I have been searching for hours for a video that would explain this concept clearly. I finally found it. Thanks so much. This deserves a like and a sub.
I really appreciate these intermediate level videos. You help close gaps in our understanding of these complex theories. I've known about entanglement for years now, but watching this video really helped me to grasp it in a mind blowing way. You are the real MVP Arvin!
I know right? Arvin and PBS SpaceTime are the best explainers of high level physics on UA-cam. PBS SpaceTime's recent explanation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation being a superposition of all possible wave-functions of the universe over the 'actual' wave-function of the universe, was mind-blowing! 🤯 I finally understand it, and can now see why so many people find it an attractive alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Sabine Hossenfelder is really good too, but she keeps her video explanations mostly at a more entry-level, which is good for mass appeal, though she cuts out the BS and unhelpful analogies (the 'lies we tell to children' type explanations). She's also pretty opinionated about stuff which I appreciate! I've learned more from UA-cam than all my years of education. Inspiring stuff.
@@RoganGunn Thanks for mentioning Sabine. I watched her video on quantum hype and instantly subscribed. I see what you mean about her cutting out the bs. Her videos will help fill more gaps of understanding.
***Are you **#Mathematician** or **#Scientist**?*** ***Then stay far away by **#Science_Charlatans**!*** If we loss The #Road_In_Science , need maybe 1000 years to find it back. Because : *****#The_Best_Ever_Humanity_Logical_Science_Discovery***** *****#Best_Ever_HSCUT_Components_AEPDF***** where *****#HSCUT** = *** *****#Humanity_Science_And_Culture_Universal_Thesaurus***** *****#America_Earth_Proud_Day_Fundamentals***** #7_Years_Hide by #Civil_Society_Institutions - #Science_Institutions via - I can’t say exactly if - #Microsoft_Hackers, #Facebook_Hackers , #Oracle_Hackers, or #Oracle_Hackers or #Intel_Hackers ! A lot of People , #Scientists, #Mathematicians yet are working desperate for *****#Fermat_Last_Theorem***** as a intuitive answer to an inexact #Proof even for n=4. *****#BUT***** *****#Boyss**** , Fermat’s Last Theorem is #Fundamental in #Science by #2015_September_24 by #Ion_Murgu_From_Ohio . #Fermat_Last_Theorem_Certified in #Accurate, all Science rigor for n [2, #Infinity ) and sent in fundamental , keep also it’s old name as respect for #Fermat! Thanks for helping My as AEPDF to take theirs place into #HSCUT ! See “www.climaticdisorder.com/hstp/” and don’t ask for what “#Climatic_Disorder_DOTCOM” . I thought the fight against all climatic disorders will be to us a duty for future as a #Good_Morning_Future for Eternity! ***America Earth Proud Day Fundamentals*** are 2 #Absolute_Truth_Fundamentals which will #Stand_Up for future as *****#Basic_Science_Fundamentals***** and now are fighting to take Theirs Right Place into ***Humanity Science & Culture Universal Thesaurus*** for wearing the Science in truth but also reading The Road for *****#Inerton***** or *****#The_Tear_Of_Geea***** basic even of #Life. *****#School** **#Teacher** **#University** **#Nobel*****
Awesome explanation. I have read a lot about entanglement but still had some challenges to really understand it. Your explanation makes it all clear now to me, especially the part where you explain that two entangled objects are being described by the same wave function. Thank you so much for this.
After 4 years I finally discover the one video on the internet that actually explains quantum entanglement clearly. Thank you Arvin for your hard work. Once you realise they are not two separate particles - that there is only one wavefunction - everything falls into place.
makes you wonder if they are truly connected through another universe. lets say you take a shoelace and put it through a sheet of paper, both ends through different holes. from one side it looks like two different objects, you pull at one end and the other one reacts instantaneously, looking from the other side you realize its one object
Guys 😂, what's going in quantum entanglement is non-dualism, the particles are not separate but one( interconnected by an infinite dimension called pure consciousness ) , just like the yin and yang symbol, what science is trying to convey is the exact same thing that Spirituality had been trying to tell people for thousands of years that what's going in this this space and time reality is ultimately an illusion and is mainly governed by an" invisible reality" called non-duality( a reality that exist beyond time, space, forms , concepts ect.. which you cannot see, touch, smell or feel.). Those particles were never separated in the first place and has always been and will always be one. This physical universe that operates as space and time is an illusion,but there is another Reality which is the source of all the things happening in this universe. Every form, words, concepts, relatively and understanding all ceases to exist and what's let's is pure energy, the consciousness itself beyond duality. Science and spirituality are so very close to be best friends, this is because science is now catching up with Spirituality. Go to a spiritual teacher or any yogi master ,they are going to explain this whole thing of quantum entanglement to you simply and it will make your head spin❤
Fantastic video! I finally get entanglement, because you stated very succinctly the assumption EPR (and the rest of us) have been making that the two particles are not separate but the same wave function. Lots of other videos don't mention this basic problematic assumption or glide over it very quickly so that it isn't clear. Thanks!
Can you help me understand more by explaining What "the same wave function" means & the implications of two particles having a common? It sounds like having a singular wave function somehow combines the two particles into one. Is that correct? Does having one singular wave faction "actually cause the two to become one? If not, does the fact that there is only one wave function simply "reveal" that there was only one particle all along? Thanks for any insight you can share in layman's terms. 🙂
So it’s same wave function yet change in that wave function at one place somehow effect it at other place how does this spooky thing happen. Sounds like adding more fuzzy word non local I’d same wave function yet no one is telling how this same wave function explains instant communication .
I know this sounds like a dumb question, but no one has been able to explain it to me for years. I am skeptical about the whole thing - what I can't understand is, why isn't the glove example applicable here? How do we know that the other electron wasn't always the opposite (or always whatever it was going to be)? Supposedly, the electrons are normally in a state of "spinning" both up and down until they are observed. How do we know that a specific one isn't ALWAYS going to appear spinning one way when observed, and naturally the other one, it's opposite partner, is always going to appear the other way. I know I'm not explaining this well, but how do we know electron A isn't always going to be up, and obviously its entangled partner B going to be down, since we can't observe them until we observe them. Once we observe one, we know the other will be opposite.
Because they're able to prove thru experiments similar to the double slit experiment that the "particles" don't resolve into specific states until measured. They stay as indeterminate waves where multiple states are still possible. Research the double slit experiment and it's variations. Then research Bell's theorem, which led to proof they are not somehow misinterpreting the double-slit type experiments.
If you assume the hidden variables are time invariant, you have the case of the two gloves. But if you admit that the hidden variables include a time-varying term, then you also have to admit that (from General Relativity) the time-varying terms decohere because of the presence of gravitational gradients along their paths. That's why modern theories include a gravitational path integral, so as to account for the fact that the two particles age independently of each other, and thus get out of phase as a result of any gravitational gradients. The violation of Bell's Inequality doesn't rule out hidden variables, it only rules out time-invariant hidden variables. The decoherence is then explained by GR, which reminds us that time-keeping is local.
@@BarryKort No, there are no hidden variables that affect Bell''s proofs' conclusion that our universe is non-local (and hence answer the OP's question), even if you propose time-invariant variables. You're not really understanding Bell's theorem... it's all about showing how we can use quanta, *before* they decohere, to show there are NO hidden variables. It is true that decoherence from gravity does happen, and that time-keeping is local, but Bell is about showing how we can use a huge sampling before decoherence to statistically prove there are no hidden variables, even from time & gravity. The theorem is literally all about factually disproving your idea could be correct. For instance, here is a modern Bell experiment that includes even the esoteric time-related loopholes: ua-cam.com/video/tgoWM4Jcl-s/v-deo.html
What a GREAT video!! Never before has it been mentioned that these particles "met". This made so much sense to me! Im a lay person who loves quatum physics. Great Job! Definitely subscribing!
Just wanted to say I recently found your channel and I'm already addicted. The ideas are expressed/described very well while still getting into things that are difficult to say in a conversational way.
Wonderful work Arvin...taking us to the application in electronics, quantum computing. Amidst the wash I gathert it's technology that has improved our theoretical knowledge...observing an actual electron...in a manner of speaking ... is a case in point. The ability to do this was previously thought impossible. I look forward to following your work.
@@GMan958 he had a kind of "birth mark" that he got surgically removed, so he had to wear a bandage for a few months. thus the hat to cover it up. he explained it in some video months ago.
Thank you for a great video. Some (many) naive questions: Matter is made of particles, and all matter was created after the big bang, yet somehow we can experiment with particles that have never been observed. 1.) What counts as an observation/measurment? 2.) How do we know that we have A electron in an apparatus before shooting it at a detector (double slit expr, DSE) without observing it? 3.) How can we even retrieve a particle into an approximate position without observing it? Isn't observing a piece of metal actually observing the particles that makes it, otherwise what am I observing, waves? 4.) Would the DSE work the same with chunks of particles, say protons? If so, how large chunks, atoms? Presumably not, but then when did the wave result of DSE break down when increasing the size of the chunks?
Science priests do not like questions undermining consensus. Matter is still created. Sun is a one big higher level elements generator. Big bang is only a theory. Something coming from nothing instantly is many orders dumber than bibles genesis in 6 days.
@Black_No_Sugar No, faster than light communication is not achieved. The result of the measurement is inherently probabilstic. No useful information for communication can be encoded in the entangled particles. Thus no communication occurs when the measurement on the particles is performed. Both parties will receive a random measurement outcome.
@Black_No_Sugar The no-communication theorem shows that when person B measures their part of the entangled system, they will not be able to tell the difference between what person A did and a random measurement. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
@Black_No_Sugar First you have to explain why 'what others say' is incorrect. Just because the person is using another idea that is not their original idea doesn't discount it mate. If you want to argue such claims with large implications, you are going to run into a lot of theories and hypotheses that will go against what you are claiming.
The point is that if person A were able to use entangled particles to send person B information faster than the speed of light (instantaneously) we know that Person B would receive that information before person A ever sent it which causes a never ending list of other problems. Certain laws which holds our universe together simply can’t be broken and for that I am grateful
This is quite good. Even as quantum mechanics degreed/educated business strategy person working in quantum computing, I can tell you that this stuff is hard to wrap one's head around. Arvin is a big help to me.
First of all business strategy is not theoretical physicist, seckndly of course it is not easy to grasp since it is about a more fundamental part of the hniverse than our everyday experience.
@@innosanto actually it is our everyday experience... You see it everywhere every day all the time. It's more common than the idea of air. That's why people don't notice it. It's just the idea that one thing is just part of a set that contains it and the opposite of it. When we say 'is' we automatically determine what 'isn't' even if never said. There just has to be an opposite to everything.
Guy in the video said we can't send information FTL with it, but couldn't you just use the collapse of the particle wave-function to a single state on the other end to imply a pre-agreed upon message? Like you take an entangled particle from Earth to a colony, and read its state if you're in distress and need assistance. You could have other particles to say which type of crisis is happening, and so on Maybe they just don't know if the wave-function has collapsed until they read it anyway, so they don't know if they collapsed it or the particle on the other end
Amazing video. Ive watched a lot of videos that explained the recent findings in a well manner but none of them explained how quantum objects are entangled in the first place. Great video 👍
Great content! You clarify much of the assumptions people make when trying to wrap their heads around these ideas. Late in minute 13 you suggested some physicists think entanglement might be more fundamental than space itself (or our conception of it). Can you (or anyone else) point me in the direction of further reading about that? Much obliged and keep up the great work.
