This is one of the better explanations of this topic for the general public and it's still hard to grasp. I wrote a paper about the EPR paradox over 20 years ago for a philosophy course. It was my first introduction to quantum mechanics and my mind was blown. Impressive blast radius; I'm still picking up the pieces.... "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman
It says that if you think u understand quantum mechanics u r wrong bcoz the whole quantum mechanics is wrong so ur understanding something wrong. It's common sense as Einstein told us
@@dynamitrex3975 The main question is how two particles can depend on one another that are billions of km away from each other and if you change one particle, the other particle also changes that means that the information of change may have traveled faster than speed of light.if something is faster than speed of light it makes wrong the whole spacetime continuum.
yup, because that mistake actually challenged the theory fundamentally, and required scientists to develop the theory substantially and discover new things in order to respond to it
He wasn't close to being right. He was respected however and so it made the other brilliant physicists take a closer look at entanglement. Thanks to them, not Einstein, we enjoy things like quantum computing capabilities. BTW, I love Albert E.
@@baashaalbaashaal6427 He merely claimed that the Copenhagen Interpretation was incomplete cuz its laid on the foundation of quantum particles capable of positing an endless number of states, i.e., quantum indeterminacy was fundamental QM is a discipline of physics No one can deny a discipline of physics😁
When I took undergraduate physics at university there were a handful of results that still stay with me now that I'm not at all involved in hard sciences. Two of the most mind boggling quantum phenomena involved simple experiments with light. So imagine you have a long rectangular prism about a metre long but otherwise fairly narrow. Shaped like a box for storing a dozen roses. It's black all over and completely blocks out all light. At one end you have a variable laser that you can adjust so that its intensity is so low it's guaranteed to be spitting out photons so slowly there's only ever 1 photon in the whole tube at any given time. Near the other end is a piece of card with two vertical slits and at the very end there's a light detector. If you did quantum in school you'll know light interferes with itself so you get these waves on the light detector if the light has to go through two slits. However, this experiment shows that the light will still interfere with itself as long as there are two slits even though there's only ever one photon in the tube! So the photon somehow 'knows' there's another slit on the card that it's not going though! I never got an explanation that I could follow as to why this works. Of course if you replace the two slits with one slit the pattern changes to the standard Gaussian distribution with no interference.The other really cool result you can try for yourself if you have three polarizing sunglasses. So polarizing sunglasses work by filtering out light if it's not aligned the right way. If you hold up the lens a particular way it might let through 100% of the up-down oscillating rays, 50% of the 45 deg incline rays and 0% of the side to side oscillating rays. Now if you get two pairs of sunglasses you can put the lenses next to each other and turn them until you find all of the light is being blocked (one lens blocks all the up down and the other blocks all the side to side). However, as the orientation of the light is probabilistic, once the light passes through a lens it updates its probability of what orientation it is travelling in. So if you get a third lens and stick it between your first two lenses, by carefully turning the middle lens you can actually get some light making it through all three lenses when two of them would have blocked ALL the light.
The interference pattern with light has to do with the fact that photons, electrons, etc. can be thought of as both waves and particles. Before an electron/photon is measured, you can think of it as a wave rather than particle, though when it is measured, the wave-like behavior 'collapses', so to speak, and it may behave more like a particle, in the sense we think of them. I believe the wave-like behavior of the light is retained, even in a single photon, because it is only measured after it has encountered the slits. I'm already out of my depth with physics here (I'm only really familiar with classical mechanics), but perhaps this has to do with fundamental particles being described as wavelike excitations of a field in QFT.
About the duality of wave and particle of matter, you got the fact right. If photons are shone one at a time at a double slit, each photon (or electron, if used) will hit a single spot on the screen behind. The cumulative pattern, however, or probability distribution on the screen will follow a "double-slit" pattern, aka interference. Now you wonder how can the photon/electron know the existence of the other slit, and you put a detector at the double slit to see exactly which slit each photon/electron passes through each time, the interference pattern will be destroyed, and all you will ever see are two bright dots on the screen, as what you would see if you shoot a gun through a wall with two narrow windows. By measuring its precise position at the slit, you destroyed its wave property, leaving it with 100% particle property. Hence no more interference, only the straight paths are left.
@@SrhamSaeed when I wear sunglasses that are the super light polarizing type I have discovered that with my LCD cell phone I can read it and see the images fine in portrait but not in landscape which suggests that I should get a pair of frames that has circular lenses for a second pair for when I am in multimedia mode video mode widescreen or whatever you want to call it. Obviously copyleft of any intellectual property here especially the fact that no sunglasses are marketed for use with smartphones in landscape not just having lenses that you can rotate. I think that this is the way summer 3D glasses work as well. My body doesn't generate sufficient lubrication so I have to always protect my eyes from winds even if they are clean but especially if they are not. I am curious if I can avoid this issue by using the organic screens for example I highly recommend the Samsung a 20 but it is not the first affordable phone that had the OLED for example the j-7 and for a while the Motorola X was available with Republic Wireless so that it's higher up front cost could be justified my only paying $10 for unlimited minutes texting Etc and anything that uses data being minimal or Wi-Fi dependent.
1:59 to 2:04 - "IF both particles are measured at 0, the relationship will always hold." I do not understand why that implies that they are entangled. This is no different than we would expect. IF one particle is measured at 0, THEN it will always remain as 0 (unless there is an intervening measurement of A/B)... and if the second particle is also measured at 0, then it will always remain at 0. So IF the particles HAPPEN to match the first time they are measured... then they will always match. Would we expect anything different? Wouldn't the corollary also be true? If one particle measured at 0 and the other measured at 1, then they will always be opposite no matter how far apart you move them, no? More information is needed to explain why this indicates an entanglement between the two particles. For instance, if we have one source of a dozen particles and measure the first particle at A, does that mean that we can predict with 100% accuracy that the remaining eleven particles will also be A? In which case, it seems that a property of the source is determining whether all the particles emitted from it are A or B. Also, if we then measure the first particle at 1, does that then mean we can predict with 100% certainty that all the remaining eleven particles are also 1? Better yet, suppose we measure particle X at 1, and particle Y also at 1... Then we measure particle X at A... does that then give us a 50% chance that particle Y will change from 1 to 0? Or is particle Y not scrambled by the A/B measurement to X in the same way that X is scrambled? In which case, did we not just disprove that X and Y are "entangled" and proven that they were only the same in the original measurement by chance and would expect them to remain the same until an intervening A/B measurement caused them to change 50% of the time?
This video did a terrible job of explaining things. Let me explain it to you. Sometimes, particles can be entangled. This means that the measurement of one particle can determine the characteristics of another particle.
Maybe they are connected through the extra dimensions that string theory suggests which is why they seemingly can get the information there faster than light but since we can't detect the dimensions we can't see it? And Before anyone jumps on me yes I'm talking out of my ass and have no idea if its true or even possible but hey, just an idea. :)
I am actually SOOOO happy to see, that i am not the only person on this planet, who has had this idea. It would explain a lot and save the hidden variable option. The problem is: how to possibly scientifically research this (quite wilde) hypothesis ?
I think there exits another way for information to "travel"...if it travels, it has to follow Einstein law, but if is instantaneous, then what you said makes sense as if that were true, the information isn't actually travelling..
