To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
theory alternative to biblical theology and sciences explanations: the purpose of the spirit through manifestation that takes on reality it's to create a soul and the soul makes a (key) that (key) let one travel on the map of the absolute everything the process call justice (map and path to change to a better form of space time). spirits move and make that quantum fluctuations that is related to philosophical meaning of existences change or interact in a more complex compresión of info. in the meaning full world different than a just manifestation world the meaningful world it's above the light speed. the world of the essentials its the world of the always have been regarless of the time line, there for is the lesson over the relation of many histories of the been. the speed of information always have been the true on a higher dimension where the light wrap up it, the light are the space where those spirit inhabit. the mind have the particularity to have a potencial to escape entropy so we sincro meaning with some on this spirit(essences of some true about any being) that's how mind travel though karma. and not every things it's meaning less fill up of paradox like rick and morti cartoons. there are 2 paths.
Well done again! My compliments. It still leaves that unpleasant feeling that, although we can see and describe what is happening, we do not really understand anything about it.
ha! I was thinking the same thing. Then I wondered if my watermelon had blue seeds, would yours also have blue seeds, even if from certain perspectives, you ate your watermelon first?
See if I can explain it in a laymans terms, say you and your work mate were suppose to be on a guard duty, where one of you has to take a compulsory rest so that when your work mate feels tired you take over, so that your boss has a 24 hrs guard over his Gold bullion, so whenever your boss comes in, he always finds that one of you is always on guard and the other one is taking his rest, he will become angry if both of you were taking a rest and leaving the gold bullion unguarded, or that if both of you were fully awake guarding the gold bullion, again the boss won't be happy as he only knows that if you were both awake and guarding then it is likely that you both will feel tired together and go to rest leaving the Gold bullion unguarded. So what do you do when any one of you hears the boss coming in, the first guard who hears the boss will tell the other workmate to quickly fall asleep before the boss catches them both awake, so whenever the boss comes in he always finds 100% of the time that one of his guards is always resting and one of them is always watching, but what boss doesn't know is who will be on guard, so he finds that it is either Harry or Tom 50% of the time, but if Boss comes in more frequently he might find that Tom is on guard 83% of the time, and if he comes 12 hours late, he finds that Harry is on guard 83% of the time. So what we learn from this quantum experiment is that we are the boss, (observer) and quantum particles are our workers, where one must take a rest and the other watching, so if boss comes in creeping, and Harry or Tom don't hear him coming in, the Boss might find both sleeping or both awake 15% of the time. the Boss won't be happy and to him it would be illogical as he did not expect them both sleep or both awake. Quantum bits are clever little bastards, they know when you are watching them, how do they know that you are, they do know when the light is present (electromagnetic waves) because any detector or observer needs light to see matter or particles, without light they don't care if they are both awake or both sleeping because they know when boss comes in and he can't see them without light if it was jet black darkness. So when boss switches light on, both knows that one of them must awake up and the other should remain sleep, but often they panic and are both caught sleeping or awake, about 15% of the time.
I think your close to something when you say 'light'..the heat from the friction of these particles also can be a factor...One thing that makes this a sort of an unnatural observation is ,the particle accelerator they use to diagnos this impact uses magnetic to keep the particle in an arc as the go around the colliders tubes, this I believe is giving the particles and magnetic property or charges poles...and these poles are flipping.(inaccurate experiment)
It’s us using predictions, instantaneous travel isn’t needed. That’s like saying that if you know that a coin is heads and the other coin has to be tails, the coin with heads sends a message to the other coin telling it to be tails. This doesn’t happen. We know that they are different. Similarly, each particle contains 3 properties, 2 of which cannot be measured simultaneously in the same particle. If we know the particles are entangled, we can use the properties of one particle to predict the properties of the other particle. It seems that 2/3 properties can be the same, but no particle can share the exact same set of properties. Knowing this, we can deduce the properties of the particles. There needn’t be FTL travel to explain this
I'm not a scientist or a mathematician but I enjoy these videos because they require imagination to visualize a theory that is abstract this is eminently attractive to my curiosity's about how things work and why
In the derivation of Bell's Inequality, he posits a presumptive hidden variable, λ(x,t). One member of the twin particles has a position +x at time t, while the twin has a position -x at time t. But note that Bell blithely adopts a common master clock, t, so that λ(x,t) can be algebraically canceled out by λ(-x,t), regardless of the function λ(•). If you appreciate that a gravitational gradient perturbs timekeeping so that the particles speeding off in opposite directions age at their own idiosyncratic rates, then one can no longer algebraically cancel out λ. The derivation of Bell's Inequality breaks down; the presumptive hidden variable λ(x,t) remains present. Indeed one can say the hidden variable is time itself. That is, in reality, each particle ages according to its own local clock, rather than being governed by a common master clock. In Aspect's experiment, λ(x,t) could be Maxwell's Equation for the photon, or (equivalently) Feynman's rotating vectors. But recall that photons traversing a gravitational gradient gain or lose energy and thus change their wavelength (or color) accordingly. The two photons are thus represented by sinusoids which are not perfect mirrors of each other and thus cannot be algebraically canceled out. They will have a residual nonzero "beat frequency" which remains present, thus spoiling Bell's convenient cancellation of λ(x,t) midway through his derivation. That's why Bell's Inequality doesn't hold in the real cosmos where there is no universal master clock that keeps identical time everywhere and everywhen. The not-so-hidden variable is time, itself.
When you say “local click,” you seem to imply how each perceived tune from their own frame of reference. Any object within its own grimace of reference perceives local time and space the same as any other object in their own frame of reference perceives local time and space. For instance, one partial carrying a pocket watch will see a second tick by just as fast as any other particle will see seconds tick by on their own watches. However, how those clocks tick from the other’s perspective will be different than how their perceive their own respective clocks. This means, any time dilation perceived has to come from the passage of time observed within another frame of reference: non-local. My problem with these experiments is how light is treated as a particle when it’s actually a spherical wavefront in the electromagnetic field. That wavefront will travel in all directions so that the peak of the wave on one side of the sphere will be peak on the opposite side of the sphere as well as everywhere else on that sphere. Acting like photons a re point-like particles is merely a shortcut to deal with the interference patterns resulting from multiple vibrating ions.
Another explanation could be that the two measurements happen at the same moment from the perspective of the entangled system. Remember, to even notice this, we have to being the measurements together "no faster than causality allows". In other words, we are not looking at messages nor are we looking at time travel of messages. Rather this is about how time is formed from entanglement of mass particle systems. We have six entangled photon experiments that basically tell us all we can currently know about how this works. 1. Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment 2. Photons entangled in time experiment 3. No definite causal order of a photon in a quantum gate experiment 4. Toy universe time experiment 5. Time is continuous toy universe experiment 6. No objective quantum reality experiment But that is not all. See, it is all about the fact that even decohered entanglement information can always be recovered if the information is relevant between two subsystems. That is the main point of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. This information being recoverable means that the idea of entanglement history or entanglement entropy or entanglement bulk has reality. Now, if you remember maxwell's demon from this same series, then you know the solution is in the brain of the demon which holds the missing entropy. Well, guess what? That entanglement bulk might as well be the demons brain. Anyways, I love these videos dearly even though I very much disagree with the solution to the paradox in this case.
Thank you so much, as person who has struggled to understand the entanglement and Bell's experiment, I see how carefully you proceed to explain the difference between classical prediction and quantum prediction. Then instead of straightway introducing the actual Bell's experiment, you introduce a variant which is easy to understand where there is 100% agreement between diagonal and X/Y axis. This made all the way easier for me to understand when eventually there is the actual 85% agreement. Initially the spin of the entanglement particles are also kept same instead of being opposite, to avoid any confusion. This extreme detailing and super care in the method of teaching in this video is amazing. I clearly understood why Bell experiment implies either communication between the particles or super determinism. Thank you so much.
What do get? I'm struggling and I'm leaning to the side that there's a wrong assumption in the experiment. Let's say we have 2 photons that we know have the same polarization but that is random, then we throw a polarizer at a random orientation along their paths and see if the polarizer emits a photon at the end (it doesn't let it through, it spits a new one aligned to it's polarization), so we find that if they polairzers are perfectly aligned they'll agree 100% in their predictions, also they'll disagree 100% of the time if they're perpendicular to each other, and there's the cos^2 x relationship which included the 0 and the 90 degrees. Let's talk more about polarizers, we know that if a randomly polarized photon goes through a polarizer, it will make it through 50% of the time, this can be proven by passing unpolarized light through a polarizer, 50% of the intensity will make it through by means of new polarized photons emitted. So we would expect that any random light has a 50/50 through any polarizer. Oddly enough though, when we have a twin state photon, we know that there's a relationship between the 2 photons, they'll share polarization, meaning, if we have 2 randomly aligned polarizers, we'd expect each to be a 50/50 but we find that if one yields a result the other follows the polarizer equation for intensity yield in respect to it. Here's where my issue is. Why do we get 100% correlation when the filters are aligned when we know that is very unlikely that we just randomly picked the actual polarization of the photons? The answer floating around says that the state of both photons get defined by observing one. That seems to me like we're jumping off a logic cliff for no reason. It makes more sense to me to say that this is the first time we have ever been able to test passing the "same" photon through a random polarizer and that we found out that that same photon would always cause an emission at any point where it does, essentially if we shoot the same photon through the same polarizer (impossible to test without twins, i think) we'll always get teh same result, not a different result each test, therefore proving that it was defined that it would cause an emission through that orientation or not. Therefore, I think that we're assuming polarizers act a certain way but they don't and we're assuming that twins don't have predefined things that will say how they would cause that dielectric to act but the experiment actually shows that it does, since sending the "same" photon through the same setup, always has the same result.