Physicist can think but they can’t freely say what they believe because it goes against their doctrine that our universe is fundamental made from subatomic particles, and if they go against that thought without evidence they lose their credibility and funding to research. I can give you a possibility, which is what science should be about, and why there should never be scientific laws because science is never law, just our best understanding of something at that given time. Our universe, and what we perceive as the physical world in our dimension, is fundamentally harmonics of frequencies, and potential energy. Let’s call this consciousness. Primordial beings and living beings such planets and humans have a consciousness, but anything without consciousness will be dictated by the most powerful consciousness around them, and individually the greater the mass, the greater the consciousness, and that’s what dictates the flow of gravity,.This why drugs like ketamine can give you an out of body experience, because our consciousness is not tied to our body/brain, it is simply a frequency. Particles that are created by the dominant consciousness will have very similar frequencies depending on space and time, once they’re together their frequencies sync and bind a collective consciousness which allows them to interact instantly through their source frequencies. That is the fundamentals of intergalactic travel, by using math to find a frequency in space and time, and then changing your frequencies to match that to instantly transfer in space and time to that frequency. Humans have a collective consciousness, but are not born with a similar frequency like particles except sometimes twins, this why twins have been mysteriously known to sense the other twin subconsciously, and the same with loved ones that have grown their consciousness collectively. If you would like to test this without drugs, look up the gateway process to separate your consciousness from your body. The collective human consciousness is enslaved by a duopoly of thought into everything and indoctrinated into a false morality of good and evil, right or wrong. This is why cults have been portrayed as bad, but religion is a cult, and political parties have become cults, and now science is a cult, all intertwined for control. If everything this consciousness, our ultimate goal should be to grow our consciousness which is our soul. So take all knowledge as possibility, but don’t ground it as truth. The ultimate goal is to be like water, free from bias. So now you hit the end of the road, but you have two options, wake up in your bed believing whatever you want to believe, or see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. If you want to understand the coded universe, watch Swaruu official on UA-cam but start from the beginning because it will challenge your reality, but is put in bite sized pieces so it is easy to digest, but it all builds upon previous topics. If you want to see how science for the greater good isn’t real, watch the why files episodes on killer patents and secrete science. If you want to see how religious scripture is not just words, but encodes existence, watch the Why files episodes secrete codes in the Bible. If you want more understanding of how frequencies are used against us, look up numerology, words, and rituals are used by the Illuminati/freemasonry to manifest reality. This is why logos like google chrome, Disney, and CERN all gave 666 in their logo. Also how words are used to form hypnosis. This is why News casters talk a certain way, and it is the most creepy thing I only recognized on psychedelics. Also rituals they perform like at bohemian grove, or the super bowl half time show. I could go much deeper into these topics but I’ll keep it light lol.
I disagree that entanglement occurs only at quantum level. The other day while going on a short visit to her parents 1000 km away my wife warned me not to touch her favourite cookie jar. The next day, unable to resist my temptation I entered the kitchen and was about to lay my hands on the cookie jar when the phone rang. "I told you not to touch the cookie jar, didn't I?" my wife's voice sounded eerily scary over the phone. Now don't you agree that entanglement can occur between large objects too?
What you are describing is called morphic fields or morphic resonance - which is basically a field that contains memories. The idea is that if a monkey on an island starts using rocks to break a nut, shortly afterwards monked on other islands will do the same thing. Some examples come from ancient human civilizations that learned cosmology around the same time despite allegedly being isolated from each other. I do think there might be something to this idea by a biologist named Sheldrake. I just don't think it works the way he thinks it does. Kind of like Newton was pretty close to understanding gravity, but also didn't understand it all (compared to our current knowledge). Nonetheless, morphic fields are not commonly accepted as a valid hypothesis by many scientists.
I hope your wife didn't see your comment especially the part where you called her a "large object." If she did, you might not have any entanglement with her for an unspecified period of time.
Arvin, halfway through you went through entanglement pretty fast, but then you caught back on where you left off on the later part of the video. This made my understanding of quantum particles much clearer. thanks of that. good video
It’s like trying to describe to your friends, something you’ve never seen before. Descriptions of visions are often difficult to describe. The book of Revelations is a good example. 📖
Hi Ash, it'll be great to see your video explaining completely different point of view from the standard model. Aka Electric universe by Wal Thornhill and other folks. You might find it very convincing to say the least. Would love to hear your opinion and the video on the subject. Thanks
I am impressed with how complex these subjects are and how easy to understand you make them to be. One of the best physics channels I had the pleasure to watch.
Fascinating video and great explanation! Quantum non-locality through entanglement is really interesting. It seems as though it transcends space. If space can be transcended through non-locality, does it suggest there is an "absolute" nature, independent of spacetime in classical relativity? How can relativity relate to such non-locality? Always looking forward to your videos! Great stuff.
Transcends I would not use, but there is indeed some line of thought that information is more fundamental than space and time and gets entangled with other information constantly. From this entangled information space and time emerge, much like temperature emerges from molecules bumping into each other. I recommend Erik Verlinde's elastic universe to blow your mind on this topic.
@@XEinstein Thank you for bringing Verlinde to my attention. (I once wanted to be a professional, but am just an amateur, so I do not follow this stuff as closely as a professional would.) From what I can tell, he is on track to confirming what my instinct told me had to be the solution, that we live in a sort of holographic universe. What we see as "reality" is just a projection of the underlying actual reality. Sort of like if you watch a movie where two particles seem far apart, but, in reality, they are joined as one object on the film reel which is in the projector. If something happens to the particles simultaneously on the screen, you might wonder how they interacted simultaneously as they seem to be two entirely separate particles separated by space. But once you see the film reel, you realize that they are actually just one object.
Couldn't you think of the universe as consisting of two parts. The ordinary part we know and an associated quantum waves part? I'm not sure how that could be described as transcending space.
It's first time I've heard explanation of why and how it actually works, at least something better than "Well it just is and nobody know why" I've heard dozens of time on other science channels. Thank you!
Could you do a video on the meaning of "measurement"? What exactly forces the colllapse into an eigenstate? So, if you do a 2 slit experiment with photons, what constitutes a detector?
The only reason people love this explanation is that they get to sleep like normal people knowing in a sense that quantum entanglement doesn't break the speed of light lol but does it really?
Fascinating with an idea so well unentangled to be able to explain it. We really must learn to think the almost unthinkable then call it perfectly natural! Brilliant expo from a brilliant mind. Yours! Bravo!
This makes me think that entangled particles are connected through dimensions we are unable to comprehend, similar to a 2D being unaware of events outside of its 2D plane of existence. 3D distance would have no relevance if that was the case. I just love pondering all the possibilities!
That's what I've been thinking too. So obviously my thinking is not unique... However, I can't find any formal scientific theories on it so maybe it's too far-fetched...
Yes! You're starting to see it. Entangled photons are a single object, a single wave function. Now consider the possibility that such an entanglement can store gravitational potential energy in its quantum states. Once you can store energy in an entanglement, then you're on your way to graviton beams and gravity drives.
Arvin explains things so well. Video after video on this, and it's the first I've seen that de-spooks the spooks. The 13th minute is gold. I've been pondering this a lot this week, and it also seems relevant to me that the entangled photon's view of the observer's universe is instantaneous because it has no velocity along the observer's time axis. This means in experiments where collapse at location A seems to affect location B instantly, well, we'd be wise to consider that those are 3 sequential moments from the experimenter's POV (Entanglement, AbsorbtionOfA, AbsorbtionOfB), but from the photons' POV there is one combined moment (EntangleAndAbsorbtionOfBothAAndB). This seems like it warrants some model like ping pong tables on trains, themselves perpendicular on another axis to both on a 3rd train car, with the observer outside all that, and those ping pong balls having luminal velocity. And that by pondering that, perhaps the "two parts of one object" can be better defined.
The electron spin example probably does not happen in the real world since the two electrons will become decoherent the instant they are separated by a tiny distance (the wavefunction overlap decreases exponentially over distance and they will re-establish coherence with their microenvironments, respectively).
That’s definitely true of the electric field alone, one must remember that a photon utilizes the magnetic field as well And the magnetic field has infinite range and can definitely handle the process of keeping photon entanglement coherent over distance Just gotta remember that the two fields are unified but still have their own limits and parameters
13:52 ... yet you had to bring those particles close enough together to entangle them... right? sounds to me like space itself is still more fundamental.
Thanks a lot Arvin. Your explanation on entanglement is so clear and understandable. I have just started reading quantum mechanics. But I fully understood what the entanglement is.
By The Standard Model, this is by far the simplest, most intuitive explanation of entanglement on youtubes! And I've been watching psychics videos for years!
The whole universe is indeed entangled - you can describe the whole universe with one (albeit very complex) wave-function. When we talk about the strongly correlated entanglement of two electrons or photons or whatever, we are merely taking one part of the larger wave-function and analysing it independently. Remember, due to Fourier's Theorem, all complex waves can be seen as a superposition of simpler waves, and can ultimately be broken down to simple sine waves of varying phase and frequency. What holds true for sound waves is true for the wave-function of the whole universe. (There's also a hypothesis postulated by John Bell that every electron in the universe is actually the same electron, bouncing forwards and backwards through time. So positrons are that electron on its way back through time - this also would explain Pauli's Exclusion principle. This is not really proven though, just an interesting yet plausible idea! Google: "One Electron Universe")
I can't help but picture a ripple in a pond being described throughout this video. If you measured the ripple on either side of the center, at the same distance but opposite sides, the two signals would be opposite. Any attempt to read one of those waves would interfere with it and therefore it would no longer be a reflection of the other side. The fact that undisturbed, you should always measure the opposite signal on either side fits this idea neatly. I've personally been convinced that photons are neither a wave or a particle, but a burst of energy that creates a ripple and we can read the peak of that ripple anywhere as a photon's location, but the photon isn't a thing; just the ripple of energy. Here's a thought experiment and if anyone already knows the answer, please do share with me. We are quantum physicists who have the ability to create these so-called, single photons. When we create one of these photons, can it only be seen from One direction; as if it were a bullet flying through the air, but was only visible from the front? Or rather, from the point where the photon was created, should we expect to be able to detect that photon from any direction which the point of origin is not masked? If the former, there's an argument for photons being more particle like. If the ladder, I believe it strengthens my idea by suggesting that photons are not points but peaks of a moving ripple through space. The idea that the photon is in a "superposition" until it's measured is as likely a byproduct of the physical distance it is measured from its point of origin. If any given, oscillating signal begins at zero, the phase or level of that signal will vary according to the remainder of your distance from its creation, divided by the number of oscillations which can be determined by the frequency of that photon since we know the speed of light. If I'm right, given precise enough timing and distance measurements; we ought to be able to determine the phase/spin and by doing so, lend credit to my theory or presuming we aren't talking about impossible measurements (any thermal changes or movement could spoil things); it might suggest my theory is incorrect. Considering the very nature of how laser light is generated, I believe the former will be quite impossible. 😆 The closest knowledge I have that I believe follows a similar paradigm, would be holograms and interference patterns. When you cut a hologram in half, you have two smaller versions of the original and not two halves. That is because every single point in that hologram was generated from the exact same wave function; the state of that very well controlled light that was only possible by splitting a laser to begin with (isn't that the generation of a substantial number of entangled photons to begin with?) I wouldn't even call myself an armchair physicist so much as a philosopher who has put a lot of thought into classic physics and is trying to find my bearing in current quantum physics. That said, I appreciate a gentle approach but I wholy welcome improvements or corrections to my ideas. I'm now in my 40s, with a few kids and a big old mortgage so I'm not in a position to go explore this space the way I would like to. I hope to learn what I can hear though. 🙂
There is still one question unanswered. What happens if you alter one of the entangled particles? If you change it from up to down. Does the other particle flip as a result?
Bravo! Loved it. Question though; if two particles become phase-correlated (language we used in my youth as a p-chem student), does that make them entangled, or is there more to it than that?
Phase correlation as I understand it is not the same as entanglement. But it's been a long time since I studied phase correlation so I don't know enough to tell you the difference.
Is phase correlation the same as beat frequency in vibration. This merger of frequency creates amplification. Would it be a constant until acted apon? Could these waves interact such that you could explain expansion and cohesion? No physics background!!
@@ArvinAsh Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.)
Phase correlation is about 2 separate things being very similar or even identical. However, entanglement is about what seems to be 2 separate things to us (because they are non-local) actually being the same thing; not even really 2 parts of the same thing, but THE same thing, showing that our universe, at it's fundamental level, is not "local" as we perceive it.
I know next to nothing about Quantum Mechanics (tell me if I am wrong), but I don't think higher dimension is required to picture entanglement. If two entangled particles are actually one wave function, then the act of measurement is also a wave function (of the same size, if this makes any sense). The measurement wave function would interact with every part of the wave function of the entangled particles, producing an illusion that information was seemingly transmitted faster than light.
