Very deserving indeed. The understanding and applications of quantum entanglement will lay the foundations of the monumental technologies to come for future generations.
Niels Bohr certainly won that argument with Einstein, at least so far. Einstein won the nobel price in 1921 and Bohr in 1922 (100 years ago:)) and Niels Bohrs son also won the noble price (was that in 1985 ?) . What a brillant family (Niels' brother was a super matematician too and was also on the Danish national scoccer team) !
Thank you for this lovely presentation of a difficult subject. This Nobel Prize was well deserved, because of its immense value in Quantum Computing. I still have tons of questions about the "entangled protons" I wish I could pick someone's brains about this, but for now appreciating this great video, I think is enough.
Entangled particles are simply those which ride the same wave within perturbations of the so-called Higgs field, since time only allows “paired” particles to occupy the same space in the original wave (whether a trough or a peak). There is no mystery boogie man pulling the strings here-zoom in enough, and the very fabric of space is simply a wave within a wave of a void, stuck between dimensional nodes. The better question is, how did the waves ever begin without a “first mover,” since the harmonic law suggests energy which is closest to its orbital centroid resists collapse via increase in speed. If there were no first mover, the likelihood of such behavior being hardwired into the laws of physics themselves is “absurdly” small.
@@ScienceDiscussed can quantum computers crack crypto wallet codes ?? Just a newbie question are attending my physics class looks like a lot for my brain
@@drbh6331 possibly but not likely. It would still take a lot of time and resources. Plus the cryptography used in most crypto currency is pretty long which will make it difficult even for quantum computers.
My simplified version: feel free to correct. I, too, have struggled with Belle's Inequality. You have two magic quarters, and you send one each to Alice and Bob, who live quite far away from each other. At a given time, and on a given schedule, both Alice and Bob flip their quarters many times, record the results, and send them back to you. As one might expect, both Alice and Bob record very close to 50% heads / 50% tails. However, because they are *magic* quarters, for any one flip, Alice's flip matches Bob's flip only 33% of the time, instead of the 50% you would expect.
I think it is more about the probablisic nature of quantum mechanics that limits determinism. We can only say that there is a probability that a quantum state is up verses down. Of course, some people still think that there might be theories that would overcome this but I don't think they are super popular theories.
Idk if it disproves every conceivable deterministic theory, however it does disprove that a particle has a well-defined and deterministic position and momentum at any given time (more generally true of all sets of incompatible observables). And then these experiments showed that empirically, reality does obey Bells inequalities.
These three proved that nature can generate statistics that no computer, classical or quantum, can generate from a single location. Awesome to contemplate. We are stuck in the classical, Boolean world.
The likely explanation to quantum entanglement is that everything quantum is spinning in synchronicity with everything. So by a sort of harmonic vibration, everything with everything, we can see all things are connected in essence. It really makes sense actually. Great video!!
The original rules for the Nobel Prize specified that the discovery had to be within the previous year, which is rather hard to implement. However it was 26 years between Bell publishing in 1964 and his death in 1990, but he didn’t get any prize. Why not?
As far as I can tell he wasn't nominated. The Nobel committee does release the nomination but only around 50 years later so we only know up untii 1970. Also the process is a little secretive so who know why he never got one.
1. The discovery does not have to be within the previous year. Almost all Nobel prizes in Science are given for work performed many years ago (often ten twenty, thirty or forty years ago). No Nobel prize was given for a discovery performed within the previous year. It takes a long time for a discovery to prove its value. 2. Nobel prize cannot be awarded posthumously. The person has to be alive. Once Bell died, he no longer qualified for Nobel prize. Unfortunately 26 years was not enough for his work to prove its value. The video mentions that this topic was ignored for many years. If it weren’t for the relevance of these experiments to quantum computing and quantum communications, these scientists would not have received the prize. The practical relevance made their work “hot” recently.
This made me think, if we have a universe with entangled particles and we say that a measurement is an interaction of any of those particles with something (e.g. another quantum particle) and let’s say only one of the entangled particles got “measured”, would that mean that amidst all the quantum particles surrounding us that are undetermined, there are quantum particles due to their entangled nature already determined, as their counterpart interacted with something, but we simply don’t know what it was. If so, could we distinguish between the truly undetermined particles, and an entangled particle, whose partner got “measured” previously? Does my question even make sense?
It appears you went deep into my mind and pulled out the very question in Quantum Mechanics that has bothered me. The fact that there exists an "Observer" mystery in the quantum world, is IMO a doorway to yet another important mystery in creation. If you (or anyone else) wish to chat with me about this, just reply to this msg. YT will send me an email informing someone responded about the 2022 Physics Nobel Prize.
I think II understand the question. I don't think you can distinguish them. A single measurement of a single particle will look the same whether it is entangled or not. We need to build up statistics to know another about whether we are producing an entangled state or not. While there are some tricks to do this they involve very well controlled experiments not random atoms.
@@ScienceDiscussed would it be reasonable to say, that those particles do have a hidden variable, the outcome of the “measured” partner whose outcome we don’t know?
Nah they don't have a any hidden variables, at least I wouldn't say so. I would reserve that term for the way einstein used it. Meaning that there is some underlying theory that would explain to results with 100% accuracy.
Nice picture of a refrigerator at 0:16. The narration goes wrong at 2:46 when we are told that wave functions "collapse" upon measurement. That's wrong because there is nothing at all in the mathematics of QM to suggest that it's true. No equation, no manipulation of the QM functions, will predict or suggest any kind of "collapse". One could ask oneself why, when discussing a certain theory, one needs to introduce a phenomenon that is not in the theory! What actually happens is that the wave function under measurement remains a superposition of multiple values, but - because of your interaction with it - becomes multiplied into YOUR wave function, so that you go into a superposition - multiple copies of yourself. Decoherence immediately makes them independent of each other (no interference) and so each copy of you believes that he saw a single result from the measurement. And that, of course, creates the illusion of "collapse".
1) Measuring one entangled particle doesn’t collapse the wave function of the other particle. 2) Measuring one entangled particle only give us “knowledge” of the other particle’s quantum state at a specific time, it doesn’t collapse the particle instantly.
The experiments are specifically work with light, which is mentioned in the prize description as photon. You should not change it into electron without further explanation.
Thanks for the explanation, however I have questions: 1- How do these electrons get entangled? 2- Can one electrons from atom be entangled with one electron and the second electron from the same atom with another? 3- Is the entanglement between electrons eternal? 4- 7:45 you said "Entangled State Can Be Transferred". Does this mean the three electrons are now entangled?
1. By making them repeatedly interact with each other. 2. No, they have to be isolated, however, the entire system of the atoms can become entangled. 3. No. A single measurement or interaction can break the entanglement. 4. Entanglement can involved more than two systems yes. I have 95% confidence on these replies.
To answer [3]; there is no OBJECTIVE connection, no link or association, between entangled objects. Therefore it's meaningless to ask how long their entanglement will last. They are "entangled" only because they both carry certain information that has not (yet) reached you. The entanglement is SUBJECTIVE. For somebody else, who HAS obtained that information, they are NOT entangled - while at the same time they are entangled for YOU. Reality is subjective. Each point of spacetime is an "observer" that "sees" a slightly different universe.
@@DavidByrden1 When Bob and Alice measure their stream of particles those are events in spacetime everyone can agree on ( though not necessarily the order of measurements). That you do not yet have the information or results does not mean they are still entangled. When you and a hundred others with you do receive information on those particle streams, you will be able to DISTINGUISH whether they were entangled or unentangled by their correlations. That's OBJECTIVE. While I admire Rovelli his theory is A) Not proved, and B) Probably not provable.
