He’s conscious that anyone who spends time on these questions only needs to be trained in physics to understand physics but to understand life he treats everyone as capable. For most scientists, only sacrificing the position of their career and life’s work can they allow normal humans in to ask these questions with them. This doesn’t happen. Brian is a representation of humility & divinity meaning his intention comes from his heart first and survival secondly.
I'm impressed at his patience and focus he's over discribing things because he's got a very enthusiastic but under prepared speaker and the layed back tone of the conversation is leading her into the weeds without us
Don't get me wrong I like Brian but what he's dropping is Dogma unproven stuff check out James Webb Space Telescope new findings all this stuff is being disproven
"Elise Crull received a B Sc (Honors) in Physics & Astronomy from Calvin University, and holds an M.A. in Philosophy and Ph.D in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to City College, Dr. Crull held post-doctoral fellowships at the University of Aberdeen and at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, conducting research into the historical and philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics. In addition to history and philosophy of science, Crull frequently ponders (sometimes aloud in front of audiences) philosophical problems associated with quantum theory: the quantum-to-classical transition, quantizing gravity, understanding quantum causal models, the metaphysical nature of entanglement (including temporal entanglement!) and, as of late, interpreting the alternate quantum formalisms used in quantum computing. She also has the occasional thought about quantum cosmology. While these questions keep Prof. Crull in conversation with physicists, she also loves a good metaphysics chin-wag. Topics of special interest there include ontology, meta-ontology, and mereology. Since her research interests are fundamentally interdisciplinary, Crull often finds herself engaging with related "meta" issues, such as the ethics of emergent techno-science, science in the public sphere/ in education, and the nature of the science-theology-philosophy triad."
@@wcsartanddesign When I get some time I will have a closer look at Elise's work. I have a lot of unanswered philosophical questions about how the current physics paradigm relates to the real universe and how much bias the human condition projects onto the pseudo reality of physics.
I usually get stomped on for suggesting that there is a certain connection that appears to exist "Across" time. I am no physicist but this seams to lend toward agency in what we loosely call time. In some sense this leaves me feeling that time is more fundamental and containing rules that are not obvious to us or are just outside of our ability to speculate on, measure or test (Maybe Time is a poor or misleading word, but I am not speaking of the measuring device or the measurement as we commonly conceive it). I have looked around and I am seeing many physicists who have and are questioning. The problem is that for now the best we can do is attempt to look at the problem from a different perspective and typically that falls into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics which are 2 taboo words in modern physics lol > Personally I suspect the missing information lays within the hidden layer of the event horizons. Event horizons and singularities appear to take us into that infinitely small moment in time which is hidden from us. Without a concept of progression or time the universe has no human meaning to us, so it becomes a difficult realm for the mind to conceptualize.
ah, the old "FAILED SCIENTIST GOES SCIENCE COMMUNICATOR" shtick. I think you are onto something here! and before you reply: String Theory is dead. and so is Greenes research. what choice does he have, then to write popular books for the masses and make science shows?
Prof. Crull describes quantum phenomena beautifully. Schrodinger got it right. Entanglement isn't one of the properties of quantum mechanics, it's THE property. Instead of using decoherence to explain the suppression of quantum fluctuation in our world of macroscopic objects, maybe we should explain it with entanglement. The network of entanglements between particles in a large system makes it virtually impossible for particles to spontaneously change their state because they share their properties with all other particles in the system. The collective "state" of the proverbial cat is locked in by this network of entanglements, and the probability of superposition of living and dead states is vanishing small.
This idea that particle 1 and particle 4 are entangled through time, is thin at best. As all of the opposite qualities of 1 are alive in 2, and you use 2 to flip the spin of 3, which is entangled with 4. There is no spooky action backward through time. You measure the spin of 1. That value doesn't change when you measure 4. It's no surprise they agree because you made that happen normally through time.
@@7ramnique I would love to see an experiment that proved there was action forward or backward through time, outside normal means. That would show that the universe is time sliced, and our reality is the one we are "currently" experiencing. That would be HUGE. This is not that experiment.
QM certainly remains a set of principles but not yet a theory, even if entanglement involves space and time. Unitary evolution of Schrodinger's wave function involves much more than entanglement. It seems to involve 'error correction' mathematics or its algorithm that hides the truth.
What epic timing. Last one week I have been researching about black holes and quantum entanglement, even accidently watched the show 3 body problem which had quantum entanglement in it.
@JamesMulvale you need to look up bob greenyer, fractal tyroidal tripole moment. There is a plank force that travels 4c. There is more evidence then people realize. I'm going to give you a string of names you need to look into. Bob greenyer, John hutchison, salvitore pais, Ashton forbes, Dave rossi, there are people working on the technology of this problem. from the look of it military has had this figured out for some time. Mh370x flight.
15:58-Don't we see a similar level of probability distribution across far distances in space and time at the macro level as well? Meaning, when we observe a star or galaxy here on Earth we are measuring it, so it's in a relatively fixed position. But if we were to travel to it's location to directly interact with it, would it not wildly fluctuate in speed and position on our way there? Mirroring the same pattern of behavior we see at the atomic scale?
Since the fundamental particles dictate how the Universe works at the Planck scale, you could argue that is the real behavior of the Universe, and the way it appears to work at our scale and larger is the weird stuff.
Elise, Thank you for what you do. I would take your course since the description of what you teach applies directly to my interests. I loved your enthusiasm! Another example of correlation over time comes from a version of the double slit experiment wherein a single photon or particle at a time is emitted, yet a wave pattern still forms. Q1. What does universal entanglement, should that be the case across spacetime, imply about the probabilistic nature of reality? Indeed, no one discusses how two spatially separated entities could communicate. (In the absence of any other explanations, I postulate that they do not see spacetime (a photon also does not). This possibility (somewhat outside the box - but others have questioned the existence and/or nature of spacetime) means there is no separation and no "communication" between the entangled particles. They remain two sides of the same coin. Q2. How is decoherence manifested in the double-slit experiment? Are the peaks somehow lower than they ought to be? Q3. How does relativity affect the wave function? Q4. What do you think of Donald Hoffman's work?
5:06 This is the best description of Quantum Mechanics, that explains exactly, the relation between the "everyday" perception of the reality and the scientific approach to the "real" reality, the scientific perception of the world! Dear Professor Mr. Brian Greene, thank you, so much for this. I think this description is what we all (the amateur scientists), need to have in our minds to be thinking more "clear", about all this. And thank you Elise Crull, you are presenting the Quantum World with the philosophical background we all the amateur scientists need to have in our minds when we trying to understand "Quantum Theory" and all those wonderful abstract ideas around "modern" or synchronous Science! World Science Festival: You are the Oasis in the Desert of this World! 💚Thank you All! 🌈
@@markoszouganelis5755 I can explain the problem of the "Human Condition" and our inescapable subjective awareness of the world (universe) beyond the self in far more detail, but put simply even the physicists and mathematicians ultimately paint there own version (description) of reality over the real universe. Philosophers are the only people who have capacity to relate that subjective reality to the real universe (objective truth), and even for them it is a difficult if not close to impossible task. Elise seams to have and is acquiring the skills to act as a translator, so I see her and any others with her ability as a necessary and needed part of a discipline (Physics) that has been stalled within it's own self defined prison for near 70 years :)
@@axle.student I think we us all ARE: "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" and everyone of us thinks he is the center of the universe. And!...after all it's true! "And as he believed, we believe. So what it was for him, now it is for us too, and forever..!" (..and ever! And NEVER forget that)! Thank you my Good friend for commenting my comment! 🛸😊🌸= PEACE and LOVE and SCIENCE!
Okay. I must continue watching these conversations.. even though it's way above my intellectual weight class. I really like listening and trying to pick up what I can and examine it.
Elise Crull and Brian Greene try so hard to communicate theories that reveal the uncertainty of how the universe works. I don't understand them but I get a sense of how connected and complex the universe is.
It isn't. It can be summarized all of it in the following: The universe is an empty three dimensional metric manifold on which systems (arbitrary human made partitions of the manifold) have one additive property called energy. ;-)
I want to see Elise Crull and Sean Carroll have a long debate. It'd be interesting to have Sabine Hossenfelder in there too. I find all their views plausible (mere decoherence, many worlds, and superdeterminism respectively). I want to know why each thinker rejects the others' views, and what each of their responses to those reasons for rejection are.
I would say yes.. if we imagine time like waves from droplet Round or like a ocean current maybe.. its connected throughout time yes? An maybe the past resonates through time. Having a littel hard wrapping my mind around it but think theres something to be said about the theory?
