He deserves every bit of it. Hes one of the best as far as explaining very unintuitive things clearly. I personally like Matt over at PBS spacetime too, though he spills a little more math than Nick. (Even though im a physics phd student Im a math geek so i get off on that stuff)
@@Jwine95 pbs is more on the hard part of things. This channel explain it in a easy fashion. Pbs is for those who want more complex answers this is for those who cannot quite understand those complex answers. BOTH are good 😁✌
My go-to physics channels are Veritasium, Minute Physics, Physics Girl, and of course Science Asylum. Although the others all have more subscribers, Science Asylum is every bit as good as them. Personally, I'm not a fan of VSauce because he's just a guy that makes science videos; he doesn't have a formal physics background like Derek, Henry, Dianna, and I'm assuming Nick.
what if you just introduce more dimensions and then do some rotations on them, its not action at a distance, its just a rotation in a dimension you can't see.
@Dan Kiplagat Kibiwott We observe quantum entanglement because entangled particles are part of a single wave, just like the whole universe for that matter. Locality is preserved.
The irony of this comment is that the Nobel prize last year (when this comment posted) was given for proof of quantum non-locality, demonstrating a clear need for this topic to be revisited.
I watch your films for about a year now but just now when I started a class about quantum physics in chemistry I can see how much knowledge you have presented to me in easy form :) Keep them coming Nick and have nice day.
Teachers teach thing in far different ways than they internally learned them. They learned them by hook or by crook, heuristically, then recreated the model they understand, and teach from that mental model, ignoring the actual way they learned it in the first place. That is why quantum physics is hard to learn.
A maxwellian field is not a good hypothesis in this regard. I believe he was stating it as an analogy for something much more complicated. Electric and magnetic field have to be derived in quantum field theory before you can discuss field phenomena as in the Feynman diagram sense. A vector potential has degrees of freedom that would further mystify this effect. I’m
I love how he asks the questions I would be asking, but then he answers them with "don't get hung up on the unimportant details", and the rest of his explanation is so good and so knowledgeable that honestly I just trust I don't need to worry about those details, I can't say that about every science UA-camr
Hey Nick, i just wanted to say thank you for the hard work you put in these videos, because thanks to people like you and Matt from PBS I am now an actual physics student. Every time my motivation falls down for any reason, seeing you uploaded a video instantly raises my desire to know and motivates me to study harder. Keep it going bro, with this content you are not only spreading culture. You are creating new scientists. And this is awesome.
As always nick, perfect balance of education and humour 😀 love the animations, and I wore my science asylum t-shirt to a visit to the London science museum to show support ! Well done mate.
The tools are: an interferometer , an electron beam, a solenoid and a detector screen. The electron beam is not a photon emitter, but the interometer itself will treat it the same way. Thats a dang cool experiment and easier to understand with a bit more specificity. Basically the Electron Beam gets displaced out of phase due purely to the stationary, perpendicular magnetic field inside the solenoid. The Electron Beam basicaly ignores the material of the solenoid and answers directly to the magnetic field as, since the electron flow causes the magnetism then, electrons will react to other magnetic fields. In a simple format, the electron beam hits the lateral side of the magnetic field, accelerates slightly as electrons actually move slower than light, move to the center of the magnetic field and then release the momentum on the other side. The phase invariance has to do with the incoming position of the two electron beams and will then deflect differently through the magnetic field mainly due to direction. So while one beam may be hitting straight on, the second beam regardless of position will always go out of position phase due to angular deflection, even if the beams are tight together. In order to regain a phase on the other side of the solenoid you'd have to equilateral triangle the focus of the two beams at the solenoid rather than have them run parallel. Basically, this experiment has more of a newtonian style answer than do most of them. BUT that is only if the electron beams are set up parallel. IF they are triangulated against the solenoid and still give that phase invariance then that is definitely a humdinger, imo. If you want to get slightly more technical, this is a different take on the double slit, but with the slit giving a tangential phase difference rather than an measurement choice causing direction of observation Hopefully that was digestable. Edit- The base gist is that since the two beams are phased together, the particles themselves will still deflect differently because they are from 2 different sources, and basically hit each other because of the phase at the converged magnetic field center of the solenoid which causes a minute loss of charge potential in one beam, and the one with slightly less charge gets deflected onto another magnetic line. So the loss of charge potential on one beam causes the apparent refraction because it hit a medium and that medium is the clash of the electrons in the magnetic field center of the solenoid. This happens because of the mass of the electrons hitting each other, whereas the photon superimposes due to no mass, and the emitted photons on the detector screen are just a remission of the electron beams. Whatever the crazy mechanics, the answer points to just the fact that the electron masses hitting off each other and interaction with the magnetic field via the lorentz mechanics. This thought process hurt my head, and it still can't quite figure it out.
This post... is now clean! Appropriate person has been banned and new words have been added to my comment filters. You're welcome. (In the future, DO NOT ENGAGE.)
You explain complex (even though non-immaginary, ok couldn't resist...) things with a smile and the ability to keep your spectators curious and absorbed ... You might be a little crazy; you're definitely a great teacher!
We say the magnetic field is zero outside an idealised solenoid (infinite in length). However with a finite length solenoid there would magnetic field lines emanating from both ends of the solenoid, however weak it might be. How do we know that the cause of the phase difference is due to the vector potential but not the "weak" magnetic field coming from the inside of the finite length solenoid?
That just illustrates perfectly, like once upon a time ideal solenoid was ungracefully introduced in a way, that it contains magnetic field inside (what is meant here under magnetic field ). That's just a forward part of a flux, and it's more mathematical, than real. And they always tend to mix-up physical fields (something physically changed in space) with vector fields or other mathematical objects, due to the common word "field". People should give more respect to philosophy and scientific language or suffer from misunderstandings.
I've read this once from a physicist (Matthew Weiner) and I think it's a very good hot take for this video : "The Aharanov-bohm phase shift is real; the canonical explanation involving quantum topological properties hasn't been experimentally demonstrated (the "effect"), and you could easily provide an explanation for the phase shift with classical velocity fields of moving electrons ." "The Aharonov-Bohm effect has nothing to do with berry phase or topology or anything, it has to do with the velocity fields of electrons penetrating even the best conductors because velocity fields don't have characteristic skin depths like radiative fields". So the phase shift is real, but the effect itself does not have enough justification to be believed to come from topological quantum effects. I really like this take because it demonstrates the classical nature of certain effects that are normally presented as purely quantum mechanical, such as the Black-body spectrum in classical stochastic electrodynamics. Thought you'd enjoy to read this Nick.
Really enjoyed that explanation! When I first learned about the vector potential it was in relation to one of Maxwell's equations, ensuring that no magnetic monopoles exist. Seemed a bit artificial at first, but who could have imagined that the vector potential "comes to life" in a quantum mechanical experiment?:D
Agreed! I distinctly remember magnetic vector potential being mention in Griffith's Electrodynamics text, only for him to dismiss it as not that important to the scope of the course.
"WHAT ABOUT QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT???" Thank you - that was literally the question going through my head through out this entire video. :) Doesn't Bell's Inequality and the Alain Aspect experiment refute absolute locality? (And yes, I know what's coming: it doesn't because it doesn't carry any information the experimenter can influence, so it's not really alocality in any meaningful sense... but that always feels like a cop out...)