It doesn't matter how many dimensions of spacetime you add, since quantum interactions are trans-spatiotemporal. In other words, the QM of matter isn't spacetime, and vice versa. Attempts to force it to be, as in "graviton", results in the equations blowing up to infinity in everyone's face.
It doesn't matter because you have to know the value of both particles, it sounds like "entanglement" is just a fancy way of saying "let's look at two different things and if we know A isn't B then we know B isn't A". Like, if you take two different skittles and put each one in a different box, then shuffle the boxes, you know what is in the other box once you open your box, because you already know what's in the other box, it's literally just object permanence.
The wavefunction exists in 4 dimensional spacetime. What isn't understood well is the mechanism of decoherence, or how the wavefunction collapses during measurement (interaction with another quantum object that reduces the superposition of states in the wavefunction to one (or more) state). People have invoked many-world-theories or other mechanisms such as higher dimensions or wormholes to explain how the wavefunction collapses or changes at distant locations (non-locality and from a naive standpoint seemingly faster than light or 'spooky action at a distance') but when you do the math you 'only' need 4D spacetime and relativity to model the collapse. You really have to visualize the wavefunction extending out at the speed of light from the moment of entanglement, although it is difficult to imagine the wavefunction being practically flat (zero valued) between two tiny particles separated by large distances, and existing through solid objects, even stars and planets, without being affected by them. Maybe it is this continuation of the wavefunction across distance and down to such low amplitudes (although I'm not totally sure about this, maybe the superpositions of the wavefunction are at a high amplitude across space and they combine to produce low amplitudes between the particles) that confuses everybody. Sorry if this is a bit rambling!
I was also wondering exactly that. Does the other particle also suddenly annihilate for no apparent reason? If so then this could be like an one-time communication, like an alarm that something happened to the other person? Or if there are plenty of entangled particles, encode a message from the timing between many annihilations?
Think about a sin wave. The peak is like the particle and the trough is like the anti particle. No physical objects explode, everything is vibrations. The two are mirror opposites, they cancel out. What is left behind is the energy they might have had...potential to kinetic energy. Imagine, if you will, those two curves, as cars playing chicken. Just because they will obviously annihilate doesn't mean the forward velocity instantly dissipates, which they both have. That has to be transferred to the particles around it, unless there aren't many, in that case the fabric of space. Which does this funny thing and creates particles out of energy. So, not only is it really not that mysterious, it just ends up generating decay particles anyway...
The other particle will not annihilate. Annihilation is not destruction of the particle, it is a conversion from one form to another. So, e.g. one entangled electron just converts to a photon and the other doesn’t.
You sir are a brilliant orator and explain this better than anyone else I have listened to. Thank you Mr. Ash. Amazing explanation of an amazing concept. Especially the end where you discuss the information simply needing to be transmitted and therefore not faster than the speed of light..... which was Einstein’s entire premise regarding entanglement. Thanks again sir
This was a very well articulated explanation that puts into perspective how much we've learned and how much we still don't fully understand. Regarding the communication scenario, if a stream of entangled particles show an interference pattern in two locations, then a measurement at one location should cause a simultaneous disruption at both locations. Remotely turning the interference pattern on and off would essentially be digital signal that could be used for communication.
Great video ! Why wouldn’t it be possible to use multiple entangled particle pairs and collapse them in a certain, timed pattern ? This way as long as the moment of collapse of the Wavefunctions could be determined on the other side of the earth, a morse code could be transmitted through the timing of the collapses of the wavefunctions.
There is no way to know that any given particle's entangled pair has been collapsed because a measurement has to be taken. In order to know that its entangled pair is collapsed, some communication at the speed of light would have to take place.
The timing of the collapse /would not/ and /can not/ be known. It isn't like the 'receiver' can look at an electron and say 'is it collapsed yet ?' and, if it is, measure what it has collapsed to. The 'testing whether collapsed and to what has it collapsed' are inseparable: you can't detect the 'neutral' condition: You can only measure it as 1 or 0. The important thing is that you will NEVER KNOW whether YOU caused the collapse, or whether you simply responded to a collapse instigated by the transmitter. Well, yes, you could tell the difference by comparing records with your counterpart, but that sort of defeats the object.
It seems like entanglement can be achieved by making use of conservation laws (like angular momentum conservation mentioned before). I have some lingering questions about this also: 1. Is it possible to entangle properties other than spin? properties that can have more than two values? 2. If two particles have been entangled, are they entangled forever until detected or can we *disentangle* them along the way? 3. how close and how strongly interacting two atoms are for them to entangle with each other? can we place two atoms close to each other while still having their wavefunctions separate? thanks!
Yes, I think any discrete conserved quantity can be entangled. Charge is another one. Also probably color charge, weak hypercharge, and idk maybe more...? 2. forever, but they actually don't last that long usually because they hit stuff 3. not sure, great question!
Arvin, thanks so much for your fantastic explainers. One thing that I don't understand about the "measurement" is: When we say we "see" electrons create a pattern on the screen in the double slit experiment, isn't "seeing" them a measurement in itself? So what is the difference between this measurement and the one everyone says that collapses the wave function? This looks like a paradox to me.
In quantum mechanics, the words measurement, observation, and seeing are synonymous with interaction. Interaction is, very simply put, an irreversible energy exchange. In the double slit, the interaction occurs when the quantum object like a photon hits the screen. Our "seeing" the pattern is post interaction. I haver several videos on what's really going with the double slit. This one might help clarify: ua-cam.com/video/-hxljpxTaiA/v-deo.html
Thank you for all your wonderful videos! Sabine suggests that the wave function collapse is what Einstein meant by Spooky Action. Almost all of the Bell experiments don't talk about the experimental limitations - many particles are never counted, leaving open the possibility of bias in what gets included in the data.
RBH, it is just 100% false what you say about "almost all the Bell experiments". Here is an example of a typical modern Bell experiment. There's also a few other specific, similar experiments mentioned in the discussion at the end of this one: ua-cam.com/video/tgoWM4Jcl-s/v-deo.html
Bohr is so underrated. He got the structure of the atom wrong at first, but he took on einstein and other giants in the physics community and won...every. time.
Hi, I just watched this. Key part I guess is the wave function, which describes all aspects of the object. Question I have: is it correct that manipulation of one electron make its entangled partner electron respond in the opposite direction? So how we learn more about the wave funtion, because that’s what contains the spooky bit. Thanks great video
@@ArvinAsh Thank you for answering. Please can you tell a bit more how measurement takes place ? By getting a bit more insight in this measurement process might reveal something about the ‘spooky’ part of the wave function. Again thanks!!
Quantum entanglement is a natural phenomenon. One person A walks on X line from vertical Y Zero point. This person can see another himself, A walking away from Zero toward minus X line. Because Y nature needs a balance of X line at 90 degree. That is, a secret Y exists and influences. If the space is regarded as a plasma, it can explain the existances of X, Y, A.
I was wondering something... How does the Quantum Field theory differ from the old-school idea of the Ether? They used to think that light needed a medium to propagate through as a wave. But isn't that the same principle for Quantum fields?
very good question. What makes the quantum fields 'special' is the symmetries under Lorentz transforms. E.g., the Higgs field is scalar: no matter how you move or rotate, it looks exactly the same. The EM field is a 4-vector, so electric and magnetic fields interchange identities for different observers (see: Veretasium) The spin 1/2 electron field is difficult to visualize, as it's transformation properties require the existence of the positron (anti-matter) to work out. So there is an ether, but it's a relativistic ether that has no absolute rest frame. The original "aether" was more of a Galilean thing (like sound in air), where there is clearly an absolute rest frame for sound waves.
@@DrDeuteron Fascinating to know that even though their concept of the Ether was wrong in technical detail, that they were indeed in the right frame of mind. The lack of a proper rest frame is still what trips me up, but it is damn interesting to try to understand. That everything else is relative to any given rest frame, there is no one "true" rest frame, they're all valid from their own frame of reference. I used to imagine to myself, what if I was a God and could "zoom out" to the scale of the whole observable universe. What would it look like, since each reference frame is almost its own unique reality.
Well, the properties of the "ether" were never elaborated upon or explained. QFT has far more in depth calculations and explanations, so that's how they differ.
Our (classic realm based) language is far too crude to accommodate all the complexities of the quantum realm. And that's as it should be if the quantum is truly a different realm (which it is). The concept of ether was never a singular thing. It evolved over a couple of centuries starting with Newton in 1704 and ending (roughly) in 1887 with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Most of the incantations of the ether were geared toward there existing a physical medium/substance of some sort. The ether was most definitely NOT thought of in terms of a mathematical construct. And that's the key difference as it relates to QFT. The fields of QFT are said to permeate spacetime and arise as a result of mathematical formalism. Which brings us back to our language being a crude (and insufficient) tool when it comes to discussing things quantum. That etherists were both close and way off at the same time isn't remarkable whatsoever. We've only had around 100 years to wrap our heads around the complexities of this newfound realm. If it takes us 1000 more years to improve our intuitions and flesh out better and more precise language, then that will be a job well done. For now, things are still a bit awkward and convoluted...both where we've been and were we need to go next.
Great video as always! I always thought that interaction causes the collapse of the wave function. If that's true, how come two particles can become entangled when close to one another? Wouldn't their wavefunction collapse? Maybe I'm wrong on that assumption?
Great question! It's the continued propagation of entanglement that causes what we think of as "wave function collapse." -- See this video I made for a better explanation: ua-cam.com/video/wXJ9eQ7qTQk/v-deo.html
@@valentinmalinov8424 "This is the most revolutionary theory in Physics and Astronomy ever written.".........Really? Writing this about your own body of work is just self-aggrandising and arrogant. It isn't even a theory, it's a hypothesis that is yet to be reviewed and tested to the degree that a scientific theory requires to move from hypothesis to theory. Smh.
@@IanD-ut4dy OK I am wrong, but which is your favorite tested Theory? - TR? - Just use your intelligence and logic in its consideration! - It is "proven" by "Massless" photons. Science has found that photons have measurable pressure on the illuminated surface. This means that photons have momentum, which is mass + speed. Remember that photon-propelled rocket engines are a reality! Second, TR postulate that gravity force does not exist, but... what is this force, which is bending space near a massive object? Where is it coming from, what is its source and how you are calling it? Is this is not a pure violation of the law of conservation of energy? If such a way of "proving" a "Scientific Theory" is satisfying you, then good luck!
@@valentinmalinov8424 You may well be correct, but that isn't my issue. Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say you were wrong, but that doesn't mean I think you're correct either. Comprehension skills go a long way.
I really, really appreciate Mr. Ash's using "measurement" instead of "observation" when discussing the topic of the collapse of superpositioned states. A whole lot of woo has been created by folks who want to believe that some magic quality of a human "observer" is needed to effect a quantum physics change. I also was appreciative when I got nine minutes into the video where Mr. Ash opened up his discussion of just how one quantum entangles things. This is exactly what I optimistically opened the video hoping to learn.
@@macysondheim Yes, but "observation" carries the idea of a human observer. That was my point. And that conflation of ideas is the source of a lot of woo.
Interaction would be a better word. Measurement and Observation both feel like something only humans do. People don’t understand that the wave function collapses all the time simply by particles interacting in a way that forces them to take a concrete form.
OK, how about this experiment: we measure one of them, and after we send the other one through a double slit to see if it acts like a particle of a wave....of course with multiple electrons so we can get the wave pattern...
It will show wave behavior. Basically it always shows wave behavior: the screen pattern is the square of the Fourier transform of the slit shape. If you know which slit it when through, it's the |FT|^2 of that slit. If you don't, it's the square of the sum of the FT's of both slits, and that sum contains an interference term. Now if you correlate the momenta, so that knowledge of one electron's slit determined the other (which you do not measure)...you're looking at a very interesting version of the delayed quantum eraser. Now we need a talented experimenter to set it up.
Yes, it is very similar to the q eraser exp... And thinking about it, it does make sense in a way... Light doesn't experience time, and I'm sure there's a link between this fact and the fact that the wave collapse is instant and it doesn't care about time... Maybe time is just something we experience because of gravity... But it's not fundamental to the universe?