@@amaterasu1211 Would this imply that there are more parametrs which are used to describe photons. Something we cannot actually define yet or measure. It seems that photons you described differ to each other and that is reason why they pass or not. Not just spin but something else which actually crushes probability and makes it deterministic?
Instantaneous messaging is not the majority view of what is occurring. What Bell failed to mention (or which he and other physicists are unaware of) is that his inequalities are just George Boole's inequalities for checking if data is being modeled correctly by random variables - if the data violates the inequalities it means your variables are chosen inconsistently. The obvious flaw in this case is the ignoring of the fact that the X, Y and D are not properties solely of the particles in the pair but of the combination of particles and detector configuration. The particles are not little balls but a phenomenon spread over space as represented by the wave function, including the region of space connecting the detectors and the wave function is altered by alteration of detector configuration. Even in delayed choice experiments alteration of the wave function occurs within relativistic constraints.
@@IronLotus15 Nope not at all. Superdeterminism is a fancy way of saying "conspiracy of nature" and that is just as whacky as instaneous messaging. What I am talking about is incompatibility of observables which leads to different probability spaces. Bell's inequality and similar no-go theorems all somewhere in their aguments are assuming that all observables involved are random variables defined on a common joint probability space - but that simply isn't the case. The probability spaces depend on the experimental configuration.
Great explanation of quantum entanglement thing. I do find the final conclusion somewhat unconvincing though. It sounds like a sticking plaster covering cracks in relativity to me. This is because of the arbitrary definition of "information" as a message in which the contents are actually known (or can be set) at the point of sending and can therefore have "meaning" to human beings. Therefore the argument rests on the idea that "information" is fundamentally different to "data" and I find that unsatisfactory and unconvincing - you could argue "information" was a special subclass of "data" where that data has a tangible or specific meaning to *us* (which has the whiff of anthropomorphism about it to me) but not that it was a fundamentally different thing. "Meaning" to which observer in what context?
+1234gregor If you know how the second particle will spin based on your measurement of the first particle, it is not information because it is not new, you already know how the second particle will react. This is why you can't use entanglement to send information.
But if you do, of do not, measure a quantum value the other particle quantum function will collapse. So, the other particle will, or will not, show interference patterns. This transmits information.
Why does the other particle show interference patterns? I don't even think one particle can ever do that, you have to like in the 2-slit experiment shoot a bunch of particles and see their overall pattern.
Information is just any signal that can 'cause' some interaction somewhere else. The speed of light is the speed of causation. So signals going beyond the speed of light, or instantaneously, cannot be part of the causal chain of events. This is another way of looking at 'information', as signals capable of causation. This is completely independent of the human perspective.
The reason it is still compatible with the theory of relativity is that it doesn't allow for any violations of causality. The information being sent back is random, so nothing can be encoded in it based on future events to cause something to happen in the past. Furthermore, the information sent doesn't allow any observer to actually know that any information was sent, since the result still seems random to them until they communicate with the person who measured the other particle, and communication with that person can't happen faster than light.
Its seems that the probabilities of an opposite spin it is given by sin(90º) for "Y" which is 50% possitive or 50% negative. To find probabilities on a diferent angle we just have to pick an angle for a sine wave due to sin(45º) is 0,70 (70)% chance as quantum physics tell us. I chose the golden relation of angles which is 137,5º (degrees), or 42,5º. Then the probabilities of D(42,5º) X and Y to be opposite from each other are 67,5%. It would be REALLY INTERESTING to see the results in a graphic. For each value of golden degrees I got the probabilities which respect the golden ratio logic. Here they are: 2,5º = 4,3% Chances of DXY begin opposite 5º = 8,7% 7,5º = 13% 12,5º= 21,6% 32.5º = 53,7% 52,5º = 79,3% 85º = 99,6% 137º= 67,5% 222,5º= 67,5% 360º= 100% After that they start going backwards 67%,67%,99%,79% all the way until reaching the "0º"(or 360º or 115920º) of 100% chance, but considering the "incrementation" that fibonacci gave us it would be a total of 322 Cicles until reaching the 100% chance again, and incrementing over time.
The point at which the spin of the entangled particles is determined is when the wave-function of the measurement device becomes entangled with the wave-function of the particles. It doesn't matter which particle is measured because both entangled particles share the same wave-function. The crucial point to understand is that these wave-functions don't manifest in physical space-time, they propagate instantaneously throughout Configuration Space, a complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the wave-function is defined. No information is transmitted between particles in physical space-time, all entangled particle properties derive from their entanglement with the measurement device. What we observe in relativistic space-time is the quantum mechanical projection of events that evolve deterministically in Configuration Space.
Hey Eugene, hello! I found your channel recently, and I loved it! your videos have nice animations and awsome explications. Can u make a video talking about generators and AC/DC Current?
Can someone provide some kind of documentation, video or otherwise, on how these experiments are actually performed in such detail to be repeated instead of only theoretical? This is a major disconnect for those who do not have access.
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link: th-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?v=v657Ylwh-_k&ref=share You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit button for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately. Details about adding translations is available at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en Thanks.
Maybe our sample size is just to small. Maybe it's this way now but not always.maybe we catch things in the random streak like flipping a coin 10 times and landing on heads all the time. Nothing we see is this we if we measured billion years ago or billion years in the future.
I still don't understand how you pull these videos out this fast! You must animate very quickly. I realize that some of these animations were previously made, but still man, impressive.
Double likes. Now I can understand EPR paradox without understanding the hidden variable of bell inequality. Actually I watched this when it was released but now again I watched to understand more deeply. I request for videos explaining different interpretations of quantum in more detail. Thank you.
In the opening animation, the spin axis is depicted as a fixed direction in space. But suppose the spin axis is precessing around that mean direction. Then, the instantaneous spin direction is time-varying, with a mean direction that is fixed. Now, when the particle passes through the detector, the outcome will depend randomly on how much the orientation of the detector varies from the mean spin direction. Sometimes, the particle's instantaneous spin direction will lean beyond the 90° mark, thereby giving an otherwise unexpected measurement. Moreover, this notion of a time-varying hidden variable throws a monkey wrench into Bell's derivation. Where Bell comes to the point where his presumptive hidden variables perfectly cancel out, we now end up with a non-vanishing "beat frequency" due to the fact that time-keeping is not uniform for all locations in space. The violation of Bell's Inequality is to be expected for time-varying hidden variables, given that each particle is governed by its own idiosyncratic clock, rather than by a common universal clock that keeps the same time everywhere and everywhen in the cosmos.
I think, this is the fundamental reason of why we can partly predict the near future. On this level, it means current events are entangled with future events. So what we 'measure' now predicts something about future measurements. Hence action/reaction is an emergent property of this phenomena
now i understand and dont understand both at the sametime, so without observers i cant make up my mind, but when someone asks me i instantaneously make up my mind that i don't understand it :)
I recently created a Patreon account for people who want to help support my channel. The link is on my TH-cam home page. Also, in case, you have not already seen them, I uploaded several other videos recently. As always, for each video that you like, you can help more people find it in their TH-cam search engine by clicking the like button, and writing a comment. Lots more videos are coming very soon. Thanks.
+Helper, yes I knew about Fan Funding, but I decided to use Patreon instead, as it seems to me that Patreon has a number of advantages, such as the fact that it can be used in any country, whereas Fan Funding only works in certain countries. Though, thanks for mentioning that option.
+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Your video is Beautiful, Thank you! In Quantum Mechanics, Why nothing can travel faster than speed of light? If logically the two photons in the opposite limits of the universe travelling with same acceleration, and if we calculate the speed of the point A relatively to the point B. The speed of point A will equal to the double of the speed light, Va = Vb = 2C. How Faster than speed of light backwards in time. How can the motion affect time, if time is the language of motion? But if the opposite what most controls the spin ( to be equal each other 50/100 of time/pairs, doesn't put the question of an anti-particle what might be missed in our expriments?
Riadh Boukratem QM doesn't address the velocity of light. That's a topic for Relativity. Anyway, velocity in relativity is only in terms of reference frames. An external reference frame doesn't go about measuring the velocity of two things and then add them together. That's completely irrelevant concept. If you want to measure and 'add' their velocities, you have to stand _on_ one or the other and the then find the relative velocities between the two. It will always be < c .