2:43 That sign should say "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" Funny enough the jibberish creation "Ferwirklung" almost works as a portmanteau of "Fernwirkung" and "Verwicklung" (entanglement)! A brilliant mistake on the side of Chad Orzel?
I assume that was a reference to Schrödinger's cat.. If so, then no, entanglement is different: in the cat case, there is one measurable state for one object, which is determined only when the measurement is actually made; however, entanglement involves correlations between states of multiple (say two) objects, and determining the state of one object "instantaneously" determines the state of the other object (no matter how far away). It was the "instantaneous" character of this process that bothered Einstein and others, since special relativity is so firmly grounded that current quantum theories are based on it, and one of the things special relativity did was to show that simultaneity is not an objective physical condition.
2:44 Not sure if “Spukhafte Ferwirklung” was purposely spelled wrong, which is interesting because the second word can be treated as “Verwirkung” meaning “forfeit”, “Verwicklung” meaning “entanglement” and the “correct” word “Fernwirkung” which means “action in distance”.
Specifically regarding the portion of the video from about 1:00 to 1:20... how do we know that the state (1 or 0) is not determined until the measurement is taken? Also, suppose we take a measurement and find that it is 1, why would we find it strange that when we measure it again later, it is also 1? Why would we expect it to change from the first measurement to the next? Something seems to be missing in the explanation.
Amazing thoughts right there. And the thought about quantum computers is just out of my comprehension. But with the little information i'm given and i understand, i'd like to point something : if there are only 2 states available for each particule, doesn't it mean that there are not only 2 entangled particles, but perhaps a lot more at the same time ?
I'm not german, and I'm just relying on Google Translate, but @2:45 "spuckhafte ferwirklung" translates to "spitting effect," whereas "spukhafte fernwirkung" translates to "spooky long-distance effect."
What about transmitting information this way: You measure one particle A) in 1 direction, and the other, B) in that same direction plus another one. Since A is measured solely in one direction, it will remain the same. So, if B is measured again in the original direction it wil yield the same result, always. Now, if we stop A for a moment and don't measure its properties, B will be free to be in whichever state it so desires, so we will sometimes see an opposite value. If measured often enough, this bit of information can be very reliable. And if A was to change according to B, we can flip the whole thing over: if A measures continuity, B is not being measured and if A measures 2 different values, B is being measured. So does this mean that we CAN send information this way?
I think the problem is it's like the entangled particles are like two coins tossed in the air. Until one is measured it's in a super position of BOTH heads & tales (or seems to be - no one knows) but when one is measured the 50 / 50 probability of either a heads or a tales becomes either one or the other. So we can't know in advance what that will be therefore something like morse code: a 0 or a 1 can't work (heads or tales) because there's no way to agree that what each part of a message can be making it useless.
Ben Pyke yes, spucken is "to spit" and spukhaft without the c means something like "mysterious" and Fernwirkung means something like long-distance effect. so its "mysterious long-distance effect"
물리학자들 사이에서 양자역학이 논란거리가 되었다는 사실은 알고 있었지만, 아인슈타인도 양자역학을 부정했다는 점을 이 영상을 보고 처음 알게 되었습니다. 이런 영상들을 보며 세상은 우리가 생각하는 것보다 훨씬 복잡하다는 것을 항상 느끼고 있습니다. 앞으로도 좋은 영상 기대하겠습니다.
The issue is one of whether or not quantum mechanics is complete. At the ensemble level the Schroedinger equation makes predictions correct to one part in 10^12, and I think we can take it for granted that this could just as well be one part in 10^100 or well beyond the Planck level. There is nothing like a viscosity term to be added to the SE. Modification of the SE is prohibited, which applies also to the Dirac or any similar equation. QM would be an easy subject if it were permitted, and any sensible natural philosopher will realise the unlikelihood of such permission being given. QM is complete at the ensemble level. At the level of the discrete or individual event, we obviously need some other idea to get an outcome where a cat is either dead or alive, and never in a mixture of states. This other idea needs to be orthogonal to the SE in some way. Without knowing anything about Bell's Theorem, we need to be looking at the superluminal world anyway. There is more than one way to travel faster than light, so the SE could describe an oscillation in the way that exchanges spacelike and timelike intervals. We can have tachyonic Brownian motion in the other way, which can induce a broken symmetry when the entity interacts with two or more detectors, so only one detector gets the prize. This is an idea for computer simulation using a random number generator and there is a long way to go. Other ideas are welcome, but please be aware of the basic principle that we cannot modify the SE.
So a source can "spit out" two "particles" (light spits out as a particle and a wave) that are always correlated anytime you measure them. If one is 0 then the other is B, if one is 1 then the other is A, but they always change their status between 0,1 for first and A, B for the second. No matter where particle 1 and particle 2 are, even a million km apart, there is always an instant correlation between them however and when they are measured. For instance, light (source) acts either as a particle (particle 1) or as a wave (particle 2).
Love the way he throws speculation out as FACT!! At 2:20 he states, if you measure one in New York and the other in San Francisco, they gives the same results. YET the longest published test so far is just a few hundred kilometers! He's inferring, if you can run around the block without stopping, then you can run around the world without stopping, to eat, to sleep, to rest...because you just proved you can run around a block without stopping! There's too many unknown variables, magnetic fields and such that can easily influence the entanglement. But it makes them FEEL, I understand all...there's nothing we don't know! You can't understand, but I do! Look at me!
Can it be that four dimensional spacetime is infinitely curved in higher dimension and by entanglement particles can interact through the higher dimension resulting the action to be correlated and instantaneous regardless of spacial distance?
Could be. This is basically the ER=EPR conjecture (Wormholes = Entanglement). ER for wormhole (Einstein-Rosen bridge) EPR for quantum entanglement (EPR paradox)
I am curious, I know they meant these measurements in a broad sense, resulting in the same results. But what exactly were these measurement? Weight? Energy? Proton counts? Size? Movement pattern? Exactly what is identical between the two particles? What happens to the other particle if the entangled particle it was attached to is turned into energy, would this mean energy and matter still retain information together? Or does the particle simply find a different particle to attach to? I realize asking HOW this happens would be something that is probably we won't know til decades, hundreds of years if ever. But I will still ask... just incase we do actually know.
Erm... It's a bit hard to wrap my mind around... like most of quantum strangeness of our world... So if we have a pair of particles originating from one source and we measure 1-st particle as "1" if we measure second particle we get "1" (that if the entanglement correlation is "always equal", other way we might get a pretetermined "0") But if we measure 1-st particle on it's different property we get random result "A" or "B" and at the same time we reset the "1"/"2" proberty to being undetermined again. So if we measure 1-st particle on "1"/"2" and keep those measurements if someone performes an "A"/"B" measurement we get a 50% chance to get a different result on first particle. Right? So if we perform like 100 measurement per second on first particle, and check - if all measurements yelded the same result - we can count this as "0 transmitted" And if during this second we get some spontanious result change we can count this as "1 transmitted" and this way have a binary datastream that is limited by it's banwdth speed (1b/s in this example which is a crappy speed), but is totally independant of distance. True - this relies on the itea that out of 50 subsequant measuments with undeterminder results some will yeld different results which is not certain ofcource, but after all convetional binary data transmissions we have now are also not 100% reliable and thus we have methods of identifying and fixing occasional bit-leacks in datasteams using encodings...