@@laci272 You can't rely on "light doesn't experience time", because light doesn't move at c in the lab. In air, n=1+eta, and eta = 273e-6, so its gamma is only 42....very finite.
"Some have said that relation is not a reality, but only an idea. But this is plainly seen to be false from the very fact that things themselves have a mutual natural order and habitude." ― St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D)
Wish I could give this thumbs up for every time I've watched it. This video takes the complexity, assumption and guesswork out of describing Quantum Entanglement.
Entanglement obviously is "spooky action at a distance" as it refutes local realism. You can't use it to send signals, but the particles themselves seem to somehow be connected even at a distance, so yes spooky action at a distance is exactly what it is. Pretending objects that are spatially separated are the same isn't any explanation, it's a denial of the problem: the objects are not the same, they are long distances apart and should not be able to influence each other so fast, yet they do.
That's right, the story about the single wave function is mathematically correct but it still contains faster-than-light interaction/change when the wave function collapses as you measure its part. This instantaneous collapse is what Einstein really called spooky, not the entanglement.
@@thedeemon Yes, the problem is that something over here has an effect on something over there, and that effect happens faster than the speed of light. Terminology isn't important, it's the interaction that happens faster than the speed of light that is the problem no matter what one called it.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 "whole particle physicist world say the quantum entanglement seems to be a form of synchronization" No they don't. Nobody currently has any real explanation to entanglement, you can call it communication or whatever you like, but the fact is wave collapse here affects something remote faster than the speed of light. Hidden variables aren't the explanation as it has been ruled out by the experiments.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 You have more spam you wish to post that doesn't resolve anything? it doesn't matter what you call it communication or synchronization or whatever you like, the problem is how it happens faster than speed of light not what you wish to call it.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 "also you basically say all particle physicts are wrong but you are correct" No, none of the particle physicist has an explanation to the problem, calling it synchronization doesn't solve the problem. "I rather stand with science" You don't even understand the issue being discussed.
You did it Arvin. After years of almost understanding it... years of grasping entanglement, and then losing the insite entirely...I finally think I understand....thanks to you and the blueness of your tee shirt and coffee mug. What an epiphany Arvin. Thank you so much ..Rick Elliott
@@ArvinAsh u did a good job explaining to lay person. But as lay person, i still find it strange that two particles would have relationships once they separate. It is against common sense. But may be that is the crux of the unknown universe. It may actually change our understanding of the universe
All pop physics videos are the same when it comes to entanglement: they never explain the Eletron Entanglement Device. I want to know how or what entangles them, the rest has been covered to death by all other channels. So congrats, but please consider a full video on it
Hello, my friend, your curiosity can be satisfied very easily. There is one book, which explains all the current puzzles in physics and astronomy. - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" Anyway, I will explain to you - Space structure is like fine layers of plywood. When the two particles are produced simultaneously in two neighboring layers of space, the space boundary is forming the wave pattern So... on each side of the boundary (as a vibrating membrane) the particle must be in the opposite phase.
@@voges1001 yes, albeit very briefly. The only case I understand how it works is when particles are created together, to conserve charge and angular momentum
I've been searching much too long for some clear explanation about how to make entagled quanta. Most search entries lead to very nice explanations about what entanglement is, but non of the Videos and articles I've seen yet tried to explain how it's done. ...or at least not in a way that I was able to understand. I didn't await it to be that simple though. Well, i'm sure it's much more complex when it comes to the details, the math and actually doing it, but I didn't expect the ground princible to be this simple. Thank you so much for enlighten me.
I have a humble opinion, bear with me a little bit. We have two electrons they are in superposition and they are entangled. Now if you’re all bear with me for a moment more. Look at the entanglement as if it were a single string held tight by the two particles. As long as they hold the string taught they are entangled, but if you cut the string and it doesn’t matter where you cut it. The two particles immediately react. Like two men in a tug of war. When the rope breaks you don’t have to tell either of them that it happened they both know instantaneously. I think when you interrupt the entanglement either by measuring one particle or some other means you’ll get the same result. Both particles react instantaneously because they both received the same intervention at the same moment. They don’t need to teleport information from one to the other, It just isn’t necessary. When the entanglement is interrupted both particles instantly return to the state we were in before the entanglement. True or not true?
Some types of information, such as an individual electron’s spin, encompasses the entire universe - the electron spin is not local to the electron. The information of that spin exists across the entire universe and is not affected by spatial parameters.
2 - Spin is the fourth quantum number and is related to the electron, it can assume the following quantum values Ms = +/- ½. It is assumed that the electron exists and that it rotates on itself and that in the rotation it produces an effect that can be represented with a vector called spin angular momentum. Furthermore it is assumed that the electron also possesses an electric charge with a North and South pole, this property assumes that the electron also has a magnetic moment. In practice, the spin vector called SPIN describes the orientation of the electron. To define the state of an electron, 4 quantum numbers I II II IV (N, L, M and Ms) are needed. Spin was theorized in the early 20th century and is needed to compare theory and experimental data. The Pauli exclusion principle, as we were taught at university, establishes that there can be at most 2 electrons on an orbital but with opposite spins. We don't want to break the eggs in the basket but remaining as an example (we could extend the discussion to all the other particles) doubts arise about the true nature of the electron. In the same official definition of electron that physics gives we find: “………...it is believed to be an elementary particle”! Notice the BELIEVES. It seems that physicists are waiting for reality, it "seems" because some will claim that they have the truth in their pocket. In truth, models and mathematical equations have been constructed which confirm the experimental data performed on the particle but nobody knows the PLATONIC ESSENCE of the particles.
👏👏👏 For years I have heard childish and counterproductive explanations about this topic from many "pundits" ... but finally I see that it was not my limit not to be satisfied about the topic, but most likely those pundits' limits. To explain things well it is not enough just to understand them well and explain them well, it also takes the intellectual honesty to evaluate their complexity and not fall into the trap of oversimplification, which potentially frightens listeners and leads them to renunciation and disappointment: This video shows respect towards them listeners and puts them in a position to study more in order to understand more .. one step at a time ... accepting their own limits and letting themselves go into the state of mind that has always been called "love for knowledge" ... i.e .: (Gr. philo + sophia). Well done. Pino.
Questions: 0. Obviously, it is possible to measure spin, but is it possible to monitor spin, once measured, without changing the original measurement. In other words, is it possible to "confirm" a measurement, to "monitor" spin over a period of time? (And if not, how the heck can you be certain of the measurement correctness in the first place?) 1. Is it possible to explicitly set the spin of an electron? (or photon, or...) 2. Is it possible to explicitly change the spin of an electron? (ditto) (if you can "set" it...) 3. If either #1 or #2, is it possible to do this without breaking entanglement with another electron? (And wouldn't that force the spin on the electron not operated upon?) (tweak one part of the wave function and thereby force the other part to conform) 4. If #0 and #3 than why is communication not possible using entanglement? and somewhat unrelated 5. Doesn't non-locality argue for one or more additional, probably very small, dimension(s) that some aspect of particles inhabit?
Mr. Ash, I really like your videos. keep up the great work. I have a question. could it be, that I am right when I think, Entanglement means the information is not transferred faster than the speed of light because the information doesn't have to be transferred at all. because, if 2 single quantum objects get entangled, they become 1 quantum system/object. and that 1 new quantum object can be very long with a lot of empty space inside. from 1 end of the universe to the other end of the universe. hence, information must not travel from one side to the other side. and there is no physical law that says, the size of a quantum object/system is limited. or is there such a law?
I have been searching for hours for a video that would explain this concept clearly. I finally found it. Thanks so much. This deserves a like and a sub.
I really appreciate these intermediate level videos. You help close gaps in our understanding of these complex theories. I've known about entanglement for years now, but watching this video really helped me to grasp it in a mind blowing way. You are the real MVP Arvin!
I know right? Arvin and PBS SpaceTime are the best explainers of high level physics on UA-cam. PBS SpaceTime's recent explanation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation being a superposition of all possible wave-functions of the universe over the 'actual' wave-function of the universe, was mind-blowing! 🤯 I finally understand it, and can now see why so many people find it an attractive alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Sabine Hossenfelder is really good too, but she keeps her video explanations mostly at a more entry-level, which is good for mass appeal, though she cuts out the BS and unhelpful analogies (the 'lies we tell to children' type explanations). She's also pretty opinionated about stuff which I appreciate!
I've learned more from UA-cam than all my years of education. Inspiring stuff.
@@RoganGunn Thanks for mentioning Sabine. I watched her video on quantum hype and instantly subscribed. I see what you mean about her cutting out the bs. Her videos will help fill more gaps of understanding.
gematriaeffectnews22 checkout zach hubbard
It’s nice having it broken down a little bit from having to take a full course and understanding very high level math
***Are you **#Mathematician** or **#Scientist**?***
***Then stay far away by **#Science_Charlatans**!***
If we loss The #Road_In_Science , need maybe 1000 years to find it back.
Because :
*****#The_Best_Ever_Humanity_Logical_Science_Discovery*****
*****#Best_Ever_HSCUT_Components_AEPDF*****
where
*****#HSCUT** = ***
*****#Humanity_Science_And_Culture_Universal_Thesaurus*****
*****#America_Earth_Proud_Day_Fundamentals*****
#7_Years_Hide by #Civil_Society_Institutions - #Science_Institutions via - I can’t say exactly if - #Microsoft_Hackers, #Facebook_Hackers , #Oracle_Hackers, or #Oracle_Hackers or #Intel_Hackers !
A lot of People , #Scientists, #Mathematicians yet are working desperate for
*****#Fermat_Last_Theorem***** as a intuitive answer to an inexact #Proof even for n=4.
*****#BUT***** *****#Boyss****
, Fermat’s Last Theorem is #Fundamental in #Science by #2015_September_24 by #Ion_Murgu_From_Ohio .
#Fermat_Last_Theorem_Certified in #Accurate, all Science rigor for n [2, #Infinity ) and sent in fundamental , keep also it’s old name as respect for #Fermat!
Thanks for helping My as AEPDF to take theirs place into #HSCUT !
See “www.climaticdisorder.com/hstp/” and don’t ask for what “#Climatic_Disorder_DOTCOM” . I thought the fight against all climatic disorders will be to us a duty for future as a #Good_Morning_Future for Eternity!
***America Earth Proud Day Fundamentals***
are 2 #Absolute_Truth_Fundamentals which will #Stand_Up for future as
*****#Basic_Science_Fundamentals*****
and now are fighting to take Theirs Right Place into
***Humanity Science & Culture Universal Thesaurus***
for wearing the Science in truth but also reading The Road for
*****#Inerton*****
or
*****#The_Tear_Of_Geea*****
basic even of #Life.
*****#School** **#Teacher** **#University** **#Nobel*****
Awesome explanation. I have read a lot about entanglement but still had some challenges to really understand it. Your explanation makes it all clear now to me, especially the part where you explain that two entangled objects are being described by the same wave function. Thank you so much for this.
After 4 years I finally discover the one video on the internet that actually explains quantum entanglement clearly. Thank you Arvin for your hard work. Once you realise they are not two separate particles - that there is only one wavefunction - everything falls into place.
makes you wonder if they are truly connected through another universe. lets say you take a shoelace and put it through a sheet of paper, both ends through different holes. from one side it looks like two different objects, you pull at one end and the other one reacts instantaneously, looking from the other side you realize its one object
Most of what he says is wrong
@@hosoiarchives4858 Wormholes!
