Most of this flew over my head but one thing I did get out of it was: Albert Einstein, a man whose name is synonymous with intelligence and scientific accomplishment, was wrong about something, yet his legacy isn't tarnished or belittled. Just shows it's OK to be wrong about some things, it doesn't discredit you forevermore
That's the point of science, all science is subject to later being amended, or even proved flat-out wrong. If you don't deal in that, your work isn't science.
To be fair, there's a BIG difference between being wrong because you were following a logical interpretation of data that testing later revealed to be incorrect (either because the data itself was incorrect or because you made a mistake somewhere in your interpretation that affected your conclusion), and being wrong because you were speaking out of your ass or were emotionally invested in some political/religious/ideological narrative.
Science is not religion. Science is always changing and evolving. Just because Einstein improved upon Newton doesn't mean Newton was "wrong" or "tarnished" or "belittled" or "discredited". Newton will always be seen as a towering genius. Hundreds of years later we know more, so science evolves to accommodate our increased knowledge. Say a detective arrives at the scene of a crime-- they make an initial hypothesis based on the evidence available to them. As the evidence increases, their theory of the crime might evolve and change-- this doesn't mean they're stupid, it just means they're following the evidence. A lot of people just don't understand how science works. Perhaps most people.
*You did a good job describing it.* When I was in grad school I accidentally bumped into Bell's inequality while reading a QM textbook. I immediately recognized that it was special and took it to my professors to talk about it. Oddly enough neither one of them had ever seen it before and they took the day to look it up in order to verify it. Both men came back as elated as I was. This work cleared up for me a decade of headaches. Arguably the best thing I've ever read in a textbook.
@@ggrruuss00 I'm talking about an event that happened over 20 years ago while skimming through a random textbook. Now a days it's only one search away. Just use the key words "Bell's Inequality" and you will find endless text and video on the topic, including updated variations that plug the holes in earlier versions.
It's kind of reminding me of quantum entanglement, being that after you read about Bell's inequality, the opposite was true with your professors, they knew nothing about it until of course until you told them about it. Does that mean that it doesn't exist or is less influential the less people are aware of something?? 🤔 I hope that made sense, it does to me. Science is AWESOME!
My background is in quantum physics and science communication and found this a very clear and accurate synopsis of the paper and associated theory - great job
I'm amazed that QM is a 100 yr old theory and it still isn't fully understood even by physicists themselves. String theory, Quantum gravity , supersymmetry are still not full explanations or advances in QM IMHO! Scientists are missing something, something big ! My theory is that it's not the physics itself but the math is behind this. Our current math is still too primitive to explain QM, we need better more advanced math, that's missing IMHO.
Joe Scott is so impressive. I heard and understood every word he said. Every single one. And I understood absolutely nothing of what they meant when grouped together in a sentence. He could’ve been speaking Mandarin Chinese and I wouldn’t have understood it any less... Yet I still watched the whole thing. Such a captivating speaker. Thanks, I think 😅
Joe Scott reminds me of Scott Manley. Both make very complex things simple for other humans. Takes a lot of intelligence to bring down a huge data set into something much easier for the rest of us to actually use.
@@ericvulgate The gravity particle is there. We all KNOW it is there. My theory: They are little tiny "hooks" that connect together to make chains. Magnetism and gravity are very similar. That is a clue. If you find the "hooks", you can make anti-gravity. FOR REAL. Remember I said so...
Sometimes, I think your patreons request you cover topics as a brain-damaging prank. I have to say, though, you did a good job on this one; I'm not a physicist, but I followed along pretty well.
Physicists are people who delve into things so much that they come to realize they have few answers. In cosmology the more you know the less you know, or realise that.
"The universe is not locally real" means that it is not independent, it is being actively created every moment of every day by a higher dimensional force. So, we are all figments of a higher dimensional being's imagination.
Joe, I’m always impressed by how clearly and accurately (according to my own junior amateur understanding) you explain these massively complicated and convoluted topics, AND by how thoroughly you disclaim that you’re not a scientist and there’s much more to this than you understand or can explain. You make it as clear as you can what you and the science ARE saying and what you both AREN’T saying. You may not be a scientist, but you’ve become a heck of a science educator. Well done!
In fact, some of the best science educators are such fine educators precisely, because they focused more in teaching science than in developing theories or working in experiments themselves. Specialization is the key to civilization and I'm sure Joe himself has made that, or a similar comment in more than one video.
"When it comes to quantum entanglement ... I'm a filmmaker." Felt that. I'm a code monkey with a layman's grasp of the subject. I understand it at the baby level, but I've long maintained you really can't understand it without getting hip-deep into the math, and I'm not qualified to get even toe-deep into it. But this was genuinely fascinating. The idea that particles aren't "real" except at the point of interaction doesn't give me existential dread, but that's only because I know the whole universe is a figment of my imagination anyway.
I'm 100% in the same situation as you. I'm a computer scientist. My knowledge of physics ends with special relativity mostly. I too feel so embarrassed when people start talking about blackholes and time travel and stuff, because I do not want to weigh in on any of those discussions without knowing the math to back it up
I think veritinessium made a video about how "learning styles" aren't really a thing, I recommend checking it out. TLDR; everyone learns best with a mix of all styles (visual, auditory, hands on, etc.)
Imagination is better than knowledge and knowledge is far more important than a degree. - Albert Einstein and Paul Dirac combined - Billy Browncow Joe scott is a scientist in my mind that has critical thinking and having an open mind that loves knowledge more than a career as scientists. Too much information to go into one scientific pathway.
Meh academia gets stuff wrong but pretends to be right. Its there job. The universe for us is of course real. Its just that we don't know what real is. Real means OUR relative perspective. Not other external entities.
If you haven’t been told this already, I think you and The Why Files are basically cousins now. Similar length in videos, smart well written script with just the right amounts of humor, solitary placement on screen for the most part, takes topics and indulges in them before coming back to a more realistic grounding. I’ve been watching you for a while now but it’s nice having something similar to yours that dives into the more zanier stuff. I’m calling it now that your team and his will collaborate at some point.
Completely love your comment about Joe Scott and The Why Files. Both are amazing, fun and extremely educational while keeping it fun and real (or existential…?). Great channels.
Great job on this one! Really nice balance of simplifying it for understandability while giving hints and clues about _where_ it was dumbed down, and that there's something deeper to be delved into if the viewer wants. Loved it!
The way I understand it, “physically real” has no meaning when you get down to the level of elementary particles; even at the subatomic level it’s a bit fuzzy … one might say even cloudy.
Meaningless comment. No evidence provided, vague allusions, nothing actually said. Stop doing this, science worshippers. You just wanted to sound smart and like this stuff is so obvious and old hat to you that peering passed the subatomic layer is just an every day thing to you.
@Terre Schill Why does the universe being composed of information somehow mean that the information in question isn't matter? The fact that things break down to pure math could just be due to the limits of our ability to analyze the universe at that small a point, it just because physically infeasible to do so in the ways it's done at larger sizes.
