What did Einstein mean by “Spooky Action at a Distance"?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ส.ค. 2024
- Check out the physics courses that I mentioned (many of which are free!) and support this channel by going to brilliant.org/... where you can create your Brilliant account. The first 200 will get 20% off the annual premium subscription.
Albert Einstein was famously critical of quantum mechanics. But just exactly were his misgivings? Many online-resources and popular science books claim that he did not like entanglement and referred to it as "spooky action at a distance". I don't think this is what he really meant though. In this video I tell you where the famous Einstein quote came from and what the context is.
You can support us on Patreon: / sabine
0:00 Intro
0:27 What did Einstein really say?
1:47 What was Einstein referring to?
4:19 Where does entanglement come in?
8:20 Einstein's view on quantum mechanics
9:36 Sponsor Message
#physics #Einstein #quantum - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Sabine doing Einstein's german accent while reading his quotes is the best thing ever 😅
UberSabine!
She has a strong accent too. I admit I did not like her choice of imitating and even stronger accent as Einstein’s.
Great minds think alike 😁. I came here to say much the same thing.
@@NamasenITN Why not?
I agree!
"Quantum mechanics is weird, I'm sure you've read that somewhere"
The understatement of the decade!
Thank you for teach us, Dr. Hossenfelder.
This is a delightfully weird video to explain it.
Personally I find it really annoying when every quantum related video on youtube starts with woahhh QM is weirdddd or magical or whatever. It's so cliché, yes it's different to conventional physics but like the rest of physics it's just a bunch of math you can break down and explain supported by the observations and experiments that support the theory. Just a pet peeve of mine.
It is about to get more weird: Einstein's Gravity is "Action at a Spooky Distance" BUT
"Electromagnetic Kinetic Dipole Theory" Is Local Only and Caused by Electromagnetic Dipole Particle Collisions
"Do Photons Have Mass?" Yes ... aka " - 42 Is The Answer To The Universe"
Photon Mass is Given by:
Mass of Photon = m = h/cλ (kg)
Momentum of Photon = p = m v = m c = (h/cλ) c = h/λ
Energy of Photon = E = m c^2 = (h/cλ) c^2 = h c/λ
Max Gravitational Force on Photon (cause of gravitational lensing) =
F = G M m / r^2 = G M (h / c λ) r^2 = G M h / c λ r^2
where,
m = mass of a single photon
h = Planck Constant
c = speed of light,
λ = wavelength of photon
After Dad help launch Apollo 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and Skylab 2, 3, and 4 from inside the Firing Room he transferred to IBM Owego where he built Space Shuttle Flight Computers.
From conversations during his space career with IBM for NASA and from his own intuitions on how the EM Dipole Particles of the EM Field literally caused gravity, after college I began to put his theory on paper.
There are ~20 Equations but these are a good start.
2021 gonna be a revelation in physics!
EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b"
b = h/c (kg m)
b =6.62607004x10^(-34) (kg m^2/s) / (299792458) (m/s)
b = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m)
"b" or ~10^(-42) describes how much mass is compressed into a volume defined by diameter of the wavelength. The spinning particle that created it did the WORK of compression. All particles including photons are compressed volumes of EM Field Dipoles.
b = Number of Dipoles X Mass of Single EM Dipole X Wavelength with "wavelength" being the input internal variable.
The Mass of a Photon us the EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" :
m = b/λ (kg)
or,
m = 2.210219x10^(-42) / λ (kg) ; //// - 42 ///// The Number of the Day
A typical Red photon with a wavelength of 700nm has the following mass:
m = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) / 7x10^(-7) (m)
Mass of a 700 nm Red Photon:
m = 3.1574557x10^(-36) (kg )
Photons momentum comes from its mass at v = "c" and same with Energy. There are NO MASSLESS PARTICLES.
Gravity is caused by the EM Kinetic Dipole Particles in Vacuum (EM Field) kinetically colliding with your EM Dipoles. Standard particles made of trillions of EM dipole particles in a quantum superfluid are actually a Bose Einstein Condensate of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles which are about 10^(-42) meters in diameter.
With Gravity Big G converts "EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density Gradients" (delta density) into Accel due to EM Dipole Collisions, OR "EM Kinetic Dipole Energy Density Gradients" into ACCEL, same thing basically. Big M is the initial condition of the boundary value problem (the other mass) and the Heat Equation is used to show how the EM Dipole kinetically collide like a quantum gas from the Earth all the wat through all the dipole in the EM field between them at the RMS speed of "c" to any space bound particle and they cause a shear force locally that transfers momentum to the dipoles in those "massive" particles. The average collision forces are not even in the directions causing a net force in the down direction or the direction of the EM Kinetic Dipole Density Gradient.
The Planck Constant is the RMS distance between EM dipoles chaotically colliding in the EM Field. This is Vacuum Pressure.
Collisions in Vacuum transfer momentum in the direction of the EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density Gradient which causes gravity.
Cosmic redshift is not from expansion it is from the fact that photons loose energy over time due to EM Wave Dispersion. Photons have a high Q Factor but still loose energy due to EM Dipole Dispersion. They actual loose dipoles one at a time. It takes a Gamma Photon 50 billion years to decay (evaporate) like Hawking.
This visible universe is the length / time in which a photon evaporates.
We will never see photons beyond this because photons evaporate.
The EM Field is a Bose Gas of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles.
Feel free to Peer Review and even write your own paper.
Good Luck!
@@ThatCrazyKid0007 yes there is no magic in QM and certainly you can describe it with math, but the current description is as good as saying "when David Copperfield puts his hat on the table a white rabbit appears". Its useful to predict the outcome and useless to explain the trick itself. Thats why they talk about magic.
@@somethingirreversib This. Thanks for explaining it to that person.
I prefer spooky action to happen at a distance. And the further away it happens, the better.
Many thanks to Sabine for clarifying, or share her opinion, on at least one of AE's quotes.
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force = duality" -- the Jedi worship duality.
Duality creates reality!
@@hyperduality2838 did you pull that out of your ass? The fact that probabilities add to one has nothing to do with spooky action at a distace if you watched the video.
@@lih3391 Anything which is dual to entropy is by definition the 4th law of thermodynamics:-
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Main stream physics is currently dominated by teleophobia and eliminative materialism hence you will never hear of this new law.
Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
"Philosophy is dead" -- Stephen Hawking.
There are patterns of duality hardwired into physics, mathematics and philosophy.
The twin paradox is proof that duality is real hence there must be new laws of physics!
Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality.
@@hyperduality2838 That's gobbledygook. There's no such duality or any duality that's notable. What's called wave particle duality is only an expression and it doesn't really exist. Everything is simply made up of waves. The rest is simplification.
@@berkertaskiran The spin statistics theorem:- symmetric wave functions (waves, Bosons) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (particles, Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions -- atomic duality.
Sine is dual to cosine -- the word "co" means mutual and implies duality.
Sinh is dual to cosh -- hyperbolic functions.
Probability waves are dual.
Waves (non local) are dual to particles (local).
Localization requires particles.
Waves become particles when they hit the screen in the double slit experiment.
Subgroups are dual to subfields -- the Galois Correspondence.
Energy is actually dual -- waves & particles.
Inclusion is dual to exclusion -- the Pauli exclusion principle is dual.
The photoelectric effect is proof of the particle like nature of light:-
www.thoughtco.com/the-photoelectric-effect-2699352
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Thank you for explaining this distinction, and how "entanglement" doesn't "do" anything at a distance. I really enjoy the clarity of thought in your videos.
There's a video using spooky action at a distance to justify why voodoo doll works
I barely made it out of high school and I appreciate that Sabine explains things like this in a way that I can (almost🙃) understand, which makes life cooler. Thanks Sabine!
She is very good. And our lives are so much better forgiving access to these videos. I hope she understands how much it means to all of us.
And on the “almost” point. I studied some physics at University and it’s still “almost” for me too 😬
I was designing wigglers and undulators in high school late 80's for fun (I liked Star Wars to much).... Dad launched rocket I designed SDI toys in the basement.
Einstein's Gravity is "Action at a Spooky Distance" BUT "Electromagnetic Kinetic Dipole Theory" Is Local Only and Caused by Electromagnetic Dipole Particle Collisions
"Do Photons Have Mass?" Yes ... aka " - 42 Is The Answer To The Universe"
Photon Mass is Given by:
Mass of Photon = m = h/cλ (kg)
Momentum of Photon = p = m v = m c = (h/cλ) c = h/λ
Energy of Photon = E = m c^2 = (h/cλ) c^2 = h c/λ
Max Gravitational Force on Photon (cause of gravitational lensing) =
F = G M m / r^2 = G M (h / c λ) r^2 = G M h / c λ r^2
where,
m = mass of a single photon
h = Planck Constant
c = speed of light,
λ = wavelength of photon
After Dad help launch Apollo 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and Skylab 2, 3, and 4 from inside the Firing Room he transferred to IBM Owego where he built Space Shuttle Flight Computers.
From conversations during his space career with IBM for NASA and from his own intuitions on how the EM Dipole Particles of the EM Field literally caused gravity, after college I began to put his theory on paper.
