Why Did Quantum Entanglement Win the Nobel Prize in Physics?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ต.ค. 2022
- Take the 2023 PBS Survey: to.pbs.org/pbssurvey2023d
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to:to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
The Nobel prize in physics is typically awarded to scientists who make sense of nature; those whose discoveries render the universe more comprehensible. But the 2022 Nobel has been awarded to three physicists who revealed that the universe is even stranger than we thought thanks to Quantum Entanglement
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
Previous Episodes Mentioned:
Quantum Entanglement and The Great Bohr Einstein Debate: • Quantum Entanglement a...
Pilot Wave Theory and Quantum Realism: • Pilot Wave Theory and ...
What If we Live In a Superdeterministic Universe: • What If We Live in a S...
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspacetime.com/
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Fernando Franco Félix & Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, Pedro Osinski, Caique Oliveira, Adriano Leal & Stephanie Faria
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Spacetime is produced by Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2022 PBS. All rights reserved.
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Special Thanks to Our Patreon Supporters
Big Bang Supporters
Devin Wiley
Ankur Anand
Ryan Salsamendi
Steffen Bendel
Gautam Shine
NullBlox.ZachryWilsn
Adam Hillier
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
David Neumann
Leo Koguan
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Amy Hickman
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Fabrice Eap
Mark Rosenthal
David Nicklas
Quasar Supporters
Vivaan Vaka
Glenn hEADcRASH Sugden
Sujasha Gupta Vaka
Vikram Vaka
Alex Kern
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Christina Oegren
Mike Conroy
Mark Heising
Hank S
Hypernova Supporters
Ryan Moser
David Giltinan
Ivari Tölp
Vyce Ailour
Brandon Paddock
Oneamazinguy
Ken S
Gregory Forfa
Kirk Honour
Mark Evans
drollere
Joe Moreira
Marc Armstrong
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Russell Pope
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
John R. Slavik
Mathew
Donal Botkin
John Pollock
Edmund Fokschaner
Joseph Salomone
chuck zegar
Jordan Young
John Hofmann
Daniel Muzquiz
Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
Walter Montalvo
Andrea Galvagni
Larka
Jerry Thomas
Nikhil Sharma
Alexander Gruber
Jonathan Cordovano
John Anderson
Scott Hannum
Paul Widden
Bradley Ulis
Craig Falls
Kane Holbrook
John Yaraee
Ross Story
teng guo
Mason Dillon
Harsh Khandhadia
Thomas Tarler
bsgbryan
Sean McCaul
Susan Albee
Frank Walker
Matt Q
MHL SHS
Terje Vold
James Trimmier
Anatoliy Nagornyy
comboy
Andre Stechert
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
jim bartosh
Nubble
Ramon Nogueira
The Mad Mechanic
Ellis Hall
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Alex Edwards
Ádám Kettinger
MD3
Endre Pech
Daniel Jennings
Cameron Sampson
Geoffrey Clarion
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
Eric Webster
David Johnston
Web Browser
Michael Barton
Mr T
Andrew Mann
Isaac Suttell
Devon Rosenthal
Oliver Flanagan
Bleys Goodson
Robert Walter
Bruce B
Mirik Gogri
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Robert Ilardi
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Graydon Goss
Frederic Simon
Tonyface
John Robinson
Jim Hudson
A G
David Neal
justahat
John Funai
Tristan
Bradley Jenkins
Daniel Stříbrný
Luaan
Cody
Thomas Dougherty
King Zeckendorff
Dan Warren
Patrick Sutton
John Griffith
Daniel Lyons
DFaulk
Kevin Warne
![[UNCUT]”บิ๊กโจ๊ก” แฉพลีชีพ เดินหน้า ล้างบาง สตช. ฟ้องหมด มันสนพวกใคร I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FIWKnr2ArPs/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH]FFWS SEA Spring 2024 Knockout Stage - Day 11](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qr0L1ab9dLE/mqdefault.jpg)
Going against both Einstein and Feynmann, I guess they were *super determined*
@@unbearablepun8608 apt username
I both hate you, and love you.
Are you my dad?
Bell himself, who proposed the Super Determinism explanation of quantum mechanics, would love this comment.
Including your comment.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
It blows my mind that in one hour you have 25,000 views about an obscure problem in quantum physics. I am glad to be in the company of my nerd brothers and sisters. There are more of you than I suspected.
Sup, fam?
i honestly love these topics im not even very seasoned in mathematics, but phantom matter and this credit towards quantum entanglements research really has me high in spirits. Its humbling to remember how small/significant we are from time to time. Seeing how far the particle acceleration field, and quantum field has come towards pushing the envelope of the UNKNOWN has me so happy that as a human race our drive towards feeding a curiosity has not escaped or locked down or held back the frontiers of science.
It's now 55,000
@@phily-hu5pr So....many....nerds....
they solved this on ant man and the wasp new movie quantanium!
What a time to be alive. I'm 8 mins into this and clueless but just happy at the strides science has made. Incredible.
In other words, esoteric claptrap is all you need to believe in a specious theory as enormous as quantum mechanics. 🙄
String theory also sounds fascinating but it's meaningless.. if you don't understand it how can you know its not bs?
*Soon, somebody will prove that astrology is true and planets affect us.*
@@YOTUBE8848 well the planets must effect us they can't not effect us tbh
It would not be traveling faster then light if distance was an illusion
Quantum mechanics feels like those math questions you got right as a kid, but when you showed your work, you were going about it wrong.
