4:09 Spin 1/2 means that to get to your original spin orientation, you have to travel 720 degrees, rather than 360 degre3s. The fact that you have opposite spins gives you your 1/sqrt(2) probability amplitude for each spin state.
This is the clearest explanation I've ever seen online. I haven't checked the math but I imagine zillions of people have so I won't bother. I guess it simply hurts my brain less to assume non-locality than to assume superposition of cats, multiple undetectable universes or super duper everything has been determined since the big bang or whatever else. Other people may have other preferences. 😁
Thank you for compiling this! Also, I found Veritasium's Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance video very easy to understand. Hope it does not scarify the accuracy.
Bell didn't rule out classic. It just constrained it. Test tunable metamaterial for slits and orbital energy levels being in the tunable range. Defraction gradient and you can use a rainbow as another gradient to ad precision. 6:35 primed state and no interference/decohering. 8:16 Even bell argued at times for hidden variables. Manifolds another viable path if constructed right.
As far as I'm concerned John Bell GOT a Nobel prize, in 2022. All of that work was based on HIS insights. He was the one that really deserved the prize. But he was dead, and they have their rules. So they couldn't. That's just how the cookie crumbles. But I have NO DOUBT that he would have been in the group, or possibly would have received the prize individually and alone, had he still been living. The 2022 prize was the best step they could take toward recognizing the man's greatness.
At which point you realize normal physics has precise measurement with a tiny little factor for measurement error. And quantum physics is just a big measurement error factor with, grudgingly, a normal physics backbone.
Sorry - Bells theorem doesn't and cannot rule out the initial state of the particles. I say the initial state of the particles is set at the moment of entanglement. The claim that a particle has no properties until measured is just wrong. They are simply unknown until measured. This does NOT mean superposition isn't real. Until the initial state is either predictable or influenced or forced - no one can claim that entangled particles communicate anything at all after being entangled. Convince me that I'm wrong...
It is simple. Consider two entangled particles that are measured at angles 0, 120, and 240 degrees. These particles correlate with a coefficient of 1/2 if their measurement angles are different. Try to find the probabilities of all possible states. There are 64 such states, but since only those that have opposite results when measured at the same angles are possible, there are only 8 states with non-zero probabilities. Furthermore, if you set up 8 equations of observed probabilities, you will find the probability of each of the 8 states. Six of these states will have a probability of 3/16, and two states will have -1/6, which is a negative number. This means that any probabilistic model is mathematically incorrect. There is no logically consistent probabilistic interpretation of entanglement, including the many-worlds interpretation. There are no such complex coefficients whose square moduli equal a negative number, according to Born's rule.
This could almost be called the definitive explanation of Bell’s theorem. I haven’t seen anything comparable to it, at least. Yet it appears to have had no impact on UA-cam. That’s a travesty.
The bottom line is that Einstein's assumption 3 was wrong. The particles, before either is measured, do not HAVE individual quantum states. The only quantum state in play at that time is the singlet state that describes THE SYSTEM, not either particle individually. So sure - we did not perform a measurement on particle 2. But we did perform a measurement on THE SYSTEM, and that CHANGES THE QUANTUM STATE of the system. Assuming particle 1 measured "up," we get this: |01> + |10> ---measurement---> |10> Clearly, particle 2 now has a 100% certainty of being down. That's all there is to it, and the fact that they're separated in a space-like way simply DOES NOT MATTER. The locality assumption is WRONG, full stop. The fundamental assumption that leads into this mess is that spacetime is a "container" that holds "everything." That's simply not the case. Spacetime isn't fundamental at all - you can completely formulate the dynamics of nature using only functions of time alone. If you then assume that at least one conserved quantity exists (that's the ONLY assumption you need to make, and it doesn't matter what the conserved quantity is), then the laws of physics come rolling out, and, more importantly, spatial dimensions EMERGE from the dynamics. All that means is the dynamics that unfold can be THOUGHT OF as occurring within a spatial manifold. Thinking of it that way allows the dynamics to be organized in a very efficient way - so efficient, in fact, that we have actually EVOLVED to view the dynamics of reality in this way. Space is something we PERCEIVE - not something that existed in the first place. Some aspects of the dynamics fit snugly into this spatial presentation, and those aspects are local and subject to the "c speed limit." Other aspects, though, like entanglement corellation, Einstein Rosen bridges, and so on, do NOT fit into the spatial presentation and are subject to no such speed limit. Once you recognize that space isn't fundamental, everything just falls into place. The singlet state no longer describes the system after you make that first measurement. So you can't point to it and say "this doesn't tell us that particle 2's spin is down." I mean, you can point and say that, but it's meaningless. It's no longer the correct state.