What sorts of properties are they talking about measuring? And how are they actually measured? Also, what makes 2 particles be entangled with each other. Is it the fact that they were emitted by the same thing?
Would be cool but thats not the case. The explanation are always misleading into thinking something like that would work but actually only the quantum states are connected not a whole particle. e.g. the spin of a particle. You can imagine it has a rotation (even though it is not really rotation). You measure one particle and find a rotation of 90 degrees and then you measure the other one and you will always find 90 degrees as well even though they are far apart. If you would try to smash something in it it would change the state of the particle and the entanglement is gone :/ It also only works with reading. Changing something yourself breaks the entanglement. So you can't really send a message or make something explode somewhere else.
Bell didn't show that there aren't hidden variables (that there's no "pre-measurement" state of the entangled system). He showed that quantum mechanics isn't local, whether or not there are hidden variables.
1:20 to 1:49 - It is interesting that measuring the 1/0 property, followed by measuring the A/B property, followed again by measuring the 1/0 property to change. But the first question that comes to my mind is HOW are these properties being measured? Perhaps the MEANS of measuring A/B is causing a 50% chance that 1/0 will be changed. Although that still presents a mystery as to why the means of measurement would create an unpredictable result. Still, the means of measurement is vital to a complete understanding of this phenomenon. It needs to be examined - and possibly an experiment needs to be devised - to determine if the means of measuring one property could cause an alteration to the second property. It seems that the evidence indicates that it necessarily does alter the other property only 50% of the time. This needs more information.
Hmmm... is there also a possibility that it might also be linked to multiverse... where that particle communicates to the other particle because it is at that exact moment at the exact time that it was measured in the other universe?
Quantum mechanics is trying to define how particles react with the ether when the leave a source through the ether will trying to cover up the fact that the ether exists. When two particles leave a source in opposite direction they conserve momentum and do opposite things and then interact with the ether. So Quantum mechanics means defining the ether will saying it doesn't exist.
Entanglement is JUST a matter of conservation.... if a particle measures 1 the other particle MUST read 0 and visa versa... why ??? simple... conservation of that measured feature... ... Get rid of matter particles traveling thinking, start thinking in terms of mathematical relations. 2 entangled particles is STILL 1 wavefunction. ONLY if they are detached by measuring the relationship is mathematically broken AND in order to keep the conservation both must be opposite of eachother simple.... Now faster then speed of light....????? YES .... AND ..... NO !!!! In order to get the particles appart over a big distance they ALREADY traveled at some speed ALWAYS below the speed of light....the mathematical attached wave function of course travels along so below light speed. IF the measurement is made... the mathematical relation is simply BROKEN so that 2 opposing results show/pop up. Instantaniously and breaking a mathematical relation ship is done instantaneously right at the very moment of measuring. Not so complicated. And no speed limits are broken. simple
So to communicate faster than light, Alice just needs to measure the 0/1 property, and if it is not the value she wishes to communicate, measure the A/B property (to scramble the result) and then remeasure the 0/1 property, which will now be random again. After giving Alice time to do this, say 10 times, Bob can measure the 0/1 value with a high degree of confidence that it shows the value Alice wants to communicate. What am I missing?
And if you start with two, entangled pairs, and carry them apart such that their lines-of-sight intercept (line-through-line at a point)-do the pairs interfere, with each other....
Why cant u send message by that?. For example u want to send signal from one planet to another. Receiver was told to use only first measurement. But sender: tries to switch measurements to the point when first measurement result changes. Thats all signal sent. But randomnes does not ensure signal speed. It can take infinite time to send signal. I have no idea about quantum mechanics, I just came up with that from this explanation.
Nice video. Just a qn if its ok. Got here due to curiosity abt how Einstein was said to be wrong with his "spooky action at a distance". So the qn is why do we know that the measured physical properties of entangled particles aren't predetermined prior measurement? Did look up some wiki pages about hidden variables and Bells Theorem etc but didnt feel like I learnt much from them except how his inequalities were violated etc.. Alot of it sounds overly complicated and round about. I get how the properties are random and we have to measure to know it and how entanglement led to correlation. But not sure how that concludes as Einstein being wrong. For instance, the properties that are unknown until measured surely can be considered a "hidden variable" even though that may not be exactly what he meant when he said that. I guess its more like a known variable whose value or state is indeterminate but I guess I just need to know why is it necessarily assumed to have meant to be uncorrelated based on what Einstein said? Any good clean way to explain it all? Forgot to add. My unds of the topic is obviously weak. For instance I seem to unds that entanglement suggest definite correlation between physical properties of a particle pair but I somehow still feel that if I changed the properties of one particle, somehow, the entanglement nature will fall apart? (Correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, so does making measurements count as external influence or interaction somewhat similar as how I would make a change in a physical property?
Entanglement of energy between two carbons with double bonds results in the loss of an electron from a nearby halogen or transition metal. This is photosynthesis and photoelectric molecules. We use this night vision goggles solar panels and photo etching of circuits on plastic as computer chips. Entanglement and emergence was a surprise to Einstein in the 1950s.
What if there were two observers at both ends, continuously observing the states of the two entangled particles simultaneously after fixed time intervals? Would the states of two particles be opposite to each other every instant of time both of the observers measure their states? Let's suppose "A" and "B" are two states, and measurement time instants are 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. And assume that the states measured by first observer for instants 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 are A, B, A, A, & B respectively. Would this imply that for the second observer, measured states for instants 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 be B, A, B, B, & A respectively? If that's the case, then the notion of quantum entanglement is pretty bizarre.
Does entangled states become less entangled over time due to interactions? Because, is Big Bang were to be true, then all the particles came out of one flash of energy which is equivalent to a prepared initial state implying everything is entangled with everything else... Or does this only work for matter - antimatter pair?
Can somebody also detect a typo around minute 1:00? The number of measures and property confused me a lot. EDIT: That was the only thing that confused me in the video xD
IMVHO, trying to make sense of QM. Space is a useful concept., however it is the product of evolution giving various species two eyes. Similar to how space seems to appear in a computer monitor when one dons a pair of 3D spectacles. Consider viewing the Earth from space above the N. Pole and observing a satellite in a circular orbit around the Earth. If the satellite moves through space more slowly : quickly on opposite quadrants of the orbit, then we can assume that the satellite is moving along an ellipse through another 'unseen' 3rd dimension. ie, 'higher' dimension can be described as rotations in 'lower' dimensions and thus the rates (time it takes) for objects to move through space in lower dimension. The fourth dimension can similarly be thought of as moving through space through another higher dimension. Professor L. Susskind has 'entertained' the concept that below Planck scales , the multi-verse might be a single rotating point. (AFAIK this is NOT something Prof. Susskind posits in his work, but was something he gave as a reply to a student in one of his lecturers as an unverifiable possible) . If this is the case, then spooky action at a distance becomes less problematic as a concept.. this also makes sense of what phase space is, a (the product of sub measurable) rotation series that is so 'complex', that we can only model it statistically. The above does not in itself give us anything very useful, except perhaps a possible interpretation.. and perhaps the possibility of modelling a mini universe as rotations.. either as simulations or as an object that can be programmed with a rotation series. ie, giving us a readable value/calculation, (an equivalence to interactions of objects in space time). Consider also that this fits with Zeno's concept of 'infinitely' divisible time, space, position.. and a single point/ geometry being a more accurate description of what reality actually is. Not to mention how the above also fits nicely with Fourier transforms.. Plz also note that without space, the concept of a rotation is not the same as that in classical physics, in that there is no radius. However, the equivalent of a radius value can be generated with rotations in other direction/axis . something else that seems to fit is the way in which a solar system can be modelled as a series of rotations (processions etc). As I say, I am not a physicist, PLZ consider the above as a way that some difficult concepts and mathematics can possibly be made into something more elegant/ understandable.. food for thought, even if it relies on hypothesis/speculation. Something else that seems to fit with the above too.. is that wherever we go in the universe, it is the same universe, rotated and scaled.. not another random universe.