YES THIS AFGSVZBZ
Even though you know you were correct
Opposite. The methodology here is rock solid. Hence the experimenters won the Nobel. Yet the results make no sense to the classically conditioned mind.
Yeah then they take all the claim through your work. Might as well stand in front of a mirror and say I'm right and you're wrong. Obstinate bastards.
It looked wrong THEN. Mathematicians used to be averse to imaginary numbers, they gaslit themselves into using solutions until they got the results they wanted, at the cost of going further and further away from the actual results.
I just want to say this is the only channel thats getting better with age, thanks for not underestimating your viewers.
Absolutely! PBS SpaceTime is like 10 seasons show, you can't start watching from season 10 and expect a great understanding; you have to start from the beginning. And as a veteran viewer, I do also think to start over from the beginning for some time to brush up my knowledge; I also want to take notes next time, I just don't have the time and focus yet.
Exactly my thoughts too. I'm so glad they maintain this level of quality without dumbing things down to the point of cliché or inaccuracy, like so many other science educators do.
Indeed, I'd rather know if something doesn't make sense that's it just because I'm an idiot, not because the show I'm watching is.
Meh... not so sure. The "Edge of the Universe" episodes were the peak, let's be honest. And that series on string theory (is right/is wrong) was much better than the past year's episodes as well. But then again, when you're this good, it's easy to blow your wad early.
"The only channel that's getting better with age" A) wrong, it's not better now than it was than the last guy, you likely just mean "more entertaining", which arguably it is, but this being a teaching channel is dead and has been for years now BUT ALSO B) even if I DID agree with you, you are being needlessly myopic given many of the channels that HAVE gotten better.
As a non-physicist, I feel I won something whenever I can follow your videos all the way to the end.
Definitely. I have been bashing my head off Astrophysics and Quantum Physics for over two years, and I'm only just starting to get even a basic understanding of what we *think* we know so far. I love this channel for ideas and theory, and I also love Anton Petrov's channel for latest news about various discoveries and mysteries of Astrophysics.
Here's a take you might like, by the well-known Sean Carroll.
From his perspective, literally anything that can happen, the slight deviation in movement, spin, path, or whatever, of a single quark, all the way to the largest, incomprehensible cosmological events all does happen at once, sort of like the Multiverse interpretations. Yet what we see at macro scale Reality, is only where these things overlap the most, with the rest disappearing into oh no I can't remember and I've gone cross-eyed.
Yes thats Matt's talent for getting this through in the layman's terms
@@TheHorseshoePartyUK I can't get on board with the many worlds interpretation
@@TheHorseshoePartyUK hey i also want to learn about all this stuff, it makes me so curious and excited. after so much time being depressed i found something that interests me, nothing interested me, nothing. im afraid I'll loose interest in this too but something atleast something after years made me excited to learn, i used to love to learn and read. 😔i want to learn but i don't know where to start. i know about the theory of relativity newtons laws just basics and thats all. astrophysics quantum physics 😔i want to learn it all. can you please give me guidance, where to begin, how to proceed. 😔😔 any books you may suggest for a beginner or topics, you are doing it for 2 years you must know.
@@woodynotes No I really don't know a whole lot and I'm utterly confused by about 90% of what I've tried to learn so far, sorry
If you can prove Einstein wrong in any way, you will win the Nobel Prize in Physics.
So if you can prove those who have proven Einstein wrong , wrong themselves then you must win the Nobel Prize in Physics …. I love quantum physics !!! Max Planck is one of the hero of it !! ….
@@Kassiusday To be honest, they have not proven Einstein wrong. They have probably proven Einstein wrong, which is not the same. Quantum theory is always probabilistic. How probable are they? As probable as it is not probable. Their theory is technically in a superposition.
@@r.davidsenhello Thank you for your comment , because I did have the same reflexion : in quantum we are referring to statistics and probability and we fix the result ( collapsing the reality ) as soon as we are observing ( we involve our consciousness !! So are we living beings , existing beings or are nt we ?? And as you leave your cup of tea ☕️ on the table when you go to the toilet 🚻 that cup of tea can be anywhere in that room you just left … or might be also not present as solid cup of tea anymore but a wave fonction of it // here we go superposition of probabilities … nothing turns to be real in Quantum Physics . but a probability / however having said that .you can deny that distance seems not existing so as the time , at that level ….Einstein still scratching his head …
Objectively, the haircut was wrong... my prize please
@Kassius KLAY there is no consciousness involved, you're just repeating sensational Google bs people read. A particle exist as a superposition of states and has no deleyed will or hidden variables. The point being once information about an object is taken such as speed,spin position , etc ,the variable can no longer change, yet up until that moment the object has not collapsed. This can be caused by objects without conciousness once so ever.
It's like a turtle hiding into its shell after being affected by external stimuli, an observation in scientific terms means "collection of information" as opposed to "eyeing it"
The misunderstanding about it generaly comes from eraser experiment. People don't understand the mechanic and read made up headline which is no different to celebrity gossip site
Feynmann would never say it was wrong to try, he was saying it was impracticable for that lab at that time; not the same thing. He was not closed minded and well understood the value research of this type.