It's locality breaking even if we can't use it to send signals, people just don't wish to admit the obvious so they can keep telling themselves it doesn't contradict relativity. The only excuse that I know of would be superdeterminism, but I find that explanation fairly absurd and unconvincing.
@@Resomius to be fair qft demands you build your field from scratch while swallowing the notion that these points have their independent degree of freedom (uncoupled in a sense)
@@cyberfunk3793 I don’t actually. I think we need a more complete picture of “freedom” and “random”. But yeah the field that is relevant is studied in qft. A classical e-field which he seems to be deriving unless I’m mistaken, can only propagate according to a speed limit. The speed of probability, it would seem, is much much faster
Can't wait to see the entanglement video. I guess locality is preserved because entangled particles have to be on the same location to begin their entangled state.
Physicists had trouble reconciling entanglement with locality so they redefined what they meant by locality and continue to claim their theories obey it.
Dude, this channel is seriously awesome. For once you're even talking about stuff I understand LOL -- that's nice for a change. Keep up the amazing work!
I clicked on this video so that I could watch it and accuse you of being guilty of pushing clickbait. However, after watching your video and seeing the way you portray information so well, I see that this was geared towards people who did not know what locality was. Fine video sir, You just earned a subscriber today. I look forward to starting from the beginning and working my way to the current of your videos.👍
Even in quantum experiments? Entangled particles, spooky action at a distance (a perfect Halloween topic), and the quantum eraser might want to have a word with your clone. A better way to teach this is that *information* is local. But in that timeless inbetween of quantum coherence, all possibilities and positions are not just theoretically possible but in their own special way actually there.
So it's like a cache in a computer getting desynchronized for a moment, the program can't see the results of it, but it can experience the time difference, all results are always applied local. The difference of time would be difference of space in reality. (in a real computer, the difference of the real space where the information was stored, but it could be stored anywhere in the computer and the program would only see coherently the final result, locality is always preserved, always) Action at a distance is a phantom effect caused by time desynchonization from an information perspective.
@@stevemaurer8120 Except its not entirely. You can entangle two particles and give one to your friend. You both sync your clocks up sufficiently that you can absolutely guarantee that no (subluminal) information can be exchanged, and then you and your friend each independently measure the particles at exactly the same time. They measurements will still come out as predicted by entanglement, even though the particles had no way to know the exact instant you would measure them, and you guaranteed they could not exchange information during the measurement. You _both_ have the same piece of information (well, opposite pieces but effectively equivalent) without any information transfer. That means one of three possibilities: a) The particles carry "something" with them that makes their state time-dependent rather than truly random as quantum mechanics predicts. That's the hidden variables idea and is mostly considered to not be real (though I don't think it's actually be fully disproven -- Bell's theorem places extremely strict limitations on it but as far as I know it's not 100% dead.) b) Superluminal information transfer is possible in certain situations. Nobody really likes to think about this one due to its consequences for causality. c) Locality is broken in certain situations. We still don't really like to think about this one, but its better than considering faster-than-light information (at least for actual science. Science fiction certainly loves superluminal travel!) Of course there's a fourth possibility -- quantum mechanics is wrong. Obviously its very, very close to right but we already know its incomplete since it fundamentally breaks down past the Planck scale. And whatever we find down there -- assuming we ever managed to generate the energy needed to probe that scale -- is probably something so bizarre that we haven't even dreamed of it yet. Even if string theory or loop quantum gravity or whatever end up being on the right track, chance are they won't be exactly correct. Sub-Planck scale is likely to be as different from quantum scale as quantum is from classical.
@@altrag The Bell Experiment disproves a), there has never been any evidence for b) (as quantum decoherence isn't considered information), and we already know quantum mechanics is "wrong" (incomplete) but a more complete theory still have to subsume the evidence for it. That really leaves only c).
@@stevemaurer8120 Yeah, but QM could still be wrong in a way that doesn't violate c) either. String theory already gives us extra spacial dimensions for example where information could travel "locally," even though it may appear non-local in 3 dimensions. The recent neutron star collision observation puts some strong limitations on how extra (extended) dimensions can affect gravity, but it doesn't rule out for example extra dimensions that affect some yet-unseen force that hangs out somewhere below our current energy levels (that is, its very weak -- but still potentially capable of carrying information.) The possibilities are endless, and its entirely likely, maybe even probably, that we haven't come close to the true answer yet. We may even be overlooking evidence of the true answer because it "doesn't make sense" similar to how scientists in the 1800s were often neglecting evidence that didn't make sense under the formulations of classical mechanics -- writing them off as experimental errors, until someone stopped doing that. How much information has the LHC produced that we're ignoring because its "not interesting" in the context of what we _expect_ to find, yet may in actuality be evidence of some real phenomena that we simply weren't expecting and therefore didn't know we should be looking for?
I watched a ton of youtubers. But seriousely, you are with a big distance my favorite UA-camr ;;)) I had soooo many teachers where I didnt learn anything but here,, I learned so fast Im loving it. You teach so great I watch the video and I understand it. Beside that the content You make is so interesting, I just want to learn more from you. You are the first UA-camr I really want to support with Patreon. Sorry for the bad english but thank you so much.
Any entanglement demonstration involving a choice illustrates that the subjective experience of scientist A making a choice, only he knows, violates locality as observed by scientist B, and so the subjective experience of scientist A does not occur in a finite box. Therefore, the human mind cannot be said to be inside a finite box such as the brain, the brain and body, or the body and the local environment regardless of how entanglement works.
The entangled particles are part of the same wave function. In essence they don't need to send anything between them because they are just two halves of a whole, in a sense.
So it sounds like we never actually had locality, it is broken to begin with. But we invented the concept of “field” so we can calculate as if locality would be true. But in reality, photon itself represents an action between particles which are not at the same place and time, so it was never local to begin with.
So they found another fundamental force or momentum, from which I as a electrical engineer has never quite heard about before. That's quite fundamental.
When you looked at the work of Bardeen, Cooper, and Schreifer regarding superconductivity, you find that locality principles get stretched all to Hell and gone when your experiment starts actual superconduction. Look to 1977 for the Nobel-prize winning work that says that superconductivity is a second-order phase transition in which the conduction band of the superconductor allows for a REALLY long interaction - like the length of a superconductive wire - between the orbitals of electrons at either end of the wire. Here's why locality works: Noise. (In the general physical sense of "thermal noise"). Locality works because thermal noise insulates your experimental subject from distant things. And superconductivity eliminates thermal noise. So locality is actually a special case of insulation. In chemistry this is called the "nearest neighbor" effect. But if you take away the interference caused by your surroundings, there are all sorts of interesting distance effects to be found.
I don't get it. Intuitively I see that there MUST be a field OUTSIDE the solenoid. The Maxwell laws dictate that the magnetic Flux must describe a closed loop (aka the no-monopole rule). So unless the solenoid is enclosed in a perfect mu-metal cage (Faraday cage for magnetic Flux) there Must be Flux outside. And then, the magnetic cage will influence the probability (wave). Even a comparative layman like me sees that!