+mars Cubed I tend to agree with you, that the explanation for entanglement will most likely involve a redefinition of our concept of space, which is beginning to look seriously flawed.
gary berger Thanks for your comment. I didn't really make my point above clear.. Is it possible to make a 'mini universe' by rotating an object in a number of fields? ie, programming a rotation series into a small sphere perhaps suspended in a magnetic field (or in micro gravity etc). It seems that being able to do something like that, even if it was not very complex nor much like our own universe, might still be useful for computing & general investigation of the concept.
gary berger Apparently, the probabilistic position of the Planck unit at P temp, P time.. is a volume the size of the Universe. Perhaps like a 3d raster point drawing existence., endlessly chasing itself, following a course of least action through a space that it continuously redefines by its own action/phase. A rotating sphere made to precess (wobble on its axis due to being in a field & thus having one side moving in the direction of the field, with the opposite side moving in a direction opposing the field etc).. with more fields inducing wobbles of wobbles.. is adding information to the sphere.. as frequency/amplitude/phases of wobbles. The fact that such an apparently simple and symmetrical object can be loaded with information in this way, is fascinating in itself. Something IDK, but I wonder about, is, do precessive motions remain within the volume of the sphere.. or does/at what point does the sphere itself begin to move around.. or does it? (obviously function of field phase and rotation speed) Does the concept of a rotating point itself break down, or, like a bicycle wheel, does the rotation hold despite intense field strengths acting on it? It just seems that it would be very useful to have a desktop machine that had a tiny, precise rotating and wobbling sphere in it.. not least if analogues between its motion, fields used to program it and computing something to do with reality could be established. Even if it is just a toy. It might have implications for cosmology too. if rotations prove to be a useful interpretation of reality, such a machine would be the first ever physical universe humanity had purposefully created.. albeit a very simple one.
maybe is like a program which can change everything since is sending signals to particles directly instead of make particles sending mensages each others....
i guess einsteins mistake was, that special relativity only states, that no particle could be accelerated to be faster than/ equal to the speed of light, since E=MC² conducts that that particle`s mass would be infinite. but if these particles are entangled in a field or something, where the information does not need to travel, bec. a) higher dimensions (string theory) or b) it has nothing to do with anything mass-related than his theory and quantum mechanics actually could both work out together right?
Shouldn't it be "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" instead of "Spuckhafte Ferwirklung" (2:45) because that would be the proper translation for "spooky action at a distance". Or it's not german, but what is it then...
Separation can’t be fully recognized or complete due to non conformation of bi nominal trajectories. Electrons and protons immersed into two dual states supersede the trans nominal factors that can’t be equivalent in separation much more than the tangled mix match of pure protons electrons absent. Constant separation is completely impossible. Look at roegans proton scheme of separating under existential factors.
why they have to send a signal to each other? I didn't understand why necessary they communicate? if they only exist like opposites and similar things?
What if the particles are not entangled but they all are the same? That's why it seems like they can transfer information so fast...but actually what's happening is we are looking at different manifestations of the same particle? Omnipresence?
Bell's Inequality (which is observed to be falsified by actual experiments) involves a mathematical derivation in which the presumptive hidden variable, λ(t), vanishes. But to get λ(t) to vanish for particles separated in space, Bell has to assume a universal cosmic clock, t, and the absurd claim that the twin particles age in precise phase-locked synchrony, so that he can algebraically cancel them out. This assumption is absurd because 1) there is no universal cosmic clock, t, and 2) the presence of a gravitational gradient means that each particle ages according to its own local clock. For this reason, Bell cannot cancel out λ(t) from his calculus. That's why Bell's Inequality doesn't hold in the real cosmos.
So Einstein was wrong because the transmission of information between entangled particles is indeed faster than light, and not defined by hidden information like Einstein chose to believe. However, since the information transited faster than light is random, it is not useful to communicate stuff at that faster than light speed. Is it correct?
*Help* I dont know how to make the Square Root sign or the Squared sign how do I? I usually just copy and paste the symbol thingys like √ that which I just stole from the internet but I usually do a slash / and the 2 I dont know either and dont copy and paste I use a normal 2 which is actually confusing but not confusing if you think its confusing and than think if its not confusing and just look at it for 1 second and realize *Oh hey thats simple* cause the end would be 2 like obviously and Im not typing about the answer but that is what I could be typing about but Im so like not cause if it were 22=4 like duh it wouldnt be 22=42 because 2x2 isnt 42 and 2x2 isnt 2 cause that wouldnt make sense and like -2x-2 wouldnt be 2 because it would be the same answer!! *I just need help typing the sign on IOS so yeah dont go through my long speech about realizing that nothing doesnt make sense*
Regarding "spooky action at a distance" (and undefined superposition states in general), Einstein (a pantheist/pandeist) famously said "God does not play dice!" Niels Bohr, in arguably one of the greatest roast responses ever, replied "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."
For those of you trying to understand physics from this video, here are some things I think you should think about. This video doesn’t even specify what is being measured. How helpful is that? 1 possibility is particle spin. But physicists do not even understand what particle spin is. They only have vague analogies for it. Physicists have been confused by, and have been arguing about, multiple physically illogical assumptions in the probability interpretation of quantum theory, ever since the theory was 1st invented. This will continue until a more logical theory replaces it. That is how bad the current state of just this 1 physics theory is. There are, arguably, 6 professionally used physics theories. My unifying physics theory, matter theory, makes all those theories, and their illogic, obsolete. Imagine, instead of learning 6 illogical, contradicting theories, and being constantly confused, learning only 1 logical theory, and immediately understanding the most fundamental observables in physics. You can find my videos using the search keywords: matter theory marostica.
i truly believe that once quantum entanglement is solved and einstein’s theory of relativity is disproved, maybe and most probably, not fully, maybe when an error is found OR a missing piece is discovered then we will have the ability to travel through space and time. my hypothesis stems from the fact that two atoms from one edge of the universe to the other can exchange information correlated to the other is similar to time travel. as relativity states that time and space is one of the same, this means that information can be transported through such great distances of spacetime, which can result in time travel. but of course this is based on another theory which i have forgotten the name for. but what do i know i’m just a university student studying for my business degree, not physics :) but i’ve always loved quantum physics. any one up to talk about my hypothesis or propose one?
what if you were to measure it twice and you got a value of 1 first time but a value of 0 second time then if you measured the other particle would it still be an A or a B This is assuming that the correlation is 1=A and 0=B
I do not know why somebody did even consider this "entanglement" a paradox, or a relativity violation. The action is performed at the moment of creation, not at the moment of measurement. Nothing is transmitted to the second particle when we measure the first. It is just that we instantly know the state of the second when we measured the first state, not that it somehow changes
it's spukhafte, not "spuckhafte". and i really don't have a clue whether "Ferwirklung" is supposed to mean Fernwirkung (probabaly) or Verwirklichung (less likely) or Verwinklung (also not very likely)
I didn't understand the last part (minute 4:00), I think they just skip the part of why quantum mechanics is correct and that paper was wrong. (I put think because perhaps they said it and I didn't understand haha). Someone understood that part??
what if there is a athor dimension that isn't relative to the three space dimensions. this way it can have the same effect as a wormhole. but than not by bending spacetime but by an crossing fift dimension.