This one will be fun cannot wait to watch it tonight :) In the Ender's Game books they used a device called the Ansible that could communicate across many light years. The term was first used in a novel by Ursula K. Le Guin in 1966 and some other authors also borrowed the term. In Enders Game this is how it worked (From wikipedia) It involved a fictional subatomic particle, the philote. The two quarks inside a pi meson can be separated by an arbitrary distance, while remaining connected by "philotic rays".This concept is similar to quantum teleportation due to entanglement; however, in reality, quark confinement prevents quarks from being separated by any observable distance.
SF so often predicts things before science gets around to discovering, proving or acknowledging them. Star Trek (somewhat) predicted the Moon landing 2.5 years before it actually took place (to be fair, he said "late '60s") One must be able to imagine a thing before it can be proven to exist.
Well, this was impressive. Prof. Crull certainly has that persuasive storytelling ability, as does Greene. The last three minutes or so got complicated, but was still intriguing. Many thanks.
They were at one point real because I’ve seen them as a child. But never again since the 70s. My folks called them angels. But I’ve never met anyone past a certain age that has seen them. It’s been patched. Also our entire existing/reality is on a flat screen In space… no idea but creepy
As always, most stimulating! Quick questions: since entanglement is so ubiquitous, can I create entanglement in a kitchen counter experiment? If I have a liter of water at room temperature on the kitchen counter, what percentage of the water molecules should I expect to be entangled at any given time?
Never having taken a science class, self taught, such as it is, one mystery, amongst many, that I will take to the grave with me, is why so many Physicist purported to have knowledge of QM , just seem to not understand the “Black Body Radiation Problem”, and what exactly Planck proposed as a solution. For instance, one, of many, Planck never believed or proposed that light consistent of particles and in fact later found such an idea nonsensical. An amazing distortion of the history of physics, by both Brian and Elise. Einstein gets full credit.
Brian Green is very good at presenting arguments for thought and discussion. Elsie is very good at presenting arguments as well. Her doctorate degree is quite obvious. I enjoyed the discussion.
we called it space-time for a reason , if particles are entangled in space , they're Also entangled in time time is the changing of space , or in short ... change
@ 18:48 Brian says "all of those interaction (petting the cat, etc.) affect the quantum description of the cat, and… those interactions suppress the very parts of the quantum probability that are at odds with our experience, which is why our experience is as it is …" All that this statement is saying, which should not be too difficult to accept as reasonable, is that the function of the "conscious" human participant in these "interactions" is, first to 'map' them with his body's intelligent 'on-board, sensory-environment mapping computer' (or "conscious brain"), and then to use that map (and likewise previously derived/constructed related maps) to direct his body's subsequent momentum routing decisions (actions), thereby affecting the probability (by increasing some and reducing others) of the specific sequence of quantum 'detection' events which (in toto) constitute those 'self-perceived behavioral (inter-)actions', and thus of the set of 'quantum particle location- manifestations' that (in toto) comprise the structure of that perception. This boils down to recognition that the human observer's "sensory [self and his actions]-awareness waveform" is this otherwise purely random quantum probability wave universe engaged in its own "intelligent" (and hopefully soon to be "more intelligent") self-design and self-construction / configuration. I propose that the _structure_ of "the material universe" that we find ourselves participants in is comprised of the 'self-relative motion' (a.k.a. "acceleration") of an otherwise structureless 'Scale-Uniform' superfluid Medium (SUM) -- Einstein's "spacetime", the 'stuff' whose otherwise featureless flow appears to "curve" with proximity to a gravitating particulate mass. The overall geometric "structure" of this otherwise structureless fluid's "pure" self-relative motion is that of a "particulate" horn toroidal fluid vortex (a.k.a. a "black hole"), which -- apparently, by some means and mechanism [intimately related to and/or involving "the speed of light"], can 'self-fractalize', and/or generate the "appearance" of doing so. So, welcome to 'The Graviton', and let's recognize our [hopefully soon to be] intelligently self-aware human societal network (HSN) as a higher order extension and expression of the 'distributed network of "momentum" (or self-relative SUM-flow) re-routing particulate I/O devices' that "It" has apparently "selected" (or de facto "settled upon" if you prefer) as the foundational architecture (and operating principle) of its "self-organizing" mechanism.
Thee question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete has been a subject of significant debate and discussion in the field of physics. This debate was sparked by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (EPR), which questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics and argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory. In their paper, EPR argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing hidden variables that would provide a more complete description of physical reality They proposed a criterion of physical reality, stating that in a complete theory, there should be an element corresponding to each element of reality, and a physical quantity should be predictable with certainty without disturbing the system . However, the debate surrounding this issue has continued, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward. Some have argued that the quantum-mechanical description of physical phenomena fulfills all rational demands of completeness within its scope, particularly when viewed from the perspective of complementarity . The EPR paradox and its implications have been the subject of extensive analysis and debate, with important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The debate has also involved significant exchanges between Einstein and Niels Bohr concerning the completeness and locality of quantum mechanics . In summary, the question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete remains a topic of ongoing discussion and debate within the field of physics, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!
see TIQM by Cramer. Atomic scale events create QM waves going both forward in time & backwards in time. The reverse QM waves are essential to forming an entanglement. This approach eliminates the "spookiness".
Could it be that measuring extremely distant macroscopic interactions is synonymous with measuring extremely microscopic interactions? Taking an unfathomably long time to reach and interact with a macroscopic object has a similar window of probabilistic outcome for said object, just as a microscopic object like particles has a window of probability prior to measurement? It's neat to think that fast forwarding the VERY distant macroscopic journey of a measurement/interaction to a very brief moment would be analogous to a brief quantum measurement. It uses the classical world to picture the quantum world, but just like any attempt at that it breaks down with things like entanglement.
The answer to the question posed @16:00 is NOT solely quantum mechanical. It lies within the combination of Quantum Mechanics, Newtonian Mechanics and Special Relativity. Aka Quantum Field Theory. This combined understanding of reality reveals our universe is a block-timed reality fundamentally emerging from fields of energy that span all of space and all of time.
A very ancient indian thought in scriptures is about variable speed of time in different 'lokas' or 'realms'; It is interesting that those Indian texts are talking about these concepts much earlier than anything came out from western sciences about these topics. Also various celestial objects and their resident devas are said to have widely different scales of time based upon variable gravity of each. So it is not about only gravity bends space, gravity also slows time. One outcome of this concept is:- duration of a day on earth for humans [with our life span] is very different to a day for a moth's lifespan. Similarly a day of 'Brahma' is billions of years in human scale. Thus it is plausible that what we call as the uncertainty principle [for example of a particle] of being in this state or the other, is that, the particle in its time scale was in a particular definitive state, and in cyclical universe, was subsequently in a different state. But with our time scale, we see the particle as flicking speedily and thus following uncertainty principle in our time scale. Expand this thought, and for 'Brahma' the virtual game of humans [with very tiny time scales compared to Brahma's scale] is also akin to what the uncertainty of a quantum particle is to humans. I think it will be good idea to read ancient Indian scriptures with scientific curiosity. We might be sitting on a goldmine and not know about it!
Your own chart indicates that particle 1, existed in T3, and therefore was able to convey or transfer information to particle 2, in T3 which in turn conveyed to particle 3 and thus to particle 4. There was no disconnection.
Isn't this experiment an argument against the Copenhagen interpretation? If the wave function has collapsed before the 2nd particle is introduced, then how can the new entanglement happen? You need a wave function for entanglement to occur. Furthermore, this implies that a particle which is entangled with another particle whose property has already been measured is, in one sense, still wavelike, but also has a predetemined specific property value (as opposed to that property existing as a broader probability distribution). It suggests that the probability wave isn't fundamental, no?
So the graph shown at 28:10 shows the interconnectedness of particles through time, while the Chinese experiment with entanglement from earth to a satellite would indicate a connection across time because of the American experiment that showed that astronauts traveling at high speed around the earth actually had a very slightly slower rate of the normal passage of time compared to that back on earth.
'The Ship of Theseus' come to mind when thinking about these sorts of things. As well, the idea of the "spime" of every Human life (look it up if you don't know, it's pretty cool). Hard to define oneself as a singular entity when we're always sloughing away particles, eating biomatter and shitting it out, regrowing hair and tissues, et cetera... All things are in a constant state of metamorphosis: select which state you wish to observe
You are asking very difficult question my friend! - Modern science has no idea what Field is!, Needier Energy, needier Space, Time, Gravity, El magnetism, Attraction....
