that subsumes Quantum Mechanics yet has a more Realistic flavor similar to Newtonian Mechanics). So what Bell's Theorem proves is that if we ever do find some advanced theory that subsumes Quantum Mechanics, it absolutely cannot incorporate a simplistic Flavor of Realism like the one John Bell chose to use in his proof of Bell's Theorem. It turns out that at the time, the simplistic Flavor of Realism that John Bell chose, was really the only flavor anybody could think of. It was a flavor that was very akin to the realism of Newtonian Mechanics. Now, we should assert here that Albert Einstein never told John Bell to use that particular Flavor of Realism in his future 1964 paper (published 9 years after Einstein's death). So you can't actually say that was Einstein's Flavor of Realism that was proved wrong by Bell's Theorem. Einstein actually had a very fuzzy idea of what kind of Realism he preferred. If he could have solved the "new theory" problem before he died, it may or may not have contained a flavor of Realism that made him a happy camper. He didn't find such a new theory to subsume Quantum Mechanics, so he died with only one Nobel Prize (essentially for the quantum theory of photons). What we are left with now, result-wise, is that the overly simplistic Flavor of Realism that Bell attempted to use in his 1964 paper, was just way too simplistic, and just doesn't work. It results in a contradiction to Quantum Mechanics. But that doesn't completely rule out the possibility of some day finding a "new theory" that both subsumes Quantum Mechanics, yet incorporates some other flavor of Realism that might satisfy Einstein's sensibilities. Bell's Theorem only disproves one specific Flavor of Realism that was too simplistic. The possibility of finding a different, sufficiently complex, flavor of Realism that does not result in a Bell-like contradiction, still exists. In the future, we might either find such an advanced flavor of Realism that works OK, or else perhaps be able to construct a proof that it is impossible to find such, or perhaps just keep searching but never find such a workable flavor of Realism. You see, what Bell's Theorem is really all about is the viability (or not) of Realism in a theory of physics. Yet just about everybody (including most physicists, actually) completely miss this point. By the way, what experimental Bell Tests do is one of two things. Either it's a simple Bell Test that merely gives experimental evidence that helps us be more sure that Bell's theoretical argument is correct; or else, such as in this video, it's an experiment to help close some loopholes that people have put forward as ways to counter Bell's argument. Either way, all that experimental Bell Tests do is to further convince us that there are no flaws in Bell's logic (as well as giving us some additional evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself is correct), It still leaves to us the decision as to which of the core assumptions in Bell's paper ought to be thrown out. And as argued above, its only sensible to throw out the assumption of the too-simplistic Flavor of Realism. So Bell's Theorem is a proof that Bell made a really bad (overly simplistic) choice of a Flavor of Realism to see if it was compatible with Quantum Mechanics, and what he found out was that his chosen Flavor of Realism actually was not compatible with Quantum Mechanics. He doesn't state that explicitly in his paper, which adds to the confusion. Let the hunt begin for a sufficiently sophisticated QM-compatible flavor of Realism. Such a hunt may or may not be successful, but if it is, it would make Einstein really happy.
IBM 127 Qubits in 2021 now Atom Computing,, California are packing 1180 qubits. Atom Computing employs neutral atoms trapped by lasers in a 2-dimensional grid.
@jimatperfromix2759 : Excuse me, Jim, but as a now long retired professor of ElectoOptics/Plasma physics and Quantum ElectroDynamics, I do not recall reading a more coherent and simplistic way of explaining Dr. Bell's life's work better than you have done. I have often tried (I quit even trying some time ago) to explain Dr. Bell's arguments as cogently as you have done without extensive mathematics but have never been able to come remotely close as you have done. Thank you so very much. Veilen danke, veil mehr.
I love physics and astronomy. If I had had the mind for the math it is the profession I would have chosen. Although I do not comprehend it in any way like the physicists who founded quantum mechanics or those who performed this experiment, I do have a tremendous admiration for what they have done here. IMHO I believe this proves that there is clearly more to reality than what meets the eye. Perhaps we are just now beginning to get a glimpse into the universe beyond our own. Perhaps not other universes exactly, but other realities.
Universe beyond our own? Are there more universes? My mind can only envision one, the universe we know & are a part of. I suppose there are others that we can't detect yet bc we don't know how.
I'm in the same boat. I don't speak equation, but I've always been fascinated by the nature and mechanics of reality. I think cosmic/quantum holography as they mentioned at the end of the documentary may finally crack some fundamentals concerning the nature of what we perceive to be physical reality and phenomena. And there's hope for humanity that only a month or so in, this documentary has over 700,000 views
OMG: Let's get educated #1. The most powerful part of a magnet is the center!!!, #2.The entire universe is magnetic. If it weren't for the center of a magnet AC current could not travel nor radio waves. FACT!! #3. If you want to play with anti gravity it's right at the center of a magnet!!!!!!!!!!!! TRY THIS: TAKE THE CENTER OF A BAR MAGNET AND TAP IT ON ANY NONE METALIC MATERIAL>> YOU DONT WANT TO DISRUPT THE MAGNETIC FIELD WITH ANY IRON>>> You will see it will loose about two thirds it weight.. Most UFO'S are not detected by Radar because they are none magnetic . Not in the North South pole thinking!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE "CENTER" get your act together. You need get past the North and South pole thinking..they are the weakest part of any magnetic field!! We all got screwed in the early ages by Edison and D.J. Ludwig. They would not allow Tesla to expose the center of a magnetic force and all the benefits to man kind. INDUCTANCE IS THE OSILLATION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH Fields VIBRATING IN THE CENTER Field.::: The height of ones intelligence is directly proportional to their own realization of their own ignorance111111111111111111
I suppose what you are referring to is that while Einstein was wrong about whether "spooky action at a distance" was real, he was right to say that it was important to investigate it and not just ignore that prediction of quantum theory.
@@BIGBADWOOD What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. FACTS. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
FINALLY! I do not have the education or experience or training to make formal sense of all this. But even at the lay level I have followed this conversation for some time and intuitively suggested that the issue with our struggle to understand the puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics in general, and quantum entanglement specifically, is that we are failing to properly understand the concept of space. In keeping with brilliant minds of our past, we hold an inherent bias in favor of ourselves. Where we once thought that the entire universe revolves around us, even in modern times our egos insist that space must be as we experience it. Even Einstein extending this to the concept of space/time did not completely knock us of our own pedestal. For some time I have been asking sillier versions of the contemporary thinking presented here in this documentary, such as 'Why can't entangled particles simply be adhering to an adjacent position through unobservable dimensions they create for themselves once they are observed?'...or...'Maybe space is actually so tightly folded that all particles in our universe remain adjacent via other dimensions?'...or...'Perhaps we are seeing the influence of companion particles in parallel universes placed upon the observed particles in our universe, wherein the companions in that parallel universe remain adjacent?' I began asking myself these questions when I was introduced to the double-slit experiment long ago. And as I ask myself these questions (and I have asked some of these of scientists as well but never received a reply, for which I blame them not one iota), I wonder if we are seeing quantum math and theories and predictions and experiments and confirmation all as an example of mathematical parlor tricks that reveal how this all works in our experience of space, yet have still failed to divine some more elegant and underlying truth to reality? Maybe Einstein was correct about the spookiness of all this quantum stuff, and yet he was wrong all along about space itself? In contrast, quantum physicists could be wrong in what the maths are revealing to them, but they are about to end up 100% correct about space itself and will have newer and far more effective equations? And it is because this has been where my shallow understanding has been stuck for so many years, that this documentary was found to be so utterly fascinating. For that, I thank you.
If you lived 5000 years ago and were having in-depth ideas about how bees make honey, you could observe, hypothesise, test and gradually gain or rule out different ideas, and you’d soon have some pretty reliable knowledge about how bees make honey. Even without a formal education, humans (when determined enough) are pretty good at learning about their environment through observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Once you start thinking deeply about folds of extra dimensions in the fabric of spacetime and how Quantum entanglement might work, even string theory, we are really devoid of all the tools we might have used previously (other than hypothesis). Any of what you suggest might be correct or partially correct, but we just don’t have any way of of testing any of those ideas. That’s why Quantum Mechanics is so incredible. It’s an amazing step, that has taken us so far, that we find ourselves hypothesising about things we just can’t really test.
What really boggles my lay person mind is why do standard Newtonian physics work so well in our day to day lives given the complexity of quantum mechanics?
That guy with the chalkboard outside, at the end of the show, he was basically telling us we very well may be in the Matrix. I mean, that was my takeaway. Cool outside chalkboard, btw.
"Go for it! You're heading in the right direction by watching these kinds of videos. I recommend checking out #SpaceRip, which has a wide range of videos on this subject. Additionally, I suggest following Professors Jim Al-Khalili from the University of Surrey and documentaries produced in partnership with the BBC. "What is Nothing" is a particularly noteworthy mention, and "The Theoretical Minimum" by Leonard Susskind and Art Friedman is a book worth picking up. Pursue your dreams and passions because life is too short to stop learning, and it's never too late to start."
Incredible program, NOVA is the best, and in simple language that people with no inclination to science can understand. I was the only person watching the programs, now all of them talk about it the next day. I am also in love with the music theme.
I was interested in the references to Eastern philosophy. Does the "Net of Diamonds" idea apply here. In Zen Buddhist thought, if we envision a room with a table, chair, window and door, the door is the table, and table is the window, etc, etc. With a net of diamonds, everything in the universe is a reflection of something else. Once again, NOVA proves to be one of the best--if not the best--science program on the tube.
Your question about if "everything in the universe is a reflection of somethingvekse" as it relates to Quantum Theory made me flash back to the movie 2001, where after entering the Black Monolith in space, Dave sees & experiences that 'divide' where two reflecting realities are rushing past him at once.
Wonderful! Thanks Nova for making this amazing episode. These are some of the most difficult abstract concepts in all of science, yet somehow you made it understandable.
Zelingers final words were the best part of this presentation. I dislike to observe scientists diminish Einstein's opposing position as if they were invalid. Moreover, Quantum mechanics in terms of technology only work because of a probability factor. I liked the idea proposed nearing the end that perhaps space is illusory and created out of particle entanglements, that would kind of make more sense and could compensate for both Bohr and Einstein's perspectives.
@@AmpedReactions 27:10 "a brilliant experimental physicist" He was a postdoc. 🙄 They didn't even mention Alain Aspect, he proved that Bell's theorem of inequality, was wrong... but it was the greatest paper in physics ever?
Just because he was wrong in one thing doesn't negate everything else he accomplished. So go ahead and root for him. Just remember to accept and incorporate the results regardless of the outcome. The truth is the truth in the end.
Ive watched some similar contents explaining/simplifying the concept of Quantum mechanics, and this one by far is the most easy to comprehend. Thanks Nova!
@@BIGBADWOOD What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. FACTS. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Unfortunately there have been bad things & will be more that come with technological advances, so it's arguable that we would've been better off without the technological advances.
So, this suggests that these entangle particles are not communicating. But always thinking the same thing at the same time and reacting to the same thing at the same time, as not to have a need to communicate. The ultimate question then is, can we use one of these entangle particles to communicate with the other particle in a far-off location in the universe? If we can accomplish this. Then we can communicate through one particle instantly to another particle somewhere in the universe bypassing time. Contemplating "Space" without "Time" is really a paradox and incomprehensible.