I think I'll dress as a Quantum Entangled Particle for Halloween this year and tell everyone I'm causing spooky actions at a distance.
I’m stealing this idea and making quantum mechanics jokes all Halloween.
Not a perfect idea
Reported to the joke police.
You missed out on doing this during the lockdowns.
Have a one-time pad in your pocket. It can travel faster than light.
Man, you're good. I have a master's in physics, but haven't been working as a physicist for a long, long time. You single-handedly revived my interest, updated me on more recent understanding, and helped me understand certain concepts that I should have understood at the time but didn't.
If you like to find an easy explanation of this and other mysterious phenomena, I will recommend you my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Nice, which specialty?
I have one of those in quantum stuff for semiconductors
@@aghosh5447 what's the matter?
E/c^2!
Come on! That's mass!
🤓
Ok you need good grades.
It's like you had problems with the pandemia. But just like 2 years, dude.
Go and try the best you can to achieve your goals!
What a bunch of Western malarkey, Chinese scientists have advanced more of this shiet than any european fckers.
@@aghosh5447 oh well.. But at least keep studying a little if you have time. It's always fun to...
😳 😟 😔
Ok.
But if you have any chance, would you like to finish your f****ng career? After all, the time you spent studying is valuable, it was hmmm. You know. it requires a lot of effort... 😟🤓
I admire you a lot for being able to explain complicated things and not be condescending about it. Thank you good sir.
Einstein actually came up with quantum entanglement; he deserved a nobel prize for that.
They gave it to Obama instead. The true winner.
He called it a paradox.
@@debasishraychawdhuri But it turned out to be true.
4:11 I appreciate you using phrases like "dogma" and heretic when referring to how the debate around quantum entanglement developed. It reminds us that even if science holds at its highest ideal that truth is what matters, it's a system acted out by humans, whom can easily lock down thinking that falls outside the accepted narrative
*who
Einstein and Feynman never asserted their beliefs as fact, as their careers moved in different directions in line with what served their place and time. Physicists are not always based.
@@zanegoofgodfrey3540 I never said all physicists were biased, man. But the collective CAN become almost aggressive in knocking down hypotheses that go against what's currently the working theory. Just like how the catholic church silenced anything around heliocentrism.
I remember a domcumentary of just how long it took Einstein and his supporters to convince the scientific body to budge on relativity - which is a good thing generally- but I think many were dismissing it off-hand
...only a genius or a fool would risk their whole future career on the gamble of some revolutionary new point of view.
~Atiyah
truth brother
Thank you for pointing out that Bell's Inequality and the experiments honored by the Nobel Prize only rule out local hidden variables theories. I'm not saying I'm necessarily advocating for pilot waves or any other non-local theory, but it's been annoying seeing videos discussing this topic completely ignore that they may be disproving locality rather than hidden variables.
Until I saw Sabine's video on the topic, I spent a few sleepless nights worrying about fundamental randomness & non-realism, having only seen glowing headlines. I already knew that these experiments had been done, but I didn't realize they were only now getting the Nobel recognition. So when everything I see just says that the Nobel prize was given out for proving reality isn't real, I get very worried. Luckily Matt and Sabine are here to talk us down.
I'm sure it's in this video somewhere, too, but pilot waves are far from the only escape hatch here. Many Worlds never collapses a wavefunction, so all results still exist and the results don't have to square until they're brought together, at or below the speed of light. It's really very elegant when you look at it as just math and forget about everyone telling you there are branching realities. "Superdeterminism" is the more popular option, though, I believe, and it really isn't different from just taking determinism seriously. With either of those interpretations, you get to keep locality by thinking about realism a little differently.
@@davidhand9721 Just like string theory, super-determinism is a theory that may never be proven right or wrong.
But at some point you need interpretation in order to make sense of the results of experiments. To sort out wrong hypothesis only more and more sophisticated experiments are necessary.
I think 0 is the hidden variable.. it's right in plain sight, but hidden because it doesn't objectively exist.. 0 also cannot defy locality be abuse it isn't matter.. in my thinking 0 is also infinity tho.
@@nickrindal2787 0 is a constant, not a variable.
How Matt can infuse humor into these extremely technical episodes as he did in the last Q&A answer is truly brilliant.
hes a troll
My friend saw this video and he (a fellow Researcher but in the field of Virology) asked me (a physics PhD) why at 5:58 it is alluded that the entangled photon or electron pairs must have an opposite spin. I had to explain the law of conservation of angular momentum to him.
This video was excellently made and simplified. Due to the uncharacteristically high interests in this topic from non-physics people, it is however good to mention even this simple aspects we usually take for granted.
The episodes where you describe experiments and how conclusions were drawn from them are my favorite. Please do more.
no please don't, we already knew about these experiments. A video on a subject with the adequate experiments related to it is better.
I always wonder how those old-timey physicists figured out very specific things without modern equipment. How much of it is direct vs indirect evidence or logical vs physical etc.
Taking my undergraduate physics classes can be just a constant state of confusion with a few moments of satisfaction attained by comprehending a concept that are quickly squashed by a new even more complicated concept to understand. These videos give me a fun, easy to understand dose of physics that is still new and exciting for me.
I'm right there with you, Luke!
It is not your fault that some aspects are difficult to comprehend because current physics is full of conflicting phenomena and explanations. If you want to understand what's is going on I will recommend you to find my book - Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" I wish you a pleasant time.