If everything is quantum waves in Einstein's time-space understanding the quantum entanglement of particles is closer to the advancement of overall physics. May the pioneers keep pushing forward. I especially like the equal and opposite spin after the measurement. I am exploring spin propulsion
I don't really understand how it could be. I mean particle entanglement is not magic, some particles interacted at one point, and the effects of that interaction changed the state of both particles, which lets us assess the state of one particle just by looking at the other. What does it even mean to be entangled across time? That they become entangled before interacting to... you know... become entangled?
Modern science has no answer to your question, But... if you really want to learn, I will direct you toward the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Exactly it is not magic if you do the math and apply physics and then natural logic then you have a tangible answer. Imagine 2 billion magnetite identical particles scattered and interwoven across the surface of the earth four billion years ago as they all dance along the electromagnetic force field as it becomes the primary force on earth after waiting patiently for the universe to cool down and the nuclear forces to pass on the baton before they take a break and prepare for the next round
I would assume it would have to seeing how space and time are basically the same. if you entangled 2 particles then moved them to the other side of our galaxy, would they not experience time dilation in some manner proving entanglement across "time"?
During measurement what kind of interaction happens? Is it from the wavelength of the light? Is the measurement changes the energy of the object? Is scale of measurement matters? What would happen if we measure the object from small perspective?
A thought experiment I posed in Sabine Hossenfelder's comment section (which was mysteriously deleted for whatever the reason?) Here's my thought experiment: (non-existent technology is proposed for explanation purposes only) A one light second circumference race track is constructed (186,272 circular miles). An observation tower sits stationary at the center of the track. A light speed race car and driver set out and approach 99.9999% light speed. The driver then turns on his 1 second flashing strobe light with a 10 millisecond 'on' duration. Q: Will the driver experience time dilation? Q: What will the tower observer see? (Remember, there is no distance change between observer and driver) Qualify your answer in plain language. Assume the tower observer has a super telescope mounted on a rotating swivel where he is able to see the driver and his strobe light as they circle around the tower observers position. There is a part 2 to this T.E...
Thanks for the nice video. But, I would not call that experiment as being entanglement in time. Entanglement involves a superposition of states that cannot be factorized and I do not see what states are entangled at different times in that experiment due to the measurements. The best example of entanglement in time is the Franson interferometer. One has two photons created at the same time by down conversion and sent each along a path to the left and to the right that each go through a 50-50 beam splitter that delays the photon or lets it go straight through. Then you detect each photon and see did the left come before the right, the right before the left, or both at the same time. For the ones not at the same time, there is only one way they occur, so the probability is a constant. But for the ones that go on the long long or short short options, they form a superposition and interfere. By changing the phase of one of the photons, on either path, you can get the coincidence to go from 0 to a maximal value. This is true entanglement in time, as we have a superposition of two pulses at physically different times, but they interfere simply because we do not know when they were created. Truly mind bowing in my view. And of course the big question is what happens to probability conservation if the coincidences can have varying probability. Think carefully and you can sort that out as well.
A good example of quantum entanglement in real world is our last names. We cannot describe someone completely or define their state without knowing their last name. Therefore, we, the children of our parents, are defined by our parents - an entanglement that exists across time, regardless of the existence of one or the other in their frame of reference. What is interesting is that the entanglement can be adopted by a completely strange person, not related to the individual, because each of us can have more then one entanglement. During our self-measurement state, we can choose who to entangle with; And the extent of the entanglement is such that it changes our DNA, our composition and make up.
I like the dart board bit. If the board were swinging on it's nail and the dart were moving in a straight line; it's eventual position on the board would be a probability, like a wave function. But if the frequency of the board and speed of the dart were at the speed of light then they would inevitably meet. There would be a simultaneity.
it is interesting that scientists come up with different questions every time. To the question, yes they can be, as the question does not mention about space. Space and time are same but look different for observers viewing differently.
Brian is basically a materialist and a reductionist, but he really is open minded. And he is capable of making me understand complex physics, which feels awesome. So thank you.
I have a question. This maybe, because I am still learning. Has it been considered that our instruments are not advanced enough to make a proper detection of a particles position? Or, that the particles movement is too extreme to make a proper detection. Therefore, making the "observer effect" an equipment issue ? I read all these papers and picture these particles vibrating at a rate to extreme to detect. I ask this in all humility.Any response would be appreciated.
If you are really interested in understanding the position of particles or any other seemingly immeasurable or illogical particle behaviour then I recommend removing time from the equation and replace it with length. Using maths and classic physics you can define a single quanta of parameterized space which can be searched over to discover and isolate whatever you are wanting to learn more about using tools or hardware that can measure everything from photons to phonon wave forms to natural forces. These existed 14 billion years ago and are in the world you live in right now. They are natural and real and exist whether or not they have been observed. The lady on stage should maybe learn physics as she seems a little confused
The problem here is that there are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. We teach this in high school, but absolutely nobody seems to be paying any attention. Then people go online and are being bombarded with the particle nonsense. Whatever nonsense they hear on the internet immediately overwrites their correct high school knowledge and that's why millions of folks like you are asking the same nonsensical question over and over again. ;-)
Thank you. Very intelligent woman :) I have been getting stomped on for ages for even remotely suggesting that space-time may have some form of fundamental agency. When we change our context/perspective and allow the agency of space and time to have effect on on the material universe many of the unanswerable questions appear to fall into place. > I accept that it is difficult for humans to think or conceptualize complex ideas in 4D. It takes training to separate the classical human thinking out of the paradigm and it is not easy. The most difficult part is holding a thought containing an infinite number of event horizons in that 4D abstraction, but simplifying that abstraction down to a single and then just a small number of those event horizons makes it possible. Explaining to another person via a 2D or 3D realm is extremely difficult if not near impossible as the 4D context is immediately lost thus destroying the understanding that we are attempting to relate. > 2 good staring points are the spherical time histograms showing 3D space as flat spherical shells or layers of moments of the 3D in time. There are many hidden points of singularities as well as event horizons that are not immediately obvious. The other being that of the past and future light cones representations which also contain a large number (if not infinite) of intersecting singularities and event horizons. The 4 most notable being the event horizons at the side of the cones, the infinitely small intersect of the light cones past and forward event horizons at an infinitely small point in the "Now" present. and the depiction of the 2D plane that slices the "Now" moment at that intersect. That depiction of the "Now" plane in time is the event horizon where the quantum world is unfolding from moment to moment. There are an infinite number of event horizons (light cones) intersection at an infinitely small point across that 2D event plane. . So, we are at the question of what is connecting the intersect of ALL of those infinitely small points (light cone intersects) across that plane, that moment in time, that event horizon? We know if 2 or more of those intersecting points touch we have a classical interaction between particles in space at that event horizon in time, but what is the connection "across" that time plane for all entangled particles for that moment in time? The particle has no awareness of another particle outside of its infinitely small event horizon in that now moment. > I find myself separating that plane into a static moment of time (event horizon), and when that plane is progressing the concepts of relativity such as gravity and mass emerge and are knowable in the past light cone (in the wake of and trailing the event horizon of the time line).
One thing I saw as missing is discussion of the axis about which spin is measured. I think, or my understanding is, that such spin is inherently aligned (up or down) with an axis of random choice. As such, it seems that spin is occurring about any and all axes simultaneously until measured. To me, that's not trivial. Doesn't this arise from the Stern-Gerlach experiment? How wrong am I?
If we ever did find a way to communicate using the underlying mechanism of entanglement (instantaneous communication between entangled particles) that would also allow us to communicate through time. If you took one end of the communicator (e.g. a group of entangled particles in one location) and accelerated it enough for it to experience noticeable time dilation relative to the other end of entangled particles (the other end of the communicator) then you would be able to communicate through time. Probably another reason why its likely impossible to ever communicate using entanglement.
Both Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics specify how things are now. The Newtonian equations predict how they will be later on. The equations of QM specify the probability of how things will be later on. The logical explanation is that we have an uncertain future coming into existence with potential photon ∆E=hf energy, of what might happen, exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of electrons of what is actually happening. This forms an irreversible probabilistic process with an uncertain future coming into existence photon by photon with the absorption and emission of light waves.
The thing about entanglement is there were some thoughts that it was like a pair of gloves. If at the end if a party I go home with one glove and my friend accidentally took the other.... if I have the left hand glove I immediately know he has the right hand glove. These properties were known to exist before the so called entanglement of two gloves...this quality is always entangled for the pair.... but its pre-existing...of course if I measure left i immediately know you measure right. But an experiment by a guy named Bell in the 1960s showed statistically that the entanglement qualities we measure are not pre existing like a pair of gloves. More than this is cannot explain but its been shown entanglement is not a pre-existing quality but really is only determined when measured.
Although entangle particles are non-local in 3 dimensional space, they are indeed local in 4d spacetime (i.e. they are touching). So we shouldn't be surprised that entangled particles can behave this way.
