NEW RESULTS! Cosmic Quantum Bell Test
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Try 23andMe at 23andme.com/phy...
Original paper: journals.aps.o...
How do you test quantum mechanics with ancient stars? A new experiment aims to close loopholes to the iconic "Quantum Bell Test", with new results published in Feb. 2017!
If you liked this video check out these:
What is a Black Hole? - Stephen Hawking's final theory
• What is a Black Hole? ...
Why aren't plants black? 🌿
• Why aren't plants blac...
Creator/host: Dianna Cowern
Animator: Kyle Norby
Writer: Sophia Chen
Editor: Jabril Ashe
/ thephysicsgirl
/ thephysicsgirl
/ thephysicsgirl
physicsgirl.org
Paper:
journals.aps.o...
Photo of detector thumbs-up and quantum receiver apparatus photo: Thomas Scheidl
Guth/Zeilinger/Kaiser photo: Ari Daniel
Cosmic Bell Group photo: Courtesy Dave Kaiser
Music: APM and UA-cam
a) I like that the kittens are asleep or awake instead of dead or alive.
b) That's a lot of little kittens you have there! :O
Not everyone likes cats believe it or not. I like mice and other little rodents.
Ian MacDonald
live taste better...
Able Baker my neighbour catches and eats cats. does big batches in her wok
The future is relative to the energy and momentum of the cat!!!
now throw in the fact that cats have 9 lives . now do you have to kill 9 to save one.i think that would be be better then neutering or as i would say castration . just saying
I still get a chuckle from the Schrodinger's cat joke a couple years ago on the tv show "Bones (yeah, I know, I know) . Schrodinger is driving down the road and he sees the flashing lights from a police cruiser in his mirror. He pulls over, and the officer gets out, asks for the licence and registration, as per usual, then asks what he has in the trunk. Schrodinger says "just my cat" . The officer, alarmed, asks him to open the trunk. "Sir , you cat is dead" the officer says . Schrodinger says, annoyed, "well, it is NOW"
Diana is such a charming, excellent presenter. She explains complex topics very well.
Love your channel and enthusiasm!
I think the states of the entangled particles (when the wave function collapses) are allready determined since they entangled but not yet present. Particle A "knows" it will be Spin Up and Particle B "knows" it will be Spin Down but both are still in superposition of Spin Up and Spin Down. If one Particle is observed, the other one does not collapse its wave function until it is observed as well. How could you know if Particle A collapsed its wave function if you only have Particle B and can not observe it because that would collapse its wave function?
It's not that one particle know of the other, it is about logik ... and that works instantly!
strange stuff...
I came down here looking for the people who claim that teasing a cat with a laser is abuse.
I expected it to be the top comment. Turns out, I didn't find it at all.
Wouldn't the cats / kittens themselves be observers to keep them out of superposition while in the box?
Just found out I'm quantum mechanics. I'm both awake and sleeping at the same time.
Wow, you're amazing
I watched you while you were sleeping so no, you were asleep.
Thats the alcohol.
Tell that to your supervisor.
no, you're just Schrodinger's cat.
The first law of thermodynamics, you don't talk about thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics, you don't talk thermodynamics. #physicsclub
Altwerk Vyner Thank you.
Bless You.
Altwerk Vyner this legit made my week
Altwerk Vyner This joke is so original! I'm glad that someone in the internet is still doing this.
Altwerk Vyner
Is there a fate worse than heat death?
Altwerk Vyner dark death
Diana! You are so into what you are talking, it's hard not to get excited watching and learning from your vids. And got really nice finishing touches on the animations too - props to Kyle.
Channels like yours inspired me to start my channel in English. Even have a small clip of you in my intro. Sending you positive vibes from Turkey! Keep doing your thing!
Woohoo more kewl channels!
So what you're basically saying is: "everyone, I have a channel, please sub to me!"
KnoSci q
iSquared Yes. That's not a bad thing.
You rub my back I'll rub yours youtube channel commercial.
isn't it true that every particle in the universe is entangled with every other. they were all one point once.
my ear phones wires are always entangled
The jacks aren't the correct dimensions to make the necessary contact with the channels
Possibly the deviation of tolerance is off for the channel contacts as well
Entanglement, the start of entropy. Everything in the universe seeks to be entangled with it's twin part, procreates in the process and then rots away.
Figure 8 me
This is actually one of my absolute favorite videos of PhysicsGirl. I couldn’t stop thinking about quantum mechanics and entanglement for months. This video, along with many of the other quantum mechanics related videos, convinced me to take on a physical chemistry (I’m a chemistry major) class on quantum mechanics. Although I concentrate in biochemistry, quantum mechanics still absolutely fascinated me!
Actually, superposition is a very normal phenomenon. My subwoofer is both a speaker and my nightstand.
Speaker/nightstand product commercial.
You're saying that the more accurately you measure its speakerness the more uncertainty you have about its nightstandedness? Sounds legit.
Its a floor wax and a dessert topping...
00crashtest Nice.
Lol.
Thanks for simplifying this experiment for lay people. The graphics help more than any text-based explainer could. The interview with Kaiser was icing on the cake.
I'm a simple man, I see a physics girl upload, I watch, hit like and get back to overwatch.