There are ~20 Equations but these are a good start.
2021 gonna be a revelation in physics!
EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b"
b = h/c (kg m)
b =6.62607004x10^(-34) (kg m^2/s) / (299792458) (m/s)
b = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m)
"b" or ~10^(-42) describes how much mass is compressed into a volume defined by diameter of the wavelength. The spinning particle that created it did the WORK of compression. All particles including photons are compressed volumes of EM Field Dipoles.
b = Number of Dipoles X Mass of Single EM Dipole X Wavelength with "wavelength" being the input internal variable.
The Mass of a Photon us the EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" :
m = b/λ (kg)
or,
m = 2.210219x10^(-42) / λ (kg) ; //// - 42 ///// The Number of the Day
A typical Red photon with a wavelength of 700nm has the following mass:
m = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) / 7x10^(-7) (m)
Mass of a 700 nm Red Photon:
m = 3.1574557x10^(-36) (kg )
Photons momentum comes from its mass at v = "c" and same with Energy. There are NO MASSLESS PARTICLES.
Gravity is caused by the EM Kinetic Dipole Particles in Vacuum (EM Field) kinetically colliding with your EM Dipoles. Standard particles made of trillions of EM dipole particles in a quantum superfluid are actually a Bose Einstein Condensate of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles which are about 10^(-42) meters in diameter.
With Gravity Big G converts "EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density Gradients" (delta density) into Accel due to EM Dipole Collisions, OR "EM Kinetic Dipole Energy Density Gradients" into ACCEL, same thing basically. Big M is the initial condition of the boundary value problem (the other mass) and the Heat Equation is used to show how the EM Dipole kinetically collide like a quantum gas from the Earth all the wat through all the dipole in the EM field between them at the RMS speed of "c" to any space bound particle and they cause a shear force locally that transfers momentum to the dipoles in those "massive" particles. The average collision forces are not even in the directions causing a net force in the down direction or the direction of the EM Kinetic Dipole Density Gradient.
The Planck Constant is the RMS distance between EM dipoles chaotically colliding in the EM Field. This is Vacuum Pressure.
Collisions in Vacuum transfer momentum in the direction of the EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density Gradient which causes gravity.
Cosmic redshift is not from expansion it is from the fact that photons loose energy over time due to EM Wave Dispersion. Photons have a high Q Factor but still loose energy due to EM Dipole Dispersion. They actual loose dipoles one at a time. It takes a Gamma Photon 50 billion years to decay (evaporate) like Hawking.
This visible universe is the length / time in which a photon evaporates.
We will never see photons beyond this because photons evaporate.
The EM Field is a Bose Gas of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles.
Feel free to Peer Review and even write your own paper.
Good Luck!
I keep on going back to school and increasing my STEM qualifications, yet I still am amazed at simple demonstrations by professor Brian Cox of the travel trails of cosmic particles atop a hill through a sealed fish tank containing a cloudy gas. This is similar to the Hadron collider experiment at CERNE.
@@johnboze stfu
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Duality creates reality!
I started reading your book Lost in Math and I can’t put it down! Such a wonderful departure from the typical physics book for the general public. Thank you so much!
Happy you like it!! My second books will be published next summer.
@@SabineHossenfelder Will it be named as "Lost in the thicket of assumptions" (that's motivated by Einstein).
@@SabineHossenfelder
🤔 Weird,
Quantum mechanics is probabilistic about everything
(Spin, position, momentum, ...)
Except Electric Change 😶
@@SabineHossenfelder Second book? Where do I send the money?
@@SabineHossenfelder Mr. Paresh Dave has given the following writing the thumbs up. Great.
WHY EINSTEIN'S EQUATIONS PREDICT THAT SPACE IS EXPANDING OR CONTRACTING IN AND WITH TIME:
Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. ACCORDINGLY, the known mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) is proven and explained. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. (Notice the term c4 from Einstein's equations.) It is CLEARLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This is the ultimate unification of physics/physical experience. It ALL makes perfect sense. I have truly unified physics.
Consider THE MAN who IS standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. (Notice that THE DOME of a person's eye is ALSO VISIBLE.) OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND DESCRIPTION) is improved in the truly superior mind. Indeed, the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. It is ALL CLEARLY proven. In fact, I have also clarified, clearly identified, and corrected the limited notion of curved "SPACE". MY UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS SURPASSES ALL OTHERS. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A galaxy is basically FLAT. Think !!! GREAT. Notice the black space of what is THE EYE as well. It ALL makes perfect sense. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! LOOK at what is the BLUE SKY. The EARTH is ALSO blue. NOW, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.
Beautiful !!!
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This explains F=ma AND E=mc2. ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of what is THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. It is fully, CLEARLY, and consistently proven. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY.
By Frank DiMeglio
Sabine, you are not just an educator and a physicist, but a true scholar as well.
You're not just a commenter and someone who is watching videos on TH-cam, you're a real social platform user.
@@TH-cam_is_Trash Ask not for whom the bell trolls...
@@grandlotus1 was just a little joke about how you wrote that comment, no offense intended xD
@@TH-cam_is_Trash We have peace between us. Thank you.
The accent you adopt when quoting Einstein is 💯
Take away: the "spooky action at a distance" is not about entanglement, but about the instantaneous effects of measurement on the wave function. I think that explaining why quantum mechanics is not like the case of the socks in envelopes could be a topic for a whole video (if not already done).
Actually I'm still unclear on this... it sounds to me like the instantaneous effects of measurement on the wave function were a necessary part of the quantum hypothesis when Einstein was alive, which was then confirmed by experiments after he died, and finally labeled as entanglement (which we still don't have a complete understanding of). Where am I wrong?
@@gotatochigs314 : Technically speaking, the wavefunction is not being measured, as it is not a physical thing, but rather a complex valued mathematical object evolving in Hilbert space. Yes, wavefunction collapse was a necessary component of the mathematical formalism developed by Paul Dirac and John von Neumann, and presumed under the Copenhagen interpretation, of Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg, and possibly Pauli while Einstein was alive. There are alternative formalisms though, that avoid “collapse of the wave function”, but introduce other problems,... none of which solves the measurement problem. After Einstein’s death, further developments were of decoherence (correct but does not solve the measurement problem), and Bell’s theorem and subsequent experimental reproduction (Entanglement).
Being the wave function a "function", i.e. a mental object with no physical reality, there is no collapse whatsoever when we make a measurement/observation.
I'd say that whenever we observe anything, e.g. when we look out of a window, when we listen to a sound, etc. there happens a "measurement" which forces a phenomenon to come into actual existence.
There is no "collapse", but a kind of discontinuity in the phenomenic world. Before the observation there was nothing, after the measurement there is something. Why should this discontinuity be problematic? It is a kind of creation process, and it continuously goes on.
This is not problematic in our everyday life - is it a problem that the taste of an apple doesn't exist before eating it, and is created when we bite it? - so we should just stop worrying about a "measurement problem" that is delusionary.
@@andsalomoni : Yes, I would say it this way.... There must be an objective independent reality, it’s just that it is conceptually formless, and that to give it conceptual form, de facto means to become conscious of it, given the nature of mind... a-priori conditions for observability to be at all possible. Immanuel Kant espoused in essence two realities,.... 1) _Noumenal Reality_ , that is, Reality as it exists independent of mind or conscious thought at all. An objective, conceptually formless, reality. 2) _Knowledge of that reality_ , otherwise known as phenomenal reality which is what science operates on, de facto mind dependent. This reality presupposes the effects and conditions of thought and observability, and is where conceptual form is created for objects of thought, to meet the conditions of observability given the nature of mind. ..... So in quantum mechanics, we are forced to describe multiple observed objects, as singular mathematical entities,.... which exposes the transition from Noumenal Reality to Phenomenal Reality (imo),
The socks example comes from a paper by John Bell of Bell’s Theorem: “Bertlmann’s Socks and the Nature of Reality”. It’s a very readable paper (laymen included); highly recommended.
I rather like how Sabine does Einstein's accent.
I thought she already had a German accent but maybe all this time she was reducing it to make herself better understood to us or she has a different regional accent from him.
I rather think this was some kind of joke. Its an extremely hard, artificial accent.
Einstein pronounced English relatively well in general while Sabine pronounces it especially well, relative to Einstein.
@@akostarkanyi825 can I give you all my money for that comment please
@@tjeepert9782 my answer is relative to the money you own :-D
Such high quality content per usual. Thank you particularly for explaining the distinction between the socks example versus entangled particles.