Slowly but surely, quantum physics is moving us beyond this phase of 'objective, scientific' thinking, and on the next level.... where we can actually easily understand the concept and applications of multiple dimensions and go beyond this so called logical and linear thinking. To paraphrase one of the most perceptive quotes of the century: "The Universe is far stranger than we can ever imagine."
How are particles measured? How can these paired particles be "moved" to another location in order to be measured? I Googled it and found out that entangled particles are created when a photon is split into two. This made me more confused with more questions like how can a photon be further split, etc.
(die) spukhafte Fernwirkung! You do such a good job on describing such a complicated topic, but you don't have 5 minutes to look up a term from another language (even though english derived from it)?
That Win moment when you're so smart even your mistakes are brilliant.
+Harut Rehanyan lol so true, good call
+Harut Rehanyan you're*
mattyboy141 what? I spelt it correctly. Y u tryna be a Nazi??
+Harut Rehanyan nice edit fool
+Harut Rehanyan Like GreatScotts one in his LED matrix ;P
This is one of the better explanations of this topic for the general public and it's still hard to grasp. I wrote a paper about the EPR paradox over 20 years ago for a philosophy course. It was my first introduction to quantum mechanics and my mind was blown. Impressive blast radius; I'm still picking up the pieces....
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
- Richard Feynman
Mind blown
It says that if you think u understand quantum mechanics u r wrong bcoz the whole quantum mechanics is wrong so ur understanding something wrong.
It's common sense as Einstein told us
So basically, quantum state is fake? As it should be? But I thought Bose Einstein condensate was quantum!
And what if you can manipulate an entangled particle?
@@dynamitrex3975 The main question is how two particles can depend on one another that are billions of km away from each other and if you change one particle, the other particle also changes that means that the information of change may have traveled faster than speed of light.if something is faster than speed of light it makes wrong the whole spacetime continuum.
Einstein: *makes a mistake*
Everyone: Incredible job
Thank you.
It was not a mistake. At that time is was the best he could have done.
yup, because that mistake actually challenged the theory fundamentally, and required scientists to develop the theory substantially and discover new things in order to respond to it
Ok
t. y. v. m. a. e\\
I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING BUT THE ANIMATIONS WERE SO COOL
+paco putonberbenero Best coment.
+paco putonberbenero thanks paco
+paco putonberbenero welcome to the club
im 10 and I understood everything
+sahar Tejani Then explain what quantum mechanics are.
I will have to watch this several more times before my brow un-furrows
You'll have to read a lot of physics before your brow unfurrows
Manashi Sarkar You got that right, cousin
@@WeeWeeJumbo As far as I know even people as Richard Feynman (The Genious) didn't know why and how but knew it's there.
I think like half of this went right over my head...
If u really want to know this while understanding it, check out fermilab. They have very simple and presice explanations.
whoever the narrator is...he's smooooth. good to listen to. clear, articulate.
Einstein , the man who was right even when he was wrong!
That could be the greatest compliment for anyone
Big E denied quantum mechanics so...
He wasn't close to being right. He was respected however and so it made the other brilliant physicists take a closer look at entanglement. Thanks to them, not Einstein, we enjoy things like quantum computing capabilities. BTW, I love Albert E.
@@baashaalbaashaal6427 He merely claimed that the Copenhagen Interpretation was incomplete cuz its laid on the foundation of quantum particles capable of positing an endless number of states, i.e., quantum indeterminacy was fundamental
QM is a discipline of physics
No one can deny a discipline of physics😁
Hnm
That sad moment when you don't understand even after the narrator patronizes you
Alain Aspect got Nobel Prize in Physics for his experiments on Bell's Inequality. Truly amazing.
When I took undergraduate physics at university there were a handful of results that still stay with me now that I'm not at all involved in hard sciences. Two of the most mind boggling quantum phenomena involved simple experiments with light. So imagine you have a long rectangular prism about a metre long but otherwise fairly narrow. Shaped like a box for storing a dozen roses. It's black all over and completely blocks out all light. At one end you have a variable laser that you can adjust so that its intensity is so low it's guaranteed to be spitting out photons so slowly there's only ever 1 photon in the whole tube at any given time. Near the other end is a piece of card with two vertical slits and at the very end there's a light detector. If you did quantum in school you'll know light interferes with itself so you get these waves on the light detector if the light has to go through two slits. However, this experiment shows that the light will still interfere with itself as long as there are two slits even though there's only ever one photon in the tube! So the photon somehow 'knows' there's another slit on the card that it's not going though! I never got an explanation that I could follow as to why this works. Of course if you replace the two slits with one slit the pattern changes to the standard Gaussian distribution with no interference.The other really cool result you can try for yourself if you have three polarizing sunglasses. So polarizing sunglasses work by filtering out light if it's not aligned the right way. If you hold up the lens a particular way it might let through 100% of the up-down oscillating rays, 50% of the 45 deg incline rays and 0% of the side to side oscillating rays. Now if you get two pairs of sunglasses you can put the lenses next to each other and turn them until you find all of the light is being blocked (one lens blocks all the up down and the other blocks all the side to side). However, as the orientation of the light is probabilistic, once the light passes through a lens it updates its probability of what orientation it is travelling in. So if you get a third lens and stick it between your first two lenses, by carefully turning the middle lens you can actually get some light making it through all three lenses when two of them would have blocked ALL the light.
The interference pattern with light has to do with the fact that photons, electrons, etc. can be thought of as both waves and particles. Before an electron/photon is measured, you can think of it as a wave rather than particle, though when it is measured, the wave-like behavior 'collapses', so to speak, and it may behave more like a particle, in the sense we think of them. I believe the wave-like behavior of the light is retained, even in a single photon, because it is only measured after it has encountered the slits. I'm already out of my depth with physics here (I'm only really familiar with classical mechanics), but perhaps this has to do with fundamental particles being described as wavelike excitations of a field in QFT.
Doesn't refraction through the lens change the axes of polarized light?
About the duality of wave and particle of matter, you got the fact right. If photons are shone one at a time at a double slit, each photon (or electron, if used) will hit a single spot on the screen behind. The cumulative pattern, however, or probability distribution on the screen will follow a "double-slit" pattern, aka interference. Now you wonder how can the photon/electron know the existence of the other slit, and you put a detector at the double slit to see exactly which slit each photon/electron passes through each time, the interference pattern will be destroyed, and all you will ever see are two bright dots on the screen, as what you would see if you shoot a gun through a wall with two narrow windows. By measuring its precise position at the slit, you destroyed its wave property, leaving it with 100% particle property. Hence no more interference, only the straight paths are left.