My intuition on many worlds is that it resembles the picture I get when I try to imagine multiple time dimensions intersecting. Can someone with more skill than I have try thinking about the possible relationship between probability and orthogonal time?
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Time is an instrument of measurement, so if quantum entanglement doesn’t care about distance, it doesn’t care about time.
I see a stunning consistency between non-locality with the Buddhist notion of dependent origination. But it would be a historic mistake if science ignored the parallel between Being Time (Uji) as proposed by Dogen Zenji, a 13th century Buddhist monk, and non-locality, especially time.
Just curious, isn't entanglement proof of higher dimension? I postulate that the information is actually travelling on or is connected via a different plane or higher dimension beyond our accessible 3-dimensional space, perhaps the higher dimensions begin to manifest at smaller and smaller scales of our 3D universe. I'd be keen to hear a string theorist opinion on this. Thanks for the informative clips.
Note that in a double slit experiment individual electron do form 1 dot on the screen. It is that only when many many many electrons go thru the slits, potentially with a gap of even a day between each electron passage, that collection of dots forms a banded pattern which scientists calls interference pattern. However, in a classical, water wave the interference pattern forms at the same instant in time. But like I described above the banded pattern can form over 10 thousand days formed from the dots of 10 thousand electrons passing one electron per day for 10 thousand days. So why should we think that the electron interfered with itself. It did not. So I do not think the language describing the DSE is formulated correctly.
The existence of the bands where none hit the screen show that the individual photons do interfere with themselves. Yes each one forms a single dot, and the bands only appear after many single photons are sent, but none of them land in the interference zone. If they are being sent one at a time, what causes the interference pattern that affects every single one sent? They have to be interfering with themselves, otherwise over the large sample the bands would not exist. The interference does occur in real time, but rather than showing the whole pattern with each particle, instead the pattern is revealed because none of the dots can end up in the areas where the interference occurs.
So if the universe is probabilistic then at the “beginning”, can we really speak of “initial conditions” since instead it must have been “all possibilities” what does that tell us about entropy at the Big Bang? Wouldn’t that qualify as maximum entropy?
The problem with trying to define particles that are entangled that never lived at the same time is in our definition and understanding of Time and the lack of a proper model for time that facilitates this necessary understanding. If you truly understand time, then you'll know that it doesn't matter what timestamp any particle carries since they do not truly exist solely in the type of "time" that current science has defined it as and may not at all. That's perplexing isn't it? Stay tuned for the philosophical explanation and model.
Are universal frames of reference just permitted now? What have I missed? Its not just Elise Crull's proposition I'm referring to but I keep seeing this transgression in lots of modern ideas, such as in Wolfram's interpretation of his latest models. Relativities' whole basis falls out from under it if we apply intrinsic mappable properties to space-time. No longer would you need to do transformations by the speed of light because you can instead agree on position and momentum based on this universal grid. Which in its most broad sense would mean that things would not need to do the things we know them to in the presence of fields - such as exprience differing in the passage of time or changes in the length of distances, and ultimately energy would not need to be equivalent to mass. It just breaks everything.
32:40 On spontaneous Lorentz transformations: the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging. Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. Thus, the world itself already has many-sided (~ "multi-world") and improvisational (~"probabilistic") properties. P.S. 0. "Indeed, it is clear that we cannot report the translational motion of the entire universe and check whether this motion affects the course of any processes. The principle of relativity therefore has heuristic and physical meanings only if it is valid for any closed system. However, the question arises, when can a system be considered closed? Is the remoteness of all the masses outside the considered system sufficient for this? The answer, according to experience, says that in the case of uniform and rectilinear motion, this is enough, but for other movements it is not enough. Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). 1. Obviously, the opposite is true for an expanding universe. Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^ 2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^ 2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the parameter Ht* it shows how much of the global time has "passed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference relative to the clock. 2.The observer can measure the increase in the duration of the processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt
I've wondered the same thing myself. I wonder if it would make traveling to the past a reality. Telsa described a theory of using electrically charged particles and magnetic fields to manipulate time. Can quantum entanglement be used to open a gateway to the past? If so we could travel to the past.
@@JoAnnaDuBose The latest PBS Space Time does it better than I can, but a study on superradiance by Nathan Babcock found that microtubules in our brain are most likely utilizing some type of quantum process that we never thought would be possible in such a heated environment.
Used properly with the right teacher at the right time that line just MIGHT get you out of trouble for late homework lol... BUT...even if it didn't it will ALWAYS be worth giving it a try! 🖖⚛️
I don’t know about you but my head fell clean off when she spat out “There are many people who still haven’t accepted what quantum mechanics is saying is that we have an Irrevocably probabilistic universe….”
Questions regarding wave probability collapse due to measurement: how precise (localized) is the collapse? Shouldn't the precision of the localization itself have an uncertainty (related to the energy exchanged with the field quanta being measured)?
The discussion that starts at the 27:12 is fascinating. Non-locality is a very interesting phenomenon that I reading much on. I have not figured it out yet, but when I do, the Nobel Committee will be calling. Yea, right! Better wake up now from this entangled state :).
Here is a thought: Could it be that the totality of our "illusion of Certainty" is the Quantum Uncertainty Realm of a Higher levels of existence and then would not our mathematical certainties be the "fog" of Possibilities that would be available to be measured from the point of view of entities existing at those upper levels?
I keep being impressed by how precise Brian describes everything when he formulates the questions. He never oversimplifies too much. It's great
We need to protect this kind of people! Give them more than they are given!
He’s conscious that anyone who spends time on these questions only needs to be trained in physics to understand physics but to understand life he treats everyone as capable.
For most scientists, only sacrificing the position of their career and life’s work can they allow normal humans in to ask these questions with them. This doesn’t happen.
Brian is a representation of humility & divinity meaning his intention comes from his heart first and survival secondly.
What I took away from this is that what happens in Vegas does *not* stay in Vegas.
UH-OH
I'm impressed at his patience and focus he's over discribing things because he's got a very enthusiastic but under prepared speaker and the layed back tone of the conversation is leading her into the weeds without us
The smallest unit of matter called Rupa-Kalapa contains 24 derived matter based on 4 basic matter.
This is better than anything on streaming services right now and Brian Greene is dropping 🔥🔥🔥 for FREEEE
Interesting when weird physics model is drawing room to bed room needed an explanation for realty.
After all it fire band .
oh, he dropped (his research and the ball) a long time ago. in the trashcan, where they belong!
Buddhist Cosmology and the ultimate truths of nature are super amazing.
Don't get me wrong I like Brian but what he's dropping is Dogma unproven stuff check out James Webb Space Telescope new findings all this stuff is being disproven
@@smlanka4u Not really
"Elise Crull received a B Sc (Honors) in Physics & Astronomy from Calvin University, and holds an M.A. in Philosophy and Ph.D in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to City College, Dr. Crull held post-doctoral fellowships at the University of Aberdeen and at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, conducting research into the historical and philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics.
In addition to history and philosophy of science, Crull frequently ponders (sometimes aloud in front of audiences) philosophical problems associated with quantum theory: the quantum-to-classical transition, quantizing gravity, understanding quantum causal models, the metaphysical nature of entanglement (including temporal entanglement!) and, as of late, interpreting the alternate quantum formalisms used in quantum computing. She also has the occasional thought about quantum cosmology.
While these questions keep Prof. Crull in conversation with physicists, she also loves a good metaphysics chin-wag. Topics of special interest there include ontology, meta-ontology, and mereology.
Since her research interests are fundamentally interdisciplinary, Crull often finds herself engaging with related "meta" issues, such as the ethics of emergent techno-science, science in the public sphere/ in education, and the nature of the science-theology-philosophy triad."
Thanks for the background. Elise seams like someone I could relate to and listen to all day.
@@axle.student They deserve their own show, it's simple really.
@@wcsartanddesign When I get some time I will have a closer look at Elise's work. I have a lot of unanswered philosophical questions about how the current physics paradigm relates to the real universe and how much bias the human condition projects onto the pseudo reality of physics.
I usually get stomped on for suggesting that there is a certain connection that appears to exist "Across" time. I am no physicist but this seams to lend toward agency in what we loosely call time. In some sense this leaves me feeling that time is more fundamental and containing rules that are not obvious to us or are just outside of our ability to speculate on, measure or test (Maybe Time is a poor or misleading word, but I am not speaking of the measuring device or the measurement as we commonly conceive it).
I have looked around and I am seeing many physicists who have and are questioning. The problem is that for now the best we can do is attempt to look at the problem from a different perspective and typically that falls into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics which are 2 taboo words in modern physics lol
>
Personally I suspect the missing information lays within the hidden layer of the event horizons. Event horizons and singularities appear to take us into that infinitely small moment in time which is hidden from us. Without a concept of progression or time the universe has no human meaning to us, so it becomes a difficult realm for the mind to conceptualize.