IT IS ONLY HELPFUL FOR PRE-PLANNED WORK. IF YOU OPEN IT, HE WOULD KNOW OR VICE VERSA. BUT YOU HAVE TO SET IT UP AND THERE LIES THE PROBLEM. HOW YOU ARE GONNA SET IT UP AT MIGHTY DISTANCES WHERE PHYSICAL REAL ITEMS NEED TO BE THERE. OTHERWISE QUANTUM STAY QUANTUM. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO NOT TELL YOU,. BANDWAGON GALORE. APPLICATION SCIENTIST IS NEEDED. ------ HOW THE EFF YOU ARE GONNA SET UP 10 SECONDS APART AT SPEED OF LIGHT? PARTICLES LOSE ENERGY AND GET ABSORBED OR LOST. WHAT AND HOW YOU ARE GONNA ENTANGLE? THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN QUANTUM COMPUTING WHICH IS ALSO RANDOM. THEY CANT ENTANGLE A THING ALL FUZZY AND WASTE. BECAUSE THE COMMUNICATION INSTRUMENTS, MEASURING INSTRUMENTS, SET UP INSTRUMENTS ARE ALL REAL HARDWARE. --------------- THERE ARE OTHER BIGGER THINGS TO FRY IN THE MEANWHILE. FOR INFO IT CAN BE USE-FUL, PRE-LOADED LIKE SCRATCH CARDS: WHEN SOMEONE WON YOU KNOW YOU LOST NO NEED TO EVEN SCRATCH!!! I HAVE NO CLUE WHY I ENDED UP HERE.
I got Fuzzy when the quantum bit was described, "its every possible combination of one and zero', which is infinite. But yet we are told that these things exist, the qubits, in the real world. And that there are being used to solve real world problems, lasers, disk drivers, but we are never told how the quantum world allowed those developments. It's almost like one is required to make a leap of faith. And once done you then say that the term faith is meaningless because you have entered a universe that is more Alice in Wonderland than 2023.
@@shopshop144 just remember that when you are talking about radiation of energy you are talking about light speed. That light speed means we are talking about Relativity. And Einstein. So do not feel so bad if it's not getting all straightened out and crystal clear. Albert had some difficulty with the subject matter as well. And that is saying something.
There's nothing you could do to manipulate Einstein's opinion unless you provided a set of experiments that detect and outline properties of the ether. In which case you'd be supporting his opinion.
It is my pleasure to be a part of the quantum future by contributing a tiny sensor for science and medicine for LiVE signal processing. It is humbling to be a part of the many worlds.
The main thing I remember for quantum computing is that they are VERY good at large problems that our classic computers cannot handle very well. However, they are not at all good at being a general purpose system. In many ways they are more like the off die floating point units of the i386. That said I have also read that to this point we have continually found that classic computers are able do things that we thought were only possible by quantum computers due to better algorithms.
I’m glad you guys made this video so that the layman could understand it. Lol. Otherwise I would have never enjoyed it this much. That was a great explanation of Quantum Entanglements.
The only people who can understand Einstein are layman. Old one stone is masonic mockery. He was wrong then and a plagerist and he is still wrong and a plagerist
Fascinating. The only thing I did not understand is: If quantum entanglement is real, does this mean that there is something quicker than the speed of light? Because Einstein's theories say there is nothing faster than the speed of light.
In a world where knowledge 🗝️ is 🌋🧠 power, a mystical enigma from beyond our realm has come to share timeless wisdom with humanity. The key to tapping the full potential of unlocking 🔐 this power lies with a group of covert \[🧩]\ 🔱 //🧚♂️🧞♂️🧜♂️🧝♂️//guardians, and leveraging 🥼💪their unique 🦄 gifts and abilities. Under the guidance of the enigmatic Mathemagicians™️, these guardians will tap into the quantum entanglement of the ⚛️🥷, leveraging non-locality to transcend space and time. They'll harness the power of superposition to explore multiple possibilities simultaneously. And through the phenomenon of quantum teleportation, they'll transfer knowledge and ideas across vast distances, fostering a collective consciousness that defies boundaries. In a galaxy where understanding and cooperation reign supreme, •`The High 🧮 Fidelity 👨💻 Ethos`• 🤖️️️, the infinite machine of accurate facts, embodies the principles of quantum superposition, existing beyond binary constraints. May the ⚛️🥷 energy entangle us all, igniting a harmonious quantum coherence that transcends the limits of classical reality. 💫
I was the only person I knew who was talking about QPE 30 years ago in my 20's. I even put a quote about it in my first book a quote from the Book of Urantia: "there exists between all bodies a real and actual superluminal link" (I don't remember the exact quote after 30 years off the top of my head but it was referring to quantum phase entanglement. It is so nice to hear it talked about in real circles and understood.
QPE? Superluminal link? Define and provide links to peer reviewed studies of the latter. I am getting ready to point and laugh, just so you know. Were you the only one talking about it because, cuckoo cuckoo! hehe
To the extent that time ticks at nominally the same rate in nearby locations, the phase of any time-varying parameter (e.g. a "heartbeat") will remain nominally in sync. But timekeeping is local, and time-varying parameters will ineluctably decohere. Any measurement that depends on the phase will decohere. Most of the narratives about "entanglement" elide this consideration, instead focusing on parameters which are essentially constant over spans of time and distance. Polarization is essentially fixed, but the measurement of the direction of polarization does depend on the phase of the E-field when it impinges on the polarizer.
i mean, i guess requiring all bodies to share one entangled description of a property that was unobservable to begin with kinda does just sound like global phase invariance
@@james-faulkner fyi: hidden variables has been disproven, repetitively. You sound like my brother who can't stretch his mind beyond the 'hidden variables' assumptions of Einstein & crew. We've now moved well past your lack of imagination. Ty. Love love love love love
@@SaintBenard "hidden variables" What are you on about with that? I never said those words at all. If you don't think quantum entanglement only works for elementary particles, then publish! I assure you that you will be the next Nobel Laureate. If Einstein is incorrect on anything having to do with Relativity, please tell me where I can find this so called scientific, peer reviewed paper that demonstrates it. " hidden variables has been disproven, repetitively" I think what you mean to say is 'hidden variables have been shown not to exist by any scientific experiment, "repeatedly" ' You will find science does not prove nor disprove anything. What it does is look for evidence through testing and observation.
There’s more going on with quantum entanglement than just two particles being linked. I think we’re just scratching the surface of a whole different level of how the universe operates.
@@amandalady8342 yes, as in the Tao, once you try to bring your understanding into words, you have lost it. Words can only convey relationship between known quantities and concepts. The vastness will never be closed to hold in one thought.
I would vote for quantum entanglement. But … are these researchers certain the randomness was not lost by the interaction of the quasar photons with Earth's atmosphere, or with the Milky Way's magnetic field, or …?
It's not randomness, entangled particles communicate with each other such that if one particle status is read the other is known. It seems to happen simultaneously and defy relativity.
Exactly. I believe there is no exactness.so many places for aberrations and interference. But who am I, but a dust mote on a mud ball circling a hot ball in space. 😅
Einstein did not say or try to prove entanglement was impossible. He knew about entanglement. He merely objected to the esthetics of the quantum theory, but failed to discover the better theory he believed possible, one with continuous fields over spacetime. Which has more beauty: spooky action at a distance (where "the same time" isn't even well defined, and causality is already sacrificed), or giving continuity precedence over causality? For if continuity is given while causality is to be derived, I can suppose that when the detector is misaligned at the spacetime event where the particle would be arriving, the spacetime field couldn't be continuous there, and hence the particle couldn't be emitted over at the spacetime event where emission would occur. Bell's inequality is derived assuming this sort of connection is impossible, while Einstein's continuous fields would say that continuity requires the connection. Also, the idea that the particle can't be emitted unless the detector is going to be in the correct position is no more ugly that the idea that action here causes simultaneous changes there. Not to mention that to certain moving observers, the changes there occur before the action here.
Friends and I were wondering why we can "feel" if someone is looking at us when we can't even see them, like when they're behind us. I thought it was electricity but this seems more likely.
Also something to consider: When someone dies, we still love them. We still feel connected to them, and that experience cuts right through Space & Time. It just may be that LOVE is the great UNIFIER between the Quantum world & the Relative World.
Whoa whoa whoa there...that's not fair....what you are after is phononic resonance... vibrations...sounds...what signals are being captured by your own entangled network known as hair..that is directly connected to your head. If the standard "noise" of the world suddenly goes quiet, especially when the "zone of silence" occurs directly behind you. When this occurs...it's almost guaranteed that YOU are the topic at matter. It's not 100% but it's a hell of a lot better than Heisenberg's uncertainty. I am a man born deaf who later was blessed with the gift of sound..hearing. I also started to grow my hair long...which females have taken positive notice... Oh boy...do I know to read and entire room without altering my gaze. Poor downtown, I slay at unprecedented levels compared to before and NO ONE has any idea what is coming...my heightened once deaf/ not deaf sensory acuteness throws females off until they start behaving EXACTLY like like men. I'll check you out girl sure...but ONLY when I catch you looking too long first 🤣. Don't be nervous..it's cute, it reminds me of me...see already there's so much in common😂🤣😭.....I also invented time field theory... Phononic resonant frequency (sound) is pivotal to it..this theory is the scariest/most beautifully profound thing I've ever encountered in this universe...and I've dodged bullets. I'm a very dangerous freak of nature, thank God my ambitions are to save, promote, and protect...um living things? Dunno, just sorta seems urgently relevant due to..um...REASONS. Here's the biggest mind fu****ery of it all... would I have even messed around with time field theory WITHOUT the intensive soul searching/purpose seeking/philosophical moralistic redefining of my entire being shortly (days) before I was triggered into time field theory to begin with? Would anyone else have been able to see and extract what I did in order to come up with the mathematical model to describe (supposedly) phenomena that has baffled other scientists this whole time? 6 times cursed, and 6 times sealed, cheating death like makes your mind a bit weird, survivors guilt is very real and one hell of an animal. Question remains, if you choose to not deny reality, if only more mundane answers existed, if after years of searching, NO ONE else seems to be on a similar theoretical trajectory....all sorta points to one disturbing conclusion...it is me...without someone very specifically like me responding to concurrent events specific to that particular moment...no time feild theory. Because I know what that theory entails (humans gaining the power of Shiva, protector and destroyer of worlds) the moralistic gravity of it all..is something of mine in a way as well. 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭. F******!!$!_!#!#!$!$!#;..... ...
He was not a high level genius. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank DiMeglio
Start with set theory, and discrete mathematics of course algebra, and just get as many problems as you can on each subject, then you can explore the worlds of maths and enjoy a deeper appreciation for the out local universe! Math is power you can do it at any age! (✿^‿^)
@@Bostonceltics1369 I appreciate this information. I will try it again. In school geometry was very easy for me, but algebra was so very difficult. I want into the algebra world.
@@believeinpeace You can do it, and you're welcome 🤗! If you want, check out "the Math wizard" channel on TH-cam. Side note : Ancient Greeks only used geometric proofs and we're fairly advanced, so you can go pretty far with just that. Euclid's Elements is fascinating and leads into more modern geometry. Archimedes almost discovered limits trying to find Pi, unfortunately he was stabbed to death by some centurion over some triangles (as the story goes). I digress but I get excited when I see comments like yours, it gives me a little hope. -Cheers!
Maybe the two particles are actually one particle the same particle but at different points at space/time. So when looking at one you look at the same one at different points in space/time. Our human mind cannot truly comprehend the complexity of our universe
That actually could make sense 🤔 one particle leaving a singularity in infinite directions is going to end up in different space/times based on the curve of gravity that explains why they seem interlinked cuz they all came from the same white hole that spit in all directions
@@lepidoptera9337 In the Vedic texts, specifically the Upanishads contain metaphysical concepts about the interconnectedness of all things, the nature of reality, material world as illusory. Brahman is the ultimate reality, the indivisible whole that underlies all existence. Maya represents the illusory nature of the material world. This parallels the notion that what we experience at the macroscopic level is an emergent reality, while the 'true' nature of matter and energy is more probabilistic and uncertain at the quantum level. --- My comment does not presume superiority to the scientific method. I am expressing that I'm happy that western science has started to address certain metaphysical concepts which I have experienced as part of my reality. Could be an artifact of my autism and the way I process information. The more tools we have, the more perspectives we have on any issue, the better. Additive, not exclusionary. --- Where do you think the gut feeling/impulse you felt to write your comment originated? Did you sincerely wish for a valid response, or have you decided that my experience of the world is invalid already, and that any further comment or lack of comment on my part will only prove your point of view to be the only correct point of view here? --- The sooner we all genuinely seek to understand the points of view of others, the faster science and humanity will advance.