@@SrhamSaeed when I wear sunglasses that are the super light polarizing type I have discovered that with my LCD cell phone I can read it and see the images fine in portrait but not in landscape which suggests that I should get a pair of frames that has circular lenses for a second pair for when I am in multimedia mode video mode widescreen or whatever you want to call it.
Obviously copyleft of any intellectual property here especially the fact that no sunglasses are marketed for use with smartphones in landscape not just having lenses that you can rotate. I think that this is the way summer 3D glasses work as well.
My body doesn't generate sufficient lubrication so I have to always protect my eyes from winds even if they are clean but especially if they are not.
I am curious if I can avoid this issue by using the organic screens for example I highly recommend the Samsung a 20 but it is not the first affordable phone that had the OLED for example the j-7 and for a while the Motorola X was available with Republic Wireless so that it's higher up front cost could be justified my only paying $10 for unlimited minutes texting Etc and anything that uses data being minimal or Wi-Fi dependent.
That's the light slit experiment, isn't it?
1:59 to 2:04 - "IF both particles are measured at 0, the relationship will always hold." I do not understand why that implies that they are entangled. This is no different than we would expect.
IF one particle is measured at 0, THEN it will always remain as 0 (unless there is an intervening measurement of A/B)... and if the second particle is also measured at 0, then it will always remain at 0. So IF the particles HAPPEN to match the first time they are measured... then they will always match. Would we expect anything different? Wouldn't the corollary also be true? If one particle measured at 0 and the other measured at 1, then they will always be opposite no matter how far apart you move them, no?
More information is needed to explain why this indicates an entanglement between the two particles. For instance, if we have one source of a dozen particles and measure the first particle at A, does that mean that we can predict with 100% accuracy that the remaining eleven particles will also be A? In which case, it seems that a property of the source is determining whether all the particles emitted from it are A or B.
Also, if we then measure the first particle at 1, does that then mean we can predict with 100% certainty that all the remaining eleven particles are also 1?
Better yet, suppose we measure particle X at 1, and particle Y also at 1... Then we measure particle X at A... does that then give us a 50% chance that particle Y will change from 1 to 0? Or is particle Y not scrambled by the A/B measurement to X in the same way that X is scrambled? In which case, did we not just disprove that X and Y are "entangled" and proven that they were only the same in the original measurement by chance and would expect them to remain the same until an intervening A/B measurement caused them to change 50% of the time?
great video but they somehow managed to write "spukhafte Fernwirkung" with 3 typos at 2:45
They just accidentally put a ‘l’ in the middle of k and u
And Spuckhafte Ferwirkung is a real word
@@chiefsed4473 No, correct German would be "spukhafte Fernwirkung"
Oh yeah I thought it spelled spukhafte ferwiklung
@@lukasmihara yeah correct
I was looking for this comment! Was itching to write down the error somewhere in the comments
This video is the most clear explanation of Entangled States.
This is as hard as it can get.
You underestimate it's power...
Not even close.
yeah tbh i don't get this at all
The world leaders in the field still don't completely get it.
Technoguy3 I get it, u people dont get it becuz yall dont have *FAITH*!
Oh snap! Oh Burn! OOOoooohhhhh~~~~ in ur asss!
Jet fuel can't melt DEEZ NUTS!
This video did a terrible job of explaining things. Let me explain it to you. Sometimes, particles can be entangled. This means that the measurement of one particle can determine the characteristics of another particle.
Nobody get it
Universe 7 actually many people do get this phenomena .
Maybe they are connected through the extra dimensions that string theory suggests which is why they seemingly can get the information there faster than light but since we can't detect the dimensions we can't see it? And Before anyone jumps on me yes I'm talking out of my ass and have no idea if its true or even possible but hey, just an idea. :)
I am actually SOOOO happy to see, that i am not the only person on this planet, who has had this idea. It would explain a lot and save the hidden variable option. The problem is: how to possibly scientifically research this (quite wilde) hypothesis ?
I think: from the start "Big Bang" they are already connected or synced" not really a continue linked signal
I think there exits another way for information to "travel"...if it travels, it has to follow Einstein law, but if is instantaneous, then what you said makes sense as if that were true, the information isn't actually travelling..
Idk
2:43 That sign should say "Spukhafte Fernwirkung"
Funny enough the jibberish creation "Ferwirklung" almost works as a portmanteau of "Fernwirkung" and "Verwicklung" (entanglement)!
A brilliant mistake on the side of Chad Orzel?
Palace Of Wisdom Kuzuzangpo
Hmmm yeah
Schroedinger's particle basically
+Lorde exactly what i though
I assume that was a reference to Schrödinger's cat.. If so, then no, entanglement is different: in the cat case, there is one measurable state for one object, which is determined only when the measurement is actually made; however, entanglement involves correlations between states of multiple (say two) objects, and determining the state of one object "instantaneously" determines the state of the other object (no matter how far away). It was the "instantaneous" character of this process that bothered Einstein and others, since special relativity is so firmly grounded that current quantum theories are based on it, and one of the things special relativity did was to show that simultaneity is not an objective physical condition.
Man. Even Einstein's "wrong" paper launched whole new branches of science. What a mind.
2:44 Not sure if “Spukhafte Ferwirklung” was purposely spelled wrong, which is interesting because the second word can be treated as “Verwirkung” meaning “forfeit”, “Verwicklung” meaning “entanglement” and the “correct” word “Fernwirkung” which means “action in distance”.
What I understood : nothing absolutely nothing
The animation is very good,so cute particler! kids can understand Quantum entanglement with it.Hi and love from Sweden !
Specifically regarding the portion of the video from about 1:00 to 1:20... how do we know that the state (1 or 0) is not determined until the measurement is taken?
Also, suppose we take a measurement and find that it is 1, why would we find it strange that when we measure it again later, it is also 1? Why would we expect it to change from the first measurement to the next?
Something seems to be missing in the explanation.
The lesson went over my head
'Ferwirklung' is not a word in German. It's 'Fernwirkung', which means 'action at a distance'.
If you get this then congrats: Achnee
Amazing thoughts right there. And the thought about quantum computers is just out of my comprehension.
But with the little information i'm given and i understand, i'd like to point something :
if there are only 2 states available for each particule, doesn't it mean that there are not only 2 entangled particles, but perhaps a lot more at the same time ?
I'm not german, and I'm just relying on Google Translate, but @2:45 "spuckhafte ferwirklung" translates to "spitting effect," whereas "spukhafte fernwirkung" translates to "spooky long-distance effect."
What about transmitting information this way:
You measure one particle A) in 1 direction, and the other, B) in that same direction plus another one. Since A is measured solely in one direction, it will remain the same. So, if B is measured again in the original direction it wil yield the same result, always.
Now, if we stop A for a moment and don't measure its properties, B will be free to be in whichever state it so desires, so we will sometimes see an opposite value. If measured often enough, this bit of information can be very reliable.
And if A was to change according to B, we can flip the whole thing over: if A measures continuity, B is not being measured and if A measures 2 different values, B is being measured.
So does this mean that we CAN send information this way?