@@DavidByrden1 I think I have a decent level of understanding English, but I have no idea what exactly YOU are TRYING to say!! However if there in no link or association between two objects (or any other two things), no information can be exchanged.
@@alexshow4750 I will rephrase. You asked if the entanglement "is eternal". Implying that it's a "thing" with an objective existence and duration. But it's not. There is no link between "entangled" objects. They contain no reference to each other. And they are "entangled" for some observers but not for others. Under those circumstances it becomes meaningless to ask how long the "entanglement" will last.
Out of curiosity, so many sources online have been saying they used this to prove the universe isnt real or something but I cant find any good explanation linking this prize to that concept, Do you know how they got from this to that?
My take from this is that the results imply that you must give up EITHER realism OR locality. So I guess some might choose to accept locality and reject realism instead. Then conclude reality isn’t real because the entangled particles don’t have definite properties.
one simple example of 'quantum entanglement' is about 'Pauli Effect',.. is the effect only 'entangled' to the instrument of quantum physic lab not to other kind of instrument, so far it just mentioned as a Synchronicity..
In quantum mechanics, I’ve heard of stuff of the future effecting the present and past for probabilities, so What if instead of there being spooky action, it was that the information traveled backwards into the past, kind of like how Antimatter could be matter traveling backwards?
If the information travels suddenly into a particle's past, then you have changed that past. Ignoring all questions about whether that's possible, let's look at what you did. The particle was originally "blank" yesterday. But now, it contains some kind of information (yesterday) saying "I will be DOWN tomorrow". So, yesterday, the particle did contain information. That is a "hidden variable". The whole point of the Bell theorem is to prove that "hidden variables" are NOT the explanation.
Ok, so does it allow for instantaneous data transfer regardless of distance? - shoot entangled electron pair a&b in different directions - measure electron a if it's up or down - measure electron b at different angle, a bit later but not so late that light could travel same distance in that time - if there is discrepancy as shown at 5:00 you know electron b was already measured, if not you know it was not - signal/ no signal, you got a faster than light binary data stream Obviously you would first need to shoot an entangled electron beam at destination(s) and wait for it to reach it before data transfer could start. If you use 2 beams you have 2-way communication...
Destination destination destination. Perhaps all "field" particles have the quality of infinity and singularity. In the singularity they are "at" their destination.... and in infinity, they do not know the difference.
As everyday non quantumn macro phenomena are non probalistic-gravity, for example, at what point on the continuum does the probabilistic change to that of the certain?
Because what we perceive to be two entangled particles are actually two material (real) manifestation of one single “wave function”. The wave functions, in reality, are neither waves, nor functions, of course. At that sub-atomic scale, space starts to lose its meaning the same way as time starts to fall apart in the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment. I keep stating this for some 15 years, without knowing about either of those scientific results at the time - predicting them a bit too late...
Correct me if im wrong. It technically would, however, merely observing it on our end would change its state, so you wouldn't be able to gain any information.
In principle it could. Generally we need to then measure the other particle as well to know it has changed state. But you could imagine a system where once collasped the atom would be more likely to emitt a photon and that could be the signal.
“In principle it could”? By what principle? Superluminal hidden variables? There is no causal affect of measuring one entangled pair on the other - the state changes yes, but that is a description. Do your research.
@@anywallsocket this touches on something I've always wondered about: Suppose you have a machine that creates a stream of entangled pairs of particles. They are sent out in opposite directions, one eventually reaching a measuring device and the other going a little further to eventually reach a double slit setup. If the measuring device is turned on, the wave function collapses for each pair of particles, so the double slit setup should show a single point. But if the measuring device is then turned off, the pairs remain entangled and not collapsed, so the double slit setup should then start to show a diffraction pattern. Does this not make it possible to send messages at the speed of light?
The point about Bell's inequalities is that quantum mechanics violates them at in-between or oblique angles, where measurements of spin are over-correlated. If we want to duplicate this by computer simulation, then we must make provision for information of some sort to travel faster than light. However, that information cannot be used for superluminal communication. It's more like a one-time pad than a book. The pad cannot be accompanied by a second one-time pad such that there is a message embedded in a correlation between the two pads. That's the rules of the game!
@@wesjohnson6833 Well I think we can if the classical computer can use a random number generator, but I would be interested in hearing a formal argument against it. There isn't one as far as I know.
@@david_porthouse The formal argument is Bell's inequality and these very experiments prove it. If you could write a local program and achieve the statistics of the experiments --- you would proof local hidden variables can exist. The program itself would be the hidden variables.
Just a humble wonder. What if during the entanglement the electrons were slightly decreased in velocity, generating space for the messages between the electrons to travel at the speed of light while the electrons were actually decelerated ?
Then - nothing. Because no "messages" pass between entangled objects. They have absolutely no link or interaction with each other. Even their entanglement does not objectively exist; it may exist for you, while simultaneously NOT existing for some other observer. In fact, if you think about it, the entanglement does not exist FOR THE PARTICLES THEMSELVES, or for tiny beings sitting on them. They know what state they are in - measuring the other particle will NOT change what they see. If it seems that what I'm saying is wrong, that is only because most publications misrepresent QM and entanglement, including this video. I'm basing my explanation on the paper by Everett.
If you want to explain quantum entanglement properly you need to avoid these three errors.:1) A [preparation of a] system of two (or more) particles is described by a single state ("wave function") whether that state is an entangled one or not. 2) When the (spin_z) observable of one particle is measured and found "to be in the spin up state" it's not true that [we can infer that] the other must "be in the spin down state" (the other observer could measure - or have measured - the spin_x or spin_y observable). In general in QM one needs to distinguish between systems [subsystems] "being in" states [marginal states], and the outcomes of measurements of [local] observables. The failure to recognise this crucial point* also leads to 3) - what Werner and Wolf (arXiv:quant-ph/0107093) describe as failing the "ping ball test", meaning failing to pin down the salient difference between the classical case and the quantum case. * For entanglement to occur at all it's necessary that both parts of a bipartite system be described by a noncommutative algebra of observables - so at least two mutually "incompatible" observables on each part.
Hi Paul Hayes, I am very interested in your views about "avoiding errors" in quantum measurements. I could not tell from the brief write-up on YT whether you are ruling out the probabilistic nature of this work so far. In any case I would love to hear from you.
@@NickManeck On the contrary, QM *is* probabilistic mechanics, and I mean that in a far more profound sense than is conveyed by those mysterious "view form nowhere" Dirac-von Neumann axioms with the Born rule tacked on. Out of the mathematical physics and quantum foundations developed since von Neumann and Bell respectively there has emerged a much clearer understanding of QM.
It's still deterministic. We dont have the ability to know the complete math of the wave function to be able to predict where the particle will end up....
Hi. I appreciate your pragmatism seeking affirmation. I will put forth that Quantum Functionality surpassing Light Speed Limits, is actually a validity. Do note that it still doesn't happen to be a World Changer. Quite plainly, the merits of Quanta are distinctly separate as being a Universal Realm apart from our Larger Matter-based Realm. As for the facts... the sheer premise of Cognizant Processing will always output greater than Light speed rates. Hope it assists. Do note it's only my personal take and not accounting World Science perspective
Because there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematica, there was no Nobel Prize for the discovery of Chaos Theory. Although Henri Poincaré published his work before either GR or QM, Chaos Theory remained obscure and unappreciated until Edward Lorenz rediscovered it in the 1960s. Had Einstein and Bohr known of Chaos Theory in the 1920s, Einstein would not have speculated about God throwing dice. In the EPR Paradox, if you imagine that the magnetic moment of a particle can be modeled like a precessing top, and if you appreciate that (under GR) timekeeping is local, you get that while the mean ergodic direction of magnetic moment is a fixed direction in space, the instantaneous phase of the precession does not maintain phase-locked synchrony. Now try working out Bell's Inequality under such a model for the presumptive state variable. The time-varying perturbations in the presumptive state variable throw a mathematical monkey wrench into Bell's derivation. The state variable no longer vanishes, but yields a non-vanishing "beat frequency" term.