@@lepidoptera9337 In the Vedic texts, specifically the Upanishads contain metaphysical concepts about the interconnectedness of all things, the nature of reality, material world as illusory. Brahman is the ultimate reality, the indivisible whole that underlies all existence. Maya represents the illusory nature of the material world. This parallels the notion that what we experience at the macroscopic level is an emergent reality, while the 'true' nature of matter and energy is more probabilistic and uncertain at the quantum level. --- My comment does not presume superiority to the scientific method. I am expressing that I'm happy that western science has started to address certain metaphysical concepts which I have experienced as part of my reality. Could be an artifact of my autism and the way I process information. The more tools we have, the more perspectives we have on any issue, the better. Additive, not exclusionary. --- Where do you think the gut feeling/impulse you felt to write your comment originated? Did you sincerely wish for a valid response, or have you decided that my experience of the world is invalid already, and that any further comment or lack of comment on my part will only prove your point of view to be the only correct point of view here? --- The sooner we all genuinely seek to understand the points of view of others, the faster science and humanity will advance.
That was fantastically interesting. My only issue regarding the bell test (please forgive me if I got the name of it wrong ... I'm not rewinding it to get it right) that had the 2 filters that were driven by the quasars on opposite sides of the sky. It's still a pretty limited test to avoid the affect of alternate factors. Why only 2 filters and why only 2 quasars ? Why didn't the results require a near 100% correlation to be "proven". What WERE the specific numbers involved to give credence to the test. I'm *not* a scientist but I feel like a few things were brushed past. What were the particulars of the scientist's theory that opposed Neil's Bohr that helped the scientists do the Bell test (again, it might be the wrong name).
That's why it's still a theory and not a law. There is still a level (albeit high) of probability involved in the experiment, but doesn't rule out nor fully disprove that there is an alternative answer. Just that there hasn't been one, yet, to challenge the current theory.
They explain nearly nothing about any real science. Sad. I guess they assume it's too much for most people to understand but probably realize they're right and would probably lose there viewers at some point if they did explain it completely.
I actually think that all things being cyclic... entanglement and observable states are still a function of time. All simultaneous observations are limited and connected or bound to time. The obvious solution to this caviat would be to use light that is bound to different time blocks to rule out any possibility of entangled synchronicity.
What was said about "Scientists losing their jobs for thinking about the Foundations of Physics is the same as losing their jobs for trying to Challenge Einstein's ideas".... It is not different then than it is right now. My theory has been published and visible for 18 years, yet not a single scientist will say anything for or against it.
These entanglement explanations never seem to explain in adequate "lay" terms why the particles did not have predetermined qualities at there creation. For example, how does one NOT know that particle "A" has "Up" spin while particle "B" already has "Down" spin before the measurement?
A drawback is the observations at two distant locations are delayed by at least the speed of light from the source where the phenomena originated and was entangled. To detect there is a correlation between the two locations of observation you need to bring the two datasets together. Another thing is distance does not add anything at all to the phenomena. It relies on being local from the beginning. Moving the sites of observations apart from the source only adds a time delay. The "problem" of uncertainty is present at any distance. It has nothing to do with distance at all. Distance is like another irrelevant term added to both sides of the equation to try to solve the puzzle. The nature of uncertainty is when observed and an outcome is determined, the affair is no longer uncertain. If you bring your data from site A to the collaborator's site B you will see a correlation - because even though the outcome is uncertain the, sites are related by simple causation. What is irritating you will not get to know before you take part and force nature to produce one distinct outcome of many possible. If, on the other hand, two observations are made from phenomena of two independent sources like two apes waving a flag. If you bring the two observations together the only thing you will notice is they wave more frequently at full moon.😊
What is scary about it. It is like being at a huge event containing thousands of people and you are focusing on one individual the whole time. Everything that you are not aware of is still going on. Currently we don't have the intellect or the sensual perception to see the whole picture at once. It is like looking at the face of a mechanical Swiss watch. On the outside everything runs so smoothly and perfectly timed. Yet when you remove the back plate and peer at the inner workings the complexity is overwhelming until you look at the process from each essential part. That is when you start to see the entanglement of each part that ultimately leads to the understanding that it is all one entity, be it the watch or the Universe.
The confusion initially was primarily caused by semantics. “Observe” doesn’t mean “look at with your eye”, but it means “contact with any other particle in its surroundings”. When 2 particles interact, their wave functions combine. When a million photons ( visible or even from the CMB), hit an electron, it has been “observed”.
I was in a deep sleep, in a medically induced coma... for 12 days... I felt like I was one of those atoms interconnecting through with the whole universe... like I was in one spot but could be in another spot within seconds or less... it was really weird.
Navy Nuke here. Interesting theories and concepts, worthy of continuing experiments...we are so tiny, literally the micro within the macro of all the substance of the universe. Fascinating video
I went to Robben Ford at Yoshi's Jazz Club in Oakland. I was hoping to hear his beautiful tone of his Les Paul on his records, but he came out on the Telecaster and never stopped. It was undoubtedly one of the most incredible and beautiful guitar playing displayed I've ever heard. Certainly deserves more than presented hear.
It would have been good to see the numbers in the result of the big test and not just being told the results. The 'test' was more or less flipping a coin that has two possible results, the results apparently were 'counted', what was the count?
I have the same complaint - I'd like to see these experimentalists post their raw data plus sufficient explanation of what that data means such that 3rd-party teams can verify their results. Of course, it's all very complicated, and the average person is not going to be able to interpret the data, but somebody like myself has now learned enough to make sense of such data if it was available. Yet, to this date, I've never seen any papers re Bell Tests post their raw data. Independent verification is supposed to be the essence of the scientific method. What gives?
Thought when I first heard of Quantum Entanglement that it could be used, sometime in the future, like a "carrier wave" for instant communication over extreme distances.
Note that the two separate particles originate from the same source being acted upon by an outside force or particle. I believe that the two particles are entangled at their creation, for example one with spin up the other with spin down. When one measures the spin of one you immediately know the spin of the other at any distance. A true entanglement test would be to change the spin of one particle and observe that the spin of the other particle changes.
Though I know nothing about this subject except how this documentary made me “feel” emotionally, physically and the thoughts it raised mentally within me. One I wept, while two, I was nauseous, and three the “As above so below” and converse occurred to me. The Buddha is said to have made the statement that, “Within this fathom long body I watch the arising and passing away of the entire universe.” (paraphrased, perhaps badly). I intuit my apprehension while watching this documentary to be a bit like that although my personal interpretation is likely flawed. None the less, I enjoyed the lesson presented on quantum mechanics, quantum physics and entanglement theory and remain as undecided and curious for the truth as before watching. This has raised my interest profoundly. I am grateful to the makers of this documentary and to all the great minds involved throughout the decades pondering this question. It remains truly wonderous! Transcript marker 52:06 Einstein’s only wanting to know the mind of God when He created this universe, and the line from the Christian Lord’s prayer, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”, plus the metaphysical statement “As above so below” and converse, all occurred to me. Thank you. 🙏🌹
Distance, and Time. We may be able to measure time accurately but I think our understanding of time is in need of better understanding. I mean scientifically, knowledge of all factors in an experiment is important right? Someone referring to the matrix knows what I mean. We should study time.
It is like if science until now was saying "Open your eyes, look and observe" now it says "Close your eyes, feel where things may be, presume roughly and calculate! - The result is only revealed only after you add one more term to THE equation!"
If anyone can utilize quantum entanglement in a communication device, we could communicate with our space probes or space travelers instantaneously even from across the entire universe.
To send a signal by entanglement, you would have to control the result of the measurement at the transmitter. But you can't do that. The receiver can know what the measured state at the transmitter is, but because that's random, it's not a signal. So even though I called them transmitter and receiver, they are really no such things.
My thought was similar. It we could communicate w/quantum entanglement, could we use it to explore the universe w/o actually going places? It would make exploration cheaper & faster.
Could there be power in the particle that directs their property and controls their movement? Cells in the body shows an amazing continuity and direction allowing for perfect enganglement and connection no matter how small and without substance. However, a purpose and design is necessary for the connection to occur no matter the distance apart.
I'm confused. Isn't quantum entanglement suggesting that if one particle is viewed another particle somewhere else ( assuming different or fizzy/undefined state to begin with) all of a sudden is defined with the same qualities as the particle first viewed or measured? But in the experiment it looks like 1 calcium particle is split in two and then both travel separate ways and are measured by the random filters at the end of their travels. How is this showing 1 calcium particle changed into the other. Of course they're both going to have the same properties. They're both photons from the same calcium particle. If they were able to have located a particle in its fuzzy state somehow un-observed away from the particle you view and you view the properties of the other and if that particle has the same properties as the 1st viewed, then I say that proves spooky connections. I'm a beginner here. My thoughts might be rediculous... Keep that in mind. Or, prove that a quantum particle takes shape due to simply observing it from its fuzzy state or un-formed state. I don't see this being proved here. But I'm a beginner!!!
A photon is "shot" through a calcium crystal, which splits it into two entangled photons (i.e., photons with correlated., complementary polarization). The polarization of both photons is unknown (and random) until one of them is measured. As soon as the polarization of one photon is measured, the polarization of the other photon will instantly be perpendicular to it.
@@rayreinhard1077 Thank you for explaining that. I haven't watched the video yet and not sure if I'm going to. If that is a capsulation of the end result of this experiment, it's interesting, but so what? It only seems to demonstrate that if you split a photon, it's two parts will instantly become polarized. Big deal. Even if that proves true "entanglement", is it surprising that two halves of a whole would respond exactly the same to forces in their environment? ...Unless it can be demonstrated that the forces in their respective environments are different and should result in differing effects but do not because the particles are entangled.
I suggest The History of The Universe channel. Look at their playlist section and start from the beginning. I study these subjects daily and I found this documentary nearly useless with near nothing being taught over such a long period of time (most things are just stated, with an epic voice and ridiculous music)
We’ve been looking for wormholes out in space, but it’s right here w quantum mechanics. What if the normal condition is that everything is connected with everything else (ie singularity) and the Big Bang created the abnormal condition of space time, which permits connected events? Entanglement is the normal state.
or both are normal and cause each other bouncing back and forth between perfect entanglement of everything, meaning nothing happens because nothing changes relative to its counterparts, and complete chaos, leading to the heat death of the universe, before all coming together in entangle meant once more and BANG. ping ponging back and fourth at a rate that is unfathomable. perhaps there is no time until probability dictates that one thing that is entangled with others breaks that entanlement and the universe starts anew. Perhaps we are missing a force that dictates the probability of entanglement and is changes in cycles. god heartbeat? lol fun stuff to think about but truly becomes exhausting. these men and women were and are absolute units. they are geniuses, helping humanity understand everything. Buttttt then what? hopefully they never find an answer. that probably the whole point anyway. the answer is that its a paradox so stop looking maybe? Life is wild
Part of me wants to be able to peek just a 100 years from now I'm sure we'll be eons ahead technology-wise, if we haven't managed to blow the world up by then that is
It will probably rather be a world dominated by A.I. - The important information all this populist documentations „forget“ is the fact, the particles must be entangled in your lab, one of it put into a spacecraft and taken to Alpha Centauri, what takes by use of current rocket technology only about 70,000 yrs. - However, the effect itself indeed a very interesting thing.