Yeah, either he left out _critical_ details about the solenoid, or there _is_ a field of equal but opposite magnitude outside of the solenoid. With the insufficiency of the presented information, the only thing we can do is discard his statements on the subject, particularly since his own statements on it aren't consistent within the video.
At 5:03 I mentioned there is a magnetic field outside, it's just _extremely weak._ It's completely negligible. It's far too weak to explain the phase shift.
@Jared Maddox You're not taking the amount of space into consideration. Yes, all magnetic fields must be closed, but there's _a lot_ more space _outside_ the solenoid than there is inside. That means the magnetic field out there is spread a lot "thinner," which means it a lot weaker. That behavior is still consistent with Maxwell's equations.
@@ScienceAsylumno it means that the current in the solenoid gives a centripetal like concentration of the field inside the solenoid rather than outside of its magnetic moment. Regardless this is not a full description of phase effects and recoherence. The berry phase shows that for avoided crossing of trajectories, phase can and mostly will never recombine. The reason why physicists can conveniently ignore this phenomena in many systems is because they choose to work in one dimension and this is where the magic happens. In 1-d cavity qed (related to abranyos bohm ) , one can take the vector potential A to be zero due to gauge freedom. However doing so would result in phase effects being transferred to elsewhere due to the invariance of these effects. So long as you ignore coupling effects you can ignore phase. This incredible (trust me it is) mechanism is hot stuff in physics. You could also take the divergence of A to be zero and compute gauge dependent effects directly but one would require exact solutions or wave functions. My point is physicists would say that vector potentials weren’t physically real in that these effects were gauge dependent. I say that they aren’t what’s driving these effects rather that just show me that the burden of phase was just obscured and hidden in time dependent vector coupling effects that depend on how one chooses to transform their potentials. Any field coupling matter systems are subject and in that sense the field is real. The deeper insight is to realize this as a chaceryer of entangled systems. End rant
8:23 Ok, I understand. So what'd the deal with entanglement then? Never mind, because I just finished the rest of the video and assume there's an explanation to that question coming soon...
I hope there will.... because I have trillion questions. The main is: Is the field changed in an instant? I suppose not, otherwise it would be replacing locality with a perfectly crafted lie. So no, the field is influenced by something by some rules, one of them being the speed of light. Right? ....and that is before I even start about entanglement.
@@firdacz You are correct. Changes in the gravitational field propagate at the speed of light. Changes in the electro-magnetic field also propagate at the speed of light.
@@IronLotus15 Yes, then locality appears to mean "cannot influence/change at greater speed than the speed of light". But then you have the quantum effects, real experiments (Bell's theorem) proving that that exactly that is either not true, or the world is inherently (somehow) random, but even that randomness has its rules (entanglement). Crazy. I suppose that I have to wait for another video from Nick :)
I'm not convinced the universe is local. Particles are waves, and we say they don't have a size, but waves (even wavelets - the type of waves that particles are) extend infinitely. Particles don't have a size because they're all infinite in size. The vast majority of the particle/wave is near some central location, but tiny yet still nonzero amounts of it are spread out infinitely far. When physicists/engineers are talking about some field around an object, that's a mathematical model, but what I think is real is that that field is actually just the spread out edges of the particles involved. Every particle is spread out everywhere and all particles interact with each other, it's just that those interactions are vanishingly small when the particles are concentrated in locations that aren't near each other.
Some incredibly useful descriptions of some complex (to say the least) issues in physics. The way you seamlessly integrate the mathematics in your visuals is impeccable. There would be people completely unaware that they are learning mathematical relationships while watching. Will join when google stops throwing me the error 'An unexpected error has occurred. Please try again later. [OR-IEH-01] ' 🤦🏻♂️
Thanks for doing a video on the Aharonov Bohm effect. I think the significance of this phenomena is seriously under estimated> On a side note... Bell demonstrated that no local quantum theory can account for experimental results, So ya, Locality is busted
They dont change spin, actually! Its just the probabilities of what spin is collapsed into a certainty. This is one way I like to think about it "X+Y=10" If we are then told that X is 3, we instantly Know that Y is 7. Its a lot like that.
His answer to the viewer question cleverly answers that question too. The entanglement is just an artifact of the uncertainty principle. The information the particles were encoded with when they were local, is the real part, the entanglement is just a shared probability.
@@fgvcosmic6752 yes but if we measure the spin of particle A, we istantly get a result for particle B, even if we didn't interact with it to get a measurement. It means that the wave function of particle B collapses to a certain value (or at least its probability to have a certain spin, idk how the math actually works). In order to make a wave function collapse, something has to interact with it, am I right? So i dont get how locality is still valid here. Of course it's a logic principle, if spinA+spinB=0, spinA must be -spinB, but if the two particles have separate wave functions it shouldn't work because of locality
Caldwell Transport Columbus, GA Nope, that’s not correct (i.e. they don’t share “encoded” information “when they were local”). Quantum Physicists, of course, thought of this possibility long ago and proved there are no local hidden variables in entangled particles. See Bells Theorem.
4:35 "don't get hung up on the how, all that's important is the end" This mindset doesn't sit with me well... knowing the process/how is important. It's like the equivalent of saying "just trust me bro, it happened"
Ahhh, but it is not an experiment, but a theorem. If true, It has four potential outcomes; only one of these has been disproven, the outcome that says the predictions of quantum mechanics are wrong. Unfortunately, this is the only outcome that thus far could possibly be proven true or untrue. Two of the other outcomes are diametrically opposed: the "many universes" idea, and the "ultra-hyper-deterministic universe" idea, neither of which is intellectually satisfying. The fourth outcome? "There is no possible logical explanation for the universe!" This is the one that's probably true. I feel the universe is based upon, and consists in its entirety of, a logical impossibility....but since we are within it, it seems real to us!😁✌️
Well, Bell's theorem didn't disprove locality (at least in the Copenhagen interpretation), it disproved an Hidden variable + Locality theory. you can still have locality in the copehagen interpretation if you assume we can't really know anything, the universe is shit and the wave function is just a math tool to give us Physicist the illusion of calculating the probability of a result in a well controled lab experiment.
Renato Cara And that is because the entire universe is based on, and consists in its entirety of, the one true unknown, a logical impossibility, mathematically symbolized as the square root of -1! The universe is 'what can have existence', sandwiched between 'less than nothing' and 'more than everything', which are the two square roots....or call them yin and yang, or positive and negative, or.....👍✌️❤️
So if locality exists then how does spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement influence particles that are extremely far apart? You can make a change to one particle and instantaneously see that change. The other particle regardless of how far apart they are. I’d love to know how locality explains thatBecause I honestly am having a hard time wrapping my brain around it. Also, I posted my question before reaching the end of the video and it appears as though you asked the same thing LOL!
The good old Berry's phase. It video kind of makes me appreciate what I studied in detail, something that rarely happens with youtube videos. So it was a weird experience.