@@valentinmalinov8424
Your book?
Where it is available?
Did you get the impression that TPTB were BSing you?
My education is in business but my love is physics. I admit I do not have the brain to understand the in-depth aspects of all the branches of physics. This channel is awesome in helping me understand on my level. Thank you particularly as I have a really easy time understanding you and staying attentive.
Same here.
I am from commerce background but quantum physics is my new found love .
Have been following PBS- Space time, Sabine Hossenfelder for a while but I can understand only a bit like 10% of what they explain.
Are there any other channels which are good for beginners like me?
Great stuff, Matt .... as always. The comment-responses alone were worth the journey!
I realise that most universities have limited budgets and so a head of faculty will deny research funds to scientists who are bucking the favored theory of the day but I love how many discoveries have come from people who refuse to give up on their own theories.It's what science is all about.
Funny the Bible has been talking about these things long ago… the triune God of Christianity…. consisting of three in one (used especially with reference to the Trinity).. God the father, the Holy Spirit and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are three separate entities and one God at the same exact time. Quantum Entanglement is the same concept of how Christ was able to walk the earth as 100% a man and still be one God.
This is legitimately the first time someone actually described fundamental quantum mechanics in a way i could at least get somewhat of a grasp of the concept.
You´ve definitely earned a subscription! And you´ve earned it the hard way since i´m not all that clever. 😅👍
Funny the Bible has been talking about these things long ago… the triune God of Christianity…. consisting of three in one (used especially with reference to the Trinity).. God the father, the Holy Spirit and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are three separate entities and one God at the same exact time. Quantum Entanglement is the same concept of how Christ was able to walk the earth as 100% a man and still be one God.
@@PaulJohn283 Just stop with the BS. grow up.
Haha! And this is just one aspect. Absolutely the most baffling however. He has a way with words. I like anyone who can attract people who haven't spent the years I have on the subject.
It's people like him that first got me interested in Einstein.... 14 years later and I still know very little about what actually governs the physical properties of our universe.
We have a long way to go. We'll only ever arrive through inspiration to learn more.
@@PaulJohn283 Pretty sure you have no idea what quantum entanglement is. Don't attempt to twist science to fit your dumb fairy tales, my man.
@@PaulJohn283 great attempt to explain stuffs like that : is interesting …
Proper feels for the shout out to Aleksander at the end. Sounds an inspirational person with a love of science, and a lovely tribute.
the background music in the first five minutes legit triggered a pavlovian tanxiety response in me because it sounds like it came straight outta late 2000s YT horror like I Feel Fantastic or Shaye St John.
Just wanted to say thank you for working this hard for people like us who are not necessarily scientists or someone important but just bunch of nerds(i say this very respectfully) who wants to learn more about the universe and its mysterious ways without getting to technical about the maths behind it..
I have got bachelor in physics and i have been watching this chanel since i was in grade 11.. to be honest you guys are a big reason for me choosing to go for a physics degreee..and i am thankful for it.. i liked every second of my studies just because of the curiosity that you guys put into me..thanks very much..
As usual PBS Space Time does an outstanding job explaining complicated subjects like quantum entanglement - makes me want to study Physics - keep up the excellent work! Thank you!
Cold fusion, q-entanglement, Big Bang... another one bites the dust
Amazingly I was able to follow your descriptions of these developments and am very thankful for the work you put into it!!!
Thank god for this video. So many videos said hidden variables had been disproven completely by this when they obviously hadn't. They also really lent into the "universe is not locally real" without explaining what that actually meant, or why the research was limited. Subscribed.
Exactly. I used to think hidden variables were real, but now I think they are not. But one way or the other was not proved yet. Thank you for saying what I was thinking but wasn't able to properly articulate. Cheers!
@@Ukrainian__Patriot More than welcome. My love and luck to your country.
@@kalashnikov96 Thanks!
I hope that broad and long lasting impact of this channel on humanity will be remembered in the annals of physics history a hundred years from now. Wonderful job, all.
Entanglement surely can be used to send Mesages infinitely-fast, right?
@@loturzelrestaurant th-cam.com/video/0xI2oNEc1Sw/w-d-xo.html
Dr. Quantum Entanglement has been working very hard in their field for years without the recognition they deserve. I personally congratulate Dr. Entanglement for their deserved Nobel win
His wife, Barbara Entanglement, has been a great supporter of her husband too.
He's a bit spooky but nevertheless super determined to be relatively better, in general, than ever before
@@JorgetePanete He looks spooky from afar, but seems ok up close.
It seems a bit slow to me.
Their stuff seems like History to me.
Congrats Dr. Entang Lé Mènt
Congratulations to this years nobel prize winners. brilliant work. thanks for adding to the universe's entropy! to more disorder! cheers!
1:58 I've heard about "quantum leap" but hearing "quantum balls" is an interesting articulation.
lol
I loved how you stepped through the progress made in good timing, and being engaging.
Love watching the vids! Please don't stop 😅
That's what she said
I love PBS Spacetime! This episode puts together so many of the elements that give me pleasure. Thank you Matt and team for another informative episode enlightening us lay persons on the sometimes weird world of physics, including the right measure of whimsy to make it digestible.
Was wondering if you could explore the relationship of this to the quantum eraser. The double slit experiment fails to be predictable due to a worm hole between the entangled particles whereby time is irrelevant?