This prize is not yet the end of the series of recent years, where the Nobel Prize in physics (!) was awarded to astronomers, mathematicians, climatologists: it looks like astrologers are waiting in line.
Oversimplified and wrong: @5:56 "John Clauser performed his experiment in 1972, and showed that quantum mechanics was indeed valid and that there were no hidden variables present." Bell's Theorem and Clauser's experiments apply only to LOCAL hidden variables. They do NOT rule out the presence of non-local hidden variables, and that makes all the difference in the world.
I'm still not really convinced that physics aren't deterministic per se, rather than our instruments being hopelessly primitive for the question at hand. I propose that the wave function is our current best method to approximate the deterministic system.
It’s not a question of the instruments. Determinism is always possible but, so far, no deterministic theory exists. Probabilistic QM is the best we have.
I have seen a ton of people dumbing this down to "if there is a ball in a separate room that you are not observing, it does not exist." is this accurate?
No. It's still being "measured" by the air molecules constantly touching it, and even if it wasn't being measured, it's just an uncollapsed wave function, not nonexistent
Yeah there is plenty of ways. One way is to pass light though something called a non-linear crystal which splits a single photon into two entangled photons.
Maybe similar to how space itself can move/expand faster than the speed of light, even wave function information can travel faster than the speed of light. Has any work been done on this?
Wave function information does not travel between entangled objects - at any speed. There is no link, no communication between them. They're not even objectively entangled; they're entangled relative to certain observers, and not other observers.
I don’t think that entanglement disproves determinism. Actually, it strengthens it. If you measure an entangled quantum particle with another, and knowing that the speed of light cannot be surpassed - at least inside this universe -, it follows that the other particle, already “knows” what is going to happen even in a random moment of time. How do you call that if not deterministic?
@Jay Jay that is a deeper question. I think there is some evidence that quantum effects play a role in brain function. This would suggest that out actions are not deterministic. But how much of a role this plays I don't know.
The universe has a balance of order and randomness. There was some big physicists, I forget who, said: "Given complete knowledge of a quantum system, there is at least one measurement that can be predicted 100% and at least one measurement that will be random."
Excellent presentation, One question, isn't the notion of "collapse of the wave function " a bit of epistemological flim flamery? A function is a description of reality, not reality itself. The collapse or rather failure of a function or description is a failure of the language ,in this case Mathematics, to describe the current moment.
I'll answer with another question: how can we tell reality and a description of reality apart in the first place? We cannot know the properties of something until we measure it (either by direct observation or by indirectly observation through the environment), so what grounds do we have to assume that reality is secretly different? Likewise, we can never know with certainty that they are secretly the same. The Fibonacci sequence, for example, can be defined both recursively (in discrete intervals) and explicitly (continuously). Both give the same values for all natural numbers, but the recursive formula tells us nothing about what happens between them. The sciences, in this sense, tell us how reality behaves for each point we measure it at. We can plot more and more of these data points and determine functional descriptions of reality, but we can never know if some arbitrary point between our measurements has a random spike. Knowing anything with absolute certainty requires absolute precision, which--like finding the "final digit" of pi--is impossible. Now I raise you this: why should we be concerned with whether or not our functional descriptions of reality match reality 1:1 when it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty?
Yes, you are correct. "collapse of the wave function" does not exist within the quantum theory. Those who invoke it to explain quantum theory are failing to understand what quantum theory actually says. But I don't think that you actually understand what they mean by "collapse of the wave function". They don't mean that it failed. They mean that, up to a certain time, the wave function defined the location (or some other property) of a thing as being spread out (multiple-valued) and then - all of a sudden, as it appears - that location became a single point. But in fact it's an illusion. The wave function never "collapses". Instead, the observing scientist "multiplies" into many copies of himself.
This can be a problem with the Nobel prize. As soon as it is announced people will think some other scientists were more deserving. It seems like a really hard thing to decide on who deserves it the most.
@@ScienceDiscussed I'll go the other route. How did it take this long. And I think J.S.Bell would have been the perfect opportunity to get rid of the posthumous rule once and for all.
Maybe it's because I do have prior knowledge, but there is so many small inaccuracy in the video. Like the claim hidden variables were proven wrong. Bells inequality and the experiments still allow hidden variable theories.
There is always a comprimise between the general idea for a broad audience and a lecture at a univeristy with all of the details. I tend to try to keep it more simple.
if you buy a pair of socks and send them in opposite directions a great distance like a couple of light seconds and you check if one is left then instanteanously you will know the other one is right which seems to break the speed of light
Lol, interesting analogy but I think there's a difference here and that is that the sock was left from the beginning, if you observed it or not. However with quantum particles, it is not determined which spin they have until the wave function collapses which is only triggered by measuring it. At least that's what I'm understanding from this
A false analogy. We can do measurements of spin where the detectors are oriented at in-between or oblique angles to each other, and the prizewinners have shown that the results are over-correlated.
Electrons decide now...? Do these people listen to themselves? There HAS to be some 'mechanical' reason such as being the same particle connected over a higher dimensional plane that we can't see or measure (yet). This would make MUCH more sense.
To experience quantum teleportation yourself, call a friend and ask them to bring over a pair of gloves. It will be your job to find two very similar opaque bags. When your friend arrives, take the gloves and mix them up under the table, then slyly place them in the bags and tie them closed, one glove per bag. Now, leave the room and ask your friend to choose one bag. Come back and get other bag. Have your friend go to a far corner of building. You go to the other side. Now, you open your bag. Let's say you find a left handed glove. In that instant, you know, and may shout, that your friend has a right handed glove.
@@david_porthouse True. The gloves in bag experiment can only give you the feel for up-down / left-right. It's really meant to encourage curiosity in a context where the word 'teleportation' is constantly thrown around, erroneously. If you do think of a macro experiment that can reveal the Bell inequities, I would be delighted to add that to my bag of tricks.
1. QM predicts that two separated objects will yield related results when measured. 2. QM also predicts that the measurement results are random and the objects don't "know" about each other. 3. That is too spooky for me. Einstein, of course, was wrong. That's why the prize was awarded. "Entanglement is too spooky" must be put beside "Evolution is too unlikely" and "Round earth is too scary", in a box labelled Invalid Complaints.
but isnt there possibly a trivial explanation? lets say a photon that can be measured up or down gets divided into 2 entangled photons. now if you measure one of them as up, the other one automatically is measured as down. isnt it possible that this is just because of the dividing process? like a sinus curve that gets split in half... one part up and one part down.
That's exactly the case. It's just that the two possible states of the pair --- up and down, down and up --- are in a state of superposition until a measurement takes place. It is actually the conservation of momentum that demands if one is up, the other must be down.
That was Einsteins theory that the functions were pre-determined not ramdom hence "God does not play dice" but supposedly he was proven to be wrong and it is actually random although I don't have the knowledge to explain how he was proven wrong.
@@wesjohnson6833 No it's not the case the initial up or down is proven to be random that's the entire point. The particles are reacting to each other. He is saying they are predetermined based on how they are divided.