Rick Sanchez we must me entangled
Josh Burgess Because you do exactly the opposite?
Rick Sanchez yep
Overwatch commercial.
I'm a complicated woman. I can't see a physics girl download, I unwatch, lightly tap the dislike and stop playing COD
You should come by S.T.A.R. Labs sometime.
I don't know what that is. Google told me too many things.
Darn, that means your not a fan of the Flash. Oh well, you're still awesome though Dianna. Keep up the good work!
Barry Allen username checks out
Doesn't everyone who works for S.T.A.R. eventually meet a horrific fate?
The mysteries of UA-cam. You watch the video, then open replies to 34 minute old comment to find 43 minute old reply...
I love this channel! I have no idea about what Dianna explains but, makes me think how humble we should stay about what we really know about everything around us.
Thank you Physics Girl ❤
She is very entertaining as well as intelligent but a lot of what she says goes over my head. Like, how do you measure the spin of a particle and how do you entangle them?
Love your videos, but the sound is really soft on this one. Can you boost it a bit for future episodes?
Thanks! Love you, your effort and enthusiasm!
+G. Scott Taulbee yah thanks for the note. I'm not sure what happened on this video!
Physics Girl The sound was low because it was deadened by all the plush animals.
Chaosnaut God is light
God has saven colors
ThisHAND is the invisible HAND involved in those Congressional Reach-acrosses, and Senatorial Reach-arounds!!! (Ala tap-dancing Larry Craig)
Kitty asleep?
Wake up kitty!
Why doesn't th.... Daaaaad!!
Galo Aguirre you can kill the other cat and then this cat would live
Error: "Mess with one and you affect the other instantaneously," is FALSE. Nothing you do to one affects the other. Rather, they are correlated. If you observe one to be asleep then, if you observe the other, you will find it awake. Observing the one that is asleep does NOT make the other awake, it merely TELLS YOU that the other is awake. If you could affect anything instantaneously, you would be transmitting information faster then the speed of light, which has been proven to be impossible. Don't read into entanglement more than is actually THERE.
I have to say I have never heard these words used in the same sentence "kittens, unicorns and quantum entanglement"....................Yup gets a subscription from me! Keep up the great work.
Excellent video as usual. But I think the real question is. Does it actually communicate faster than 186,282 miles per second.? I heard there was evidence that it does not move faster then causality. But scenarios that can achieve faster-than-light speeds. Such as the expansion of the universe. Do exist. Is this really one of them. I hope so. And if it is. Then I would venture a guess that there is no actual communication. In that there is no set of information moving from one atom to the other. I think it would be more accurate to say. That even though they maintain different spatial locations. That in some way they are sharing a spatial location. And thus whatever you do to one you do to the other. Because for all intensive purposes it is the same thing. And that would be a truly instant reaction. I thought I heard that this mechanism was nailed down like a decade ago. I guess not. but finding out if it is. Is extra exciting.
Re: No bias.
OR... OR his noodle-y appendage was at work!
A true believer! Praise be to pasta! May the meatballs be with you, always. Ramen!
Thanks for another great video! Please, don't worry about the naysayers in the comments! You are doing the world a great service by promoting hard science in an accessible way. Keep physicsing!
Bell's theory for those who haven't yet heard of spin, (or even Schroedinger's cat). Gonna work.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this educational and entertaining video. Great job. Hope that each day you are feeling better than the day before.🙏
You got Schrodinger's Cat wrong. Its actually a counter example for the application of quantum mechanics to macroscopic objects. Its meant to demonstrate a flaw in our interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Nope, you've got it wrong. In the original thought experiment, the cat lived or died according to whether a single atomic nucleus underwent a decay (the decay would be detected by a device that would then release poison that would kill the cat). The experiment clearly shows exactly how to extend superposition to macroscopic objects.
Thank you Michael for getting this "orientation" and history correct.
@Michael
I'm afraid you're merely perpetuating a misconception. A quick 10 second google search is all you need to disprove your point of view. But hey, I'm nice so I'll do it for you:
*From Schrödinger, Erwin (November 1935). "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics)". Naturwissenschaften. 23 (48): 807-812.*
---- > "According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state is observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics"
+GDI _"But hey, I'm nice so I'll do it for you:"_
It's your claim, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.
You cite a paper by Schrodinger, and then give a quotation that refers to him in the third person. I find it very hard to believe that the quoted passage comes from the cited paper.
I did all the work of finding it, now if you actually care if you're right you'll read it.
I didn't know this was what quantum mechanics was but I've always wanted a time machine to be like "would this happen if I said yes, and would it changed if it said no?"
❤️
Seems like one of them got a Nobel prize for their work
Before someone can understand why making the random number generator less questionable would close a loophole in the Bell's Inequalities (BI) experiment, someone would first have to understand the BI experiment. Before someone can understand the BI experiment, they would need to understand the reason for it. This is commonly explained by using the Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox. You need to learn about that too.
Physics Girl doesn’t bother with the background and jumps to her fascination of using starlight to generate random numbers to determine detector angles in a BI experiment. Physics Girl overdoes the fascination. (To her credit, she justified this style of education in another video.)
