I truly enjoyed this gentleman explanation. He was very clear every single point what he was saying, yes it is true entanglement is true and it happens every single second in our environment. Due to entanglement molecules are forming, and lightnings are sticking, due to entanglement noise is traveling through the atmosphere, that’s all the work of entanglement. In some directions noise travels farther away some directions you won’t hear a thing , what it tells you that? It tells me atoms are functioning exactly identical, just way you see in magnetism when you stuck magnets together you can take that away round our solar system. Entanglement will continue as long as atoms are within close proximity. One single hydrogen atom has ability to influence about little over half inch. Can you imagine microscopic hydrogen atom has influence of that much distance. When atoms absorb heat they expand to maximum distance to release the heat that’s when they get locked within other atoms to create molecules.
I don't understand the logic of the statement at19:30. When Bob measures the spin of one of those "spin things" he can know that Alice's is the opposite... What is opposite? The spin of one of Alice's spin things? The combined spin of all of them? Now if the division is different, so that what was Alice's spin thing that Bob knew to have the opposite of what he measured is now one of Bob's spin things, had he measured it instead, what would be the oppositely spun spin thing?
The error is that dimensional.coordinates cannot be applied to quantum states, the scale of electrons dictates that classical mathematical approaches do not work . that's why phusyicst just shut up and calculate. I await the genius of Newton to return to invent the mathematics that apply
Thank you very much... This was as close to understanding as possible. There is still a missing part - how to set up experiment to measure the speed of the entanglement interaction (if that's the right word). But it's another story.
Thank you Leonard. 'and if you had gone further mathematically, you would have found a wave function relating the two entangled systems right? You would have discovered Schrodinger's equation. What is the physical meaning of this relationship? I propose there can be only one answer. There has to be two waves, 180 degrees out of phase, such that the value at any point in time of one of the waves is always equal to the negative slope of the curve, (wave) of the other wave at the same point in time. You need one more aspect. You need to imagine the first wave as "real", but the second wave as "imaginary" in some sense. This is the only way you can get the Schrodinger relationship. I know this seems to be a stab at it, a random guess, but I have spent many years investigating the nature of time and have arrived at this "picture" from basic logic and it happens to fit QM exactly. My starting point is that time is wavelike, it is an energy field that powers everything in a wavelike manner. Let's say it is an energy field throughout the cosmos that provides energy in a wavelike manner, such that time, (or events), proceeds into the "future" faster then slower, then faster then slower, then,..... well, you get the picture. How do I know that time is a wave? Because light is a wave. I.e. photons are emitted in waves from any light source at any point in space. I take the emission of a photon as an event and so deduce that the rate of events is wavelike. (Many more photons are emitted during the peaks of the wave than are emitted at the troughs). The rate of time is wavelike. The energy available to power all events is wavelike. See my paper on "academia dot edu", Ken Hughes, "Time is a wave". There are nine more papers following on from this, presenting a theory that explains many things in physics including the conundrums we still face today. In a nut shell, we live in a "Binary Universe", where there is an exact negative duplicate of all positive energy at all times. This immediately answers two important questions. 1. Why the energy of the universe is a net zero, and 2. Why CPT Symmetry is a fundamental law of nature. But there is much more. I'll leave it there.
In this day (and age), it would be wonderful if the lecturers could have microphones properly positioned by the "techs" anticipating their movements. The subject matter is difficult enough without the lousy audio.
Entanglement doesn’t have to imply faster than light communication between two entangled particles (spooky action). Entanglement can be a process of synchronizing the two particles’ underlying quantum fluctuations. Although still random, once separated the particles are now fluxing in harmony and when measured at the same instant they thus yield correlated properties with no communication needed. Analogous to a random number generator with the same seed on independent computers, yielding a pattern of identical random values- if one computer is measured at time T you will know the value generated at T on the 2nd.
Bring two particles together, entangle them, now pull them miles apart , change the state of one(spin) , it should change the state of the other, right professore?
This is the question, how would i know if we r both entangled? When the time we started to communicate? But how i know if u communicate already if you communicate by A meta? Or different ways of language? That is the question ryt?
Yes I do like the description in the end about entanglement of multiple particle systems. Dr Leonard Susskind I do like the way you think. I for one also have though about such systems and ask myself what is really happening. Gosh I wish I encountered videos with such illustrations. Now you got me thinking again . Very interesting particularly why the half got entangled fully with other half within a short time. It really throws one hint at me. What is it about the nature of this space that aligns them into exact opposite halves. The other hint is it has also to do with the real structure of the electron, it is like to coils getting Attached with a tachyon field.
Indeed, "hypothesis" being the keyword. Enthusiasts of the idea sometimes talk about it as if it's a foregone conclusion but the reality is, it's _highly_ speculative.
@@anonymes2884 yes Lenny often calls it the ER = EPR "conjecture" i think he uses it as math language, a mathematical conjecture. We have two theories, each one is exact math. But they are hard to solve. If we could solve them, the answer to the conjecture would be known 100%. The ER=EPR scientific hypothesis would be something like, "this math not only corresponds in the two theories, it correctly predicts nature." Nothing in science is known 100%, there could always be new data.
Whenever entanglement occurs I just imagine that the universe adds a rule to the universal rule table: "these two must be opposite". That makes non-locality less spooky, since it easily maps to how computers process data.
@@AxelNorenburger Yes, we can. It's called "observation and measurement". A relativistic universe, however, is not a giant calculator. That's just a false mental model that came from a deep philosophical misunderstanding of 17th to 19th century physics.
if you change spin one for the first element, does the second change ? If not, isn’t this like a box of shoes, if you pic the left shoe, then you can “predict” the other one is the right one ?
No, after you physically interact with either particle they become untangled. Regarding your shoe analogy, that is exactly what Einstein argued in the EPR paper. The gist of EPR is that entangled particles have definite properties (like spins) they are just hidden from us until we measure them (so called: hidden variables). This was a totally reasonable interpretation of what's happening. However, Bohr and other QM physicists said nah actually both particles are in a superposition of states until you measure them, then suddenly they take on a definite state. Which seems crazy but then a dude named Bell came along and showed that statistically this was the correct interpretation. However the Bell inequality experiments are so complex that hardly anyone understands wtf is going on; and the few people that claim they understand seem smart enough so we accept that it's true (like the formal Gödel incompleteness theorem). There is however a simple experiment that proves QM is bullshit - It would involve measuring whether entangled particles always have opposite spins. If they do (and one accepts that faster than light communication is impossible) they must have had definite spins all along. If you are thinking "that describes the experiment the lecturer was just talking about"... you are right! To me this proves that "superposition" is as silly as it sounds. Yet QM physicists prefer to think faster than light communication is possible rather than think the Bell Inequality is flawed in some way.
the shoe analogy is a good one. At some point, like the electrons, the shoes had to be 'together' to confirm you started with one left and one right. Later on they can be a universe apart and they're not spookily communicating with each other. Any explanation that doesn't tackle that simple option is obviously ducking the issue.
@@ViewBothSides The shoe analogy was proved incorrect by Bells experiments. It got different results than entanglement. So entanglement does exist and it moves instantly, faster than the speed of light. But can carry no information. That's my understanding of it and I didn't accept it for years. Now with more and more weirdness showing up in everything, I believe it easier.
Here’s the difference between classical probability/correlation (as with shoes) and QM correlation ie entanglement. QM basically says that “small” objects have measurable properties that exist in a superposition of multiple states until “measured” at which point they resolve into a definite state. In other words, an electron for example which is not “measured” does not have a definite spin like up or down but instead exists in a superposition of the two states. Only when it is “measured” does it resolve into up or down. This seemed ridiculous to Schrödinger who had meant his famous wave equation just to be a mathematical way of describing the evolution of states but not to be taken literally, and hence his thought experiment on the cat. Einstein who also thought it ridiculous, further proposed EPR which would mean that if QM acted as Bohr & co claimed then for two correlated particles separated by an arbitrary distance , “measuring” the state of a particle with me therefore resolving the superposition would INSTANTLY resolve the superposition of its correlated particle on the other side of the universe which violates locality (that an action I do here can only propagate out at the speed of light) and called it spooky-action-at-a-distance. Given that entanglement seemed to violate relativity, Einstein basically said there must be some “hidden variables” in which the state of the particle was fixed all along (like with shoes) and a “measurement” was just a way of updating our knowledge about its state but not causing its resolution. Bell proposed a clever class of experiments to distinguish between the case where a particle had a predetermined state vs one where the state was determined on measurement. Experiments in the 80s on showed that apparently spooky-action-at-a-distance IS real and that locality is indeed violated (but not relativity) and that QM is as weird (to our human understanding) as proposed.
@@langmod faster than light is not really a requirement. Einstein was obsessed with light being the fastest way of transmitting information or affecting something. So, what can be said about information entanglement that would solve all of this. First as bell himselft said, negative probability. We think that this is not possible but why not? Something pops out of a quantum field as a particle it could symmetrically leave an imprint etc. Secondly locality and causality. Instead of saying that something travels faster than light we can say that something bends space faster than light i.e. it cheats and does not travel the same distance. The logic is there for the warp drive people envision. An outside of spacetime flow unaffected capsule or whatever. Thirdly who says that causality should be attributed to light particles or waves? No quantum gravity theory no dark matter, no correct predictions and math for spinning black holes that have charge, not knowing exactly what quarks do and you tell me that we know all of the variables in the model of the universe? There can be a whole other information particle that affects them and is faster than light. Who knows really?
A link between particles, independent of their distance, that makes them "know" each other state, not at a given speed, but instantaneously, or constantly.
as an entire semi literate newby to this subject, hows about if in fact that all electrons are in fact directly connected to their respective quarks in their nucleus, and that electrons are projected force images of their respective quarks, they being of one entity, as a force projected to the speed of light, thereby projecting mass without having any mass, as in a hydrogen atom of four quarks and thereby randomly entangled to the fourth power, resolved and projected by the nucleus itself. A lost electron can be regenerated. Electrons behave as a particle or a wave, depending on your observation and the state of the nucleus, For a further explanation, please consult any dictionary.
Having them interact, pretty much. It happens because in order to have time evolution be linear, then to have two subsystems interact, then, the interaction can’t send all product states to product states? Like, if what something does to system A depends on how system B is, then if you have system B in a superposition of two different states, then after the thing acts on the combination of the two systems, you end up with a superposition of (A after the interaction when B is one way, with B that one way) and (A after the interaction when B is the other way, with B that other way), And that’s an entangled state. And, without a favored basis for the states of B, there’s no reason to expect that the state B is in, will be one such that, when the interaction “checks how B is”, for B to not be “in a superposition” with respect to that interaction. (Like, if the interaction causes spin A to flip between up and down if B is spin left, and doesn’t change A if B is spin right, Then if initially A and B are both spin up, then because spin B being spin up is a particular superposition of spin left and spin right, We get a superposition of A being up and B being right, with A being down and B being left) sorry I couldn’t simplify this more, I’m bad at summarizing, and also I think the idea is a fundamentally mathematical one, so you really do have to engage with the math.
How can physicists be so sure that the change is instant beyond the speed of light? How do you prove that the change in one object doesn't travel and take affect at the other at light speed?
@@EmergencePhysics of course it has but the question is how can the experimentalists be sure the changes happen instantly and not at light speed between the first and 2nd change?
That part of the experiment (whether it is instant or taking effect at light speed) is impossible to prove at the minute because humans are limited to close Earth orbit and there's currently no way to separate the 2 entangled objects by billions of miles to test whether it is instant or not. All the Nobel prize winning experiment were done on Earth with the ASSUMPTION that the change is instant because that's what quantum mechanical mathematics says it is. It is still an assumption, Bell proved that the particle model is incompatible with quantum mechanics NOT that the Unjverse is not locally real but try talking sense with a particle physicists and they act like flat Earthers except worse because they control all the Universities, CERN and peer review so they close down anyone who talks sense or provides evidence that annoys them. It's not just a case of I am right and you are wrong, current cosmological models all have anomalies which tell us they are wrong, the JWST images prove the big bang is wrong yet BB goons have lied and put down critics for over a year now since the evidence became clear.. Particle physicists being arrogant and anti science by closing down good science that annoys them is so irresponsible and dangerous it is genuinely frightening to think what could happen. If you've seen Diana Cowens video "It missed us by 9 days" (Physics Girl channel) that is just the tip of the iceberg of the type of Zombie apocalypse dangers we are currently facing and no one preparing, with particle physicists acting like hi tech flat earthers and partying, pumping out space kadet nonsense like time travel, teleportation, faster than light warp speed travel rubbish and wormholes and NOT TESTING the REAL physics beyond the standard model. They only pursue what is compatible with particles and their belief in Star Trek but there are NO particles as John Bell proved and if anyone is young or has kids they ought to get very humble, very serious, very sober, VERY fast if they want to see a future. NASA elites and the super rich have their bunkers and underground cities built while keeping the rest of humanity in the dark and distracted by petty politics, sexuality and other forms of distract, divide and conquer.