@@RobertSmith-kj6eb I got that once. I took antibiotics and they went away
Guys 😂, what's going in quantum entanglement is non-dualism, the particles are not separate but one( interconnected by an infinite dimension called pure consciousness ) , just like the yin and yang symbol, what science is trying to convey is the exact same thing that Spirituality had been trying to tell people for thousands of years that what's going in this this space and time reality is ultimately an illusion and is mainly governed by an" invisible reality" called non-duality( a reality that exist beyond time, space, forms , concepts ect.. which you cannot see, touch, smell or feel.). Those particles were never separated in the first place and has always been and will always be one. This physical universe that operates as space and time is an illusion,but there is another Reality which is the source of all the things happening in this universe. Every form, words, concepts, relatively and understanding all ceases to exist and what's let's is pure energy, the consciousness itself beyond duality. Science and spirituality are so very close to be best friends, this is because science is now catching up with Spirituality. Go to a spiritual teacher or any yogi master ,they are going to explain this whole thing of quantum entanglement to you simply and it will make your head spin❤
Fantastic video! I finally get entanglement, because you stated very succinctly the assumption EPR (and the rest of us) have been making that the two particles are not separate but the same wave function. Lots of other videos don't mention this basic problematic assumption or glide over it very quickly so that it isn't clear. Thanks!
Exactly. And in that sense, I don't see why everyone says that Einstein was proved "wrong".
Einstein just puts a different name on the same phenomenon and one seems as accurate as the other
Can you help me understand more by explaining What "the same wave function" means & the implications of two particles having a common?
It sounds like having a singular wave function somehow combines the two particles into one. Is that correct? Does having one singular wave faction "actually cause the two to become one? If not, does the fact that there is only one wave function simply "reveal" that there was only one particle all along?
Thanks for any insight you can share in layman's terms.
🙂
Can somebody explain me how a wave function can have a spin? Thnx
So it’s same wave function yet change in that wave function at one place somehow effect it at other place how does this spooky thing happen. Sounds like adding more fuzzy word non local I’d same wave function yet no one is telling how this same wave function explains instant communication .
I know this sounds like a dumb question, but no one has been able to explain it to me for years. I am skeptical about the whole thing - what I can't understand is, why isn't the glove example applicable here? How do we know that the other electron wasn't always the opposite (or always whatever it was going to be)? Supposedly, the electrons are normally in a state of "spinning" both up and down until they are observed. How do we know that a specific one isn't ALWAYS going to appear spinning one way when observed, and naturally the other one, it's opposite partner, is always going to appear the other way.
I know I'm not explaining this well, but how do we know electron A isn't always going to be up, and obviously its entangled partner B going to be down, since we can't observe them until we observe them. Once we observe one, we know the other will be opposite.
Because they're able to prove thru experiments similar to the double slit experiment that the "particles" don't resolve into specific states until measured. They stay as indeterminate waves where multiple states are still possible. Research the double slit experiment and it's variations. Then research Bell's theorem, which led to proof they are not somehow misinterpreting the double-slit type experiments.
Arvin briefly mentioned it, it comes from Bell's Inequality: ua-cam.com/video/f72whGQ31Wg/v-deo.html
If you assume the hidden variables are time invariant, you have the case of the two gloves. But if you admit that the hidden variables include a time-varying term, then you also have to admit that (from General Relativity) the time-varying terms decohere because of the presence of gravitational gradients along their paths. That's why modern theories include a gravitational path integral, so as to account for the fact that the two particles age independently of each other, and thus get out of phase as a result of any gravitational gradients. The violation of Bell's Inequality doesn't rule out hidden variables, it only rules out time-invariant hidden variables. The decoherence is then explained by GR, which reminds us that time-keeping is local.
I was also wondering why it would HAVE to be the right handed glove?
@@BarryKort No, there are no hidden variables that affect Bell''s proofs' conclusion that our universe is non-local (and hence answer the OP's question), even if you propose time-invariant variables. You're not really understanding Bell's theorem... it's all about showing how we can use quanta, *before* they decohere, to show there are NO hidden variables. It is true that decoherence from gravity does happen, and that time-keeping is local, but Bell is about showing how we can use a huge sampling before decoherence to statistically prove there are no hidden variables, even from time & gravity. The theorem is literally all about factually disproving your idea could be correct. For instance, here is a modern Bell experiment that includes even the esoteric time-related loopholes: ua-cam.com/video/tgoWM4Jcl-s/v-deo.html
What a GREAT video!! Never before has it been mentioned that these particles
"met". This made so much sense to me!
Im a lay person who loves quatum physics. Great Job! Definitely subscribing!
It has been mentioned many times before that they are entangled first and taken apart later.
@@innosanto Yes, but what does the lay person understand with the word entanglement? Meeting? It must be spelt out and Arvin did it.
@@Aaqe Agreed.
Gloves are entangled too. You don't look - you don't know. Look, you know both. All classical. What's the difference from electrons?
@@jonnyhaca5999I didn’t quite get your point, can you elaborate please?
Just wanted to say I recently found your channel and I'm already addicted. The ideas are expressed/described very well while still getting into things that are difficult to say in a conversational way.
Wonderful work Arvin...taking us to the application in electronics, quantum computing.
Amidst the wash I gathert it's technology that has improved our theoretical knowledge...observing an actual electron...in a manner of speaking ... is a case in point.
The ability to do this was previously thought impossible.
I look forward to following your work.
I can see your head again! I hope whatever that was is gone now and you are healthy and wittier than ever!
Great vid as always (y)
So you don't know the story behind the hat it seems...
@@joegillian314 no..would you please let us know?
@@GMan958 If someone answer : "Pfff you don't even know that" to a question, without giving any answers.... Don't feed it, its a troll
@@GMan958 he had a kind of "birth mark" that he got surgically removed, so he had to wear a bandage for a few months. thus the hat to cover it up. he explained it in some video months ago.
I was assuming hair transplant.
Thank you for a great video. Some (many) naive questions: Matter is made of particles, and all matter was created after the big bang, yet somehow we can experiment with particles that have never been observed.
1.) What counts as an observation/measurment?
2.) How do we know that we have A electron in an apparatus before shooting it at a detector (double slit expr, DSE) without observing it?
3.) How can we even retrieve a particle into an approximate position without observing it? Isn't observing a piece of metal actually observing the particles that makes it, otherwise what am I observing, waves?
4.) Would the DSE work the same with chunks of particles, say protons? If so, how large chunks, atoms? Presumably not, but then when did the wave result of DSE break down when increasing the size of the chunks?
Science priests do not like questions undermining consensus. Matter is still created. Sun is a one big higher level elements generator. Big bang is only a theory. Something coming from nothing instantly is many orders dumber than bibles genesis in 6 days.
I love learning new ways to think about entanglement. This description was marvelous! thank you!
That explanation is even scarier than spooky action at a distance when you think about it
@Black_No_Sugar No, faster than light communication is not achieved. The result of the measurement is inherently probabilstic. No useful information for communication can be encoded in the entangled particles. Thus no communication occurs when the measurement on the particles is performed. Both parties will receive a random measurement outcome.
@Black_No_Sugar depends on how you define communication. If useful information is impossible to send, I wouldn't call it communication.
@Black_No_Sugar The no-communication theorem shows that when person B measures their part of the entangled system, they will not be able to tell the difference between what person A did and a random measurement.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
@Black_No_Sugar First you have to explain why 'what others say' is incorrect. Just because the person is using another idea that is not their original idea doesn't discount it mate. If you want to argue such claims with large implications, you are going to run into a lot of theories and hypotheses that will go against what you are claiming.
The point is that if person A were able to use entangled particles to send person B information faster than the speed of light (instantaneously) we know that Person B would receive that information before person A ever sent it which causes a never ending list of other problems. Certain laws which holds our universe together simply can’t be broken and for that I am grateful
This is the only UA-cam channel l have watched that actually made me consider buying a full course on third party websites
Lol it’s a scam…
I just got a brilliant subscription because of this channel, it only like $10/mo which is waaaay lower than my student loans 😅
Exceptionally well done Arvin. This is the most intuitive explanation I have seen yet.
This is quite good. Even as quantum mechanics degreed/educated business strategy person working in quantum computing, I can tell you that this stuff is hard to wrap one's head around. Arvin is a big help to me.
First of all business strategy is not theoretical physicist, seckndly of course it is not easy to grasp since it is about a more fundamental part of the hniverse than our everyday experience.
@@innosanto He said he'd done both subjects - not that they are the same subject - lol. I think you have entangled yourself here
@@tonycook1624 LOL
@@innosanto actually it is our everyday experience... You see it everywhere every day all the time. It's more common than the idea of air. That's why people don't notice it. It's just the idea that one thing is just part of a set that contains it and the opposite of it. When we say 'is' we automatically determine what 'isn't' even if never said. There just has to be an opposite to everything.
Guy in the video said we can't send information FTL with it, but couldn't you just use the collapse of the particle wave-function to a single state on the other end to imply a pre-agreed upon message? Like you take an entangled particle from Earth to a colony, and read its state if you're in distress and need assistance. You could have other particles to say which type of crisis is happening, and so on
Maybe they just don't know if the wave-function has collapsed until they read it anyway, so they don't know if they collapsed it or the particle on the other end
Sounds like everything is submerged into some larger field, keeping a perfect balance of energetic potentials.
with the right symmetry group, yes
@@ZhangGuoqing also the flux capacitor must be at a 38°angle to offset the quantum biologists left thumb
Quantum field theory.
@@constpegasus thought so
@@andykod77 QFT doesn’t explain entanglement, it just describes the elementary particles and force carrier bosons as excitation of a field.
Amazing video. Ive watched a lot of videos that explained the recent findings in a well manner but none of them explained how quantum objects are entangled in the first place. Great video 👍
Arvin - thanks so much. I now understand something that EPR didn’t!
Giants on the shoulders of giants...
Einstein got a lot of things wrong though. For starters in his early years he said nuclear fission was impossible to achieve.
me too! because i know how shrek 2 ends! take that einstein !!!!
How grateful should I be to Arvin Ash for providing wealth of knowledge ! Heartfelt thanks 🙏🏼
Great content! You clarify much of the assumptions people make when trying to wrap their heads around these ideas. Late in minute 13 you suggested some physicists think entanglement might be more fundamental than space itself (or our conception of it). Can you (or anyone else) point me in the direction of further reading about that? Much obliged and keep up the great work.
Physicist can think but they can’t freely say what they believe because it goes against their doctrine that our universe is fundamental made from subatomic particles, and if they go against that thought without evidence they lose their credibility and funding to research. I can give you a possibility, which is what science should be about, and why there should never be scientific laws because science is never law, just our best understanding of something at that given time. Our universe, and what we perceive as the physical world in our dimension, is fundamentally harmonics of frequencies, and potential energy. Let’s call this consciousness. Primordial beings and living beings such planets and humans have a consciousness, but anything without consciousness will be dictated by the most powerful consciousness around them, and individually the greater the mass, the greater the consciousness, and that’s what dictates the flow of gravity,.This why drugs like ketamine can give you an out of body experience, because our consciousness is not tied to our body/brain, it is simply a frequency. Particles that are created by the dominant consciousness will have very similar frequencies depending on space and time, once they’re together their frequencies sync and bind a collective consciousness which allows them to interact instantly through their source frequencies. That is the fundamentals of intergalactic travel, by using math to find a frequency in space and time, and then changing your frequencies to match that to instantly transfer in space and time to that frequency. Humans have a collective consciousness, but are not born with a similar frequency like particles except sometimes twins, this why twins have been mysteriously known to sense the other twin subconsciously, and the same with loved ones that have grown their consciousness collectively. If you would like to test this without drugs, look up the gateway process to separate your consciousness from your body. The collective human consciousness is enslaved by a duopoly of thought into everything and indoctrinated into a false morality of good and evil, right or wrong. This is why cults have been portrayed as bad, but religion is a cult, and political parties have become cults, and now science is a cult, all intertwined for control. If everything this consciousness, our ultimate goal should be to grow our consciousness which is our soul. So take all knowledge as possibility, but don’t ground it as truth. The ultimate goal is to be like water, free from bias. So now you hit the end of the road, but you have two options, wake up in your bed believing whatever you want to believe, or see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.
If you want to understand the coded universe, watch Swaruu official on UA-cam but start from the beginning because it will challenge your reality, but is put in bite sized pieces so it is easy to digest, but it all builds upon previous topics.
If you want to see how science for the greater good isn’t real, watch the why files episodes on killer patents and secrete science.
If you want to see how religious scripture is not just words, but encodes existence, watch the Why files episodes secrete codes in the Bible.