+Eugene Khutoryansky What's great about your videos is that they are different from what other science TH-camrs are doing. Which means that watching them is always worthwhile, even after watching other videos on the subject. Conversely, if one wants to learn more after watching one of your videos, watching other's videos is also likely to be interesting.
Thanks for the compliment. All the music in this video is from the free TH-cam audio library, and the names of the songs are the following. From_Russia_with_Love Stale Mate C_Major_Prelude E_Minor_Prelude
I'm currently reading Roger Penrose's book "Cycles of Time" and so far I highly recommend it. But consider this for a moment. You can't measure the spins of two particles at once and you can never predict with certainty what the particle spin will be until it is measured - at which point you will instantly know the spin of the other entangled particle (like the video illustrates). But might it be possible to measure the particle spin with a detector, then organize all left spinning particles in one area, all right spinning particles in the another - maintaining a constant observation of the particles so that the spins cannot change (in other words they would be in a detector the whole time). Now consider all those particles are entangled with particles on the other side of the galaxy. Would it then be possible to align the captured particles in sequence to send a digital message to the other side? (0 for left spin, 1 for right spin - as an example).
Its not "something is wrong with the rules of logic as we understand them." Its simply because some of our assumptions are wrong. Its amazing how humans seldom think they could be wrong. When most of the time when we find things to be illogical or weird its because our beliefs, interpretations or assumptions are wrong.
Thank you for this video! It's the first time i'm understanding this concept. Couple questions: "If the message travels faster than the speed of light, then from the perspective of some observers, the message will arrive at point B before it was sent from point A." Firstly, in entanglement theory, the message isn't really traveling. So nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. I know this isn't the point of the explanation, but is this true? Concerning the idea of a message "traveling back in time" Is there a difference between (if it were possible) sending a message using particles, versus sending a message that travels faster than the speed of light? Are those two completely different concepts or one in the same? Secondly, regarding "sending a message back in time". I'm bewildered by the general thought of communicating with someone from the past. How is this at all possible? Whether a message is traveling faster than the speed of light, or is able to be instantaneous. An ancient alien living at the opposite side of the universe will never get my message, even if i'm able to 'measure a particle/change a particle' and send that message instantaneously. Because he's long gone. I'm alive. Some idiot on my world might say "I can see that alien from my house" but I can easily explain, no that alien existed 1 billion years ago and it's the light coming from his non-existent planet that we are seeing. Therefore, 100%, he does not exist anymore. So I just don't understand the concept of how sending a message back in time works in this example. Can you or someone explain further? I get the lottery example, but again, how would that work? If the message is instantaneous, the lottery (which I know the winning lottery numbers now) has already taken place! So who would I send the lottery tickets to? Myself? That time has already passed. And I don't exist in that place anymore. Thank you!
Hi, I would like to know if the wave-particle duality that electrons show when tested has any relation with the way entangled particles behave ? And thanks great video, like always !
Hi. No, there isn't a relationship. That's because in this video we have assumed that spin is a property of particles only. We never included any assumption on wave-like behavior. Waves are used to describe random positions, e.g. on double slit experiment.
+Maja Muster, thanks for the compliment on the video. In reply to your question, the music is all from the free TH-cam audio library, and the names of the songs are: From_Russia_with_Love, Stale Mate, C_Major_Prelude, E_Minor_Prelude
I would be happy if these mental giants could take a lunch break and figure out a mixture that could fill potholes and last a few decades rather than months. Surely if they can speculate on blackholes, entanglement etc, a solution for potholes could not take long.
31:30 -- So *IF* random information CAN be sent backwards through time, it's definition is changed to Not Information, because it's random. Then is anything *REALLY* being sent backwards through time? NO.
Bell's Inequality is the unexpected 85%, Bell's Theorem experimentally proven true. EPR's Paradox is the General Relativity contradiction about sending messages backwards in time. Moving towards the direction of the second measured particle, makes the moving observer to actually see that it gets measured first, therefore sending a message backwards in time to the other particle.
Regarding the "logical paradox", the way I understand this (forgive my simplicity, I am a humble mathematician) is that having two particles that always return the same value for the same property, and being able to measure just one property of each particle, is logically equivalent to not having particle-pairs at all, and being able to measure two properties of any given particle. If there are no hidden variables, and property values are decided only when measured, then there is nothing paradoxical in having particles that when asked their X and D properties say they are equal 100%, the same when asked for Y and D, and however that is not true when asked for X and Y. For that matter, they could even always be different for X and Y. Kind of like whimsical people that if asked if they think that the Chicago Bulls are good, and later if they think the Lakers are good, will always say the same (yes/no), and the same if instead they had been asked about the Chicago Bulls and later the Pistons. But in same time if you had asked about the Bulls and the Pistons, would always get a different answer. Having people answering like that shows no logical contradiction, it would only if we assumed that when someone answers, is just disclosing information already "stored" in their brains.
That information being disclosed is actually equivalent to having both states "red" and "blue" coexisting together before any measurement is made, and later on, while one of the particles is being measured, the other one is forced to be in a certain state.
Consider the follow truth table: 1. A, B,C 5. ~A, B, C 2. A, B, ~C 6, ~A, B, ~C 3. A, ~B, C 7 ~A, ~B, C 4. A, ~B, ~C 8. ~A, ~B, ~C A and not B equals lines 3 and 4. B and not C equals lines 2 and 6 A and not C equals lines 2 and 4 Set theory demands Sets 2 and 4 are equal or less than Sets 2,3,4,and 6. (All positive results). QM predicts in certain cases that Sets 2 and 4 are greater than sets 2,3,4,and 6. that is A and not C is GREATER than (A and not B) + (B and not C) That is the paradox. Quantum mechanics is not compatible with set theory without entanglment and non-locality. This is one version of Bell's Inequality.
Three years later I am disagreeing with myself, I think in my reasoning, when I said it is equivalent to having no particle-pairs, and measuring two properties, I was wrong. That ignores the distance between the two particles, therefore the need for non-locality. So, I may be more clever now, or more stupid, because I do see the paradox now. Mind boggling!
What emerges is that it is possible to "send messages backwards in time" as long as the effect of sending and receiving such messages is only to ensure that entangled events obey the laws of particle physics. It appears to us time-based creatures as though such fix-up changes are applied as the last step in the construction of an event script, which has to be created and adjusted outside of our system of time, to make sure everything adds up in the final tally. But everything that is surprising about quantum mechanics has this atemporal quality. It is intuitively obvious from the first that no sequence of events could ensure that energy is quantized, that photons are emitted when electrons jump from energy level to energy level, that spins can be measured only as up or down, and so forth. Einstein’s thought experiment simply pulls such events apart in time to make the puzzling atemporal quality of the effects more obvious.
Les Idées Reçues Speed is contingent upon time, and time is a component of the space-time continuum. Space-time is a property of the physical universe. So, if, as you say, it is "extradimensional" (meaning a phenomenon that exists apart from our 3-dimensional, physical universe), why would it need to assume a speed? The evidence is that time and speed are not factors at all outside of our immediate 3-dimensional reality. Instead, transferral of information requires no time or speed, but, rather, is instantaneous.
Everyone is wrong. The point that this video misses and that everyone seems to miss except for the smart people like Feynman and Dirac is the following: the particle do not communicate with each other! They don't need to. They are ENTANGLED. This means their possibility spaces overlap. The fundamental point is that the final state in which both particles have the same spin is NOT PRESENT IN THE WAVEFUNCTION. The universe doesn't care about human intuition and physical interactions. It only cares about possibilities. It is not POSSIBLE for the particles to have the same spin. That is the ONLY rule. And that is why they are always opposite. It has nothing to do with any kind of communication and that is a basic misunderstanding of quantum physics that almost everyone gets wrong. The EPR paradox was never a real thing, it only exists in the minds of individuals who do not understand what entanglement actually is. The fact that the particles must have opposite spin was decided at the time of creation. You want there to be a "message" sent between them because your brain thinks in terms of physical interactions. You see only the final state, but the wavefunction is the fundamental reality and it ALWAYS prohibited the particles from having the same spin. Think of it like this: there were only ever TWO possible outcomes... 1) The "left" particle has spin "up" and the "right particle has spin "down", or 2) The "left" particle has spin "down" and the "right" particle has spin "up". These are the ONLY possible outcomes!! So when you measure one of the particles, really you're measuring the state of the TOTAL wavefunction of the particle pair. There was never any option for the particles to have the same spin, so there was never any need to invoke nonsensical ideas about FTL messages and all that crap. This is precisely what people like Dirac were trying to explain but it's clear to see that even in 2017 most physics scholars still don't get the concept.
James White why is the the ONLY comment about this situation I actually agree with? The fact we are getting illogical results must be a consequence of observing the situation, and understanding of the situation improperly. Right?
Thank you! Very well expressed! Possibility spaces overlap and it's not information that travels. Because of this misconception, quantum entanglement serves a lot of people for their conspiracy theories. The other important concept is decoherence.@@disgruntledwookie369
One question that came to mind while watching the ending, regarding having no control over what we detect: what if the red and blue states are oscillating before the initial detection? Perhaps oscillating with respect to time at a higher precision than we can measure. For example, one plank time it is red, the next plank time it is blue, etc. When we go to measure it, it would seem random, but is actually with respect to initial time0. If this were the case and we were capable of tracking which oscillation we were on, we would be able to send messages.
