The EPR Paradox - Ask a Spaceman!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Full podcast episodes: www.askaspacema...
Support: / pmsutter
Follow: / paulmattsutter and / paulmattsutter
What were Einstein’s objections to quantum mechanics? Why was he so bothered by non-locality? What is the EPR paradox? I discuss these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!
Follow all the show updates at www.askaspacema..., and help support the show at / pmsutter !
Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE! Music by Jason Grady and Nick Bain.
This deserves so many more views. SUCH a great video!!
I like your show (space)man. Just so you know, i would *not* mind watching longer episodes of you explaining things!
Did you just say "if an electron farts out in the Andromeda galaxy....." ????? LOL That one certainly caught me off guard.
I’m not an educated man but I love whatever it is you teach because you explain it to where I can understand it. Thank you sir. Oh how can I get signed copies of your books, and can I buy them in audio because I would put the signed copies up and not read them
I think you can get a signed copy of one of his books via support on Patreon.
@@chrisyother4870 thanks 🙏🏻
Sir, Part of my definition of education is someone who never stops learning. I consider you an educated man.
@@horaciochacon890 i appreciate that very much. I don’t know you but thank you. I love math and science and history. But I really love anything to do with space.
Did Einstein use the electron fart metaphor in his paper to say Quantum Mechanics stinks? That’s a very compelling argument. No wonder Neils Bohr wanted to move on quickly and open a window.
Paul, you are one of the best lectors i've seen! Thank you so much for your channel!
It seems to me that the better version of this is measuring the position of one and the momentum of the other. Between the two measurements you can be more accurate than the Heisenberg limit. You avoid the problem of a measurement changing the state of the particle.
You have a Pochinko game. I have enjoyed that game myself.
Yes we can explain it - The Universe is a Naturally Occurring Crystal Core Quantum Computer, and there are "Higher Dimensions" (as in Hyperspace) and "Lower Dimensions" (as in [ X - 01/10/10/01 ... or 10 or X Qubit ] / Flipping/Quantum Computer occurs at the Cores of the Cosmos, Including all the Planets, Stars & even Black Holes... The Cores of the Cosmos are Naturally Occurring Crystal Core Quantum Computers & thy are "Suns/Sons" of the larger structure they are in, each "Core" creating a Cascade of Infinite "Worlds" (There are "Many Worlds") or even Universes... The Universe is a Cascading Universe... There are Infinite Universes "Above Us" and at All of the Cores of the Cosmos Massive Enough, there is a Crystallized Core that is essentially a Quantum Computer with the capability of creating & emulating Infinite Universes/Possibilities - (think Multiverse... Theory) - Anyway, the best single video to introduce this idea is my 25 minute video called "What is the Macro & Micro As Above So Below" - part of the "Mass Matter Function Interaction of Momentum Series" - if nothing else, some concepts and ideas I think you will find intriguing for sure...
It appears you are fluent in Yapanese.
The EPR Paradox requires sensors, control algorithms, supercomputers and lots of memory to entangle to that degree. Then predicting the future of both parts is relatively easy. Since you have to include the whole context and environment to entangle to that degree or have the data fall apart and be absorbed or lost. Let go of that old stuff and move on. You have better uses for your time. Add $Thanks.
Filed as (It is likely "magnetic fields all the way down" - KiloTesla, MegaTesla, GigaTesla and beyond)
Maybe I’m missing something about the supposed paradox, but once you do the measurement of the momentum, you don’t know the position of your particle any more. This applies to your local particle, and the distant entangled particle, so there’s no violation of the uncertainty principle at all.
Maybe I'm just lucky but I have never heard /understood the EPR anything like pre 6:00. The first six minutes confused me enough that I started doubting we were thinking about the same thing. Everything I have ever heard about it is what can be heard in last 3 minutes of the video.
Also, this sounded like Einstein was doubting quantum mechanics or something... Einstein believed quantum mechanics to be true. And as for quantum entanglement - he was the one that predicted quantum entanglement. The only thing he was going for were hidden variables. And his thinking was perfectly rational. The only reason we know it's not true was because experiments show that it's not true. But nobody has been able to explain it rationally, ever.