When he said "so the two electons go around the outside" I got so damn sidetracked. In my mind I was hearing "two electrons go roundp the outside, round the outside, round the outside... che che bom, checa checa che che bom. two electrons go round the outside, round the outside, round the outside..." Now I'm here writing a coment and in the mean time the video is over and i've missed the second half of the video, so I guess I gotta hit replay now. To be fair, if you say electrons weird (like el-lec teh-rons, it has as many syllables as trailer park girls, so it fits pretty well in my opinion... Maybe I'll do a parody, but I'll rap about physics instead, lol.
Dear Nick, I was always intrigued by how the world works till I realised that that interest had a name and it is called phyisic. I have been watching your videos recently and others videos as well. I came into a conclusion that every thing that can exist, has exited and existing is existing and has no other option than to exist and there is no way around it. If we reset "the big bang" and let it happen all over again, the law of physics would exist all over the same. Imagine with me a cup full of inc. In this cup of inc every word that was ever written, is being written and will ever be written in any language exists in that cup of inc. It is up to our conscience to form those words and draw them on a paper using a stylus. This brings us to a major point and that is our conscience is the major measurement tool for existence and science. If we did not "evolve" eyes than we would only have measured the light energy without ever coming to realise that colours exist. The existence of light is determined by our instruments, but the realisation of colours is only measured by our eyes, and ultimately conscience. What else is oblivious due to the limitation of our biological sensors and conscience? You have always spoken about the weirdness of quantum particules. I would say that the weirdest behavior of any particule is that those particules managed to act even more complex and randomly by forming life. Stop looking at the stars to solve the mystery of existence. The answer lies in life. The universe exist due order. Other wise it would not exist. Order prevails over chaos. Can your ear cells make nose cells? No. Cuz they follow a software called DNA. What is the software of the universe? The laws of physics? I guess not. The laws of physics are observation made by conscience beings ( humans) to describe events. So the laws of physics are a gene in the universes DNA. There must be a creator. ( not necessarily the biblical as described).
I shared my North Beach flat to an impoverished Jack Sarfatti back in the early 80's and we met Alain Aspect and Clauser then. It's a bit shocking their prizes took so long to get to them. Now things are different and at 83, Jack is doing the most significant theoretical work in physics. Expertise in GR has led to his ER = EPR, along with meta materials, Froelich condensates and a low power approach to controlling space time, as ET does. Exciting times ahead as meta materials will revolutionize energy and building, changing everything!;)
isnt locality a tautology? if something effects another thing at a distance we create a field to describe the mediation of that interaction. wouldnt it be more accurate and succinct to change the concept of locality to the concept of fields?
Yes, I agree, it pretty much is a tautology. And it's not even a tautology that holds up particularly well, because as the clone mentioned at the very end of the video: what about Quantum Entanglement? Combining the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen thought experiment with Bell's inequalities prove that not even Fields can perfectly preserve Locality.
Feynstein! You got in a video... again! ^_^ congrats. Your name is a combination of Feynman and Einstein, right? At least, that's what I've always assumed.
Nick, The Science Asylum should be as big as Vsause, or Veritasium, or Scishow. The world NEEDS educators like you!
He deserves every bit of it. Hes one of the best as far as explaining very unintuitive things clearly. I personally like Matt over at PBS spacetime too, though he spills a little more math than Nick. (Even though im a physics phd student Im a math geek so i get off on that stuff)
@@Jwine95 pbs is more on the hard part of things. This channel explain it in a easy fashion. Pbs is for those who want more complex answers this is for those who cannot quite understand those complex answers. BOTH are good 😁✌
My go-to physics channels are Veritasium, Minute Physics, Physics Girl, and of course Science Asylum. Although the others all have more subscribers, Science Asylum is every bit as good as them. Personally, I'm not a fan of VSauce because he's just a guy that makes science videos; he doesn't have a formal physics background like Derek, Henry, Dianna, and I'm assuming Nick.
I'm almost positive that Hank Green has tweeted about Nick's videos. 🤔 May have even been how I came to the Asylum. 😁
I agree with you bro
I literally was going to comment the quantum entaglement thing when I heard the clone say it at the end hahaha.
Same lol hilarious
Lmao me too
Same😂😂😂
better than the comment of the clone was the reaction of the "original" XD - "oh sh..."
this episode is already one of my favorites!
dude same
The "Ah sh.." part was exactly my reaction 😂
Same😂😂
Here we go again.
spooky action at a distance.
Was my first thought.
Ah shit, I'm sorry.
And then we discovered quantum entanglement and broke locality into itty bitty pieces.
what if you just introduce more dimensions and then do some rotations on them, its not action at a distance, its just a rotation in a dimension you can't see.
@Dan Kiplagat Kibiwott We observe quantum entanglement because entangled particles are part of a single wave, just like the whole universe for that matter. Locality is preserved.
I absolutely love how Nick uncovers concepts like locality - seemingly obvious, yet underpinning so much!
The irony of this comment is that the Nobel prize last year (when this comment posted) was given for proof of quantum non-locality, demonstrating a clear need for this topic to be revisited.
I watch your films for about a year now but just now when I started a class about quantum physics in chemistry I can see how much knowledge you have presented to me in easy form :) Keep them coming Nick and have nice day.
Teachers teach thing in far different ways than they internally learned them.
They learned them by hook or by crook, heuristically, then recreated the model they understand, and teach from that mental model, ignoring the actual way they learned it in the first place. That is why quantum physics is hard to learn.
A maxwellian field is not a good hypothesis in this regard. I believe he was stating it as an analogy for something much more complicated. Electric and magnetic field have to be derived in quantum field theory before you can discuss field phenomena as in the Feynman diagram sense. A vector potential has degrees of freedom that would further mystify this effect. I’m
Last time I was this early, the universe was filled with quark gluon plasma
You got the first comment too!
YOu CAn MaKE a rElIgion OuT of thiS
@@ScienceAsylum
Most honored my good man! Lol
@@kbbeats3099 How was Thorsday?
But did you have only 1 fundamental interaction?
You seriously deserve a million subs for the videos you do mate!!!
Two Electrons go 'round the outside
'Round the outside, 'round the outside
Two Electrons go 'round the outside
'Round the outside, 'round the outside
LOL. Was looking for this comment.
You have created a monster.
I was actually expecting Nick to play into this, too haha
Guess who's back, back again?
I miss teaching in the same building as you. Your channel has come a long way, grats!
Thanks! It's a full-time job now, which is weird.
I love how he asks the questions I would be asking, but then he answers them with "don't get hung up on the unimportant details", and the rest of his explanation is so good and so knowledgeable that honestly I just trust I don't need to worry about those details, I can't say that about every science UA-camr
Hey Nick, i just wanted to say thank you for the hard work you put in these videos, because thanks to people like you and Matt from PBS I am now an actual physics student. Every time my motivation falls down for any reason, seeing you uploaded a video instantly raises my desire to know and motivates me to study harder. Keep it going bro, with this content you are not only spreading culture. You are creating new scientists. And this is awesome.
That's wonderful to hear! I'm sure Matt feels the same way getting comments like this.
@@ScienceAsylum does quantum entanglement break the principle of locality?
As always nick, perfect balance of education and humour 😀 love the animations, and I wore my science asylum t-shirt to a visit to the London science museum to show support ! Well done mate.