@@EmergencePhysics I'm not really interested in a long lecture by man so arrogant he says he never made a mistake yet thinks we live in a hologram thanks, unless you have any specific minute in reference to measuring spooky action. Its never been measured, so I guess you won't have one.
So 2 entangled spin states have random but opposite spin.... What happens with 3 spins with 3 measurements 🤔 If A=1 then B=0,.... C=? I noticed in the video he went out of his way to have an Even Number of spin states... But why? Also surely if you can randomly cut the box of spins everything must be entangled with everything else. So what happens if Alice measures the Box of spins split vertically and simultaneously Bob measures the same Box split horizontally..... 1 quarter appear 1 for A&B 1 quarter appear 0 for A&B But 1 quarter would be 1 for A, simultaneously 0 for B And vice versa? So half the spins match while have contradict each other?
You can have entangled states with e.g. 3 particles, sure. You can have e.g. ((0,0,1)+(0,1,0)+(1,0,0))/sqrt(3) , and that’s fine. You could also have an equal superposition of all 8 combinations. But the particular example he gave with the ((up,down) - (down,up))/sqrt(3) is a more special state called the “singlet state”, which has that “the two are opposites” kind of deal. If you have 2 spin (1/2) particles, each is associated with a (2*(1/2) + 1)=2 dimensional space, And two of them together are associated with a 2*2 dimensional space. This 2*2=4 dimensional space, can be split into two parts, one of which is 3 dimensional, and resembles a particle with spin 1 (3=2*1+1h And the other of which is 1 dimensional, and resembles a particle with spin 0 (1=2*0+1) This 0 dimensional space corresponds to this “singlet state”. If you have 3 particles each with spin (1/2), then, (2*(1/2) + 1)^3 = 2^3 = 8, and this 8 dimensional space can be split into a sum of: A 2*(3/2)+1=4 dimensional space, which relates to something of spin 3/2 And a two different 2*(1/2)+1=2 dimensional spaces associated with spin (1/2) . I forgot the point I was trying to make. Uh... Oh, I guess the thing is, if you have an odd number of them, then if you decompose it, all the sub spaces will be associated with half integer spins that aren’t integer spins, and therefore in particular, won’t have spin 0, and so won’t be one dimensional. But, with an even number of spin (1/2) particles, there will be one or more sub spaces with spin zero, and these would I guess be more analogous to the singlet state... That being said, I don’t think generic states would be like that, so I’m not quite sure why the “there exists a measurement of the other half which should give opposite results” claim works. I suspect that the measurement that would have to be made would be much more difficult to make than the original measurement on the other side (like, involving higher energies, larger magnitude operators, in order to magnify some small changes)
Have you tried fully complex random noise generators at each of the two remote detectors, with a single randomized composite state (that gets conjugated in each direction) at the central point? Look at the behavior when you are 1) well above, 2) close to, and 3) below the noise floor and detection threshold. You will see something interesting, and revealing if you can understand it.
If you can simulate the two particle entangled system with two separate computers only communicating the randomness, and not the detector directions, there's a Nobel prize in it for sure. But, it's easy to prove that it's impossible. To see for yourself, just tabulate the possible measurements one detector could make and the result and note that you can't get the totals to correlate correctly over all the possible detector angles, without knowledge of the other detector states.
@@tolkienfan1972 There is just an increased correlation at the remote detectors exceeding that which would be arrived at by classical physics. If you start with a local, random variable, communicate it down two lines talking to remote computers on either side, then with no noise you could get 100% correlation, exceeding both classical and quantum predictions. If you used complex noise at either remote computer, with threshold detectors, you get higher correlation than classical commensurate with quantum, and if you use real noise (such as is used in classical physics), you get classical correlation. It' not magic or Nobel prize stuff. Its just that classical models don't treat noise as truly complex.
@@onehitpick9758 you don't understand the problem. With detectors A and B, someone at A gets to chose the detector angle. The same at detector B. The correlation depends on A and B. You can't say what correlation you will get if, as is assumed in the experiment, A and B are chosen without the prior knowledge of the experimenter. There is no way to mimic the results of the Bell experiment classically without knowledge of the angles of the detectors.
@@tolkienfan1972 I understand it. Someone chooses an angle at A, and someone chooses an Angle at B. The likelihood of getting the conjugate measurement on B, compensated for the angle of B, is in excess of classical theory. I agree you can't model it with classical theory using local variables, but you can certainly simulate it if you don't stick to pure classical electrodynamics, and you can simulate it in a distributed network.
Photosynthesis is actually very inefficient. Including all other losses in plants it's on the order of 0.1-1% for culture plants. We could simply replace 10% of our agricultural area with solar panels and we would have solved all the food and energy problems in the world.
This is a very convoluted explanation of entanglement. I would have thought talking about Lorenz violation and non-locality is simpler- really brings out the weirdness. Trying to explain entanglement classically feels backwards
What weirdness? There is no violation of special relativity here. The structure of quantum mechanics is actually caused by the fact that there is no such violation. One can instead explain entanglement with two sentences starting from that fact.
I have yet to see a relatable description of entanglement & I still don’t understand how entanglement is different from blindly separating a pair of gloves in 2 boxes… open Alice’s box & you instantly know which handed glove is in Bob’s box. I’m sure there must be more to it than this or smart people like Professor Susskind wouldn’t invest so much time in it… but it still eludes me.
I never understood that either at first but here’s how Quantum Entanglement differs from Classical Probability (where knowing which glove in your box INSTANTLY means you know what the other box arbitrarily far awaycontains). And it is this: as per QM, there is NO such thing as your box containing a left glove or a right glove - or microscopically a spin up or spin down electron. Instead it exists in a superposition of states UNTIL you open it in which case it resolves into one or the other. The weirdness is that your measurement resolving this superposition here INSTANTLY resolves a superposition of an entangled particle arbitrarily far away. In other words it’s not just that you INSTANTLY *know* what the other box contains when you open your box (like with gloves) but that your opening the box (measurement) is what triggers the actual state of something arbitrarily far away. This was Einstein’s spooky-action-at-a-distance objection. He viewed it as a violation of locality (an action here - the opening of a box/measuring a spin) affecting something arbitrarily far away. He therefore proposed that there must be some “hidden variables” that made the object in the box have a predetermined value (just like with gloves) and there would be no mystery (as with classical probability). It was not till after Einstein’s death that John Bell proposed an experiment (or a class of experiments) that could distinguish between a pre-existing state (as with gloves) and a state arising out of a QM measurement. Bell’s inequality was a way of judging whether a measurement was classical (as with gloves) or what QM proposed (that there is no definite state until measured). Actual experiments performed in the 80s showed that Bell’s Inequality was violated, ie locality was indeed violated and spooky-action-at-a-distance was a real thing among entangled particles.
An important detail is that, while a qubit has a 2-ishness about it (if you measure in the up-or-down? axis, you will always get results of either up or down), unlike the gloves, there isn’t a preferred question of “is it the left glove or the right glove”. Instead, the “is it up, or down” is just one of a continuous family of possible questions, each of which corresponds to a measurement direction, and where any of the possible measurement results associated with any of the possible measurement directions, can be expressed as a mix of the two possible results from any of the other measurement directions. So, “up” can be expressed as a particular mix of “left” and “right”, and “left” can be expressed as a particular mix of “up” and “down”, (or, again, any other combination. You can pick any axis, and describe each of the two possible results for that axis as a mix of the two possible results from any other axis.) In the maximally entangled state with two particles, which he showed as an example, then *no matter what measurement axis is chosen*, if you measure along the same axis on both sides, you get opposite results, and, if you choose different measurement axiis on the different sides, the way the results are correlated, will depend on the angle between the measurement directions. This is rather different than the thing with the gloves, where you just look and go “oh, it is the left glove”. This way how there are multiple possible ways to make the measurements, and how the correlations in the results depends on the combination of the choices of how to measure the two sides, is core to how it differs from the glove idea. It is possible to show that the kinds of correlations you get with entanglement, go beyond the types you can get with setups like the gloves where there is some combination of ignorance about the state of the stuff in the box along with some local randomness at the time of measurement.
problem is that if you change something on one glove (eg flip it) in one box, you open the second and the glove you didn't touch also have changed... Entanglement is strange to everyone, but it is experimentally proven.
@@Matx5901 I’d say that it isn’t quite that the other one “also changes”, at least not in the usual way of thinking about “a thing changing”. Rather, the correlation between the two is changed in a way that isn’t described by usual joint probability of two separate things. Importantly, entanglement isn’t a means of communication. An important aspect of this, is that you can choose different axiis (uh, plural of axis, I’m hoping spelling the plural as “axiis” will catch on, to remove ambiguity with plural of “ax”) along which to measure each of the particles. If you start in the so-called “singlet state” (the one usually described for entangled pairs), then if you measure both along the same axis, then you will always get opposite directions. If you measure along two slightly different axiis, the observed directions will be such that they are approximately opposite, if the two measurement axiis are perpendicular, then the 4 possible combinations of observations will be equally likely, etc. But, if one first e.g. flips one side along some axis, then the two will instead of being in the singlet state, instead be in some other entangled state, and how the correlation between the observations depends on the choice of measurement axiis, will be changed. If you flip one along some axis, and then measure both along that axis, then you will observe the same direction on both, rather than opposite directions, But if you measure both along some other axis (measuring each along the same axis as the one the other is measured along, but different from the axis you flipped one along), then you won’t have it always give the same, or always give opposites, but be correlated in some other way (depending on the axis chosen). ... hope that was clear enough. If any part of it was confusing, I can try to clarify. The thing behind the math is, the spin of each individually is described by a 2D complex vector of length 1, And the state of the two together, can be described by a 2*2=4 so 4D vector, of length 1, using a thing called a “tensor product”. The “singlet state” can be described as ((up,down) - (down,up))/(some number in order to make the length 1) and it can be equally well be described as ((left,right) - (right,left))/(some number in order to make the length 1) (Or you could also have forwards and backwards) All of these, for any pair of opposing directions, would give the same vector (except for a factor of a complex number with length 1, but this “phase factor” isn’t really physically-meaningful/observable)
Spin is a quantum property of a particle. It's angular momentum; think of spin as how many rotations a particle must do in order to arrive at the same position; for example, spin 2 means that the particle must rotate twice around it's axes in order to come back to the same starting position. There are no spin 2 particles yet detected; if there are, that spin 2 particle will be indistinguishable from graviton. It's complicated.
Most astonishing is that people in the comments act like they learned something. I like real experiments, not thought tales. No one did the spin test he talks of. I explained entanglement much better with respect to the real beam-split test. Look me up. I skipped to the end where he says we are all entangled. My experiments show their experiments are flawed.
1:38 "In classical physics, you can (always) know the exact state of a system." No, you can't, because that would require an exact measurement of a system, which is impossible. We don't have access to the initial values of a Laplacean demon. So does classical physics imply that IF we had access to the exact initial conditions, we could calculate the future of a system (which must be closed, another practically unrealizable constraint)? But even that is wrong in general, because there are no infinitely accurate calculators. Classical mechanics cannot solve the 3-body problem, if by "solve" you mean a formula that can be used to calculate all future states from given initial conditions.
I liked it up to halfway. After that his understanding of how the computer would work falls on its face. It comes down to trying to output the correlation of two opposing states, which will never be in agreement.
How can a subtraction of two states work? The subtraction operation can be applied to numbers. But a subtraction of states makes no sense to me. Unfortunately he didn't explain it, so he lost me here. I wish there were physicists good at didactics.
The states are represented by vectors in a Hilbert space. If subtracting states seems weird (and indeed it is), then think of it mathematically as a subtraction of two vectors. When an operator acts on that resulting vector, it is distributed across the minus sign, similar to H * (a - b) = H*a - H*b (Here, a and b are states/vectors and H is an operator/measurement).
@@balabuyewhe was specifically describing the singlet state. The singlet state is the eigenstate with eigenvalue -1, of the operator that exchanges the spins of the two particles.