The explanation for why there can be no (local and finite) hidden variables is special relativity. Einstein forgot to use his own theory to analyze these systems. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics is simply not self-consistent. Relativistic field theory is, at least at this level.
Hi. For many years I have been investigating the propagation of EM and Gravitational fields and my investigations have shown that these fields propagate faster than light in the nearfield of their source, and only reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. Search William D Walker superluminal. The results show not only that the phase speed, and group speed are superluminal in the nearfield, but also the information speed. This could explain the EPR results. But as you mentioned in your "Faster than light travel" video, this phenomena could be used to violate causality. So, Relativity could be incorrect (Search William D Walker relativity) , or perhaps according to the Hawking chronology conjecture: the future can not alter the past, or perhaps the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics preserves causality by only enabling changes in other universes .
Yes, that's complete bullshit. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337Prove it! Otherwise your words are meaningless.
@@williamwalker39 Yes, that was bullshit, too. ;-)
correction, the particles did not come together, but came from the same source, i.e., in the beginning they were the same, and although they diverged and in that way, their connection was where ...
Can you make a video about ER = EPR?
Has anyone ever tried to guess how many entangled particles there are in the universe? When I think about the big bang I realize that every particle in the universe may have had a chance to become entangled with every other particle. Is that right? Or does entanglement only occur with similar particles? How much entanglement is there in the universe and how does it effect physics?
That last question is easy: entanglement is a part of physics, so it does not effect physics itself. Same way that gravity pulled on apples before Newton formulated that interaction. Learning about physics does effect our human understanding of physics.
With entanglement, from our perspective, we construct one single wave function that describes two particles. The entanglement only lasts until the wave function collapses because of a "measurement". Or interaction. We use the knowledge of what happens to a single particle that we measure to infer properties of another particle we send somewhere else (somewhere potentially even out of our reach).
Now, notice the role of the human in that whole process. I doubt we would ever see any particles from the big bang, but I'm sure I read or heard a bit about entanglement and the cosmic microwave background. I am not sure what that research told us, but there were some pretty interesting things.
@@FrancisFjordCupola Thanks Jelle, I see your point. Entanglement is a part of physics so it doesn't effect physics. And I understand the next point about the collapse of a wave function. Because of this, is there any possibility that a quantum device can be made such that when one part of the device was sent into deep, deep space while the other remained on earth, that information collected by the part in space (measurements) could be immediately transfer back to earth?
@@artsmatter2 _"is there any possibility [for faster than light communication]"_ - no. Not with the current physics theories. The fact that the particles where entangled only shows up after measuring both of them and comparing the results.
@@renedekker9806 Oh, another of those - you have to measure it - conditions. I see, unless you were able to measure both the device and the device in deep space you would not have entanglement. And if you were near enough to measure then the instantaneous action of entanglement would be of no practical value. Does this necessity for measurement/observation support the consciousness creates the universe idea?
@@artsmatter2 _"unless you were able to measure both the device and the device in deep space you would not have entanglement"_ - unless you were able to measure both PARTICLES you would not be AWARE that there was entanglement.
_"Does this necessity for measurement/observation support the consciousness creates the universe idea"_ - why would you think so?
A measurement in QFT is any interaction that collapses the wave-function. In all cases, it is the interaction with a lot of other particles that does that (called decoherence). In our physics experiments, that is typically the measurement device. There is no evidence that consciousness has anything to do with that.
Wouldn't the paradox disappear if, instead of assuming that we are dealing with two (entangled) particles, we assumed that it is one and the same particle that moves in two opposite directions at the same time? Also, because it has no charge, that the Stern-Gerlach magnets have no, or very limited, influence on its path? The different angles would be because the particles created differ slightly from one another and are (almost) never completely parallel to the magnets?
edit: the SG magnets would then function more as slits than as magnets.
There is, for one thing, no paradox in the EPR paper. That word has been tacked on by later authors who didn't read the paper carefully. What you can find in the paper is an ill-fated arbitrary definition of "completeness" that completely overlooks/misidentifies the actual "problem" with quantum mechanics.
@@lepidoptera9337 What is the actual problem?