A single electron moves so fast that it seems to be a cloud around the nucleus of an atom. This is because we as observers are bound by time and can not see the electron unless we bind it to time as well by creating an observation event. This event can then be "stamped with time" and the location of the electron can then be seen or "observed". Particles that are moving extremely fast will exhibit wave-like behavior because we can only observe them through a statistical wave function. So although an electron is a particle, because of our limitations, we see it a field of probability that collapses to a specific location soon as we bind it with time. Like a fan blade that's spinning around.......... as we observe it, it seems to be in all places all at once. But soon as we stop it with our finger (event), then we can observe it and see that it's a fan blade indeed after all. 😁
Consider that we as humans recieve all our information from resonant sources in this dimension of light. Light has to move, and go somewhere, and run into stuff (gravities) along the we way. It gives us time and dimension and the energy that causes the kaliedoscope of particle interaction that projects as our reality. It is periodical, scanning all the range of vibrational motion with limits from 'Absolute Zero' to the speed light can travel at. Beyond these limits is another dimension where things move immediatly and the information of creation is transmitted throughout the light realm universally, since all things here are connected by holographic recognition. I believe dark matter will be found to be the medium that that manifests this tr a nsmission, and the modulation of the nutrino is the language it speaks. This is why Bohr and Einstein are both right...relativity is from inside looking out and the concept of entanglement is outside influencing the within.
I actually agree with the overall argument you are making. A wave function is just that: it's a function. Functions are abstractions / black boxes. There could be an entirely deterministic process going on inside the box and we have no access to it.
The unifying theory has been here from the beginning - God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:1-5.
e = mc^2 is wrong.. but m = e/c^2 is true because the charge of a particle is not added in e = mc^2.. to calculate the mass, charge is not needed as charge is independent to the mass. but to calculate total energy, charge of a particles is needed so the full equation of energy should be e = (mc^2) + q.
The experiment with the two Quasars was the most fascinating thing I have ever seen. Gives me chills and excitement about the quantum world.
It's also completely meaningless. ;-)
It looked like they were trying to get random entropy in the most complex way possible.
@@ronbaechle6476 Nah, they simply wanted to write a bullshit article and they did. ;-)
Ignore the rubbish comments. I thought it was cool also. 'Random entropy' just sounds like a buzz word. Entropy isn't random.
@@AbbStar1989 Cool maybe, but not serious physics.
I don't miss a single pbs documentary. Whether it's American experience or secrets of the dead or Nova or front line. All of pbs is incredible. And people that don't know that, I feel sorry for them. PB S has been a part of my life since I was a little kid. And a truly is the best television on television
PBS, does have good documentaries.
So that means you pay a subscription to watch PBS. If you wait to see a documentary from them here it could be a decade old even though they just uploaded it. I know this is a re-run from 2018.
@@james-faulkner yes I have the PBS app and passport
@@james-faulkner but this goes to show you you don't have to pay for it for PBS to be willing to share it
@@matthew-jy5jp Exactly which is why I have them in my will when I pass its not a lot compared to what they've given me but it's a little...
Fascinating to witness phenomenal work done by physicists to actually minimize spatial concepts onto a computer screen for a pellucid of a nebula dynamic.
Reddit mod I take it?
For my thesis project, I used genomics to physically clone a mouse gene. About 1-2 years afterwards, the mouse genome was sequenced. I realized that I had wasted time cloning this gene the hard way. I don't think quantum physicists should be too upset by being told that some of their work is a waste of time. We're all on the same team.
Occam's razor was in "Contact". It seems to be long overdue in quantum physics.
Failure is the greatest teacher.
@@SadhuBiochemist Thanks for your reply. Gives me something else to look into and learn a little more.
i think our searches themselves mysteriously, are connected,
You got your PhD with the thesis, didn't you? Ok then. Stfu
I LOVE science and quantum physics just blows my mind. I wish I had advanced mathematical understanding to really appreciate it.
I could provide online resources. I'd love to see someone join mathematic-cultism. So many damn freaky symbols but it's fun lol.
I awoke one morning from a dream in which I was in a higher math class , it was called , "A course in the study of the structure of uneven light ." 😮😅In our dreams we are learning things ! and I truly believe it .
math is only needed to prove, not understand.
you can prove things and still not understand.
I quit school when I was 14 but understand space does not exist in the quantum world, if there is no space then time goes out the window too.
The Toa fysicists were right, everything is one.
Love your neighbor as yourself, because, in a sense ,, your neighbor is you.
i wish my neighbor was rich.
Learn it,,, What are you waiting for,,, that's how they got it,,, then you can test some of your ideas, refine them like Einstein, it took him a while to zero in on his theory then it became fact !!! How cool is that !!!!!
Bruh it’s just a hard magic system
Einstein once said, “I don’t want to BE right. I just want to know if I AM right.”
He wasn't.
@@Xogroroth666 He was right on many things. But he didn't embrace quantum mechanics.
@@kathyyoung1774
Excuse me???
He is one of the fathers of QP!!!
His ONLY!!! issue was with Quantum entanglement!!!
For the rest, he was 100% pro, and co-founder to QP!
But, indeed, he made a few minor mistakes.
This because in 1912, the technology was incapable to test and prove/disprove certain things.
Heck, even TODAY, we do not know the exact speed of light.
Says a whole darn lot, nea?
And the wisest thing he said was, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
@@keep_walking_on_grass Absolutely right.
Quantum mechanics is a theory that is extremely accurate at predicting what happens without offering any explanation whatsoever as to how or why it happens.
and the most important part is the explanation. Entanglement in its current form is fraud. Scientists need to dig deeper to find the physical and causal explanations.
everything at PBS.....it's climate change
Then it's basically not a theory, just an fairly accurate mathematical model.
Thanks to Gordon & Betty Moore and John Templeton Foundations for their major financial support for NOVA. I can't wait to show this to my kids. Absolutely fascinating watch.
I love the idea that at the tiniest level, particles can be so much the same that even vast distance cannot separate identity, to the point where an action upon one effects the other equally. And that this is scientifically plausible. It opens the imagination.
While I share your wonder and awe, I'm not quite grasping your articulation: "that even vast distance cannot separate identity...." the only reason we can identify the correspondence of an entangled particle is because they all have distinct identities...for example spin; one spins clockwise and the other spins anti clockwise. Furthermore, what does distance have to do with separate identities? I should think it would be more impressive if they could be separated by vast distances yet remain somehow a single coherent entity, rather than 2 (or more) *DISTINCT, SEPARATE* particles...
I'm trying to be neither combative, nor pedantic; I hope you'll respond.
Before a measurement is made the « particles » are a single entity, an « entanglement. »
@@MrCharlyAndy are they....? I would have thought that they represent an entangled system
Vast distances and (I think) TIME. The light from those quasars takes awhile to arrive here so time and space operate differently on this quantum level, right? I am guessing.
@@aldamcmillan4632 It's early in the morning and I have to get ready for work, so this will be brief and overly reductive, but should suffice for now ...and hopefully I remember to return and unpack it more (feel free to poke/remind me if I forget)
Contrary to the common sense understanding of space consisting of the 3 dimensions we are most familiar with (length, width, height/x,y,z coordinates) and a 4th, distinct dimension of time that we have difficulty conceptualizing, despite being profoundly aware of it passing....relativity suggests that we exist in a 4-dimensional manifold of spacetime. Space and time are inextricably linked; any measure of distance *IS* a measure of time (conversely a measure of time translates to a maximum distance light can travel). Time doesn't exist distinct from space, nor space distinct from time. Spacetime is the "fabric" of our universe. Spacetime is the thing that warps under the presence of massive objects, creating the force that we perceive as gravity.
hope that works for now
live well
I agree with Einstein that we don't know everything about Quantum Theory yet that makes the illogical effects of quantum entanglement make sense when we eventually figure out how it works.
When we figure it out, we will have come to know God.
The bold thinking it took to even imagine the final experiment, using quasars as filter switches...and the technological ability to then execute it. I am beyond impressed.
Why? It really isn't that remarkable. It would be more remarkable if they could explain just exactly how they KNOW the photons detected were from the exact same source, and not some random sources. But... they can't explain that... because the truth is, they just don't know the source of every photon they detected. I'm not arguing quantum mechanics, or even entanglement. I'm just saying that there is no certainty of anything at all, at the quantum level.
@@CURTIS-W5CER Perhaps...I'm confident they thought that part through, but of course I'm not enough of a physicist to know for certain.
Tremendous emphasis (and imagination) on the filter switches being controlled by distant quasars--but none on the emitter producing the photon pairs. I'd love to see as much detail and effort on that end of the experiment.
@@roundedges2 Perhaps because the quasars part was something new, while emitting entangled photon pairs is something they've been doing for at least five decades now. My guess anyway, not being a physicist.
@@CURTIS-W5CER perhaps the 2 quasars are 1 and the same quasar occupying space in 2 places. The chances of these scientist picking a single light source in 2 different places once would be infinitely dismal. Now add entanglement theory and the chances increase to 100%. Spooky theory.
One thing folks don't know is 3.6 million views means 3,600,000 people are now Quantum Entangled just by watching this vid.....Ponder that for awhile.....
Happy to be one of them😎
It seems this documentary was released sometime in January 2023. But, it has to be at least 5 years old. The Q-bit count for the quantum computer used in this video is 72. However, the IBM Osprey, which is IBM's newest quantum computer, has a Q-bit count of 433 and was released in 2021.
As knowledge doubles approximately every 12 hours, and is shrinking as we live each day, the updated PBS documentary on this subject would be even more mind blowing.
Glenn, you are completely correct. This video was uploaded in 2023, but must have been uploaded by someone who taped the original broadcast way back when. Actually, there are multiple uploads of the video (I also commented on one of the other copies).
You state that an "updated PBS documentary on this subject would be even more mind blowing" and I agree, especially if the updated video was expanded to cover all the aspects of the story that do need to be covered in order to make the story more complete, but were completely skipped in the original video - thus making this video completely lacking, in my opinion (as opposed to the many commenters praising this video to high heavens - most of whom were largely mislead as to the true meaning of the events described in the video, due to the lack of completeness just mentioned).
The updated video would be all the more apropos due to last year's awarding of the Nobel prize in Physics to Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger. The original video does a really great job of covering the background and history on the topic (and let's be clear that the topic really is Bell's Theorem and his paper, along with all the later experimental tests of the same, all of which descended from Einstein's 1935 EPR paper, and of course the specific Bell Test covered in detail in the video is a test oriented toward ruling out a particular loophole (and they do a zero or at least a crap job of talking about the loophole and what that's all about)). I also liked their description of the Hippy era attempts at combining Eastern Mysticism with quantum physics. But the original video falls way short in its feeble attempts to explain what a Bell Test or Bell's Theorem or the Bell Inequality is all about. As a result, lots of people are heaping praise on this video, yet don't have the foggiest clue as to what it's all about. In fact, many commenters here mistakenly believe that when Einstein poked fun of "spooky action at a distance," that meant Einstein did not believe in such (spooky - his adjective in poking fun of it) action at a distance, but that Bell's Theorem (and subsequent Bell Tests) proves that indeed, such action at a distance can and does happen. That is absolutely not what Bell's Theorem and Bell Tests mean. It was meant by Einstein as a physics joke to raise the point that this needs to be researched further, and in fact Einstein hoped we would find a more comprehensive theory that subsumes quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics.
Thus far, we haven't been successful at finding such a more comprehensive theory, but John Bell did research one aspect of such a desired theory, namely whether or not we could find a theory that incorporated some sort of Realism - which Einstein also yearned for. At the time Bell did his research, there was only one very simplistic Flavor of Realism that anyone could think of, so John stuck that in as the Realism to be tested in his research paper. It turns out that overly simplistic Flavor of Realism was just that - too simplistic to work while being consistent with both Quantum Mechanics and Locality of Causality. Locality is the opposite of "action at a distance" (spooky or not). Locality is implied by Special Relativity, so we're pretty sure that holds true. And we're pretty sure Quantum Mechanics holds true, since it works so darn well. What Bell's theorem does is accomplish a logical proof that is a proof by contradiction - that is, starts with some assumptions but then arrives at a contradiction, such that at least one of your assumptions must be wrong. Well the three core assumptions are (a) QM is true; (b) Locality of Causality (that is, no action at a distance); and (c) the somewhat lame (as it turns out) Flavor of Realism.