LoL at the comments, this is the most significant conjecture in physics possibly ever, ER=EPR is hands down the strongest candidate we have for a theory of everything. Juan Maldacena and Lenny Susskind are two of the greatest minds of this generation
Entanglement happens generically whenever multiple quantum systems interact. It is only for rather specific product states (specific to a given interaction) that would not stop being a product state after being transformed by some interaction between the two systems.
Deja vu. I took a couple of QM classes about half a century ago. One thing that confused me about two-particle entanglement is how you can "align" the detectors when they're on opposite sides of the universe, with warped gravitational fields between them and maybe multiple spacetime geodesics linking the two local detector frames.
The observer can be deciphered as a new set of matter, getting ready to get entangled - which in theory means the state prior to measurement again would be entangled with this new set of past , present and future instantaneously .
@user-ky5dy5hl4dI don’t think we necessarily know something that would be called “the cause of the speed of light”? Also, do you mean like, ‘Why does it have the value it does?’ or like ‘why is there such a speed limit?’ ? I think electromagnetism wouldn’t really work without such a limit, but I don’t know if that really qualifies as a “cause”. And time is just like, how long before/after one event does another event happen, and that sort of thing. Or, are you asking how we describe it in the math? Or how we measure it? What do you mean? To me, these questions kinda seem fake-meaningful?
All this stuff makes sense if you realize that the act of observation is a quantum event that splits the universe along the many worlds hypothesis. The result the observers see is simply the universe they end up in.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d well, no, light travels much faster than 100mph. It travels at c. Before I can answer your question about time, you first must provide me the conditions that an answer would have to meet in order for it to satisfy you. (If these conditions are self-contradictory, then your “question” fails to be a proper question.)
@user-ky5dy5hl4d What, in your mind, would constitute “a definition of time”? I can’t answer your question if I don’t know what you mean by it. What is it that you are asking, when you ask for “the definition of time”? Regarding light: things don’t need something to make them move, they need something to change how much they are moving. A car doesn’t inherently need gasoline to continue moving, only to counteract the friction and such that act on it to slow it down. So, if you are asking “what is the analogy of the gas in a car making it go, but for light”, there is no such thing. And, in fact, because light is massless, it can’t go slower than c in a vacuum. It can be absorbed and re-emitted or something. And it can change in frequency, if e.g. gaining or losing gravitational potential energy. (The importance of quantity called “speed of light” isn’t really about light specifically, so much as about causality. Though, it is of course, also the speed that light travels at in a vacuum.)
Thanks for this. Just a thought: Some people who are sensitive to sound find the static, droning music to be annoying. What does it add? A sense of contemplation? No. It just feels sad.
@markdwyer5301 Haha. Perhaps, but I appreciate the thoughtful way producer2123 offered their criticism. Judging by their name, they might know better than most. This kind of comment might actually help the producer, not provoke them.
I think there is a right and wrong way. And, there's types of content where any at all is wrong. This person is likely learning to produce content, on-the-fly, and good for them - For recognizing something worth bringing exposure to and bringing that idea to fruition. This kind of lecture would be greatly enhanced by some animated visualization. Those kinds of segments present a more appropriate place to use music.
Woah. Heavy I've read other stuff about entanglement before, but this is the first time I've realised that conponents of spin in 3D /have/ to be +-1, with no sinning and cossing, even though the spin can be in any direction
Because the two entangled particles are considered part of the same system, the system, like a whole. Like a pair of gloves, if you see only one of them, the right-handed one for example, the other glove, even if you don't see it, is definitely the left-handed one.
Lenord, have you seen this lecture yet on accretion disks? it may help sir th-cam.com/video/nztcKTP6ESE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ru3d8wWbkNwMw3vD at 23:19 they discuss that black holes will either have hair or monopoles. I'm going with hair.
is the answer to Einstein's dilemna that entangled particles are not really entangled at all, i.e. it's just a matter that their states evolve with time identically and separately ? the reason for postulating this as the situation with so-called entangled particles, is because any outside influence on their states breaks the entanglement (so communication not possible). if so, the entire situation with entangled particles seems less amazing. It's like two clocks, both with seemingly impossibly identical cystals, so their time evolves exactly the same no matter where they are in the world. Measuring the time on one yields what the time is on the other, but interfering in their state (time they are showing) breaks the "entanglement", because really, they are not entangled at all, they just have their states evolving identically with time. Nothing spooky after all :)
Wow, excellent channel. Great content. Thank-you. And how can we use quantum entanglement to explain observations in the physical realm of measurements? Leonard never explained how photons become entangled, why some are partially entangled while others are fully entangled or how this entangled state is determined. I don't believe this was the best lecture on quantum entanglement. He claimed information can't travel faster than light, that's not true. Quantum entanglement is instant at any distance. Instant is much faster than the speed of light. That's why Einstein called quantum entanglement spooky action at a distance because it happens in an instant, contradicting his look-back time prediction. Quantum entanglement is an effect that occurs to the information pertaining to light, not particles. Particles are not entangled so that when one particle is manipulated the other instantly takes on the opposite spin. Particles have mass. A light particle is not an elementary particle because it doesn't have mass. Even when it's measured it doesn't have mass. That's why this effect occurs when the EM field of a pair of photons are entangled. Light particles do not have mass and travel at c, outside our reference frame of space, distance matter and time (slow-mass-time). Elementary particles have mass so they can't travel at the speed of light. The light is not traveling faster than c. Light information the wave contains, spin, color, temperature, velocity, trajectory, etc is conveyed in an instant when one of the entangled photons are measured. Sure, elementary particles can be contained inside the same EM field and be entangled to other elementary particles but when one particle is measured it doesn't take on the spin of the distant particles. Because if that were true, then each planet in the solar system would take on the spin and orientation of the sun because everything is contained inside it's EM field. But that's not true. Each planet has a different spin and orientation than the sun, It's called obliquity. Thus the EM fields of matter interact, but they are not quantum entangled. Quantum entanglement then DOES NOT happen to particles with mass. It only happens to light because it's the only thing in the universe that can travel at c, outside our slow-mass-time. Light when it travels at c does not do so as a particle of light. It's a wave of potential light information. This information exists outside our reference frame until it strikes an elementary particle, or is measured by a telescope. Then when the light is measured it's information is conveyed instantly regardless of distance to the body radiating the light, instant action at any distance. This is why in the book SECRET UNIVERSE: GRAVITY by Ron Kemp I published 09-27-2021, before the JWST was launched, I wrote "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." Think about it. The only way a telescope can measure the light coming from a distant galaxy is if it's contained inside it's EM field. All the photons in the galaxy's EM field being measured are quantum entangled to each other. Spooky action at any distance then occurs. The creation of new light added to their EM fields is the action that happens at any distance. It happens in an instant upon measuring the distant galaxy's light information. Telescopes then are unable to see into the universe's past per the predictions of look-back time. Einstein, thousands of astronomers and cosmologists were wrong. Telescopes can't see into the past because they're contained inside the EM field being measured. What did the telescope find? Did it find old, massive galaxies further than 13.8 billion light-years away? Yes it did. In fact, the galaxies are so massive at such a distance that astronomers relying on look-back time to make their predictions were wrong about what they would find in the early universe. Astronomers now refer to them as the impossible early galaxy problem. They are confused because Einstein claimed light information takes time to travel. Astronomers didn't take into consideration the photons in the distant galaxy's EM field were entangled. Telescope can't look back in time. The galaxies in the extremely distant universe are seen as they look today in our here and now, not how they looked in the past. Time is a man-made concept used to measure matter in motion. It doesn't apply to the motion of light because it's not made of matter. When light information is added to the EM field it doesn't travel anywhere. It becomes the EM field containing potential light information. All we have to do then is measure the light information and it's measured by the telescope in an instant because it's inherent in the EM field as potential information. Light information in the real world doesn't travel any distance because of time dilation and length contraction occurring to it upon being measured by an observer. In this case the telescope is the observer taking the measurements. So, when it measures the distant galaxy it's light information is conveyed instantly to the telescope regardless of distance. Believing we can use a telescope to look into the past is as silly as believing we can use a microscope to look into the future. Light information happens in a quantum instant when the telescope is contained inside the EM field it's measuring. I was the only theorist relying on quantum field theory who accurately predicted what the JWST would see before it was launched into space. Theorists like Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Rajendra Gupta and others are still confused. Apparently they don't understand quantum field theory.
@@random_Person347 No disrespect taken my friend. True, peer review gets your ideas out there to the scientific community much faster than a book. But one thing is certain. If I had published the same predictions I made in my books, that the JWST would find old, massive galaxies in the early universe then peer review would have rejected it for it doesn't agree with the laws of thermodynamics, relativity, big bang, cosmic inflation or the evolutionary cosmological model of the universe. That's what peer review is for, to make sure the papers conform to everything they believe to be true. The cold hard fact is I was the only theorist who truly predicted the old massive galaxies in the early universe. And I would have no proof of this claim if I didn't publish everything in books before the JWST was launched. I submitted a paper to the astrophysics journal about this and gravity way back in 2010. Because it conflicted with the laws of thermodynamics claiming energy and matter can't be created, it was rejected. No one remembers I had accurately predicted exactly what the telescope would find back in 2010 because it was deleted. Peer review becomes the bottleneck for all true advancements in science if the theories and laws of physics they're relying on to be true, are actually flawed. Thus the reason why astronomers and astrophysicists all around the world claimed telescopes are like time machines, able to look into the past. They were unable to accurately predict old massive galaxies in the early universe because the theories and laws of physics they assume to be 100% true are actually flawed. And now, scientists call the old, massive galaxies further than 13.8 billion light-years away universe breakers. They debunk the big bang, cosmic inflation, general relativity's look-back time, the laws of thermodynamics and the model used to describe the evolution of the universe. Like I wrote in my books, their theories and laws of physics are flawed. I figured out way back in 2004 how to fix them and then in 2021 published everything in a series of 6 books. Peer review will accept papers proposing dark matter or dark energy, which can't be measured directly or observed but they refuse to publish papers showing the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, or that over-unity of energy is possible. Why is that? I've concluded peer review is not meant to advance our knowledge in science and technology but to hinder it from advancing too far, too fast.
I was confused about much of what you wrote but one of the things I think you said that “particles (with mass) can’t be entangled” and only photons can is flat out false. As per QM as presently formulated, at a “small enough” scale, there is no such thing as an objective state (like spin up or spin down) but a superposition of such states. These states are resolved into clear states ONLY when “measured”. This idea seemed absurd to Schrödinger who proposed his cat thought experiment to show the absurdity of this formulation. Einstein upped the ante further saying that if you took QM as formulated seriously, then entangled particles (ie those whose superpositions are correlated with one another in some way) must have spooky-action-at-a-distance properties where resolving a state here by “measuring” it INSTANTLY resolves a state of its entangled twin arbitrarily far away violating locality (that actions can only travel at c at best and not instantly). But John Bell’s thought experiment and the actual experiment based on Bell’s Inequality showed that indeed locality was violated in entangled particles and the notion of an objective state of a particle was false. What was “real” was the superposition not the actual state (which became “real” only AFTER “measurement”). I put “real”, “measurement” “small” in quotes because there is a real debate about what all these mean. One of the debates is how the wave function (wave of what?) “collapses” or decoheres. Penrose proposed that objects with mass cause decoherence ie gravity is somehow involved in resolving superpositions with some backward time travel as well. All esoteric stuff to be sure.
@@B-none The superposition state was defining light particles within an EM field, being potential in our space-time,. It had nothing to do with elementary particles like protons.
No, quantum entanglement does not allow FTL communication. It does allow (through pre-arranged plans of what observations will lead to making what measurements, and what measurement outcomes will lead to what actions) some kinds of coordination of behaviors between parties based on information obtained when they are too far apart to send a signal in time, beyond those kinds of coordination which could be done classically, but, it should be pretty clear to anyone who understands the math of entanglement, that unitary actions on one part of the entangled system, cannot have any effects on the distribution of measurement results of measurements done on the other side of the system. Because operators acting on different subsystems, commute.
QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck, Bohr etc. So,no.