Eugene, according to your lottery example, in fact it is possible to send information back in time. For example, If the winning lottery number is 1 out of numbers set {1,2}, and if I choose red to be correspondent of the 1; after the result of the lottery I open entangled marble sets until the last one opens up as red. I mean if the first opened marble is blue, then open one marble twin more. By this way we can send a real "information".
Can you make a video (or is there even a video to make) about gluons and their eight different "colors"? Because I can't figure out why there are eight instead of say six or nine, and what to call those colors. :)
Can you tell us what is the 75%, 85% and 50% come from? I see that we can measure polarization of entangled light beams. Here, X and Y would be at 45°, twice smaller than fermionic electrons. In this case, Malus law is used, which says that measurements agree cos²(angle) percent of the times, which is 50% for 45°. So, the diagonal must be in the middle, at π/8. Cos²(π/8) = 85.3%. Suppose that this is what you mean. Also, can you tell how this prediction is computed with QM?
i am around 5 minutes in... is it known if the spin of thoses particules stay the same over time and distance? i mean by that if they would place more detectors at various angles along the path would they keep getting the same lecture?
So, does the collapsed wave function of one particle "travel" faster than light in order to accurately predict the partner's property? Or are the two particle inexorably linked; such that observing one partner to predict another's properties is akin to looking at one side of a coin to predict the other side?
Is there a way to measure the different components of spin at the same time? Like measuring the i component and the j component (in classical 3d space) at the same time?
Are you going to talk about the Schrödinger equation at all? Anyways, thanks for what you are doing, it's awesome. Math and physics are so much better when watching your videos than a lot of people might think they are from school.
+Baptiste Loreau, yes I plan on doing a video on Schrodinger's equation. I haven't mentioned it so far simply because I wanted my previous Quantum Mechanics videos to be accessible to people who do not have a strong background in mathematics. And thanks for the compliment about my videos.
since we don't know what property and what value each pair of both particles has, why should we assume that the message should travel from one particle to another to give the presented results ? why can't we assume that one pair of the particles is X red and its pair is blue X from the beginning? even when we weren't aware of it and before detecting it? I mean we assume that, that bunch of properties are all present at the same time and all represent the state of the particle before we observe a particle and when detecting it, it should be represented by one property and it should ALSO tell its pair to be present in on property with opposite value ?
I liked the video, it presented the topic differently than I'd seen it elsewhere. Still at the end, those two observers messed me up a bit. I understand the principle, but is the video claiming that the message WAS sent from one marble to the other at the moment of measurement? Is this currently the scientific consensus? If so, how exactly is that message sent, how are they connected?
Great video! Thanks! One thing still confusing though: 28:50 when the "X" of the left marble is measured to be "red" ( the right marble has not been measured yet ), it immediately sends a message to right marble. So the message is sent *before* the right marble's measurement, isn't this making "X" of the right marble predictable ahead of time?
Fred....The "X" of the second marble is determined when the first marble is measured and so would be completely predictable. But no "message" is sent. It doesn't have to be.
Is it possible to entangle more particles than 2 together? If not, nvm. If so, would it be possible to entangle a triplet, measure x, d, and y simultaneously, then deduce the x, d, and y of the other particles in the triplet?
Thank you very much for the video. Just some questions: 1. Just to clarify. at moment 24:40. We cannot measure at one marble at one time X and Y parameters. The same about X and D right? I mean their properties cannot be measured. 2. When we measure X parameter (let's sat it's red) at one marble the "message " instantaneously sent to partner marble and X for the second one will be also red. But what about D of this marble? It also will be red when we measure it? But if we measure that when D of partner is red, X parameter of partner is neither red or blue. But in this case how "message" knows beforehand what to convert X or D? Thanks for your time reading my comment. Best
As I commented on a previous video. I believe the 9 volt transmission in the brain wave, during the act of acknowledgement of colors,spins or which hole is traveled threw is effecting. The contradictions are in the different levels of brain transmission waves of the observers. That may be in the mix also. Very intriguing, I've been trying to understand this for years. My primitive experiments card suit guessing, yeilded 12 every time. It was in the odds. That's where I began this journey
I want to understand the thing with marbles and it isn’t reproducible in paper nor can I understand directly from the video cause I forget what was the properties assigned. What to do?
If we consider a photon as the entire probability sphere of QM as the actual physical event entanglement isn't so mysterious. An electron drops orbit, space rushes in at c , this creates a spherical implosion shockwave which propagates outward at c from origin. Space being a superfluid this sphere is a singular object. Any modification to part affects the whole.
Please, somebody help me! I'm not a physicist, and doesn't exactly know how to measure the spin, but if try to measure a value where possible results is come from a circle's (or sphere?) periphery/surface (45° between detectors) and it needs somehow opposite to an another value I suppose statistically the results is on a sine wave not on a line. What am I missing?
Look, this was very clearly explained and I liked that part. But the voice and the music! Was that voice synthesized? It was like Quantum Entanglement was being explained to me by Siri in an elevator or a shopping mall. Blurgh
![[FULL EP.01] LOL: Last One Laughing Thailand Thailand หัวเราะทีหลังปังกว่า | Prime Thailand](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t4KunBRKn3s/mqdefault.jpg)
To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available).
--To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable.
--To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video.
--If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.
theory alternative to biblical theology and sciences explanations: the purpose of the spirit through manifestation that takes on reality it's to create a soul and the soul makes a (key) that (key) let one travel on the map of the absolute everything the process call justice (map and path to change to a better form of space time). spirits move and make that quantum fluctuations that is related to philosophical meaning of existences change or interact in a more complex compresión of info. in the meaning full world different than a just manifestation world the meaningful world it's above the light speed. the world of the essentials its the world of the always have been regarless of the time line, there for is the lesson over the relation of many histories of the been. the speed of information always have been the true on a higher dimension where the light wrap up it, the light are the space where those spirit inhabit. the mind have the particularity to have a potencial to escape entropy so we sincro meaning with some on this spirit(essences of some true about any being) that's how mind travel though karma. and not every things it's meaning less fill up of paradox like rick and morti cartoons. there are 2 paths.
Well done again! My compliments. It still leaves that unpleasant feeling that, although we can see and describe what is happening, we do not really understand anything about it.
I still don't understand it. And now I'm craving watermelon.
ha! I was thinking the same thing. Then I wondered if my watermelon had blue seeds, would yours also have blue seeds, even if from certain perspectives, you ate your watermelon first?
im glad im not the only one
See if I can explain it in a laymans terms, say you and your work mate were suppose to be on a guard duty, where one of you has to take a compulsory rest so that when your work mate feels tired you take over, so that your boss has a 24 hrs guard over his Gold bullion, so whenever your boss comes in, he always finds that one of you is always on guard and the other one is taking his rest, he will become angry if both of you were taking a rest and leaving the gold bullion unguarded, or that if both of you were fully awake guarding the gold bullion, again the boss won't be happy as he only knows that if you were both awake and guarding then it is likely that you both will feel tired together and go to rest leaving the Gold bullion unguarded.
So what do you do when any one of you hears the boss coming in, the first guard who hears the boss will tell the other workmate to quickly fall asleep before the boss catches them both awake, so whenever the boss comes in he always finds 100% of the time that one of his guards is always resting and one of them is always watching, but what boss doesn't know is who will be on guard, so he finds that it is either Harry or Tom 50% of the time, but if Boss comes in more frequently he might find that Tom is on guard 83% of the time, and if he comes 12 hours late, he finds that Harry is on guard 83% of the time.
So what we learn from this quantum experiment is that we are the boss, (observer) and quantum particles are our workers, where one must take a rest and the other watching, so if boss comes in creeping, and Harry or Tom don't hear him coming in, the Boss might find both sleeping or both awake 15% of the time. the Boss won't be happy and to him it would be illogical as he did not expect them both sleep or both awake.
Quantum bits are clever little bastards, they know when you are watching them, how do they know that you are, they do know when the light is present (electromagnetic waves) because any detector or observer needs light to see matter or particles, without light they don't care if they are both awake or both sleeping because they know when boss comes in and he can't see them without light if it was jet black darkness. So when boss switches light on, both knows that one of them must awake up and the other should remain sleep, but often they panic and are both caught sleeping or awake, about 15% of the time.
Now I'm really confused . . .
I think your close to something when you say 'light'..the heat from the friction of these particles also can be a factor...One thing that makes this a sort of an unnatural observation is ,the particle accelerator they use to diagnos this impact uses magnetic to keep the particle in an arc as the go around the colliders tubes, this I believe is giving the particles and magnetic property or charges poles...and these poles are flipping.(inaccurate experiment)
If the message is instant, is it really traveling?
correlation
No
@@tadeushogenelst7537 please explain! What's the difference between correlation and hidden variables?