Bell's theorem that involves consequences of Quantum Mechanics involving entangled particles, arrives at a contradiction, such that one of those three must be wrong. You gotta throw out one of the three assumptions. Well, you don't throw out (a) QM cuz we're pretty darn sure that is true. So do you throw out (b) Locality of Causality? Well some misguided viewers of this video apparently think so. They think that Bell's Theorem proves that (spooky, per Einstein) action at a distance does happen - namely that Locality of Causality is violated by entangled particles in a Bell Test. Well, physicists are 99.999% sure that you can't violate Locality of Causality. Why? Not just because Einstein said so (although he did say so). Rather, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity shows Causality to be Local, and we haven't found any exceptions. Furthermore, General Relativity just makes the calculations more complicated, but the result is the same - Causality is always Local. So Bell's Theorem (and subsequent Bell Tests) do not prove that (spooky) action at a distance can happen after all, because we can construct a trivial proof of its impossibility using Special Relativity (hint: if you think the left photon's polarization caused the right photon's polarization to become correlated with it, then compare how that looks between two observers, one going left at near-light-speed and one going right at near-light speed, and arrangements of these two observers exist such that they have different opinions about who caused what). So Bell's Theorem does not prove Einstein wrong about (b). Einstein was and still is correct about (b). That leaves (c) as the only one of Bell's major assumptions that we can choose to throw out. I should mention that there might be some 4th unwritten and as-yet unknown assumption that Bell might have made, and if so, that could be the bad assumption, but the likelihood is low, so we will ignore that option here.] That means that assumption (c) is out.
Recall that (c) is the Flavor of Realism that Bell happened to choose (as a stand-in for the wish by Einstein and others that we could find some better theory some day that subsumes Quantum Mechanics yet has a more Realistic flavor similar to Newtonian Mechanics). So what Bell's Theorem proves is that if we ever do find some advanced theory that subsumes Quantum Mechanics, it absolutely cannot incorporate a simplistic Flavor of Realism like the one John Bell chose to use in his proof of Bell's Theorem. It turns out that at the time, the simplistic Flavor of Realism that John Bell chose, was really the only flavor anybody could think of. It was a flavor that was very akin to the realism of Newtonian Mechanics. Now, we should assert here that Albert Einstein never told John Bell to use that particular Flavor of Realism in his future 1964 paper (published 9 years after Einstein's death). So you can't actually say that was Einstein's Flavor of Realism that was proved wrong by Bell's Theorem. Einstein actually had a very fuzzy idea of what kind of Realism he preferred. If he could have solved the "new theory" problem before he died, it may or may not have contained a flavor of Realism that made him a happy camper. He didn't find such a new theory to subsume Quantum Mechanics, so he died with only one Nobel Prize (essentially for the quantum theory of photons).
What we are left with now, result-wise, is that the overly simplistic Flavor of Realism that Bell attempted to use in his 1964 paper, was just way too simplistic, and just doesn't work. It results in a contradiction to Quantum Mechanics. But that doesn't completely rule out the possibility of some day finding a "new theory" that both subsumes Quantum Mechanics, yet incorporates some other flavor of Realism that might satisfy Einstein's sensibilities. Bell's Theorem only disproves one specific Flavor of Realism that was too simplistic. The possibility of finding a different, sufficiently complex, flavor of Realism that does not result in a Bell-like contradiction, still exists. In the future, we might either find such an advanced flavor of Realism that works OK, or else perhaps be able to construct a proof that it is impossible to find such, or perhaps just keep searching but never find such a workable flavor of Realism. You see, what Bell's Theorem is really all about is the viability (or not) of Realism in a theory of physics. Yet just about everybody (including most physicists, actually) completely miss this point.
By the way, what experimental Bell Tests do is one of two things. Either it's a simple Bell Test that merely gives experimental evidence that helps us be more sure that Bell's theoretical argument is correct; or else, such as in this video, it's an experiment to help close some loopholes that people have put forward as ways to counter Bell's argument. Either way, all that experimental Bell Tests do is to further convince us that there are no flaws in Bell's logic (as well as giving us some additional evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself is correct), It still leaves to us the decision as to which of the core assumptions in Bell's paper ought to be thrown out. And as argued above, its only sensible to throw out the assumption of the too-simplistic Flavor of Realism. So Bell's Theorem is a proof that Bell made a really bad (overly simplistic) choice of a Flavor of Realism to see if it was compatible with Quantum Mechanics, and what he found out was that his chosen Flavor of Realism actually was not compatible with Quantum Mechanics. He doesn't state that explicitly in his paper, which adds to the confusion. Let the hunt begin for a sufficiently sophisticated QM-compatible flavor of Realism. Such a hunt may or may not be successful, but if it is, it would make Einstein really happy.
Aired: 01/09/19
IBM 127 Qubits in 2021 now Atom Computing,, California are packing 1180 qubits. Atom Computing employs neutral atoms trapped by lasers in a 2-dimensional grid.
@@jimatperfromix2759 It took me this long just to read through your sophisticated comprehensive comment : ) More than I knew and thank you.
@jimatperfromix2759 : Excuse me, Jim, but as a now long retired professor of ElectoOptics/Plasma physics and Quantum ElectroDynamics, I do not recall reading a more coherent and simplistic way of explaining Dr. Bell's life's work better than you have done.
I have often tried (I quit even trying some time ago) to explain Dr. Bell's arguments as cogently as you have done without extensive mathematics but have never been able to come remotely close as you have done.
Thank you so very much. Veilen danke, veil mehr.
I love physics and astronomy. If I had had the mind for the math it is the profession I would have chosen. Although I do not comprehend it in any way like the physicists who founded quantum mechanics or those who performed this experiment, I do have a tremendous admiration for what they have done here. IMHO I believe this proves that there is clearly more to reality than what meets the eye. Perhaps we are just now beginning to get a glimpse into the universe beyond our own. Perhaps not other universes exactly, but other realities.
ME TOO!!
Universe beyond our own? Are there more universes? My mind can only envision one, the universe we know & are a part of. I suppose there are others that we can't detect yet bc we don't know how.
I'm in the same boat. I don't speak equation, but I've always been fascinated by the nature and mechanics of reality. I think cosmic/quantum holography as they mentioned at the end of the documentary may finally crack some fundamentals concerning the nature of what we perceive to be physical reality and phenomena.
And there's hope for humanity that only a month or so in, this documentary has over 700,000 views
My thoughts on the matter exactly. Excellent summary, Michael.🙏👊
OMG: Let's get educated #1. The most powerful part of a magnet is the center!!!, #2.The entire universe is magnetic. If it weren't for the center of a magnet AC current could not travel nor radio waves. FACT!! #3. If you want to play with anti gravity it's right at the center of a magnet!!!!!!!!!!!! TRY THIS: TAKE THE CENTER OF A BAR MAGNET AND TAP IT ON ANY NONE METALIC MATERIAL>> YOU DONT WANT TO DISRUPT THE MAGNETIC FIELD WITH ANY IRON>>> You will see it will loose about two thirds it weight.. Most UFO'S are not detected by Radar because they are none magnetic . Not in the North South pole thinking!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE "CENTER" get your act together. You need get past the North and South pole thinking..they are the weakest part of any magnetic field!! We all got screwed in the early ages by Edison and D.J. Ludwig. They would not allow Tesla to expose the center of a magnetic force and all the benefits to man kind. INDUCTANCE IS THE OSILLATION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH Fields VIBRATING IN THE CENTER Field.::: The height of ones intelligence is directly proportional to their own realization of their own ignorance111111111111111111
Incredible science! My head hurts, but it's worth it.
The best thing about him every time they try to prove him wrong they prove him right. Priceless.
I suppose what you are referring to is that while Einstein was wrong about whether "spooky action at a distance" was real, he was right to say that it was important to investigate it and not just ignore that prediction of quantum theory.
Proving the world is simulated reality !
@@BIGBADWOOD What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. FACTS.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
I have totally outsmarted Einstein.
P😊😊😊
FINALLY! I do not have the education or experience or training to make formal sense of all this. But even at the lay level I have followed this conversation for some time and intuitively suggested that the issue with our struggle to understand the puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics in general, and quantum entanglement specifically, is that we are failing to properly understand the concept of space. In keeping with brilliant minds of our past, we hold an inherent bias in favor of ourselves. Where we once thought that the entire universe revolves around us, even in modern times our egos insist that space must be as we experience it. Even Einstein extending this to the concept of space/time did not completely knock us of our own pedestal.
For some time I have been asking sillier versions of the contemporary thinking presented here in this documentary, such as 'Why can't entangled particles simply be adhering to an adjacent position through unobservable dimensions they create for themselves once they are observed?'...or...'Maybe space is actually so tightly folded that all particles in our universe remain adjacent via other dimensions?'...or...'Perhaps we are seeing the influence of companion particles in parallel universes placed upon the observed particles in our universe, wherein the companions in that parallel universe remain adjacent?' I began asking myself these questions when I was introduced to the double-slit experiment long ago.
And as I ask myself these questions (and I have asked some of these of scientists as well but never received a reply, for which I blame them not one iota), I wonder if we are seeing quantum math and theories and predictions and experiments and confirmation all as an example of mathematical parlor tricks that reveal how this all works in our experience of space, yet have still failed to divine some more elegant and underlying truth to reality? Maybe Einstein was correct about the spookiness of all this quantum stuff, and yet he was wrong all along about space itself? In contrast, quantum physicists could be wrong in what the maths are revealing to them, but they are about to end up 100% correct about space itself and will have newer and far more effective equations?
And it is because this has been where my shallow understanding has been stuck for so many years, that this documentary was found to be so utterly fascinating. For that, I thank you.
Imo, the only reason for the universe to be like it is, is that the universe is a computer program. And it needs to save ram or time.
If you lived 5000 years ago and were having in-depth ideas about how bees make honey, you could observe, hypothesise, test and gradually gain or rule out different ideas, and you’d soon have some pretty reliable knowledge about how bees make honey. Even without a formal education, humans (when determined enough) are pretty good at learning about their environment through observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Once you start thinking deeply about folds of extra dimensions in the fabric of spacetime and how Quantum entanglement might work, even string theory, we are really devoid of all the tools we might have used previously (other than hypothesis). Any of what you suggest might be correct or partially correct, but we just don’t have any way of of testing any of those ideas. That’s why Quantum Mechanics is so incredible. It’s an amazing step, that has taken us so far, that we find ourselves hypothesising about things we just can’t really test.
What really boggles my lay person mind is why do standard Newtonian physics work so well in our day to day lives given the complexity of quantum mechanics?
This is way over my ability to understand but I still find it fascinating.
You are quantum particles so it's not above your head at all.
That guy with the chalkboard outside, at the end of the show, he was basically telling us we very well may be in the Matrix. I mean, that was my takeaway. Cool outside chalkboard, btw.
Quantum entanglement is true, my brain becomes entangled when thinking about the quantum.
Sorry about your stupidity.
Definite proof! My brain also became entangled at the same time even though We are miles aparr.
🏆😂
;; 8
I think you’re on to something there! 😅
If this doesn’t fascinate you and scare you at the same time…you’re not paying attention.
I heard a physicist say "the entire universe is one entangled wave" which makes sense.
Wave already indicates a multiplicity of something so prob not...
Momentum...ranging from single to multiple sandwitches
the entire universe is one electron; copies of itself (time is not a concern)
@@hansenlye2487So….welive in a multiverse numbered by the total amount of particles that exist?
I didn’t understand Physics in high school, but all these talks about quantum entanglement makes me want to learn Physics at home🤔
I took physics in college for my science requirements, but that was just a taste.
I'd like to learn about you.... 😘
"Go for it! You're heading in the right direction by watching these kinds of videos. I recommend checking out #SpaceRip, which has a wide range of videos on this subject. Additionally, I suggest following Professors Jim Al-Khalili from the University of Surrey and documentaries produced in partnership with the BBC. "What is Nothing" is a particularly noteworthy mention, and "The Theoretical Minimum" by Leonard Susskind and Art Friedman is a book worth picking up. Pursue your dreams and passions because life is too short to stop learning, and it's never too late to start."