If you want more understanding of how frequencies are used against us, look up numerology, words, and rituals are used by the Illuminati/freemasonry to manifest reality. This is why logos like google chrome, Disney, and CERN all gave 666 in their logo. Also how words are used to form hypnosis. This is why News casters talk a certain way, and it is the most creepy thing I only recognized on psychedelics. Also rituals they perform like at bohemian grove, or the super bowl half time show.
I could go much deeper into these topics but I’ll keep it light lol.
And that's coming up right now! Most awaited line for me.
Once, just once, I'd love him to drop the f bomb and say
"It's coming up, right fucking now"
yes
Along with "and that's what we'll talk about today" 😉
This was really well explained! I havent learned about this before, and I still managed to follow along
I disagree that entanglement occurs only at quantum level. The other day while going on a short visit to her parents 1000 km away my wife warned me not to touch her favourite cookie jar. The next day, unable to resist my temptation I entered the kitchen and was about to lay my hands on the cookie jar when the phone rang. "I told you not to touch the cookie jar, didn't I?" my wife's voice sounded eerily scary over the phone. Now don't you agree that entanglement can occur between large objects too?
Now that is a great real world example from the macro world. Thanks.
What you are describing is called morphic fields or morphic resonance - which is basically a field that contains memories. The idea is that if a monkey on an island starts using rocks to break a nut, shortly afterwards monked on other islands will do the same thing. Some examples come from ancient human civilizations that learned cosmology around the same time despite allegedly being isolated from each other. I do think there might be something to this idea by a biologist named Sheldrake. I just don't think it works the way he thinks it does. Kind of like Newton was pretty close to understanding gravity, but also didn't understand it all (compared to our current knowledge). Nonetheless, morphic fields are not commonly accepted as a valid hypothesis by many scientists.
I hope your wife didn't see your comment especially the part where you called her a "large object." If she did, you might not have any entanglement with her for an unspecified period of time.
@@paulc7590 😳😁
@ :)
Love your videos! I am a physicist and a science writer myself and I love to take inspiration from you to explain complex concepts.
That is awesome! Thank you.
Are you really a physicist? Holy crap that is cool that you are still watching youtube.
@@Overthinktank Yes! I love to see how people explain complex concept. I might take inspiration. :)
Best channel ever. You answered two questions I had for years.
Hai sir
I am prajit Reddy
You said absolutely correct
I wanted to learn them
Arvin, halfway through you went through entanglement pretty fast, but then you caught back on where you left off on the later part of the video. This made my understanding of quantum particles much clearer. thanks of that. good video
I get thrilled up when you say "and that's comming up right now!" 🤩
What an awesome video. Thank you very much for putting this together and explaining it in a very digestible way. You've just got a new subscriber.
Question: Want scientific Recommendations? UA-camrs to check out?
Are there any processes that produce entangled pairs naturally? I only hear about them being created. Just curious.
Ooh good question
Yes, when certain atoms like calcium release energy, they can release two photons at once. These are sometimes entangled.
Aren't two electron of an atom entangled?? Cause they stay in pair and both have opposite spin?
@@jaberafnan9675 yea both electrons of an orbital are described to have the same orbital with opposite spins.
@@jaberafnan9675 yes
I don't experience quantum entanglement now that I've moved to wireless headphones.
Ah, but are you sure it's not just a superposition?
The wireless headphones act as a measurement. So I would guess decoherence?
I get constant quantum entanglement with my mop, still waiting for that wireless model.
Lol oh.. 😂
Give this comment 10tothepower18 likes
It’s like trying to describe to your friends, something you’ve never seen before. Descriptions of visions are often difficult to describe. The book of Revelations is a good example. 📖
Hi Ash, it'll be great to see your video explaining completely different point of view from the standard model. Aka Electric universe by Wal Thornhill and other folks. You might find it very convincing to say the least. Would love to hear your opinion and the video on the subject. Thanks
Thank you, cool video! Also it feels so good being able to understand what you're talking about coming fresh from a physics course in modern physics.
I am impressed with how complex these subjects are and how easy to understand you make them to be.
One of the best physics channels I had the pleasure to watch.
Fascinating video and great explanation! Quantum non-locality through entanglement is really interesting. It seems as though it transcends space. If space can be transcended through non-locality, does it suggest there is an "absolute" nature, independent of spacetime in classical relativity? How can relativity relate to such non-locality? Always looking forward to your videos! Great stuff.
Transcends I would not use, but there is indeed some line of thought that information is more fundamental than space and time and gets entangled with other information constantly. From this entangled information space and time emerge, much like temperature emerges from molecules bumping into each other.
I recommend Erik Verlinde's elastic universe to blow your mind on this topic.
Ah, I'm close to understanding entanglement. I was stuck on the 'spooky action at a distance' I wanted it to be a
@@XEinstein Thank you for bringing Verlinde to my attention. (I once wanted to be a professional, but am just an amateur, so I do not follow this stuff as closely as a professional would.) From what I can tell, he is on track to confirming what my instinct told me had to be the solution, that we live in a sort of holographic universe. What we see as "reality" is just a projection of the underlying actual reality. Sort of like if you watch a movie where two particles seem far apart, but, in reality, they are joined as one object on the film reel which is in the projector. If something happens to the particles simultaneously on the screen, you might wonder how they interacted simultaneously as they seem to be two entirely separate particles separated by space. But once you see the film reel, you realize that they are actually just one object.
Couldn't you think of the universe as consisting of two parts. The ordinary part we know and an associated quantum waves part? I'm not sure how that could be described as transcending space.
@@robertbrandywine there is no 2 parts thr quantum theory is the theory of this reality,this part.
It's first time I've heard explanation of why and how it actually works, at least something better than "Well it just is and nobody know why" I've heard dozens of time on other science channels. Thank you!
The fundamental theory of quantum entanglement &
Superposition must be mentioned in more general terms !
Could you do a video on the meaning of "measurement"? What exactly forces the colllapse into an eigenstate? So, if you do a 2 slit experiment with photons, what constitutes a detector?
You make the most mind blowing things so easy to understand.
Thank you ✌🏻
The only reason people love this explanation is that they get to sleep like normal people knowing in a sense that quantum entanglement doesn't break the speed of light lol but does it really?
3:17 you told me Bob was dead, stop playing with my emotions Arvin Ash
Appreciate the simple and clear explanation of a topic so profoundly deep 😊
Thanks so much! Glad it was helpful!
@@ArvinAsh You're most welcome. Thank you 😊
Fascinating with an idea so well unentangled to be able to explain it. We really must learn to think the almost unthinkable then call it perfectly natural! Brilliant expo from a brilliant mind. Yours! Bravo!
I have been following entanglement for the last 6 years or so , but today in this video i got a feel for the entanglement .
Love your work, keep it up
This makes me think that entangled particles are connected through dimensions we are unable to comprehend, similar to a 2D being unaware of events outside of its 2D plane of existence. 3D distance would have no relevance if that was the case. I just love pondering all the possibilities!
That's what I've been thinking too. So obviously my thinking is not unique... However, I can't find any formal scientific theories on it so maybe it's too far-fetched...
There will never be any TRUE formal solutions because our species only exists in a TIME dependent universe...@@yinpong
This is thr video that finally made the concept click for me. Beautifully done. Thank you
One of the best videos I've ever watched...
Yes! You're starting to see it. Entangled photons are a single object, a single wave function. Now consider the possibility that such an entanglement can store gravitational potential energy in its quantum states. Once you can store energy in an entanglement, then you're on your way to graviton beams and gravity drives.
What do you mean? Is there a video or article explaining this
Anything relating to GRAVITY is TIME dependent, to get a REAL solution one must find a way to think and act OUTSIDE the concept and existence of TIME
Arvin explains things so well.
Video after video on this, and it's the first I've seen that de-spooks the spooks. The 13th minute is gold.
I've been pondering this a lot this week, and it also seems relevant to me that the entangled photon's view of the observer's universe is instantaneous because it has no velocity along the observer's time axis.
This means in experiments where collapse at location A seems to affect location B instantly, well, we'd be wise to consider that those are 3 sequential moments from the experimenter's POV (Entanglement, AbsorbtionOfA, AbsorbtionOfB), but from the photons' POV there is one combined moment (EntangleAndAbsorbtionOfBothAAndB).
This seems like it warrants some model like ping pong tables on trains, themselves perpendicular on another axis to both on a 3rd train car, with the observer outside all that, and those ping pong balls having luminal velocity.
And that by pondering that, perhaps the "two parts of one object" can be better defined.
Thanks so much Arvin, entanglement is so interesting. Also the beanie was good, it was gangsta science!
The electron spin example probably does not happen in the real world since the two electrons will become decoherent the instant they are separated by a tiny distance (the wavefunction overlap decreases exponentially over distance and they will re-establish coherence with their microenvironments, respectively).
That is important information, sadly left out too often.
That’s definitely true of the electric field alone, one must remember that a photon utilizes the magnetic field as well
And the magnetic field has infinite range and can definitely handle the process of keeping photon entanglement coherent over distance
Just gotta remember that the two fields are unified but still have their own limits and parameters
13:52 ... yet you had to bring those particles close enough together to entangle them... right? sounds to me like space itself is still more fundamental.
I feel like I've seen the slit experiment 5:01 a million times in videos. I hope I'm alive for when we figure out what happens next.
Check the quantum eraser if you haven't already seen that too
@@das_it_mane Ah, good one friend. Much appreciated.
I wish you a long life, but you can find out the answer of this puzzle in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 Oh, I wonder who wrote that book..? 🤔😉
@@RoganGunn Of course it is mine book, but it is make any difference where the correct information is coming from?
After the explanation (thanks), this phenomena is still a spooky one.
";-)
It is spooky for our average minds like us and the genius minds at the same time
Thanks a lot Arvin. Your explanation on entanglement is so clear and understandable. I have just started reading quantum mechanics. But I fully understood what the entanglement is.
By The Standard Model, this is by far the simplest, most intuitive explanation of entanglement on youtubes! And I've been watching psychics videos for years!
Everything was once a singularity before the big bang...so may be the entire universe can be an entangled structure and we just don't realise it... 😝
Oooh interesting theory, but wouldn’t we be able to analyze and detect something like that?
@@theonebuffdudeSHORTS perhaps in future...
The whole universe is indeed entangled - you can describe the whole universe with one (albeit very complex) wave-function. When we talk about the strongly correlated entanglement of two electrons or photons or whatever, we are merely taking one part of the larger wave-function and analysing it independently.
Remember, due to Fourier's Theorem, all complex waves can be seen as a superposition of simpler waves, and can ultimately be broken down to simple sine waves of varying phase and frequency. What holds true for sound waves is true for the wave-function of the whole universe.
(There's also a hypothesis postulated by John Bell that every electron in the universe is actually the same electron, bouncing forwards and backwards through time. So positrons are that electron on its way back through time - this also would explain Pauli's Exclusion principle. This is not really proven though, just an interesting yet plausible idea! Google: "One Electron Universe")
@@RoganGunn wow
I can't help but picture a ripple in a pond being described throughout this video. If you measured the ripple on either side of the center, at the same distance but opposite sides, the two signals would be opposite. Any attempt to read one of those waves would interfere with it and therefore it would no longer be a reflection of the other side. The fact that undisturbed, you should always measure the opposite signal on either side fits this idea neatly. I've personally been convinced that photons are neither a wave or a particle, but a burst of energy that creates a ripple and we can read the peak of that ripple anywhere as a photon's location, but the photon isn't a thing; just the ripple of energy.
Here's a thought experiment and if anyone already knows the answer, please do share with me. We are quantum physicists who have the ability to create these so-called, single photons. When we create one of these photons, can it only be seen from One direction; as if it were a bullet flying through the air, but was only visible from the front? Or rather, from the point where the photon was created, should we expect to be able to detect that photon from any direction which the point of origin is not masked? If the former, there's an argument for photons being more particle like. If the ladder, I believe it strengthens my idea by suggesting that photons are not points but peaks of a moving ripple through space.