I don't know if you like making this kind of videos or not, but I enjoy the hell out of this stuff. Please make more spaceflight or theoretical science-related videos. here in India, the syllabus of science in high schools is very high level. so like the first 6 or so min of stuff, I already knew from school. I Just Love This Stuff !!
do you guys really spend a lot of time on quantum stuff in high school? I live in the states and Highschool is pretty much biology, then chemistry, then physics, and then one elective. never spent any time on quatum stuff.
@@Tenchi707 he just came to pointlessly flex on the great, epic, insanely unattainable and the center of the universe: India and everything indian. Just bash it down, they're just trolls, really.
Thank you for this! I'm a passionate ameture to these sort of things, as in a study a ton, but it is clearly not my profession. So when I do my limited studies about all of this, I wasn't getting any clear answers but I knew I was being presented scientific news in a click-bait sort of way. This cleared up a lot for me! Amazing stuff.
Wow as someone that has spent months trying to puzzle out what this discovery truly means, this was an excellent synopsis. You always do a good job but this really is outstanding giving the subject matter. For those that want a similarly clear but deeper explanation of Bell's inequality I highly recommended Tim Maudlin's 'What Bell Did.'
You still crack me up Joe. Not to belittle the interesting subjects, which are great, it's the Joe Scott quips and interjections that hit me right between the eyes.
Mark 9:47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, Read bible book Matthew to be saved in Jesus
Problem is it can be done even better if physists didnt keep objecting like a political extremeist. Take the arrow analogy, this is misleading as it is also true for when you are not sure how many people are wondering around inside the hallways of a stadium and then eventually you can work out reliable pronabilties based on what you can see. We have macro examples of these things. The Borh even said its an approximation being worked statistically due to not being able to isolate what you are looking at. So its just a matter of indirect information. Like sonar would be another example.
Another great example is memory metals now pretend when its liquefied we can't see it and we can see how it regains its shape. It doesn't do this because of math it does this because a mechanism. Mass is not a substance yet there is a lot of people that try to articulate as if it is. Masters is standard language in which we use to quantify things. Math is our poetry in the grand scheme of things but it's also true that when you test reasoning against actuality you get a response So eventually poetry and absolute reality come closer together. Thanks for being my shouting in the wind victim today
Love ya Joe. Thank you for making things a bit more understandable for those of us that are mathematically or quantum mechanically challenged. ..Or those of us who don’t have the time to, or just don’t want to, read entire physics studies .. along with a dictionary, to understand the words used in said research.
The universe is real. I can see it, I live in it, it acts on me and I act on it. Now, the _nature_ of that reality may be different from what we intuitively understand as "real", but it is still _real_
Ah, but it is not and you are not. Your eyes only pick up small pieces in little bursts that it sends to a brain that imagines your "reality" which is interpreted by fragments of memory and context. Your "real" and my "real" are vastly different. Physics definition of real is not the same as colloquial American English definition. Therefore, your entire statement is false in both English as well as irrelevant in physics. The world is far stranger than you want to accept
Reality is ABSOLUTE. And we are not experiencing The Absolute, which is infinite, eternal, and unchanging. I've published the answers. Click and ye shall find...
Hi, Joe! Thanks for putting this out! And thanks for your vulnerability -- "I know my limits!" -- which is refreshing to see when the Internet is so polarised by the urge to be right (at the expense of others being wrong!). Keep up the good work!
Ya, Joe’s the real deal! That’s part of why his content’s so great! I’ve been watching him since before he had 10,000 subs and he is consistently awesome because he’s relatable and humble and smart and curious. KUTGW Joe! 😃
I love that you used an image of Rocko's Modern Life. I haven't seen that episode in probably 20 years, but it just came back to me that the guy keeps asking Rocko to pull his pants up by saying "Can you get that?". Memories and the brain are odd, I have a hell of a time remembering peoples names that I've met a bunch of times, but I can remember a random line from a cartoon episode that I probably only saw a few times decades ago.
It's cold and raining. I was so happy to see you posted something new to brighten my day. I promise I'll watch it as your fan, not your critic. I think you're the coolest, man. Keep up the good work!!
I reached that conclusion years ago under the influence of edibles, I didn’t publish my conclusions though so I guess I can’t complain about not getting the Nobel Prize.
What Einstein was having a problem with was not “entanglement” when he says “spooky action at a distance” it was the collapse of the wave function. Which we still don’t understand completely. He just thought quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory, which it is, and was not the final theory. But he fully believed it worked.
Great video! If anyone wants to hear more about Clauser and Zeillinger (Aspect is briefly mentioned), I recommend the NOVA series, "Fabric of the Cosmos", based on Brian Green's book with the same title.
The idea of spin was always one that eluded me. Do you think you could do a video on it "dumbing it down"? 😅 You always had the skill to convey komplex ideas to be easy understandable. Just maybe you could do it for such a complex thing like spinn of particles, or the "properties" 😁👍
I struggle with spin because it’s not something you can really “see”, it’s an intrinsic property. I’ve watched so many videos on it and it still doesn’t quite make sense to me
Damn this is too advanced for me... and I love it. I specially loved the part where you explain entanglement, twice. It's like that "why don't you explain it to me like I'm 5" from Michael.
Great video trying to make sense of a mysterious facet of reality. One way I've heard quantum properties explained uses a quantum information approach. Imagine an electron only has one bit to represent its spin, i.e., 1 = up and 0 = down or 1 = right and 0 = left. Which basically means if you measure an electron's up/down spin with a Stern-Gerlach device, the electron will consistently demonstrate its spin in the up or down direction (let's assume up), and if you then have a second Stern-Gerlach device and measure the same electron as left/right, the electron is forced to randomly choose its left or right response (let's assume right) to that measurement because it's currently using its only spin-bit to represent up from the previous measurement. Okay, so now let's measure the electron up/down again, and while you might expect its response to be up because the initial up/down measurement indicated up, you would be wrong 50% of the time. You can do this over and over again, and each time you change the orientation of the Stern-Gerlach device, the electron will randomly choose a new response in the new orientation. Bell showed that the realist notion (that the electron somehow knew it was spin up before the first up/down measurement was made) is incorrect because prior to being measured, the electron is in a superposition of all spins. Subsequently, when you have maximum certainty in one orientation, you have minimum certainty in a perpendicular orientation. So, when two electrons are entangled, i.e., represented by the same wave function, they can be thought of as sharing or splitting a spin-bit, and when one electron is measured as spin up, the other is necessarily spin down, and this correlation happens over any distance instantaneously at the exact moment that the wave function collapses due to a measurement, much to Einstein's chagrin. Any trained physicist can feel free to kick my butt on anything I got wrong.
"Any trained physicist can feel free to kick my butt on anything I got wrong." anyone that says this, as opposed to making a blanket statement, is probably 90%+ there. So, if the electrons share/split the same information and are part of the same wavefunction, are they even different 'particles'?