Thanks for this excellent video! I have often thought that the Fernwirkung should be translated as "illocal causality" instead of "action at a distance". In the same wise, when one "sieht fern" it means that one sees illocally via broadcast from somewhere else, as opposed to a technological extension or amplification of normal sight, as a gunner or an astronomer might use. Einstein lived at the focus of the pivot from the "ultraviolet catastrophe", faster-than-light propagation of Newtonian gravitation, the "luminiferous aether", and the new understandings opened by Maxwell to the elegant solutions offered by general relativity. He then defended that against weighty fellow Nobel laureate Henri Bergson, which likely is why Einstein got the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect instead of GR, much to his irritation. The point is locality and its relation to causality. Going back to Heraclitus versus Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Zeno, is the cosmos in a state of Coming-to-Be or Being? Its it Being and Non-being in unity? Plato and Aristotle, the latter in addition to Empedocles, Leucippus, and Democritus, shaped the subsequent reaction. Yet even during the Renaissance and Reformation eras, how God might act locally or illocally to offer grace affected the understanding of sacraments, the interpretation of the Bible, and geopolitical realities of state denominationalism, war, and so on. Given how persistent and thorny the philosophical questions of locality and causality have been for at least 2500 years, Einstein did not want to see everyone jump blindly onto a bandwagon whose illocal causality might unravel all the good that his generation had achieved, raising perhaps the ghost of Anaxagoras' everything in everything, a continuous fluxion of divine Mind that courses through worlds within worlds, which one sees in Madeline L'Engle's "The Wind in the Door", for example.
The one becomes the many
@@kathleenann631 Duration is neither unity nor multiplicity - Bergson. In Turing's language we could now say that time/duration is numerically undecidable. Yet, empirically it seems that mereology of duration(s) is not out of question, the same way that numerical quantification of time is (as in Zeno's paradoxes, or rather empirical proofs by absurdity).
Buddha recoils from the dualism of Brahmanic teaching that suggests non-locality. In meditation one observes locality and coming-into-being directly. We all have Large Hadron Colliders in our heads.
Einstein had very good intuition which allowed him to develop both the speciql and the general theory of relativity. It also allowed him to see fundamental problems with quantum mechanics that others were willing to overlook. Unfortunately it took us many decades to come back to the problems that Einstein struggled with in his day.
Oh yeah I think it's really significant and we have to take a respectful look at why he was raising his eyebrows at this.
What is “that problem”, we ought to look at seriously? It doesn’t look like any of the courses in Brilliant discuss it. It would be nice if Sabine could explain it in her next video.
@@scoreprinceton that it is incomplete and indirect.
@Bala Subramanian The problem is called the measurement problem. I think she might already have a video about it.
@@scoreprinceton th-cam.com/video/Be3HlA_9968/w-d-xo.html
I think he was absolutely correct that the theories are incomplete, although that is quite a logical thing to say in my opinion. There is nothing really spooky involved, only our lack of knowledge.
The fact that there are many interpretations of the wave function definitively shows the model is incomplete. If it was complete we would have only one model.
@@uninspired3583 We do have only one model, the model and interpretation are separate things.
@@ThatCrazyKid0007 fair. Multiple interpretations means the model is incomplete
@@uninspired3583 Oh absolutely.
@@ThatCrazyKid0007 incomplete is not to be confused with wrong.
In reality it's exciting. It means there is more for us to explore and work out.
5:12 - This classical interpretation is what Einstein attempted to employ to invalidate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Einstein argued with Heisenberg that the Uncertainty Principle could be defeated by using highly correlated particles (classical entanglement, if you will). That is with two highly correlated particles one could measure position with one particle and momentum with the other particular. Since the particles are highly correlated you could then know both the position and momentum of the particles.
Bohr typically responded to these kind of thought experiments from Einstein fairly quickly. But not this time. Bohr replied that the mathematics showed that the particles were in an indeterminate state, with the determinate state only decided at the moment one of the particles was measured. It was really at this point and time that the colloquially verbiage of "spooky action at a distance" settled in.
Love the video's Sabine... and I obtained a physics PhD 25y ago. Keep on producing - for the benefit of the wider public's understanding of science.
The sock example was a great way to conceptualize this. The instant collapse of the distant correlated wave function feels wrong. I think Einstein is right.
That is usually a good bet. :)
Can you help me understand. How is it different than socks? Simple terms.
Sabine - great videos! - I'm seeing a lot of TH-cam recommendations recently for "Constructor Theory", which seems to be based on "an approach where the basic assumptions are general principles about possible/impossible transformations, rather than dynamical laws and initial conditions." I'd love to hear your take on this subject - specifically your unique ability to explain complex subjects in a manner that enables us to pretend we can understand it :) as well as the fact that I would trust your judgement about what value there is to it above that of anyone else.
I read you think you understand quantum physics until you try to explain to someone else what you think you know and find you are completely mute lol
+1 as well
Sabine - you have totally earned the spot as my favorite TH-cam channel! I've been watching online science videos since well before TH-cam...you've separated yourself from the others with your philosophical understanding & self awareness(why do so many other physicists lack it?). Also your ability to keep topics interesting without the mystifying/popularizing is great...this video is a prime example!
Sabine, you do such a great job explaining things in a way that most of us laypeople can grasp, and that impresses me a lot!
Great quality content as always, thank you Sabine :)
Also props to the editor as well, we see you!
If I paint the red sock blue would the other sock change its color?
Great video as always. I feel the need to make a comment on the socks example, as it can be misleading people into thinking that entanglement is a trivial case of properties (such as sock colors) that were pre-determined at the beginning of the experiment. That is not the case with entanglement. A better way to present the socks example is that the two boxes in the beginning both hold gray socks. They are quantum socks though, and when you measure their color they can only be witnessed as either black or white (i.e. color is quantized). After the boxes are separated, you open one of them and the sock inside has a 50% probability of being witnessed as either white or black. Due to the law of "conservation of total grayness" it can now be determined with 100% probability that the sock in the other box will be witnessed as being of the opposite color (black or white). The important point is that the colors that are measured aren't pre-determined. They're determined randomly only at the moment the box is open, as demonstrated experimentally by the fact that the Bell's inequality is violated in real-world experiments. So in the concept of entanglement you have to assume not only correlation but also non-locality (hence the action at a distance) as the result of a random event on one sock instantly "propagate" to the other sock. To be clear, I totally agree with your point that you do not need to introduce entanglement when referring to the "action at a distance" as per Einstein quote (the collapse of the wave-function per se is enough of a case), I just want to clarify that the same "action at a distance" is a necessity to entanglement as well: after all, the collapse of the wavefunction is happening also when the box is opened and the sock color is "measured" so we're actually looking at exactly the same case.
Sabine thinks, that the future of the universe was determined at the big bang. So for her, the socks were already determined to be red and blue at the beginning of time.
Yeah, I wish she made that same point. I was thinking about this throughout the video wondering when she'd mention that the 50-50 probabilities in the sock example are not equivalent to the 50-50 probabilities in QM, the former being based on ignorance of the color and the latter on true probabilities/randomness (at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation).
Thanks but it's still confusing. Are you saying if you did the math, the probability would come out different with particles than say white or black sock pairs? Does something real seem to happen as soon as one pair is measured? How do we know the particles did not change (to opposites) the split second they were separated? Seems the same as the socks. I don't something magical is happening at a distance but I don't really know for sure. The sun effects the tides- at a distance and it is invisible so anything is possible I suppose.
Sabine makes an important point that so many others seem to miss. Or are others talking down to us? I'd rather understand something that's difficult to understand than misunderstand something that is easy to misunderstand. So I like Sabine.
Sabine, you do a great impersonation of a German accent.
The famous German physicist, Dietrich Von Quatsch, states in his autobiography, Alles Stierscheiße, that Einstein referred to it as ‘spooky’ simply because he was scared witless by these particles actions. Many physicists mocked him for being a chicken, and it caused many fights. Most people don’t know this, and it may not look like it, but Einstein was a brawler. There was a little known incident in a pub where Max Planck kept teasing him, calling him a wussy, and Einstein pimp-slapped the shit out of him right in front of everybody. Needless to say, they all stopped taunting him after that.
Substantially underrated comment. The name of the physicist and the title of the autobiography really paint the picture.
Ah ja, klassischer Quatsch.
@@NicholasA231 Vielen dank
Hate to give away the dry joke, but my german is only A1.5... This is a joke, right?
@@KyleBaker Yes, "Quatsch" means "nonsense" - and "Stierscheiße" is not something you'd use in German, but a literal translation of "bullshit".
Who are we that instantly flock to Sabine's videos the moment they are released?
In moving times, real leaders are easier to spot because they both stand out from the stuck remains and supporter rush in to move with them in the sole unstuck directions.
So, I am, and maybe we are, here now because we want to find the explorers that make most sense in a world that was stuck, but is starting to move, finally, in a more sensible direction?
Ding! Engaged in s parasocial relationship?
We are entangled.
@@Luxalpa lol
We are victims of the ALGORITHM.
Also I just love all those little details Sabine explains in a careful way.
Wow, thanks Sabine. From when I started studying quantum mechanics up to today (decades later), I have secretly believed in Einstein objection to interpretations of QM, although I only just realised that Einstein had already voiced such a concern!
I get that there confirmed predictions found as a result of Bells inequality and other "strange" aspects of QM, but again, for me that is just more evidence that supports the belief that we lack a good solid and logical interpretation of QM. Its not doubting the mathematical model for probabilities of QM, it is doubting the interpretation of the underlying mechanism (which QM does not provide) for the statistical outcomes we observe.