The entanglement is a phenomenon through which nature tries to send us a profound message. However, the physicists stubbornly have neglected the facts for almost 90 years, instead of modifying their inadequate theories. As a consequence, modern fundamental physics has ended up in the dead-end. The number of inexplicable facts rises unstoppably in both micro and mega scale with almost every new discovery. Paradoxically, the main obstacles to further fundamental development in physics are - two (most-likely misleading) fundamental theories (quantum and relativity). The main problem with both theories is that they contemplate local conditions only. However, it seems that entanglement hints that all the particles and all phenomena in the universe are inter-related, impacting each other simultaneously. Therefore, a theory should be developed that takes all the space and all objects inside it at once. Perhaps using fractional (non-integer) order differential equations, instead of ordinary (integer) differential equations, may be a way to develop such integral theories that could explain not only the entanglement phenomenon, but also the other so far paradoxical observations in both micro- and cosmic- levels.
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea.
@@alexbenzie6585 Constructive criticism is always welcome. Or, would you like to share your "Quantum" model with us? What Physics journal on planet earth would accept a paper from someone who does not have an advanced degree in Physics? Based on the two thumbs up above, at least two people were willing to look at the idea. I have had some positive feedback from those with Physics degrees, that allowed me to make a minor correction and another that helped me understand "solitons". How many years have we heard that "String Theory" would solve this problem? What is your answer to the problem?
I do the same as you without your back ground in physics. This stuff excercises your memory. Don’t worry if people read it or not. It promotes you to discovering and who knows where that might go. 🍀
@@brendawilliams8062 Thank you for the kind words. They are very rare these days. My degree is actually in Biology. However, I have always been interested in Physics. DNA molecules are twisted, and organic molecules can be right-handed, or left-handed. I believe the Physics community needs to pay more attention to some of these concepts from Biology, if we are going to understand Quantum Mechanics. The concept of "Chirality" is applicable to both Biology and Physics. Eric Weinstein does not have a Physics degree, but he has been instrumental in looking at alternatives to "String Theory".
The “spin”, while it is a kind of angular momentum, isn’t really quite like spinning? And, the amount of “spin” (or “intrinsic angular momentum”), uh, well, for elementary particles like electrons and photons, the magnitude of the “spin” is constant, but, when interacting with stuff, the direction of it can change. For composite particles, like the nuclei of atoms, the total spin magnitude can change, but only in discrete jumps.
This should be standard education. So should measuring students ability to accept the truth when wrong and prove their right when others challenge them. Our society is so close to greatness and destruction, good tv but annoying real life drama.
"Best lecture so far on what Entanglement is in Quantum Physics" - The Arrow of Energy - The One-Way Entanglement Between Isolated Energies; “In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017). Finite fossil fuels are dangerously hypnotic to humans, their consciousness and mental capacity. Humans were not ready morally, ethically and intellectually to start the mass extraction of fossil fuels with the advent of the steam engine 300 years ago. The Magna Carta requires today overhauling - adding to it the right for humans to understand what Energy really is - before any other commandment.
I think Leonard was really illustrating a point with a thought experiment so this may not matter but: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator
I think a computer cannot model the random spin measurement. Reason is that a computer has a hard time generating a random number. Computers generate pseudo random numbers. In order for a computer to generate a real random number, it has to go to the outside world and find real randomness, thus relying on...the quantum spin it is modeling? Thus your model relies on the thing it is modeling and it is not an independent model.
Mechanics of our digital computers are not relevant here, he could use people with pens and papers and sources of randomness like a Geiger counter. It's all about whether the two simulated "measurements" use two independent sources of randomness or they use one source. In the latter case it's trivial to reproduce the quantum behavior, but not in the first case. They just need to produce values that are unpredictable for them, and to simulate entanglement the 2 values must be related in a certain way. If you use a Geiger counter for random generator, it's about random particles coming from space, not about spin at all, so there's no circularity or a problem with independent model.
@@ErikBongers Maybe in fact a "real" computer random generator should be so imprédictible that it would "find-out" entanglement without wires between two computers.
🤔🧐🤨😯😎👀💪👌There's no such thing as "spooky action at distance" if we consider that other universes, subdimensions or different worlds( whatever they are) that are lack of t and 3ds. As far as I see that at least two more of them are out there beside our physical universe. The relationship of our physical universe and other universes ( or worlds) is just like traveling transverse waves. They pass through each other without interacting. Then everything is fine with me. Let's investigate and study them so that in the future the government can taxe on them.
I think when the particles become entangled there is either a communication of sorts between the two, determining which has which spin without revealing it, or there is something connecting the two particles. That connection could be direct between the two, or the two could connect by a medium. Maybe when two particles become entangled, there is also a third entanglement with spacetime itself, allowing for faster than light travel by not only entanglement but by being part of spacetime itself. Or it could be entangling or exciting a field that permeates the universe or at least a semi closed system that has a finite range. Maybe within our galaxy or a certain proximity to the center black hole or with a gravitational field.
@@shanebailey9128 unfortunately I’m a high school drop out my friend. I just learn things that interest me lately from these great minds I found on TH-cam and enjoy to theorize from the things others say combined with what seems possible in my own thought pattern. Wish I was more interested when I was in school. I’ll take it as a compliment whether it was meant to be or not, thanks.
with all me respect - this is not the best lecture on entanglement but only an intro. what is said and presented by Susskind (who is a great mind indeed) can be explained with classical correlations (shared randomness). genuine quantum correlations (entanglement) cannot be introduced without referring to Bell's inequalities.
Now I'm more convinced that entanglement has to do with hidden variables in a deterministic sysyem. The reason it leads to unpredictability has nothing to do with inherent randomness but with our lack of knowledge of the underlying chaotic system. Our quantum view is merely an approximation of a more fundamental deterministic chaotic system. It might not be fully predictable the same way other chaotic systems aren't, but it's NOT random.
True, the Bohm-deBroglie Hidden Variables Formulation does work (i.e., reproduces QM) and is deterministic, but it retains what Einstein hated even more, nonlocality. If one has to accept nonlocality, many people decide also to accept randomness.
@@JohnFowler-e1c I'm not a fan of the Bohm formulation. Not only is it nonlocal, but it's nonrelativistic, and it's not clear whether it can even be made relativistic. I was thinking more of a local AND deterministic framework in the superdeterminism sense. See Tim Palmer's work.
Our minds are probably subconsciously entangled with the whole universe, maybe even projecting the material world collectively. At that level we are the universe, What appears as meny individual islands in a body of water, will be revealed as an illusion of separateness, each island appearing to have it's own location and properties. When the water is drained, the illusion disappears and we can see that the islands are all an expression of the same ongoing process . "Particles" in the same way appear to us as separate and discreet islands , when actually they are bulging up and down from a common ground, (quantum field), that underlies our material world. Individual people behave like particles existing in multiple states of potential, popping in and out of existance, but we really are all just the same stuff doing different things. We are good at picking out differences, but seeing the underlying unity may require draining the lake or clarifying the water to see our common ground of being behind the illusion. The advancement of quantum exploration is a clearing up of the water, which may turn out to simply be our own confusion not letting us see all the connections yet. Our minds are part of the equation. The Hindus see the material world as a subset of the universal mind deep in sleep, dreaming up the universe. They started looking at things through the consciousness end of the telescope, and concluded that it's all one, and physicists are looking at the same thing through the physics end, and coming to the same conclusions. Quantum theorists should start looking into these wisdom traditions for clues to decipher and translate into theoretical physics. There are no "things", only process. Every "thing" is everything. Our minds are not naturally tuned to that reality yet, but discovering our true nature through quantum theory and experiments is looking like a valuable path towards wiping away a lot of mankind's feelings of unnaturalness and alienation from nature. To me the notion that calling some things "natural", and others "man made" as if that makes any damn sense at all. A computer is just as natural as a beaver dam, or a birds nest. It might be on a higher scale of complexity, but is the dividing line in that fact somewhere? How utterly ridiculous anybody sounds who tries to explain where and how unnaturalness comes into play, except in our imaginations or arbitrary "facts". These stupid notions are part of the reason the water around the islands is still cloudy. We are still clinging to false notions that don't apply on the quantum level. Anyway, just spitballin' here.
Think of a metal plank that is kinda twisted. If you twist the left side, the right side twists the other way, and vice versa. The plank can never be straight, it is always twisted. So the plank is + -, or it is - +. There is no real transfer of information. The plank is in a random state, but if A is +, B is -. If A is -, then B is +. What this says is that the two of the plank sides are correlated. Things that seem like 2 objects that are far apart, are really only one object. Some people think that is you measure one side, that the information must travel somehow to the other side, to tell it what to be. But thats not the case.
maybe... information only goes light speed, but if it goes thru a wormhole between two particles, it can coordinate them no matter how far away they are. the wormholes are non-traversable, so FTL communication is impossible. we can't put information into one and get it out of the other. but they can coordinate.
Thank you so much. I can stay up all night listening to Prof Susskind.
Nimm deinen Kopf aus seinem Arsch! Schleimer mag keiner 🤮
You are just masohistic.
Suskind is pretensions.
@borispetrovchich3141 didn't you know? The OP is Susskind's sock-account.
No matter how complex even just the description is It’s learning something. Thx
Great vid but it is cut off. I would like to see the rest of the lecture. Is it available somewhere?
The complete lecture is here, and the following link continues from where this video here ends: th-cam.com/video/XZxpplbp_LQ/w-d-xo.html
I truly enjoyed this gentleman explanation. He was very clear every single point what he was saying, yes it is true entanglement is true and it happens every single second in our environment. Due to entanglement molecules are forming, and lightnings are sticking, due to entanglement noise is traveling through the atmosphere, that’s all the work of entanglement. In some directions noise travels farther away some directions you won’t hear a thing , what it tells you that? It tells me atoms are functioning exactly identical, just way you see in magnetism when you stuck magnets together you can take that away round our solar system. Entanglement will continue as long as atoms are within close proximity. One single hydrogen atom has ability to influence about little over half inch. Can you imagine microscopic hydrogen atom has influence of that much distance. When atoms absorb heat they expand to maximum distance to release the heat that’s when they get locked within other atoms to create molecules.
Love this lecture, but would like to hear more.....
I don't understand the logic of the statement at19:30. When Bob measures the spin of one of those "spin things" he can know that Alice's is the opposite... What is opposite? The spin of one of Alice's spin things? The combined spin of all of them? Now if the division is different, so that what was Alice's spin thing that Bob knew to have the opposite of what he measured is now one of Bob's spin things, had he measured it instead, what would be the oppositely spun spin thing?
The spin of one of Alice's spin thing
Great find, Professor Leonard Susskind gives some of the best lectures!
Glad you think so!
I am Seonard Lusskind and give great lectures.
The error is that dimensional.coordinates cannot be applied to quantum states, the scale of electrons dictates that classical mathematical approaches do not work . that's why phusyicst just shut up and calculate. I await the genius of Newton to return to invent the mathematics that apply
Thank you very much... This was as close to understanding as possible. There is still a missing part - how to set up experiment to measure the speed of the entanglement interaction (if that's the right word). But it's another story.
Yes, that would be another piece of bullshit. ;-)
Spooky will remain spooky
The only astonishing thing about this lecture is that how much complicated he made it.
Thank you Leonard. 'and if you had gone further mathematically, you would have found a wave function relating the two entangled systems right? You would have discovered Schrodinger's equation.
What is the physical meaning of this relationship? I propose there can be only one answer. There has to be two waves, 180 degrees out of phase, such that the value at any point in time of one of the waves is always equal to the negative slope of the curve, (wave) of the other wave at the same point in time.
You need one more aspect. You need to imagine the first wave as "real", but the second wave as "imaginary" in some sense.
This is the only way you can get the Schrodinger relationship.
I know this seems to be a stab at it, a random guess, but I have spent many years investigating the nature of time and have arrived at this "picture" from basic logic and it happens to fit QM exactly.
My starting point is that time is wavelike, it is an energy field that powers everything in a wavelike manner. Let's say it is an energy field throughout the cosmos that provides energy in a wavelike manner, such that time, (or events), proceeds into the "future" faster then slower, then faster then slower, then,..... well, you get the picture.
How do I know that time is a wave? Because light is a wave. I.e. photons are emitted in waves from any light source at any point in space. I take the emission of a photon as an event and so deduce that the rate of events is wavelike. (Many more photons are emitted during the peaks of the wave than are emitted at the troughs).
The rate of time is wavelike. The energy available to power all events is wavelike.
See my paper on "academia dot edu", Ken Hughes, "Time is a wave". There are nine more papers following on from this, presenting a theory that explains many things in physics including the conundrums we still face today.
In a nut shell, we live in a "Binary Universe", where there is an exact negative duplicate of all positive energy at all times. This immediately answers two important questions. 1. Why the energy of the universe is a net zero, and 2. Why CPT Symmetry is a fundamental law of nature.