For those of you who didn’t follow the reasoning of the video, there’s no need to self-blame. You just need to start elsewhere. If you do, it’s worth it.
BI addresses the primary question of the universe. It’s where knowledge hits the wall.
Nehmo Sergheyev Your comment is extremely pertinent. A lot of presentations on entanglement and superposition repeat the same mantra to amaze viewers but fail to go anywhere near answering my question. I continue to have trouble understanding "instantaneous"causality by measurement in the face of the obvious alternative that twiddling with your detector at a macro scale does nothing to how you'll measure the pauli-excluded quantum states. Better reference is what I seek... and the popular science presenters all tediously repeat each other.
Nehmo Sergeyev, you give too much credit to someone who stands in front of a mirrror and thinks that mirror flips anything, just to say. That starlight - control is just another shiny-polished bullcrap random number generator. I don't see it as different, as there has to be a human-generated algorithm to translate the polarisation, which algorithm in the end is as good as a random number generator. Maybe I lack data/knowledge but to me it rather seems that either the experimenter lacks logic or relies on the lack thereof with potential funders.
Chris King - that's it - they are repeaters. The human mind knows questions that can't be answered. The old philosophy/metaphysics tried to somehow answer them. The modern glorified metaphysics, called quantum mechanics to pose it as real science, on the other hand, gives answers that can't be questioned. It's decided, it's agreed, then a few years later...it was wrong! But you may not question the basics of this religion, as that would disturb them while -wor- playing with light sensors and lasers, comfortably consuming public funds. Once disturbed, they would have to realise all the problems of the world, the hungry, the discriminated, the homeless, and they would need a safe space, I think. Or bullies. Fear of getting bullied would help them produce less bullcrap.
These popular science repeaters just help setting beliefs in stone.
Yes. Schrödinger was presenting a _reductio ad absurdum._
But after the manner of many physicists, he added a bit of whimsy to make it more memorable. This would make it memorable alright, but the absurdum part is lost on the modern generation for whom Latin is something you add to goth movies to make it mor gothy. They seize on the whimsy: 'gee, quantum mechanics is really weird'.
Were he alive today and making youTube vids, Schroedinger would more flaty declare that the experimental inference is absurd, and here's what really goes down:
That cat is alive: We learn nothing, except that the nucleus didn't decay.
The cat is dead: We bring in a forensic pathologist to find out if rigor mortis has set in, or if the animal is still warm, and that way we get an accurate reading of about _when_ the cat died, and thus when the nucleus kicked the bucket as well.
That is to say, that there is no mystery about the matter whatsoever.
So a zoo contracts with a supplier for animals for its collection. It orders a zebra and a narwhal. One crate arrives on time, but the other has not shipped yet. So until they open the crate to see which one it is, the occupier of the crate is in a superposition of states; it is both zebra and narwhal. A unicorn, if you will. But when the crate is opened, the waveform collapses, and not only do we know what is in this crate, we know what is in the other crate too, instantaneously, even though it is thousands of kilometers away. This is what disturbed Einstein, who called it spooky action-at-a-distance, since why would anyone ship a narwhal in a crate, instead of a water-filled tank? The narwhal could die in a crate, making it a Schrödinger narwhal.
How are entangled particles created?
Slowly. Or suddenly. Maybe both at the same time.
I wondered that myself. One way is using polarization. For example, use vertically polarized photons and send them through diagonal polarizers that also "split" the photon into 2 photons. You can "split" photons by passing them through non-linear crystals if the resulting photons have the same total energy as the first photon. So after passing through the polarizers, you don't know which way they come out polarized. Here's a good video that helps explain it visually: ua-cam.com/video/FB1VWXe-fY4/v-deo.html
Physics Girl , RocketSurgeon thanks! So essentially the photon splits into a photon and it's anti-particle, another photon, but with opposite spin, is that correct or is this different? So is entanglement always between a particle and it's anti-particle or have I got this horribly wrong?
Nah, there are loads of ways to entangle a particle. For instance when an atom emits a photon and that photon can come from multiple different energy transitions now you have a photon entangled with the energy state of an atom. Measure the atom, and you know the state of the photon and vice versa.
its not a different photon, its the same photon but its properties has split into probabilistic states
Can't wait for tomorrow's news articles: "Alien mayans corrupted scientific data about superposed kittens".
As far as I know, entangled objects don't affect each other. What's correct is only the other part of the statement: knowing the state of one of them lets you know the state of the other one; that is to say, if you shake the box to wake up a kitten, the other kitten would not be put to sleep by your action.
Sort of. If I have two socks, left and right and someone puts them in separate boxes, opening one lets me determine the contents of the other. However The Bell Inequality shows that in fact entangled particles behave differently than this, it seems they can't be set up 'at the start' and then have nothing else to do with one another, there has to be an actual link of some kind.
For an electron to be in a superposition of so called spin up and spin down isn't any more weird than for a person to be both north and east from their starting point. You can add orthogonal vectors, big whoop. Instead of pandering to sensationalism, why not do a video that explains how we are dealing with states described by unit vectors and how any such vectors can be decomposed into a combination of basis vectors without their being anything weird about it.