What a beautiful, brilliant mind.
I have read his books , but Greene in this program is even better along with his colleagues. How great is it to have access to such programming!
I love Dr Crulls energy. Super excited. Like me trying to explaine the new videos at work lol. Thank you both greatly
She sounds like Dr. Ellie from Contact (1997)
The facts are doing most of the work. I could read you my shopping list in an overexcited manner if you doubt me
@@paulo.8899Look for my post before I saw yours.😉😇
@@paulo.8899It seems we are simpatico.😉😁
Nervous excitement
Brian Greene is one of the best Science communicators ever!
ya Physics for dummies. MOst of us :))
kinda not, hes been pushing string theory for 30 years but still better than kaku
@@marting2003 true:))
@@marting2003 ads/cft proved him right
ah, the old "FAILED SCIENTIST GOES SCIENCE COMMUNICATOR" shtick. I think you are onto something here!
and before you reply: String Theory is dead. and so is Greenes research.
what choice does he have, then to write popular books for the masses and make science shows?
Thank you for all you do Dr. Greene!
Prof. Crull describes quantum phenomena beautifully. Schrodinger got it right. Entanglement isn't one of the properties of quantum mechanics, it's THE property. Instead of using decoherence to explain the suppression of quantum fluctuation in our world of macroscopic objects, maybe we should explain it with entanglement. The network of entanglements between particles in a large system makes it virtually impossible for particles to spontaneously change their state because they share their properties with all other particles in the system. The collective "state" of the proverbial cat is locked in by this network of entanglements, and the probability of superposition of living and dead states is vanishing small.
Sounds cool and it's 100% wrong. Schroedinger didn't get it right. His equation is just a crude approximation of reality.
Elise is a brilliant science communicator!
That was enlightening and wonderful all at once! Great questions and great responses!!
This popular education work that you are all doing (you both and your team(S)!) is respectble and potentially essential work. Thank you so much!
Elise Crull is an excellent teacher!
she's too nervous. too much coffee
I gave this a thumbs up because the intro is, probably, perfect. Now...well, we shall see.
This idea that particle 1 and particle 4 are entangled through time, is thin at best. As all of the opposite qualities of 1 are alive in 2, and you use 2 to flip the spin of 3, which is entangled with 4. There is no spooky action backward through time. You measure the spin of 1. That value doesn't change when you measure 4. It's no surprise they agree because you made that happen normally through time.
Pretty much this. That result is sensationalized to no end.
Agree...nothing profound there.
There may be spooky action backward through time, massive at that.
@@7ramnique I would love to see an experiment that proved there was action forward or backward through time, outside normal means. That would show that the universe is time sliced, and our reality is the one we are "currently" experiencing. That would be HUGE. This is not that experiment.
QM certainly remains a set of principles but not yet a theory, even if entanglement involves space and time. Unitary evolution of Schrodinger's wave function involves much more than entanglement. It seems to involve 'error correction' mathematics or its algorithm that hides the truth.
What epic timing. Last one week I have been researching about black holes and quantum entanglement, even accidently watched the show 3 body problem which had quantum entanglement in it.
I believe that our brains are quantumly entangled through time!!!
Right? Alan Watts had it right all along
@JamesMulvale you need to look up bob greenyer, fractal tyroidal tripole moment. There is a plank force that travels 4c. There is more evidence then people realize. I'm going to give you a string of names you need to look into. Bob greenyer, John hutchison, salvitore pais, Ashton forbes, Dave rossi, there are people working on the technology of this problem. from the look of it military has had this figured out for some time. Mh370x flight.
whatever
15:58-Don't we see a similar level of probability distribution across far distances in space and time at the macro level as well? Meaning, when we observe a star or galaxy here on Earth we are measuring it, so it's in a relatively fixed position. But if we were to travel to it's location to directly interact with it, would it not wildly fluctuate in speed and position on our way there? Mirroring the same pattern of behavior we see at the atomic scale?
So, if the universe is spooky and weird at Planck length, does it become weirder/spookier, or more ordered at incomprehensibly large scales?
Yes
As above so below
Since the fundamental particles dictate how the Universe works at the Planck scale, you could argue that is the real behavior of the Universe, and the way it appears to work at our scale and larger is the weird stuff.
I like the question.
@@mosquitobightexactly.
Elise, Thank you for what you do. I would take your course since the description of what you teach applies directly to my interests. I loved your enthusiasm!
Another example of correlation over time comes from a version of the double slit experiment wherein a single photon or particle at a time is emitted, yet a wave pattern still forms.
Q1. What does universal entanglement, should that be the case across spacetime, imply about the probabilistic nature of reality?
Indeed, no one discusses how two spatially separated entities could communicate. (In the absence of any other explanations, I postulate that they do not see spacetime (a photon also does not). This possibility (somewhat outside the box - but others have questioned the existence and/or nature of spacetime) means there is no separation and no "communication" between the entangled particles. They remain two sides of the same coin.
Q2. How is decoherence manifested in the double-slit experiment? Are the peaks somehow lower than they ought to be?
Q3. How does relativity affect the wave function?
Q4. What do you think of Donald Hoffman's work?
5:06 This is the best description of Quantum Mechanics, that explains exactly, the relation between the "everyday" perception of the reality and the scientific approach to the "real" reality, the scientific perception of the world! Dear Professor Mr. Brian Greene, thank you, so much for this. I think this description is what we all (the amateur scientists), need to have in our minds to be thinking more "clear", about all this. And thank you Elise Crull, you are presenting the Quantum World with the philosophical background we all the amateur scientists need to have in our minds when we trying to understand "Quantum Theory" and all those wonderful abstract ideas around "modern" or synchronous Science!
World Science Festival: You are the Oasis in the Desert of this World!
💚Thank you All! 🌈
This is why Physics also needs philosophers :)
@@axle.student And also thats why Philosophy wants to be needed from the Physicists! It is the well known😊 Juliet-Romeo syndrome! 😊😊🌈🌈💚💚🤖🤖🌸🌸
@@markoszouganelis5755 I can explain the problem of the "Human Condition" and our inescapable subjective awareness of the world (universe) beyond the self in far more detail, but put simply even the physicists and mathematicians ultimately paint there own version (description) of reality over the real universe. Philosophers are the only people who have capacity to relate that subjective reality to the real universe (objective truth), and even for them it is a difficult if not close to impossible task.
Elise seams to have and is acquiring the skills to act as a translator, so I see her and any others with her ability as a necessary and needed part of a discipline (Physics) that has been stalled within it's own self defined prison for near 70 years :)
@@markoszouganelis5755 I will throw in a quote from one of my favourite fiction authors "And as he believed, so it was for him" - Richard Bach
@@axle.student I think we us all ARE: "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" and everyone of us thinks he is the center of the universe. And!...after all it's true! "And as he believed, we believe. So what it was for him, now it is for us too, and forever..!" (..and ever! And NEVER forget that)! Thank you my Good friend for commenting my comment! 🛸😊🌸= PEACE and LOVE and SCIENCE!
Okay. I must continue watching these conversations.. even though it's way above my intellectual weight class. I really like listening and trying to pick up what I can and examine it.
Elise Crull and Brian Greene try so hard to communicate theories that reveal the uncertainty of how the universe works. I don't understand them but I get a sense of how connected and complex the universe is.
It isn't. It can be summarized all of it in the following: The universe is an empty three dimensional metric manifold on which systems (arbitrary human made partitions of the manifold) have one additive property called energy. ;-)
I want to see Elise Crull and Sean Carroll have a long debate. It'd be interesting to have Sabine Hossenfelder in there too.
I find all their views plausible (mere decoherence, many worlds, and superdeterminism respectively). I want to know why each thinker rejects the others' views, and what each of their responses to those reasons for rejection are.
None of them understand quantum mechanics. ;-)
I would say yes.. if we imagine time like waves from droplet Round or like a ocean current maybe.. its connected throughout time yes? An maybe the past resonates through time. Having a littel hard wrapping my mind around it but think theres something to be said about the theory?
This one will be fun cannot wait to watch it tonight :)
In the Ender's Game books they used a device called the Ansible that could communicate across many light years.
The term was first used in a novel by Ursula K. Le Guin in 1966 and some other authors also borrowed the term.
In Enders Game this is how it worked (From wikipedia)
It involved a fictional subatomic particle, the philote. The two quarks inside a pi meson can be separated by an arbitrary distance, while remaining connected by "philotic rays".This concept is similar to quantum teleportation due to entanglement; however, in reality, quark confinement prevents quarks from being separated by any observable distance.