QM classicalized in 2010: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the ‘hidden variables ‘ and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So,no.
It's almost like the electrons are informing you that they exist when you measure them like that. You get an up or down. It seems strange that they would orient themselves opposite of eachother like that, as if to make it explicit that they are tethered. Must be some other force at work.
They are not tethered. They're simply existing in two versions at once. Think of them as residing in two parallel universes, which are identical everywhere except at those electrons. By measuring one of them, you split yourself into two copies, one in each universe.
It is a great question. The answer is no, measuring it destroys the superposition. But we can measure that it was in a superposition before we measured.
If what you are saying is true the nmr nuclear magnetic resonance machine would not measure anything. Every effort like a strong magnetic field would always result in a balance of zero.the radio frequency scanning would not detect a difference as the they return to the resting state.
Proton spin up spin down the electron. Between the carbon and and proton. A pair of electrons shared by both carbon and and proton. A strong magnetic field applied forces the electronic condition to align with the magnetic field. When the field is removed the electrons return to the resting state and releases radiation as radio frequency. The radio frequency is unique to the atomic or molecular environment. If these were entangled wouldn't they cancel each other as they approach the resting state??
Quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about determinism. Probabilistic approach is just one of many interpretations. It doesn't rule out hidden variables either, just local hidden variables
Maybe I should have been more careful with my wording. It is hard to give all of the required details for people that know the subject while not overcomplicating for people that don't.
I would question if there is any "true" determinism in QM, if the interpretation still says at one point "Roll the 20 sided die." As well, "true" randomness seems untestable, though perhaps for different reasons.
Einstein in my opinion he was right quantum mechanics theory is not complete, I don't know why this person won the nobel prize just for showing entanglament? I wonder first how he could prove it and second if this was possible he would have proved something that other before him had theorized, in conclusion he don't found the missing piece of quantum mechanics theory. And i still have some doubts that two particles can communicate with each other even at great distances instantly.
You're correct to "have doubts". The entangled particles do not communicate, AND there is no such thing as "instantly" (google Relativity of Simultaneity). But you're wrong about what happened here. These people proved that QM doesn't have an obvious missing piece.
so if we get quantum data transfer, and if it is faster than light, then could we produce a negative time interval between sending data and receiving it? that would be freaky lol. like say if we have a laser on earth transmitting a stream of entangled qbits to mars, and a computer on mars is loading them into a quantum computer, and we read them on earth in certain ways to have a high probability of the read results on mars come to the conclusion of a bit sent being a 0 or a 1, and do that a couple times to complete a message. then we do the same thing but in reverse using a different stream of qbits and have a slightly altered echo'd message sent back and read by a computer, but due to relativity it might be a negative time interval, so time travel :) ive seen the argument that it's not possible because we cannot be sure the message is correct, but im thinking why not repeat it many many times to get that probability of the data being sent wrong (assuming qbits sent don't decay before being used) to be improbable. in computing theres many many cases, like with encryption and passwords, that it works via being probable/improbable rather than possible/impossible (like guessing a 256 bit encryption key is 1 in 2^256, big number, improbable to guess) so if we can shift probabilities we can use that to transfer data?
But we can't get quantum data transfer. That has been proven. Trying to invent a way to do it, is like trying to invent a perpetual motion machine. There's already a guarantee that you will fail.
Really? Is entanglement really a problem? With such an OBVIOUS explanation: The “entangled” particles are actually 2 manifestations of a single underlaying “thing”. The way we can observe that “thing” make it look like 2 particles. Or, rather, we have (for now) 2 channels to obtain physical properties - through interactions - form the single “thing” which can be considered to be a “machine” (an equation) where the WAY we interact with the “thing” is considered to be the input data while the output comes in two(?) channels hence the result appears in the the exact same point in time but in multiple points in space. It is also rather obvious from all these that the “thing” is nothing we can ever fully discover through those channels (particles) that we can physically interact with. Should I have more knowledge and time, I could potentially lay down a full system that also explains the dual nature of light, including the quantum eraser experiment and probably some other “spooky actions”! And, should I have partners, money and equipment, I could probably build this “thought experience” into something much more tangible - unless its completely wrong, of course. Could a knowledgeable person prove me wrong, please?
Very deserving indeed. The understanding and applications of quantum entanglement will lay the foundations of the monumental technologies to come for future generations.
Yeah it will be an exciting decade for quantum technologies
Niels Bohr certainly won that argument with Einstein, at least so far. Einstein won the nobel price in 1921 and Bohr in 1922 (100 years ago:)) and Niels Bohrs son also won the noble price (was that in 1985 ?) . What a brillant family (Niels' brother was a super matematician too and was also on the Danish national scoccer team) !
Thank you for this lovely presentation of a difficult subject. This Nobel Prize was well deserved, because of its immense value in Quantum Computing. I still have tons of questions about the "entangled protons" I wish I could pick someone's brains about this, but for now appreciating this great video, I think is enough.
I am glad you enjoyed it. It is an interesting and difficult topic.
Entangled particles are simply those which ride the same wave within perturbations of the so-called Higgs field, since time only allows “paired” particles to occupy the same space in the original wave (whether a trough or a peak). There is no mystery boogie man pulling the strings here-zoom in enough, and the very fabric of space is simply a wave within a wave of a void, stuck between dimensional nodes. The better question is, how did the waves ever begin without a “first mover,” since the harmonic law suggests energy which is closest to its orbital centroid resists collapse via increase in speed. If there were no first mover, the likelihood of such behavior being hardwired into the laws of physics themselves is “absurdly” small.
@@ScienceDiscussed can quantum computers crack crypto wallet codes ?? Just a newbie question are attending my physics class looks like a lot for my brain
@@drbh6331 possibly but not likely. It would still take a lot of time and resources. Plus the cryptography used in most crypto currency is pretty long which will make it difficult even for quantum computers.
You mean entangled _photons_ I assume?
The clearest presentation I've come across....hats off to you and many thanks.
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
My simplified version: feel free to correct. I, too, have struggled with Belle's Inequality.
You have two magic quarters, and you send one each to Alice and Bob, who live quite far away from each other.
At a given time, and on a given schedule, both Alice and Bob flip their quarters many times, record the results, and send them back to you.
As one might expect, both Alice and Bob record very close to 50% heads / 50% tails. However, because they are *magic* quarters, for any one flip, Alice's flip matches Bob's flip only 33% of the time, instead of the 50% you would expect.
My understanding is that Bell’s inequality does not disprove determinism, but is about non-locality.
I think it is more about the probablisic nature of quantum mechanics that limits determinism. We can only say that there is a probability that a quantum state is up verses down. Of course, some people still think that there might be theories that would overcome this but I don't think they are super popular theories.
Idk if it disproves every conceivable deterministic theory, however it does disprove that a particle has a well-defined and deterministic position and momentum at any given time (more generally true of all sets of incompatible observables). And then these experiments showed that empirically, reality does obey Bells inequalities.
My understanding is that it disproves local but not non-local determinism.
Thank you for explaining so well. I’ve been looking for a video that would help me understand the topic.
Glad it was helpful!
Subscribed! I hope your channel will grow - you have a good way of explaining things and a pretty nice vizualization.
Thanks for the sub! I am glad you enjoyed it.
These three proved that nature can generate statistics that no computer, classical or quantum, can generate from a single location. Awesome to contemplate. We are stuck in the classical, Boolean world.
Amazing! Way out of my humble pay grade.
Glad you enjoyed it. It is a super fun topic but it is also a confusing one.
What an overused and tired word is "amazing".