But there is much more.
I'll leave it there.
In this day (and age), it would be wonderful if the lecturers could have microphones properly positioned by the "techs" anticipating their movements. The subject matter is difficult enough without the lousy audio.
Entanglement doesn’t have to imply faster than light communication between two entangled particles (spooky action). Entanglement can be a process of synchronizing the two particles’ underlying quantum fluctuations. Although still random, once separated the particles are now fluxing in harmony and when measured at the same instant they thus yield correlated properties with no communication needed. Analogous to a random number generator with the same seed on independent computers, yielding a pattern of identical random values- if one computer is measured at time T you will know the value generated at T on the 2nd.
Yep. That was also completely false. ;-)
Bring two particles together, entangle them, now pull them miles apart , change the state of one(spin) , it should change the state of the other, right professore?
This seems to be a short fragment of the lecture. Where is the rest? We even did not touch ER and EPR.
th-cam.com/video/XZxpplbp_LQ/w-d-xo.html
This is the question, how would i know if we r both entangled? When the time we started to communicate? But how i know if u communicate already if you communicate by A meta? Or different ways of language? That is the question ryt?
Yes I do like the description in the end about entanglement of multiple particle systems. Dr Leonard Susskind I do like the way you think.
I for one also have though about such systems and ask myself what is really happening. Gosh I wish I encountered videos with such illustrations.
Now you got me thinking again . Very interesting particularly why the half got entangled fully with other half within a short time.
It really throws one hint at me. What is it about the nature of this space that aligns them into exact opposite halves.
The other hint is it has also to do with the real structure of the electron, it is like to coils getting
Attached with a tachyon field.
Wow, I had no idea Mike was moonlighting as a physicist when he wasn’t working for Gus.
Are the two halves of our brain entangled?
that was just getting interesting...
where is the next bit? entanglement of regions of space????
Maybe The particles are linked over different dimension where they are not physically separated.
You are right, entanglement build bridges.
@@EmergencePhysics brilliant channel you have, I subscribed!!
Wonderful lecture! (I wish somebody had had the good sense to clip his mic to his lapel to avoid the loud mic pops when he reads while looking down.)
The last comment about entanglement with regions in space ... 💥🧠💥
That’s the ‘ER=EPR’ hypothesis
Indeed, "hypothesis" being the keyword. Enthusiasts of the idea sometimes talk about it as if it's a foregone conclusion but the reality is, it's _highly_ speculative.
@@anonymes2884 indeed…
@@anonymes2884 yes Lenny often calls it the ER = EPR "conjecture"
i think he uses it as math language, a mathematical conjecture. We have two theories, each one is exact math. But they are hard to solve. If we could solve them, the answer to the conjecture would be known 100%.
The ER=EPR scientific hypothesis would be something like, "this math not only corresponds in the two theories, it correctly predicts nature." Nothing in science is known 100%, there could always be new data.
@@anonymes2884 Entanglement is not a hypothesis, it is proven, since Aspect's experiment, and much more.
Whenever entanglement occurs I just imagine that the universe adds a rule to the universal rule table: "these two must be opposite". That makes non-locality less spooky, since it easily maps to how computers process data.
Yep. That is exactly what the universe doesn't do. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Anything we use is just a model anyway. We can't really know what the "universe does".
@@AxelNorenburger Yes, we can. It's called "observation and measurement". A relativistic universe, however, is not a giant calculator. That's just a false mental model that came from a deep philosophical misunderstanding of 17th to 19th century physics.
@@lepidoptera9337 You're still just left with models. There's no way to verify what reality does, only how close our models approach reality.
@@AxelNorenburger Dude, we are teaching the difference between an observation and a model in middle school. Why were you sleeping? ;-)
How to avoid the annoying space music?
entanglement is a process of bringing two particles at a predefined twin state. Which you later detect.
if you change spin one for the first element, does the second change ? If not, isn’t this like a box of shoes, if you pic the left shoe, then you can “predict” the other one is the right one ?
No, after you physically interact with either particle they become untangled.
Regarding your shoe analogy, that is exactly what Einstein argued in the EPR paper. The gist of EPR is that entangled particles have definite properties (like spins) they are just hidden from us until we measure them (so called: hidden variables). This was a totally reasonable interpretation of what's happening.
However, Bohr and other QM physicists said nah actually both particles are in a superposition of states until you measure them, then suddenly they take on a definite state. Which seems crazy but then a dude named Bell came along and showed that statistically this was the correct interpretation.
However the Bell inequality experiments are so complex that hardly anyone understands wtf is going on; and the few people that claim they understand seem smart enough so we accept that it's true (like the formal Gödel incompleteness theorem).
There is however a simple experiment that proves QM is bullshit - It would involve measuring whether entangled particles always have opposite spins. If they do (and one accepts that faster than light communication is impossible) they must have had definite spins all along. If you are thinking "that describes the experiment the lecturer was just talking about"... you are right! To me this proves that "superposition" is as silly as it sounds. Yet QM physicists prefer to think faster than light communication is possible rather than think the Bell Inequality is flawed in some way.
the shoe analogy is a good one. At some point, like the electrons, the shoes had to be 'together' to confirm you started with one left and one right. Later on they can be a universe apart and they're not spookily communicating with each other. Any explanation that doesn't tackle that simple option is obviously ducking the issue.
@@ViewBothSides The shoe analogy was proved incorrect by Bells experiments. It got different results than entanglement. So entanglement does exist and it moves instantly, faster than the speed of light. But can carry no information. That's my understanding of it and I didn't accept it for years. Now with more and more weirdness showing up in everything, I believe it easier.
Here’s the difference between classical probability/correlation (as with shoes) and QM correlation ie entanglement.
QM basically says that “small” objects have measurable properties that exist in a superposition of multiple states until “measured” at which point they resolve into a definite state.
In other words, an electron for example which is not “measured” does not have a definite spin like up or down but instead exists in a superposition of the two states. Only when it is “measured” does it resolve into up or down.
This seemed ridiculous to Schrödinger who had meant his famous wave equation just to be a mathematical way of describing the evolution of states but not to be taken literally, and hence his thought experiment on the cat.
Einstein who also thought it ridiculous, further proposed EPR which would mean that if QM acted as Bohr & co claimed then for two correlated particles separated by an arbitrary distance , “measuring” the state of a particle with me therefore resolving the superposition would INSTANTLY resolve the superposition of its correlated particle on the other side of the universe which violates locality (that an action I do here can only propagate out at the speed of light) and called it spooky-action-at-a-distance. Given that entanglement seemed to violate relativity, Einstein basically said there must be some “hidden variables” in which the state of the particle was fixed all along (like with shoes) and a “measurement” was just a way of updating our knowledge about its state but not causing its resolution.
Bell proposed a clever class of experiments to distinguish between the case where a particle had a predetermined state vs one where the state was determined on measurement.
Experiments in the 80s on showed that apparently spooky-action-at-a-distance IS real and that locality is indeed violated (but not relativity) and that QM is as weird (to our human understanding) as proposed.
@@langmod faster than light is not really a requirement. Einstein was obsessed with light being the fastest way of transmitting information or affecting something.
So, what can be said about information entanglement that would solve all of this.
First as bell himselft said, negative probability. We think that this is not possible but why not? Something pops out of a quantum field as a particle it could symmetrically leave an imprint etc.
Secondly locality and causality. Instead of saying that something travels faster than light we can say that something bends space faster than light i.e. it cheats and does not travel the same distance. The logic is there for the warp drive people envision. An outside of spacetime flow unaffected capsule or whatever.
Thirdly who says that causality should be attributed to light particles or waves? No quantum gravity theory no dark matter, no correct predictions and math for spinning black holes that have charge, not knowing exactly what quarks do and you tell me that we know all of the variables in the model of the universe? There can be a whole other information particle that affects them and is faster than light. Who knows really?
background music, take it away please
Noted
hey whadda you know, this is the best lecture so far on what Entanglement is in Quantum Physics
Wow holy cow. That gave me one of the deepest insights into quantum mechanics I've ever had. I literally felt it the moment it hit me.
What hit you when you felt it must be a quanta
You didn't understand a thing
But what does entanglement mean? Not what are the symptoms of entanglement, but what does it mean to be entangled?
A link between particles, independent of their distance, that makes them "know" each other state, not at a given speed, but instantaneously, or constantly.
as an entire semi literate newby to this subject, hows about if in fact that all electrons are in fact directly connected to their respective quarks in their nucleus, and that electrons are projected force images of their respective quarks, they being of one entity, as a force projected to the speed of light, thereby projecting mass without having any mass, as in a hydrogen atom of four quarks and thereby randomly entangled to the fourth power, resolved and projected by the nucleus itself. A lost electron can be regenerated. Electrons behave as a particle or a wave, depending on your observation and the state of the nucleus, For a further explanation, please consult any dictionary.
What is the actual technical process for creating "entanglement" between two systems?
And, WHY is the process doing what it does?
Having them interact, pretty much.
It happens because in order to have time evolution be linear, then to have two subsystems interact, then, the interaction can’t send all product states to product states?
Like, if what something does to system A depends on how system B is, then if you have system B in a superposition of two different states, then after the thing acts on the combination of the two systems, you end up with a superposition of (A after the interaction when B is one way, with B that one way) and (A after the interaction when B is the other way, with B that other way),
And that’s an entangled state.
And, without a favored basis for the states of B, there’s no reason to expect that the state B is in, will be one such that, when the interaction “checks how B is”, for B to not be “in a superposition” with respect to that interaction.
(Like, if the interaction causes spin A to flip between up and down if B is spin left, and doesn’t change A if B is spin right,
Then if initially A and B are both spin up,
then because spin B being spin up is a particular superposition of spin left and spin right,
We get a superposition of A being up and B being right, with A being down and B being left)
sorry I couldn’t simplify this more, I’m bad at summarizing, and also I think the idea is a fundamentally mathematical one, so you really do have to engage with the math.
How can physicists be so sure that the change is instant beyond the speed of light? How do you prove that the change in one object doesn't travel and take affect at the other at light speed?
Entanglement has already been proven experimentally.
@@EmergencePhysics of course it has but the question is how can the experimentalists be sure the changes happen instantly and not at light speed between the first and 2nd change?
That part of the experiment (whether it is instant or taking effect at light speed) is impossible to prove at the minute because humans are limited to close Earth orbit and there's currently no way to separate the 2 entangled objects by billions of miles to test whether it is instant or not. All the Nobel prize winning experiment were done on Earth with the ASSUMPTION that the change is instant because that's what quantum mechanical mathematics says it is. It is still an assumption, Bell proved that the particle model is incompatible with quantum mechanics NOT that the Unjverse is not locally real but try talking sense with a particle physicists and they act like flat Earthers except worse because they control all the Universities, CERN and peer review so they close down anyone who talks sense or provides evidence that annoys them. It's not just a case of I am right and you are wrong, current cosmological models all have anomalies which tell us they are wrong, the JWST images prove the big bang is wrong yet BB goons have lied and put down critics for over a year now since the evidence became clear.. Particle physicists being arrogant and anti science by closing down good science that annoys them is so irresponsible and dangerous it is genuinely frightening to think what could happen. If you've seen Diana Cowens video "It missed us by 9 days" (Physics Girl channel) that is just the tip of the iceberg of the type of Zombie apocalypse dangers we are currently facing and no one preparing, with particle physicists acting like hi tech flat earthers and partying, pumping out space kadet nonsense like time travel, teleportation, faster than light warp speed travel rubbish and wormholes and NOT TESTING the REAL physics beyond the standard model. They only pursue what is compatible with particles and their belief in Star Trek but there are NO particles as John Bell proved and if anyone is young or has kids they ought to get very humble, very serious, very sober, VERY fast if they want to see a future. NASA elites and the super rich have their bunkers and underground cities built while keeping the rest of humanity in the dark and distracted by petty politics, sexuality and other forms of distract, divide and conquer.
th-cam.com/video/31fVea8_OAw/w-d-xo.html
@@EmergencePhysics I'm not really interested in a long lecture by man so arrogant he says he never made a mistake yet thinks we live in a hologram thanks, unless you have any specific minute in reference to measuring spooky action. Its never been measured, so I guess you won't have one.
So 2 entangled spin states have random but opposite spin....
What happens with 3 spins with 3 measurements 🤔
If A=1 then B=0,.... C=?
I noticed in the video he went out of his way to have an Even Number of spin states... But why?
Also surely if you can randomly cut the box of spins everything must be entangled with everything else.