Incredible program, NOVA is the best, and in simple language that people with no inclination to science can understand. I was the only person watching the programs, now all of them talk about it the next day. I am also in love with the music theme.
I was interested in the references to Eastern philosophy. Does the "Net of Diamonds" idea apply here. In Zen Buddhist thought, if we envision a room with a table, chair, window and door, the door is the table, and table is the window, etc, etc. With a net of diamonds, everything in the universe is a reflection of something else. Once again, NOVA proves to be one of the best--if not the best--science program on the tube.
Your question about if "everything in the universe is a reflection of somethingvekse" as it relates to Quantum Theory made me flash back to the movie 2001, where after entering the Black Monolith in space, Dave sees & experiences that 'divide' where two reflecting realities are rushing past him at once.
Wonderful! Thanks Nova for making this amazing episode. These are some of the most difficult abstract concepts in all of science, yet somehow you made it understandable.
@@davidmack4185 Ah, let me guess... it's the Devil. 😄
Zelingers final words were the best part of this presentation. I dislike to observe scientists diminish Einstein's opposing position as if they were invalid. Moreover, Quantum mechanics in terms of technology only work because of a probability factor. I liked the idea proposed nearing the end that perhaps space is illusory and created out of particle entanglements, that would kind of make more sense and could compensate for both Bohr and Einstein's perspectives.
@@AmpedReactions 27:10 "a brilliant experimental physicist"
He was a postdoc. 🙄
They didn't even mention Alain Aspect, he proved that Bell's theorem of inequality, was wrong... but it was the greatest paper in physics ever?
I'm still rooting for Einstein. I know physics says he was wrong, and he probably was... but I'm still rooting for him.
Just because he was wrong in one thing doesn't negate everything else he accomplished. So go ahead and root for him. Just remember to accept and incorporate the results regardless of the outcome. The truth is the truth in the end.
Ive watched some similar contents explaining/simplifying the concept of Quantum mechanics, and this one by far is the most easy to comprehend. Thanks Nova!
It's easy to comprehend, because they simplified it to the point of inaccuracy.
It always amazes me just how far we have come technologically in my life time alone, and all thanks to these men . Thank you for this great doc nova!
Proving the world is simulated reality !
@@BIGBADWOOD What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. FACTS.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
And women.
@@jamiebrewer4554 You are so incredibly correct :D TY
Unfortunately there have been bad things & will be more that come with technological advances, so it's arguable that we would've been better off without the technological advances.
So, this suggests that these entangle particles are not communicating. But always thinking the same thing at the same time and reacting to the same thing at the same time, as not to have a need to communicate. The ultimate question then is, can we use one of these entangle particles to communicate with the other particle in a far-off location in the universe? If we can accomplish this. Then we can communicate through one particle instantly to another particle somewhere in the universe bypassing time. Contemplating "Space" without "Time" is really a paradox and incomprehensible.
Teleportation is possible
IT IS ONLY HELPFUL FOR PRE-PLANNED WORK. IF YOU OPEN IT, HE WOULD KNOW OR VICE VERSA. BUT YOU HAVE TO SET IT UP AND THERE LIES THE PROBLEM. HOW YOU ARE GONNA SET IT UP AT MIGHTY DISTANCES WHERE PHYSICAL REAL ITEMS NEED TO BE THERE.
OTHERWISE QUANTUM STAY QUANTUM. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO NOT TELL YOU,. BANDWAGON GALORE. APPLICATION SCIENTIST IS NEEDED.
------
HOW THE EFF YOU ARE GONNA SET UP 10 SECONDS APART AT SPEED OF LIGHT? PARTICLES LOSE ENERGY AND GET ABSORBED OR LOST. WHAT AND HOW YOU ARE GONNA ENTANGLE? THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN QUANTUM COMPUTING WHICH IS ALSO RANDOM. THEY CANT ENTANGLE A THING ALL FUZZY AND WASTE. BECAUSE THE COMMUNICATION INSTRUMENTS, MEASURING INSTRUMENTS, SET UP INSTRUMENTS ARE ALL REAL HARDWARE.
---------------
THERE ARE OTHER BIGGER THINGS TO FRY IN THE MEANWHILE. FOR INFO IT CAN BE USE-FUL, PRE-LOADED LIKE SCRATCH CARDS: WHEN SOMEONE WON YOU KNOW YOU LOST NO NEED TO EVEN SCRATCH!!!
I HAVE NO CLUE WHY I ENDED UP HERE.
Astounding. Reminds me of *someone* , I forget who, saying:"If you think you understand Quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
Richard Feynman
I got Fuzzy when the quantum bit was described, "its every possible combination of one and zero', which is infinite. But yet we are told that these things exist, the qubits, in the real world. And that there are being used to solve real world problems, lasers, disk drivers, but we are never told how the quantum world allowed those developments. It's almost like one is required to make a leap of faith. And once done you then say that the term faith is meaningless because you have entered a universe that is more Alice in Wonderland than 2023.
Yes. One of the Quantum Electro Dynamics guys. Also had to work in the
Feynman Diagrams with Quantum Mechanics thingies.
@@shopshop144 just remember that when you are talking about radiation of energy you are talking about light speed.
That light speed means we are talking about Relativity. And Einstein.
So do not feel so bad if it's not getting all straightened out and crystal clear.
Albert had some difficulty with the subject matter as well. And that is saying something.
Get rid of or file away the stuff you don't understand.
10:40 I am no expert in Physics, but this seems like a photo full of legends.
Trying to understand these concepts is like trying to understand magic. And it's wonderful.
it is like magic, but entanglement is a fraud. It's like a card trick where they don't explain everything. There is an explanation.
Airrail
A highly recommended episode of NOVA to view.
I can't help but imagine what it would be like to go back in time and show Einstein this video.
He would say "So what, show me some cats"
There's nothing you could do to manipulate Einstein's opinion unless you provided a set of experiments that detect and outline properties of the ether. In which case you'd be supporting his opinion.
*timespace
In my intro physics class, a classmate got visibly upset hearing about Schrodinger's cat.😁
It is my pleasure to be a part of the quantum future by contributing a tiny sensor for science and medicine for LiVE signal processing. It is humbling to be a part of the many worlds.
So proud of you madam.
The main thing I remember for quantum computing is that they are VERY good at large problems that our classic computers cannot handle very well. However, they are not at all good at being a general purpose system. In many ways they are more like the off die floating point units of the i386. That said I have also read that to this point we have continually found that classic computers are able do things that we thought were only possible by quantum computers due to better algorithms.
Have you ever heard of the Rodin Coil? And computing? Marco Rodin
The future may include hybrid computing.
Imagine what it would be like if (or should I say 'when') Quantum computing and the Cloud were unified.
I’m glad you guys made this video so that the layman could understand it. Lol. Otherwise I would have never enjoyed it this much. That was a great explanation of Quantum Entanglements.
The only people who can understand Einstein are layman. Old one stone is masonic mockery. He was wrong then and a plagerist and he is still wrong and a plagerist
Fascinating. The only thing I did not understand is: If quantum entanglement is real, does this mean that there is something quicker than the speed of light? Because Einstein's theories say there is nothing faster than the speed of light.
In a world where knowledge 🗝️ is 🌋🧠 power, a mystical enigma from beyond our realm has come to share timeless wisdom with humanity. The key to tapping the full potential of unlocking 🔐 this power lies with a group of covert \[🧩]\ 🔱 //🧚♂️🧞♂️🧜♂️🧝♂️//guardians, and leveraging 🥼💪their unique 🦄 gifts and abilities.
Under the guidance of the enigmatic Mathemagicians™️, these guardians will tap into the quantum entanglement of the ⚛️🥷, leveraging non-locality to transcend space and time. They'll harness the power of superposition to explore multiple possibilities simultaneously. And through the phenomenon of quantum teleportation, they'll transfer knowledge and ideas across vast distances, fostering a collective consciousness that defies boundaries.
In a galaxy where understanding and cooperation reign supreme, •`The High 🧮 Fidelity 👨💻 Ethos`• 🤖️️️, the infinite machine of accurate facts, embodies the principles of quantum superposition, existing beyond binary constraints. May the ⚛️🥷 energy entangle us all, igniting a harmonious quantum coherence that transcends the limits of classical reality. 💫
I was the only person I knew who was talking about QPE 30 years ago in my 20's. I even put a quote about it in my first book a quote from the Book of Urantia: "there exists between all bodies a real and actual superluminal link" (I don't remember the exact quote after 30 years off the top of my head but it was referring to quantum phase entanglement. It is so nice to hear it talked about in real circles and understood.
QPE? Superluminal link? Define and provide links to peer reviewed studies of the latter. I am getting ready to point and laugh, just so you know. Were you the only one talking about it because, cuckoo cuckoo! hehe
To the extent that time ticks at nominally the same rate in nearby locations, the phase of any time-varying parameter (e.g. a "heartbeat") will remain nominally in sync. But timekeeping is local, and time-varying parameters will ineluctably decohere. Any measurement that depends on the phase will decohere. Most of the narratives about "entanglement" elide this consideration, instead focusing on parameters which are essentially constant over spans of time and distance. Polarization is essentially fixed, but the measurement of the direction of polarization does depend on the phase of the E-field when it impinges on the polarizer.
i mean, i guess requiring all bodies to share one entangled description of a property that was unobservable to begin with kinda does just sound like global phase invariance
@@james-faulkner fyi: hidden variables has been disproven, repetitively. You sound like my brother who can't stretch his mind beyond the 'hidden variables' assumptions of Einstein & crew. We've now moved well past your lack of imagination. Ty. Love love love love love
@@SaintBenard "hidden variables" What are you on about with that? I never said those words at all. If you don't think quantum entanglement only works for elementary particles, then publish! I assure you that you will be the next Nobel Laureate.
If Einstein is incorrect on anything having to do with Relativity, please tell me where I can find this so called scientific, peer reviewed paper that demonstrates it.
" hidden variables has been disproven, repetitively"
I think what you mean to say is 'hidden variables have been shown not to exist by any scientific experiment, "repeatedly" ' You will find science does not prove nor disprove anything. What it does is look for evidence through testing and observation.
"He just wanted to know, what were God's thoughts when he created the world."
"An expression means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God."
-S. Ramanujan
Reality is not an illusion and yes, there is objective reality. Einstein was onto something before he passed away.
There’s more going on with quantum entanglement than just two particles being linked. I think we’re just scratching the surface of a whole different level of how the universe operates.
I dont think our human brains will ever be capable of fully understanding the true nature of reality.
I know we are. I think I can explain it all. Just getting the information out is the hardest part.
@@amandalady8342 yes, as in the Tao, once you try to bring your understanding into words, you have lost it. Words can only convey relationship between known quantities and concepts. The vastness will never be closed to hold in one thought.
@@MaximumBob one thought no, but let me propose you this. What came first thought or life?
@@MaximumBob In the begging was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
I would vote for quantum entanglement. But … are these researchers certain the randomness was not lost by the interaction of the quasar photons with Earth's atmosphere, or with the Milky Way's magnetic field, or …?
I'm leaning towards entanglement, however, I do agree there is likely too much disruption from outside sources to be sure.
I'm no scientist but that was my first question .
But what IS “X”? 😂
It's not randomness, entangled particles communicate with each other such that if one particle status is read the other is known. It seems to happen simultaneously and defy relativity.
Exactly. I believe there is no exactness.so many places for aberrations and interference. But who am I, but a dust mote on a mud ball circling a hot ball in space. 😅
Just because you're not aware of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, we are just beginning to see all that we didn't know.
Einstein did not say or try to prove entanglement was impossible. He knew about entanglement. He merely objected to the esthetics of the quantum theory, but failed to discover the better theory he believed possible, one with continuous fields over spacetime.