Give this word a break, you lazy writers, and use a synonym.
@@ahmetdogan5685 what a tired and overdone shtick is giving irrelevant unsolicited advice. get a life and touch grass
@@ahmetdogan5685 No. Give us a better word
Idk why i read that humble gay parade😂😂
The likely explanation to quantum entanglement is that everything quantum is spinning in synchronicity with everything. So by a sort of harmonic vibration, everything with everything, we can see all things are connected in essence. It really makes sense actually. Great video!!
I agree. But we just cant explain it. If a nickel is light years thick, it is still heads on one side and tails on the other
Thank you for explaining it! Great video (:
No problem. I am glad you liked it.
The original rules for the Nobel Prize specified that the discovery had to be within the previous year, which is rather hard to implement. However it was 26 years between Bell publishing in 1964 and his death in 1990, but he didn’t get any prize. Why not?
As far as I can tell he wasn't nominated. The Nobel committee does release the nomination but only around 50 years later so we only know up untii 1970. Also the process is a little secretive so who know why he never got one.
@Science Discussed how do you NOT know why? It’s quite literally called the No Bell prize.
@@rorycannon7295 Illegal funny, smh
@@rorycannon7295 haha that was great
1. The discovery does not have to be within the previous year. Almost all Nobel prizes in Science are given for work performed many years ago (often ten twenty, thirty or forty years ago). No Nobel prize was given for a discovery performed within the previous year. It takes a long time for a discovery to prove its value.
2. Nobel prize cannot be awarded posthumously. The person has to be alive. Once Bell died, he no longer qualified for Nobel prize. Unfortunately 26 years was not enough for his work to prove its value. The video mentions that this topic was ignored for many years. If it weren’t for the relevance of these experiments to quantum computing and quantum communications, these scientists would not have received the prize. The practical relevance made their work “hot” recently.
This is a really good run-down of the topic, congrats for the video doing so well :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
This made me think, if we have a universe with entangled particles and we say that a measurement is an interaction of any of those particles with something (e.g. another quantum particle) and let’s say only one of the entangled particles got “measured”, would that mean that amidst all the quantum particles surrounding us that are undetermined, there are quantum particles due to their entangled nature already determined, as their counterpart interacted with something, but we simply don’t know what it was. If so, could we distinguish between the truly undetermined particles, and an entangled particle, whose partner got “measured” previously?
Does my question even make sense?
It appears you went deep into my mind and pulled out the very question in Quantum Mechanics that has bothered me. The fact that there exists an "Observer" mystery in the quantum world, is IMO a doorway to yet another important mystery in creation. If you (or anyone else) wish to chat with me about this, just reply to this msg. YT will send me an email informing someone responded about the 2022 Physics Nobel Prize.
I think II understand the question. I don't think you can distinguish them. A single measurement of a single particle will look the same whether it is entangled or not. We need to build up statistics to know another about whether we are producing an entangled state or not. While there are some tricks to do this they involve very well controlled experiments not random atoms.
@@ScienceDiscussed would it be reasonable to say, that those particles do have a hidden variable, the outcome of the “measured” partner whose outcome we don’t know?
Nah they don't have a any hidden variables, at least I wouldn't say so. I would reserve that term for the way einstein used it. Meaning that there is some underlying theory that would explain to results with 100% accuracy.
@@ScienceDiscussed Thanks!
How the heck do they measure relationships between entangled particles that are hundreds of kilometers apart. These guys are really out there.
They compare data.
Nice picture of a refrigerator at 0:16.
The narration goes wrong at 2:46 when we are told that wave functions "collapse" upon measurement.
That's wrong because there is nothing at all in the mathematics of QM to suggest that it's true. No equation, no manipulation of the QM functions, will predict or suggest any kind of "collapse". One could ask oneself why, when discussing a certain theory, one needs to introduce a phenomenon that is not in the theory!
What actually happens is that the wave function under measurement remains a superposition of multiple values, but - because of your interaction with it - becomes multiplied into YOUR wave function, so that you go into a superposition - multiple copies of yourself.
Decoherence immediately makes them independent of each other (no interference) and so each copy of you believes that he saw a single result from the measurement.
And that, of course, creates the illusion of "collapse".
Nice job on the many views! Been watching for a while.
Thanks mate. I am glad you have been enjoying my videos.
Very clear explanation. What about entanglement in brain cells (Penrose/hameroff)?
1) Measuring one entangled particle doesn’t collapse the wave function of the other particle.
2) Measuring one entangled particle only give us “knowledge” of the other particle’s quantum state at a specific time, it doesn’t collapse the particle instantly.
The experiments are specifically work with light, which is mentioned in the prize description as photon. You should not change it into electron without further explanation.
Thanks for the explanation, however I have questions:
1- How do these electrons get entangled?
2- Can one electrons from atom be entangled with one electron and the second electron from the same atom with another?
3- Is the entanglement between electrons eternal?
4- 7:45 you said "Entangled State Can Be Transferred". Does this mean the three electrons are now entangled?
1. By making them repeatedly interact with each other.
2. No, they have to be isolated, however, the entire system of the atoms can become entangled.
3. No. A single measurement or interaction can break the entanglement.
4. Entanglement can involved more than two systems yes.
I have 95% confidence on these replies.
To answer [3]; there is no OBJECTIVE connection, no link or association, between entangled objects. Therefore it's meaningless to ask how long their entanglement will last.
They are "entangled" only because they both carry certain information that has not (yet) reached you. The entanglement is SUBJECTIVE.
For somebody else, who HAS obtained that information, they are NOT entangled - while at the same time they are entangled for YOU. Reality is subjective. Each point of spacetime is an "observer" that "sees" a slightly different universe.
@@DavidByrden1 When Bob and Alice measure their stream of particles those are events in spacetime everyone can agree on ( though not necessarily the order of measurements). That you do not yet have the information or results does not mean they are still entangled.
When you and a hundred others with you do receive information on those particle streams, you will be able to DISTINGUISH whether they were entangled or unentangled by their correlations. That's OBJECTIVE.
While I admire Rovelli his theory is A) Not proved, and B) Probably not provable.
@@DavidByrden1 I think I have a decent level of understanding English, but I have no idea what exactly YOU are TRYING to say!!
However if there in no link or association between two objects (or any other two things), no information can be exchanged.
@@alexshow4750 I will rephrase.
You asked if the entanglement "is eternal".
Implying that it's a "thing" with an objective existence and duration.
But it's not.
There is no link between "entangled" objects. They contain no reference to each other. And they are "entangled" for some observers but not for others.
Under those circumstances it becomes meaningless to ask how long the "entanglement" will last.
Out of curiosity, so many sources online have been saying they used this to prove the universe isnt real or something but I cant find any good explanation linking this prize to that concept, Do you know how they got from this to that?
My take from this is that the results imply that you must give up EITHER realism OR locality. So I guess some might choose to accept locality and reject realism instead. Then conclude reality isn’t real because the entangled particles don’t have definite properties.
one simple example of 'quantum entanglement' is about 'Pauli Effect',.. is the effect only 'entangled' to the instrument of quantum physic lab not to other kind of instrument, so far it just mentioned as a Synchronicity..
very clear explanation, thanks!
Is quantum entanglement only parity specific or any other parameters can be used to prove?
In quantum mechanics, I’ve heard of stuff of the future effecting the present and past for probabilities, so What if instead of there being spooky action, it was that the information traveled backwards into the past, kind of like how Antimatter could be matter traveling backwards?
It would be interesting if it did but it would be very difficult to prove.
If the information travels suddenly into a particle's past, then you have changed that past.