Awesome explanation 👏
I was moved by the tribute to the young man who was a sponsor of the channel. RIP Alex. 🙏
Great explanation, at 3:04 the coefficients of the basis states at the RHS needs to be square root.
The coefficients (1/2s) in the wavefunction before the basis states should be square rooted (otherwise it's not normalised)! The wavefunction itself doesn't provide probabilities associated with each state, not until you multiply it by its conjugate transpose ...
I love watching these! Especially the parts where my brain gets entangled, and then untangles a bit as the details are shown. I call it the "Neuro-quantum antistupification effect".
These videos are always super dense and I've been watching them for years. But it wasn't until I became a nuclear engineer, over the past few months, that I came to really value and appreciate the science covered in these videos. They cease to amaze me!
The phrase is “they never cease to amaze me” not “they cease to amaze me.” Unless of course you meant that you are no longer amazed by these videos
@@sgrey9181it’s a consistent pattern among recent generations that the they mangle common idioms. 🤷🏼
I love the lighting in this video. Super easy and inviting on my screen, and makes Matt look like a handsome rugged science Chad
Quantum entanglement is usually referring to the entanglement of energy in double bonds to the point of electrons and the bond breaks or the election spins off the halogen or transition metal nearby. The superposition and spin flip issue is the functional quality of the NMR or MRI imaging system. They appear to be mixing their metaphors.
Biggest criticism of Zeilinger is that he always makes it more mysterious than it needs to be.
That's sort of true of most populist science when it comes to quantum mechanics, they tend to play up the mysterious and magical - rather than using terms like "we don't, as yet, know how this particular thing works".
I dk man. QM is pretty wild.
If you don't make QM sound like dark sorcery... are you a real scientist?
@@JudeMalachi : Alternatively, it's the Locality assumption that's wrong, not the Reality assumption. Note: in the EPR paper, Locality was named Separability.
@@JudeMalachi I'm in the field and likely just biased cause I read a few of his papers where he could easily have been more pedagogic (but likely then those papers would have had lower impact if not intentionally made mysterious).
The coolest part is that we now know with certainty that Clauser's, Aspect's and Zeilinger's entangled pair partners _didn't_ win the Nobel Prize regardless of where they are in the universe!
Clauser's experiment focuses on two separate photons. The entanglement should have been studied on different characteristics of a single photon.
Coming up with a theory that postulates a model of quantitative relationships and interpretations which fits existing observations and explain existing problems is one part of the scientific process.
The other, more underrated part, is coming up with clever ways to produce viable observations that stress the peculiar corner case hypothesis of said model.
while I don't fully understand every topic you share with us on thew channel I appreciate that you don't shy away from talking about the more difficult to understand subjects
I've always wondered if quantum physics issues arise because we're 3d creatures trying to understand multidimensional objects.
What if entangled particles share a higher dimensional coordinate. Like how polynomial equations can have two answers, entangled particles intersect our 3d reality at multiple locations. So information isn't traveling "faster than the speed of light" but instead it's basically just one system connecting the two points in 3d space.
This could also explain the weird shape of atomic orbitals and stuff in chemistry too. Those might be "perfect shapes" in higher dimensions.
That extra dimensional coordinate would be a hidden variable, and given the results of these experiments, that coordinate would need to be independent of everything else happening in spacetime, if it even exists. For more about this, look up "Superdeterminism"
@@falnica I agree, except the way I see it is the particles are the result of the system, not the system it's self. Like the x intercepts in a polynomial. What we see is only a part of the system. Our reality is the x axis in that analogy.
So the particles might not have the extra variable, the system that exists in higher dimensions have the variables. The particles just intersect our 3d reality at those points.
And us being 3d entities are trying to reverse engineer the system from our limited perspective.
I dunno to be honest, that's just sorta how I've always imagined it working in my head, and "dark matter" is just these systems that dont intersect our 3d reality; however, it influences the rest of the systems that do intersect our reality
@@KastorFlux I never forgot about time?
I’m confused about your argument. I’m talking literal spatial dimensions
@@KastorFlux no time is a temporal dimension.
@@KastorFlux I mean instead of arguing a fact, I think you should Google first.
I’m not going to get derailed from my original argument as this is irrelevant. Even if your argument was factual, I still believe there are more than 4 dimensions.
Also, you keep adding “lol” to the message condescendingly, but you should reevaluate your confidence. Invest in some humility, it’ll save you from looking foolish in the future.
I’ve been researching quite a bit about Alain aspect and quantum entanglement since I have an assignment to do and my brain is now completely fried every time I think I got it they would introduce a new idea I’m honestly thinking of failing it by now😅
My personal gut feeling is that it's not so much "hidden variables" as a system we don't understand. That is, I think both relativity and QM are very good approximations, but there's a system that ties it all together and explains the "spookiness"
Consciousness being the substrate of reality projecting spacetime
@@ShallowedOutGolf That's pretty much what Planck said
@@ShallowedOutGolfso every conscious entity agrees on this perception?? 😂
@@coolblue5929 Basically what’s going on is there’s a substrate of reality of logic/syntax.
The self referential nature of this logic/syntax at an infinite scale is cognition/consciousness and teleological. It referencing itself at an infinite scale produced cognition and self awareness.
Because it’s infinite it has the nature to explore itself infinitely.