Why are we assuming that the "two" entangled particles are *actually* distinct at all?
It could easily be one multi-dimensional particle. Consider two circles. You observe one rotating clockwise. The other is 100% guaranteed to be rotating counter-clockwise. Seems mystical and magical until someone points out "The circles are cross sections of the same sphere." Step it up one dimension: Two apparently unconnected 3d sphere's, could be cross sections of the same 4d sphere.
And, that's keeping things pretty simple "just spheres". Those circles could've been cross sections of something more complicated: an egg, a cone, etc. The possibilities in 4-space are much more extensive, and it's entirely possible there's more than just 4. Why not? (Prove it! Ha!)
So, I figure (like ALL statistics): Quatum mechanics is just shorthand for "I don't know all the variables."
ALL particles are really just one multi-dimensional particle, viewed from different perspectives in 3-space. (That is: Gluons, photons, higgs and quarks etc,.....are all the same thing, they just appear different depending on the 3d cross section we happen to be witnessing.)
In fact, given infinite dimensions.....ALL of reality, every apparent particle, could actually be different 3d view points of two multidimensional particles. As the position of these two god-particles change with respect to the other, everything we observe changes. Complicated enough that we can only predict small windows of behavior. The rest, we just enumerate, average and report the statistic.
Wait a minute. There is no such thing as superposition in a proper statistical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. That is their first mistake. Their second mistake is that in their experiments they use twin particles simultaneous created, which are correlated simply for that reason alone.
Your audio is very low.
yes it is. my headphones barely keep up with the eating noise my mouth makes
Hey Zellinger just won the Nobel prize for related work on this I think.
My daughter will be born in a month, it would be wonderful if she were a physicist like you, of course, if she wants to.
Wallacy Freitas congrats!
Wallacy Freitas Is she awake and asleep at the same time while in the womb? XD
ElectricPyroclast Yes ;)
Overly zealous parent warning.
Hey I'm JOHN DOE and you are reading Prasanna Kumar.
Please Physics Girl, don't take me wrong. I love your videos, and I need your help, meaning all physics communicators.
1. It's true, QM is more than 90 years old. Isn't time to check it out? I would suggest you read Steven Winberg's latest communication here: www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/ or you wouldn't begin to believe me. There are too many "anomalies" in QM- It's time for a scientific revolution.
2. The physics community will not accept this idea easily, and that is understandable - too many generations of physicists have been educated along QM paradigm. To trigger a scientific revolution we need innovators, and then early adopters - science communicators. The Physics community will be, at most, early majority, if you know what I mean in terms of diffusion of innovations.
3. The problem you address in this video is where the trigger is - Bell's experiments. I hope you will be curious enough to check wikipedia on this subject en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments , where you can read in the introduction, that the same Alain Aspect responsible for the influential 1982 Bell's experiments, late 2015 recognises that "No experiment can be said to be totally loophole-free". So there is no evidence of quantum entanglement. (by the way ... everytime you see a Bell's test performed with photons, please ask what were the detection efficiency of the detectors, because if less than 67,7% all Bell's tests performed with photons are inconclusive, meaning no way to affirm entanglement - and if they answer you it is over that number, you ask them what method they used to calculate that efficiency, and if it is not Klishko, you say Hummmm ...).
4. To finish this - you can now ask yourself why, the 3 major and unique quantum technologies proposed by QM, the quantum computer, quantum teleportation, and quantum encriptation, are all funded by companies that see the quantum computer as a threat to their secrets - both financial and military. No entanglement, no quantum computer. You see the problem?
That will be the major barrier to a scientific revolution in Physics - we take down entanglement, and the funding disappears.
I hope to hear from you soon.
scientific regards
Teresa (teresa.f.mendes@gmail.com).
You sound pretty biased, please provide evidence.
Hi Delysid,
Thank you for answering.
About being biased: I'm a revolutionary (of science). I believe physics is in a scientific crisis, today. And a scientific crisis is a phase where researchers begin to question the dominant paradigm. For that I gave you the evidence - Steven Weinberg, whose credibility is above questioning. When a physicist of his stature says he recognises that for many decades a whole community of very smart people has tried all possible ways to find a new solution for the "new physics" and that solution can come now from anywhere, I hope that that would make everybody think.
To help speed up this scientific revolution there is the need to show people that the core point that is inhibiting physics to evolve - the idea that Local Realism was experimentally rejected, is not true. For that I gave you several examples, but when Alain Aspect, the "father" of those falsification tests of Local Realism, called Bell's tests, declares publicly that there is no conclusive evidence for that, one should listen, even if those declarations were not as "clearly" stated as Weinberg's, but they are there, in writing, for the whole world to read.
Furthermore, all scientific community, all physics teachers and science communicators declare, without further checking, that "dozens of experiments, done by different teams during several decades prove the experimental rejection of Local Realism". There is a TED video on that subject done by Chad Orzel, ua-cam.com/video/DbbWx2COU0E/v-deo.html, where you can check what I mean.
To make ir worse, entanglement, a prediction of quantum mechanics, can only be "proved" if Local Realism is disproved, is the foundational issue that gives the motivation of maintaining that mistake - the funding for research on quantum computer and related applications. The same for quantum teleportation. For the moment, those quantum technologies are only wishful thinking.