The idea that the photon is in a "superposition" until it's measured is as likely a byproduct of the physical distance it is measured from its point of origin. If any given, oscillating signal begins at zero, the phase or level of that signal will vary according to the remainder of your distance from its creation, divided by the number of oscillations which can be determined by the frequency of that photon since we know the speed of light. If I'm right, given precise enough timing and distance measurements; we ought to be able to determine the phase/spin and by doing so, lend credit to my theory or presuming we aren't talking about impossible measurements (any thermal changes or movement could spoil things); it might suggest my theory is incorrect. Considering the very nature of how laser light is generated, I believe the former will be quite impossible. 😆
The closest knowledge I have that I believe follows a similar paradigm, would be holograms and interference patterns. When you cut a hologram in half, you have two smaller versions of the original and not two halves. That is because every single point in that hologram was generated from the exact same wave function; the state of that very well controlled light that was only possible by splitting a laser to begin with (isn't that the generation of a substantial number of entangled photons to begin with?)
I wouldn't even call myself an armchair physicist so much as a philosopher who has put a lot of thought into classic physics and is trying to find my bearing in current quantum physics. That said, I appreciate a gentle approach but I wholy welcome improvements or corrections to my ideas. I'm now in my 40s, with a few kids and a big old mortgage so I'm not in a position to go explore this space the way I would like to. I hope to learn what I can hear though. 🙂
So often when I don't fully understand a topic, I pull up one of your videos and the clouds part! Thanks for what you do!
There is still one question unanswered. What happens if you alter one of the entangled particles? If you change it from up to down. Does the other particle flip as a result?
I too havd tgis doubt
Bravo! Loved it. Question though; if two particles become phase-correlated (language we used in my youth as a p-chem student), does that make them entangled, or is there more to it than that?
Phase correlation as I understand it is not the same as entanglement. But it's been a long time since I studied phase correlation so I don't know enough to tell you the difference.
Is phase correlation the same as beat frequency in vibration. This merger of frequency creates amplification. Would it be a constant until acted apon? Could these waves interact such that you could explain expansion and cohesion? No physics background!!
@@ArvinAsh Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.)
Phase correlation is about 2 separate things being very similar or even identical. However, entanglement is about what seems to be 2 separate things to us (because they are non-local) actually being the same thing; not even really 2 parts of the same thing, but THE same thing, showing that our universe, at it's fundamental level, is not "local" as we perceive it.
@@Grrrnthumb thank you.
Best explanation ive seen on youtube. Thank you so much for the overview
Is wave function entangled at higher dimension (5th dimension or higher) and hence the space /distance or time doesn't matter?
I know next to nothing about Quantum Mechanics (tell me if I am wrong), but I don't think higher dimension is required to picture entanglement. If two entangled particles are actually one wave function, then the act of measurement is also a wave function (of the same size, if this makes any sense). The measurement wave function would interact with every part of the wave function of the entangled particles, producing an illusion that information was seemingly transmitted faster than light.
You're right
It doesn't matter how many dimensions of spacetime you add, since quantum interactions are trans-spatiotemporal. In other words, the QM of matter isn't spacetime, and vice versa. Attempts to force it to be, as in "graviton", results in the equations blowing up to infinity in everyone's face.
It doesn't matter because you have to know the value of both particles, it sounds like "entanglement" is just a fancy way of saying "let's look at two different things and if we know A isn't B then we know B isn't A".
Like, if you take two different skittles and put each one in a different box, then shuffle the boxes, you know what is in the other box once you open your box, because you already know what's in the other box, it's literally just object permanence.
The wavefunction exists in 4 dimensional spacetime. What isn't understood well is the mechanism of decoherence, or how the wavefunction collapses during measurement (interaction with another quantum object that reduces the superposition of states in the wavefunction to one (or more) state). People have invoked many-world-theories or other mechanisms such as higher dimensions or wormholes to explain how the wavefunction collapses or changes at distant locations (non-locality and from a naive standpoint seemingly faster than light or 'spooky action at a distance') but when you do the math you 'only' need 4D spacetime and relativity to model the collapse.
You really have to visualize the wavefunction extending out at the speed of light from the moment of entanglement, although it is difficult to imagine the wavefunction being practically flat (zero valued) between two tiny particles separated by large distances, and existing through solid objects, even stars and planets, without being affected by them. Maybe it is this continuation of the wavefunction across distance and down to such low amplitudes (although I'm not totally sure about this, maybe the superpositions of the wavefunction are at a high amplitude across space and they combine to produce low amplitudes between the particles) that confuses everybody.
Sorry if this is a bit rambling!
So if it is one particle. What happens when annihilating one of the entangled pair with an antimatter particle?
I was also wondering exactly that. Does the other particle also suddenly annihilate for no apparent reason? If so then this could be like an one-time communication, like an alarm that something happened to the other person?
Or if there are plenty of entangled particles, encode a message from the timing between many annihilations?
Think about a sin wave. The peak is like the particle and the trough is like the anti particle. No physical objects explode, everything is vibrations. The two are mirror opposites, they cancel out. What is left behind is the energy they might have had...potential to kinetic energy.
Imagine, if you will, those two curves, as cars playing chicken. Just because they will obviously annihilate doesn't mean the forward velocity instantly dissipates, which they both have. That has to be transferred to the particles around it, unless there aren't many, in that case the fabric of space. Which does this funny thing and creates particles out of energy. So, not only is it really not that mysterious, it just ends up generating decay particles anyway...
The other particle will not annihilate. Annihilation is not destruction of the particle, it is a conversion from one form to another. So, e.g. one entangled electron just converts to a photon and the other doesn’t.
Perhaps the other particle becomes entangled with another similar particle after the first one is annihilated...
Like items in a queue ....perhaps...
You sir are a brilliant orator and explain this better than anyone else I have listened to. Thank you Mr. Ash. Amazing explanation of an amazing concept. Especially the end where you discuss the information simply needing to be transmitted and therefore not faster than the speed of light..... which was Einstein’s entire premise regarding entanglement. Thanks again sir
This was a very well articulated explanation that puts into perspective how much we've learned and how much we still don't fully understand. Regarding the communication scenario, if a stream of entangled particles show an interference pattern in two locations, then a measurement at one location should cause a simultaneous disruption at both locations. Remotely turning the interference pattern on and off would essentially be digital signal that could be used for communication.
Great video !
Why wouldn’t it be possible to use multiple entangled particle pairs and collapse them in a certain, timed pattern ? This way as long as the moment of collapse of the Wavefunctions could be determined on the other side of the earth, a morse code could be transmitted through the timing of the collapses of the wavefunctions.
There is no way to know that any given particle's entangled pair has been collapsed because a measurement has to be taken. In order to know that its entangled pair is collapsed, some communication at the speed of light would have to take place.
The timing of the collapse /would not/ and /can not/ be known.
It isn't like the 'receiver' can look at an electron and say 'is it collapsed yet ?' and, if it is, measure what it has collapsed to. The 'testing whether collapsed and to what has it collapsed' are inseparable: you can't detect the 'neutral' condition: You can only measure it as 1 or 0. The important thing is that you will NEVER KNOW whether YOU caused the collapse, or whether you simply responded to a collapse instigated by the transmitter.
Well, yes, you could tell the difference by comparing records with your counterpart, but that sort of defeats the object.
There is no REAL explain to entanglement, since proof only exists by introducing the element if TIME@@ArvinAsh
It seems like entanglement can be achieved by making use of conservation laws (like angular momentum conservation mentioned before). I have some lingering questions about this also:
1. Is it possible to entangle properties other than spin? properties that can have more than two values?
2. If two particles have been entangled, are they entangled forever until detected or can we *disentangle* them along the way?
3. how close and how strongly interacting two atoms are for them to entangle with each other? can we place two atoms close to each other while still having their wavefunctions separate?
thanks!
Yes, I think any discrete conserved quantity can be entangled. Charge is another one. Also probably color charge, weak hypercharge, and idk maybe more...?
2. forever, but they actually don't last that long usually because they hit stuff
3. not sure, great question!
Arvin, thanks so much for your fantastic explainers. One thing that I don't understand about the "measurement" is: When we say we "see" electrons create a pattern on the screen in the double slit experiment, isn't "seeing" them a measurement in itself? So what is the difference between this measurement and the one everyone says that collapses the wave function? This looks like a paradox to me.
In quantum mechanics, the words measurement, observation, and seeing are synonymous with interaction. Interaction is, very simply put, an irreversible energy exchange. In the double slit, the interaction occurs when the quantum object like a photon hits the screen. Our "seeing" the pattern is post interaction. I haver several videos on what's really going with the double slit. This one might help clarify: ua-cam.com/video/-hxljpxTaiA/v-deo.html
Again a brilliant Show, Arvin hope you bring more on Q.Physics. ❤️
Thank you for all your wonderful videos! Sabine suggests that the wave function collapse is what Einstein meant by Spooky Action. Almost all of the Bell experiments don't talk about the experimental limitations - many particles are never counted, leaving open the possibility of bias in what gets included in the data.
RBH, it is just 100% false what you say about "almost all the Bell experiments". Here is an example of a typical modern Bell experiment. There's also a few other specific, similar experiments mentioned in the discussion at the end of this one: ua-cam.com/video/tgoWM4Jcl-s/v-deo.html
Four thumbs up! A tremendous step forward in explaining the phenomena at the interface of the next generation of physics & cosmology. Thank you.
Bohr is so underrated. He got the structure of the atom wrong at first, but he took on einstein and other giants in the physics community and won...every. time.
he is both right and wrong as per Schrodinger.
Hi, I just watched this. Key part I guess is the wave function, which describes all aspects of the object. Question I have: is it correct that manipulation of one electron make its entangled partner electron respond in the opposite direction? So how we learn more about the wave funtion, because that’s what contains the spooky bit. Thanks great video
It isn't manipulation but measurement of one fixes the property of the other.
@@ArvinAsh Thank you for answering. Please can you tell a bit more how measurement takes place ? By getting a bit more insight in this measurement process might reveal something about the ‘spooky’ part of the wave function. Again thanks!!
@@JoepNiens they shoot an electron between two magnets and see which direction it is deflected.
Quantum entanglement is a natural phenomenon.
One person A walks on X line from vertical Y Zero point.
This person can see another himself, A walking away from Zero toward minus X line. Because Y nature needs a balance of X line at 90 degree.
That is, a secret Y exists and influences.
If the space is regarded as a plasma, it can explain the existances of X, Y, A.
I was wondering something...
How does the Quantum Field theory differ from the old-school idea of the Ether? They used to think that light needed a medium to propagate through as a wave. But isn't that the same principle for Quantum fields?
very good question. What makes the quantum fields 'special' is the symmetries under Lorentz transforms. E.g., the Higgs field is scalar: no matter how you move or rotate, it looks exactly the same. The EM field is a 4-vector, so electric and magnetic fields interchange identities for different observers (see: Veretasium) The spin 1/2 electron field is difficult to visualize, as it's transformation properties require the existence of the positron (anti-matter) to work out. So there is an ether, but it's a relativistic ether that has no absolute rest frame. The original "aether" was more of a Galilean thing (like sound in air), where there is clearly an absolute rest frame for sound waves.
@@DrDeuteron Fascinating to know that even though their concept of the Ether was wrong in technical detail, that they were indeed in the right frame of mind.
The lack of a proper rest frame is still what trips me up, but it is damn interesting to try to understand. That everything else is relative to any given rest frame, there is no one "true" rest frame, they're all valid from their own frame of reference.
I used to imagine to myself, what if I was a God and could "zoom out" to the scale of the whole observable universe. What would it look like, since each reference frame is almost its own unique reality.
Well, the properties of the "ether" were never elaborated upon or explained. QFT has far more in depth calculations and explanations, so that's how they differ.
Our (classic realm based) language is far too crude to accommodate all the complexities of the quantum realm. And that's as it should be if the quantum is truly a different realm (which it is). The concept of ether was never a singular thing. It evolved over a couple of centuries starting with Newton in 1704 and ending (roughly) in 1887 with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Most of the incantations of the ether were geared toward there existing a physical medium/substance of some sort. The ether was most definitely NOT thought of in terms of a mathematical construct. And that's the key difference as it relates to QFT. The fields of QFT are said to permeate spacetime and arise as a result of mathematical formalism. Which brings us back to our language being a crude (and insufficient) tool when it comes to discussing things quantum. That etherists were both close and way off at the same time isn't remarkable whatsoever. We've only had around 100 years to wrap our heads around the complexities of this newfound realm. If it takes us 1000 more years to improve our intuitions and flesh out better and more precise language, then that will be a job well done. For now, things are still a bit awkward and convoluted...both where we've been and were we need to go next.