Are you trying to break people's brains? ;)
It’s us using predictions, instantaneous travel isn’t needed. That’s like saying that if you know that a coin is heads and the other coin has to be tails, the coin with heads sends a message to the other coin telling it to be tails. This doesn’t happen. We know that they are different. Similarly, each particle contains 3 properties, 2 of which cannot be measured simultaneously in the same particle. If we know the particles are entangled, we can use the properties of one particle to predict the properties of the other particle. It seems that 2/3 properties can be the same, but no particle can share the exact same set of properties. Knowing this, we can deduce the properties of the particles. There needn’t be FTL travel to explain this
I find the presentation of the paradox too slow (but clear!), and the claimed "logical resolution" too fast and vague.
I usually speed up their videos.
Kind of like when a charlatan is trying to pull one over in you.
Very interesting, I finally understand what we don't understand.
I love what you create Eugene. Keep it up and I'm sure you'll earn the audience you deserve.
Well? Did it happen?
@@Joshua-fr9fi they really went from like 10k subs when I posted this to almost 1mil!
@@alepel792 that's good! They're great videos
Well, the cat is alive - and driving a convertible. Somebody tell Schrödinger!
I'm not a scientist or a mathematician but I enjoy these videos because they require imagination to visualize a theory that is abstract this is eminently attractive to my curiosity's about how things work and why
I think students need a visualisation
In the derivation of Bell's Inequality, he posits a presumptive hidden variable, λ(x,t). One member of the twin particles has a position +x at time t, while the twin has a position -x at time t. But note that Bell blithely adopts a common master clock, t, so that λ(x,t) can be algebraically canceled out by λ(-x,t), regardless of the function λ(•).
If you appreciate that a gravitational gradient perturbs timekeeping so that the particles speeding off in opposite directions age at their own idiosyncratic rates, then one can no longer algebraically cancel out λ. The derivation of Bell's Inequality breaks down; the presumptive hidden variable λ(x,t) remains present. Indeed one can say the hidden variable is time itself. That is, in reality, each particle ages according to its own local clock, rather than being governed by a common master clock.
In Aspect's experiment, λ(x,t) could be Maxwell's Equation for the photon, or (equivalently) Feynman's rotating vectors. But recall that photons traversing a gravitational gradient gain or lose energy and thus change their wavelength (or color) accordingly. The two photons are thus represented by sinusoids which are not perfect mirrors of each other and thus cannot be algebraically canceled out. They will have a residual nonzero "beat frequency" which remains present, thus spoiling Bell's convenient cancellation of λ(x,t) midway through his derivation.
That's why Bell's Inequality doesn't hold in the real cosmos where there is no universal master clock that keeps identical time everywhere and everywhen.
The not-so-hidden variable is time, itself.
When you say “local click,” you seem to imply how each perceived tune from their own frame of reference. Any object within its own grimace of reference perceives local time and space the same as any other object in their own frame of reference perceives local time and space.
For instance, one partial carrying a pocket watch will see a second tick by just as fast as any other particle will see seconds tick by on their own watches. However, how those clocks tick from the other’s perspective will be different than how their perceive their own respective clocks.
This means, any time dilation perceived has to come from the passage of time observed within another frame of reference: non-local.
My problem with these experiments is how light is treated as a particle when it’s actually a spherical wavefront in the electromagnetic field. That wavefront will travel in all directions so that the peak of the wave on one side of the sphere will be peak on the opposite side of the sphere as well as everywhere else on that sphere.
Acting like photons a re point-like particles is merely a shortcut to deal with the interference patterns resulting from multiple vibrating ions.
Another explanation could be that the two measurements happen at the same moment from the perspective of the entangled system. Remember, to even notice this, we have to being the measurements together "no faster than causality allows". In other words, we are not looking at messages nor are we looking at time travel of messages. Rather this is about how time is formed from entanglement of mass particle systems. We have six entangled photon experiments that basically tell us all we can currently know about how this works.
1. Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment
2. Photons entangled in time experiment
3. No definite causal order of a photon in a quantum gate experiment
4. Toy universe time experiment
5. Time is continuous toy universe experiment
6. No objective quantum reality experiment
But that is not all. See, it is all about the fact that even decohered entanglement information can always be recovered if the information is relevant between two subsystems. That is the main point of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. This information being recoverable means that the idea of entanglement history or entanglement entropy or entanglement bulk has reality.
Now, if you remember maxwell's demon from this same series, then you know the solution is in the brain of the demon which holds the missing entropy. Well, guess what? That entanglement bulk might as well be the demons brain.
Anyways, I love these videos dearly even though I very much disagree with the solution to the paradox in this case.
Thank you so much, as person who has struggled to understand the entanglement and Bell's experiment, I see how carefully you proceed to explain the difference between classical prediction and quantum prediction. Then instead of straightway introducing the actual Bell's experiment, you introduce a variant which is easy to understand where there is 100% agreement between diagonal and X/Y axis. This made all the way easier for me to understand when eventually there is the actual 85% agreement. Initially the spin of the entanglement particles are also kept same instead of being opposite, to avoid any confusion. This extreme detailing and super care in the method of teaching in this video is amazing. I clearly understood why Bell experiment implies either communication between the particles or super determinism. Thank you so much.
What do get? I'm struggling and I'm leaning to the side that there's a wrong assumption in the experiment.
Let's say we have 2 photons that we know have the same polarization but that is random, then we throw a polarizer at a random orientation along their paths and see if the polarizer emits a photon at the end (it doesn't let it through, it spits a new one aligned to it's polarization), so we find that if they polairzers are perfectly aligned they'll agree 100% in their predictions, also they'll disagree 100% of the time if they're perpendicular to each other, and there's the cos^2 x relationship which included the 0 and the 90 degrees.
Let's talk more about polarizers, we know that if a randomly polarized photon goes through a polarizer, it will make it through 50% of the time, this can be proven by passing unpolarized light through a polarizer, 50% of the intensity will make it through by means of new polarized photons emitted. So we would expect that any random light has a 50/50 through any polarizer. Oddly enough though, when we have a twin state photon, we know that there's a relationship between the 2 photons, they'll share polarization, meaning, if we have 2 randomly aligned polarizers, we'd expect each to be a 50/50 but we find that if one yields a result the other follows the polarizer equation for intensity yield in respect to it. Here's where my issue is.
Why do we get 100% correlation when the filters are aligned when we know that is very unlikely that we just randomly picked the actual polarization of the photons? The answer floating around says that the state of both photons get defined by observing one. That seems to me like we're jumping off a logic cliff for no reason. It makes more sense to me to say that this is the first time we have ever been able to test passing the "same" photon through a random polarizer and that we found out that that same photon would always cause an emission at any point where it does, essentially if we shoot the same photon through the same polarizer (impossible to test without twins, i think) we'll always get teh same result, not a different result each test, therefore proving that it was defined that it would cause an emission through that orientation or not.
Therefore, I think that we're assuming polarizers act a certain way but they don't and we're assuming that twins don't have predefined things that will say how they would cause that dielectric to act but the experiment actually shows that it does, since sending the "same" photon through the same setup, always has the same result.
@@amaterasu1211 Would this imply that there are more parametrs which are used to describe photons. Something we cannot actually define yet or measure. It seems that photons you described differ to each other and that is reason why they pass or not. Not just spin but something else which actually crushes probability and makes it deterministic?
You explain so good ! I hope you are a teacher now, and I hope your students will be one of those who will unify Quantum Mechanics and relativity !
Who is here after the Nobel in 2022? It was awarded to Clauser, Aspect and Zelinger for doing the experiments for Bell’s inequality.
Instantaneous messaging is not the majority view of what is occurring. What Bell failed to mention (or which he and other physicists are unaware of) is that his inequalities are just George Boole's inequalities for checking if data is being modeled correctly by random variables - if the data violates the inequalities it means your variables are chosen inconsistently. The obvious flaw in this case is the ignoring of the fact that the X, Y and D are not properties solely of the particles in the pair but of the combination of particles and detector configuration. The particles are not little balls but a phenomenon spread over space as represented by the wave function, including the region of space connecting the detectors and the wave function is altered by alteration of detector configuration. Even in delayed choice experiments alteration of the wave function occurs within relativistic constraints.
Is what you're talking about basically superdeterminism?
@@IronLotus15 Nope not at all. Superdeterminism is a fancy way of saying "conspiracy of nature" and that is just as whacky as instaneous messaging. What I am talking about is incompatibility of observables which leads to different probability spaces. Bell's inequality and similar no-go theorems all somewhere in their aguments are assuming that all observables involved are random variables defined on a common joint probability space - but that simply isn't the case. The probability spaces depend on the experimental configuration.
I think it's nice how you have a kitty-cat as the "observer" in the animation, as opposed to some animated person, etc. Is that a nod to Schrodinger?
Thats exactly what i thought when i first saw quantum kitty
Until you check if it can actually see, it's both observing and not observing
Great explanation of quantum entanglement thing.
