I am with you John Clauser, who got the ball rolling experimentally, Quantum Mechanics is still to be properly fleshed out and understood in spite of the ridiculous advances 🤯🤯🤩.
"Anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics is either lying or crazy." This is a qoute from Richard Feynman. As we can see, it applies fully to Clauser, the later possibility being what we see here.
This is a great lecture. The scary part is that once again scientists fail to debunk the weirdness of quantum mechanics. We will have to deal with it I guess. Hope more discoveries are made in this area. Thanks for the awesome lecture, really humble scientists and a great one too. I also liked the jokes.😂
@39:00 Clauser asks: "What does it mean to have a wave propagating in configuration space?" It is referred to as a "pilot wave" and was described in detail by Bohm in his 1952 paper: A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden" Variables. (Note: Bohm is here referring to non-local hidden variables, not the local hidden variables of Einstein's EPR thought experiment.) Clauser's observations on the differences between 3D physical space and configuration space are well taken. The reason the two spaces are often conflated in the case of a single particle (without spin) is because the three spatial degrees of freedom in single-particle configuration space can be mapped directly to the three dimensions of physical space. However, the mathematics of configuration space do not map directly to physical space. The probability amplitudes produced by the evolution of the quantum wave-function in configuration space are complex-valued and are the source of the interference patterns observed in double-slit experiments. These complex-valued amplitudes are projected from configuration space into physical space via the Born rule to produce real-valued probability gradients, which can be used to predict the likelihood of observing a particle in any specific region of physical space. Clauser's observations on the non-relativistic nature of configuration space are also pertinent. Configuration space is inherently deterministic and non-local. All quantum events in configuration space propagate instantaneously without speed-of-light restrictions. It is the probabilistic nature of Born's rule that allows physical space to exhibit localized relativistic properties in spite of the deterministic nature of configuration space.
This is a great talk. Very deep - especially the puzzle at the end: '3D space' for single-particle systems and the abstract 'configuration space' for multi-particle systems. Is there a PDF of the talk available anywhere? I can't find it on the Nobel site. I think Clauser's title is "Nonlocal quantum entanglement is real! Confirming experiments, Local Realism, and Why I still find Quantum Mechanics difficult to understand."
I believe the next step in clarifying how quantum mechanics works in the real Universe, is understanding the true Nature of Space. Our physics says that events (a particle is an event) occurs (or exists) in Space: No. Space is part of each "event"...
Loved Clauser’s talk, he breaks all the molds. “EPR is DOA…He’s dead Jim!” What Einstein and Schrödinger failed to realize is the impact of many body quantum physics, formulated years later by some of the gentlemen listed in the #2 undergrad quantum physics textbook series. I’d also add Feynman’s Statistical Mechanics book. Can’t have a condensate without quantum entanglement, Jim. Let’s also not forget that Feynman invented a field theory propagator that violates locality in that 1948 paper…
I'm no expert, but I thought this presentation was amazing! Very fascinating discovery! I wonder if there are entangled universes too? Where is the ER=EPR Conjecture, if any? On Mr. Clauser's entangled black holes, I wonder what Dr. Hawkin would have responded. Would Hawkin's radiation be entangled as well? Assuming that a black hole's core is a singularity pressure point, then would that mean that all of the matter concentrated at that singularity point of that black hole would also be a concentration of all of its entangled particles which are at some other location unbeknownst to us, still? The fact that the gravity pull is so intense does not matter in quantum entanglement theories as it can remain entangled far beyond the black hole's gravitational influence, but what about decoherence? Further, during the generation of new matter of particles, like during nuclear fusion, what happens to the initial entangled particle as new particles form? Decoherence for some and continued entanglement for others? There are still so many questions...
What is entanglement? What physical process is it? What are its attributes? How can i observe or measure these attributes? How can i manipulate these attributes? I am afraid none of these questions are answered by Clauser. So what does this claim mean, that "nonlocal quantum entanglement is real"? Also: i can show that his experiments can also be explained by using another interpretation of "the process of polarization". So strictly speaking, we do not need entanglement as an explanatory concept at all.
Entanglement is not a physical process, it manifests in configuration space rather than physical space. Its effects on the behavior of particles in physical space have been observed in numerous experiments, such as Clauser et al performed. Since configuration space is inherently non-local, quantum entanglement is likewise. You can visualize it as a shared correlation between specific degrees of freedom of otherwise distinct particles. For example, if the spin of two particles is entangled, they share that single degree of freedom in configuration space. Since they each retain individual spatial degrees of freedom, their spin can remain correlated, regardless of the spatial distance between them.
Just gibberish! Despite being a Nobel laureate in physics, John Clauser's expertise in quantum mechanics does not make him credible in the field of climate science. His critiques reflect a lack of understanding of complex climate models, feedback mechanisms, and the probabilistic nature of climate predictions. Being an expert in one area of physics does not automatically qualify someone to make authoritative judgments in an entirely different and interdisciplinary field.
another desperate attempt to find out what this all IS... it IS what it IS...we will never find out who we are, where we from ..where we go and what is the purpose of this game..
I am with you John Clauser, who got the ball rolling experimentally, Quantum Mechanics is still to be properly fleshed out and understood in spite of the ridiculous advances 🤯🤯🤩.
"Anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics is either lying or crazy." This is a qoute from Richard Feynman. As we can see, it applies fully to Clauser, the later possibility being what we see here.
Fascinating! Thank you! Summary: spooky action at a distance is real, despite protests and denial from so many.
Where is the data from this claim?
This is a great lecture. The scary part is that once again scientists fail to debunk the weirdness of quantum mechanics. We will have to deal with it I guess. Hope more discoveries are made in this area.