It's still weird knowing other people are wearing my shirts... a good weird 😊
Although this was uploaded at night in my region, it still made my day
They're minerals, mate ;)
@@feynstein1004 nice breaking bad reference. I was confused at first but then looked at his name and I suddenly got it
The tools are: an interferometer , an electron beam, a solenoid and a detector screen. The electron beam is not a photon emitter, but the interometer itself will treat it the same way.
Thats a dang cool experiment and easier to understand with a bit more specificity. Basically the Electron Beam gets displaced out of phase due purely to the stationary, perpendicular magnetic field inside the solenoid. The Electron Beam basicaly ignores the material of the solenoid and answers directly to the magnetic field as, since the electron flow causes the magnetism then, electrons will react to other magnetic fields. In a simple format, the electron beam hits the lateral side of the magnetic field, accelerates slightly as electrons actually move slower than light, move to the center of the magnetic field and then release the momentum on the other side. The phase invariance has to do with the incoming position of the two electron beams and will then deflect differently through the magnetic field mainly due to direction. So while one beam may be hitting straight on, the second beam regardless of position will always go out of position phase due to angular deflection, even if the beams are tight together. In order to regain a phase on the other side of the solenoid you'd have to equilateral triangle the focus of the two beams at the solenoid rather than have them run parallel. Basically, this experiment has more of a newtonian style answer than do most of them. BUT that is only if the electron beams are set up parallel. IF they are triangulated against the solenoid and still give that phase invariance then that is definitely a humdinger, imo.
If you want to get slightly more technical, this is a different take on the double slit, but with the slit giving a tangential phase difference rather than an measurement choice causing direction of observation
Hopefully that was digestable.
Edit- The base gist is that since the two beams are phased together, the particles themselves will still deflect differently because they are from 2 different sources, and basically hit each other because of the phase at the converged magnetic field center of the solenoid which causes a minute loss of charge potential in one beam, and the one with slightly less charge gets deflected onto another magnetic line. So the loss of charge potential on one beam causes the apparent refraction because it hit a medium and that medium is the clash of the electrons in the magnetic field center of the solenoid. This happens because of the mass of the electrons hitting each other, whereas the photon superimposes due to no mass, and the emitted photons on the detector screen are just a remission of the electron beams.
Whatever the crazy mechanics, the answer points to just the fact that the electron masses hitting off each other and interaction with the magnetic field via the lorentz mechanics. This thought process hurt my head, and it still can't quite figure it out.
nice
I was literally thinking about quantum entanglement and the end of the video made me laugh out loud in public. 😅😅😅😅
The abbreviation would be LOLIP, hmm, I like it.
I even wrote out a comment and then I saw yours. Made me watch the end :)
Well arent you the next nikola tesla
This post... is now clean! Appropriate person has been banned and new words have been added to my comment filters. You're welcome. (In the future, DO NOT ENGAGE.)
Thanks Nick, it made me feel incredibly awkward
You explain complex (even though non-immaginary, ok couldn't resist...) things with a smile and the ability to keep your spectators curious and absorbed ...
You might be a little crazy; you're definitely a great teacher!
Thanks!
3 years behind and another awesome video! Thanks for uploading
so what about quantum entanglement?? lmao as im typing this the clone at the end asks it lol I love your videos bro
@Adymn Sani ya jokes aside, but I really want to know what about it?
what about it??
was just about to type something similar when I saw your comment then the final clone :)
@@daemon1143 Perhaps you and Alex are entangled?
@@jamestheotherone742 That's what Alex was thinking too :)
this channel is freaking awsome and I am not ashamed to admit that I have binge watched and rewatched episode after episode!
We say the magnetic field is zero outside an idealised solenoid (infinite in length). However with a finite length solenoid there would magnetic field lines emanating from both ends of the solenoid, however weak it might be. How do we know that the cause of the phase difference is due to the vector potential but not the "weak" magnetic field coming from the inside of the finite length solenoid?
The experiment was improved some years later using superconductors. journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.792
Doing the calculation with the weak magnetic field doesn't give us the result we see in the experiment. The magnetic _potential_ does.
That just illustrates perfectly, like once upon a time ideal solenoid was ungracefully introduced in a way, that it contains magnetic field inside (what is meant here under magnetic field ). That's just a forward part of a flux, and it's more mathematical, than real. And they always tend to mix-up physical fields (something physically changed in space) with vector fields or other mathematical objects, due to the common word "field". People should give more respect to philosophy and scientific language or suffer from misunderstandings.
Half the comments in here are entangled with the clone at the end.
I've read this once from a physicist (Matthew Weiner) and I think it's a very good hot take for this video :
"The Aharanov-bohm phase shift is real; the canonical explanation involving quantum topological properties hasn't been experimentally demonstrated (the "effect"), and you could easily provide an explanation for the phase shift with classical velocity fields of moving electrons
."
"The Aharonov-Bohm effect has nothing to do with berry phase or topology or anything, it has to do with the velocity fields of electrons penetrating even the best conductors because velocity fields don't have characteristic skin depths like radiative fields".
So the phase shift is real, but the effect itself does not have enough justification to be believed to come from topological quantum effects.
I really like this take because it demonstrates the classical nature of certain effects that are normally presented as purely quantum mechanical, such as the Black-body spectrum in classical stochastic electrodynamics. Thought you'd enjoy to read this Nick.
Really enjoyed that explanation! When I first learned about the vector potential it was in relation to one of Maxwell's equations, ensuring that no magnetic monopoles exist. Seemed a bit artificial at first, but who could have imagined that the vector potential "comes to life" in a quantum mechanical experiment?:D
Yep! The potentials were around during Maxwell's time, but they didn't seem all that important then. In quantum mechanics, they're _necessary._
Agreed! I distinctly remember magnetic vector potential being mention in Griffith's Electrodynamics text, only for him to dismiss it as not that important to the scope of the course.
I forgot the details but the magnetic vector potential is used to calculate the E and H field from a given current density distribution.
Hey Nick! Could you give us an update on locality after the 2022 nobel prize in physics? Best channel in youtube for education!
When Nick uploads, it makes me day complete.
This was the best explanation of the aharonov-bohm effect
"WHAT ABOUT QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT???"
Thank you - that was literally the question going through my head through out this entire video. :)
Doesn't Bell's Inequality and the Alain Aspect experiment refute absolute locality?
(And yes, I know what's coming: it doesn't because it doesn't carry any information the experimenter can influence, so it's not really alocality in any meaningful sense... but that always feels like a cop out...)
ah just let us slap a field onto the problem until we know more...
jk
I would realy love a.follow up Video to that question
It's locality breaking even if we can't use it to send signals, people just don't wish to admit the obvious so they can keep telling themselves it doesn't contradict relativity. The only excuse that I know of would be superdeterminism, but I find that explanation fairly absurd and unconvincing.