I do find the final conclusion somewhat unconvincing though. It sounds like a sticking plaster covering cracks in relativity to me. This is because of the arbitrary definition of "information" as a message in which the contents are actually known (or can be set) at the point of sending and can therefore have "meaning" to human beings. Therefore the argument rests on the idea that "information" is fundamentally different to "data" and I find that unsatisfactory and unconvincing - you could argue "information" was a special subclass of "data" where that data has a tangible or specific meaning to *us* (which has the whiff of anthropomorphism about it to me) but not that it was a fundamentally different thing.
"Meaning" to which observer in what context?
+1234gregor If you know how the second particle will spin based on your measurement of the first particle, it is not information because it is not new, you already know how the second particle will react. This is why you can't use entanglement to send information.
But if you do, of do not, measure a quantum value the other particle quantum function will collapse. So, the other particle will, or will not, show interference patterns. This transmits information.
Why does the other particle show interference patterns?
I don't even think one particle can ever do that, you have to like in the 2-slit experiment shoot a bunch of particles and see their overall pattern.
Information is just any signal that can 'cause' some interaction somewhere else. The speed of light is the speed of causation. So signals going beyond the speed of light, or instantaneously, cannot be part of the causal chain of events.
This is another way of looking at 'information', as signals capable of causation. This is completely independent of the human perspective.
The reason it is still compatible with the theory of relativity is that it doesn't allow for any violations of causality. The information being sent back is random, so nothing can be encoded in it based on future events to cause something to happen in the past. Furthermore, the information sent doesn't allow any observer to actually know that any information was sent, since the result still seems random to them until they communicate with the person who measured the other particle, and communication with that person can't happen faster than light.
Its seems that the probabilities of an opposite spin it is given by sin(90º) for "Y" which is 50% possitive or 50% negative. To find probabilities on a diferent angle we just have to pick an angle for a sine wave due to sin(45º) is 0,70 (70)% chance as quantum physics tell us. I chose the golden relation of angles which is 137,5º (degrees), or 42,5º. Then the probabilities of D(42,5º) X and Y to be opposite from each other are 67,5%. It would be REALLY INTERESTING to see the results in a graphic. For each value of golden degrees I got the probabilities which respect the golden ratio logic. Here they are:
2,5º = 4,3% Chances of DXY begin opposite
5º = 8,7%
7,5º = 13%
12,5º= 21,6%
32.5º = 53,7%
52,5º = 79,3%
85º = 99,6%
137º= 67,5%
222,5º= 67,5%
360º= 100%
After that they start going backwards 67%,67%,99%,79% all the way until reaching the "0º"(or 360º or 115920º) of 100% chance, but considering the "incrementation" that fibonacci gave us it would be a total of 322 Cicles until reaching the 100% chance again, and incrementing over time.
The point at which the spin of the entangled particles is determined is when the wave-function of the measurement device becomes entangled with the wave-function of the particles. It doesn't matter which particle is measured because both entangled particles share the same wave-function. The crucial point to understand is that these wave-functions don't manifest in physical space-time, they propagate instantaneously throughout Configuration Space, a complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the wave-function is defined. No information is transmitted between particles in physical space-time, all entangled particle properties derive from their entanglement with the measurement device. What we observe in relativistic space-time is the quantum mechanical projection of events that evolve deterministically in Configuration Space.
Amazing as per usual. Keep up the great work.
+Jayo Caine, thanks.
I feel so sleepy because of the pace of the video and the soothing background piano music
Besides being a fantastic explanation, the Chopin music in the background is beautiful.😁 Thank you.
Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you liked my video.
In order to understand this, I need to watch/listen to each sentence 4-5 times... I love this kind of reasoning. Simple yet complex. Can't wait!
This is really great stuff! I'd love to see a video about Doppler radar and how detection is affected by frequency and PRF. These are great videos.
+turbokungfu, thanks for the compliment on my videos. I'll add Doppler radar to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks for the suggestion.
Hooray for more quantum videos
+electrocat1, and more are on their way.
Awesome video, Eugene! I like it when you make videos long and go in-depth with the subject
+TheChrasse, glad you liked it. Thanks.
I loved the video, awesome explanation, thanks again Eugene ^^
+Arthur Gomes, thanks. I am glad you liked it.
Hey Eugene, hello!
I found your channel recently, and I loved it! your videos have nice animations and awsome explications. Can u make a video talking about generators and AC/DC Current?
Can someone provide some kind of documentation, video or otherwise, on how these experiments are actually performed in such detail to be repeated instead of only theoretical? This is a major disconnect for those who do not have access.
Once again this channel seems to be the only one that can actually explain what's going on from first principles.
Thanks for the compliment.
You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link:
th-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?v=v657Ylwh-_k&ref=share
You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit button for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately.
Details about adding translations is available at
support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en
Thanks.
Maybe our sample size is just to small. Maybe it's this way now but not always.maybe we catch things in the random streak like flipping a coin 10 times and landing on heads all the time. Nothing we see is this we if we measured billion years ago or billion years in the future.
why do we get always the same outcome if we choose a marble and its partner.
what makes a marble a 'partner' ? i am missing some step here
It's just a metaphor for quantum entanglement. It's 'partner' is really just the marble representing the partner that it is entangled with.
@@dallyh.2960 It's a very bad metaphor. It doesn't bring any clarity, yet it introduces unnecessary abstraction.
Beautifully explained. Thank you!
+Escutia Richi, thanks for the compliment.
Great video for ones who do not have much background information, like me. I love your quantum mechanics videos
I still don't understand how you pull these videos out this fast! You must animate very quickly. I realize that some of these animations were previously made, but still man, impressive.
Double likes. Now I can understand EPR paradox without understanding the hidden variable of bell inequality.
Actually I watched this when it was released but now again I watched to understand more deeply.
I request for videos explaining different interpretations of quantum in more detail. Thank you.
Great Explanation Very Complex Quantum Computing And much Enjoyed Your Video.
In the opening animation, the spin axis is depicted as a fixed direction in space. But suppose the spin axis is precessing around that mean direction. Then, the instantaneous spin direction is time-varying, with a mean direction that is fixed. Now, when the particle passes through the detector, the outcome will depend randomly on how much the orientation of the detector varies from the mean spin direction. Sometimes, the particle's instantaneous spin direction will lean beyond the 90° mark, thereby giving an otherwise unexpected measurement.
Moreover, this notion of a time-varying hidden variable throws a monkey wrench into Bell's derivation. Where Bell comes to the point where his presumptive hidden variables perfectly cancel out, we now end up with a non-vanishing "beat frequency" due to the fact that time-keeping is not uniform for all locations in space. The violation of Bell's Inequality is to be expected for time-varying hidden variables, given that each particle is governed by its own idiosyncratic clock, rather than by a common universal clock that keeps the same time everywhere and everywhen in the cosmos.
I think, this is the fundamental reason of why we can partly predict the near future. On this level, it means current events are entangled with future events. So what we 'measure' now predicts something about future measurements.
Hence action/reaction is an emergent property of this phenomena
Great video, thanks for making it!
+blake301987, thanks. Glad you liked it.
Огромное спасибо за труд !
I fell asleep 85% of the time; but the other 15% was great :-)
now i understand and dont understand both at the sametime, so without observers i cant make up my mind, but when someone asks me i instantaneously make up my mind that i don't understand it :)
I recently created a Patreon account for people who want to help support my channel. The link is on my TH-cam home page. Also, in case, you have not already seen them, I uploaded several other videos recently. As always, for each video that you like, you can help more people find it in their TH-cam search engine by clicking the like button, and writing a comment. Lots more videos are coming very soon. Thanks.
+Helper, yes I knew about Fan Funding, but I decided to use Patreon instead, as it seems to me that Patreon has a number of advantages, such as the fact that it can be used in any country, whereas Fan Funding only works in certain countries. Though, thanks for mentioning that option.
+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Your video is Beautiful, Thank you!
In Quantum Mechanics, Why nothing can travel faster than speed of light?
If logically the two photons in the opposite limits of the universe travelling with same acceleration, and if we calculate the speed of the point A relatively to the point B. The speed of point A will equal to the double of the speed light, Va = Vb = 2C.
How Faster than speed of light backwards in time. How can the motion affect time, if time is the language of motion?
But if the opposite what most controls the spin ( to be equal each other 50/100 of time/pairs, doesn't put the question of an anti-particle what might be missed in our expriments?
Are you willing to publish your transcripts along with your videos?
Jeremiah, the transcript is already written on the screen, so I am not sure what you are asking for.
Riadh Boukratem
QM doesn't address the velocity of light. That's a topic for Relativity. Anyway, velocity in relativity is only in terms of reference frames. An external reference frame doesn't go about measuring the velocity of two things and then add them together. That's completely irrelevant concept.
If you want to measure and 'add' their velocities, you have to stand _on_ one or the other and the then find the relative velocities between the two. It will always be < c .
24:01 I want that picture on my desktop :P
I want the one on 35:00 xD
Jk
love your videos mystery physics man!
+Noam Tamarin, thanks. I am glad to hear that you love my videos.