So, that is my bias. How do you fight wishful thinking? Physics needs a paradigm shift and I think the role of physics and science communicators are crucial to speed it out. Nothing good come out from the revolutionary phase of a science. Only when that science returns to a "normal" phase, after a paradigm shift, results will appear for the benefit of humanity.
My purpose is to help Physics. Is that yours too? I will be happy to drive you through each one of the Bell's tests made until today. It will take some time ... but that is ok by me. :)
Thanks for clarification. I would say that classic materialism is in a crisis. The materialistic view managed to stay dominant over the last decades. I would appreciate a change of that.
You can never talk enough about quantum mechanics. It's infinitely fascinating!
What's good
Synonymous sup fam
whats good wid it
Great piece! I've been working with Central Square Theatre and the MIT Museum on a one-act play about the experiment and entanglement which is running on certain weekend afternoons at the MIT Museum through the end of the August. Working with Dave and the other MIT scientists was a lot of fun. Wish we'd had your video to show to our actors when we started rehearsals!
Dianna, I love you
I understood less than 10% of what was in this video. That’s probably why I never got into MIT. 😁 However, I’m 100% certain that I want you to have a better day today, May 7, 2024, than you had yesterday. I’m praying for you, Physics Girl!!! ❤️ Dianna from 🥬🍅🍅🍅
What Schrodinger was really criticizing in his famous letter to Einstein that included the cat was the idea that there is something special about "observation". (And he was right, which is why we don't usually use that term in physics anymore, it leads to the misleading notions that Schrodinger criticized.)
Einstein had forgotten that he had previously said something very similar to Schrodinger and so Schrodinger was given credit. Einstein told him it was a brilliant idea, forgetting that Einstein had actually thought of it first.
What's to say the state of the two items in superposition isn't predetermined at the point of the entanglement process? I don't claim to know anything about this stuff, but it sounds like the trick is that as the lasers are fired from the source, their state of random polarisation is set, so it doesn't matter when you subsequently measure it, they will always be in phase with one another, and there is no quirky instantaneous communication in play. The cats' fates are decided as soon as they are magically entangled.
This option is called “local hidden variables”, and it’s exactly what this experiment rules out. Bell’s theorem states that given local hidden variables, the probabilities of certain outcomes must satisfy certain inequalities, but experiments show that’s not the case. Look up Veritasium’s “Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance” video for an in-depth explanation in simple terms. To understand entanglement itself, you may want to take a look at the Many Worlds Interpretation for a new perspective, where entanglement is actually the norm, and the opposite, called decoherence, is a special case.
I don't get it. The measured results would still be just the same as they would be when obserded, but instead of us observing one particle determining the state of the other, the states of the particles were all ready determined at their creation.
So the kittens aren't in both states until observed. One of them was created alive and the other one dead at the moment that they were entageled. We are just observing in which state they were originally created.
I don't really understand anything more than highschool physics though. Can we observe the same quantum particle multiple times? And can we change their state? As in observe a particle and its entngled partner, then affect the same particle to change it's state and confirm the change withe its partner? If thet is so then yeah it is spooky.
I Hope you get what I mean.
threeheadedpuppy I
+Renee Rehe _"Can we observe the same quantum particle multiple times? And can we change their state? As in observe a particle and its entngled partner, then affect the same particle to change it's state and confirm the change withe its partner?"_
Once either of an entangled pair interacts with something else, the entanglement is broken.
OK, so the entanglement is a one time thing. So who's to say the "entanglement" isn't just 2 linked particles that have the oppsoite values? How can we prove that the particle only has a value once we observe it? Maybe it allways had that value and the entangled particle the opposit value.
Hi Dianna! Love the clarity in your explanation. I attended David Kaiser's lecture at MIT Museum where he explained this experiment, but that was the first time I heard the term "quantum entanglement". Things make more sense now! I am giving a presentation on entanglement at the department colloquium of my uni tomorrow
You Rock Diana!!! You explain science extremely well... Even I make science videos... Be sure to check them out😊😊😊
I think the secret is in the method used to create the entangled photons, and there isn't anything spectacular about it. Half silvered mirrors create the entangled photons by splitting an incoming beam of laser light, occasionally rather than taking one path or the other, the photon splits into a photon pair, entangled, one with a counterclockwise magnetic polarity/spin and the other one clockwise - always just the opposite. The detectors are photo-electric devices that convert the photons to an electrons only if the photon had the correct spin/polarity. No electron, it had a down spin, produced an electron, it has spin up.
Now then, why do they turn this into some sort of mystery? Its because they still don't understand what I just told you.
By the way, show me the experiment where they say that one of the pair actually changes the state of the other one and I'll bet that it won't be hard to find an error in their logic there as well.
Her eyes defy just about any law imagined. :)
Gorgeous and intelligence... heaven!
So you are trolling her channel and comments? Is that what Jesus would do?
Nah. Jesus would probably have never met her as her intellect would've been quelled and she would've been married off for a nice dowry at age 14 to a 45 yr old Roman. And she had better act like she ain't smarter than her husband cuz back then men were insecure and violent.