@@edwardjenner1381 It's my understanding that they are two separate particles which share quantum properties due to their interaction, but are represented by one wave function, which is an additive function.
Great job, Joe! I am not a physicist but I have been reading about this stuff for decades (I particularly like Brian Greene). As far as I can tell you did a very good job presenting this VERY tricky material. You did a fine job of deemphasizing some very destracting details so as to make your point clearly, but mentioning the existance of those details so that critics couldn't say "you didn't even mention [some crucial peice of physics that they love]." Again, well done!
You are legit one of the reasons I have Nebula, Joe. :) I just wish it had some kind of method of figuring out what I like to watch, and recommending videos I might like to see next. Also, some sort of community engagement system would be great! I dunno, a comments section or something like that. Ooh, and some easy way for people to give feedback! The whole thumbs-up/thumbs-down thing is pretty cliche, but I mean, if it works... It might also be a good idea to set up a system by which you could notify people who are interested when you post new videos, some kind of... hmm... let's call it a "subscribe button"? And while we're at it, maybe a few different degrees of notification so people can customize whether they get poked for _all_ of your videos, just the ones that recommendation system thinks they care about, or none if they just want it to act like Nebula acts now. Just spitballing here, but some sort of a bell icon? It could be filled in for all notifications, an outline for recommended ones, and have a line through it for none.
That thing you're after is the thing you used to post this comment... 😏 Nebula does have a Follow button equiv to Subscribe - but no degrees of notification because there's no AI algorithm spying on your behaviour to drive recommendations. I suspect the reason that doesn't exist is the same as for comments: a *lot* of staff would be required to make both functional.
Recently, another test was done for Bell's Theorem: Two large telescopes were pointed, one at each, at two very distant quasars and the signals from each were used to generate random numbers during the test equipment adjustments, There was no possible way the the quasars were communicating with each other to screw up the random probabilities required to give the final results. Again, QM random wave-functions won.
Einstein’s Quantum Riddle documentary on Nova channel describes that experiment with quasars, as well as entanglement and the new theories, such as the holographic universe
Define “real.” We don’t have a standard to measure against. Our species has been on a journey of discovery from the start. If we discover facts that don’t jibe with what we’ve long assumed, so be it.
Brit living in California and fan of Civvie 11 and shouted 'NO PYTHON' at the screen twice on this one. And then he pulls the Doug Adams reference... I actually teared up a bit. AND Civvie covered Starship Titanic (Douglas's interactive game). Joe, there is a reason we love you. Next video you HAVE to explain why 42 is the meaning of life. I'm pretty sure Deep Thought's earth computer calculations are done now and you have the answer. THAT should be next video. Love ya my friend.
I rarely feel the needs to correct something on this channel. It's gone on par and above my knowledge base in some cases. Certainly less mistakes than early on. I think that's awesome.
I'm very sure Einstein's belief that there is a speed limit, which happens to be light, is wrong. People used to think the sonic barrier was a speed limit, because airplanes broke, and humans want to believe in limits.
My question is how do they get particles entangled? Like how do you entangle 2 particles, and then send them away from each other to test the spooky action at a distance? Every body seem to just skip that part and I always find this part fascinating. Can you try explain that in a future video?
They use math. After all everything is just math. The two particles aren't even real. In the old days, they used a stick in a hole and a rope to spin a particle in one direction. They put each particle on the top of a stick, coiled the rope around it, tied the ropes to a cow , and used a whip to drive the cows in opposite directions.
My understanding is they are entangled and get them out of this state to measure 'the spooky action at a distance'. Anyway quantum physics to me is a fun new way to explain magic in a whole new way.
I just watched this documentary, called Everything Everywhere All at Once. Not only is the universe real, it's actually a multiverse. But none of that matters because there is no meaning, except that there is meaning. Also, sentient rocks do exists, so be nice to them. #family
Can you do a video on time, some of the illusion of time stuff really freaks me out sends me in a spin. I have OCD and a theme of mine is existential ocd and for periods of the last few years I’ve been really stuck on it. Periods though it’s been better I think if got a solid framework in my head to make sense of things. I just had like a relapse and it sends me into a really horrible state of mind. But I think I’ve got it sorted and a better way of making sense of things in a more nuanced less dogmatic less catastrophic kinda way.
I love and hare how often these big headlines are "we confirmed another aspect of theory" rather than something completely new. The wormhole in a quantum computer you mentioned in another video however is REALLY SUPER EXCITE.
I am one of those who were "warming the hands";). But I must say you've come a long way when it comes to physics since your early days on TH-cam. No wonder this channel has grown so much. Great job!
Describing physical objects and their properties with equations is one thing. But saying that the fundamental nature of reality is not made up of "physical objects" as we understand them but is actually composed of clouds of indeterminate probabilities which we can ONLY conceptualize as equations is a whole other thing. I'm a couple months away from completing a degree in aerospace engineering and by far the biggest struggle I have faced during that process was some of the electrical engineering courses where we have to deal with inherently quantum phenomena and therefore the behavior of these systems is described with probabilistic functions. Like I can fully wrap my head around advanced fluid dynamics problems, the multi-variable calculus is no problem, I can form a conceptual model in my head of the physical properties the different variables represent, and how the different operations model different physical phenomena and whatnot. When we use probabilities in those types of problems it's to represent our inability to perfectly measure certain values, it represents the uncertainty we have in a particular measurement. But when you start telling me that no, the physical thing we are working with can't be described with just a variable, it doesn't have a singular value but instead it exists as this probability function, and yes we can still describe the antennas and what not with these mathematical expressions but we have to plug this probabilistic expression into them and you aren't really going to get a value out you are going to get another probabilistic expression that describes your antennas response to those radio waves and you just then plug that into your decoder function and hey look you now have WiFi!!! It all just makes my brain kinda melt. Like seriously the mathematics and understanding that actually make things like digital radio communication and computer chips all actually work is some of the most mind boggling shit I have ever had to deal with, and I literally deal with the behavior of shockwaves inside rocket engines on a daily basis. And it all comes down to the fundamentally quantum nature of those things. Shits weird man.
@@Ender240sxS13 When I first learned (in a very different context, namely, psychology) the there are blind spots on our retinas that eye movement and most importantly, brain processing of visual input, causes us to never notice, also that the brain projects the movement of some objects a couple of milliseconds ahead of time, so we can swing at a baseball or catch a pass... I came to appreciate that "Reality" is nothing like what we comprehend with our senses. Most of what we see, in particular, is an illusion, a magic trick.
sorry, if my examples seem like a strange tangent. I'm saying that the reason you are weirded out by how wifi works or what goes on inside a rocket, is because naturally you expect it to work with the same physics as throwing a ball. But our visceral understanding of ball throwing, was always an illusion in the first place. Everything we thought we knew, is wrong.
Seems like this is the "QM" take on the old philosophical question: "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?"