@@Resomius to be fair qft demands you build your field from scratch while swallowing the notion that these points have their independent degree of freedom (uncoupled in a sense)
@@cyberfunk3793 I don’t actually. I think we need a more complete picture of “freedom” and “random”. But yeah the field that is relevant is studied in qft. A classical e-field which he seems to be deriving unless I’m mistaken, can only propagate according to a speed limit. The speed of probability, it would seem, is much much faster
Great video as usual and you deserve a like as usual....I look forward to your next
I like how the 'clone' mentions entanglement. Maybe you'll do a video on EPR Paradox next?
best explanations of the Aharonov-Bohm effect i found. thx you !
You're welcome! 🤓
Can't wait to see the entanglement video. I guess locality is preserved because entangled particles have to be on the same location to begin their entangled state.
Physicists had trouble reconciling entanglement with locality so they redefined what they meant by locality and continue to claim their theories obey it.
Dude, this channel is seriously awesome. For once you're even talking about stuff I understand LOL -- that's nice for a change. Keep up the amazing work!
This channel is a godsend
dude u are too underrated. All your material is really good, its a shame that you are not as popular as the other science UA-camrs.
You are my Hero!!! Thank you!! Never heard about this experiment before... 🙄🤔😲🤗👍 Wonderful explanation and very clear animations! 👍🤗
Aharonov-Bohm effect
Great video!! I've been impatient since your tweet last night 😅
I fixed the glitch!
Thak you patreon patrons for supporting one of my favorite channels
I clicked on this video so that I could watch it and accuse you of being guilty of pushing clickbait. However, after watching your video and seeing the way you portray information so well, I see that this was geared towards people who did not know what locality was. Fine video sir, You just earned a subscriber today. I look forward to starting from the beginning and working my way to the current of your videos.👍
Even in quantum experiments?
Entangled particles, spooky action at a distance (a perfect Halloween topic), and the quantum eraser might want to have a word with your clone.
A better way to teach this is that *information* is local. But in that timeless inbetween of quantum coherence, all possibilities and positions are not just theoretically possible but in their own special way actually there.
So it's like a cache in a computer getting desynchronized for a moment, the program can't see the results of it, but it can experience the time difference, all results are always applied local. The difference of time would be difference of space in reality. (in a real computer, the difference of the real space where the information was stored, but it could be stored anywhere in the computer and the program would only see coherently the final result, locality is always preserved, always)
Action at a distance is a phantom effect caused by time desynchonization from an information perspective.
@@monad_tcp Locality of >>information
@@stevemaurer8120 Except its not entirely. You can entangle two particles and give one to your friend. You both sync your clocks up sufficiently that you can absolutely guarantee that no (subluminal) information can be exchanged, and then you and your friend each independently measure the particles at exactly the same time.
They measurements will still come out as predicted by entanglement, even though the particles had no way to know the exact instant you would measure them, and you guaranteed they could not exchange information during the measurement. You _both_ have the same piece of information (well, opposite pieces but effectively equivalent) without any information transfer.
That means one of three possibilities:
a) The particles carry "something" with them that makes their state time-dependent rather than truly random as quantum mechanics predicts. That's the hidden variables idea and is mostly considered to not be real (though I don't think it's actually be fully disproven -- Bell's theorem places extremely strict limitations on it but as far as I know it's not 100% dead.)
b) Superluminal information transfer is possible in certain situations. Nobody really likes to think about this one due to its consequences for causality.
c) Locality is broken in certain situations. We still don't really like to think about this one, but its better than considering faster-than-light information (at least for actual science. Science fiction certainly loves superluminal travel!)
Of course there's a fourth possibility -- quantum mechanics is wrong. Obviously its very, very close to right but we already know its incomplete since it fundamentally breaks down past the Planck scale. And whatever we find down there -- assuming we ever managed to generate the energy needed to probe that scale -- is probably something so bizarre that we haven't even dreamed of it yet. Even if string theory or loop quantum gravity or whatever end up being on the right track, chance are they won't be exactly correct. Sub-Planck scale is likely to be as different from quantum scale as quantum is from classical.
@@altrag The Bell Experiment disproves a), there has never been any evidence for b) (as quantum decoherence isn't considered information), and we already know quantum mechanics is "wrong" (incomplete) but a more complete theory still have to subsume the evidence for it. That really leaves only c).
@@stevemaurer8120 Yeah, but QM could still be wrong in a way that doesn't violate c) either.
String theory already gives us extra spacial dimensions for example where information could travel "locally," even though it may appear non-local in 3 dimensions. The recent neutron star collision observation puts some strong limitations on how extra (extended) dimensions can affect gravity, but it doesn't rule out for example extra dimensions that affect some yet-unseen force that hangs out somewhere below our current energy levels (that is, its very weak -- but still potentially capable of carrying information.)
The possibilities are endless, and its entirely likely, maybe even probably, that we haven't come close to the true answer yet. We may even be overlooking evidence of the true answer because it "doesn't make sense" similar to how scientists in the 1800s were often neglecting evidence that didn't make sense under the formulations of classical mechanics -- writing them off as experimental errors, until someone stopped doing that. How much information has the LHC produced that we're ignoring because its "not interesting" in the context of what we _expect_ to find, yet may in actuality be evidence of some real phenomena that we simply weren't expecting and therefore didn't know we should be looking for?
I watched a ton of youtubers. But seriousely, you are with a big distance my favorite UA-camr ;;)) I had soooo many teachers where I didnt learn anything but here,, I learned so fast Im loving it. You teach so great I watch the video and I understand it. Beside that the content You make is so interesting, I just want to learn more from you.
You are the first UA-camr I really want to support with Patreon.
Sorry for the bad english but thank you so much.
Glad you like it 😊
This channel is a real gem. I wish I could make it more well known and more viewed.
Excellent delivery!
Why did it take so long to find a channel that actually does a good job explaining hard science stuff?
Any entanglement demonstration involving a choice illustrates that the subjective experience of scientist A making a choice, only he knows, violates locality as observed by scientist B, and so the subjective experience of scientist A does not occur in a finite box. Therefore, the human mind cannot be said to be inside a finite box such as the brain, the brain and body, or the body and the local environment regardless of how entanglement works.
So what about measuring entangled particles?
Edit: saw the end of the video xD
*I still want to knowww*
Same here!!
The entangled particles are part of the same wave function. In essence they don't need to send anything between them because they are just two halves of a whole, in a sense.
LMAO 8:13, HE DID THE NOISE!! LMMFFAAOO you are awesome!!!
I was confused until you used the "honey badger" meme, then it all made sense!
😂😂
My Asperger's mind was, but how did they do it, how works this apparatus, but x, y, z. And he stone cold "it doesn't matter!" xD
Seeing a T-shirt from CrashCourse being worn on The Science Asylum is the crossover we didn’t know we needed, but the world is better for it. 🤩
It's a good shirt 👍
So it sounds like we never actually had locality, it is broken to begin with. But we invented the concept of “field” so we can calculate as if locality would be true.
But in reality, photon itself represents an action between particles which are not at the same place and time, so it was never local to begin with.
So they found another fundamental force or momentum, from which I as a electrical engineer has never quite heard about before. That's quite fundamental.
🎶Two crazy little electrons go round me outside, round me outside. 🎶
I love your videos, keep up with the work!
... and a "Kyle's Mom" (South Park) reference at 5:34 ... 😂
Thank you so much, Nick. You're awesome!