@@odal6770 The problem is that there is no problem. There are only people who don't understand physics. ;-)
I'm going to need another 2 minutes of lecture on that
I think it Time myself. We know time changes with mass and speed. To it they are still together, Until you or something change it timeline. It has happen for you but not it yet. It in the past and now together. To it there no time. Moves in space fixed in time reacting to the forces moving it in time. Or best i have come up with. Mr. Sutter trained and most like have a show on how i wrong. lol But it fun to think of problems no one knows. off chance you could be right. And have problems sleeping so helps the nights not as long at lest.
I wonder how the paper would’ve been looked liked if improved.
It would have looked Germanic, with lots of German words.
I’m the first viewer of this video !!!!!! I love your show Space Man !!!! What kind of cheese are you eating today 🤣
Very cool Paul.
How does one measure the speed of smell of said particle farting in the Andromeda Galaxy 🧐
Without knowing there is entanglement, you can't measure it. You will measure exactly the same quantum fuzziness on one side of the experiment (Alice) and the other (Bob) separated, it only makes "entanglement" sense when you bring the Information together, which after all is a relatively tight job of precision. Locality saved. No more paradox outside your brain. Case closed. If you don't measure the entangled property on just one particle but take another property in account and violate uncertainty, you don't violate it, because you didn't measure the entangled property at all and have to take it in account in your mind, which is always nonlocal and abstract and stupid and violates a lot, no matter what.
Love your content
Local entanglement could probably only be separated in such extreme environments as black holes and physics labs, anyhow, so that's why it also represents a separation from common sense.
The entanglement happens at a pretty local level. The two "dating" particles didn't do it online, they met each other at the same place. Then they get send on their way. A physics lab is no way as an extreme environment as a black hole. In fact, for longer distances, I am sure Zeilinger amongst others even went _outside_ of the lab to test whether entanglement still holds. In fact, we do not even have black holes on hand to do particle experiments with. So there would be no telling what the outcome would be in reality if you had one. No one has tested it.
Using "common sense" is a red flag; it usually means that someone has a preconceived notion and does not care about how reality works in reality, which is what science is all about. Common sense is also very malleable. Once you've done an experiment a thousand times over and with the first one you'd say "that's weird" but if the world keeps showing you over and over and over and over again how the world really works, you expect to see the same result over and over and over again. Common sense. Even though, when you were ignorant it was not part of your common sense. If you think your common sense holds value, you grossly overestimate yourself.
But you couldn't measure particle A position and momentum with any certainty either......right? Maybe I missed something.
I don't think that you missed something, that is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You cannot measure both position and momentum of a single particle with absolute accuracy.
The normal EPR argument is that you measure the position of one of the particles, and the momentum of the other. If reality is local, you should be able to measure both of those accurately, and thereby derive both position and momentum accurately for both particles.
I was surprised as well that the video says to measure both on the same particle, I don't think that is correct.
@@renedekker9806 That is not even true. One can measure position and momentum with absolute certainty... for a single quantum. One can even get the exact same values for position and momentum time and time, again, but in that case the quantum efficiency of the detector goes to zero.
@@lepidoptera9337 _"One can measure position and momentum with absolute certainty... for a single quantum"_ - the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that is not possible.
_"One can even get the exact same values for position and momentum time and time, again"_ - not for the same particle. Measurement affects the particle.
@@renedekker9806 The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is NOT a statement about a single quantum. It's a statement about an ensemble of quanta.
The problem with quantum mechanics is language. There are no particles in nature. There are only quanta of energy, which are NOT the same as particles. Why is that so? Because energy can only be used once. Once you measure a quantum of energy that quantum is gone forever. You can never measure it, again. You can measure a new quantum of energy that came from a similarly prepared system, but it's not the same quantum. This is how we get to ensembles and ensemble averages, for which things like the uncertainty relations hold.
The main problem most people have with quantum mechanics, for all I can tell, is that they are constantly misidentifying ensemble properties as properties of an individual system. That will, of course lead to serious ontological problems. The forest is simply not the same as the individual tree. A bird can build a nest in a tree, but it can not build a nest in a forest. A tree is a concrete entity and it has branches that can hold a nest against gravity. A forest is an abstract collection of trees and it can't do anything physical. It's just a way to think about many trees that happen to be in close proximity to each other.