It doesn't. You might want to go look at SteamPunk Physics channel.
Great video as always! I always thought that interaction causes the collapse of the wave function. If that's true, how come two particles can become entangled when close to one another? Wouldn't their wavefunction collapse? Maybe I'm wrong on that assumption?
Great question! It's the continued propagation of entanglement that causes what we think of as "wave function collapse." -- See this video I made for a better explanation: ua-cam.com/video/wXJ9eQ7qTQk/v-deo.html
A bit better explanation of this phenomenon you can find in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 "This is the most revolutionary theory in Physics and Astronomy ever written.".........Really? Writing this about your own body of work is just self-aggrandising and arrogant. It isn't even a theory, it's a hypothesis that is yet to be reviewed and tested to the degree that a scientific theory requires to move from hypothesis to theory. Smh.
@@IanD-ut4dy OK I am wrong, but which is your favorite tested Theory? - TR? - Just use your intelligence and logic in its consideration! - It is "proven" by "Massless" photons. Science has found that photons have measurable pressure on the illuminated surface. This means that photons have momentum, which is mass + speed. Remember that photon-propelled rocket engines are a reality! Second, TR postulate that gravity force does not exist, but... what is this force, which is bending space near a massive object? Where is it coming from, what is its source and how you are calling it? Is this is not a pure violation of the law of conservation of energy? If such a way of "proving" a "Scientific Theory" is satisfying you, then good luck!
@@valentinmalinov8424 You may well be correct, but that isn't my issue. Re-read what I wrote. I didn't say you were wrong, but that doesn't mean I think you're correct either.
Comprehension skills go a long way.
I really, really appreciate Mr. Ash's using "measurement" instead of "observation" when discussing the topic of the collapse of superpositioned states. A whole lot of woo has been created by folks who want to believe that some magic quality of a human "observer" is needed to effect a quantum physics change. I also was appreciative when I got nine minutes into the video where Mr. Ash opened up his discussion of just how one quantum entangles things. This is exactly what I optimistically opened the video hoping to learn.
Measurement & observation are the same thing
@@macysondheim Yes, but "observation" carries the idea of a human observer. That was my point. And that conflation of ideas is the source of a lot of woo.
Interaction would be a better word. Measurement and Observation both feel like something only humans do. People don’t understand that the wave function collapses all the time simply by particles interacting in a way that forces them to take a concrete form.
But consciousness IS fundamental. Just ask Donald Hoffman. 😅😂😮
@@alflyle9955please tell me how you would measure something without human involvement
OK, how about this experiment: we measure one of them, and after we send the other one through a double slit to see if it acts like a particle of a wave....of course with multiple electrons so we can get the wave pattern...
if you measure one the other would "act like a particle", since its wave was "collapsed"
It will show wave behavior. Basically it always shows wave behavior: the screen pattern is the square of the Fourier transform of the slit shape. If you know which slit it when through, it's the |FT|^2 of that slit. If you don't, it's the square of the sum of the FT's of both slits, and that sum contains an interference term.
Now if you correlate the momenta, so that knowledge of one electron's slit determined the other (which you do not measure)...you're looking at a very interesting version of the delayed quantum eraser. Now we need a talented experimenter to set it up.
It was already done. Look up quantum eraser experiment.
Yes, it is very similar to the q eraser exp... And thinking about it, it does make sense in a way... Light doesn't experience time, and I'm sure there's a link between this fact and the fact that the wave collapse is instant and it doesn't care about time... Maybe time is just something we experience because of gravity... But it's not fundamental to the universe?
@@laci272 You can't rely on "light doesn't experience time", because light doesn't move at c in the lab. In air, n=1+eta, and eta = 273e-6, so its gamma is only 42....very finite.
"Some have said that relation is not a reality, but only an idea. But this is plainly seen to be false from the very fact that things themselves have a mutual natural order and habitude." ― St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D)
thanks for the tip to read about this guy
Wish I could give this thumbs up for every time I've watched it. This video takes the complexity, assumption and guesswork out of describing Quantum Entanglement.
When Bob died and Alice cried I felt sad 😭
It happened me that Alice died. We were entangled 36years.
Now I feel like limping...
Didn't feel right to like your comment but wanted you to know it didn't go unnoticed and even though don't know you, feel real sad for you
Entanglement obviously is "spooky action at a distance" as it refutes local realism. You can't use it to send signals, but the particles themselves seem to somehow be connected even at a distance, so yes spooky action at a distance is exactly what it is. Pretending objects that are spatially separated are the same isn't any explanation, it's a denial of the problem: the objects are not the same, they are long distances apart and should not be able to influence each other so fast, yet they do.
That's right, the story about the single wave function is mathematically correct but it still contains faster-than-light interaction/change when the wave function collapses as you measure its part. This instantaneous collapse is what Einstein really called spooky, not the entanglement.
@@thedeemon Yes, the problem is that something over here has an effect on something over there, and that effect happens faster than the speed of light. Terminology isn't important, it's the interaction that happens faster than the speed of light that is the problem no matter what one called it.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 "whole particle physicist world say the quantum entanglement seems to be a form of synchronization"
No they don't. Nobody currently has any real explanation to entanglement, you can call it communication or whatever you like, but the fact is wave collapse here affects something remote faster than the speed of light. Hidden variables aren't the explanation as it has been ruled out by the experiments.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 You have more spam you wish to post that doesn't resolve anything? it doesn't matter what you call it communication or synchronization or whatever you like, the problem is how it happens faster than speed of light not what you wish to call it.
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 "also you basically say all particle physicts are wrong but you are correct"
No, none of the particle physicist has an explanation to the problem, calling it synchronization doesn't solve the problem.
"I rather stand with science"
You don't even understand the issue being discussed.
You did it Arvin. After years of almost understanding it... years of grasping entanglement, and then losing the insite entirely...I finally think I understand....thanks to you and the blueness of your tee shirt and coffee mug. What an epiphany Arvin. Thank you so much
..Rick Elliott
Glad it was helpful!
@@ArvinAsh u did a good job explaining to lay person. But as lay person, i still find it strange that two particles would have relationships once they separate. It is against common sense. But may be that is the crux of the unknown universe. It may actually change our understanding of the universe
All pop physics videos are the same when it comes to entanglement: they never explain the Eletron Entanglement Device.
I want to know how or what entangles them, the rest has been covered to death by all other channels.
So congrats, but please consider a full video on it
Hello, my friend, your curiosity can be satisfied very easily. There is one book, which explains all the current puzzles in physics and astronomy. - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" Anyway, I will explain to you - Space structure is like fine layers of plywood. When the two particles are produced simultaneously in two neighboring layers of space, the space boundary is forming the wave pattern So... on each side of the boundary (as a vibrating membrane) the particle must be in the opposite phase.
He describes it at around the 9:30 mark
@@voges1001 yes, albeit very briefly.
The only case I understand how it works is when particles are created together, to conserve charge and angular momentum
This is getting even weirder than mysths and magic systems lore 😂
The most logical explanation I have found on this subject.
Our ordinary lives are an illusion...
Not an illusion, just a subjective perspective of the objective reality
That explained nothing.
With no basis, you can never learn
I've been searching much too long for some clear explanation about how to make entagled quanta. Most search entries lead to very nice explanations about what entanglement is, but non of the Videos and articles I've seen yet tried to explain how it's done. ...or at least not in a way that I was able to understand. I didn't await it to be that simple though. Well, i'm sure it's much more complex when it comes to the details, the math and actually doing it, but I didn't expect the ground princible to be this simple. Thank you so much for enlighten me.
I have a humble opinion, bear with me a little bit. We have two electrons they are in superposition and they are entangled. Now if you’re all bear with me for a moment more. Look at the entanglement as if it were a single string held tight by the two particles. As long as they hold the string taught they are entangled, but if you cut the string and it doesn’t matter where you cut it. The two particles immediately react. Like two men in a tug of war. When the rope breaks you don’t have to tell either of them that it happened they both know instantaneously. I think when you interrupt the entanglement either by measuring one particle or some other means you’ll get the same result. Both particles react instantaneously because they both received the same intervention at the same moment. They don’t need to teleport information from one to the other, It just isn’t necessary. When the entanglement is interrupted both particles instantly return to the state we were in before the entanglement. True or not true?
Some types of information, such as an individual electron’s spin, encompasses the entire universe - the electron spin is not local to the electron. The information of that spin exists across the entire universe and is not affected by spatial parameters.
Best (simple) explanation ever!
This is by far the best description I've heard. It finally makes sense to me.
2 - Spin is the fourth quantum number and is related to the electron, it can assume the following quantum values Ms = +/- ½. It is assumed that the electron exists and that it rotates on itself and that in the rotation it produces an effect that can be represented with a vector called spin angular momentum. Furthermore it is assumed that the electron also possesses an electric charge with a North and South pole, this property assumes that the electron also has a magnetic moment. In practice, the spin vector called SPIN describes the orientation of the electron. To define the state of an electron, 4 quantum numbers I II II IV (N, L, M and Ms) are needed. Spin was theorized in the early 20th century and is needed to compare theory and experimental data. The Pauli exclusion principle, as we were taught at university, establishes that there can be at most 2 electrons on an orbital but with opposite spins. We don't want to break the eggs in the basket but remaining as an example (we could extend the discussion to all the other particles) doubts arise about the true nature of the electron. In the same official definition of electron that physics gives we find: “………...it is believed to be an elementary particle”! Notice the BELIEVES. It seems that physicists are waiting for reality, it "seems" because some will claim that they have the truth in their pocket. In truth, models and mathematical equations have been constructed which confirm the experimental data performed on the particle but nobody knows the PLATONIC ESSENCE of the particles.
👏👏👏
For years I have heard childish and counterproductive explanations about this topic from many "pundits" ... but finally I see that it was not my limit not to be satisfied about the topic, but most likely those pundits' limits.
To explain things well it is not enough just to understand them well and explain them well, it also takes the intellectual honesty to evaluate their complexity and not fall into the trap of oversimplification, which potentially frightens listeners and leads them to renunciation and disappointment:
This video shows respect towards them listeners and puts them in a position to study more in order to understand more .. one step at a time ... accepting their own limits and letting themselves go into the state of mind that has always been called "love for knowledge" ... i.e .: (Gr. philo + sophia).
Well done.
Pino.
One of the best videos on the subject so far that I’ve seen
Arvin Ash is such an amazing teacher that he makes me feel like a genius being able to understand these complex concepts. Thank you sir. 🙏🏽
Questions:
0. Obviously, it is possible to measure spin, but is it possible to monitor spin, once measured, without changing the original measurement. In other words, is it possible to "confirm" a measurement, to "monitor" spin over a period of time? (And if not, how the heck can you be certain of the measurement correctness in the first place?)
1. Is it possible to explicitly set the spin of an electron? (or photon, or...)
2. Is it possible to explicitly change the spin of an electron? (ditto) (if you can "set" it...)
3. If either #1 or #2, is it possible to do this without breaking entanglement with another electron? (And wouldn't that force the spin on the electron not operated upon?) (tweak one part of the wave function and thereby force the other part to conform)
4. If #0 and #3 than why is communication not possible using entanglement?
and
somewhat unrelated
5. Doesn't non-locality argue for one or more additional, probably very small, dimension(s) that some aspect of particles inhabit?
Mr. Ash, I really like your videos. keep up the great work. I have a question. could it be, that I am right when I think, Entanglement means the information is not transferred faster than the speed of light because the information doesn't have to be transferred at all. because, if 2 single quantum objects get entangled, they become 1 quantum system/object. and that 1 new quantum object can be very long with a lot of empty space inside. from 1 end of the universe to the other end of the universe. hence, information must not travel from one side to the other side. and there is no physical law that says, the size of a quantum object/system is limited. or is there such a law?