Space time and the human experience is an interface or useful fiction for this consciousness to simplify.
Ex. When you drink a glass of water it looks to you like you picked up a cup and drank it. In fundamental reality it was trillions x trillions of computations that you in the human experience couldn’t instantly perform.
@@ShallowedOutGolfgreat, thanks for word salad/explaining.
Small mistake:
At 3:04 , the wave function showed is not normalizable (sum of probabilities is not 1) .
Because 1/2 squared + 1/2 squared = 1/2. Which is wrong because it should be 1.
So you need to add square roots in your wave function on both 1/2 halfs.
Thank you 💙
You aren't taking account of the hidden variables. Since they're hidden, they don't appear in the equation.
Just to be pedantic, but 1/2 squared + 1/2 squared = 1/2
:)
0.5 squared + 0.5 squared = 0.5
@@Lcfp right, thank you for pointing out. fixed it.
@@davelordy thank you0
I tried to remain serious but i giggled at "quantum balls"😅
The enigma of being marooned in a simulated environment, reminds me of the story "Lord of The Flies".
My condolences to any of Aleksander'd friends and family who might be watching. This was a really nice way to send him off.
Love that you guys do tributes for people in the community!
RIP and respect to Aleksander Henry Sajewski.
Whether you understand it a little or a lot I just appreciate the opportunity to see more information on the nature of reality. There is so much we don’t know and so many ways to tease it out of the universe. The next couple decades are going to be wild.
Well said
A tiny remark, the wavefunction constants are 1 over square root of 2, since the probability is the square of the constants, such you get 1/2 as the probability for each state.
I think it's important to keep in mind that just because we have a strong idea we know something, it's still important to test it in different ways.
I'd straight up tell Rich he's less than a scientist if he opposed my testing him right/wrong. That's exactly what being a scientist is. Always testing things right and wrong hoping for the most accurate outcome.
It even seems a little out of character, compared to what he wrote in his books.
He'd get pretty salty when people challenged his view of things. He was usually right, though, which is both annoying and hilarious.
Dogma is not becoming of any scientist.
@@hoebare Feynman was famously anti-philosophy and very much in the "Shut Up and Calculate !" school when it came to quantum foundations - basically, he thought it was a waste of time and that physicists should concern themselves with _using_ quantum physics rather than worrying about what it all means.
Very glad this video didn't let him off the hook on that score (because I fundamentally disagree with his position).
this channel is almost exactly what i want!!! the explanations are still a little too hard to understand for a regular person so i end up having to replay certain parts or just cant continue paying attention through the whole thing. I really want to be able to watch this type of channel i love learning tho. Please simplify the explanations!!!
For entanglement to happen, as observed, the particles have to be placed near each other. They cannot be entangled if one of the particles exits far apart, like 100,000,000 miles, for example. Therefore, an ACTION has to take place to get them entangled. If all it takes is an ACTION, like motion, then there must exist in nature entangled particles. Has anyone discovered an naturally occurring entangled particle?
I really love how you go in-depth into the comments at the end of the videos. Really stellar teaching there!
Fantastic video as always, Space Time team! Superb explanations here, and the boxing at 3:50 was very clever!
Excellent analysis to such a highly controversial subject, kudos!👍
Wow! My light bulb finally came on! For part of this at least. Thank you for your light!
As soon as I saw the video title, my future has became pre-defined. I liked when one of the physicist said that you are a Carl Sagan of our times.
Great episode. I'd love more episodes that start with a theoretical concept like "delay the measurement" and show how that is done in an experiment.
Well done Matt on your fluent descriptions. I have one question regarding Quantum entanglement and the principle of instantaneous action at a distance. Assuming the two entangled particles measured by Alice and Bob, are each taken in their spaceships going in opposite directions at speeds that create some measurable time dilation; when the instantaneous action happens, do Bob and Alice see the effect happen at the same time, or is the ‘instant’ measured as being at the relative times of each? If the latter is true, on one objective perspective, the action takes place at a future time relative to the other and creates an interesting dilemma. If the former is true (ie at a time agreed by the observer to be the same (not sure how), then Alice and Bob measure the ‘instantaneous action’ as taking place at different times.
"Say the Lagrangian in front of a mirror 3 times..." I love these kinds of jokes... laughed so abruptly that my coffee went up my nose. LOL Thank you!
I remember reading about the Bell inequality and the epr experiment when I was a kid and I'm really glad people went through and did the experiment. One thing that has puzzled me though is why took that experiment to convince people of non-localities/ indeterminism. The thing that really convinced me and frankly it was shocking and very disturbing was the first experiments with single Photon and single electron two slit diffraction. To this day I'm unclear why a careful examination of that seminal experiment isn't as clear an illustration of non-locality/ in determinism. If anyone wants to explain how you can get single Photon and single electron to Slit diffraction patterns in a local/deterministic universe, I would be interested.
I don't understand how measuring polarization tell us something about locality and falsificate hidden variables theory
@@Wiewiurek that's a good question and the answer is covered in other videos. I'm not a big fan of veritasium but he did a good video on this. The long and short of it is that if you assume hidden variables you get a different result by about 12%, then you do if you assume indeterminacy until measurement. If you remember your basic trigonometry you can go through the math and you'll see there's a difference.
I believe in a "hyperdeterministic" block universe where the entire past and future are fully realized and always exist simultaneously. It is our consciousness that is traveling through the time dimension in this static, fully realized, fully existent "block" universe.