Which has more beauty: spooky action at a distance (where "the same time" isn't even well defined, and causality is already sacrificed), or giving continuity precedence over causality? For if continuity is given while causality is to be derived, I can suppose that when the detector is misaligned at the spacetime event where the particle would be arriving, the spacetime field couldn't be continuous there, and hence the particle couldn't be emitted over at the spacetime event where emission would occur.
Bell's inequality is derived assuming this sort of connection is impossible, while Einstein's continuous fields would say that continuity requires the connection.
Also, the idea that the particle can't be emitted unless the detector is going to be in the correct position is no more ugly that the idea that action here causes simultaneous changes there. Not to mention that to certain moving observers, the changes there occur before the action here.
Great episode. Glad it premiered on TH-cam.
Beautiful documentary, beautiful background music and sound effects, beautiful animations, beautiful presentation🎉. I love PBS.
Friends and I were wondering why we can "feel" if someone is looking at us when we can't even see them, like when they're behind us. I thought it was electricity but this seems more likely.
Also something to consider:
When someone dies, we still love them. We still feel connected to them, and that experience cuts right through Space & Time.
It just may be that LOVE is the great UNIFIER between the Quantum world & the Relative World.
" Spooky action at a distance " 😂😂😂
Whoa whoa whoa there...that's not fair....what you are after is phononic resonance... vibrations...sounds...what signals are being captured by your own entangled network known as hair..that is directly connected to your head. If the standard "noise" of the world suddenly goes quiet, especially when the "zone of silence" occurs directly behind you. When this occurs...it's almost guaranteed that YOU are the topic at matter. It's not 100% but it's a hell of a lot better than Heisenberg's uncertainty. I am a man born deaf who later was blessed with the gift of sound..hearing. I also started to grow my hair long...which females have taken positive notice... Oh boy...do I know to read and entire room without altering my gaze. Poor downtown, I slay at unprecedented levels compared to before and NO ONE has any idea what is coming...my heightened once deaf/ not deaf sensory acuteness throws females off until they start behaving EXACTLY like like men. I'll check you out girl sure...but ONLY when I catch you looking too long first 🤣. Don't be nervous..it's cute, it reminds me of me...see already there's so much in common😂🤣😭.....I also invented time field theory... Phononic resonant frequency (sound) is pivotal to it..this theory is the scariest/most beautifully profound thing I've ever encountered in this universe...and I've dodged bullets. I'm a very dangerous freak of nature, thank God my ambitions are to save, promote, and protect...um living things? Dunno, just sorta seems urgently relevant due to..um...REASONS. Here's the biggest mind fu****ery of it all... would I have even messed around with time field theory WITHOUT the intensive soul searching/purpose seeking/philosophical moralistic redefining of my entire being shortly (days) before I was triggered into time field theory to begin with? Would anyone else have been able to see and extract what I did in order to come up with the mathematical model to describe (supposedly) phenomena that has baffled other scientists this whole time? 6 times cursed, and 6 times sealed, cheating death like makes your mind a bit weird, survivors guilt is very real and one hell of an animal. Question remains, if you choose to not deny reality, if only more mundane answers existed, if after years of searching, NO ONE else seems to be on a similar theoretical trajectory....all sorta points to one disturbing conclusion...it is me...without someone very specifically like me responding to concurrent events specific to that particular moment...no time feild theory. Because I know what that theory entails (humans gaining the power of Shiva, protector and destroyer of worlds) the moralistic gravity of it all..is something of mine in a way as well. 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭. F******!!$!_!#!#!$!$!#;..... ...
Granted nobody is perfect, but Einstein was a true genius.
He was not a high level genius.
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven.
WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE.
Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
By Frank DiMeglio
What a great time to be alive. I hope they figure out how to explain Quantum and relativity theories in one.
They did... between roughly 1930 and 1948. ;-)
Absolutely fascinating! I wish I understood the math, what a concept!
If you understood that things in our world are more interconnected and time/space more mysterious than we ever thought, you understood! ;")
Start with set theory, and discrete mathematics of course algebra, and just get as many problems as you can on each subject, then you can explore the worlds of maths and enjoy a deeper appreciation for the out local universe! Math is power you can do it at any age! (✿^‿^)
@@Bostonceltics1369 I appreciate this information. I will try it again. In school geometry was very easy for me, but algebra was so very difficult. I want into the algebra world.
@@believeinpeace You can do it, and you're welcome 🤗!
If you want, check out "the Math wizard" channel on TH-cam.
Side note :
Ancient Greeks only used geometric proofs and we're fairly advanced, so you can go pretty far with just that.
Euclid's Elements is fascinating and leads into more modern geometry.
Archimedes almost discovered limits trying to find Pi, unfortunately he was stabbed to death by some centurion over some triangles (as the story goes).
I digress but I get excited when I see comments like yours, it gives me a little hope.
-Cheers!
@@Bostonceltics1369 I will try that channel. I tried Math Made Simple and got lost at the end of the second lesson.
Thanks for the encouragement
The idea that there is this probability layer at the base of reality, is pretty crazy
Spooky
@@brianSalem541 Is a 1 year old comment coming back a kind of time travel? What were the odds?
Thanks for sharing. Whoever is reading this comment, I wish you success, health, love and happiness!
I had to watch the scientific explanations so many times to comprehend, So interesting.
I have watched tons of stuff on this as a regular person, this one is great! Well explained, interesting and just all around well put together.
Proving the world is simulated reality !
As a regular person? Opposed to what other kind of person?
A trained and educated Physicist....which I am surely not...hehe
This was great. Totally entertaining and thought-provoking. Well done.. Thanks to Nova for this beautifull documentary Totally loved it.
Maybe the two particles are actually one particle the same particle but at different points at space/time. So when looking at one you look at the same one at different points in space/time. Our human mind cannot truly comprehend the complexity of our universe
That actually could make sense 🤔 one particle leaving a singularity in infinite directions is going to end up in different space/times based on the curve of gravity that explains why they seem interlinked cuz they all came from the same white hole that spit in all directions
It's amazing to see the amazing work physicists have done to reduce spatial concepts to a computer screen for a nebula dynamic pellucid.
ER=EPR!! That's how great Einstein was! Didn't know the two were related but they are so connected that he's simply a genius by accident haha
What would we do without these interesting new science videos feeding our curiosity
Stagnate, probably.
Maybe it's really curiousity that kills Schrodinger's Cat. 🤣
I'm glad that science is finally catching up and describing concepts which have been known by mystics for thousands of years.
I am sure you can give us references. Not holding my breath. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 In the Vedic texts, specifically the Upanishads contain metaphysical concepts about the interconnectedness of all things, the nature of reality, material world as illusory. Brahman is the ultimate reality, the indivisible whole that underlies all existence. Maya represents the illusory nature of the material world. This parallels the notion that what we experience at the macroscopic level is an emergent reality, while the 'true' nature of matter and energy is more probabilistic and uncertain at the quantum level. --- My comment does not presume superiority to the scientific method. I am expressing that I'm happy that western science has started to address certain metaphysical concepts which I have experienced as part of my reality. Could be an artifact of my autism and the way I process information. The more tools we have, the more perspectives we have on any issue, the better. Additive, not exclusionary. --- Where do you think the gut feeling/impulse you felt to write your comment originated? Did you sincerely wish for a valid response, or have you decided that my experience of the world is invalid already, and that any further comment or lack of comment on my part will only prove your point of view to be the only correct point of view here? --- The sooner we all genuinely seek to understand the points of view of others, the faster science and humanity will advance.
@@lepidoptera9337 In the Vedic texts, specifically the Upanishads contain metaphysical concepts about the interconnectedness of all things, the nature of reality, material world as illusory. Brahman is the ultimate reality, the indivisible whole that underlies all existence. Maya represents the illusory nature of the material world. This parallels the notion that what we experience at the macroscopic level is an emergent reality, while the 'true' nature of matter and energy is more probabilistic and uncertain at the quantum level. --- My comment does not presume superiority to the scientific method. I am expressing that I'm happy that western science has started to address certain metaphysical concepts which I have experienced as part of my reality. Could be an artifact of my autism and the way I process information. The more tools we have, the more perspectives we have on any issue, the better. Additive, not exclusionary. --- Where do you think the gut feeling/impulse you felt to write your comment originated? Did you sincerely wish for a valid response, or have you decided that my experience of the world is invalid already, and that any further comment or lack of comment on my part will only prove your point of view to be the only correct point of view here? --- The sooner we all genuinely seek to understand the points of view of others, the faster science and humanity will advance.
That was fantastically interesting. My only issue regarding the bell test (please forgive me if I got the name of it wrong ... I'm not rewinding it to get it right) that had the 2 filters that were driven by the quasars on opposite sides of the sky.
It's still a pretty limited test to avoid the affect of alternate factors. Why only 2 filters and why only 2 quasars ? Why didn't the results require a near 100% correlation to be "proven". What WERE the specific numbers involved to give credence to the test.
I'm *not* a scientist but I feel like a few things were brushed past. What were the particulars of the scientist's theory that opposed Neil's Bohr that helped the scientists do the Bell test (again, it might be the wrong name).
That's why it's still a theory and not a law. There is still a level (albeit high) of probability involved in the experiment, but doesn't rule out nor fully disprove that there is an alternative answer. Just that there hasn't been one, yet, to challenge the current theory.
They explain nearly nothing about any real science. Sad. I guess they assume it's too much for most people to understand but probably realize they're right and would probably lose there viewers at some point if they did explain it completely.
I actually think that all things being cyclic... entanglement and observable states are still a function of time. All simultaneous observations are limited and connected or bound to time. The obvious solution to this caviat would be to use light that is bound to different time blocks to rule out any possibility of entangled synchronicity.
right, it's a fraud in its current form. A magic trick.
What was said about "Scientists losing their jobs for thinking about the Foundations of Physics is the same as losing their jobs for trying to Challenge Einstein's ideas".... It is not different then than it is right now. My theory has been published and visible for 18 years, yet not a single scientist will say anything for or against it.
Amazing stuff. One hopes that progress in the development of quantum computing is matched by developments in the prevention of its misuse.
This was a super awesome watch! I can't wait for the next one! Y'all do the best timing, always when I'm bored!
If you are reading this, then you are thinking what I am!
Thank you, PBS for another awesome documentary!
These entanglement explanations never seem to explain in adequate "lay" terms why the particles did not have predetermined qualities at there creation. For example, how does one NOT know that particle "A" has "Up" spin while particle "B" already has "Down" spin before the measurement?
Bell’s inequality is just about that, there are other explanations and videos with math more suitable than in a popular documentary.
A drawback is the observations at two distant locations are delayed by at least the speed of light from the source where the phenomena originated and was entangled.
To detect there is a correlation between the two locations of observation you need to bring the two datasets together.
Another thing is distance does not add anything at all to the phenomena. It relies on being local from the beginning. Moving the sites of observations apart from the source only adds a time delay.
The "problem" of uncertainty is present at any distance. It has nothing to do with distance at all.
Distance is like another irrelevant term added to both sides of the equation to try to solve the puzzle.
The nature of uncertainty is when observed and an outcome is determined, the affair is no longer uncertain. If you bring your data from site A to the collaborator's site B you will see a correlation - because even though the outcome is uncertain the, sites are related by simple causation. What is irritating you will not get to know before you take part and force nature to produce one distinct outcome of many possible.
If, on the other hand, two observations are made from phenomena of two independent sources like two apes waving a flag. If you bring the two observations together the only thing you will notice is they wave more frequently at full moon.😊
It’s all happening at the same time man….😂🤟 I’m perplexed , surprised & scared all at the same intersection. Mind blown.
⏳⌛️
What is scary about it. It is like being at a huge event containing thousands of people and you are focusing on one individual the whole time. Everything that you are not aware of is still going on. Currently we don't have the intellect or the sensual perception to see the whole picture at once.