Thanks for the awesome lecture, really humble scientists and a great one too. I also liked the jokes.😂
Life itself is weird.
They'll have to show their data first. The heat death of the Universe might occur first.
Once again, scientists forget to publish the raw experimental data.
@39:00 Clauser asks: "What does it mean to have a wave propagating in configuration space?"
It is referred to as a "pilot wave" and was described in detail by Bohm in his 1952 paper: A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden" Variables. (Note: Bohm is here referring to non-local hidden variables, not the local hidden variables of Einstein's EPR thought experiment.)
Clauser's observations on the differences between 3D physical space and configuration space are well taken. The reason the two spaces are often conflated in the case of a single particle (without spin) is because the three spatial degrees of freedom in single-particle configuration space can be mapped directly to the three dimensions of physical space. However, the mathematics of configuration space do not map directly to physical space. The probability amplitudes produced by the evolution of the quantum wave-function in configuration space are complex-valued and are the source of the interference patterns observed in double-slit experiments. These complex-valued amplitudes are projected from configuration space into physical space via the Born rule to produce real-valued probability gradients, which can be used to predict the likelihood of observing a particle in any specific region of physical space.
Clauser's observations on the non-relativistic nature of configuration space are also pertinent. Configuration space is inherently deterministic and non-local. All quantum events in configuration space propagate instantaneously without speed-of-light restrictions. It is the probabilistic nature of Born's rule that allows physical space to exhibit localized relativistic properties in spite of the deterministic nature of configuration space.
This is a great talk. Very deep - especially the puzzle at the end: '3D space' for single-particle systems and the abstract 'configuration space' for multi-particle systems.
Is there a PDF of the talk available anywhere? I can't find it on the Nobel site. I think Clauser's title is "Nonlocal quantum entanglement is real! Confirming experiments, Local Realism, and Why I still find Quantum Mechanics difficult to understand."
I believe the next step in clarifying how quantum mechanics works in the real Universe, is understanding the true Nature of Space. Our physics says that events (a particle is an event) occurs (or exists) in Space: No. Space is part of each "event"...
Loved Clauser’s talk, he breaks all the molds. “EPR is DOA…He’s dead Jim!” What Einstein and Schrödinger failed to realize is the impact of many body quantum physics, formulated years later by some of the gentlemen listed in the #2 undergrad quantum physics textbook series. I’d also add Feynman’s Statistical Mechanics book. Can’t have a condensate without quantum entanglement, Jim. Let’s also not forget that Feynman invented a field theory propagator that violates locality in that 1948 paper…
The sales on the sweater just went up ⬆️ ✨.
very interesting, thank you 👏
If a black hole is actually a swollen single particle with quantized spin, then sure two could be entangled.
The answer dwells in Euler's Formula
I am so impressed!
I'm no expert, but I thought this presentation was amazing! Very fascinating discovery! I wonder if there are entangled universes too? Where is the ER=EPR Conjecture, if any?
On Mr. Clauser's entangled black holes, I wonder what Dr. Hawkin would have responded. Would Hawkin's radiation be entangled as well? Assuming that a black hole's core is a singularity pressure point, then would that mean that all of the matter concentrated at that singularity point of that black hole would also be a concentration of all of its entangled particles which are at some other location unbeknownst to us, still? The fact that the gravity pull is so intense does not matter in quantum entanglement theories as it can remain entangled far beyond the black hole's gravitational influence, but what about decoherence?
Further, during the generation of new matter of particles, like during nuclear fusion, what happens to the initial entangled particle as new particles form? Decoherence for some and continued entanglement for others? There are still so many questions...
My Hero Nodel All 🙏🇱🇰🌟🥇🌻🌸🌷💛❤🧡💙💜🖤💛🧡
Thanks .Interesting .
What is entanglement? What physical process is it? What are its attributes? How can i observe or measure these attributes? How can i manipulate these attributes? I am afraid none of these questions are answered by Clauser. So what does this claim mean, that "nonlocal quantum entanglement is real"?
Also: i can show that his experiments can also be explained by using another interpretation of "the process of polarization". So strictly speaking, we do not need entanglement as an explanatory concept at all.
It is not that hard actually and lots of good resources on youtube for the layman.
Entanglement is not a physical process, it manifests in configuration space rather than physical space. Its effects on the behavior of particles in physical space have been observed in numerous experiments, such as Clauser et al performed. Since configuration space is inherently non-local, quantum entanglement is likewise. You can visualize it as a shared correlation between specific degrees of freedom of otherwise distinct particles. For example, if the spin of two particles is entangled, they share that single degree of freedom in configuration space. Since they each retain individual spatial degrees of freedom, their spin can remain correlated, regardless of the spatial distance between them.
Very interesting talk but pretty technical especially the last part - now all we need is Sabine explaining it for the masses!
Nobel!!!😊😊😊
❤❤👏👏
Congratulations
Oh right🫵
Talking, without data, is mere hypnosis.
@BenjaminGatti You can read his papers at first.
He really needs to take a course in public speaking
Just gibberish! Despite being a Nobel laureate in physics, John Clauser's expertise in quantum mechanics does not make him credible in the field of climate science. His critiques reflect a lack of understanding of complex climate models, feedback mechanisms, and the probabilistic nature of climate predictions. Being an expert in one area of physics does not automatically qualify someone to make authoritative judgments in an entirely different and interdisciplinary field.
If the experimental data from these experiments were made public, they would have some credibility.
another desperate attempt to find out what this all IS... it IS what it IS...we will never find out who we are, where we from ..where we go and what is the purpose of this game..
Without the experimental data - you have no chance of understanding this. Presumably, that is the point.
Some of it has already been proven
What a disgrace this Clauser tool has become.