Here is a better interpretation:
Spooky Action At A Distance Is MAGIC. Todays Physics Is Based on Actual MAGIC: "Do the Magic, Do the Magic, Ok Anna"
"Virtual Photons" are temporary vortices of Electromagnetic Kinetic Dipole Gas in the "atmosphere"" of EM Dipoles that fill the true vacuum.
Virtual Particles are "DIRT DEVILS" in the EM Kinetic Dipole "Kinetic Particle Gas".
So called "quantum fluctuations" are literally interactions between the compression waves of EM Dipoles. EM Waves are Compression and Orientation Waves JUST LIKE SOUND WAVES but at speed "c".
The "speed of light" is governed by how fast EM Dipoles vibrate and collide in the vacuum and the mass and moment of inertia of a dipoles.
The speed of light is the "speed of sound of the EM Field". Physical gas particles 10^(-42) meters in size.
c = sqrt(EM Kinetic Dipole Energy Density / EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density)
"c" = THE TERMINAL VELOCITY OF PHOTONS TRAVELING IN THE "EM GAS" OF THE EM FIELD
Orientation of Dipoles is the physical orientation of the physical EM Dipoles noted by which direction the Head End is pointing. EM Dipoles have a specific shape volume surface area and MASS. Dipoles look like drops, Prince Rupert's Drop / Rain Drop, with a pyramidal chamfered edge, frozen in time. The round end is North.
In a volume of vibrating colliding EM Dipoles (The EM field) all travelling at a RMS velocity of "c" produces a pressure noted by the formulas of an Ideal Bose Gas of EM Kinetic Dipoles similar to a Bose Photon Gas but the "particles are dipoles of size 10^(-42) meters in length.
As the EM Dipoles collide they transfer momentum or exert pressure on the other dipoles. This is Vacuum Pressure, Dark Energy, Dark Mass, Dark Matter, Zero Point Energy. This energy of collision of EM dipoles cause ALL FORCES including gravity EMF weak, strong, and the new "5th force" post Muon g2. Muon g2 electrons are wobbling due to EM dipoles hitting it.
As the hit each other, on average, the momentum after collision is directed along the primary dipole axis toward the more massive end, positive end. During collisions EM Dipoles will tend to change direction toward the direction the Positive end is pointing. This is EMF. This also causes gravity. Momentum transfer between collisions of your elementary particles with the EM Kinetic Dipoles in vacuum is gravity.
The collisions between EM Dipoles resulting it movement in the direction of polarization (physical dipole orientation) is what causes the "Self Propagation" method of all EM Waves.
EM Dipoles are flowing out of the North end of Bar Magnets and into the South End. Electrons inside the Bar Magnet act as EM Dipole pumps to push via collisions the EM Dipoles out the North End. Yes this is what is happening in the magnetic flux lines.
To gauge the size of dipoles to an order of magnitude:
Dipole Head to Tail Length (Distance from North/Positive Head which has more mass to the South/Negative Tail End) in QMU or Quantum Length Units (QMU):
1 QMU ~~ 10^(-42) meters
Effective Cross Sectional Area (for Drag):
Dipole Head to Tail Length x α
α = Fine Structure Constant
Mass of a EM Dipoles:
Mass ~~ 10^(-123) kg per dipole
RMS Distance Between EM Dipoles in Vacuum:
Inter-Dipoles Distance = Planck Length
Energy of Any System of EM Kinetic Dipoles:
E = Number of Dipoles X Mass of Single Dipole X (Dipole Velocity Squared + Effective Dipole Radius Squared X Angular Velocity Squared) ;
E = n m (v^2 +(rw)^2)
where
n = Number of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles
m = Mass of Single EM Dipole
r = average effective radius of EM Dipole
v = average linear velocity of EM Dipole
w = average angular velocity of EM Dipoles
Particles virtual or real are simply complex fluid flows (vortices) of EM Dipoles.
Massive Particles are systems of EM Dipoles that have high polarization , meaning the heads end of EM dipoles are pointed in. The EM Dipoles tails are pointed out.
With EM Dipole tails points out around a sphere like during the creation of life itself EM dipoles FIGHT to stay inside the electron. The pointy tails sticking out do not provide much momentum transfer so the kinetic pressure on the outside of electrons is lower than the ambient vacuum pressure. This causes NEGATIVE PRESSURE .
This is why electrons are NEGATIVE.
and remember ...
PHOTONS HAVE MASS
m = h/cλ
Planck Found Photon Mass He Just Did Not Believe It !
@@hyperduality2838 Wow, very interesting, but wish I could follow your statements better, perhaps I should read the link you provided? Since this is a comment on youtube I can't expect you to define every statement and back every claim...off to the batcave!
@@johnboze At least that is an attempt to explain the "Magic". Thanks. I should point out that the universe, in our current understanding, is not just EM fields.
@@BenMitro Here is some more info to back up my previous comment:-
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton.
Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations, electro-magnetic energy is dual.
There is a pattern of duality hardwired into physics & mathematics.
The question in physics becomes what is dual to entropy?
Questions are dual to answers.
Your mind/brain is constantly conserving probability (duality) which is a syntropic process!
The conservation of duality (energy) will be known as the 5th law of thermodynamics, energy is duality, duality is energy. All energy is inherently dual.
There are new laws of physics!
@@BenMitro If probability was not being conserved reality would literally break down!
Sabine: Correlations can obviously exist between properties of, or measurements on, distant objects, but in the EPR situation, and the spin-spin situation later analyzed in J. S. Bell's famous 1964 paper "ON THE EINSTEIN PODOLSKY ROSEN PARADOX", in which he proved that the spin-spin correlations could not be produced locally, they cannot be explained without some sort of action-at-a-distance. Bell actually mentioned, elsewhere, the red sock - blue sock correlation (his Bertlmann's socks example) as a locally created correlation whose local type of creation could not explain the EPR or spin-spin necessarily non-locally produced correlations (which he proved in his epochal 1964 paper - I suggest you read it if you haven't). (All right, you later in the video sort of agreed with this, except for the requirement of action-at-a-distance). However, the point of EPR was that, if measurement on the local particle did not influence the distant particle, which Einstein assumed to be the case, both exact position and momentum of the distant particle must exist simultaneously, since each (either one, but not both) could be measured accurately by measuring the local particle without affecting the distant particle, thus violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, so quantum mechanics was incomplete (and even incorrect as far as the HUP was concerned).
Those that abuse capital letters emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser.
Thank you for clarifying this. I was confused by the entanglement misunderstanding, and now it's clearer. Also thanks for linking the spooky action to the wave function collapse.
I always learn from your pieces. Please continue!
Amazing content. It's great to see videos going in depth like this. You're breaking several "popular beliefs" that the youtube videos and other articles created and no one checked.
Ironically that's what she's doing, and you didn't check.
I don't like her argument about there not being spooky action at a distance between the two entangled particles - sure the particles are correlated like the socks, but she's missing the point that when the waveform collapses for one particle, the others collapses at the exact same instant, however far apart they are and certainly faster than the speed of light. It's disingenuous to say that isn't spooky and that it is an exact analogy of the socks. Opening an envelope and revealing what should be already known, and collapsing a waveform into something that couldn't have been predicted ARE NOT analogous, and yes it's downright spooky that the second particle automatically collapses to update itself in concert with this new information however far apart they are.
She comes off as telling us that there's nothing more spooky about that than there is with the pair of socks in envelopes, and that's frankly bullshit.
She almost seems to be pushing the "hidden variables" argument that's been decidedly disproved.
@@WokeBegone How exactly would I check if I'm not a physicist?
Btw, didn't she explain that there's a bomb experiment that shows some of the spooky action?
I mean, there are several videos from her explaining this in detail, the socks analogy is just one part of ir.
@@tadashimori
Did she not imply the entangled particles are no more spooky than the socks?
I'm not expecting you to know better, but I'm disavowing you of the opinion that there's nothing problematic in her video. Put simply, I don't expect you to know, I'm educating you. When I said it was ironic, that didn't mean I held you to a higher standard, just that it struck me as ironic.
@@WokeBegone Well, I didn't re-watch the video, but I also remember that she talked about the bomb experiment in another video and that shows some of the spooky action.
Ok, I'm really against "Argument of authority", but why exactly would you be able to educate me more than her, if other youtuber physicists already praised her for correcting them?
Again, I'm not in the position to judge this, my opinion was solely based on the interaction between the physicists, so, that was all I could "check".
@@tadashimori
No, I'm no great authority on the subject, and all is well if you take my meaning. It's simply that your irony comment struck me as ironic
As a lay person, I must say this content has been paradigm shifting. Thank you, Sabine.
Excellent explanation of Einstein's written words in the context that he expressed them. Sabine, this is one of your best video's ever. The plain words you use to describe the weirdness of quantum mechanics is a gift to us all. For what it's worth, you are mentioned in several other video's I have watched and they always give you great respect. THANK YOU for posting this.
Best video ever!
Thank you. I always thought that quote by Albert just didn't sound like him. Your highlight of the context in which it was given actually adds to my respect for him. It also adds some more spice to the old double slit for me. :)
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double slit or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force = duality" -- the Jedi worship duality.
Duality creates reality!