Sounds like my first wife's concept of fidelity.
You mean your second wife let you have sex outside your marriage...what a wise woman ...
@@washizukanorico , no comment. ;-).
I had to watch this a couple times before it clicked, but I'm glad I did. Also, the backdrop behind Big Deal Clone sold the whole thing - hysterical!
Aren't space and locality concepts that depend on each other? Space without locality seems pointless.
Michael Radziej buh dum tssssss
When you looked at the work of Bardeen, Cooper, and Schreifer regarding superconductivity, you find that locality principles get stretched all to Hell and gone when your experiment starts actual superconduction. Look to 1977 for the Nobel-prize winning work that says that superconductivity is a second-order phase transition in which the conduction band of the superconductor allows for a REALLY long interaction - like the length of a superconductive wire - between the orbitals of electrons at either end of the wire.
Here's why locality works: Noise. (In the general physical sense of "thermal noise"). Locality works because thermal noise insulates your experimental subject from distant things. And superconductivity eliminates thermal noise. So locality is actually a special case of insulation. In chemistry this is called the "nearest neighbor" effect. But if you take away the interference caused by your surroundings, there are all sorts of interesting distance effects to be found.
Looks like Quantum Entanglement breaks locality. It's what Einstein called "Spooky action at a distance."
Amazing work Nick! Can't wait for the quantum entanglement video next :D
I don't get it.
Intuitively I see that there MUST be a field OUTSIDE the solenoid.
The Maxwell laws dictate that the magnetic Flux must describe a closed loop (aka the no-monopole rule). So unless the solenoid is enclosed in a perfect mu-metal cage (Faraday cage for magnetic Flux) there Must be Flux outside.
And then, the magnetic cage will influence the probability (wave).
Even a comparative layman like me sees that!
Yeah, either he left out _critical_ details about the solenoid, or there _is_ a field of equal but opposite magnitude outside of the solenoid. With the insufficiency of the presented information, the only thing we can do is discard his statements on the subject, particularly since his own statements on it aren't consistent within the video.
At 5:03 I mentioned there is a magnetic field outside, it's just _extremely weak._ It's completely negligible. It's far too weak to explain the phase shift.
@Jared Maddox You're not taking the amount of space into consideration. Yes, all magnetic fields must be closed, but there's _a lot_ more space _outside_ the solenoid than there is inside. That means the magnetic field out there is spread a lot "thinner," which means it a lot weaker. That behavior is still consistent with Maxwell's equations.
@@ScienceAsylumno it means that the current in the solenoid gives a centripetal like concentration of the field inside the solenoid rather than outside of its magnetic moment. Regardless this is not a full description of phase effects and recoherence. The berry phase shows that for avoided crossing of trajectories, phase can and mostly will never recombine. The reason why physicists can conveniently ignore this phenomena in many systems is because they choose to work in one dimension and this is where the magic happens. In 1-d cavity qed (related to abranyos bohm ) , one can take the vector potential A to be zero due to gauge freedom. However doing so would result in phase effects being transferred to elsewhere due to the invariance of these effects. So long as you ignore coupling effects you can ignore phase. This incredible (trust me it is) mechanism is hot stuff in physics. You could also take the divergence of A to be zero and compute gauge dependent effects directly but one would require exact solutions or wave functions. My point is physicists would say that vector potentials weren’t physically real in that these effects were gauge dependent. I say that they aren’t what’s driving these effects rather that just show me that the burden of phase was just obscured and hidden in time dependent vector coupling effects that depend on how one chooses to transform their potentials. Any field coupling matter systems are subject and in that sense the field is real. The deeper insight is to realize this as a chaceryer of entangled systems. End rant
Thank you for making this video!
You rock! I'd love to collaborate on some stuff...
Did Big Deal Clone just become my favorite clone?? 😂😂😎
He's so cool xD 8-)
Like always, sound effects are perfect.
8:23 Ok, I understand. So what'd the deal with entanglement then?
Never mind, because I just finished the rest of the video and assume there's an explanation to that question coming soon...
I hope there will.... because I have trillion questions. The main is: Is the field changed in an instant? I suppose not, otherwise it would be replacing locality with a perfectly crafted lie. So no, the field is influenced by something by some rules, one of them being the speed of light. Right? ....and that is before I even start about entanglement.
@@firdacz You are correct. Changes in the gravitational field propagate at the speed of light. Changes in the electro-magnetic field also propagate at the speed of light.
@@IronLotus15 Yes, then locality appears to mean "cannot influence/change at greater speed than the speed of light". But then you have the quantum effects, real experiments (Bell's theorem) proving that that exactly that is either not true, or the world is inherently (somehow) random, but even that randomness has its rules (entanglement). Crazy.
I suppose that I have to wait for another video from Nick :)
That word ALMOST is doing the heavy lifting in that sentence... 😂😂😂
✌🏼
Fair.
I love that your wearing the Mongol "we're the exception shirt" from crashcourse XD
I'm not convinced the universe is local. Particles are waves, and we say they don't have a size, but waves (even wavelets - the type of waves that particles are) extend infinitely. Particles don't have a size because they're all infinite in size. The vast majority of the particle/wave is near some central location, but tiny yet still nonzero amounts of it are spread out infinitely far. When physicists/engineers are talking about some field around an object, that's a mathematical model, but what I think is real is that that field is actually just the spread out edges of the particles involved. Every particle is spread out everywhere and all particles interact with each other, it's just that those interactions are vanishingly small when the particles are concentrated in locations that aren't near each other.
Lucid, you magnificent bastard, I _bought_ your _book!_
Lol, except EPR... glad you mentioned that at the end!
did the clone dialogue mean that there would be another cool video on the entanglement breaking locality?? *fingers crossed*
Some incredibly useful descriptions of some complex (to say the least) issues in physics. The way you seamlessly integrate the mathematics in your visuals is impeccable. There would be people completely unaware that they are learning mathematical relationships while watching.
Will join when google stops throwing me the error 'An unexpected error has occurred. Please try again later. [OR-IEH-01]
' 🤦🏻♂️
Why do schools does not teach like this physics is so interesting!
Thanks for doing a video on the Aharonov Bohm effect. I think the significance of this phenomena is seriously under estimated>
On a side note... Bell demonstrated that no local quantum theory can account for experimental results,
So ya, Locality is busted
I was shocked to see almost no videos on it on UA-cam. It was weird.
Can we get a Joe Cool clone that just leans up against the wall and nods sometimes?
Oh yeah and he would make some remarks like'here's Joe Cool hanging out at the milky way ' That would be hilarious 🤣🤣🤣
Thank you for making this video. This type of information could end out being helpful.
Yeah what about quantum entanglement?
How they change spin without being in locality ?
They dont change spin, actually! Its just the probabilities of what spin is collapsed into a certainty. This is one way I like to think about it
"X+Y=10"
If we are then told that X is 3, we instantly Know that Y is 7. Its a lot like that.
His answer to the viewer question cleverly answers that question too. The entanglement is just an artifact of the uncertainty principle. The information the particles were encoded with when they were local, is the real part, the entanglement is just a shared probability.