Ignoring all questions about whether that's possible, let's look at what you did.
The particle was originally "blank" yesterday. But now, it contains some kind of information (yesterday) saying "I will be DOWN tomorrow".
So, yesterday, the particle did contain information.
That is a "hidden variable".
The whole point of the Bell theorem is to prove that "hidden variables" are NOT the explanation.
Nice, succinct presentation for sure!
Glad you liked it.
Ok, so does it allow for instantaneous data transfer regardless of distance?
- shoot entangled electron pair a&b in different directions
- measure electron a if it's up or down
- measure electron b at different angle, a bit later but not so late that light could travel same distance in that time
- if there is discrepancy as shown at 5:00 you know electron b was already measured, if not you know it was not
- signal/ no signal, you got a faster than light binary data stream
Obviously you would first need to shoot an entangled electron beam at destination(s) and wait for it to reach it before data transfer could start. If you use 2 beams you have 2-way communication...
Excuse me but how do you know there's a discrepancy? You don't have the results from the "a" measurements.
@@DavidByrden1 they don't matter, their only reason is to force an up or down result before measurement b takes place
Well done
I'm a total physics noob - what does this mean for determinism?
Destination destination destination. Perhaps all "field" particles have the quality of infinity and singularity. In the singularity they are "at" their destination.... and in infinity, they do not know the difference.
Really appreciated this!
I am happy that you liked it.
Thank you for the explanation.
As everyday non quantumn macro phenomena are non probalistic-gravity, for example, at what point on the continuum does the probabilistic change to that of the certain?
Because what we perceive to be two entangled particles are actually two material (real) manifestation of one single “wave function”. The wave functions, in reality, are neither waves, nor functions, of course. At that sub-atomic scale, space starts to lose its meaning the same way as time starts to fall apart in the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment. I keep stating this for some 15 years, without knowing about either of those scientific results at the time - predicting them a bit too late...
Nicely explained 👌👍
Glad you liked it.
If a far-away object is measured, does its closer (and observable) entangled counterpart change in an observable way?
Correct me if im wrong. It technically would, however, merely observing it on our end would change its state, so you wouldn't be able to gain any information.
In principle it could. Generally we need to then measure the other particle as well to know it has changed state. But you could imagine a system where once collasped the atom would be more likely to emitt a photon and that could be the signal.
“In principle it could”? By what principle? Superluminal hidden variables? There is no causal affect of measuring one entangled pair on the other - the state changes yes, but that is a description. Do your research.
@@anywallsocket this touches on something I've always wondered about: Suppose you have a machine that creates a stream of entangled pairs of particles. They are sent out in opposite directions, one eventually reaching a measuring device and the other going a little further to eventually reach a double slit setup. If the measuring device is turned on, the wave function collapses for each pair of particles, so the double slit setup should show a single point. But if the measuring device is then turned off, the pairs remain entangled and not collapsed, so the double slit setup should then start to show a diffraction pattern. Does this not make it possible to send messages at the speed of light?
@@ScienceDiscussed "collapse" does not happen.
The point about Bell's inequalities is that quantum mechanics violates them at in-between or oblique angles, where measurements of spin are over-correlated. If we want to duplicate this by computer simulation, then we must make provision for information of some sort to travel faster than light. However, that information cannot be used for superluminal communication. It's more like a one-time pad than a book. The pad cannot be accompanied by a second one-time pad such that there is a message embedded in a correlation between the two pads. That's the rules of the game!
Which means we can't duplicate the results with a classical Boolean computer. A fascinating point most people refuse to believe.
@@wesjohnson6833 Well I think we can if the classical computer can use a random number generator, but I would be interested in hearing a formal argument against it. There isn't one as far as I know.
@@david_porthouse The formal argument is Bell's inequality and these very experiments prove it. If you could write a local program and achieve the statistics of the experiments --- you would proof local hidden variables can exist. The program itself would be the hidden variables.
If I lose the shoe on my right foot, then the shoe still on me must be the left shoe.right?
From Immanuel Kant we know that not the world is deterministic , but our way to have common experience about the world is deterministic ...
Just a humble wonder. What if during the entanglement the electrons were slightly decreased in velocity, generating space for the messages between the electrons to travel at the speed of light while the electrons were actually decelerated ?
Then - nothing. Because no "messages" pass between entangled objects. They have absolutely no link or interaction with each other. Even their entanglement does not objectively exist; it may exist for you, while simultaneously NOT existing for some other observer.
In fact, if you think about it, the entanglement does not exist FOR THE PARTICLES THEMSELVES, or for tiny beings sitting on them. They know what state they are in - measuring the other particle will NOT change what they see.
If it seems that what I'm saying is wrong, that is only because most publications misrepresent QM and entanglement, including this video.
I'm basing my explanation on the paper by Everett.
I like that hexagonal light. Any idea where I can get it?
I bought from this company cololight.com/. But there are many companies that make them.
If you want to explain quantum entanglement properly you need to avoid these three errors.:1) A [preparation of a] system of two (or more) particles is described by a single state ("wave function") whether that state is an entangled one or not. 2) When the (spin_z) observable of one particle is measured and found "to be in the spin up state" it's not true that [we can infer that] the other must "be in the spin down state" (the other observer could measure - or have measured - the spin_x or spin_y observable). In general in QM one needs to distinguish between systems [subsystems] "being in" states [marginal states], and the outcomes of measurements of [local] observables. The failure to recognise this crucial point* also leads to 3) - what Werner and Wolf (arXiv:quant-ph/0107093) describe as failing the "ping ball test", meaning failing to pin down the salient difference between the classical case and the quantum case.
* For entanglement to occur at all it's necessary that both parts of a bipartite system be described by a noncommutative algebra of observables - so at least two mutually "incompatible" observables on each part.
Hi Paul Hayes, I am very interested in your views about "avoiding errors" in quantum measurements. I could not tell from the brief write-up on YT whether you are ruling out the probabilistic nature of this work so far. In any case I would love to hear from you.
@@NickManeck On the contrary, QM *is* probabilistic mechanics, and I mean that in a far more profound sense than is conveyed by those mysterious "view form nowhere" Dirac-von Neumann axioms with the Born rule tacked on. Out of the mathematical physics and quantum foundations developed since von Neumann and Bell respectively there has emerged a much clearer understanding of QM.
It's still deterministic.
We dont have the ability to know the complete math of the wave function to be able to predict where the particle will end up....
I am about to publish quantum un entanglement. It will make more sense.
So you will try to straight qe out huh?
I like the part 4;00 where y say the particles decided
Can you give a concrete example of this?
Hi. I appreciate your pragmatism seeking affirmation. I will put forth that Quantum Functionality surpassing Light Speed Limits, is actually a validity. Do note that it still doesn't happen to be a World Changer. Quite plainly, the merits of Quanta are distinctly separate as being a Universal Realm apart from our Larger Matter-based Realm. As for the facts... the sheer premise of Cognizant Processing will always output greater than Light speed rates. Hope it assists. Do note it's only my personal take and not accounting World Science perspective
Go sleep now kamikadzi
Did the 2022 nobel prize granted??
That was excellent thank you.
Because there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematica, there was no Nobel Prize for the discovery of Chaos Theory. Although Henri Poincaré published his work before either GR or QM, Chaos Theory remained obscure and unappreciated until Edward Lorenz rediscovered it in the 1960s. Had Einstein and Bohr known of Chaos Theory in the 1920s, Einstein would not have speculated about God throwing dice.