Thank you! You really explained it in a way I can understand. That doesn't say much for you, but I really appreciate it. (joking) Seriously, until I watched this, I did not understand Bell's Test and what it meant. You included a lot of the "points" (couldn't help it) from the past that really told the story. The name following was brutal, I ended up just grouping them so I could stick to the knowledge. Thank you!
I like to imagine there are particles inside every one of us and maybe there is some science behind finding “the one” a person who you can entangle with
Joe I wanted to let you know that I just signed up for Curiosity Stream and Nebula using your discount code. Very excited to explore both. Thanks! 16:45
There is a great video made by Sabine Hossenfelder that covers the topics you've explained with more depth. She's a PhD physicist so it makes sense that she's able to cover it more thoroughly
Joe - I applaud you for taking on this topic. I've watched & read tons of material on Quantum Physics; Particle vs. Wave conditions; Energy Strings; Membranes; Planck limits & Quantum Foam...but having stopped my Math education after Calculus I and Statistics - I don't really understand any of this. But I love it. And we love you. 😉
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, but at the same time he doesn't, because we can't actually see inside the bar yet. I'm sitting inside the bar, but if the particle decayed, then I'm still in my truck, rolling a joint. _Particles, Ryan._ (Wilfred)
oh man the theory vs hypothesis thing. I want to correct the correctors: it is totally valid to say "I have a theory" because theory means "model". one can hypothesize a theory, one can propose a theory, one can have a theory, but a theory can also be very confident. the theory of refers to a model of ; just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's verified, I can come up with some crazy theory and by doing so I'm hypothesizing because the theory hasn't been tested. so, almost right, but the colloquial usage isn't usually technically *wrong*, but it's misleading in ways that lead to people wondering how the "theory of gravity" could be confirmed, since it didn't stop being a theory. it's because theory does not imply confidence level, in formal terms!
I think locality is irrelevant, just as Schrodinger demonstrates in his example of the cat in the box, variables can only be assumed and conclusions are the ultimate extention of it, by virtue of reality, not uncertainty. Because causation(Entropy) is in relation to every property of existence, the potential is always seaminglly there as the probabilities are centralized and decentralized to come and become the present. And so the present moment has such a shallow effect for the "casual observers" like us, for we make sense of the surroundings of the past to the extent that they relate to the present.
👏I gave a presentation over this topic as a term project for graduate Quantum Mechanics two years ago. You did a better job than I did! I am often impressed by your ability to both grasp and explain the intuitive understanding of complex topics like this. Kudos Joe. Since I found your channel three years ago, I check in every week. Keep it up as long as you enjoy it! Your genuine enthusiasm really shines through. I've learned a ton from your channel with lots of laughs along the way.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย] - ช่วงบ่าย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M0S_ReCIkxg/mqdefault.jpg)
Most of this flew over my head but one thing I did get out of it was: Albert Einstein, a man whose name is synonymous with intelligence and scientific accomplishment, was wrong about something, yet his legacy isn't tarnished or belittled. Just shows it's OK to be wrong about some things, it doesn't discredit you forevermore
Because he was rite about 1000x more than he was wrong
That's the point of science, all science is subject to later being amended, or even proved flat-out wrong. If you don't deal in that, your work isn't science.
To be fair, there's a BIG difference between being wrong because you were following a logical interpretation of data that testing later revealed to be incorrect (either because the data itself was incorrect or because you made a mistake somewhere in your interpretation that affected your conclusion), and being wrong because you were speaking out of your ass or were emotionally invested in some political/religious/ideological narrative.
Einstein has an annoying habit of being right even when he's wrong.
Science is not religion. Science is always changing and evolving. Just because Einstein improved upon Newton doesn't mean Newton was "wrong" or "tarnished" or "belittled" or "discredited". Newton will always be seen as a towering genius. Hundreds of years later we know more, so science evolves to accommodate our increased knowledge.
Say a detective arrives at the scene of a crime-- they make an initial hypothesis based on the evidence available to them. As the evidence increases, their theory of the crime might evolve and change-- this doesn't mean they're stupid, it just means they're following the evidence.
A lot of people just don't understand how science works. Perhaps most people.
*You did a good job describing it.* When I was in grad school I accidentally bumped into Bell's inequality while reading a QM textbook. I immediately recognized that it was special and took it to my professors to talk about it. Oddly enough neither one of them had ever seen it before and they took the day to look it up in order to verify it. Both men came back as elated as I was. This work cleared up for me a decade of headaches. Arguably the best thing I've ever read in a textbook.
Well said!
Yep.
I am very interested in this topic. Can you link me a video that breaks it down in the simplest way?
@@ggrruuss00 I'm talking about an event that happened over 20 years ago while skimming through a random textbook. Now a days it's only one search away. Just use the key words "Bell's Inequality" and you will find endless text and video on the topic, including updated variations that plug the holes in earlier versions.
It's kind of reminding me of quantum entanglement, being that after you read about Bell's inequality, the opposite was true with your professors, they knew nothing about it until of course until you told them about it. Does that mean that it doesn't exist or is less influential the less people are aware of something?? 🤔 I hope that made sense, it does to me. Science is AWESOME!
My background is in quantum physics and science communication and found this a very clear and accurate synopsis of the paper and associated theory - great job
I think you need a background in quantum physics to follow. I need a translation as an average layman’s TH-cam water.
I'm amazed that QM is a 100 yr old theory
and it still isn't fully understood even by physicists themselves.
String theory, Quantum gravity , supersymmetry are still not full explanations or advances in QM IMHO!
Scientists are missing something, something big !
My theory is that it's not the physics itself
but the math is behind this.
Our current math is still too primitive to explain QM, we need better more advanced math, that's missing IMHO.
@@basedkaren51 ah I must be out of touch then. I think you're right than some backing in physics might be needed
@@basedkaren51 i dont have a background in physics and i understood it enough
I can explain the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics that these guys don’t even touch on
Joe Scott is so impressive. I heard and understood every word he said. Every single one. And I understood absolutely nothing of what they meant when grouped together in a sentence. He could’ve been speaking Mandarin Chinese and I wouldn’t have understood it any less... Yet I still watched the whole thing. Such a captivating speaker. Thanks, I think 😅
Joe Scott reminds me of Scott Manley. Both make very complex things simple for other humans.
Takes a lot of intelligence to bring down a huge data set into something much easier for the rest of us to actually use.
We need a joe manly in our life
Though Joe touches on a wide range of topics whereas Scott is unashamedly obsessed by rockets! (I'm a fan of both Joe @ Scott).
Joe is aging terribly
Sabine hossenfelder is another who's good at that.
@@ericvulgate The gravity particle is there. We all KNOW it is there.
My theory: They are little tiny "hooks" that connect together to make chains.
Magnetism and gravity are very similar. That is a clue.
If you find the "hooks", you can make anti-gravity. FOR REAL.
Remember I said so...
Sometimes, I think your patreons request you cover topics as a brain-damaging prank.