@@fgvcosmic6752 yes but if we measure the spin of particle A, we istantly get a result for particle B, even if we didn't interact with it to get a measurement. It means that the wave function of particle B collapses to a certain value (or at least its probability to have a certain spin, idk how the math actually works). In order to make a wave function collapse, something has to interact with it, am I right? So i dont get how locality is still valid here. Of course it's a logic principle, if spinA+spinB=0, spinA must be -spinB, but if the two particles have separate wave functions it shouldn't work because of locality
Caldwell Transport Columbus, GA Nope, that’s not correct (i.e. they don’t share “encoded” information “when they were local”). Quantum Physicists, of course, thought of this possibility long ago and proved there are no local hidden variables in entangled particles. See Bells Theorem.
@@hckytwn3192 could you give a brief explanation of why the hidden variables hypothesis has been proven wrong?
All the details are important!
Nobody:
Quantum particles-
Spooky action at a distance.
4:35 "don't get hung up on the how, all that's important is the end"
This mindset doesn't sit with me well... knowing the process/how is important.
It's like the equivalent of saying "just trust me bro, it happened"
How can you say it's irrelevand "how we got here"?! NOW I WANT TO KNOW MOOOREEE
Same :D guess we have to google it ourselves :,(
Watch the feynman lectures. He explains a lot of the "how did they get there?" 😉
Bell's theorem: The Quantum Experiment that ACTUALLY broke Locality
Ahhh, but it is not an experiment, but a theorem. If true, It has four potential outcomes; only one of these has been disproven, the outcome that says the predictions of quantum mechanics are wrong. Unfortunately, this is the only outcome that thus far could possibly be proven true or untrue. Two of the other outcomes are diametrically opposed: the "many universes" idea, and the "ultra-hyper-deterministic universe" idea, neither of which is intellectually satisfying.
The fourth outcome? "There is no possible logical explanation for the universe!" This is the one that's probably true. I feel the universe is based upon, and consists in its entirety of, a logical impossibility....but since we are within it, it seems real to us!😁✌️
Well, Bell's theorem didn't disprove locality (at least in the Copenhagen interpretation), it disproved an Hidden variable + Locality theory. you can still have locality in the copehagen interpretation if you assume we can't really know anything, the universe is shit and the wave function is just a math tool to give us Physicist the illusion of calculating the probability of a result in a well controled lab experiment.
Renato Cara And that is because the entire universe is based on, and consists in its entirety of, the one true unknown, a logical impossibility, mathematically symbolized as the square root of -1! The universe is 'what can have existence', sandwiched between 'less than nothing' and 'more than everything', which are the two square roots....or call them yin and yang, or positive and negative, or.....👍✌️❤️
Nope.
So if locality exists then how does spooky action at a distance or quantum entanglement influence particles that are extremely far apart? You can make a change to one particle and instantaneously see that change. The other particle regardless of how far apart they are. I’d love to know how locality explains thatBecause I honestly am having a hard time wrapping my brain around it.
Also, I posted my question before reaching the end of the video and it appears as though you asked the same thing LOL!
Jajahahhaha!! I loved that "aww, sh*t"!! XD
The good old Berry's phase.
It video kind of makes me appreciate what I studied in detail, something that rarely happens with youtube videos. So it was a weird experience.
lol...i was ready to ask about entaglement on 8:44 :p
When he said "so the two electons go around the outside" I got so damn sidetracked.
In my mind I was hearing "two electrons go roundp
the outside, round the outside, round the outside... che che bom, checa checa che che bom. two electrons go round the outside, round the outside, round the outside..."
Now I'm here writing a coment and in the mean time the video is over and i've missed the second half of the video, so I guess I gotta hit replay now.
To be fair, if you say electrons weird (like el-lec teh-rons, it has as many syllables as trailer park girls, so it fits pretty well in my opinion...
Maybe I'll do a parody, but I'll rap about physics instead, lol.
3:12
*_Vsauce would like to know your location_*
Vsauce already knows my location.
Please make a video with VSauce soon!!
Dear Nick,
I was always intrigued by how the world works till I realised that that interest had a name and it is called phyisic.
I have been watching your videos recently and others videos as well. I came into a conclusion that every thing that can exist, has exited and existing is existing and has no other option than to exist and there is no way around it. If we reset "the big bang" and let it happen all over again, the law of physics would exist all over the same. Imagine with me a cup full of inc. In this cup of inc every word that was ever written, is being written and will ever be written in any language exists in that cup of inc. It is up to our conscience to form those words and draw them on a paper using a stylus. This brings us to a major point and that is our conscience is the major measurement tool for existence and science. If we did not "evolve" eyes than we would only have measured the light energy without ever coming to realise that colours exist. The existence of light is determined by our instruments, but the realisation of colours is only measured by our eyes, and ultimately conscience. What else is oblivious due to the limitation of our biological sensors and conscience? You have always spoken about the weirdness of quantum particules. I would say that the weirdest behavior of any particule is that those particules managed to act even more complex and randomly by forming life. Stop looking at the stars to solve the mystery of existence. The answer lies in life. The universe exist due order. Other wise it would not exist. Order prevails over chaos. Can your ear cells make nose cells? No. Cuz they follow a software called DNA. What is the software of the universe? The laws of physics? I guess not. The laws of physics are observation made by conscience beings ( humans) to describe events. So the laws of physics are a gene in the universes DNA. There must be a creator. ( not necessarily the biblical as described).
I WAS about to say what about quantum entanglement.
" oh sh..."
I was thinking it the whole time and expected Nick to explain it.
I shared my North Beach flat to an impoverished Jack Sarfatti back in the early 80's and we met Alain Aspect and Clauser then. It's a bit shocking their prizes took so long to get to them. Now things are different and at 83, Jack is doing the most significant theoretical work in physics. Expertise in GR has led to his ER = EPR, along with meta materials, Froelich condensates and a low power approach to controlling space time, as ET does. Exciting times ahead as meta materials will revolutionize energy and building, changing everything!;)
What an ending 😂
"Locality must be preserved at all costs" - loved that one!
Haha, yeah, so what about quantum entanglement!? Or are they considered the same partical and that preserves locality?
No they are separate particles that share a probability/wavefunction.
isnt locality a tautology? if something effects another thing at a distance we create a field to describe the mediation of that interaction. wouldnt it be more accurate and succinct to change the concept of locality to the concept of fields?
Yes, I agree, it pretty much is a tautology.
And it's not even a tautology that holds up particularly well, because as the clone mentioned at the very end of the video: what about Quantum Entanglement? Combining the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen thought experiment with Bell's inequalities prove that not even Fields can perfectly preserve Locality.
best ending ever!
Yay I finally got featured lol. And kudos for pronouncing my name correctly 😊
I understand the references, which helps 😉
Feynstein! You got in a video... again! ^_^ congrats.
Your name is a combination of Feynman and Einstein, right? At least, that's what I've always assumed.
@Master Therion Thank you, Therion-sama. And you're right again lol. It feels really good to be featured again. How I've missed it 😂
Ok then wise guy explain entanglement 🤨
😂 I love the use of the eye-brow emoji 😂
The Science Asylum Lmaoooo 😂😂