SF so often predicts things before science gets around to discovering, proving or acknowledging them.
Star Trek (somewhat) predicted the Moon landing 2.5 years before it actually took place (to be fair, he said "late '60s")
One must be able to imagine a thing before it can be proven to exist.
Well, this was impressive. Prof. Crull certainly has that persuasive storytelling ability, as does Greene. The last three minutes or so got complicated, but was still intriguing. Many thanks.
Brian Greene explains complex concepts in simple terms with a clear and likable voice!!
But we have Godel to thank for keeping us all grounded.
The idea discussed is the only thing that makes me consider ghosts being a scientific plausibility. Cool to see this question get covered!
They were at one point real because I’ve seen them as a child. But never again since the 70s. My folks called them angels. But I’ve never met anyone past a certain age that has seen them. It’s been patched. Also our entire existing/reality is on a flat screen In space… no idea but creepy
Nice😊😊. I hope to attend WSF when my degree ends.
As always, most stimulating! Quick questions: since entanglement is so ubiquitous, can I create entanglement in a kitchen counter experiment? If I have a liter of water at room temperature on the kitchen counter, what percentage of the water molecules should I expect to be entangled at any given time?
Excellent discussion!
Never having taken a science class, self taught, such as it is, one mystery, amongst many, that I will take to the grave with me, is why so
many Physicist purported to have knowledge of QM , just seem to not understand the “Black Body Radiation Problem”, and what exactly
Planck proposed as a solution.
For instance, one, of many, Planck never believed or proposed that light consistent of particles and in fact later found such an idea nonsensical.
An amazing distortion of the history of physics, by both Brian and Elise.
Einstein gets full credit.
Brian Green is very good at presenting arguments for thought and discussion. Elsie is very good at presenting arguments as well. Her doctorate degree is quite obvious. I enjoyed the discussion.
I love the way my brain explodes when you talk about quantum entanglements reaching through time . Thankyou ❤
we called it space-time for a reason ,
if particles are entangled in space , they're Also entangled in time
time is the changing of space , or in short ... change
@ 18:48 Brian says "all of those interaction (petting the cat, etc.) affect the quantum description of the cat, and… those interactions suppress the very parts of the quantum probability that are at odds with our experience, which is why our experience is as it is …" All that this statement is saying, which should not be too difficult to accept as reasonable, is that the function of the "conscious" human participant in these "interactions" is, first to 'map' them with his body's intelligent 'on-board, sensory-environment mapping computer' (or "conscious brain"), and then to use that map (and likewise previously derived/constructed related maps) to direct his body's subsequent momentum routing decisions (actions), thereby affecting the probability (by increasing some and reducing others) of the specific sequence of quantum 'detection' events which (in toto) constitute those 'self-perceived behavioral (inter-)actions', and thus of the set of 'quantum particle location- manifestations' that (in toto) comprise the structure of that perception. This boils down to recognition that the human observer's "sensory [self and his actions]-awareness waveform" is this otherwise purely random quantum probability wave universe engaged in its own "intelligent" (and hopefully soon to be "more intelligent") self-design and self-construction / configuration.
I propose that the _structure_ of "the material universe" that we find ourselves participants in is comprised of the 'self-relative motion' (a.k.a. "acceleration") of an otherwise structureless 'Scale-Uniform' superfluid Medium (SUM) -- Einstein's "spacetime", the 'stuff' whose otherwise featureless flow appears to "curve" with proximity to a gravitating particulate mass. The overall geometric "structure" of this otherwise structureless fluid's "pure" self-relative motion is that of a "particulate" horn toroidal fluid vortex (a.k.a. a "black hole"), which -- apparently, by some means and mechanism [intimately related to and/or involving "the speed of light"], can 'self-fractalize', and/or generate the "appearance" of doing so.
So, welcome to 'The Graviton', and let's recognize our [hopefully soon to be] intelligently self-aware human societal network (HSN) as a higher order extension and expression of the 'distributed network of "momentum" (or self-relative SUM-flow) re-routing particulate I/O devices' that "It" has apparently "selected" (or de facto "settled upon" if you prefer) as the foundational architecture (and operating principle) of its "self-organizing" mechanism.
I'm just going to say that I think dark energy is the connection between the entanglement that we cannot detect thus due to quarks and gluons
Nope.
no it’s non local: no hidden variables. u have to abandon classical way of thinking on this one
Just listen Brian, don't read the comments, unbelievable how much can i relax with this show.... Thanks for my mom that she beat me to learn English.
This is SO AWESOME! What a wonderful conversation and love the enthusiasm!
Excellent.
Brian knows everything his guests present. 😉
Thee question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete has been a subject of significant debate and discussion in the field of physics. This debate was sparked by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (EPR), which questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics and argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory.
In their paper, EPR argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing hidden variables that would provide a more complete description of physical reality They proposed a criterion of physical reality, stating that in a complete theory, there should be an element corresponding to each element of reality, and a physical quantity should be predictable with certainty without disturbing the system
.
However, the debate surrounding this issue has continued, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward. Some have argued that the quantum-mechanical description of physical phenomena fulfills all rational demands of completeness within its scope, particularly when viewed from the perspective of complementarity
.
The EPR paradox and its implications have been the subject of extensive analysis and debate, with important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The debate has also involved significant exchanges between Einstein and Niels Bohr concerning the completeness and locality of quantum mechanics
.
In summary, the question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete remains a topic of ongoing discussion and debate within the field of physics, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward.
that rubik’s cube image is such a good image help !
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe,
think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration”
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and creates our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
"Interesting" to who or what? I think "Infinity" is a living entity. What do you think?
@@WILLIAMMALO-kv5gzWe are Borg. Resistance is futile. 😂😂😂
It's chaos, literally. I have written on this. The fractal does it all, and cosmology. I wrote to John Clauser today with my papers.
I share the same intuition with u... Till we can send information faster than light... It's just a theory,more breakthrough is needed
see TIQM by Cramer. Atomic scale events create QM waves going both forward in time & backwards in time. The reverse QM waves are essential to forming an entanglement. This approach eliminates the "spookiness".
Hol’ up, his writing is this fire?
Could it be that measuring extremely distant macroscopic interactions is synonymous with measuring extremely microscopic interactions? Taking an unfathomably long time to reach and interact with a macroscopic object has a similar window of probabilistic outcome for said object, just as a microscopic object like particles has a window of probability prior to measurement? It's neat to think that fast forwarding the VERY distant macroscopic journey of a measurement/interaction to a very brief moment would be analogous to a brief quantum measurement. It uses the classical world to picture the quantum world, but just like any attempt at that it breaks down with things like entanglement.
The answer to the question posed @16:00 is NOT solely quantum mechanical. It lies within the combination of Quantum Mechanics, Newtonian Mechanics and Special Relativity. Aka Quantum Field Theory. This combined understanding of reality reveals our universe is a block-timed reality fundamentally emerging from fields of energy that span all of space and all of time.
A very ancient indian thought in scriptures is about variable speed of time in different 'lokas' or 'realms'; It is interesting that those Indian texts are talking about these concepts much earlier than anything came out from western sciences about these topics. Also various celestial objects and their resident devas are said to have widely different scales of time based upon variable gravity of each. So it is not about only gravity bends space, gravity also slows time. One outcome of this concept is:- duration of a day on earth for humans [with our life span] is very different to a day for a moth's lifespan. Similarly a day of 'Brahma' is billions of years in human scale. Thus it is plausible that what we call as the uncertainty principle [for example of a particle] of being in this state or the other, is that, the particle in its time scale was in a particular definitive state, and in cyclical universe, was subsequently in a different state. But with our time scale, we see the particle as flicking speedily and thus following uncertainty principle in our time scale. Expand this thought, and for 'Brahma' the virtual game of humans [with very tiny time scales compared to Brahma's scale] is also akin to what the uncertainty of a quantum particle is to humans. I think it will be good idea to read ancient Indian scriptures with scientific curiosity. We might be sitting on a goldmine and not know about it!
Your own chart indicates that particle 1, existed in T3, and therefore was able to convey or transfer information to particle 2, in T3 which in turn conveyed to particle 3 and thus to particle 4. There was no disconnection.
Isn't this experiment an argument against the Copenhagen interpretation? If the wave function has collapsed before the 2nd particle is introduced, then how can the new entanglement happen? You need a wave function for entanglement to occur.
Furthermore, this implies that a particle which is entangled with another particle whose property has already been measured is, in one sense, still wavelike, but also has a predetemined specific property value (as opposed to that property existing as a broader probability distribution). It suggests that the probability wave isn't fundamental, no?