Heaven sent!
ALAS, WHAT IS THIS? A FEMALE?!
She can read
'Its just an illustion' at 4.08. Either Physics Girl has a dirty sense of humor or I have a dirty mind. Either way, for a nano second, I was shocked. Haha..Well done.
im laughing uncontrollably very nice i thought the same thing. I think its us.
The video blatantly did not even try to address how particles get entangled, how anyone knows that superpositions are a thing or how the positions already having set values before they are sent was ruled out. Obvious solutions that I'm sure have been addressed and perhaps take a long time to fully explain. But without that introduction, EVERYTHING in this video becomes next to meaningless. You barely even address what spin even means. Is it a metaphor or a literal rotation? Cover at least something of the basics before you skip to the end. In my experience, pretty much every video about quantum mechanics on UA-cam skip directly to the conclusion and pretend they explained anything.
EE Ehrenberg she did an incredible job explaining the concept in a fairly short video. if you want to truly understand spin and superpositions you need about 4 years and a degree lol, and even then you won't really get it. This video isn't marketed as an "intro to quantum mechanics" it's a video about a new experiment and it's results, so expecting an entire semester worth of lectures preceeding the experiments results is a bit naive.
how will you not really get it? what's the purpose of 4 years and a degree then?
EE Ehrenberg I could not agree more!
EE Ehrenberg oh and to your question to spin that I can more or less answer:
It is no actual spin at all.
An electron is not a small sphere, it is a cloud of probability. Spin is a useful and effective concept to describe magnetism and so on, it can be experimentally prooven but there is nothing really spinning
+Unknow0059 # _"how will you not really get it? what's the purpose of 4 years and a degree then?"_
You won't get it after four years because it is a very difficult subject, and you won't even get to the more advanced bits until your fifth or sixth year. The purpose of the four-year degree is to prepare you for graduate school.
A little bit of nutrition, exercise, and Sunlight goes a long way to advancing your theories. This guy's kinda lame and about 30-50 years behind the leading edge of meta-physical investigations into this topic. He's cute, though. The really hard part to get is that the isolationist, elitist, ivory-tower clowns stand on the shoulders of MIMES!!!
ahhh she's gorgeous
jacob minkin and awesomely intelligent!
I love your videos, always. They are great.
I only have one thing: audio volume, please when creating final output, set volume to max, and let the viewer adjust volume. That way you make audio less noisy for us too.
Keep it up, more about quantum physics and all the weirdness it has.
You're truly the best Dianna. Your explanations are cogent, extremely well narrated, easy to understand, memorable and you always manage to deliver well-timed banter remarks. You're the new Carl Sagan (a person I greatly admire)!
Bingo! A new Carl Sagan!
One of the books in the background is "Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945", by David M. Kennedy. It is about a period in American history that not only ran parallel with the development of Quantum Theory, but there were important (crucial) events that influenced both significantly. It's a good read for anyone interested in modern history, economics, and the social structure in which key scientists worked. It has little to do with physics, but without physics, the outcome of the book would have been drastically different.
More at GoodReads: www.goodreads.com/book/show/106317.Freedom_from_Fear
But I still don't get why entanglement can't be used for instantaneous transmission of information. 🤔
It’s not weird. This is the reason why astrology works
At the end of the day, after all of the work, and all the results of the experiments are in, it is safe to say it is magic.
Yup, magic.
i swear this is better than what they teach us at school , Thank you !
information wormholes? that exist at the plankh length?
The fun part of Quantum Entanglement to me, which also tends to hurt most physicists minds is that it has the potential to lead to FTL communication, as QE effects appear to be faster than light.
@TheMariusDarkwolf - that truly sounds fantastic and plausible. However, let's say that the two communicators are 1000 light-years away. Are we speaking with an individual who is a Millenium younger/older than us or current??? Sure beats me.
@@vlugovsky that question is poorly phrased. Now if you're asking if we're speaking to someone a 1000 years in the past or future, then by my understanding of it, no, it's instantaneous, so they'd be co-temporal with us.
Of course the biggest issues would involve figuring out A) how to actually make a QEC, B) how to either entangle particles light years apart or alternatively how to transport entangled particles light years apart, whilst keeping them entangled (ie them not losing entanglement due to relativity)
Gotta Love Physics Girl :) Specially this video Coz this is kind of talking about the big answer to the universe and everything.
Getting answers from the Ether was kind of always there. O-o now i remember the whale Falling from the sky! :D
No, it's the Almighty Creator pulling your infidel heathen leg! 😂😂😂
Or... it's the dark matter-eather which has also instantanious time travel characteristics. 🤔🤣🤣🤣🤔🤣🤣🤣🙄🤣🤣🤣😯🤯
My understanding is that quantum entanglement, if real, cannot be used to send information faster than the speed of light. i.e. it doesn't break causality. Could you explain why?
The trick is that while you can measure one particle and then know what the other's state is, you can't CONTROL what state you see. This also means that you can never tell which particle was measured first; nobody can say 'Measure this, if it's up then I have sent a message'.
It's like having walkie-talkies that communicate instantly... but only ever broadcast static, neat, but useless.
How Would a Quantum Computer contribute to world peace ?