+Eugene Khutoryansky What's great about your videos is that they are different from what other science TH-camrs are doing. Which means that watching them is always worthwhile, even after watching other videos on the subject.
Conversely, if one wants to learn more after watching one of your videos, watching other's videos is also likely to be interesting.
I just love the narrator. Very nuanced.
+Richard Raymond LOL, I get it.
This is really interesting and helpful, thanks a lot!
+pausmax, I am glad you found it helpful and interesting. Thanks.
This is the best physics channel on TH-cam.... Thanks a lot 🙏.. Btw what the name of the music at 19:33
Thanks for the compliment. All the music in this video is from the free TH-cam audio library, and the names of the songs are the following.
From_Russia_with_Love
Stale Mate
C_Major_Prelude
E_Minor_Prelude
I cant sat that I understand Bell's experiment but this well-crafted vid helps me to understand the idea.
Excellent!
Kudos!
+jiddey, thanks. Glad to hear that my video was helpful.
where does this linear relationship (classical) come from? Reference?
as usual......truly superb content !
+realcygnus, thanks for the compliment.
The most longest and the most best and informative video :) really i wonder how much hard is to make such a good videos :)
+Shirshak Bajgain, thanks for the compliment on my video.
Has any one else lost their marbles?
no
The Greeks.
Lord Elgin took them.
But the British Museum always puts a positive spin on this fact
yes
I'm currently reading Roger Penrose's book "Cycles of Time" and so far I highly recommend it. But consider this for a moment. You can't measure the spins of two particles at once and you can never predict with certainty what the particle spin will be until it is measured - at which point you will instantly know the spin of the other entangled particle (like the video illustrates). But might it be possible to measure the particle spin with a detector, then organize all left spinning particles in one area, all right spinning particles in the another - maintaining a constant observation of the particles so that the spins cannot change (in other words they would be in a detector the whole time). Now consider all those particles are entangled with particles on the other side of the galaxy. Would it then be possible to align the captured particles in sequence to send a digital message to the other side? (0 for left spin, 1 for right spin - as an example).
No
You get Decoherence when another particle enters the detector, then that particle gets "decohered" by the next etc, etc
This is the best explanation of Bell's Inequality and Quantum entanglement I've seen.....
Thanks for the compliment about my explanation.
Its not "something is wrong with the rules of logic as we understand them." Its simply because some of our assumptions are wrong. Its amazing how humans seldom think they could be wrong. When most of the time when we find things to be illogical or weird its because our beliefs, interpretations or assumptions are wrong.
in this case, the idea of locality would be the wrong assumption
The reason you get a sine wave is that you cannot DETECT the particles spin without error. Its the inherent DETECTION error that makes it a sine wave.
Thank you for this video! It's the first time i'm understanding this concept.
Couple questions:
"If the message travels faster than the speed of light, then from the perspective of some observers, the message will arrive at point B before it was sent from point A."
Firstly, in entanglement theory, the message isn't really traveling. So nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. I know this isn't the point of the explanation, but is this true? Concerning the idea of a message "traveling back in time" Is there a difference between (if it were possible) sending a message using particles, versus sending a message that travels faster than the speed of light? Are those two completely different concepts or one in the same?
Secondly, regarding "sending a message back in time". I'm bewildered by the general thought of communicating with someone from the past. How is this at all possible? Whether a message is traveling faster than the speed of light, or is able to be instantaneous. An ancient alien living at the opposite side of the universe will never get my message, even if i'm able to 'measure a particle/change a particle' and send that message instantaneously. Because he's long gone. I'm alive. Some idiot on my world might say "I can see that alien from my house" but I can easily explain, no that alien existed 1 billion years ago and it's the light coming from his non-existent planet that we are seeing. Therefore, 100%, he does not exist anymore. So I just don't understand the concept of how sending a message back in time works in this example. Can you or someone explain further? I get the lottery example, but again, how would that work? If the message is instantaneous, the lottery (which I know the winning lottery numbers now) has already taken place! So who would I send the lottery tickets to? Myself? That time has already passed. And I don't exist in that place anymore.
Thank you!
Hi, I would like to know if the wave-particle duality that electrons show when tested has any relation with the way entangled particles behave ? And thanks great video, like always !
Hi. No, there isn't a relationship. That's because in this video we have assumed that spin is a property of particles only. We never included any assumption on wave-like behavior.
Waves are used to describe random positions, e.g. on double slit experiment.
Yes, because entanglement is when the two particles share one wave function. But as Luis says the results are not wave-shaped.
awesome video as always, would you mind telling us what the name of the music pieces is?
+Maja Muster, thanks for the compliment on the video. In reply to your question, the music is all from the free TH-cam audio library, and the names of the songs are: From_Russia_with_Love, Stale Mate, C_Major_Prelude, E_Minor_Prelude
could you also make videos on physical chemistry?
I would be happy if these mental giants could take a lunch break and figure out a mixture that could fill potholes and last a few decades rather than months. Surely if they can speculate on blackholes, entanglement etc, a solution for potholes could not take long.
31:30 -- So *IF* random information CAN be sent backwards through time, it's definition is changed to Not Information, because it's random. Then is anything *REALLY* being sent backwards through time? NO.
Correct.
Great information!! 👍
+Rajneesh Gadge, thanks. Glad you like it.
Can you tell me which part in the video is about epr paradox and which part is about bell inequality?Thanks
Bell's Inequality is the unexpected 85%, Bell's Theorem experimentally proven true.
EPR's Paradox is the General Relativity contradiction about sending messages backwards in time. Moving towards the direction of the second measured particle, makes the moving observer to actually see that it gets measured first, therefore sending a message backwards in time to the other particle.
Regarding the "logical paradox", the way I understand this (forgive my simplicity, I am a humble mathematician) is that having two particles that always return the same value for the same property, and being able to measure just one property of each particle, is logically equivalent to not having particle-pairs at all, and being able to measure two properties of any given particle. If there are no hidden variables, and property values are decided only when measured, then there is nothing paradoxical in having particles that when asked their X and D properties say they are equal 100%, the same when asked for Y and D, and however that is not true when asked for X and Y. For that matter, they could even always be different for X and Y.
Kind of like whimsical people that if asked if they think that the Chicago Bulls are good, and later if they think the Lakers are good, will always say the same (yes/no), and the same if instead they had been asked about the Chicago Bulls and later the Pistons. But in same time if you had asked about the Bulls and the Pistons, would always get a different answer. Having people answering like that shows no logical contradiction, it would only if we assumed that when someone answers, is just disclosing information already "stored" in their brains.
That information being disclosed is actually equivalent to having both states "red" and "blue" coexisting together before any measurement is made, and later on, while one of the particles is being measured, the other one is forced to be in a certain state.
Consider the follow truth table:
1. A, B,C 5. ~A, B, C
2. A, B, ~C 6, ~A, B, ~C
3. A, ~B, C 7 ~A, ~B, C
4. A, ~B, ~C 8. ~A, ~B, ~C
A and not B equals lines 3 and 4.
B and not C equals lines 2 and 6
A and not C equals lines 2 and 4
Set theory demands Sets 2 and 4 are equal or less than Sets 2,3,4,and 6. (All positive results).
QM predicts in certain cases that Sets 2 and 4 are greater than sets 2,3,4,and 6.
that is A and not C is GREATER than (A and not B) + (B and not C)
That is the paradox. Quantum mechanics is not compatible with set theory without entanglment and non-locality.
This is one version of Bell's Inequality.
Three years later I am disagreeing with myself, I think in my reasoning, when I said it is equivalent to having no particle-pairs, and measuring two properties, I was wrong. That ignores the distance between the two particles, therefore the need for non-locality. So, I may be more clever now, or more stupid, because I do see the paradox now. Mind boggling!
I love that the cat is watching all this
What emerges is that it is possible to "send messages backwards in time" as long as the effect of sending and receiving such messages is only to ensure that entangled events obey the laws of particle physics. It appears to us time-based creatures as though such fix-up changes are applied as the last step in the construction of an event script, which has to be created and adjusted outside of our system of time, to make sure everything adds up in the final tally.
But everything that is surprising about quantum mechanics has this atemporal quality. It is intuitively obvious from the first that no sequence of events could ensure that energy is quantized, that photons are emitted when electrons jump from energy level to energy level, that spins can be measured only as up or down, and so forth.
Einstein’s thought experiment simply pulls such events apart in time to make the puzzling atemporal quality of the effects more obvious.
I heard they may be "communicating" extradimentionaly, not faster than c, but we perceive it as instantaneous in our dimension.
Les Idées Reçues Speed is contingent upon time, and time is a component of the space-time continuum. Space-time is a property of the physical universe. So, if, as you say, it is "extradimensional" (meaning a phenomenon that exists apart from our 3-dimensional, physical universe), why would it need to assume a speed? The evidence is that time and speed are not factors at all outside of our immediate 3-dimensional reality. Instead, transferral of information requires no time or speed, but, rather, is instantaneous.