As soon as I learned about quantum physics I looked upon fractals, sensitive dependents on initial conditions entirely changed my view
So the graph shown at 28:10 shows the interconnectedness of particles through time, while the Chinese experiment with entanglement from earth to a satellite would indicate a connection across time because of the American experiment that showed that astronauts traveling at high speed around the earth actually had a very slightly slower rate of the normal passage of time compared to that back on earth.
'The Ship of Theseus' come to mind when thinking about these sorts of things.
As well, the idea of the "spime" of every Human life (look it up if you don't know, it's pretty cool).
Hard to define oneself as a singular entity when we're always sloughing away particles, eating biomatter and shitting it out, regrowing hair and tissues, et cetera...
All things are in a constant state of metamorphosis: select which state you wish to observe
Possibilities are endless
No, science defies uncertainties. Chaos is not logical. We could find the answers in AGI and ASI.
Why so short? Is this being uploaded part by part?
Part 2 is Sean Carroll. Released an hour ago
Question: could the field itself be the intermediary between entangled particles, bypassing any FTL requirement?
You are asking very difficult question my friend! - Modern science has no idea what Field is!, Needier Energy, needier Space, Time, Gravity, El magnetism, Attraction....
If everything is quantum waves in Einstein's time-space understanding the quantum entanglement of particles is closer to the advancement of overall physics. May the pioneers keep pushing forward. I especially like the equal and opposite spin after the measurement. I am exploring spin propulsion
Elise is a very good science communicator.
I don't really understand how it could be. I mean particle entanglement is not magic, some particles interacted at one point, and the effects of that interaction changed the state of both particles, which lets us assess the state of one particle just by looking at the other. What does it even mean to be entangled across time? That they become entangled before interacting to... you know... become entangled?
Modern science has no answer to your question, But... if you really want to learn, I will direct you toward the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Exactly it is not magic if you do the math and apply physics and then natural logic then you have a tangible answer. Imagine 2 billion magnetite identical particles scattered and interwoven across the surface of the earth four billion years ago as they all dance along the electromagnetic force field as it becomes the primary force on earth after waiting patiently for the universe to cool down and the nuclear forces to pass on the baton before they take a break and prepare for the next round
I would assume it would have to seeing how space and time are basically the same. if you entangled 2 particles then moved them to the other side of our galaxy, would they not experience time dilation in some manner proving entanglement across "time"?
During measurement what kind of interaction happens? Is it from the wavelength of the light? Is the measurement changes the energy of the object? Is scale of measurement matters? What would happen if we measure the object from small perspective?
A thought experiment I posed in Sabine Hossenfelder's comment section (which was mysteriously deleted for whatever the reason?)
Here's my thought experiment:
(non-existent technology is proposed for explanation purposes only)
A one light second circumference race track is constructed (186,272 circular miles).
An observation tower sits stationary at the center of the track.
A light speed race car and driver set out and approach 99.9999% light speed.
The driver then turns on his 1 second flashing strobe light with a 10 millisecond 'on' duration.
Q: Will the driver experience time dilation?
Q: What will the tower observer see?
(Remember, there is no distance change between observer and driver) Qualify your answer in plain language.
Assume the tower observer has a super telescope mounted on a rotating swivel where he is able to see the driver and his strobe light as they circle around the tower observers position.
There is a part 2 to this T.E...
I guess it's an unworthy thought experiment for the ones who are already convinced of "settled science"?
It's a shame.
Thanks for the nice video. But, I would not call that experiment as being entanglement in time. Entanglement involves a superposition of states that cannot be factorized and I do not see what states are entangled at different times in that experiment due to the measurements. The best example of entanglement in time is the Franson interferometer. One has two photons created at the same time by down conversion and sent each along a path to the left and to the right that each go through a 50-50 beam splitter that delays the photon or lets it go straight through. Then you detect each photon and see did the left come before the right, the right before the left, or both at the same time. For the ones not at the same time, there is only one way they occur, so the probability is a constant. But for the ones that go on the long long or short short options, they form a superposition and interfere. By changing the phase of one of the photons, on either path, you can get the coincidence to go from 0 to a maximal value. This is true entanglement in time, as we have a superposition of two pulses at physically different times, but they interfere simply because we do not know when they were created. Truly mind bowing in my view. And of course the big question is what happens to probability conservation if the coincidences can have varying probability. Think carefully and you can sort that out as well.
A good example of quantum entanglement in real world is our last names. We cannot describe someone completely or define their state without knowing their last name. Therefore, we, the children of our parents, are defined by our parents - an entanglement that exists across time, regardless of the existence of one or the other in their frame of reference. What is interesting is that the entanglement can be adopted by a completely strange person, not related to the individual, because each of us can have more then one entanglement. During our self-measurement state, we can choose who to entangle with; And the extent of the entanglement is such that it changes our DNA, our composition and make up.
I like the dart board bit.
If the board were swinging on it's nail and the dart were moving in a straight line; it's eventual position on the board would be a probability, like a wave function.
But if the frequency of the board and speed of the dart were at the speed of light then they would inevitably meet.
There would be a simultaneity.
Love it: “one of the guys” of physics history. 💪🏾
Brava👏🏼👏🏼 what a woman.. Brian Greene being a boss as always
it is interesting that scientists come up with different questions every time. To the question, yes they can be, as the question does not mention about space. Space and time are same but look different for observers viewing differently.
How are space and time the same ?
Brian is basically a materialist and a reductionist, but he really is open minded. And he is capable of making me understand complex physics, which feels awesome. So thank you.
I have a question. This maybe, because I am still learning. Has it been considered that our instruments are not advanced enough to make a proper detection of a particles position? Or, that the particles movement is too extreme to make a proper detection. Therefore, making the "observer effect" an equipment issue ? I read all these papers and picture these particles vibrating at a rate to extreme to detect. I ask this in all humility.Any response would be appreciated.
If you are really interested in understanding the position of particles or any other seemingly immeasurable or illogical particle behaviour then I recommend removing time from the equation and replace it with length. Using maths and classic physics you can define a single quanta of parameterized space which can be searched over to discover and isolate whatever you are wanting to learn more about using tools or hardware that can measure everything from photons to phonon wave forms to natural forces. These existed 14 billion years ago and are in the world you live in right now. They are natural and real and exist whether or not they have been observed. The lady on stage should maybe learn physics as she seems a little confused
The problem here is that there are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. We teach this in high school, but absolutely nobody seems to be paying any attention. Then people go online and are being bombarded with the particle nonsense. Whatever nonsense they hear on the internet immediately overwrites their correct high school knowledge and that's why millions of folks like you are asking the same nonsensical question over and over again. ;-)
Thank you. Very intelligent woman :)
I have been getting stomped on for ages for even remotely suggesting that space-time may have some form of fundamental agency. When we change our context/perspective and allow the agency of space and time to have effect on on the material universe many of the unanswerable questions appear to fall into place.
>
I accept that it is difficult for humans to think or conceptualize complex ideas in 4D. It takes training to separate the classical human thinking out of the paradigm and it is not easy. The most difficult part is holding a thought containing an infinite number of event horizons in that 4D abstraction, but simplifying that abstraction down to a single and then just a small number of those event horizons makes it possible. Explaining to another person via a 2D or 3D realm is extremely difficult if not near impossible as the 4D context is immediately lost thus destroying the understanding that we are attempting to relate.
>
2 good staring points are the spherical time histograms showing 3D space as flat spherical shells or layers of moments of the 3D in time. There are many hidden points of singularities as well as event horizons that are not immediately obvious. The other being that of the past and future light cones representations which also contain a large number (if not infinite) of intersecting singularities and event horizons. The 4 most notable being the event horizons at the side of the cones, the infinitely small intersect of the light cones past and forward event horizons at an infinitely small point in the "Now" present. and the depiction of the 2D plane that slices the "Now" moment at that intersect. That depiction of the "Now" plane in time is the event horizon where the quantum world is unfolding from moment to moment. There are an infinite number of event horizons (light cones) intersection at an infinitely small point across that 2D event plane.
.
So, we are at the question of what is connecting the intersect of ALL of those infinitely small points (light cone intersects) across that plane, that moment in time, that event horizon? We know if 2 or more of those intersecting points touch we have a classical interaction between particles in space at that event horizon in time, but what is the connection "across" that time plane for all entangled particles for that moment in time? The particle has no awareness of another particle outside of its infinitely small event horizon in that now moment.
>
I find myself separating that plane into a static moment of time (event horizon), and when that plane is progressing the concepts of relativity such as gravity and mass emerge and are knowable in the past light cone (in the wake of and trailing the event horizon of the time line).
"And that's pretty cool!"