I think the problem is it's like the entangled particles are like two coins tossed in the air. Until one is measured it's in a super position of BOTH heads & tales (or seems to be - no one knows) but when one is measured the 50 / 50 probability of either a heads or a tales becomes either one or the other. So we can't know in advance what that will be therefore something like morse code: a 0 or a 1 can't work (heads or tales) because there's no way to agree that what each part of a message can be making it useless.
TED-Ed you made a mistake @2:45 its not "Spuckhafte Ferwirklung" its "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" your made 3 mistakes in 2 words. WELL DONE
+Kymate :-) Spuckhaft would be something related to spit.
Ben Pyke yes, spucken is "to spit" and spukhaft without the c means something like "mysterious" and Fernwirkung means something like long-distance effect. so its "mysterious long-distance effect"
Kymate Ja, ich weiß ;-) Mein Kommentar war nicht als Antwort auf deinen gemeint, sondern als Erweiterung. Deiner vielleicht auch. :-)
Ben Pyke ja war mir nich sicher deshalb hab ich noch was dazu geschrieben
"It's" and "you"
물리학자들 사이에서 양자역학이 논란거리가 되었다는 사실은 알고 있었지만, 아인슈타인도 양자역학을 부정했다는 점을 이 영상을 보고 처음 알게 되었습니다. 이런 영상들을 보며 세상은 우리가 생각하는 것보다 훨씬 복잡하다는 것을 항상 느끼고 있습니다. 앞으로도 좋은 영상 기대하겠습니다.
안녕하세요 안녕하세요 좋은 댓글입니다 저는 인도에서 왔습니다
2:45 I speak German
There is no “C”.
You forgot the “N” and there is no “L”.
It’s “ Spukhafte Fernwirkung”
The issue is one of whether or not quantum mechanics is complete. At the ensemble level the Schroedinger equation makes predictions correct to one part in 10^12, and I think we can take it for granted that this could just as well be one part in 10^100 or well beyond the Planck level. There is nothing like a viscosity term to be added to the SE. Modification of the SE is prohibited, which applies also to the Dirac or any similar equation. QM would be an easy subject if it were permitted, and any sensible natural philosopher will realise the unlikelihood of such permission being given. QM is complete at the ensemble level.
At the level of the discrete or individual event, we obviously need some other idea to get an outcome where a cat is either dead or alive, and never in a mixture of states. This other idea needs to be orthogonal to the SE in some way. Without knowing anything about Bell's Theorem, we need to be looking at the superluminal world anyway. There is more than one way to travel faster than light, so the SE could describe an oscillation in the way that exchanges spacelike and timelike intervals. We can have tachyonic Brownian motion in the other way, which can induce a broken symmetry when the entity interacts with two or more detectors, so only one detector gets the prize. This is an idea for computer simulation using a random number generator and there is a long way to go. Other ideas are welcome, but please be aware of the basic principle that we cannot modify the SE.
I wish everyone had access to these kind of videos.
So a source can "spit out" two "particles" (light spits out as a particle and a wave) that are always correlated anytime you measure them. If one is 0 then the other is B, if one is 1 then the other is A, but they always change their status between 0,1 for first and A, B for the second. No matter where particle 1 and particle 2 are, even a million km apart, there is always an instant correlation between them however and when they are measured. For instance, light (source) acts either as a particle (particle 1) or as a wave (particle 2).
Love the way he throws speculation out as FACT!! At 2:20 he states, if you measure one in New York and the
other in San Francisco, they gives the same results. YET the longest published test so far is just a few hundred
kilometers! He's inferring, if you can run around the block without stopping, then you can run around the world
without stopping, to eat, to sleep, to rest...because you just proved you can run around a block without stopping!
There's too many unknown variables, magnetic fields and such that can easily influence the entanglement. But
it makes them FEEL, I understand all...there's nothing we don't know! You can't understand, but I do! Look at me!
Can it be that four dimensional spacetime is infinitely curved in higher dimension and by entanglement particles can interact through the higher dimension resulting the action to be correlated and instantaneous regardless of spacial distance?
Could be. This is basically the ER=EPR conjecture (Wormholes = Entanglement). ER for wormhole (Einstein-Rosen bridge) EPR for quantum entanglement (EPR paradox)
You prople are real freak.
And things get even stranger when I understand each word but have no idea what this video is trying to tell me.
There's a typo in "spukhafte Fernwirkung". "Spuckhafte Fernwirkung" as written in the video is "spitting-kind-of effect over distance".
I like that 'for now' bit... I'm still waiting for those quantum routers.
I am curious, I know they meant these measurements in a broad sense, resulting in the same results. But what exactly were these measurement? Weight? Energy? Proton counts? Size? Movement pattern?
Exactly what is identical between the two particles?
What happens to the other particle if the entangled particle it was attached to is turned into energy, would this mean energy and matter still retain information together? Or does the particle simply find a different particle to attach to?
I realize asking HOW this happens would be something that is probably we won't know til decades, hundreds of years if ever. But I will still ask... just incase we do actually know.
"Identical" particles means they are both electrons or protons or whatever.
And it's the latest paper. ‘Quantum teleportation-based state transfer of photon polarization into a carbon spin in diamond’
So Einstein himself opposed his theory so he is always correct.
I can think such thoughts but why..
Erm...
It's a bit hard to wrap my mind around... like most of quantum strangeness of our world...
So if we have a pair of particles originating from one source and we measure 1-st particle as "1" if we measure second particle we get "1" (that if the entanglement correlation is "always equal", other way we might get a pretetermined "0")
But if we measure 1-st particle on it's different property we get random result "A" or "B" and at the same time we reset the "1"/"2" proberty to being undetermined again.
So if we measure 1-st particle on "1"/"2" and keep those measurements if someone performes an "A"/"B" measurement we get a 50% chance to get a different result on first particle. Right?
So if we perform like 100 measurement per second on first particle, and check - if all measurements yelded the same result - we can count this as "0 transmitted" And if during this second we get some spontanious result change we can count this as "1 transmitted" and this way have a binary datastream that is limited by it's banwdth speed (1b/s in this example which is a crappy speed), but is totally independant of distance.
True - this relies on the itea that out of 50 subsequant measuments with undeterminder results some will yeld different results which is not certain ofcource, but after all convetional binary data transmissions we have now are also not 100% reliable and thus we have methods of identifying and fixing occasional bit-leacks in datasteams using encodings...
This is what EDI explains to Shepard in how the Ilusive Man comunicates with the Normandy
Thank you i get information a lot
spukhafte Fernwirkung not spuckhafte Ferwirklung! = remote action
What sorts of properties are they talking about measuring? And how are they actually measured?
Also, what makes 2 particles be entangled with each other. Is it the fact that they were emitted by the same thing?
So, if I were to take two particles that are entagled and smash one of them in a particle accelerator; would the other one explode, too?
Good question.
Would be cool but thats not the case. The explanation are always misleading into thinking something like that would work but actually only the quantum states are connected not a whole particle. e.g. the spin of a particle. You can imagine it has a rotation (even though it is not really rotation). You measure one particle and find a rotation of 90 degrees and then you measure the other one and you will always find 90 degrees as well even though they are far apart. If you would try to smash something in it it would change the state of the particle and the entanglement is gone :/ It also only works with reading. Changing something yourself breaks the entanglement. So you can't really send a message or make something explode somewhere else.