Agreed!
I am just so amazed by the knowledge of the physicist. To understand these principles, write the formulas, explain something that you don't see, etc. Even if you simplify the explanation, the ordinary viewer like me will never understand this.
Sean Carroll's latest book is exactly about the fact that the average person _can_ understand this. Not in excruciating detail but it is no impossible feat for "normal people" to understand how the equations work and what the symbols mean and how to use them to understand things we don't see.
Perhaps you'd be interested in his "the biggest ideas in the universe".
Zeilinger also performed the Bell test with quasars, described in the PBS Nova documentary Einstein’s Quantum Riddle.
No, he didn't. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 he did and he won the physics Nobel for Q Teleportation and applications
@@car103d Zeilinger did not create pairs of entangled quasars. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 ‘with’ (the help of) quasars, of course he didn’t entangle quasars, fussy! ;)
@@car103d He didn't do anything "with the help of quasars, either". Please read the article. Even the abstract contains trivial errors that a high school student should be able to find. :-)
Question: Why is the randomness in the experiment so important?
Because is one of the assumptions of Bell's Theorem. If it doesn't really exist statistic independence between the detector and the particles, because of some "hiden variable", the theorem would be wrong and Quantum phenomena will be local after all
This is awesome work. Once again PBS spacetime knocks it out of the park with explaining things.
It is an extremely important point that the entanglement before the collapse of the wavefunction is actually a more simple and elementary state than if they carried the information about their final states with them the whole time. I think there is a misunderstanding that this is a more complicated setup than a "classical" setup with more information.
I'm no scientist by any means, I'm just an IT guy with a passion for physics and I just want to say thank you to you and everyone in the TH-cam science community for bringing the joy of science to a layman like me, once again thank you ❤️
I'll chime in with support for episodes like the previous one! I'm nowhere near good enough at math to comprehend it all but seeing these kinds of things explained does at least give some insight into things in broad terms. While I don't really understand them I'm glad someone does.😁
Entanglement surely can be used to send Mesages infinitely-fast, right?
@@loturzelrestaurant that's one application that we would want to use this research for.
A very well presented video with clear explanations and accurate information.
I am a 'superluminalist' so I found it a relief to know that there are researchers out there who may suspect this possibility.
Gd morning. Thanx for sharing this video with us all. ✌✌
"Put one of your balls in a box and send it to the moon" ouch😅
Rating you guys 10 out of 10 and as per my review, Awesome! Always have been and always will be and I HIGHLY recommend. haha. You guys always make this stuff illuminated and tangible.
When I first heard of Quantum Entanglement I was blown away, the more I learn about Quantum Entanglement the more I'm convinced that it's just two marbles of unknown color, in two boxes.
I really appreciate that you're bringing the remarkable work of these scientists to the public! But I do feel obliged to point out that Alain's last name is not pronounced like the English word "Aspect" but more like "Aspay", long e on the end and silent ct. :)
So the programmer of the universe uses global variables? Very hard to debug that kind of code.
Not global variables. They use Lazy Evaluation.
@@mikkel715 or maybe memoization. Or recursion unrolling… I wonder how big a stack space is reserved for reality.
@@NoahSpurrier Stack space is limited or say optimized to share wave function reality until observation.
Hope not they use loop unrolling &**+3
@@mikkel715 I’m wondering if there is a way to craft a buffer overflow code privileged code insertion hack without a segfault causing the universe to dump core.
@@NoahSpurrier Some sneaky tweak in the delayed choice quantum eraser with circular reference.
Can’t believe Feynman said no. I thought he was more open minded than that
He’s just a human lol, he can do billions of mistakes
The same Feynman had ignored quarks and QCD at his time in favor of the “partons” model whom he promoted! So he also missed that!
Feynman was tired of young physicists wasting their time trying to understand quantum mechanics. According to me we need to realise that there is more than one way to travel faster than light. If we don’t realise that, then indeed we will be wasting our time.
Reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics is the holy grail of physics. Whoever finds the solution should get all the Nobel prizes till the end of time
Why are you telling us that you don't know anything about physics? ;-)
Whenever an idea thrown out by so called theoretical physicists isn't understandable, give them Noble.
Where are the modern theoretical problems that are easy to get your head round? They were all discovered years ago, new stuff I'd complex
I'd like to see the topic of quantum computing expanded if possible. Love the channel!
I don't think they know much about the subject. If they did release more content on this I would be pretty skeptical of everything in the episode. I am not saying matt is stupid or anything, he just isn't an expert in this field which is fine because people can't know everything.
There was a MS guy who released a training lecture. If you're interested in the practical end of it, at least. It does cover the basic idea, though. Lemme see if I can dig it up...
Videos title is "Quantum Computing for Computer Scientists" by channel "Microsoft Research".
@@khatharrmalkavian3306 thanks, gonna check it up.
I'd like to hear Feynman's explanation on why he thought that quantum mechanics was always right.
That would be a very informative session.
Superdeterminism is a a bit silly. Not only would everything be planned since the start of the universe, but it would be planned in such a way that it would appear random to us
@@falnica Perfect plot for a Christopher Nolan movie.
@@falnica until we bring the reality of God and Divine Will into the science all the theories are silly.
Because quantum mechanics has always been right. Every single time.