I have to say, though, you did a good job on this one; I'm not a physicist, but I followed along pretty well.
thanks mr niggins!
Physicists are people who delve into things so much that they come to realize they have few answers. In cosmology the more you know the less you know, or realise that.
You're a figment of my imagination and when I come out of this coma, I am definitely going to start reading better literature.
Oh man. That'd be a terrible ending to the story
To quote John Brunner from his novel Stand on Zanizbar:
"Christ, what an imagination I got."
You wouldn't dare!
Assuming books exist in your base reality
"The universe is not locally real" means that it is not independent, it is being actively created every moment of every day by a higher dimensional force. So, we are all figments of a higher dimensional being's imagination.
Joe, I’m always impressed by how clearly and accurately (according to my own junior amateur understanding) you explain these massively complicated and convoluted topics, AND by how thoroughly you disclaim that you’re not a scientist and there’s much more to this than you understand or can explain. You make it as clear as you can what you and the science ARE saying and what you both AREN’T saying. You may not be a scientist, but you’ve become a heck of a science educator. Well done!
In fact, some of the best science educators are such fine educators precisely, because they focused more in teaching science than in developing theories or working in experiments themselves.
Specialization is the key to civilization and I'm sure Joe himself has made that, or a similar comment in more than one video.
In whole hearted agreement.
"When it comes to quantum entanglement ... I'm a filmmaker."
Felt that. I'm a code monkey with a layman's grasp of the subject. I understand it at the baby level, but I've long maintained you really can't understand it without getting hip-deep into the math, and I'm not qualified to get even toe-deep into it. But this was genuinely fascinating. The idea that particles aren't "real" except at the point of interaction doesn't give me existential dread, but that's only because I know the whole universe is a figment of my imagination anyway.
Imagine better.
I'm 100% in the same situation as you. I'm a computer scientist. My knowledge of physics ends with special relativity mostly.
I too feel so embarrassed when people start talking about blackholes and time travel and stuff, because I do not want to weigh in on any of those discussions without knowing the math to back it up
Joe, I'm a French citizen. Here in France we have always known that God is found in Cheese.
God bless the French. And cheese.
🇫🇷 🧀 🎉
I’ve been telling people lately that I’m not a visual learner, but the graphics on this were excellent. Especially the quantum cow!
Fun fact, visual learners aren't even real-the whole "kinds of learners" theory is outdated bunk, so in a way you were always right!
I think veritinessium made a video about how "learning styles" aren't really a thing, I recommend checking it out. TLDR; everyone learns best with a mix of all styles (visual, auditory, hands on, etc.)
Much rejoicing about the cow
Imagination is better than knowledge and knowledge is far more important than a degree. - Albert Einstein and Paul Dirac combined - Billy Browncow
Joe scott is a scientist in my mind that has critical thinking and having an open mind that loves knowledge more than a career as scientists. Too much information to go into one scientific pathway.
@@Enaccul *veritasium
And yes, he made that point in one of his older videos.
A lot of this went over my head, but I really appreciate the work you put in to keep it real
Meh academia gets stuff wrong but pretends to be right. Its there job. The universe for us is of course real. Its just that we don't know what real is. Real means OUR relative perspective. Not other external entities.
I lost the plot somewhere around the 9 minute mark
Huge, huge props to Joe and the team for this vid. Very approachable, entertaining, and informative
If you haven’t been told this already, I think you and The Why Files are basically cousins now. Similar length in videos, smart well written script with just the right amounts of humor, solitary placement on screen for the most part, takes topics and indulges in them before coming back to a more realistic grounding. I’ve been watching you for a while now but it’s nice having something similar to yours that dives into the more zanier stuff. I’m calling it now that your team and his will collaborate at some point.
Completely love your comment about Joe Scott and The Why Files. Both are amazing, fun and extremely educational while keeping it fun and real (or existential…?).
Great channels.
I subscribe to both too. Crossover video!!
Just one does stories and myths and this one does science
I just came from the why files, laughing at heckelfishs smirk at the word erection.
Both non patronizing, humorous and non biased.
@@matthewmckever2312 the why files made you come? That’s pretty dank
Thanks for the discount on Nebula and Curiosity Stream! I should have signed up ages ago, but glad I could support you.
Great job on this one!
Really nice balance of simplifying it for understandability while giving hints and clues about _where_ it was dumbed down, and that there's something deeper to be delved into if the viewer wants.
Loved it!
Can I have hair for $500 please
The way I understand it, “physically real” has no meaning when you get down to the level of elementary particles; even at the subatomic level it’s a bit fuzzy … one might say even cloudy.
Meaningless comment. No evidence provided, vague allusions, nothing actually said. Stop doing this, science worshippers. You just wanted to sound smart and like this stuff is so obvious and old hat to you that peering passed the subatomic layer is just an every day thing to you.
Sir my english is week
So please tell me
Universe locally not real ?
@Terre Schill
Why does the universe being composed of information somehow mean that the information in question isn't matter? The fact that things break down to pure math could just be due to the limits of our ability to analyze the universe at that small a point, it just because physically infeasible to do so in the ways it's done at larger sizes.
@@aryangoswami7512 I'm sure your English is fine, it's a really vague and confusing sentence.
@@moxxy3565
Thank bro
I don't know if you like making this kind of videos or not, but I enjoy the hell out of this stuff. Please make more spaceflight or theoretical science-related videos. here in India, the syllabus of science in high schools is very high level. so like the first 6 or so min of stuff, I already knew from school. I Just Love This Stuff !!
Lol no it's not high level, it's just the stupid exams that are insanely hard.
do you guys really spend a lot of time on quantum stuff in high school? I live in the states and Highschool is pretty much biology, then chemistry, then physics, and then one elective. never spent any time on quatum stuff.
Yesss
@@Tenchi707 he just came to pointlessly flex on the great, epic, insanely unattainable and the center of the universe: India and everything indian. Just bash it down, they're just trolls, really.
@@FirestormX9 had a college professor in Texas who wrote (John's Hopkins Press, 1969) about US, India & the bomb 5+ years before Smiling Buddha.
Thank you for this! I'm a passionate ameture to these sort of things, as in a study a ton, but it is clearly not my profession. So when I do my limited studies about all of this, I wasn't getting any clear answers but I knew I was being presented scientific news in a click-bait sort of way. This cleared up a lot for me! Amazing stuff.
Wow as someone that has spent months trying to puzzle out what this discovery truly means, this was an excellent synopsis. You always do a good job but this really is outstanding giving the subject matter. For those that want a similarly clear but deeper explanation of Bell's inequality I highly recommended Tim Maudlin's 'What Bell Did.'
I'll see your dictionary of terms and raise you an aneurysm of trying to follow along :)
You still crack me up Joe. Not to belittle the interesting subjects, which are great, it's the Joe Scott quips and interjections that hit me right between the eyes.
You could almost say he
butt cracks you up.