@@hyperduality2838 In a setting long, long ago (centuries before movies), actual people ruminated about this. Maybe they're worth quoting.
@@jaybingham3711 Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force).
Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull -- forces are dual.
Monads are units of force -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz.
Monads are units of force which are dual or monads are dual.
Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann Geometry.
Curvature or gravitation is dual.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein.
Energy = force * distance.
If forces are dual then energy must be dual, energy is duality, duality is energy!
"May the force (duality) be with you" -- Jedi teaching.
"The force (duality) is strong in this one" -- Jedi teaching.
The conservation of duality (energy) will be known as the 5th law of thermodynamics!
@@jaybingham3711 Making predictions to track targets and goals (objectives) is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes.
Good news is dual to bad news.
The bad news is that teleology is not allowed in physics.
Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
"Philosophy is dead" -- Stephen Hawking.
Stephen Hawking is predicting (syntropic) that philosophy & metaphysics is dead -- he is using syntropy to prove that syntropy does not exist -- mutual exclusion or dyadic (duality).
Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant.
Being (alive) is dual to non-being (not alive) creates becoming -- Plato's cat.
Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition.
Stephen Hawking accepted the metaphor of Schrodinger's cat which is based upon the philosophy of Plato.
Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non-being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat.
Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato.
Physics and science have a big problem if they deny teleology as you cannot have new laws of physics based upon teleology and syntropy! Duality (energy) creates reality.
Sabine's accent is a superposition of Einstein's accent and a native English speaker.
Thanks for your explanations Sabine!
I especially like your statement, that "... (Einstein) was exceedingly carefull in expressing himself". Very true. But he also loved to make jokes and used colourful wordings, so he once called De Broglies concept of Materiewellen a "Gespensterfeld" (if i remember well). BTW, the foodnote in the Wikipedia-Article which you quoted refers to a book of J.S. Bell, in which he says: "For EPR, that would be an unthinkable spooky action at a distance." So the Wikipedia-Authors are not to blame. :-)
Greetings - Andreas
Very insightful! Using the classically correlated socks to express quantum correlations, and saying that they are not necessarily essentially different, just deeper a correlation - i.e., that QC is still a matter of information content (what you do and do not know), and demanding of no new physics (for the entanglement itself), really helps make such complexities comprehensible. Thanks 😻
Thanks, I had thought a lot about this wave instant collapsing issue but didn’t see anyone talk about it, done now !
@Siegfried Stow Which experiment are you referring to?
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force = duality" -- the Jedi worship duality.
Duality creates reality!
@Siegfried Stow Yes ! In the double slit experiment, the probability is better defined for a curved screen that the wave reach everywhere at the same time, but for a flat screen it’s a mess as you say 😅.
I sometime wonder if sometimes, waves of photons coming from deep space are almost reaching our telescopes, but another alien civilization receives them just before and provokes a collapsing that deprive us of the observation haha
This Channel is one of the things giving me the motivation to learn German
Physics is the same in German and Sabine already speaks English for you - it does not get any better than that.
@@misterphmpg8106 But some things just sound better in certain languages. I often refer to Abnahmeprufzeugnis instead of certifications at work because rocket science sounds more rocket science-y auf Deutsch.
@@misterphmpg8106 Newton's rival, Liebnitz, had the seed of E = mc^2, so it can be different. A Russian published a thesis on emergent systems the west did not pick up for decades. NASA was a German speaking science rocketry laboratory led by Werner von Braun.
@@misterphmpg8106 Physics is different in Germany. We have our own laws. Fuck your imperialism.
My incentive to learn German was Kafka. I never learned German.
Haven't the various Bell Inequalities experiments demonstrated that the correlation between entangled particles is not quite like the red sock/blue sock analogy? In other words >how< you measure one particle (in the case of the original experiment, which polarization angle you choose on an entangled photon) affects the results of the other in a statistically significant way. It would be as if you opened up the envelope, dunked an >as yet uncolored sock< in a colored dye and then found that the second sock turned out a different color no matter which dye you had chosen for the first.
I love how Sabine shifts her German accent slightly when speaking in Einstein's voice, even in a English translation, presumably (although a native English listener, at least one without any specialist knowledge of German accents, couldn't really tell) in order to take into account differences of both regional dialect and different eras. Einstein was born in 1879, raised in Munich and educated in Zurich, Switzerland, while Sabine was born in 1976 and raised and educated in Frankfurt. I presume this cultural and chronological distinction makes for a significant variation in how they sound, despite them both being native German speakers. This is perhaps a good example of a kind of "spooky accent at a distance," both in time and space.
I was wondering about that too. To be clear, she is definitely reflecting some features of how Einstein actually spoke. There are extant recordings. I recall hearing his accent first from this speech and realizing how stereotypically German it sounds: th-cam.com/video/URMWj1nrDac/w-d-xo.htmlsi=0hHtebye4VBnmX2r Maybe he was even a source for American stereotypes of German accents.
And this is what I called a very needed explanation. Thank you Sabine.
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Duality creates reality!
Thank you Sabine for accurately cutting through the misinformation of those attempting to make a name for themselves by belittling Einstein. This is not to say that his work may not someday be proven incomplete but it is unlikely that these proofs will come from those already claiming his work useless.
As a physicist of no particular distinction, I have found PAM Dirac's views of QM, as I understand them, very helpful in avoid the difficulties that come with attempting to treat a particle or two or more with QM but also hanging on to the classical view. QM particles exist in states that are described by a wave function. So long as I remember that it is the state that is the important physical entity and that what we call position and/or momentum are quantem operators whose eignenvalues are the values we may observe in measurement. The variable x has eigenvalues which are the possible locations on the x axis where we may find the electon, for example, in a lab experiment that forces it to interact with a screen. QM tells us the probablility that the interaction will be at x=0 or x=+1 or x=-1. If it happens to strike the screen at x=+1, nothing has to be communicated to a detector at x=-1.
In the case of the two particles of spin total 0, the state is a two particle state that evolves in time and which has the property that the total of 0 is a constant property of the state. I does not matter whether particle 1 has spin up and 2 has spin down when and interaction with a detector forces the two particles into of the two eigenstate, up or down or vice-versa.
I don't see the problem what the problem is that Einstein raised.
There are no particles and quanta don't have wave functions. Only the quantum mechanical ensemble has a wave function, but that is not even a physical entity. It's an abstract that is part of the solution theory of the Schroedinger equation.
4:41 I've always been amazed at physicists' ability to compartmentalize or completely ignore Godel after 1930
Godel's incompleteness theorem refers to mathematics and similar logic systems.
You cannot apply that to the real world. The universe does not try to figure out mathematical statements. It just does its thing and must remain consistent with itself. OTOH, the mathematical constructs that physicists use to describe reality are just mathematical constructs. They may be very useful, and still miss something very fundamental that we may or may not figure out at a later time.
If the universe is not consistent with itself, we are in big trouble, but that would probably be the most exciting thing for physicists to find out.
@@elaadt That's the thing: physics, as well as all other models and disciplines is THE CONSTRUCT, and not the thing itself. Physics is, at its best, a model of the world (the "universe"). It's a step removed & abstracted from 'the thing in itself'.
I will try to find the quote from Godel that says the importance of the ITs is in extrapolation.
All valid models are 1. tautology + 2. internal consistency, as described in the axioms of the model. My understanding is Godel said those axioms cannot account for every truth the model attempts to describe.
@@paryanindoeur This!
@@paryanindoeur Are you aware Terence Tao in recent years published his improvement of the Navier Stokes millennium problem with an average of a 3D solution where there had only been a 2D solution? His solution was not a complete solution, but he was offered the $1 Millon prize.
Two weeks, ago, a fifth force was discovered near Chicago. This is a higher dimension that may give an equation an inch long for everything, according to Michio Kaku. It adds another string in String Theory.
Every Saturday is a treat with Sabine. Thanks for the great work.
"This update is instantaneous! It happens at the same time everywhere, seemingly faster than the speed of light." Thank you for sharing this insight.
"instantaneous" has no meaning in relativity theory.
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double slit or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force = duality" -- the Jedi worship duality.
Duality creates reality!
@@hyperduality2838 There is no 4th law of thermodynamics; there is a zero'th law. Your paragraph is typically what philosophers do: Butt into something they have no understanding of and then speak authoritatively about it, confusing themselves and others.
Syntropy means "repeated symmetry without reversal", like square tiles on the floor. It has nothing to do with entropy.
@@jeffalbertson804 The word syntropy means "a tendency to converge" or integrate into a single whole state, holism.
There is also a 5th law of thermodynamics:-
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton.
Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations, electro-magnetic energy is dual.
There is a pattern of duality hardwired into physics & mathematics.
The question in physics becomes what is dual to entropy?
Questions are dual to answers.
Your mind/brain is constantly conserving probability (duality) which is a syntropic process!
The conservation of duality (energy) will be known as the 5th law of thermodynamics, energy is duality, duality is energy. All energy is dual!
The 5th law of thermodynamics guarantees the existence of the 4th law -- Yoda is correct.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes.
Thinking and making predictions is a syntropic process.
For years I've been talking about the single slit (or single hole) thought experiment instead of the more complicated entanglement thought experiment to illustrate the "spooky action" question.