Everyone is wrong. The point that this video misses and that everyone seems to miss except for the smart people like Feynman and Dirac is the following: the particle do not communicate with each other! They don't need to. They are ENTANGLED. This means their possibility spaces overlap. The fundamental point is that the final state in which both particles have the same spin is NOT PRESENT IN THE WAVEFUNCTION. The universe doesn't care about human intuition and physical interactions. It only cares about possibilities. It is not POSSIBLE for the particles to have the same spin. That is the ONLY rule. And that is why they are always opposite. It has nothing to do with any kind of communication and that is a basic misunderstanding of quantum physics that almost everyone gets wrong. The EPR paradox was never a real thing, it only exists in the minds of individuals who do not understand what entanglement actually is. The fact that the particles must have opposite spin was decided at the time of creation. You want there to be a "message" sent between them because your brain thinks in terms of physical interactions. You see only the final state, but the wavefunction is the fundamental reality and it ALWAYS prohibited the particles from having the same spin. Think of it like this: there were only ever TWO possible outcomes... 1) The "left" particle has spin "up" and the "right particle has spin "down", or 2) The "left" particle has spin "down" and the "right" particle has spin "up". These are the ONLY possible outcomes!! So when you measure one of the particles, really you're measuring the state of the TOTAL wavefunction of the particle pair. There was never any option for the particles to have the same spin, so there was never any need to invoke nonsensical ideas about FTL messages and all that crap. This is precisely what people like Dirac were trying to explain but it's clear to see that even in 2017 most physics scholars still don't get the concept.
hey how can I msg u?
James White why is the the ONLY comment about this situation I actually agree with? The fact we are getting illogical results must be a consequence of observing the situation, and understanding of the situation improperly. Right?
Thank you! Very well expressed! Possibility spaces overlap and it's not information that travels. Because of this misconception, quantum entanglement serves a lot of people for their conspiracy theories. The other important concept is decoherence.@@disgruntledwookie369
One question that came to mind while watching the ending, regarding having no control over what we detect: what if the red and blue states are oscillating before the initial detection? Perhaps oscillating with respect to time at a higher precision than we can measure. For example, one plank time it is red, the next plank time it is blue, etc. When we go to measure it, it would seem random, but is actually with respect to initial time0. If this were the case and we were capable of tracking which oscillation we were on, we would be able to send messages.
They are in a superposition of states all the time. The video just makes them look like they oscillate in a pattern.
Eugene, according to your lottery example, in fact it is possible to send information back in time. For example, If the winning lottery number is 1 out of numbers set {1,2}, and if I choose red to be correspondent of the 1; after the result of the lottery I open entangled marble sets until the last one opens up as red. I mean if the first opened marble is blue, then open one marble twin more. By this way we can send a real "information".
The problem is that the "information" we are sending is a random outcome that we have no control over. Hence, we can't encode any useful messages.
Can you make a video (or is there even a video to make) about gluons and their eight different "colors"? Because I can't figure out why there are eight instead of say six or nine, and what to call those colors. :)
***** Three for quarks, three for anti-quarks, but gluons have eight. That's why I need a video. :)
Can you tell us what is the 75%, 85% and 50% come from? I see that we can measure polarization of entangled light beams. Here, X and Y would be at 45°, twice smaller than fermionic electrons. In this case, Malus law is used, which says that measurements agree cos²(angle) percent of the times, which is 50% for 45°.
So, the diagonal must be in the middle, at π/8. Cos²(π/8) = 85.3%. Suppose that this is what you mean. Also, can you tell how this prediction is computed with QM?
+Valentin Tihomirov that is your grade when you were highschool until you took drugs then it went down to 50%
i am around 5 minutes in... is it known if the spin of thoses particules stay the same over time and distance? i mean by that if they would place more detectors at various angles along the path would they keep getting the same lecture?
So, does the collapsed wave function of one particle "travel" faster than light in order to accurately predict the partner's property?
Or are the two particle inexorably linked; such that observing one partner to predict another's properties is akin to looking at one side of a coin to predict the other side?
Thanks great video.
Can you do me a favour and make a idea about quantum fluctuations?
You are such a great creator and teacher .
I love you so much my teacher 😍
Thanks.
Is there a way to measure the different components of spin at the same time? Like measuring the i component and the j component (in classical 3d space) at the same time?
No. That would violate the laws of physics. I cover this in detail in my video on Quantum Spin at th-cam.com/video/3k5IWlVdMbo/w-d-xo.html
Are you going to talk about the Schrödinger equation at all? Anyways, thanks for what you are doing, it's awesome. Math and physics are so much better when watching your videos than a lot of people might think they are from school.
+Baptiste Loreau, yes I plan on doing a video on Schrodinger's equation. I haven't mentioned it so far simply because I wanted my previous Quantum Mechanics videos to be accessible to people who do not have a strong background in mathematics. And thanks for the compliment about my videos.
Gorgeous and very clear but please do an edit where the music doesn't repeat!
Thanks for the compliment. I am sorry you didn't like the music. Once a video is uploaded, I can't edit it.
since we don't know what property and what value each pair of both particles has, why should we assume that the message should travel from one particle to another to give the presented results ? why can't we assume that one pair of the particles is X red and its pair is blue X from the beginning? even when we weren't aware of it and before detecting it?
I mean we assume that, that bunch of properties are all present at the same time and all represent the state of the particle before we observe a particle and when detecting it, it should be represented by one property and it should ALSO tell its pair to be present in on property with opposite value ?
With one single wave function shared between the particles, no message is needed. It simply collapses upon measurement to an allowable state.
The results depend on the relative angle of measurement. There's no way to build that in to pre-arranged values.
Do you think quantum entanglement and instantaneous messages could have implications for the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
I liked the video, it presented the topic differently than I'd seen it elsewhere. Still at the end, those two observers messed me up a bit. I understand the principle, but is the video claiming that the message WAS sent from one marble to the other at the moment of measurement? Is this currently the scientific consensus? If so, how exactly is that message sent, how are they connected?
Great video! Thanks!
One thing still confusing though: 28:50 when the "X" of the left marble is measured to be "red" ( the right marble has not been measured yet ), it immediately sends a message to right marble. So the message is sent *before* the right marble's measurement, isn't this making "X" of the right marble predictable ahead of time?
Fred....The "X" of the second marble is determined when the first marble is measured and so would be completely predictable. But no "message" is sent. It doesn't have to be.
Another way to look at this is to consider the way marbles, or particles are "pre-paired".
That, in itself is a type of measurement.
I finally know why John Clauser was (and probably still is) pissed off at this quantum mechanics thing. My head hurt.
Is it possible to entangle more particles than 2 together? If not, nvm. If so, would it be possible to entangle a triplet, measure x, d, and y simultaneously, then deduce the x, d, and y of the other particles in the triplet?
Thank you very much for the video. Just some questions:
1. Just to clarify. at moment 24:40. We cannot measure at one marble at one time X and Y parameters. The same about X and D right? I mean their properties cannot be measured.
2. When we measure X parameter (let's sat it's red) at one marble the "message " instantaneously sent to partner marble and X for the second one will be also red. But what about D of this marble? It also will be red when we measure it? But if we measure that when D of partner is red, X parameter of partner is neither red or blue. But in this case how "message" knows beforehand what to convert X or D?
Thanks for your time reading my comment. Best
So are messages actually being sent?
When I evaluate this using classical physics with noise and complex projection, I get a sine wave. It really depends on the background noise level.
As I commented on a previous video. I believe the 9 volt transmission in the brain wave, during the act of acknowledgement of colors,spins or which hole is traveled threw is effecting. The contradictions are in the different levels of brain transmission waves of the observers. That may be in the mix also. Very intriguing, I've been trying to understand this for years. My primitive experiments card suit guessing, yeilded 12 every time. It was in the odds. That's where I began this journey
I want to understand the thing with marbles and it isn’t reproducible in paper nor can I understand directly from the video cause I forget what was the properties assigned. What to do?
please any body answer me.... isn't the relationship at 3:38 is cosine relationship not sine right..?
A cosine wave is just a sine wave shifted by 90 degrees.
If we consider a photon as the entire probability sphere of QM as the actual physical event entanglement isn't so mysterious.
An electron drops orbit, space rushes in at c , this creates a spherical implosion shockwave which propagates outward at c from origin. Space being a superfluid this sphere is a singular object. Any modification to part affects the whole.
Please, somebody help me! I'm not a physicist, and doesn't exactly know how to measure the spin, but if try to measure a value where possible results is come from a circle's (or sphere?) periphery/surface (45° between detectors) and it needs somehow opposite to an another value I suppose statistically the results is on a sine wave not on a line. What am I missing?
Look, this was very clearly explained and I liked that part. But the voice and the music! Was that voice synthesized? It was like Quantum Entanglement was being explained to me by Siri in an elevator or a shopping mall. Blurgh
Awesome video, but where does the sine wave come from?
I explain this in my video on Quantum Spin at th-cam.com/video/3k5IWlVdMbo/w-d-xo.html
Logic: equivalency
Quantum mechanics: and I took that personally
ok, but where does the cat come in?