I´ll see myself out.
@@fdabelstein Ow! You hurt my groan bone.
Mark 9:47
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,
Read bible book Matthew to be saved in Jesus
You're awesome Joe! The mixture of humor and knowledge is perfectly balanced 🤘
I'm not completely awake yet. I read that as "horror and knowledge". Works either way.
Weird
"as all things should be"
@@jackielinde7568 Hey, it could've been either one until your brain woke up enough to perceive it, right? 😉
@@thomashiggins9320 Schrödinger's Thoughts?
You genuinely make learning the most fun part of the day Mr Joe
JOE, thank for not letting the literalists get you down! Your channel is thoroughly entertaining, and thought provoking! Keep it up!
My favorite Joe videos are these ones where he explains really difficult stuff to us.💕
Problem is it can be done even better if physists didnt keep objecting like a political extremeist. Take the arrow analogy, this is misleading as it is also true for when you are not sure how many people are wondering around inside the hallways of a stadium and then eventually you can work out reliable pronabilties based on what you can see. We have macro examples of these things. The Borh even said its an approximation being worked statistically due to not being able to isolate what you are looking at. So its just a matter of indirect information. Like sonar would be another example.
Another great example is memory metals now pretend when its liquefied we can't see it and we can see how it regains its shape. It doesn't do this because of math it does this because a mechanism. Mass is not a substance yet there is a lot of people that try to articulate as if it is. Masters is standard language in which we use to quantify things. Math is our poetry in the grand scheme of things but it's also true that when you test reasoning against actuality you get a response So eventually poetry and absolute reality come closer together. Thanks for being my shouting in the wind victim today
I remember seeing the articles about this, but when I read them, they didn't make ANY sense. So I'm very glad you're covering this!
“When it come to quantum entanglement, I’m a filmmaker”. PRICELESS. Great vid!
These have always been my favorite videos from you! More please 😊
Love ya Joe. Thank you for making things a bit more understandable for those of us that are mathematically or quantum mechanically challenged.
..Or those of us who don’t have the time to, or just don’t want to, read entire physics studies .. along with a dictionary, to understand the words used in said research.
Each of us are a condensed piece of the universe while being blissfully oblivious to this... Thanks for great vid
Gotta wonder what it really means if humans are able to see the source code of the universe. Who else can? Has? Will?
😑
We are Stardust, we are golden yada yada yada
The universe is real. I can see it, I live in it, it acts on me and I act on it. Now, the _nature_ of that reality may be different from what we intuitively understand as "real", but it is still _real_
If it appears real, it's the only way you can operate. 🔥😈🔥
But have you watched the video?
Ah, but it is not and you are not. Your eyes only pick up small pieces in little bursts that it sends to a brain that imagines your "reality" which is interpreted by fragments of memory and context. Your "real" and my "real" are vastly different.
Physics definition of real is not the same as colloquial American English definition. Therefore, your entire statement is false in both English as well as irrelevant in physics.
The world is far stranger than you want to accept
@@seattlegrrlie those electric signals are themselves real lol
Reality is ABSOLUTE. And we are not experiencing The Absolute, which is infinite, eternal, and unchanging. I've published the answers. Click and ye shall find...
Spacetime has a wonderful mini-series on hidden variables, the bell test and the subsequent experiments, results and what those results tell us.
My "The Universe is just cheese" theory has been confirmed. Thanks Joe.
Nice explanation Joe! And wow... who would make such a clickable thumbnail 2:18 ??!! 😅
Hi, Joe! Thanks for putting this out! And thanks for your vulnerability -- "I know my limits!" -- which is refreshing to see when the Internet is so polarised by the urge to be right (at the expense of others being wrong!). Keep up the good work!
You're neither right or wrong, while being both at the same time. Quantum Mechanics makes that very clear.
Ya, Joe’s the real deal! That’s part of why his content’s so great! I’ve been watching him since before he had 10,000 subs and he is consistently awesome because he’s relatable and humble and smart and curious. KUTGW Joe! 😃
@@SSJfraz I'm both right and wrong until you hear my answer...
@@Wonderlikechild and this answer will also be right or wrong depending of the context .
That's literally what those Nobel prize winners are trying so desperately to do to Einstein lololol
Glad to see Joe covering physics again. It's what drew me in to begin with.
Love it!🎉
Is that what you're gravitating toward?
“Nothing is real, strawberry fields…” 🍓
I love that you used an image of Rocko's Modern Life. I haven't seen that episode in probably 20 years, but it just came back to me that the guy keeps asking Rocko to pull his pants up by saying "Can you get that?". Memories and the brain are odd, I have a hell of a time remembering peoples names that I've met a bunch of times, but I can remember a random line from a cartoon episode that I probably only saw a few times decades ago.
I feel like you did a great job explaining this!
Thank you, Joe, for deep diving on such complicated topics.
"Deep"? Trust me, you don't wanna see genuine "deep" when it comes to this stuff ... yikes!
It's cold and raining. I was so happy to see you posted something new to brighten my day. I promise I'll watch it as your fan, not your critic. I think you're the coolest, man. Keep up the good work!!
I reached that conclusion years ago under the influence of edibles, I didn’t publish my conclusions though so I guess I can’t complain about not getting the Nobel Prize.
Yeah you need to use an AI like ChatGPT to explain everything beyond your comprehension to scientists so they can understand your high concepts.
I appreciate the sincere humility while still being informative
What Einstein was having a problem with was not “entanglement” when he says “spooky action at a distance” it was the collapse of the wave function. Which we still don’t understand completely. He just thought quantum mechanics was an incomplete theory, which it is, and was not the final theory. But he fully believed it worked.
Great video! If anyone wants to hear more about Clauser and Zeillinger (Aspect is briefly mentioned), I recommend the NOVA series, "Fabric of the Cosmos", based on Brian Green's book with the same title.
Really good video, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Very clearly explaining some difficult to understand topics. Thank you for your work!
The idea of spin was always one that eluded me. Do you think you could do a video on it "dumbing it down"? 😅
You always had the skill to convey komplex ideas to be easy understandable.
Just maybe you could do it for such a complex thing like spinn of particles, or the "properties" 😁👍
I struggle with spin because it’s not something you can really “see”, it’s an intrinsic property. I’ve watched so many videos on it and it still doesn’t quite make sense to me
Nothing is spinning, but calling it "the direction electrons turn in a non-uniform magnetic field" wasn't working well.
I love the 3 polarised lenses demonstration, blows my mind and is so fun to play with .
An audible 'meow' eminates from the box.
Schroedinger: "You should probably ignore that."
I left this video more confused than before, well done.
Damn this is too advanced for me... and I love it. I specially loved the part where you explain entanglement, twice. It's like that "why don't you explain it to me like I'm 5" from Michael.