So what happens if Alice measures the Box of spins split vertically and simultaneously Bob measures the same Box split horizontally.....
1 quarter appear 1 for A&B
1 quarter appear 0 for A&B
But
1 quarter would be 1 for A, simultaneously 0 for B
And vice versa?
So half the spins match while have contradict each other?
After measurement a spin become un-entangled. So, you cannot really measure the same state of the same spin more than once.
You can have entangled states with e.g. 3 particles, sure.
You can have e.g. ((0,0,1)+(0,1,0)+(1,0,0))/sqrt(3) , and that’s fine.
You could also have an equal superposition of all 8 combinations.
But the particular example he gave with the ((up,down) - (down,up))/sqrt(3) is a more special state called the “singlet state”, which has that “the two are opposites” kind of deal.
If you have 2 spin (1/2) particles, each is associated with a (2*(1/2) + 1)=2 dimensional space,
And two of them together are associated with a 2*2 dimensional space.
This 2*2=4 dimensional space, can be split into two parts, one of which is 3 dimensional, and resembles a particle with spin 1 (3=2*1+1h
And the other of which is 1 dimensional, and resembles a particle with spin 0 (1=2*0+1)
This 0 dimensional space corresponds to this “singlet state”.
If you have 3 particles each with spin (1/2), then, (2*(1/2) + 1)^3 = 2^3 = 8,
and this 8 dimensional space can be split into a sum of:
A 2*(3/2)+1=4 dimensional space, which relates to something of spin 3/2
And a two different 2*(1/2)+1=2 dimensional spaces associated with spin (1/2) .
I forgot the point I was trying to make.
Uh...
Oh, I guess the thing is, if you have an odd number of them, then if you decompose it, all the sub spaces will be associated with half integer spins that aren’t integer spins, and therefore in particular, won’t have spin 0, and so won’t be one dimensional.
But, with an even number of spin (1/2) particles, there will be one or more sub spaces with spin zero, and these would I guess be more analogous to the singlet state...
That being said, I don’t think generic states would be like that, so I’m not quite sure why the “there exists a measurement of the other half which should give opposite results” claim works. I suspect that the measurement that would have to be made would be much more difficult to make than the original measurement on the other side (like, involving higher energies, larger magnitude operators, in order to magnify some small changes)
I was very intrigued, but couldn't stand the constant music unfortunately..
Have you tried fully complex random noise generators at each of the two remote detectors, with a single randomized composite state (that gets conjugated in each direction) at the central point? Look at the behavior when you are 1) well above, 2) close to, and 3) below the noise floor and detection threshold. You will see something interesting, and revealing if you can understand it.
Can you at least describe it because I can just barely comprehend all of this but I can learn.
If you can simulate the two particle entangled system with two separate computers only communicating the randomness, and not the detector directions, there's a Nobel prize in it for sure. But, it's easy to prove that it's impossible. To see for yourself, just tabulate the possible measurements one detector could make and the result and note that you can't get the totals to correlate correctly over all the possible detector angles, without knowledge of the other detector states.
@@tolkienfan1972 There is just an increased correlation at the remote detectors exceeding that which would be arrived at by classical physics. If you start with a local, random variable, communicate it down two lines talking to remote computers on either side, then with no noise you could get 100% correlation, exceeding both classical and quantum predictions. If you used complex noise at either remote computer, with threshold detectors, you get higher correlation than classical commensurate with quantum, and if you use real noise (such as is used in classical physics), you get classical correlation. It' not magic or Nobel prize stuff. Its just that classical models don't treat noise as truly complex.
@@onehitpick9758 you don't understand the problem. With detectors A and B, someone at A gets to chose the detector angle. The same at detector B. The correlation depends on A and B. You can't say what correlation you will get if, as is assumed in the experiment, A and B are chosen without the prior knowledge of the experimenter. There is no way to mimic the results of the Bell experiment classically without knowledge of the angles of the detectors.
@@tolkienfan1972 I understand it. Someone chooses an angle at A, and someone chooses an Angle at B. The likelihood of getting the conjugate measurement on B, compensated for the angle of B, is in excess of classical theory. I agree you can't model it with classical theory using local variables, but you can certainly simulate it if you don't stick to pure classical electrodynamics, and you can simulate it in a distributed network.
How can one have a lecture on quantum and not mention Werner Heisenberg?
Did he deal with entanglement (I don’t know)? Is he a hero of yours?
Because he was a nazi...
Adding wire negates the entanglement experiment .
Metaphor my dude
Doesn’t entanglement propagate in Chlorophyll in plants? I understand that this is why plants are so efficient in collecting solar radiation.
Photosynthesis is actually very inefficient. Including all other losses in plants it's on the order of 0.1-1% for culture plants. We could simply replace 10% of our agricultural area with solar panels and we would have solved all the food and energy problems in the world.
This is a very convoluted explanation of entanglement. I would have thought talking about Lorenz violation and non-locality is simpler- really brings out the weirdness. Trying to explain entanglement classically feels backwards
What weirdness? There is no violation of special relativity here. The structure of quantum mechanics is actually caused by the fact that there is no such violation. One can instead explain entanglement with two sentences starting from that fact.
I have yet to see a relatable description of entanglement & I still don’t understand how entanglement is different from blindly separating a pair of gloves in 2 boxes… open Alice’s box & you instantly know which handed glove is in Bob’s box. I’m sure there must be more to it than this or smart people like Professor Susskind wouldn’t invest so much time in it… but it still eludes me.
I never understood that either at first but here’s how Quantum Entanglement differs from Classical Probability (where knowing which glove in your box INSTANTLY means you know what the other box arbitrarily far awaycontains). And it is this: as per QM, there is NO such thing as your box containing a left glove or a right glove - or microscopically a spin up or spin down electron. Instead it exists in a superposition of states UNTIL you open it in which case it resolves into one or the other. The weirdness is that your measurement resolving this superposition here INSTANTLY resolves a superposition of an entangled particle arbitrarily far away. In other words it’s not just that you INSTANTLY *know* what the other box contains when you open your box (like with gloves) but that your opening the box (measurement) is what triggers the actual state of something arbitrarily far away.
This was Einstein’s spooky-action-at-a-distance objection. He viewed it as a violation of locality (an action here - the opening of a box/measuring a spin) affecting something arbitrarily far away. He therefore proposed that there must be some “hidden variables” that made the object in the box have a predetermined value (just like with gloves) and there would be no mystery (as with classical probability).
It was not till after Einstein’s death that John Bell proposed an experiment (or a class of experiments) that could distinguish between a pre-existing state (as with gloves) and a state arising out of a QM measurement. Bell’s inequality was a way of judging whether a measurement was classical (as with gloves) or what QM proposed (that there is no definite state until measured).
Actual experiments performed in the 80s showed that Bell’s Inequality was violated, ie locality was indeed violated and spooky-action-at-a-distance was a real thing among entangled particles.
An important detail is that, while a qubit has a 2-ishness about it (if you measure in the up-or-down? axis, you will always get results of either up or down),
unlike the gloves, there isn’t a preferred question of “is it the left glove or the right glove”. Instead, the “is it up, or down” is just one of a continuous family of possible questions, each of which corresponds to a measurement direction, and where any of the possible measurement results associated with any of the possible measurement directions, can be expressed as a mix of the two possible results from any of the other measurement directions.
So, “up” can be expressed as a particular mix of “left” and “right”,
and “left” can be expressed as a particular mix of “up” and “down”,
(or, again, any other combination. You can pick any axis, and describe each of the two possible results for that axis as a mix of the two possible results from any other axis.)
In the maximally entangled state with two particles, which he showed as an example,
then *no matter what measurement axis is chosen*, if you measure along the same axis on both sides, you get opposite results,
and, if you choose different measurement axiis on the different sides, the way the results are correlated, will depend on the angle between the measurement directions.
This is rather different than the thing with the gloves, where you just look and go “oh, it is the left glove”.
This way how there are multiple possible ways to make the measurements, and how the correlations in the results depends on the combination of the choices of how to measure the two sides, is core to how it differs from the glove idea.
It is possible to show that the kinds of correlations you get with entanglement, go beyond the types you can get with setups like the gloves where there is some combination of ignorance about the state of the stuff in the box along with some local randomness at the time of measurement.
problem is that if you change something on one glove (eg flip it) in one box, you open the second and the glove you didn't touch also have changed... Entanglement is strange to everyone, but it is experimentally proven.
@@Matx5901 I’d say that it isn’t quite that the other one “also changes”, at least not in the usual way of thinking about “a thing changing”. Rather, the correlation between the two is changed in a way that isn’t described by usual joint probability of two separate things.
Importantly, entanglement isn’t a means of communication.
An important aspect of this, is that you can choose different axiis (uh, plural of axis, I’m hoping spelling the plural as “axiis” will catch on, to remove ambiguity with plural of “ax”) along which to measure each of the particles.
If you start in the so-called “singlet state” (the one usually described for entangled pairs), then if you measure both along the same axis, then you will always get opposite directions. If you measure along two slightly different axiis, the observed directions will be such that they are approximately opposite, if the two measurement axiis are perpendicular, then the 4 possible combinations of observations will be equally likely, etc.
But, if one first e.g. flips one side along some axis, then the two will instead of being in the singlet state, instead be in some other entangled state, and how the correlation between the observations depends on the choice of measurement axiis, will be changed.
If you flip one along some axis, and then measure both along that axis, then you will observe the same direction on both, rather than opposite directions,
But if you measure both along some other axis (measuring each along the same axis as the one the other is measured along, but different from the axis you flipped one along), then you won’t have it always give the same, or always give opposites, but be correlated in some other way (depending on the axis chosen).
... hope that was clear enough. If any part of it was confusing, I can try to clarify.
The thing behind the math is,
the spin of each individually is described by a 2D complex vector of length 1,
And the state of the two together, can be described by a 2*2=4 so 4D vector, of length 1, using a thing called a “tensor product”.
The “singlet state” can be described as ((up,down) - (down,up))/(some number in order to make the length 1)
and it can be equally well be described as ((left,right) - (right,left))/(some number in order to make the length 1)
(Or you could also have forwards and backwards)
All of these, for any pair of opposing directions, would give the same vector (except for a factor of a complex number with length 1, but this “phase factor” isn’t really physically-meaningful/observable)
What exactly is a "spin"?
Spin is a quantum property of a particle. It's angular momentum; think of spin as how many rotations a particle must do in order to arrive at the same position; for example, spin 2 means that the particle must rotate twice around it's axes in order to come back to the same starting position. There are no spin 2 particles yet detected; if there are, that spin 2 particle will be indistinguishable from graviton. It's complicated.
Angular momentum? Explain in plain English please. Also Graviton. Let's not make it more complicated than apparently it is.
@@MrFoolingyuYou can think of it as a deformation in a crystal 🔮
We teach what angular momentum is in high school. Why were you sleeping? ;-)
Jeez, fix the audio from the mic
Susskind has the gift of rendering everything perfectly confusing while seemingy being crystal-clear 🤔
I fully agree. That is perfect. Quantum mechanics (and quantum field theory) describes a confusing reality, so dr. Susskind is spot on.
_From which Mental Institution has he fled? Warning ‼️ that’s contagious!_ 😵💫
Most astonishing is that people in the comments act like they learned something. I like real experiments, not thought tales.
No one did the spin test he talks of. I explained entanglement much better with respect to the real beam-split test. Look me up. I skipped to the end where he says we are all entangled. My experiments show their experiments are flawed.
@ericreiter1 but you aren't and never will be as famous or liked as Dr.Susskind.
He's been stringing along the entire physics community for too long...
1:38 "In classical physics, you can (always) know the exact state of a system." No, you can't, because that would require an exact measurement of a system, which is impossible. We don't have access to the initial values of a Laplacean demon. So does classical physics imply that IF we had access to the exact initial conditions, we could calculate the future of a system (which must be closed, another practically unrealizable constraint)? But even that is wrong in general, because there are no infinitely accurate calculators. Classical mechanics cannot solve the 3-body problem, if by "solve" you mean a formula that can be used to calculate all future states from given initial conditions.
I liked it up to halfway. After that his understanding of how the computer would work falls on its face. It comes down to trying to output the correlation of two opposing states, which will never be in agreement.
How can a subtraction of two states work? The subtraction operation can be applied to numbers. But a subtraction of states makes no sense to me. Unfortunately he didn't explain it, so he lost me here. I wish there were physicists good at didactics.