Elise evokes a good Jodie Foster from Contact (1997).
One thing I saw as missing is discussion of the axis about which spin is measured. I think, or my understanding is, that such spin is inherently aligned (up or down) with an axis of random choice. As such, it seems that spin is occurring about any and all axes simultaneously until measured. To me, that's not trivial. Doesn't this arise from the Stern-Gerlach experiment? How wrong am I?
If we ever did find a way to communicate using the underlying mechanism of entanglement (instantaneous communication between entangled particles) that would also allow us to communicate through time. If you took one end of the communicator (e.g. a group of entangled particles in one location) and accelerated it enough for it to experience noticeable time dilation relative to the other end of entangled particles (the other end of the communicator) then you would be able to communicate through time. Probably another reason why its likely impossible to ever communicate using entanglement.
Both Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics specify how things are now. The Newtonian equations predict how they will be later on. The equations of QM specify the probability of how things will be later on. The logical explanation is that we have an uncertain future coming into existence with potential photon ∆E=hf energy, of what might happen, exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of electrons of what is actually happening. This forms an irreversible probabilistic process with an uncertain future coming into existence photon by photon with the absorption and emission of light waves.
The thing about entanglement is there were some thoughts that it was like a pair of gloves. If at the end if a party I go home with one glove and my friend accidentally took the other.... if I have the left hand glove I immediately know he has the right hand glove. These properties were known to exist before the so called entanglement of two gloves...this quality is always entangled for the pair.... but its pre-existing...of course if I measure left i immediately know you measure right. But an experiment by a guy named Bell in the 1960s showed statistically that the entanglement qualities we measure are not pre existing like a pair of gloves. More than this is cannot explain but its been shown entanglement is not a pre-existing quality but really is only determined when measured.
Is it weird that I enjoy this more than anything, but yet, not understand 99% of what they are talking about?
You will understand , Just keep at it . Curiousity . And look up the definitions of the words that they use . Their thinking will become clearer .
Although entangle particles are non-local in 3 dimensional space, they are indeed local in 4d spacetime (i.e. they are touching). So we shouldn't be surprised that entangled particles can behave this way.
My intuition on many worlds is that it resembles the picture I get when I try to imagine multiple time dimensions intersecting. Can someone with more skill than I have try thinking about the possible relationship between probability and orthogonal time?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Time is an instrument of measurement, so if quantum entanglement doesn’t care about distance, it doesn’t care about time.
I love the World Science Festival, and am grateful for its existence
I see a stunning consistency between non-locality with the Buddhist notion of dependent origination. But it would be a historic mistake if science ignored the parallel between Being Time (Uji) as proposed by Dogen Zenji, a 13th century Buddhist monk, and non-locality, especially time.
Dr Crull's magnificent hair is physics-defying!
Just curious, isn't entanglement proof of higher dimension? I postulate that the information is actually travelling on or is connected via a different plane or higher dimension beyond our accessible 3-dimensional space, perhaps the higher dimensions begin to manifest at smaller and smaller scales of our 3D universe. I'd be keen to hear a string theorist opinion on this. Thanks for the informative clips.
Note that in a double slit experiment individual electron do form 1 dot on the screen. It is that only when many many many electrons go thru the slits, potentially with a gap of even a day between each electron passage, that collection of dots forms a banded pattern which scientists calls interference pattern. However, in a classical, water wave the interference pattern forms at the same instant in time. But like I described above the banded pattern can form over 10 thousand days formed from the dots of 10 thousand electrons passing one electron per day for 10 thousand days. So why should we think that the electron interfered with itself. It did not. So I do not think the language describing the DSE is formulated correctly.
The existence of the bands where none hit the screen show that the individual photons do interfere with themselves. Yes each one forms a single dot, and the bands only appear after many single photons are sent, but none of them land in the interference zone. If they are being sent one at a time, what causes the interference pattern that affects every single one sent?
They have to be interfering with themselves, otherwise over the large sample the bands would not exist. The interference does occur in real time, but rather than showing the whole pattern with each particle, instead the pattern is revealed because none of the dots can end up in the areas where the interference occurs.
Great lectures on the space time and quantum
So if the universe is probabilistic then at the “beginning”, can we really speak of “initial conditions” since instead it must have been “all possibilities” what does that tell us about entropy at the Big Bang? Wouldn’t that qualify as maximum entropy?
Because even with time there is an equal and opposite reaction so there has to be balance within the universe
The problem with trying to define particles that are entangled that never lived at the same time is in our definition and understanding of Time and the lack of a proper model for time that facilitates this necessary understanding.
If you truly understand time, then you'll know that it doesn't matter what timestamp any particle carries since they do not truly exist solely in the type of "time" that current science has defined it as and may not at all.
That's perplexing isn't it?
Stay tuned for the philosophical explanation and model.
Are universal frames of reference just permitted now? What have I missed? Its not just Elise Crull's proposition I'm referring to but I keep seeing this transgression in lots of modern ideas, such as in Wolfram's interpretation of his latest models. Relativities' whole basis falls out from under it if we apply intrinsic mappable properties to space-time. No longer would you need to do transformations by the speed of light because you can instead agree on position and momentum based on this universal grid. Which in its most broad sense would mean that things would not need to do the things we know them to in the presence of fields - such as exprience differing in the passage of time or changes in the length of distances, and ultimately energy would not need to be equivalent to mass. It just breaks everything.
Nope. ;-)
32:40 On spontaneous Lorentz transformations:
the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging.
Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. Thus, the world itself already has many-sided (~ "multi-world") and improvisational (~"probabilistic") properties.
P.S.
0. "Indeed, it is clear that we cannot report the translational motion of the entire universe and check whether this motion affects the course of any processes. The principle of relativity therefore has heuristic and physical meanings only if it is valid for any closed system. However, the question arises, when can a system be considered closed? Is the remoteness of all the masses outside the considered system sufficient for this? The answer, according to experience, says that in the case of uniform and rectilinear motion, this is enough, but for other movements it is not enough.
Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT).
1. Obviously, the opposite is true for an expanding universe.
Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H:
ds^ 2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^ 2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the parameter Ht* it shows how much of the global time has "passed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference relative to the clock.
2.The observer can measure the increase in the duration of the processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt
I've wondered the same thing myself. I wonder if it would make traveling to the past a reality. Telsa described a theory of using electrically charged particles and magnetic fields to manipulate time. Can quantum entanglement be used to open a gateway to the past? If so we could travel to the past.
My mind hurts... No pain, no gain.
This with the latest Penrose information about microtubules possibly containing quantum processes are making me rethink everything.
Can you elaborate please? Sounds interesting.
@@JoAnnaDuBose The latest PBS Space Time does it better than I can, but a study on superradiance by Nathan Babcock found that microtubules in our brain are most likely utilizing some type of quantum process that we never thought would be possible in such a heated environment.
What is the boundary between the macroscopic and quantum world ?
Bro just dropped the hardest physics intro edit at the beginning.
Bro visited his friend.
"Undulating waves of probability."
That line tripped me out a little.
_@dmonvisigoth1651_ -- Yes, it sounds like something H.P. Lovecraft would have written.
I am having trouble focusing as well since I too have become preoccupied with suffocating undulating waves.
Used properly with the right teacher at the right time that line just MIGHT get you out of trouble for late homework lol...
BUT...even if it didn't it will ALWAYS be worth giving it a try! 🖖⚛️
I don’t know about you but my head fell clean off when she spat out “There are many people who still haven’t accepted what quantum mechanics is saying is that we have an Irrevocably probabilistic universe….”
Koan:
Q: Does quantum mechanics have Buddha nature?
A: Uh, probably.
And the acolyte achieved sudden enlightenment.
Brian: "You mentioned Quantum Mechanics, but I'm afraid to ask." 🤣🤣
Odd comment. Dr green is dumbing it down enough for you.
Those are Brian’s words to the flaky person. I thought it was funny, but I’ll dumb it down for you next time.
Questions regarding wave probability collapse due to measurement: how precise (localized) is the collapse? Shouldn't the precision of the localization itself have an uncertainty (related to the energy exchanged with the field quanta being measured)?
The discussion that starts at the 27:12 is fascinating. Non-locality is a very interesting phenomenon that I reading much on. I have not figured it out yet, but when I do, the Nobel Committee will be calling. Yea, right! Better wake up now from this entangled state :).
That's great, except that quantum mechanics is 100% local. Yeah, no Nobel for you, today. ;-)
Here is a thought: Could it be that the totality of our "illusion of Certainty" is the Quantum Uncertainty Realm of a Higher levels of existence and then would not our mathematical certainties be the "fog" of Possibilities that would be available to be measured from the point of view of entities existing at those upper levels?