Great video trying to make sense of a mysterious facet of reality. One way I've heard quantum properties explained uses a quantum information approach. Imagine an electron only has one bit to represent its spin, i.e., 1 = up and 0 = down or 1 = right and 0 = left. Which basically means if you measure an electron's up/down spin with a Stern-Gerlach device, the electron will consistently demonstrate its spin in the up or down direction (let's assume up), and if you then have a second Stern-Gerlach device and measure the same electron as left/right, the electron is forced to randomly choose its left or right response (let's assume right) to that measurement because it's currently using its only spin-bit to represent up from the previous measurement. Okay, so now let's measure the electron up/down again, and while you might expect its response to be up because the initial up/down measurement indicated up, you would be wrong 50% of the time. You can do this over and over again, and each time you change the orientation of the Stern-Gerlach device, the electron will randomly choose a new response in the new orientation. Bell showed that the realist notion (that the electron somehow knew it was spin up before the first up/down measurement was made) is incorrect because prior to being measured, the electron is in a superposition of all spins. Subsequently, when you have maximum certainty in one orientation, you have minimum certainty in a perpendicular orientation. So, when two electrons are entangled, i.e., represented by the same wave function, they can be thought of as sharing or splitting a spin-bit, and when one electron is measured as spin up, the other is necessarily spin down, and this correlation happens over any distance instantaneously at the exact moment that the wave function collapses due to a measurement, much to Einstein's chagrin. Any trained physicist can feel free to kick my butt on anything I got wrong.
"Any trained physicist can feel free to kick my butt on anything I got wrong."
anyone that says this, as opposed to making a blanket statement, is probably 90%+ there.
So, if the electrons share/split the same information and are part of the same wavefunction, are they even different 'particles'?
@@edwardjenner1381 It's my understanding that they are two separate particles which share quantum properties due to their interaction, but are represented by one wave function, which is an additive function.
It's weird that the universe is so weird.
Great job, Joe! I am not a physicist but I have been reading about this stuff for decades (I particularly like Brian Greene). As far as I can tell you did a very good job presenting this VERY tricky material. You did a fine job of deemphasizing some very destracting details so as to make your point clearly, but mentioning the existance of those details so that critics couldn't say "you didn't even mention [some crucial peice of physics that they love]."
Again, well done!
You are legit one of the reasons I have Nebula, Joe. :)
I just wish it had some kind of method of figuring out what I like to watch, and recommending videos I might like to see next.
Also, some sort of community engagement system would be great! I dunno, a comments section or something like that.
Ooh, and some easy way for people to give feedback! The whole thumbs-up/thumbs-down thing is pretty cliche, but I mean, if it works...
It might also be a good idea to set up a system by which you could notify people who are interested when you post new videos, some kind of... hmm... let's call it a "subscribe button"? And while we're at it, maybe a few different degrees of notification so people can customize whether they get poked for _all_ of your videos, just the ones that recommendation system thinks they care about, or none if they just want it to act like Nebula acts now. Just spitballing here, but some sort of a bell icon? It could be filled in for all notifications, an outline for recommended ones, and have a line through it for none.
That thing you're after is the thing you used to post this comment... 😏
Nebula does have a Follow button equiv to Subscribe - but no degrees of notification because there's no AI algorithm spying on your behaviour to drive recommendations.
I suspect the reason that doesn't exist is the same as for comments: a *lot* of staff would be required to make both functional.
I also sometimes wish I had some kind of meth, but with homemade drugs you never really know what you're getting.
Recently, another test was done for Bell's Theorem: Two large telescopes were pointed, one at each, at two very distant quasars and the signals from each were used to generate random numbers during the test equipment adjustments, There was no possible way the the quasars were communicating with each other to screw up the random probabilities required to give the final results. Again, QM random wave-functions won.
So did both of them gave same numbers in the end?
Einstein’s Quantum Riddle documentary on Nova channel describes that experiment with quasars, as well as entanglement and the new theories, such as the holographic universe
Joe Scott never fails to put a smile on my face with his cheesy jokes! x
Much love from the UK
Define “real.”
We don’t have a standard to measure against. Our species has been on a journey of discovery from the start. If we discover facts that don’t jibe with what we’ve long assumed, so be it.
Brit living in California and fan of Civvie 11 and shouted 'NO PYTHON' at the screen twice on this one. And then he pulls the Doug Adams reference... I actually teared up a bit. AND Civvie covered Starship Titanic (Douglas's interactive game). Joe, there is a reason we love you. Next video you HAVE to explain why 42 is the meaning of life. I'm pretty sure Deep Thought's earth computer calculations are done now and you have the answer. THAT should be next video. Love ya my friend.
I rarely feel the needs to correct something on this channel. It's gone on par and above my knowledge base in some cases. Certainly less mistakes than early on. I think that's awesome.
FEWER mistakes. ❤
Good work in conquering the Mt. Everest of scientific topics. Pretty much everything you said flew right over my head.
Love the vid, and the effort ya put into trying to research, explain/present, convey everything that ya do mate =D
Thanks Joe, you made something unclear, surprisingly easy for me to get.
I'm very sure Einstein's belief that there is a speed limit, which happens to be light, is wrong.
People used to think the sonic barrier was a speed limit, because airplanes broke, and humans want to believe in limits.
My question is how do they get particles entangled? Like how do you entangle 2 particles, and then send them away from each other to test the spooky action at a distance? Every body seem to just skip that part and I always find this part fascinating. Can you try explain that in a future video?
Put them in your pocket, they will come out entangled.
They use math. After all everything is just math. The two particles aren't even real.
In the old days, they used a stick in a hole and a rope to spin a particle in one direction. They put each particle on the top of a stick, coiled the rope around it, tied the ropes to a cow , and used a whip to drive the cows in opposite directions.
@@scratchy996 But first assume the cows are spherical.
@@craigtevis1241 that's the most important part. Funny thing Indians called spheres Cow.
My understanding is they are entangled and get them out of this state to measure 'the spooky action at a distance'.
Anyway quantum physics to me is a fun new way to explain magic in a whole new way.
I just watched this documentary, called Everything Everywhere All at Once. Not only is the universe real, it's actually a multiverse. But none of that matters because there is no meaning, except that there is meaning. Also, sentient rocks do exists, so be nice to them. #family
Now I want a bagel.
You almost make QM understandable. That's a huge compliment.
I still don't have a clue.
@@JohnnyZenith I said "almost"...
Sir my english is not good
So please tell me universe locally not real ?
Aryan: Sorry, but I could never do as well as the video.
@@bobnelsonfr Yes you did.
Well explained Joe. Thanks
Albert Einstein: exist
Bohr: nah shit Sherlock
Can you do a video on time, some of the illusion of time stuff really freaks me out sends me in a spin.
I have OCD and a theme of mine is existential ocd and for periods of the last few years I’ve been really stuck on it.
Periods though it’s been better I think if got a solid framework in my head to make sense of things.
I just had like a relapse and it sends me into a really horrible state of mind. But I think I’ve got it sorted and a better way of making sense of things in a more nuanced less dogmatic less catastrophic kinda way.