The states are represented by vectors in a Hilbert space. If subtracting states seems weird (and indeed it is), then think of it mathematically as a subtraction of two vectors. When an operator acts on that resulting vector, it is distributed across the minus sign, similar to H * (a - b) = H*a - H*b (Here, a and b are states/vectors and H is an operator/measurement).
@@physicsjeffThis does not explain, why substraction was used in the lecture.
@@balabuyewhe was specifically describing the singlet state. The singlet state is the eigenstate with eigenvalue -1, of the operator that exchanges the spins of the two particles.
One can subtract carrots.
It is interesting to know that entanglement is important. What it is seems to be much more difficult to explain.
love it
Thank you!
Could we entangle gravity?
In some sense entanglement 'is' gravity
@@EmergencePhysics Ouch.
LoL at the comments, this is the most significant conjecture in physics possibly ever, ER=EPR is hands down the strongest candidate we have for a theory of everything. Juan Maldacena and Lenny Susskind are two of the greatest minds of this generation
To simplify for some folks out there, his long story short, is entanglement IS wormholes
Take me back to 2019
As ever, superb clarity.
Is there a single cause of entanglement? Do we know what, physically, makes systems entangled?
Entanglement happens generically whenever multiple quantum systems interact. It is only for rather specific product states (specific to a given interaction) that would not stop being a product state after being transformed by some interaction between the two systems.
Deja vu. I took a couple of QM classes about half a century ago. One thing that confused me about two-particle entanglement is how you can "align" the detectors when they're on opposite sides of the universe, with warped gravitational fields between them and maybe multiple spacetime geodesics linking the two local detector frames.
The observer can be deciphered as a new set of matter, getting ready to get entangled - which in theory means the state prior to measurement again would be entangled with this new set of past , present and future instantaneously .
@user-ky5dy5hl4dI don’t think we necessarily know something that would be called “the cause of the speed of light”?
Also, do you mean like, ‘Why does it have the value it does?’ or like ‘why is there such a speed limit?’ ?
I think electromagnetism wouldn’t really work without such a limit, but I don’t know if that really qualifies as a “cause”.
And time is just like, how long before/after one event does another event happen, and that sort of thing.
Or, are you asking how we describe it in the math? Or how we measure it? What do you mean?
To me, these questions kinda seem fake-meaningful?
All this stuff makes sense if you realize that the act of observation is a quantum event that splits the universe along the many worlds hypothesis. The result the observers see is simply the universe they end up in.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d well, no, light travels much faster than 100mph.
It travels at c.
Before I can answer your question about time, you first must provide me the conditions that an answer would have to meet in order for it to satisfy you.
(If these conditions are self-contradictory, then your “question” fails to be a proper question.)
@user-ky5dy5hl4d What, in your mind, would constitute “a definition of time”?
I can’t answer your question if I don’t know what you mean by it.
What is it that you are asking, when you ask for “the definition of time”?
Regarding light: things don’t need something to make them move, they need something to change how much they are moving. A car doesn’t inherently need gasoline to continue moving, only to counteract the friction and such that act on it to slow it down.
So, if you are asking “what is the analogy of the gas in a car making it go, but for light”, there is no such thing.
And, in fact, because light is massless, it can’t go slower than c in a vacuum. It can be absorbed and re-emitted or something. And it can change in frequency, if e.g. gaining or losing gravitational potential energy.
(The importance of quantity called “speed of light” isn’t really about light specifically, so much as about causality. Though, it is of course, also the speed that light travels at in a vacuum.)
Thanks for this. Just a thought: Some people who are sensitive to sound find the static, droning music to be annoying. What does it add? A sense of contemplation? No. It just feels sad.
I love the music stimulates
Extremely distracting and pointless!
Everyone has an opinion. We need to keep them to ourselves more often, myself included.
@markdwyer5301 Haha. Perhaps, but I appreciate the thoughtful way producer2123 offered their criticism. Judging by their name, they might know better than most. This kind of comment might actually help the producer, not provoke them.
I think there is a right and wrong way. And, there's types of content where any at all is wrong. This person is likely learning to produce content, on-the-fly, and good for them - For recognizing something worth bringing exposure to and bringing that idea to fruition. This kind of lecture would be greatly enhanced by some animated visualization. Those kinds of segments present a more appropriate place to use music.
Entanglement is an invisible bi-directional arteries between two objects
Woah. Heavy I've read other stuff about entanglement before, but this is the first time I've realised that conponents of spin in 3D /have/ to be +-1, with no sinning and cossing, even though the spin can be in any direction
❤Thank you very much
You're welcome
❤
Why does this entanglement happen ?
Because the two entangled particles are considered part of the same system, the system, like a whole. Like a pair of gloves, if you see only one of them, the right-handed one for example, the other glove, even if you don't see it, is definitely the left-handed one.
But if right hand is lost the left remains
Yes, remain, you don't necessarily need to lost a particle, decoherence can happen
Because the universe is locally invariant under Poincare transformations. ;-)
Lenord, have you seen this lecture yet on accretion disks? it may help sir th-cam.com/video/nztcKTP6ESE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ru3d8wWbkNwMw3vD at 23:19 they discuss that black holes will either have hair or monopoles. I'm going with hair.
Thanks , of course this is beyond the comprehension of the general public .
Indeed
Yes.
is the answer to Einstein's dilemna that entangled particles are not really entangled at all, i.e. it's just a matter that their states evolve with time identically and separately ? the reason for postulating this as the situation with so-called entangled particles, is because any outside influence on their states breaks the entanglement (so communication not possible). if so, the entire situation with entangled particles seems less amazing. It's like two clocks, both with seemingly impossibly identical cystals, so their time evolves exactly the same no matter where they are in the world. Measuring the time on one yields what the time is on the other, but interfering in their state (time they are showing) breaks the "entanglement", because really, they are not entangled at all, they just have their states evolving identically with time. Nothing spooky after all :)
Wow, excellent channel. Great content. Thank-you.
And how can we use quantum entanglement to explain observations in the physical realm of measurements? Leonard never explained how photons become entangled, why some are partially entangled while others are fully entangled or how this entangled state is determined.
I don't believe this was the best lecture on quantum entanglement. He claimed information can't travel faster than light, that's not true. Quantum entanglement is instant at any distance. Instant is much faster than the speed of light. That's why Einstein called quantum entanglement spooky action at a distance because it happens in an instant, contradicting his look-back time prediction.
Quantum entanglement is an effect that occurs to the information pertaining to light, not particles. Particles are not entangled so that when one particle is manipulated the other instantly takes on the opposite spin. Particles have mass. A light particle is not an elementary particle because it doesn't have mass. Even when it's measured it doesn't have mass. That's why this effect occurs when the EM field of a pair of photons are entangled. Light particles do not have mass and travel at c, outside our reference frame of space, distance matter and time (slow-mass-time). Elementary particles have mass so they can't travel at the speed of light.
The light is not traveling faster than c. Light information the wave contains, spin, color, temperature, velocity, trajectory, etc is conveyed in an instant when one of the entangled photons are measured. Sure, elementary particles can be contained inside the same EM field and be entangled to other elementary particles but when one particle is measured it doesn't take on the spin of the distant particles. Because if that were true, then each planet in the solar system would take on the spin and orientation of the sun because everything is contained inside it's EM field. But that's not true. Each planet has a different spin and orientation than the sun, It's called obliquity. Thus the EM fields of matter interact, but they are not quantum entangled. Quantum entanglement then DOES NOT happen to particles with mass. It only happens to light because it's the only thing in the universe that can travel at c, outside our slow-mass-time.
Light when it travels at c does not do so as a particle of light. It's a wave of potential light information. This information exists outside our reference frame until it strikes an elementary particle, or is measured by a telescope. Then when the light is measured it's information is conveyed instantly regardless of distance to the body radiating the light, instant action at any distance.
This is why in the book SECRET UNIVERSE: GRAVITY by Ron Kemp I published 09-27-2021, before the JWST was launched, I wrote "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away."
Think about it. The only way a telescope can measure the light coming from a distant galaxy is if it's contained inside it's EM field. All the photons in the galaxy's EM field being measured are quantum entangled to each other. Spooky action at any distance then occurs. The creation of new light added to their EM fields is the action that happens at any distance. It happens in an instant upon measuring the distant galaxy's light information. Telescopes then are unable to see into the universe's past per the predictions of look-back time. Einstein, thousands of astronomers and cosmologists were wrong. Telescopes can't see into the past because they're contained inside the EM field being measured.
What did the telescope find? Did it find old, massive galaxies further than 13.8 billion light-years away? Yes it did. In fact, the galaxies are so massive at such a distance that astronomers relying on look-back time to make their predictions were wrong about what they would find in the early universe. Astronomers now refer to them as the impossible early galaxy problem. They are confused because Einstein claimed light information takes time to travel. Astronomers didn't take into consideration the photons in the distant galaxy's EM field were entangled. Telescope can't look back in time. The galaxies in the extremely distant universe are seen as they look today in our here and now, not how they looked in the past.
Time is a man-made concept used to measure matter in motion. It doesn't apply to the motion of light because it's not made of matter. When light information is added to the EM field it doesn't travel anywhere. It becomes the EM field containing potential light information. All we have to do then is measure the light information and it's measured by the telescope in an instant because it's inherent in the EM field as potential information. Light information in the real world doesn't travel any distance because of time dilation and length contraction occurring to it upon being measured by an observer. In this case the telescope is the observer taking the measurements. So, when it measures the distant galaxy it's light information is conveyed instantly to the telescope regardless of distance.
Believing we can use a telescope to look into the past is as silly as believing we can use a microscope to look into the future. Light information happens in a quantum instant when the telescope is contained inside the EM field it's measuring.
I was the only theorist relying on quantum field theory who accurately predicted what the JWST would see before it was launched into space. Theorists like Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Rajendra Gupta and others are still confused. Apparently they don't understand quantum field theory.
@@random_Person347 No disrespect taken my friend. True, peer review gets your ideas out there to the scientific community much faster than a book. But one thing is certain. If I had published the same predictions I made in my books, that the JWST would find old, massive galaxies in the early universe then peer review would have rejected it for it doesn't agree with the laws of thermodynamics, relativity, big bang, cosmic inflation or the evolutionary cosmological model of the universe. That's what peer review is for, to make sure the papers conform to everything they believe to be true.
The cold hard fact is I was the only theorist who truly predicted the old massive galaxies in the early universe. And I would have no proof of this claim if I didn't publish everything in books before the JWST was launched.
I submitted a paper to the astrophysics journal about this and gravity way back in 2010. Because it conflicted with the laws of thermodynamics claiming energy and matter can't be created, it was rejected. No one remembers I had accurately predicted exactly what the telescope would find back in 2010 because it was deleted.
Peer review becomes the bottleneck for all true advancements in science if the theories and laws of physics they're relying on to be true, are actually flawed. Thus the reason why astronomers and astrophysicists all around the world claimed telescopes are like time machines, able to look into the past. They were unable to accurately predict old massive galaxies in the early universe because the theories and laws of physics they assume to be 100% true are actually flawed.
And now, scientists call the old, massive galaxies further than 13.8 billion light-years away universe breakers. They debunk the big bang, cosmic inflation, general relativity's look-back time, the laws of thermodynamics and the model used to describe the evolution of the universe. Like I wrote in my books, their theories and laws of physics are flawed. I figured out way back in 2004 how to fix them and then in 2021 published everything in a series of 6 books.
Peer review will accept papers proposing dark matter or dark energy, which can't be measured directly or observed but they refuse to publish papers showing the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, or that over-unity of energy is possible. Why is that?
I've concluded peer review is not meant to advance our knowledge in science and technology but to hinder it from advancing too far, too fast.
a photon may have mass but is lower that it can be measured.
I was confused about much of what you wrote but one of the things I think you said that “particles (with mass) can’t be entangled” and only photons can is flat out false.
As per QM as presently formulated, at a “small enough” scale, there is no such thing as an objective state (like spin up or spin down) but a superposition of such states. These states are resolved into clear states ONLY when “measured”. This idea seemed absurd to Schrödinger who proposed his cat thought experiment to show the absurdity of this formulation.
Einstein upped the ante further saying that if you took QM as formulated seriously, then entangled particles (ie those whose superpositions are correlated with one another in some way) must have spooky-action-at-a-distance properties where resolving a state here by “measuring” it INSTANTLY resolves a state of its entangled twin arbitrarily far away violating locality (that actions can only travel at c at best and not instantly).