"Spooky action at a distance" requires probability conservation or zero distance within the photons reference frame. Everything is connected at the speed of light or the electro-magnetic field. The universe is infinitely small at the speed of light -- photons do not experience time. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Alice and Bob are directly connected or correlated at the speed of light -- spooky action! Cause is dual to effect -- correlation (duality). Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. Spooky action = length contraction. The lack of time is dual to the lack of distance -- the photon does not experience time or distance -- the electro-magnetic field.
Like, when you say up, you don't actually mean up. You actually mean up, with a measurement error of+-45°? But not allowed. That's what normal physics does so that's a big no no. You agreed remember.
Why does it always say rule 1 is don't ever look at normal physics again, and once you agree, here's the inequality. And then if I ask why, all of UA-cam says let's not talk about that.
The one you left out is retrocausality. But Many Worlds, superdeterminism, and retrocausality are all just crocks of crap. Non-locality is MUCH easier to accept, especially when you recognize that spacetime isn't fundamental in the first place.
The only crock of crap is the person who makes unprovable claims like you do. They are all possible, we can only state which ones we think are more likely. Enough of the dogma in physics, it's pathetic.
4:09 Spin 1/2 means that to get to your original spin orientation, you have to travel 720 degrees, rather than 360 degre3s. The fact that you have opposite spins gives you your 1/sqrt(2) probability amplitude for each spin state.
This is the clearest explanation I've ever seen online. I haven't checked the math but I imagine zillions of people have so I won't bother. I guess it simply hurts my brain less to assume non-locality than to assume superposition of cats, multiple undetectable universes or super duper everything has been determined since the big bang or whatever else. Other people may have other preferences. 😁
Thank you for compiling this! Also, I found Veritasium's Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance video very easy to understand. Hope it does not scarify the accuracy.
Nice video! Keep it up!
Bell didn't rule out classic. It just constrained it. Test tunable metamaterial for slits and orbital energy levels being in the tunable range. Defraction gradient and you can use a rainbow as another gradient to ad precision. 6:35 primed state and no interference/decohering. 8:16 Even bell argued at times for hidden variables. Manifolds another viable path if constructed right.
As far as I'm concerned John Bell GOT a Nobel prize, in 2022. All of that work was based on HIS insights. He was the one that really deserved the prize. But he was dead, and they have their rules. So they couldn't. That's just how the cookie crumbles. But I have NO DOUBT that he would have been in the group, or possibly would have received the prize individually and alone, had he still been living. The 2022 prize was the best step they could take toward recognizing the man's greatness.
Great video!!!
At which point you realize normal physics has precise measurement with a tiny little factor for measurement error. And quantum physics is just a big measurement error factor with, grudgingly, a normal physics backbone.
Sorry - Bells theorem doesn't and cannot rule out the initial state of the particles.
I say the initial state of the particles is set at the moment of entanglement.
The claim that a particle has no properties until measured is just wrong. They are simply unknown until measured. This does NOT mean superposition isn't real.
Until the initial state is either predictable or influenced or forced - no one can claim that entangled particles communicate anything at all after being entangled.
Convince me that I'm wrong...