The Study of all the words and all their Double meanings.
That Would take the word processing into a whole new meaning.
Cubit Sizing.
The Schrödinger
cat concept in the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, generated
a discussion among physicists that persists from the beginning of quantum
theory to the present day: "Does Quantum Mechanics depend on human
observation?" This view of dependence was advocated slightly by
Schrödinger, but was strongly endorsed by Werner Heisenberg and the Danish
physicist Niels Bohr (hence this view is also known as "Copenhagen
interpretation"), and is currently dominant in Quantum Physics, although
many do not agree with this view and consider the opposite. See, for example: 1
- Robert B. Griffiths - “Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics” - Journal of Statistical Physics, v36, July 1984, doi.org/10.1007/BF01015734,
and 2 - Sheldon Goldstein - “Quantum Theory Without Observers - Part I” - Physics
Today, v51, nº3, March 1998, doi.org/10.1063/1.882184 - Part II -
Physics Today, v51, nº4, April 1998, doi.org/10.1063/1.882241.
I honestly don't believe that ANY of this crap lies forever beyond our comprehension - it's just CURRENTLY beyond our comprehension.
Wow! So, just because they used a starlight to configure the sensors, therefore the readings are valid? And what if the photon from one star was entangled with the photon from another star and these two were used for configuration? By definition, the entanglement is instantaneous, but you still depend on speed of causality (ie.speed of light) to confirm it, so these readings are basically useless if detectors were entangled :-)
And one little suggestion to Physics Girl: be yourself. You are trying too much to be entertaining, but physics is about all but entertainment.
Locality(classical physics, relativity, mass etc) arises from nonlocality(quantum co-entanglement and quantum discord etc)! This occurs through differential relativistic quantum fractalization(quantum holographic fractal informational co-entanglement entropy, syntropy, syn-entropy and en-syntropy) or symmetry breaking(as well reforming) and forms new nonlocal co-entangled interrelationships via Light Time Dimension theory!
Entanglement=> unity, ie a quality-quantity of one identity-infinity. Unitary-existence. No separation. Being. .dt-absolute. Quantum duality means cause-effect bubbles of bubbles at a singularity superposition vanishing point, which is the kind of non-sense imagineering String Theory makes out of potential modulation frequencies. Complicated, not so weird.
And without knowing the accuracy of the timing information in the set up, in proportion to the CCD inputs and outputs so that the kind of quantization effect seen in the UV catastrophe experiments is (5sigma?) beyond uncertainty.., and how meaningful is any of this if existence is absolutely Quantum? (Or, I don't understand what was achieved, most likely)
Hi Dianna. I enjoy your presentations. Keep inspiring the world.
About the Schrodinger's cat experiment, opening the box and looking at the cat is not what should be interpreted as observation or a measurement in quantum mechanics. The fun fact is your observation makes a single state of the particle. Otherwise Schrodinger's cat will be a usual (classical) experimental observation. No surprises.
Cool video, by the way. Love you 3000.
I believe whats missing here is the interpretation of Time. We think of it as linear, so we have the concept of back and forward in Time and the finality of a "past moment". This concept creates the issues with entanglement, quantum erasing and transfer of quantum information.
If you think of Time as one everlasting now moment, it removes these issues. Nothing would be "moving" in Time, removing the paradox of going "back" in Time. (also backs up my claim that there is no 1st, 2nd or 4th dimension. Time wouldn't be the 4th dimension, and the only one that actually "exists" is the 3rd)
I'm not saying that's how Time works for certain, but I think the answer lies in what we don't know about Time. Seems like the "Math" is beyond 99.999999999999 accurate, understanding Time I believe will fill the gaps across all sciences. BTW, thank you for the video =).
Hey..,can someone tell me the name of the author of that INTRODUCTION TO MECHANICS book on diana's table..?
I seriously don't understand what's the problem with QE.
No, I actually understand, but it does not look like a problem to me.
You, measuring the spin or polarization and the value will be random.
Then, without understanding, what does it mean to be random, you claiming "spooky action at a distance".
Isn't it obvious, that the particles are just correlated in their "randomness"?
And, there's no need in "hidden variables"
Think about it as a seed in a video game, e.g. Minecraft. For the player, the game looks random,
like in this type of dungeon you can find chests with a loot of this probability distribution.
But the one who knows the seed could say exactly in which dungeon, what chest will contain what loot.
I know, I know, in games numbers are pseudo-random,
but who says that our entire "game" - the Universe is not driven by a pseudo-random process, behind the space-time itself?
God, the Almighty, with Infinite Foresight is laughing on his Heavenly Throne. "The Godless ones will be kept in the dark, untill the ways of their sins come to fullfilment upon which My wrath shall reach them! To the fullest!" So spaketh the Lord to his humble servant (that's me). 😂😂😂
you look like supergirl😍 "F.I.R.E.S.T.O.R.M.ed" with proff.martin stein !!
Dang it, I was all excited thinking new results meant results not seen before... I get the do you mean results from a new experiment, but you can see how I was confused. But anyways love your videos and your face! 😘
I just wish someone talking about the weirdness could first explain why the Occam's Razor solution does not work. For instance, I have two coins. The first is labelled "1" and the sccond is labelled "2". I put one in one box and the other in the other box but I don't know which one went into which box. Then I move the boxes to opposite ends of the universe and I open a box. It contains a coin labelled "2" so I know instantly that the other box contains "1". QED.