In the EPR Paradox, if you imagine that the magnetic moment of a particle can be modeled like a precessing top, and if you appreciate that (under GR) timekeeping is local, you get that while the mean ergodic direction of magnetic moment is a fixed direction in space, the instantaneous phase of the precession does not maintain phase-locked synchrony. Now try working out Bell's Inequality under such a model for the presumptive state variable. The time-varying perturbations in the presumptive state variable throw a mathematical monkey wrench into Bell's derivation. The state variable no longer vanishes, but yields a non-vanishing "beat frequency" term.
This prize is not yet the end of the series of recent years, where the Nobel Prize in physics (!) was awarded to astronomers, mathematicians, climatologists: it looks like astrologers are waiting in line.
Oversimplified and wrong: @5:56 "John Clauser performed his experiment in 1972, and showed that quantum mechanics was indeed valid and that there were no hidden variables present."
Bell's Theorem and Clauser's experiments apply only to LOCAL hidden variables. They do NOT rule out the presence of non-local hidden variables, and that makes all the difference in the world.
yup, nonlocality is the take-home lesson
I'm still not really convinced that physics aren't deterministic per se, rather than our instruments being hopelessly primitive for the question at hand. I propose that the wave function is our current best method to approximate the deterministic system.
It’s not a question of the instruments. Determinism is always possible but, so far, no deterministic theory exists. Probabilistic QM is the best we have.
I have seen a ton of people dumbing this down to "if there is a ball in a separate room that you are not observing, it does not exist." is this accurate?
No. It's still being "measured" by the air molecules constantly touching it, and even if it wasn't being measured, it's just an uncollapsed wave function, not nonexistent
He's right.
What if the hidden variable was the alignment of the background field...
is there a known way to create entangle particule now ?
Yeah there is plenty of ways. One way is to pass light though something called a non-linear crystal which splits a single photon into two entangled photons.
I like the lamp behind :)
It looks like JWST
Haha yeah it does. I never thought about that
This is a friendly suggestion. Sit on your hands when you speak, their constant motion in front of you is a big distraction.
Yeah I do talk with my hands a lot.
Life is just to Love and to be Loved 💗💜 Love alone can Conquer the World.
Why do you say prove?
Maybe similar to how space itself can move/expand faster than the speed of light, even wave function information can travel faster than the speed of light. Has any work been done on this?
Wave function information does not travel between entangled objects - at any speed. There is no link, no communication between them. They're not even objectively entangled; they're entangled relative to certain observers, and not other observers.
Expansion does not have a speed, exactly. It has a speed per parsec.
Show me a video on the paradoxes this could create.
I don’t think that entanglement disproves determinism. Actually, it strengthens it. If you measure an entangled quantum particle with another, and knowing that the speed of light cannot be surpassed - at least inside this universe -, it follows that the other particle, already “knows” what is going to happen even in a random moment of time. How do you call that if not deterministic?
Before you measure the first particle you don't know what you will get. The first result is probabilistic.
@Jay Jay that is a deeper question. I think there is some evidence that quantum effects play a role in brain function. This would suggest that out actions are not deterministic. But how much of a role this plays I don't know.
@Jay Jay maybe. I don't know.
The universe has a balance of order and randomness. There was some big physicists, I forget who, said: "Given complete knowledge of a quantum system, there is at least one measurement that can be predicted 100% and at least one measurement that will be random."
Thanks a lot!🔥
No problem!
Excellent presentation, One question, isn't the notion of "collapse of the wave function " a bit of epistemological flim flamery? A function is a description of reality, not reality itself. The collapse or rather failure of a function or description is a failure of the language ,in this case Mathematics, to describe the current moment.
I'll answer with another question: how can we tell reality and a description of reality apart in the first place? We cannot know the properties of something until we measure it (either by direct observation or by indirectly observation through the environment), so what grounds do we have to assume that reality is secretly different? Likewise, we can never know with certainty that they are secretly the same. The Fibonacci sequence, for example, can be defined both recursively (in discrete intervals) and explicitly (continuously). Both give the same values for all natural numbers, but the recursive formula tells us nothing about what happens between them. The sciences, in this sense, tell us how reality behaves for each point we measure it at. We can plot more and more of these data points and determine functional descriptions of reality, but we can never know if some arbitrary point between our measurements has a random spike. Knowing anything with absolute certainty requires absolute precision, which--like finding the "final digit" of pi--is impossible.
Now I raise you this: why should we be concerned with whether or not our functional descriptions of reality match reality 1:1 when it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty?
Yes, you are correct. "collapse of the wave function" does not exist within the quantum theory. Those who invoke it to explain quantum theory are failing to understand what quantum theory actually says.
But I don't think that you actually understand what they mean by "collapse of the wave function". They don't mean that it failed. They mean that, up to a certain time, the wave function defined the location (or some other property) of a thing as being spread out (multiple-valued) and then - all of a sudden, as it appears - that location became a single point.
But in fact it's an illusion. The wave function never "collapses". Instead, the observing scientist "multiplies" into many copies of himself.
None of these deserve the Nobel, except Aspect. The Chinese deserve the Nobel for their work on teleportation.
This can be a problem with the Nobel prize. As soon as it is announced people will think some other scientists were more deserving. It seems like a really hard thing to decide on who deserves it the most.
@@ScienceDiscussed I'll go the other route. How did it take this long. And I think J.S.Bell would have been the perfect opportunity to get rid of the posthumous rule once and for all.
@@wesjohnson6833 yeah who know why it took so long. My guess is that they will never get rid of the posthumous restriction.
“quantum communication “ so possibly faster then light communication??
Maybe it's because I do have prior knowledge, but there is so many small inaccuracy in the video. Like the claim hidden variables were proven wrong. Bells inequality and the experiments still allow hidden variable theories.
There is always a comprimise between the general idea for a broad audience and a lecture at a univeristy with all of the details. I tend to try to keep it more simple.
if you buy a pair of socks and send them in opposite directions a great distance like a couple of light seconds and you check if one is left then instanteanously you will know the other one is right which seems to break the speed of light
Lol, interesting analogy but I think there's a difference here and that is that the sock was left from the beginning, if you observed it or not. However with quantum particles, it is not determined which spin they have until the wave function collapses which is only triggered by measuring it.
At least that's what I'm understanding from this
😀 Yes. Today only thing we knou that can gou faster than Light Its information.
@@janini1232 sock is kind a superposition becaus you can butt it left or right and if you butt it left then Its left. 😂😂😂
A false analogy. We can do measurements of spin where the detectors are oriented at in-between or oblique angles to each other, and the prizewinners have shown that the results are over-correlated.
I wonder if these quantum experiments would get the same results if we assumed all electrons were the same, single electron
Electrons decide now...? Do these people listen to themselves?
There HAS to be some 'mechanical' reason such as being the same particle connected over a higher dimensional plane that we can't see or measure (yet). This would make MUCH more sense.
To experience quantum teleportation yourself, call a friend and ask them to bring over a pair of gloves.
It will be your job to find two very similar opaque bags.
When your friend arrives, take the gloves and mix them up under the table, then slyly place them in the bags and tie them closed, one glove per bag.
Now, leave the room and ask your friend to choose one bag.
Come back and get other bag.
Have your friend go to a far corner of building.
You go to the other side.
Now, you open your bag. Let's say you find a left handed glove. In that instant, you know, and may shout, that your friend has a right handed glove.
Except that measurements of spin at in-between angles are over-correlated.
@@david_porthouse True. The gloves in bag experiment can only give you the feel for up-down / left-right.
It's really meant to encourage curiosity in a context where the word 'teleportation' is constantly thrown around, erroneously.