It is simple. Consider two entangled particles that are measured at angles 0, 120, and 240 degrees. These particles correlate with a coefficient of 1/2 if their measurement angles are different. Try to find the probabilities of all possible states. There are 64 such states, but since only those that have opposite results when measured at the same angles are possible, there are only 8 states with non-zero probabilities. Furthermore, if you set up 8 equations of observed probabilities, you will find the probability of each of the 8 states. Six of these states will have a probability of 3/16, and two states will have -1/6, which is a negative number. This means that any probabilistic model is mathematically incorrect. There is no logically consistent probabilistic interpretation of entanglement, including the many-worlds interpretation. There are no such complex coefficients whose square moduli equal a negative number, according to Born's rule.
Wonderful! Thank you.
you're welcome!
This could almost be called the definitive explanation of Bell’s theorem. I haven’t seen anything comparable to it, at least. Yet it appears to have had no impact on UA-cam. That’s a travesty.
Thank you for the kind words about the video. Hopefully, others find it valuable too and the algorithm picks it up at some point.
The bottom line is that Einstein's assumption 3 was wrong. The particles, before either is measured, do not HAVE individual quantum states. The only quantum state in play at that time is the singlet state that describes THE SYSTEM, not either particle individually. So sure - we did not perform a measurement on particle 2. But we did perform a measurement on THE SYSTEM, and that CHANGES THE QUANTUM STATE of the system. Assuming particle 1 measured "up," we get this:
|01> + |10> ---measurement---> |10>
Clearly, particle 2 now has a 100% certainty of being down. That's all there is to it, and the fact that they're separated in a space-like way simply DOES NOT MATTER. The locality assumption is WRONG, full stop.
The fundamental assumption that leads into this mess is that spacetime is a "container" that holds "everything." That's simply not the case. Spacetime isn't fundamental at all - you can completely formulate the dynamics of nature using only functions of time alone. If you then assume that at least one conserved quantity exists (that's the ONLY assumption you need to make, and it doesn't matter what the conserved quantity is), then the laws of physics come rolling out, and, more importantly, spatial dimensions EMERGE from the dynamics. All that means is the dynamics that unfold can be THOUGHT OF as occurring within a spatial manifold. Thinking of it that way allows the dynamics to be organized in a very efficient way - so efficient, in fact, that we have actually EVOLVED to view the dynamics of reality in this way. Space is something we PERCEIVE - not something that existed in the first place.
Some aspects of the dynamics fit snugly into this spatial presentation, and those aspects are local and subject to the "c speed limit." Other aspects, though, like entanglement corellation, Einstein Rosen bridges, and so on, do NOT fit into the spatial presentation and are subject to no such speed limit.
Once you recognize that space isn't fundamental, everything just falls into place.
The singlet state no longer describes the system after you make that first measurement. So you can't point to it and say "this doesn't tell us that particle 2's spin is down." I mean, you can point and say that, but it's meaningless. It's no longer the correct state.
"Spooky action at a distance" requires probability conservation or zero distance within the photons reference frame.
Everything is connected at the speed of light or the electro-magnetic field.
The universe is infinitely small at the speed of light -- photons do not experience time.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Alice and Bob are directly connected or correlated at the speed of light -- spooky action!
Cause is dual to effect -- correlation (duality).
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
Spooky action = length contraction.
The lack of time is dual to the lack of distance -- the photon does not experience time or distance -- the electro-magnetic field.
Like, when you say up, you don't actually mean up. You actually mean up, with a measurement error of+-45°? But not allowed. That's what normal physics does so that's a big no no. You agreed remember.
Why does it always say rule 1 is don't ever look at normal physics again, and once you agree, here's the inequality. And then if I ask why, all of UA-cam says let's not talk about that.
The one you left out is retrocausality. But Many Worlds, superdeterminism, and retrocausality are all just crocks of crap. Non-locality is MUCH easier to accept, especially when you recognize that spacetime isn't fundamental in the first place.
The only crock of crap is the person who makes unprovable claims like you do. They are all possible, we can only state which ones we think are more likely. Enough of the dogma in physics, it's pathetic.