I was personally saddened at 5:45 when the analog synth sounding arpeggiator finally stopped looping and the sad piano was switched on. I’d be happy to make you some more arpeggios if you’ve run out PBS.
The Spin up and Spin Down of a electron is a sign wave and/or a dirrection of travel. When two waves entangle one is going in one dirrection and the other is going in the other direction at the point they pass close enough they. Pair with the other like a twin. when u change the dirrection of one the other has no choice but change. Then when u move one the energetic trace field it produces goes with the other like a invisible thread. Thanks always.
💥😁👌💥
You have normalization error, at 3:34 it should be 1/sqrt(2) and not 1/2 as is shown in the video
I would love all these videos organized into a playlist ordered by increasing complicity so new ppl can get started
There are several playlists on quantum field theory, the standard model, the lagrangian etc on the PBS channel.
At 6:55 you say that " ..in order to conserve angular momentum the pair of photons needed to have a total spin of zero, which translates to them having opposite circular polarizations."
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these photons would have to be emitted with the same circular polarisation, either right-right or left-left in order to have a net zero spin angular momentum. If they have opposite circular polarisation then this would add up to one unit of spin angular momentum.
The biggest issue with the scientific community is the strong willingness to cling to dogma and ostracizing those that challenge the status quo. Scientists are human, but we have to put away hubris and be open to challenge and the testing of everything. This needs to be the case even if it results in previously established hard work being sent back to the drawing board or us being proven wrong. It's chilling the number of brilliant scientists whose monumental contributions were only acknowledged, not by practical analysis by the scientific community, but said individuals being extremely determined to go against conventional wisdom and prove their worth. Who knows how many scientists that were brilliantly on to something, but backed down from pursuing it, as result of ridicule and negative support by the scientific community.
For those that do preserve, and their findings demonstrated as plausible, it's a bit irritating that all of a sudden, the scientific community supports and backs these individuals, pretending as if they were unbiased, and never demonstrated unnecessary ridicule or blatant disdain, during the initial process.
You're right in general. It's laughable how they claim one thing then quickly change the tune and don't admit being wrong. But in this case they were trying to prove status quo stuff
I'm sure that there existed a group within academia in every field of science or natural philosophy going all the way back to the Greeks who felt the exact same way. It's all part of the process of shifting paradigms as new information becomes incorporated into our understanding of the natural world, science is an ever-updating process, as I'm already sure you're aware.
@@pseudoname3159 That's the thing, all scientists should be aware of this and act in this manner, sadly there are way too many stories within the community historically and at present where there's unwarranted venomous criticism against those that challenge the status quo. There's a lot more "Don't rock the boat" versus "That's interesting let's test this idea out and see what we can learn". The culture is this, if the challenging scientist persist and can preserve from attacks that could possibly end their careers, and they happen to be right, the scientific community will eventually applaud them. If they don't, many in the community will treat them as a laughingstock and as a pariah b/c they dared make a challenge. This behavior has absolutely nothing to do with science. This culture gives unnecessary power to dogma and actually damages our understanding and advancement.
I understand that getting funding can be difficult, and if your entire life work was on a previously established scientific principle that all of a sudden is at jeopardy b/c some upstart has some ideas that may jeopardize everything you've done, you're going to be filled with hostile emotion. As difficult as it is, we can't use these feelings to intimidate and create unnecessary ridicule in hopes that the challenger will give up and go away. The scientific method is a cruel beast that cares not of our credentials, not of our livelihood, and most of all cares nothing for our pride. As a species we need to check these feelings at the door and be as objective as we can. The scientific community does an ok job at present, but definitely needs much more improvement.
@@Extremeredfox capitalism strikes again
You only have 25 likes .. which might be your own cos u have no likes on other things u wrote x
Matt, I love your series! One comment - Sabine posits that Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" is in reference to the instantaneous collapse of the wave function everywhere and not to entanglement. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that. BTW it'd be fantastic if you would collaborate on some videos together!
Interesting. Bricmont claims something similar in his Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics
Measuring an entangled pair collapses their shared wave function, so the Nobel laureates’ experiment proved both. So while the focus is entanglement, they also demonstrated instantaneous wave function collapse in a more specific case.
Sabine seems very grounded in reality and is open to saying we don't know things instead of riding an infinite number of ridiculous trains off into the sunset. She is my go to for sensible physics, as well as don. This channel, while often silly or talking about topics they don't know a lot about, can be enjoyable to watch though.
Sabine loves both Einstein and Superdeterminism.
According to Brian Greene and many others, Sabine is wrong. Spooky Action was Entanglement.
@@mikkel715 I'd love to hear them discuss it. Their process and approach is almost more interesting than the actual conclusion. I'm not saying Sabine is right or wrong, would just love to hear them together. Though it would also be good to somehow figure out definitively what he was referring to.
Systems take the "path of least commitment". But systems eventually have to commit to a definite state, once information spreads to enough other stuff. Apparently Nature doesn't like taking actions or making commitments.
The state of quantum entangled particles is determined and locked in at the time of entanglement. Grab one particle and leave the other behind and travel far away. Take a peek at either particle and automatically know the state of the other because the entanglement, by definition, makes this so. So the options are a or b. The two particles are jumping between AB & BA. You finally take a peek some time after and the particle you have locks in to A Or B And now you know the other psrticle.