The same issue is at stake, but the single hole experiment is not quite as vivid an illustration for some people because, to see the oddity, one has to believe that the position of the particle is undefined until there is a "measurement."
I even had the opportunity to ask Freeman Dyson about Einstein's complaint, using the phrase "the collapse of the wave function" rather than entanglement with spins. This was when Dyson was answering questions following (if memory serves) the performance of a play about Richard Feynman in Philadelphia in November of 2006.
Dyson replied that he did not believe QM is incomplete, because the mathematics of QM is so beautiful!
He said that instead he tended to doubt our everyday classical account of reality. That was actually a wonderful answer, I think.
A measurement is the empirical input that insures that quantum mechanics can describe any physical process that satisfies causality and the conservation laws. As there is no real law of quantum mechanics, but only a universal language, there is no requirement on the law of measurement, other than the projection postulate.
@@clmasse Thank you for your reply, which is very interesting. However I do not entirely understand your point. (I'd like to see it expressed in your native language, which I'm guessing is français.)
What do you mean by "there is no real law of quantum mechanics, but only a universal language"?
If you mean that the "laws" of quantum mechanics are not actually formalized -- though the mathematics is -- I agree, but I am not certain I get your meaning, and I don't want to misinterpret what you wrote.
@@RalphDratman I mean, quantum mechanics is not a law of physics, but an universal language.
@@clmasse I have not heard that before about a universal language. What sort of language are you referring to?
Is it possible that what Einstein said was lost in translation? Is 'spooky action at a distance' a good translation of what Einstein actually said in German? Are we just interpreting like people interpret scriptures?
I have no idea but good point. Not everything can be translated from language to language.
You realize that Sabine is German, right?
I would say it's a pretty good translation. Einstein's expression in German was "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" as can shortly be seen in the book in this video. "Spukhaft" is a pretty direct equivalent of spooky. The word "fern" in itself means distant. The meaning of "Wirkung" can mean action but more in the sense of impact or effect on something else, not in the sense of something performed actively.
The German is „spukhafte Fernwirkung“. Spook(y) and spuk(haft) are obvious cognates and IMO also quite close in meaning. Fernwirkung has two parts. „fern“ means distant, remote, tele- (as in television = Fernseher). Wirkung is effect, impact. So action here is an action having an effect.
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double slit or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force = duality" -- the Jedi worship duality.
Duality creates reality!
Wait, did Sabine just do an Einstein impression while quoting Einstein?!?
I did not know how much I needed that.
She did rather batter. (Naturally.) She did an imitation of Einstein speaking Sabine's English with a German accent.
Socks case has 50:50 probability as in either this or that, but a quantum situation is both red and blue, and a measurement forces the sock to take a color. A discussion on Bell's experiment would make it more clear though.
thank you sabine, i was born in 65, and this topic about Einstein has bothered me since before i became a teenager. trying to untangle the history of the statements has been on the tip of my mind for all these years. a serious heartfelt thanks again.
You should start a counter that goes "Bing!" everytime "that guy" shows up on the show.
New drinking game...
I would buy a t-shirt showing her pointing at his picture with that faux-dismissive look on her face and the text "THAT GUY AGAIN" under it.
Who is "that guy"?
@@Mopsey As Sabine would put it: "Einshtein."
@@coordinatezero cheers for replying!!
"Indirect and incomplete"… that is a very fitting characterization, in my opinion. Let's keep working on it! (And by "let's" I mean physicists, which I'm not.)
We'll just cheer them on. :)
Wonderful. I take it that-to make use of your metaphor-if I cut the toe off the red sock, the toe remains on the blue sock. Or if I reduce the half-photo in New York to ashes, the other half of the photo in-was it London?-remains whole and inviolate. Before your piece, I was understanding that a change to one entangled particle was reflected in the other, even at a distance.
Quote from Lost in Math (page 122)
“That the wave function simply collapses upon measurement is particularly irritating because no other process we know of is instantaneous. …….. But quantum mechanics screws with our expectation because entangled particles are linked nonlocally. Measure one of them, and the other knows immediately. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance”
Good book, and nice to see beliefs can change.
But didn't John Bell prove in the 60s that if you *altered* the home sock's color *before* observation, the color of the *already departed* other sock would *instantaneously* change correspondingly?
I was looking for someone to comment on Bells Theory, my layman’s understanding was that there was no exchange of the particles state when they were local, ie that one knew it was blue and the other red ???
I think that's what Sabine refers to when she says that quantum entanglement produces a stronger correlation and that quantum mechanics cannot be built on a "hidden variables" assumption.
Well, not really. He discovered a theorem that gives a distribution of correlations that "hidden variables" theories must follow; the experiments showing that the distribution are inequal happened decades later(Aspect, Zeilinger)
I don't feel this comment will get seen, but Sabine as much as I admire you as a physicist. I feel you have relegated John Bell's insights and work to a footnote in the "Einstein knew all" mantra that pervades academic physics. Einstein argued an idea, expressed by the EPR paradox, that was proven false by Bell. Not the other way round. The EPR paradox was supposed to be an argument against the reality of quantum correlations and Bell showed that these correlations were not compatible with a local hidden variable model. The type of model Einstein believed underpinned quantum mechanics.
We should also remember that Bell published his paper 30 years (!!!) after the EPR paper, so to think Einstein instinctively knew of Bell's theorem before this, is a disservice to Bell's originality. And perpetuates the "cult of Einstein" that popular physics seems to rely on to generate interest in our subject.
Anyway still really enjoy your perspective and knowledge, so still a loyal fan. Just more John Bell please xx
Sorry, PBR? What stands for?
I like to point out, too, that to think that Dr. Hossenfelder doesn't have a deep apreciation of John Bell's work and its implications is to make her a disservice. After all, in her blog, you can found dozens of post discussing Bell's theorem, Einstein views, and the interpretations of QM, along thousands of comments associated.
Or papers like this
arxiv.org/abs/2010.01324
Now, I consider highly probable that soon we'll enjoy a video where Sabine discuss Bell's inequality and its testing in deep...
@@eljcd Ahh sorry had a brain fart, PBR is a more recent ontological no-go theorem (the authors are Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph if you are interested). Meant to write EPR paradox, fixed now!
My point is that Einstein's views are too often dogmatically accepted, and sold, within the wider physics community. Often at the detriment to other physicists. So I too eagerly await Dr Hossenfelder's video on Bell's theorem! (p.s. I have a super sweet proof of the quantum side of Bell's theorem using the stabilizer subtheory if anyone is interested haha)
Sabine is the one who is spooky. Spooky in that she, unlike so many of the other physicists who present on these topics, is clear, cogent, and enables us to much more fully understand these concepts! Her piece on why the quantum erasure experiment does not show that entangled particles send information back in time and the piece on the bomb double slit experiment are fantastic.
A thousand thanks Ms. Hossenfelder. I've always been troubled by the linking of entanglement with the statement "spooky action at a distance" and you have completely cleared this question up!
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double slit or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force = duality" -- the Jedi worship duality.
Duality creates reality!
Every time you say the word "physical" I start singing "Let's get Physical," because Max Born, whom you mention a lot in this video, was the grandfather of Olivia Newton-John.
I did not know that. My life is now complete.
"Let's Get Virtual"
Spooky Action At A Distance Is MAGIC. Todays Physics Is Based on Actual MAGIC: "Do the Magic, Do the Magic, Ok Anna"
"Virtual Photons" are temporary vortices of Electromagnetic Kinetic Dipole Gas in the "atmosphere"" of EM Dipoles that fill the true vacuum.
Virtual Particles are "DIRT DEVILS" in the EM Kinetic Dipole "Kinetic Particle Gas".
So called "quantum fluctuations" are literally interactions between the compression waves of EM Dipoles. EM Waves are Compression and Orientation Waves JUST LIKE SOUND WAVES but at speed "c".
The "speed of light" is governed by how fast EM Dipoles vibrate and collide in the vacuum and the mass and moment of inertia of a dipoles.
The speed of light is the "speed of sound of the EM Field". Physical gas particles 10^(-42) meters in size.
c = sqrt(EM Kinetic Dipole Energy Density / EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density)
"c" = THE TERMINAL VELOCITY OF PHOTONS TRAVELING IN THE "EM GAS" OF THE EM FIELD
Orientation of Dipoles is the physical orientation of the physical EM Dipoles noted by which direction the Head End is pointing. EM Dipoles have a specific shape volume surface area and MASS. Dipoles look like drops, Prince Rupert's Drop / Rain Drop, with a pyramidal chamfered edge, frozen in time. The round end is North.
In a volume of vibrating colliding EM Dipoles (The EM field) all travelling at a RMS velocity of "c" produces a pressure noted by the formulas of an Ideal Bose Gas of EM Kinetic Dipoles similar to a Bose Photon Gas but the "particles are dipoles of size 10^(-42) meters in length.
As the EM Dipoles collide they transfer momentum or exert pressure on the other dipoles. This is Vacuum Pressure, Dark Energy, Dark Mass, Dark Matter, Zero Point Energy. This energy of collision of EM dipoles cause ALL FORCES including gravity EMF weak, strong, and the new "5th force" post Muon g2. Muon g2 electrons are wobbling due to EM dipoles hitting it.