Part 2 involves Bell. For some inexplicable (to me!) reason, the coins could not have the numbers assigned at the start of the experiment - even though we can never find out what they are - but it is OK to assign the numbers at the end. Spooky!
I don't think I am cut out to be a physicist!
BREATHE between sentences! Don't edit out the breaths. There has to be time for stuff to register, for any learning to take place. Also, while 'weird' sells, you over-hype it. By the end of an explanation, it should be clear that what's weird is the listener's resistance to seeing things form a new viewpoint. Quantum mechanics, to the extent that it IS the way the world works, is NOT weird. It just IS. Get over that!
So if Einstein's description is so overquoted thank god good you quoted it again ;)
hello! i am an eight standard girl(i am twelve) and I LOVE PHYSICS and i am having a bit of problem with quantum numbers ...... so this is my request that if you can manage to make a video on quantum numbers in future.
What mankind doesn't realise is that, we are all entangled particles of what we call God, Universe, Multiverse, etc. The everything. Just little atoms of that great, big bieng. Thing, consciousness. Our own feeling of being conscious, which, once lost, there's no cat. Dead or alive.
Hurt one and you hurt everything !! Love one and... you get it.
Cool! Weird. Some things are, and simultaneously, are not? And how do particles become entangled in the first place? And can you create , 3, 4, N entangled particles or just two? And if you can create N entangled particles, and particles are entangled because, say, they were made in the same furnace, then is it possible that all particles in the universe, having been made at or around the same moment in the Big Bang, are entangled? A little bit? Perhaps entangled by 1/10^40th the entanglement of two particles or whatever that calculation would be. Please physics girl! Tell me! I must know!
This would never work as a puppy cause you'd never want a dead puppy. DEAD PUPPY is much stronger than dead kitten/cat.
Sweetie, what is physics? It is simply the science of describing variables of effects of mechanical functions,energies, electromagnetic, frequency, speed,time,and travel/sustenance of objects or fields.
It is all very simple.
Ok, so I don't know why this is always explained as though it's some sort of magic. The quantum system has only one internal state at any given time - we represent it as a vector in a vector space. It's ONE VECTOR, and it evolves in time per a differential equation like all the other stuff we're familiar with.
The problem is that we can't see that state. We can measure various quantities and get various results. Each of the results that it is possible for us to get also corresponds to a specific vector in the vector space, but not all of the vectors are accounted for. It's like having a clock that can only read out 9am or 12pm - it just can't show you any other times. The other times can still exist, as in it can "actually be that time," but for whatever reason we can only SEE 9am and 12pm. Now say the actual time is 10:30am. That's exactly halfway in between 9am and 12pm. So when we "measure" the time, we have a 50% chance of getting 9am, and a 50% chance of 12pm. Oh, and when we get one of those values, the system is forced to adopt that time as well. So it's 10:30, and we measure - we get 12pm. Now the system says it's 12pm.
There was never more than one actual state inside the system. It was never the case that it was 9am and 12pm at the same time - it was 10:30am up until we measured, and 12pm after we measured. It's just that our ability to assess the system is limited to just a subset of the vectors that can represent the internal state.
Oh, and my gosh I just love Physics Girl so much... :-)
You can adjust the infrastructure of the experiment to eliminate bias, never ending...
If the bias is resident in the hypothesis, this affect is meaningless!!!
Quantum mechanics is beyond our intellect, in the same way as dark energy/matter!!!
We may be competent enough to perceive slightly (stimulate our inquiry), but so far beyond our capacity to understand!!!
I think one thing people forget is that Schrodinger's cat is an extreme example. It CAN'T happen in real life.
Quantum effects happen on very small scales. Atoms and below.
For something big, like a cat, it doesn't apply anymore. The cat being alive or dead is a certainty.
When I see weekly lottery results, I think there must be some mysterious entanglement because chances of winning are always steady(the chance of winning of Korean weekly lottery is approx. 1/8,000,000 and it always yields reasonable number of winners that can be calculated depending on the number of lottery sold). For me, that if you roll the dice numerous times each number will come out with a 1/6 chance is as spooky as the quantum entanglement.
If you can't explain how humans effect the randomness of random number generators and the apparent non local communication- see PEAR Labs. Then how can you be certain the expiremintors relationship to the stars confined by relitavistic spacetime? See Kozyrev
Great video thanks.
The smart thing to do would be to take the results at face value. Since information cannot, in our matter-oriented reality, travel faster than the speed of light, at some level of existence the particles are not separated at all. We PERCEIVE them as separated. Same with the particle/wave duality. It's only duality due to our limited perception and perspective. We are made to "pluck the string" so to speak at fixed intervals. So we see this base frequency and its harmonics (the Planck length). Harmonics are probably why electrons can only exist at fixed intervals. They can't vibrate out of tune with the fundamental frequency, so when they loose (or gain energy), the hop to the next lower (or higher) harmonic, but never somewhere in between.