@@renedekker9806 The uncertainty principle is a statement about the quantum mechanical ensemble. It's not a statement about a single quantum. A quantum is a small amount of energy. Energy can only be measured once, hence the same quantum can not be measured twice. Whatever combination of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge we are measuring is "precise". It's just not always going to be the same for experiments that have been prepared the same way.
I still don’t see the paradox unless it has to do with Heisenberg’s principle being violated. Non locality is self apparent in entanglement itself. Either local variables or not, but no paradox.
SMH, Sutter sir, you're incorrect claiming if you know the position of one entangled particle it tells you the position of other entangled particle. If you measure the entangled light particle then you know certain attributes like spin, polarity, color, energy but not position. Quantum entanglement doesn't happen to matter having mass like a proton or a collection of protons. Light particles travel at c. They're entangled so that what happens to one instantly is conveyed to all the other potential light particles entangled in the field. Matter having mass is unable to travel at c so quantum entanglement doesn't happen to their spin, polarity or other information pertaining to physical particles. If quantum entanglement happened to particles then it would happen to the planets contained inside the sun's EM field. They are matter with mass just like particles. But that doesn't happen. Entanglement doesn't happen to matter containing mass. It only happens to light because light is massless.
According to special relativity when light or anything else travels at c time is zero to the light or object. When light is traveling at c light particles within the field become potential particles in our frame of reality (slow mass time). We experience time and distance in a complete different frame of reference. We are out of sync to the motion and time being experienced by the light particles in the EM field. This is why we can't see light particles streaking through the blackness of space. That is why the light particles are potential in our frame of reference of spacetime, well up until the field interacts with matter. The light particles do not exist in our slow mass time until they strike something or are measured. They exist outside our realm. The light information doesn't exist until it is plucked out of the field in the now by an observer or when it strikes something or interacts with matter. Plus, the field is the light information of the now, not the past and not the future.
When we look at distant galaxies the telescopes see them in the now, not how they looked in the past or the future but the now because light traveling at c does not experience time. When light is measured or strikes something it is always measured in our now and in the now of all the other bodies in the universe because to the light particle traveling at c time and distance do not exist. That is why the JWST and the HST are able to measure supermassive galaxies more than 13 billion light years away. Light information happens in an instant when the observer or measuring device is contained inside the EM field being measured. All the potential light particles are entangled. We see every distant galaxy as it looks in the now, not the past. Hence instant spooky action at any distance. This has NOTHING to do with the Uncertainty Principle. You've got the two mixed up.
The Uncertainty principle is referencing electrons radiating from protons being measured. When the momentum of an electron is measured it's position is unknown and vise versa. It can't be measured because when an electron is measured it converts into information. It cannot be measured again. A different electron has to be measured. This has nothing to do with quantum entanglement or the EPR experiment/paradox.
The paradox part of the EPR experiment was because the information of one light particle is conveyed in an instant to the other regardless of distance violating Einstein's ideals about this reality, particularly the part where nothing not even information can travel faster than the speed of light. Because instant at any distance is much faster than the speed of light. Instant is zero time. When time is zero distance is also zero because the two are related. Imagine traveling at c and time is zero. Because time is zero distance is also zero. One could traverse the entire universe in an instant because time is zero. Quantum entanglement doesn't happen to particles having mass because particles experience time, entropy and decay. Light traveling at c does not.
So in a since; abstractly, Einstein is kind of right. Because... Since his days, we have still yet to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt in either direction... It's crazy how much physics has stagnated. Because we get to levels that are almost impossible to test, prove, use the scientific method and do trial and error tests.
_"we have still yet to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt in either direction"_ - the main test to settle the argument is Bell's Inequality. The 2022 Nobel prize was awarded to Alan Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger for the experiments that proved that QM was correct, and Einstein not.
If an electron farts, what does it smell like?
Gravity is non local. Electrostatic interaction is non-local. Magnetism is non-local. That QM works based on the exchange of virtual particles isn't general is compelling. But to say that there are in fact VP's is doubtful. No mono-poles & protons don't decay & gravitons fail, etc. etc. Einstein was right. QM either needs a lot of work or it's wrong. I'm going with wrong.
7 Eleven is local.
Привет из Беларуси😁😁😁
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Time to move on.
It's semantics is it?
Hey, it's quantum mechanics. We left common sense behind long ago. Drive on.
Nah, you just weren't paying enough attention in school. :-)