As the hit each other, on average, the momentum after collision is directed along the primary dipole axis toward the more massive end, positive end. During collisions EM Dipoles will tend to change direction toward the direction the Positive end is pointing. This is EMF. This also causes gravity. Momentum transfer between collisions of your elementary particles with the EM Kinetic Dipoles in vacuum is gravity.
The collisions between EM Dipoles resulting it movement in the direction of polarization (physical dipole orientation) is what causes the "Self Propagation" method of all EM Waves.
EM Dipoles are flowing out of the North end of Bar Magnets and into the South End. Electrons inside the Bar Magnet act as EM Dipole pumps to push via collisions the EM Dipoles out the North End. Yes this is what is happening in the magnetic flux lines.
To gauge the size of dipoles to an order of magnitude:
Dipole Head to Tail Length (Distance from North/Positive Head which has more mass to the South/Negative Tail End) in QMU or Quantum Length Units (QMU):
1 QMU ~~ 10^(-42) meters
Effective Cross Sectional Area (for Drag):
Dipole Head to Tail Length x α
α = Fine Structure Constant
Mass of a EM Dipoles:
Mass ~~ 10^(-123) kg per dipole
RMS Distance Between EM Dipoles in Vacuum:
Inter-Dipoles Distance = Planck Length
Energy of Any System of EM Kinetic Dipoles:
E = Number of Dipoles X Mass of Single Dipole X (Dipole Velocity Squared + Effective Dipole Radius Squared X Angular Velocity Squared) ;
E = n m (v^2 +(rw)^2)
where
n = Number of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles
m = Mass of Single EM Dipole
r = average effective radius of EM Dipole
v = average linear velocity of EM Dipole
w = average angular velocity of EM Dipoles
Particles virtual or real are simply complex fluid flows (vortices) of EM Dipoles.
Massive Particles are systems of EM Dipoles that have high polarization , meaning the heads end of EM dipoles are pointed in. The EM Dipoles tails are pointed out.
With EM Dipole tails points out around a sphere like during the creation of life itself EM dipoles FIGHT to stay inside the electron. The pointy tails sticking out do not provide much momentum transfer so the kinetic pressure on the outside of electrons is lower than the ambient vacuum pressure. This causes NEGATIVE PRESSURE .
This is why electrons are NEGATIVE.
and remember ...
PHOTONS HAVE MASS
m = h/cλ
Planck Found Photon Mass He Just Did Not Believe It !
I didn't know, and just checked this out. It appears to be true. Thanks!
I guess Olivia Newton-John only exists because Max Born got physical.
I hear what you're saying Sabine, bu I want the blue sock.
I want the blue sock! I am happy to remain blissfully ignorant.
@@MrElvis1971 There is no sock.
I retracted my earlier comment in which I agreed. Reading further though in a the annotations Borrn himself published later, he said: "The root of our difference ... lies in his (Einstein's) axiom, that events occurring at different places A and B are independent on each other." He continues then to argue that by observing the behaviour of two entangled beams of light you can prove exactly this axiom wrong, and wonders why, of all people, Einstein cannot accept this, who was one of the pioneers of this discovery. Therefore we should at least add that Born did feel that Einstein's biggest issue was with entanglement.
Very interesting. Ms Hossenfelder's view of Einstein's position on quantum mechanics makes a great deal of sense. Thank you for this.
Much love and care to you and your family Sabine
Great video Sabine, thank you. It makes sense that Einstein was talking about the collapse of the wave function, rather than entanglement specifically, now that you’ve explained it. But I have a question related to the whole “Einstein was wrong” thing. Doesn’t the experimental violation of the Bell inequalities mean that, as Bell put it, “any hidden variables theory that reproduces the results of quantum mechanics must be non local”? I thought that’s what people meant when they say Einstein was wrong.
Bell allowed that the presumptive hidden variables could include a time-varying term. Einstein had already pointed out that timekeeping is local - it depends on the local gravitational field strength. As the twin particles speed apart, any gravitational gradient will cause them to age at different rates, causing them to drift out of phase and decohere. The violation of Bell's Inequality thus confirms that the presumptive hidden variable does indeed include a time-varying term, along with the realization that timekeeping is local. So rather than "spooky action at a distance" we have not-so-spooking timekeeping at a distance.
The analogy I like to use for measurement of entangled qubits is that if I measure my qubit with a certain pair of glasses, the outcome is one of two results, in the basis of my glasses. That causes the wave function to change for the other qubit, to the same or opposite outcome (depending on the entanglement) in the basis of my glasses. If I have two such glasses, each in a different basis, my choice of which glasses to use affects the outcome far away. Unless the qubit affects my thinking about which glasses I will use, the qubits cannot have conspired to create a given result, since the resulting states are different.
Oh and another interesting thing is that I start with two entangled qubits, so that entanglement was created locally, and I then separate the qubits, I can entangle a third qubit with both of them, but using just one of them to do the entanglement (the math supports this).
correct me if i'm wrong, but entanglement leads to Bell's Theorem/inequality demonstrates/asserts that quantum mechanics is not a physical (hidden variables) local (slower or at light speed) theory. (update: i just watched your super determinism video and have just learned that a superdeterministic local physical theory can violate bell's inequality)
this sounds precisely like what i understand to be your explanation of einstein's objection to quantum mechanics. if there is a physicality underneath the wave function even before collapse (hidden variables), then information moves faster than light (spooky action at a distance). if information moves slower or at light speed, then there is no underlying physicality to the wave function before collapse (no hidden variables) and that suggests that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory.
Hi Sabine! Maybe you can do a follow up to explain how your view of entanglement is aligned with Bell's theorem that has been experimentally proven to be right, I think many of us probably got you wrong there. Thanks!
Seemed to be referring to Bells theorem when she said the correlations are stronger in QM than non QM.
@@janstobbe8116 seems like a convenient way of saying its not weird? It is weird!
What that actually means, is your socks come in opposite colours, where the opposition was local for sure! But say you chose to measure redness, then one is green one is red. Next pair you chose to measure yellowness and you get yellow and violet.
See. Its weird.
The "weaker correlation" of classical systems is another way of saying if you measured yellowness you don't find they are opposite, maybe they are colourless or whatever.
Weaker as not always opposite.
I do believe this is the axis of spin or polarisation of particles.
You measure vertical and your spins are up and down. You measure horizontal and they are left and right. nothing other than the being opposite was determined locally.
WEIRD
BUT WHY IS IT ALWAYS OMITTED FROM EXPLANATION?
Bell's experiment produced results consistent with this. Its big deal wasn't because they kept opposite spins, i mean how would you even know whether they were undecided while unobserved if that were the case?!
The whole point is the direction is determined by measurement, forget the opposing spins
The Einstein accent was spot on. Das war richtig gut. :-)
I've always wanted phrasing to describe this; now I have it: "The correlation was produced locally.". I feel I better understand Einstein's words, now. I also think this analysis drills into people's misunderstandings about the event of measurement. Thanks for your generous and continuing outreach spiced with a dry sense of humor! The latter is a great antidote for the "wet" sense of humor of (z.B.) late night comedy TV. Your brand reduces the surface "tension".
That's got to be the best impersonation of Einstein I've yet heard!
But this helps to clear up Einstein's views on QM. In fact, it seems that quite a number of modern physicists have arrived at the same conclusion without realising that Einstein got there ninety years ago.
It seems to me that the key aspect of this is the interpretation one places on the wavefunction. If you subscribe to one of the interpretations that requires the wavefunction to be a real description of (for example) the electron, then you've given yourself the problem of explaining what the collapse of the wavefunction means.
If, by contrast, you take the wavefunction to be more a description of our knowledge than it is a description of what the electron is actually doing, then there isn't any instantaneous action to be explained. But these interpretations also have their own problems (e.g. so-called hidden variables).
I think the same can be said of pilot-wave and many-worlds interpretations : they don't require spooky action at a distance, but they bring up their own problems that have not yet been solved.
Is it, or not really?
i've always wished we would pronounce the names of countries the way that "that" country pronounces it. And definitely with names of people this applies - it shouldn't be considered an accent to say Einstein the way his parents would have said it.
I try to say Einstein with the ''s'' pronounced properly, but it does sound slightly weird in English-speaking countries. Either way is fine though. Ultimately words tend to be adapted and pronounced differently in other countries, it's not just the English-speaking world that does this.
Another great insight into the legend we know as Einstein! Thanks Sabine!
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Duality creates reality!
Thanks for the enlightenment. It somewhat more clarifies my understanding of the difference between spukhaft fernwirkungen and quantum entanglement. I have to concur with your inference about the difference in the two.
Entanglement is a bonified term in physics and "spukhafte Fernwirkung" is a meme that sprang from Einstein's failed understanding of quantum mechanics.