It is like looking at the face of a mechanical Swiss watch. On the outside everything runs so smoothly and perfectly timed. Yet when you remove the back plate and peer at the inner workings the complexity is overwhelming until you look at the process from each essential part. That is when you start to see the entanglement of each part that ultimately leads to the understanding that it is all one entity, be it the watch or the Universe.
The confusion initially was primarily caused by semantics. “Observe” doesn’t mean “look at with your eye”, but it means “contact with any other particle in its surroundings”. When 2 particles interact, their wave functions combine. When a million photons ( visible or even from the CMB), hit an electron, it has been “observed”.
I was in a deep sleep, in a medically induced coma... for 12 days... I felt like I was one of those atoms interconnecting through with the whole universe... like I was in one spot but could be in another spot within seconds or less... it was really weird.
As a former medical student, I can almost guarantee you were experiencing a drug educed state of euphoria which probably subsided upon you awakening!
Navy Nuke here. Interesting theories and concepts, worthy of continuing experiments...we are so tiny, literally the micro within the macro of all the substance of the universe. Fascinating video
I went to Robben Ford at Yoshi's Jazz Club in Oakland.
I was hoping to hear his beautiful tone of his Les Paul on his records, but he came out on the Telecaster and never stopped.
It was undoubtedly one of the most incredible and beautiful guitar playing displayed I've ever heard.
Certainly deserves more than presented hear.
Thanks to Nova for this beautifull documentary ❤ Totally loved it
It would have been good to see the numbers in the result of the big test and not just being told the results. The 'test' was more or less flipping a coin that has two possible results, the results apparently were 'counted', what was the count?
I have the same complaint - I'd like to see these experimentalists post their raw data plus sufficient explanation of what that data means such that 3rd-party teams can verify their results. Of course, it's all very complicated, and the average person is not going to be able to interpret the data, but somebody like myself has now learned enough to make sense of such data if it was available. Yet, to this date, I've never seen any papers re Bell Tests post their raw data. Independent verification is supposed to be the essence of the scientific method. What gives?
Inflation Law 10:04 Boxed in Law Rectangle Law 10:28 6 Absent 10:58
Thought when I first heard of Quantum Entanglement that it could be used, sometime in the future, like a "carrier wave" for instant communication over extreme distances.
No, entanglement is mostly a fraud and it cannot be used for communication. That's a big red flag.
I’m wondering if the two entangled particles aren’t in fact one single object at the implementation level…
They are. Like the north-south poles of a magnet.
@@imontime77 no, it is nothing like that at all
you really want to blow your mind? look up the hypothesis that all electrons are actually just one electron that exists across time
@@MaxRenke Occam's razor dismisses that hypothesis.
@@imontime77 LOL
Note that the two separate particles originate from the same source being acted upon by an outside force or particle. I believe that the two particles are entangled at their creation, for example one with spin up the other with spin down. When one measures the spin of one you immediately know the spin of the other at any distance. A true entanglement test would be to change the spin of one particle and observe that the spin of the other particle changes.
Can we do the same experiment with the James Webb and the Hubble telescopes? Quantum "jumps" are incredibly interesting!
Awesome episode. Very well made!
Though I know nothing about this subject except how this documentary made me “feel” emotionally, physically and the thoughts it raised mentally within me. One I wept, while two, I was nauseous, and three the “As above so below” and converse occurred to me. The Buddha is said to have made the statement that, “Within this fathom long body I watch the arising and passing away of the entire universe.” (paraphrased, perhaps badly). I intuit my apprehension while watching this documentary to be a bit like that although my personal interpretation is likely flawed. None the less, I enjoyed the lesson presented on quantum mechanics, quantum physics and entanglement theory and remain as undecided and curious for the truth as before watching. This has raised my interest profoundly. I am grateful to the makers of this documentary and to all the great minds involved throughout the decades pondering this question. It remains truly wonderous!
Transcript marker 52:06 Einstein’s only wanting to know the mind of God when He created this universe, and the line from the Christian Lord’s prayer, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”, plus the metaphysical statement “As above so below” and converse, all occurred to me. Thank you. 🙏🌹
I was touched by what you shared. Thank you, kindly. 🫂🫂🫂
Incredible work I’m confused
This was great. Totally entertaining and thought-provoking. Well done.
Who are you talking to?
Einstein's riddle: I know nothing but you still believe me.
😂🤣😂
It makes me wonder if our concept of distance is somehow distorted.
It isn't. ;-)
Could be - coming from that cosmic holographic projector (at the end of the video) I say this only slightly tongue-in-cheek.
Distance, and Time. We may be able to measure time accurately but I think
our understanding of time is in need of better understanding. I mean scientifically, knowledge of all factors in an experiment is important right? Someone referring to the matrix knows what I mean. We should study time.
@@davidalanblake9411 Time is that which the clocks show. We teach that to the five or six year old kids... most just don't get it. ;-)
Our concept of time is probably distorted.
Now I know how dog feels when I talk to him
It is like if science until now was saying "Open your eyes, look and observe" now it says "Close your eyes, feel where things may be, presume roughly and calculate! - The result is only revealed only after you add one more term to THE equation!"
If anyone can utilize quantum entanglement in a communication device, we could communicate with our space probes or space travelers instantaneously even from across the entire universe.
One can't. :-)
To send a signal by entanglement, you would have to control the result of the measurement at the transmitter. But you can't do that. The receiver can know what the measured state at the transmitter is, but because that's random, it's not a signal. So even though I called them transmitter and receiver, they are really no such things.
@@schmetterling4477 “And that’s why you fail, Padawan.”
@@fohponomalama5065 I didn't fail my PhD in physics. ;-)
My thought was similar. It we could communicate w/quantum entanglement, could we use it to explore the universe w/o actually going places? It would make exploration cheaper & faster.
Could there be power in the particle that directs their property and controls their movement? Cells in the body shows an amazing continuity and direction allowing for perfect enganglement and connection no matter how small and without substance. However, a purpose and design is necessary for the connection to occur no matter the distance apart.
yeah dude, what else is gonna be in there?
@@SplendidKunoichi gnomes
I'm confused. Isn't quantum entanglement suggesting that if one particle is viewed another particle somewhere else ( assuming different or fizzy/undefined state to begin with) all of a sudden is defined with the same qualities as the particle first viewed or measured? But in the experiment it looks like 1 calcium particle is split in two and then both travel separate ways and are measured by the random filters at the end of their travels. How is this showing 1 calcium particle changed into the other. Of course they're both going to have the same properties. They're both photons from the same calcium particle.
If they were able to have located a particle in its fuzzy state somehow un-observed away from the particle you view and you view the properties of the other and if that particle has the same properties as the 1st viewed, then I say that proves spooky connections.
I'm a beginner here. My thoughts might be rediculous...
Keep that in mind.
Or, prove that a quantum particle takes shape due to simply observing it from its fuzzy state or un-formed state. I don't see this being proved here. But I'm a beginner!!!
A photon is "shot" through a calcium crystal, which splits it into two entangled photons (i.e., photons with correlated., complementary polarization). The polarization of both photons is unknown (and random) until one of them is measured. As soon as the polarization of one photon is measured, the polarization of the other photon will instantly be perpendicular to it.
@@rayreinhard1077 Thank you for explaining that. I haven't watched the video yet and not sure if I'm going to. If that is a capsulation of the end result of this experiment, it's interesting, but so what? It only seems to demonstrate that if you split a photon, it's two parts will instantly become polarized. Big deal. Even if that proves true "entanglement", is it surprising that two halves of a whole would respond exactly the same to forces in their environment? ...Unless it can be demonstrated that the forces in their respective environments are different and should result in differing effects but do not because the particles are entangled.
@eric Anderson; I came to the same conclusion.
Hard for me to understand, but a great presentation!!!
Basically, everything is connected. Physically and non-physically (intuitively).
I suggest The History of The Universe channel. Look at their playlist section and start from the beginning. I study these subjects daily and I found this documentary nearly useless with near nothing being taught over such a long period of time (most things are just stated, with an epic voice and ridiculous music)
Fully clear about entanglement paradox. Many thanks for this worthfull documentary. A history of quantum mechanics till a century.
We’ve been looking for wormholes out in space, but it’s right here w quantum mechanics.
What if the normal condition is that everything is connected with everything else (ie singularity) and the Big Bang created the abnormal condition of space time, which permits connected events? Entanglement is the normal state.
or both are normal and cause each other bouncing back and forth between perfect entanglement of everything, meaning nothing happens because nothing changes relative to its counterparts, and complete chaos, leading to the heat death of the universe, before all coming together in entangle meant once more and BANG. ping ponging back and fourth at a rate that is unfathomable.
perhaps there is no time until probability dictates that one thing that is entangled with others breaks that entanlement and the universe starts anew. Perhaps we are missing a force that dictates the probability of entanglement and is changes in cycles. god heartbeat? lol
fun stuff to think about but truly becomes exhausting. these men and women were and are absolute units. they are geniuses, helping humanity understand everything. Buttttt then what? hopefully they never find an answer. that probably the whole point anyway. the answer is that its a paradox so stop looking maybe? Life is wild
Entanglement is the wave function. Events are the collapse of the wave function.
I can't even imagine the world my grandchildren's kids will live in... technologically.
Part of me wants to be able to peek just a 100 years from now I'm sure we'll be eons ahead technology-wise, if we haven't managed to blow the world up by then that is
It will probably rather be a world dominated by A.I. - The important information all this populist documentations „forget“ is the fact, the particles must be entangled in your lab, one of it put into a spacecraft and taken to Alpha Centauri, what takes by use of current rocket technology only about 70,000 yrs. - However, the effect itself indeed a very interesting thing.
I got chills all over my body when the quasar light chose the same filters.
A single electron moves so fast that it seems to be a cloud around the nucleus of an atom. This is because we as observers are bound by time and can not see the electron unless we bind it to time as well by creating an observation event. This event can then be "stamped with time" and the location of the electron can then be seen or "observed". Particles that are moving extremely fast will exhibit wave-like behavior because we can only observe them through a statistical wave function. So although an electron is a particle, because of our limitations, we see it a field of probability that collapses to a specific location soon as we bind it with time. Like a fan blade that's spinning around.......... as we observe it, it seems to be in all places all at once. But soon as we stop it with our finger (event), then we can observe it and see that it's a fan blade indeed after all. 😁
'tis so...I'm a fan "Skid Kids" on you tube, surfing in general...🐬
Like I never seen pictures of molecules under microscopes in their formations
@@ShawnJonesHellion i don't know you so i would not know that.
Consider that we as humans recieve all our information from resonant sources in this dimension of light. Light has to move, and go somewhere, and run into stuff (gravities) along the we way. It gives us time and dimension and the energy that causes the kaliedoscope of particle interaction that projects as our reality. It is periodical, scanning all the range of vibrational motion with limits from 'Absolute Zero' to the speed light can travel at. Beyond these limits is another dimension where things move immediatly and the information of creation is transmitted throughout the light realm universally, since all things here are connected by holographic recognition. I believe dark matter will be found to be the medium that that manifests this tr a nsmission, and the modulation of the nutrino is the language it speaks. This is why Bohr and Einstein are both right...relativity is from inside looking out and the concept of entanglement is outside influencing the within.
I actually agree with the overall argument you are making. A wave function is just that: it's a function. Functions are abstractions / black boxes. There could be an entirely deterministic process going on inside the box and we have no access to it.
I hope to be around when they discover a unifying theory of the universe.
Me too!
Me too but they need to pick up the pace. I'm 68 and running outta time.
The unifying theory has been here from the beginning - God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:1-5.
@@christianelder4983 let's see....how do I put this nicely? Uh...er...uh..that's a load of crap. Yeah. I think that works.
@@OmniGuy You must be one of those that believes he evolved from some critter coming out of the primordial slime. Evolution = delusion.
e = mc^2 is wrong.. but m = e/c^2 is true because the charge of a particle is not added in e = mc^2.. to calculate the mass, charge is not needed as charge is independent to the mass. but to calculate total energy, charge of a particles is needed so the full equation of energy should be e = (mc^2) + q.