If I'm not real then I can't be arrested for crimes...
This just means that there's a statistical probability of the wave functions that make "You" will be arrested.
Might be possible in your universe. Gonna test it out? 🤔
Subscribed!
Excellent content and the way you communicate it!
A simulation for our souls to progress through experiences and for god to know itself through us.
I love and hare how often these big headlines are "we confirmed another aspect of theory" rather than something completely new.
The wormhole in a quantum computer you mentioned in another video however is REALLY SUPER EXCITE.
Like.. that's critical and unlike anything ever done before as far as I know.
I am one of those who were "warming the hands";). But I must say you've come a long way when it comes to physics since your early days on TH-cam. No wonder this channel has grown so much. Great job!
So was Hamlet a quantum physicist?
This deserves a like.
Lol… Thats so weird… that Einstein was basically like…. “ you can’t just boil it down to a simple equation!” 😏
Describing physical objects and their properties with equations is one thing. But saying that the fundamental nature of reality is not made up of "physical objects" as we understand them but is actually composed of clouds of indeterminate probabilities which we can ONLY conceptualize as equations is a whole other thing.
I'm a couple months away from completing a degree in aerospace engineering and by far the biggest struggle I have faced during that process was some of the electrical engineering courses where we have to deal with inherently quantum phenomena and therefore the behavior of these systems is described with probabilistic functions. Like I can fully wrap my head around advanced fluid dynamics problems, the multi-variable calculus is no problem, I can form a conceptual model in my head of the physical properties the different variables represent, and how the different operations model different physical phenomena and whatnot. When we use probabilities in those types of problems it's to represent our inability to perfectly measure certain values, it represents the uncertainty we have in a particular measurement. But when you start telling me that no, the physical thing we are working with can't be described with just a variable, it doesn't have a singular value but instead it exists as this probability function, and yes we can still describe the antennas and what not with these mathematical expressions but we have to plug this probabilistic expression into them and you aren't really going to get a value out you are going to get another probabilistic expression that describes your antennas response to those radio waves and you just then plug that into your decoder function and hey look you now have WiFi!!! It all just makes my brain kinda melt. Like seriously the mathematics and understanding that actually make things like digital radio communication and computer chips all actually work is some of the most mind boggling shit I have ever had to deal with, and I literally deal with the behavior of shockwaves inside rocket engines on a daily basis. And it all comes down to the fundamentally quantum nature of those things. Shits weird man.
@@Ender240sxS13 When I first learned (in a very different context, namely, psychology) the there are blind spots on our retinas that eye movement and most importantly, brain processing of visual input, causes us to never notice, also that the brain projects the movement of some objects a couple of milliseconds ahead of time, so we can swing at a baseball or catch a pass... I came to appreciate that "Reality" is nothing like what we comprehend with our senses. Most of what we see, in particular, is an illusion, a magic trick.
sorry, if my examples seem like a strange tangent. I'm saying that the reason you are weirded out by how wifi works or what goes on inside a rocket, is because naturally you expect it to work with the same physics as throwing a ball. But our visceral understanding of ball throwing, was always an illusion in the first place. Everything we thought we knew, is wrong.
Caught a few of your subtle references love you joe
Seems like this is the "QM" take on the old philosophical question: "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?"
Thank you! You really explained it in a way I can understand. That doesn't say much for you, but I really appreciate it. (joking) Seriously, until I watched this, I did not understand Bell's Test and what it meant. You included a lot of the "points" (couldn't help it) from the past that really told the story. The name following was brutal, I ended up just grouping them so I could stick to the knowledge.
Thank you!
I like to imagine there are particles inside every one of us and maybe there is some science behind finding “the one” a person who you can entangle with
Thank you Joe for clearing that up. I was starting to worry that I was a figment of my own imagination. :)
Zeilinger is a chill dude. I occasionally run into him in the tram or the subway in Vienna.
Joe I wanted to let you know that I just signed up for Curiosity Stream and Nebula using your discount code. Very excited to explore both. Thanks! 16:45
There is a great video made by Sabine Hossenfelder that covers the topics you've explained with more depth.
She's a PhD physicist so it makes sense that she's able to cover it more thoroughly
Always listen to Sabine over me.
Veritasium explains the actual test of Bell's inequality better than any other I've seen.
Your best work ever Joe … and love the smooth background music…
thanks for that 🙏🏾
I could never get tired of listening to it
"Spooky action at a distance" - Being a voyeur to a pair of ghosts getting it on.
As always, great video. Thank you for sharing!
Joe - I applaud you for taking on this topic. I've watched & read tons of material on Quantum Physics; Particle vs. Wave conditions; Energy Strings; Membranes; Planck limits & Quantum Foam...but having stopped my Math education after Calculus I and Statistics - I don't really understand any of this. But I love it. And we love you. 😉
This video perfectly demonstrates why I dropped physics at school and became a musician 😆 Great explanation, love your humour 🤣🙏
I found your content via Nebula, and decided to track you down here on TH-cam. Thanks for your content, definitely enjoying it. 😊👍
Awesome time transitions!
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar, but at the same time he doesn't, because we can't actually see inside the bar yet. I'm sitting inside the bar, but if the particle decayed, then I'm still in my truck, rolling a joint. _Particles, Ryan._ (Wilfred)
oh man the theory vs hypothesis thing. I want to correct the correctors: it is totally valid to say "I have a theory" because theory means "model". one can hypothesize a theory, one can propose a theory, one can have a theory, but a theory can also be very confident. the theory of refers to a model of ; just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's verified, I can come up with some crazy theory and by doing so I'm hypothesizing because the theory hasn't been tested. so, almost right, but the colloquial usage isn't usually technically *wrong*, but it's misleading in ways that lead to people wondering how the "theory of gravity" could be confirmed, since it didn't stop being a theory. it's because theory does not imply confidence level, in formal terms!
wassup Joe, great video rlly enjoy ur vids
I think locality is irrelevant, just as Schrodinger demonstrates in his example of the cat in the box, variables can only be assumed and conclusions are the ultimate extention of it, by virtue of reality, not uncertainty.
Because causation(Entropy) is in relation to every property of existence, the potential is always seaminglly there as the probabilities are centralized and decentralized to come and become the present.
And so the present moment has such a shallow effect for the "casual observers" like us, for we make sense of the surroundings of the past to the extent that they relate to the present.
Succinctly you covered numerous massive topics with with your usual great wit. Bravo!
So well written and narrated! 😊
QM is so weird it literally hurts my head. To make things worse words mean different things in physics.😥
👏I gave a presentation over this topic as a term project for graduate Quantum Mechanics two years ago. You did a better job than I did!
I am often impressed by your ability to both grasp and explain the intuitive understanding of complex topics like this. Kudos Joe. Since I found your channel three years ago, I check in every week. Keep it up as long as you enjoy it! Your genuine enthusiasm really shines through. I've learned a ton from your channel with lots of laughs along the way.