But John Bell’s thought experiment and the actual experiment based on Bell’s Inequality showed that indeed locality was violated in entangled particles and the notion of an objective state of a particle was false. What was “real” was the superposition not the actual state (which became “real” only AFTER “measurement”).
I put “real”, “measurement” “small” in quotes because there is a real debate about what all these mean. One of the debates is how the wave function (wave of what?) “collapses” or decoheres. Penrose proposed that objects with mass cause decoherence ie gravity is somehow involved in resolving superpositions with some backward time travel as well. All esoteric stuff to be sure.
@@B-none The superposition state was defining light particles within an EM field, being potential in our space-time,. It had nothing to do with elementary particles like protons.
No, quantum entanglement does not allow FTL communication.
It does allow (through pre-arranged plans of what observations will lead to making what measurements, and what measurement outcomes will lead to what actions) some kinds of coordination of behaviors between parties based on information obtained when they are too far apart to send a signal in time, beyond those kinds of coordination which could be done classically,
but, it should be pretty clear to anyone who understands the math of entanglement, that unitary actions on one part of the entangled system, cannot have any effects on the distribution of measurement results of measurements done on the other side of the system.
Because operators acting on different subsystems, commute.
QM classicalized in 2010. Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck, Bohr etc. So,no.
Is he trying to sell me the brooklyn bridge 😮😮😮😢
👌
Thank you!
Forget about the quantum, connect with the absolute in the Nature without contrast.
Better think: quantic made scientists thing again about god!
The entanglement is a phenomenon through which nature tries to send us a profound message. However, the physicists stubbornly have neglected the facts for almost 90 years, instead of modifying their inadequate theories. As a consequence, modern fundamental physics has ended up in the dead-end. The number of inexplicable facts rises unstoppably in both micro and mega scale with almost every new discovery.
Paradoxically, the main obstacles to further fundamental development in physics are - two (most-likely misleading) fundamental theories (quantum and relativity).
The main problem with both theories is that they contemplate local conditions only. However, it seems that entanglement hints that all the particles and all phenomena in the universe are inter-related, impacting each other simultaneously. Therefore, a theory should be developed that takes all the space and all objects inside it at once.
Perhaps using fractional (non-integer) order differential equations, instead of ordinary (integer) differential equations, may be a way to develop such integral theories that could explain not only the entanglement phenomenon, but also the other so far paradoxical observations in both micro- and cosmic- levels.
Lenny! You stopped just at the exciting point!
Lenny's one of the best ! Where/when BTW ?
If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea.
Why don't you write a proper paper instead of a youtube comment wall of text ramble lol terrible format for your ideas
@@alexbenzie6585 Constructive criticism is always welcome. Or, would you like to share your "Quantum" model with us?
What Physics journal on planet earth would accept a paper from someone who does not have an advanced degree in Physics?
Based on the two thumbs up above, at least two people were willing to look at the idea. I have had some positive feedback from those with Physics degrees, that allowed me to make a minor correction and another that helped me understand "solitons".
How many years have we heard that "String Theory" would solve this problem? What is your answer to the problem?
I do the same as you without your back ground in physics. This stuff excercises your memory. Don’t worry if people read it or not. It promotes you to discovering and who knows where that might go. 🍀
@@brendawilliams8062
Thank you for the kind words. They are very rare these days. My degree is actually in Biology. However, I have always been interested in Physics. DNA molecules are twisted, and organic molecules can be right-handed, or left-handed. I believe the Physics community needs to pay more attention to some of these concepts from Biology, if we are going to understand Quantum Mechanics. The concept of "Chirality" is applicable to both Biology and Physics. Eric Weinstein does not have a Physics degree, but he has been instrumental in looking at alternatives to "String Theory".
Dude don't leak your phd paper in youtube comments you might get plagiation strike from your comment when you release it 😂
If you cant explain it simply , then you dont understand it 😮😮
My head hurts. I lost him 10:00 mins into the lecture.
But why do they spin and can the rate vary?
The “spin”, while it is a kind of angular momentum, isn’t really quite like spinning?
And, the amount of “spin” (or “intrinsic angular momentum”), uh,
well, for elementary particles like electrons and photons, the magnitude of the “spin” is constant,
but, when interacting with stuff, the direction of it can change.
For composite particles, like the nuclei of atoms, the total spin magnitude can change, but only in discrete jumps.
This should be standard education.
So should measuring students ability to accept the truth when wrong and prove their right when others challenge them.
Our society is so close to greatness and destruction, good tv but annoying real life drama.
they're (= they are) right
The mystery of a quantum entanglement can be solved easily. Look here.
Please argue
"Best lecture so far on what Entanglement is in Quantum Physics" - The Arrow of Energy - The One-Way Entanglement Between Isolated Energies;
“In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017).
Finite fossil fuels are dangerously hypnotic to humans, their consciousness and mental capacity.
Humans were not ready morally, ethically and intellectually to start the mass extraction of fossil fuels with the advent of the steam engine 300 years ago.
The Magna Carta requires today overhauling - adding to it the right for humans to understand what Energy really is - before any other commandment.
Not the Jada Smith video I was looking for 😂
NOTE COMPLETELY RANDOM NUMBER. COMPUTERS HAVE PSEUDO RANDOM GENERATION. NOT SURE OF THE QUANTUM ONES THOUGH :D
I think Leonard was really illustrating a point with a thought experiment so this may not matter but:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator
LEONARD CHANGE THE RNG TO RND IN FUTURE LECTURES :)
It's Random Number Generator
I think a computer cannot model the random spin measurement. Reason is that a computer has a hard time generating a random number. Computers generate pseudo random numbers. In order for a computer to generate a real random number, it has to go to the outside world and find real randomness, thus relying on...the quantum spin it is modeling? Thus your model relies on the thing it is modeling and it is not an independent model.
Mechanics of our digital computers are not relevant here, he could use people with pens and papers and sources of randomness like a Geiger counter. It's all about whether the two simulated "measurements" use two independent sources of randomness or they use one source. In the latter case it's trivial to reproduce the quantum behavior, but not in the first case. They just need to produce values that are unpredictable for them, and to simulate entanglement the 2 values must be related in a certain way.
If you use a Geiger counter for random generator, it's about random particles coming from space, not about spin at all, so there's no circularity or a problem with independent model.
I realize that it's irrelevant for this demonstration. I was just nitpicking.
@@ErikBongers Maybe in fact a "real" computer random generator should be so imprédictible that it would "find-out" entanglement without wires between two computers.
13:00 "I'm not sure Bohr understood it"
He was a crashing Bohr!
Hurts my tiny brain🙏🙏🙏
I love Science
🤔🧐🤨😯😎👀💪👌There's no such thing as "spooky action at distance" if we consider that other universes, subdimensions or different worlds( whatever they are) that are lack of t and 3ds. As far as I see that at least two more of them are out there beside our physical universe. The relationship of our physical universe and other universes ( or worlds) is just like traveling transverse waves. They pass through each other without interacting. Then everything is fine with me.
Let's investigate and study them so that in the future the government can taxe on them.
I think when the particles become entangled there is either a communication of sorts between the two, determining which has which spin without revealing it, or there is something connecting the two particles. That connection could be direct between the two, or the two could connect by a medium. Maybe when two particles become entangled, there is also a third entanglement with spacetime itself, allowing for faster than light travel by not only entanglement but by being part of spacetime itself. Or it could be entangling or exciting a field that permeates the universe or at least a semi closed system that has a finite range. Maybe within our galaxy or a certain proximity to the center black hole or with a gravitational field.
ARE YOU A PHYSICIST?🧐
@@shanebailey9128 unfortunately I’m a high school drop out my friend. I just learn things that interest me lately from these great minds I found on TH-cam and enjoy to theorize from the things others say combined with what seems possible in my own thought pattern. Wish I was more interested when I was in school. I’ll take it as a compliment whether it was meant to be or not, thanks.
@@Wtf-eva So basically you are just seeking attention on social media. ;-)
with all me respect - this is not the best lecture on entanglement but only an intro. what is said and presented by Susskind (who is a great mind indeed) can be explained with classical correlations (shared randomness). genuine quantum correlations (entanglement) cannot be introduced without referring to Bell's inequalities.
You need to read Bell's paper. It says that at the end that his paper is unnecessary because relativity takes care of it completely. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 I've read Bell's paper (c) 20 years ago (for the first time). Have you?
@@sergeydenisov15 Why are you telling me that you never understood it? It says clearly that relativity is the reason for all of this. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 too few smileys. try to tell me about relativity one more time - with a proper amount of them. fetch!
@@sergeydenisov15 Awh, you are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. Let's play jump, then! Jump! Jump! Jump! :-)
too bad it's cut off before his conclusions.
😍
Thank you!
I would disagree. I am none the wiser as to what entanglement is. In fact I am more confused than ever.
ER=EPR is the gateway to the full theory of gravity.
Now I'm more convinced that entanglement has to do with hidden variables in a deterministic sysyem. The reason it leads to unpredictability has nothing to do with inherent randomness but with our lack of knowledge of the underlying chaotic system. Our quantum view is merely an approximation of a more fundamental deterministic chaotic system. It might not be fully predictable the same way other chaotic systems aren't, but it's NOT random.
True, the Bohm-deBroglie Hidden Variables Formulation does work (i.e., reproduces QM) and is deterministic, but it retains what Einstein hated even more, nonlocality. If one has to accept nonlocality, many people decide also to accept randomness.
@@JohnFowler-e1c I'm not a fan of the Bohm formulation. Not only is it nonlocal, but it's nonrelativistic, and it's not clear whether it can even be made relativistic.
I was thinking more of a local AND deterministic framework in the superdeterminism sense. See Tim Palmer's work.
Best lecture, really?
you know how it is: they put the word "best" as clickbait. I mean Susskind is great but there are better lectures on this topic
Clickbait
Our minds are probably subconsciously entangled with the whole universe, maybe even projecting the material world collectively. At that level we are the universe, What appears as meny individual islands in a body of water, will be revealed as an illusion of separateness, each island appearing to have it's own location and properties. When the water is drained, the illusion disappears and we can see that the islands are all an expression of the same ongoing process .
"Particles" in the same way appear to us as separate and discreet islands , when actually they are bulging up and down from a common ground, (quantum field), that underlies our material world. Individual people behave like particles existing in multiple states of potential, popping in and out of existance, but we really are all just the same stuff doing different things. We are good at picking out differences, but seeing the underlying unity may require draining the lake or clarifying the water to see our common ground of being behind the illusion.
The advancement of quantum exploration is a clearing up of the water, which may turn out to simply be our own confusion not letting us see all the connections yet. Our minds are part of the equation. The Hindus see the material world as a subset of the universal mind deep in sleep, dreaming up the universe. They started looking at things through the consciousness end of the telescope, and concluded that it's all one, and physicists are looking at the same thing through the physics end, and coming to the same conclusions. Quantum theorists should start looking into these wisdom traditions for clues to decipher and translate into theoretical physics. There are no "things", only process. Every "thing" is everything. Our minds are not naturally tuned to that reality yet, but discovering our true nature through quantum theory and experiments is looking like a valuable path towards wiping away a lot of mankind's feelings of unnaturalness and alienation from nature. To me the notion that calling some things "natural", and others "man made" as if that makes any damn sense at all. A computer is just as natural as a beaver dam, or a birds nest. It might be on a higher scale of complexity, but is the dividing line in that fact somewhere? How utterly ridiculous anybody sounds who tries to explain where and how unnaturalness comes into play, except in our imaginations or arbitrary "facts". These stupid notions are part of the reason the water around the islands is still cloudy. We are still clinging to false notions that don't apply on the quantum level. Anyway, just spitballin' here.
But you need sensory feedback so you're limited to light speed visual input.
I’ve never understood the faster than speed of light information. And I still don’t.
Think of a metal plank that is kinda twisted. If you twist the left side, the right side twists the other way, and vice versa. The plank can never be straight, it is always twisted. So the plank is + -, or it is - +. There is no real transfer of information. The plank is in a random state, but if A is +, B is -. If A is -, then B is +.
What this says is that the two of the plank sides are correlated. Things that seem like 2 objects that are far apart, are really only one object. Some people think that is you measure one side, that the information must travel somehow to the other side, to tell it what to be. But thats not the case.
Nicely put
maybe... information only goes light speed, but if it goes thru a wormhole between two particles, it can coordinate them no matter how far away they are.
the wormholes are non-traversable, so FTL communication is impossible. we can't put information into one and get it out of the other. but they can coordinate.
That is the mystery of me how I did it