If you do think of a macro experiment that can reveal the Bell inequities, I would be delighted to add that to my bag of tricks.
Baaam in an instand and faster than light.
Amazing
What are the main points of EPR paradox?
1. QM predicts that two separated objects will yield related results when measured.
2. QM also predicts that the measurement results are random and the objects don't "know" about each other.
3. That is too spooky for me.
Einstein, of course, was wrong. That's why the prize was awarded. "Entanglement is too spooky" must be put beside "Evolution is too unlikely" and "Round earth is too scary", in a box labelled Invalid Complaints.
@@DavidByrden1 #2 is incorrect
My twisted pair is entangled.
i figured this out twenty years ago was ignored
The mirror verse reflects.
but isnt there possibly a trivial explanation? lets say a photon that can be measured up or down gets divided into 2 entangled photons. now if you measure one of them as up, the other one automatically is measured as down. isnt it possible that this is just because of the dividing process? like a sinus curve that gets split in half... one part up and one part down.
That's exactly the case. It's just that the two possible states of the pair --- up and down, down and up --- are in a state of superposition until a measurement takes place. It is actually the conservation of momentum that demands if one is up, the other must be down.
That was Einsteins theory that the functions were pre-determined not ramdom hence "God does not play dice" but supposedly he was proven to be wrong and it is actually random although I don't have the knowledge to explain how he was proven wrong.
@@wesjohnson6833 No it's not the case the initial up or down is proven to be random that's the entire point. The particles are reacting to each other. He is saying they are predetermined based on how they are divided.
Measurements of the photons at in-between or oblique angles show an over-correlation which your trivial explanation cannot deal with.
@@david_porthouse What does that mean?
Chemistry is notoriously statistically probable.
QM classicalized in 2010: Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics uncovers the ‘hidden variables ‘ and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie,Planck,Bohr etc. So,no.
interesting and well presented
Glad you enjoyed it
It's almost like the electrons are informing you that they exist when you measure them like that. You get an up or down. It seems strange that they would orient themselves opposite of eachother like that, as if to make it explicit that they are tethered. Must be some other force at work.
They are not tethered. They're simply existing in two versions at once. Think of them as residing in two parallel universes, which are identical everywhere except at those electrons. By measuring one of them, you split yourself into two copies, one in each universe.
@@DavidByrden1 they're not tethered, they are entangled
@@lacey2450 You literally wrote "they are tethered".
@@DavidByrden1 those two words literally might be synonyms
@@DavidByrden1 so scientists are in 2 different universes measuring the particles? What are you even saying.
If any group figured out Deterministic minutiae, able to accurately predict the future then the universe is in deep peril.
Can we measure if it’s in a superposition?
You cant
It is a great question. The answer is no, measuring it destroys the superposition. But we can measure that it was in a superposition before we measured.
We don't want Entanglement.....do we ?? We need CLARITY :)
three stooges ; Einstein, Podolsky, and rosen.
I think this technique is being use in quantum computer.
Make some video on infinity also
Do you mean make a video about what infinity is or different kinds of infinity?
Confusing determinism with decidability but ok
Love the charity!
If what you are saying is true the nmr nuclear magnetic resonance machine would not measure anything. Every effort like a strong magnetic field would always result in a balance of zero.the radio frequency scanning would not detect a difference as the they return to the resting state.
Proton spin up spin down the electron. Between the carbon and and proton. A pair of electrons shared by both carbon and and proton. A strong magnetic field applied forces the electronic condition to align with the magnetic field. When the field is removed the electrons return to the resting state and releases radiation as radio frequency. The radio frequency is unique to the atomic or molecular environment. If these were entangled wouldn't they cancel each other as they approach the resting state??
สวัสดีครับ และ ครับ การขยายนิยาม ทฤษฏีสัมพัทธภาพ อาจเกิด ขึ้น หลัง หรือ ก่อนหน้า งานเปิดการรักษา โรคมะเร็ง ครับ ส่วน งานรูปแบบการศึกษา เกี่ยวกับ ปริมาณ แทน การศึกษา รูปแบบ การเรียนรู้เกี่ยวกับเชิงปริมาณครับ
Quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about determinism. Probabilistic approach is just one of many interpretations.
It doesn't rule out hidden variables either, just local hidden variables
Maybe I should have been more careful with my wording. It is hard to give all of the required details for people that know the subject while not overcomplicating for people that don't.
I would question if there is any "true" determinism in QM, if the interpretation still says at one point "Roll the 20 sided die."
As well, "true" randomness seems untestable, though perhaps for different reasons.
Einstein in my opinion he was right quantum mechanics theory is not complete, I don't know why this person won the nobel prize just for showing entanglament? I wonder first how he could prove it and second if this was possible he would have proved something that other before him had theorized, in conclusion he don't found the missing piece of quantum mechanics theory.
And i still have some doubts that two particles can communicate with each other even at great distances instantly.
You're correct to "have doubts". The entangled particles do not communicate, AND there is no such thing as "instantly" (google Relativity of Simultaneity).
But you're wrong about what happened here. These people proved that QM doesn't have an obvious missing piece.
so if we get quantum data transfer, and if it is faster than light, then could we produce a negative time interval between sending data and receiving it? that would be freaky lol.
like say if we have a laser on earth transmitting a stream of entangled qbits to mars, and a computer on mars is loading them into a quantum computer, and we read them on earth in certain ways to have a high probability of the read results on mars come to the conclusion of a bit sent being a 0 or a 1, and do that a couple times to complete a message. then we do the same thing but in reverse using a different stream of qbits and have a slightly altered echo'd message sent back and read by a computer, but due to relativity it might be a negative time interval, so time travel :)
ive seen the argument that it's not possible because we cannot be sure the message is correct, but im thinking why not repeat it many many times to get that probability of the data being sent wrong (assuming qbits sent don't decay before being used) to be improbable. in computing theres many many cases, like with encryption and passwords, that it works via being probable/improbable rather than possible/impossible (like guessing a 256 bit encryption key is 1 in 2^256, big number, improbable to guess) so if we can shift probabilities we can use that to transfer data?
But we can't get quantum data transfer. That has been proven. Trying to invent a way to do it, is like trying to invent a perpetual motion machine. There's already a guarantee that you will fail.
ONE QUESTION, HOW AND HELL DOES ONE PROVE THIS?
I solved quantum entanglment in 2016
Really? Is entanglement really a problem? With such an OBVIOUS explanation: The “entangled” particles are actually 2 manifestations of a single underlaying “thing”. The way we can observe that “thing” make it look like 2 particles. Or, rather, we have (for now) 2 channels to obtain physical properties - through interactions - form the single “thing” which can be considered to be a “machine” (an equation) where the WAY we interact with the “thing” is considered to be the input data while the output comes in two(?) channels hence the result appears in the the exact same point in time but in multiple points in space. It is also rather obvious from all these that the “thing” is nothing we can ever fully discover through those channels (particles) that we can physically interact with. Should I have more knowledge and time, I could potentially lay down a full system that also explains the dual nature of light, including the quantum eraser experiment and probably some other “spooky actions”! And, should I have partners, money and equipment, I could probably build this “thought experience” into something much more tangible - unless its completely wrong, of course. Could a knowledgeable person prove me wrong, please?
yes, it is like 1 bit of information in two different containers.
I clicked the link and it was a different video, nothing about how water moves in coffee. Dislike
Oh I linked the wrong one. Very sorry. Thanks for pointing that out.
@@ScienceDiscussed great, thanks! I’ve put a like for the entanglement video now, since there are no inaccuracies 😊
I like your funny words magic man
Thanks.