This is how I made sense of what Einstein meant - I could be wrong, but I think this is just my version of what Sabine is saying in the video. At the end of the quote ("... which prevents the wave continuously distributed in space from producing an action in two places on the screen") I think Einstein is simply referring to the experimentally established fact that upon measurement probabilities obtain discrete values, whereas predictions before actual measurements take place obtain a range of continuously distributed values. Then - at least as I understand it - the challenge posed by Einstein is what happens to other possible values ingrained into the quantum-mechanical wave description: e. g. why does some particle have a definite position at some place, but cannot exist at multiple positions at the same time, if this is in principle allowed by the quantum-mechanical formalism? It seems that this updating of probabilistically interpreted values of the wave function requires the existence of a kind of non - local mechanism capable of instantenous, faster-than-light operation, and Einstein quite understandably wasn't willing to accept this. Bell later showed that this mechanism (if there is indeed one) can only be manifested non-locally, which doesn't really settle the debate, since Bell's result can be understood as a compromise between Einsteinian locality and the mathematics behind the statistical use, or interpretation of quantum mechanics (if the collapse happens locally, then it is not instantenous, which means that one of the basic principles of Einstein's relativity is violated, and standard quantum mechanics ceases to make sense; on the other hand, if the mechanism responsible for the collapse of the wave function happens to work its magic non-locally, then locality is in some sense preserved, but in a way Einstein would obviously be unhappy with).
There are no predictions without a measurement setup.
Took me a second to hear what was wrong/off while Sabine is quoting Einstein, the german accent is dialed to eleven. :D (just like I do mangle my english pronunciation)
English is made up of mangled other languages anyway.
I was giggling every time she did that, but it got me to thinking: How do you dial an _American_ accent up to eleven? How can someone have a _thicker_ American accent? I dunno. Even regional accents are starting to blur into "General educated North American," which is the accent most of us have.
@@tarmaque That's because you are American and you are not aware of your accent. Try to speak a foreign language and every native speaker can instantly tell the difference.
@@definitelynotofficial7350 Oh, I know that. It's just that I don't know how to make my accent _stronger,_ even when speaking another language. (My alternate languages are limited to a few dozen words and a number of phrases of Japanese, of which I've worked hard to speak with as much a Tokyo accent as possible. Sometimes I succeed. What makes my accent stronger or weaker is something I don't quite understand.)
@@tarmaque Then it already is. You can only make it stronger at will if you have managed to learn how to properly pronounce words the way a native speaker would. If you haven't then you will already be speaking with a very heavy accent. If you have learned how to do that, all you have to do to make it stronger is stop doing it.
"Genius is 99% hard work and only 1% talent". Albert Einstein
Einstein might have known a bit about physics, but he obviously doesn't know anything about genetics.
@@iseriver3982 Exactly
"I fear the day when people post memes on the internet with quotes I've never said." Albert Einstein
@@kostuek No yar It's is genuine
@@-uda2672 how?
There is great power we must acknowledge in you, that of being able to read Einstein's expressions in the original language, lending even more credibility to your argument, even as most viewers likely don't appreciate that.
"....forget quantum mechanics...." After decades, I'm still trying to understand it. I can't either forget it, or, understand it. Spooky actions in my brain. Great video Sabine. Thank you.
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force = duality" -- the Jedi worship duality.
Duality creates reality!
It is frustrating that there is no way to give this video more than a simple "like".
and a comment, those help too, I only wish I had more friends that found these kinds of videos interesting so I could share them around
And a share!
After watching this I could hear the line from the film The Princess Bride: “You keep on using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means”.
Incontheivable!
Like! I'm 100% with Sabine on this one. I've always thought that most explanations of those words were wrong or simplified for the masses, whereas the original thought/idea/worry (of Einstein) is clear and very appealing.
I'm going to guess he meant the disconnect between the statistical models we use to describe quantum systems and the underlying 'reality' who's processes are black boxes we can't see into atm, edit: also spukhafte is a cute wort!
Hearing Einstein's words from your mouth really makes it special somehow. More authentic :D
At 5:25 I have heard the same argument with gloves. A left-handed and a
right-handed glove which were put respectively in 2 boxes. And I think one box was put in the Apollo 13 moon-landing module and the other one was taken care of by one of the astronauts mother.
Then on the moon, the astronaut opened the
box and found a left handed glove and she said "What the heck, where is the other left handed
glove?"
Well from the point of view of QM the correlations are the result of the wave function collapse which as you remark is the real phenomenon Einstein wanted to put under trial.
The EPR article used entanglement to analyse the problem and that's why people associate spooky with entanglement.
This is a Really good one! nice research!
Thanks to Sabine for her great video.
Actually the "sock color" metaphor is not transferable to the quantum world. Because in this case the "quantum sock" before the measurement is neither "red" or "blue" but a superposition of the 2 states that leads to the quantum state "red + blue".
If we measure sock 1 as being blue then instantaneous sock 2 state changes from "red + blue" to "red" because they are "entangled" , without measuring it. This is what Sabine calls a strong correlation referring to Bell's theorem . But what is physically a strong correlation between 2 quantum objects located far far away from each other?
She's just saying the correlation between the socks is created locally (when you picked which sock to put in which envelope) just like the correlation between the two particles is created locally (the entanglement). It's not "weird" per se.
Excellent explanation!!! Your effort is always GOLD (with all capital letters). With all my respect, thank you so much Dr. Sabine!
Around 3:29 reminds me of how linear and turbulent flow affect water and since photons are both particle and waveform. Just like how water travels in a waveform but as a particle. Lanyard and turbulent flow affect both principles the same. So when the moment the particle hits the hole in the first sheet it becomes turbulent in the next sheet we were aware that the particle entered the whole in the first place because of our awareness it became turbulent in the next sheet allowing the light to spread.
I’d love to see a video on the “stronger correlation” in QM entanglement you speak of, and what measurements make the ‘colored socks’ analogy fall down.
The problem is that nobody seemed to be able to articulate that answer without the relevant math, which most people including myself find inaccessible and therefore unhelpful.
@@AttilaAsztalos Sabine speaks of experiments done after Einstein’s death that demonstrate this. I’d like to know what they are - presented with Sabine’s matchless clarity, of course!
Yes.. Exactly what I want to know too..
Sounds like John Bell's Inequality experiments with entangled particles - they were done after Einstein's death.
They're talking about Bell's inequality experiments, you can look explanations of them up on TH-cam.
It requires some math to understand but it's not really that complicated, a layman should be able to get it if they're following physics with interest.
That incomplete status, of Quatum Mechanics, is what prompted the now famous Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. So, I guess Mr. Schrodinger didn't like the incomplete status either.
But I personally find the thought experiment about the cat not as disturbing (or interesting) as the single slit experiment or the entanglement experiment. Discussing the superposition of a live cat and a dead cat does not trouble me much.
@@RalphDratman Nobody dies with slits or socks though.
@@RalphDratman PBS space time on TH-cam has a few interesting on the double-slit experiment and considers extension with a quantum eraser. Matt O'Dowd's concluding video is a black-and-white conclusion based on loss coherence moving forward through the experiment. He proves we can neither travel backwards in time nor influence the past to alter it.
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Duality creates reality!
@@hyperduality2838 Interesting!
Just as an econometrician who understands the current state of quantum computing. It is great to point to this friends and family as relevant. They ask questions after I describe how a current quantum computer gives descriptive statistics for the American housing survey dataset.
Excellent video!
One that has to be watched & analyzed very closely (or multiple times as in my case:)).
I think Einstein indeed was very thoughtful of the possibilities, and have put it very clearly in these letters.
And that Sabine understood clearly what he meant.
Physics is the most fascinating subject!
Probability is always conserved = "Spooky action at distance".
The Einstein reality criterion:-
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity)
the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
(Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen 1935, p. 777)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:-
www.iep.utm.edu/epr/
According to Einstein reality is predicted into existence with a probability = 1 or unity -- a syntropic process.
If the screen in the double or dual screen experiment is placed at a very large distance from the source then a photon detected on the left half of the screen would take many years to contact the right half of the screen and inform it that it had detected a photon. The conservation of probability requires that the right half of the screen knows instantaneously that the left half of the screen has detected a photon or that probability travels faster than light!
Generalization (non-localization) is dual to localization.
Waves (Bosons) are dual to particles (Fermions) -- quantum duality.
Divergence (entropy) is dual to convergence (syntropy).
Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force = duality" -- the Jedi worship duality.
Duality creates reality!
Einstein’s accent..😃
Oh no, that was just Sabine Hossenfelder. :-D
Sabine thank you for the clear and objective explanations. I think these videos are world class. Please continue to do them.
Einstein makes it clear that once intervention happens at one particle, only then is 'Spooky Action at a Distance' triggered and then the other particle's quality is "immediately" set. This has been shown to happen much faster than light speed. If this cannot be attributed to some hidden variable according to Bell's Theorem, then it would seem physics needs to accept that some interactions between Matter and Space can take place faster than light speed. Perhaps because that quantum field connection is at a scale smaller than the Planck distance where distance no longer can or needs to be defined.
Where has this been shown, actually? I am not aware of such an experiment.
Great! I acknowledge einstein work MORE now.
Ok, we got the story about the socks. How about the sweaters Sabine wear every video, is their cuteness correlated with anything 🤔?