You can't break nor create particles
why is it that the first measurement goes away once you take a different one?
what makes particles partners? How do you know particles are paired and entangle each other?
Bell didn't show that there aren't hidden variables (that there's no "pre-measurement" state of the entangled system). He showed that quantum mechanics isn't local, whether or not there are hidden variables.
2:44 I really dont think it's spelled like that.
Hidden variables are ruled out IF locality is preserved. Non-local hidden variables are not ruled out by Bell.
1:20 to 1:49 - It is interesting that measuring the 1/0 property, followed by measuring the A/B property, followed again by measuring the 1/0 property to change.
But the first question that comes to my mind is HOW are these properties being measured? Perhaps the MEANS of measuring A/B is causing a 50% chance that 1/0 will be changed. Although that still presents a mystery as to why the means of measurement would create an unpredictable result.
Still, the means of measurement is vital to a complete understanding of this phenomenon. It needs to be examined - and possibly an experiment needs to be devised - to determine if the means of measuring one property could cause an alteration to the second property. It seems that the evidence indicates that it necessarily does alter the other property only 50% of the time. This needs more information.
Actually I was hoping an explanation for How and why the Entangled states exist/work.
Hmmm... is there also a possibility that it might also be linked to multiverse... where that particle communicates to the other particle because it is at that exact moment at the exact time that it was measured in the other universe?
Quantum mechanics is trying to define how particles react with the ether when the leave a source through the ether will trying to cover up the fact that the ether exists. When two particles leave a source in opposite direction they conserve momentum and do opposite things and then interact with the ether. So Quantum mechanics means defining the ether will saying it doesn't exist.
Entanglement is JUST a matter of conservation.... if a particle measures 1 the other particle MUST read 0 and visa versa... why ??? simple... conservation of that measured feature... ... Get rid of matter particles traveling thinking, start thinking in terms of mathematical relations. 2 entangled particles is STILL 1 wavefunction.
ONLY if they are detached by measuring the relationship is mathematically broken AND in order to keep the conservation both must be opposite of eachother simple....
Now faster then speed of light....????? YES .... AND ..... NO !!!!
In order to get the particles appart over a big distance they ALREADY traveled at some speed ALWAYS below the speed of light....the mathematical attached wave function of course travels along so below light speed.
IF the measurement is made... the mathematical relation is simply BROKEN so that 2 opposing results show/pop up. Instantaniously and breaking a mathematical relation ship is done instantaneously right at the very moment of measuring. Not so complicated. And no speed limits are broken. simple
So to communicate faster than light, Alice just needs to measure the 0/1 property, and if it is not the value she wishes to communicate, measure the A/B property (to scramble the result) and then remeasure the 0/1 property, which will now be random again. After giving Alice time to do this, say 10 times, Bob can measure the 0/1 value with a high degree of confidence that it shows the value Alice wants to communicate. What am I missing?
+Julian Davies Scrambling disentangles them.
+Ben Pyke Oh, thanks!
And if you start with two, entangled pairs, and carry them apart such that their lines-of-sight intercept (line-through-line at a point)-do the pairs interfere, with each other....
Why cant u send message by that?.
For example u want to send signal from one planet to another. Receiver was told to use only first measurement. But sender: tries to switch measurements to the point when first measurement result changes. Thats all signal sent. But randomnes does not ensure signal speed. It can take infinite time to send signal. I have no idea about quantum mechanics, I just came up with that from this explanation.
Nice video. Just a qn if its ok. Got here due to curiosity abt how Einstein was said to be wrong with his "spooky action at a distance". So the qn is why do we know that the measured physical properties of entangled particles aren't predetermined prior measurement?
Did look up some wiki pages about hidden variables and Bells Theorem etc but didnt feel like I learnt much from them except how his inequalities were violated etc.. Alot of it sounds overly complicated and round about. I get how the properties are random and we have to measure to know it and how entanglement led to correlation. But not sure how that concludes as Einstein being wrong. For instance, the properties that are unknown until measured surely can be considered a "hidden variable" even though that may not be exactly what he meant when he said that. I guess its more like a known variable whose value or state is indeterminate but I guess I just need to know why is it necessarily assumed to have meant to be uncorrelated based on what Einstein said?
Any good clean way to explain it all?
Forgot to add. My unds of the topic is obviously weak. For instance I seem to unds that entanglement suggest definite correlation between physical properties of a particle pair but I somehow still feel that if I changed the properties of one particle, somehow, the entanglement nature will fall apart? (Correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway, so does making measurements count as external influence or interaction somewhat similar as how I would make a change in a physical property?
Entanglement of energy between two carbons with double bonds results in the loss of an electron from a nearby halogen or transition metal. This is photosynthesis and photoelectric molecules. We use this night vision goggles solar panels and photo etching of circuits on plastic as computer chips. Entanglement and emergence was a surprise to Einstein in the 1950s.
WOW! That is DEEP! Great video.
What if there were two observers at both ends, continuously observing the states of the two entangled particles simultaneously after fixed time intervals? Would the states of two particles be opposite to each other every instant of time both of the observers measure their states? Let's suppose "A" and "B" are two states, and measurement time instants are 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. And assume that the states measured by first observer for instants 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 are A, B, A, A, & B respectively. Would this imply that for the second observer, measured states for instants 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 be B, A, B, B, & A respectively? If that's the case, then the notion of quantum entanglement is pretty bizarre.
Does entangled states become less entangled over time due to interactions? Because, is Big Bang were to be true, then all the particles came out of one flash of energy which is equivalent to a prepared initial state implying everything is entangled with everything else... Or does this only work for matter - antimatter pair?
Can somebody also detect a typo around minute 1:00? The number of measures and property confused me a lot. EDIT: That was the only thing that confused me in the video xD
I seriously did not understand a word that was said... Good there are people who does! =)
IMVHO, trying to make sense of QM.
Space is a useful concept., however it is the product of evolution giving various species two eyes.
Similar to how space seems to appear in a computer monitor when one dons a pair of 3D spectacles.
Consider viewing the Earth from space above the N. Pole and observing a satellite in a circular orbit around the Earth.
If the satellite moves through space more slowly : quickly on opposite quadrants of the orbit, then we can assume that the satellite is moving along an ellipse through another 'unseen' 3rd dimension.
ie, 'higher' dimension can be described as rotations in 'lower' dimensions and thus the rates (time it takes) for objects to move through space in lower dimension.
The fourth dimension can similarly be thought of as moving through space through another higher dimension.
Professor L. Susskind has 'entertained' the concept that below Planck scales , the multi-verse might be a single rotating point. (AFAIK this is NOT something Prof. Susskind posits in his work, but was something he gave as a reply to a student in one of his lecturers as an unverifiable possible)
.
If this is the case, then spooky action at a distance becomes less problematic as a concept.. this also makes sense of what phase space is, a (the product of sub measurable) rotation series that is so 'complex', that we can only model it statistically.
The above does not in itself give us anything very useful, except perhaps a possible interpretation.. and perhaps the possibility of modelling a mini universe as rotations.. either as simulations or as an object that can be programmed with a rotation series.
ie, giving us a readable value/calculation, (an equivalence to interactions of objects in space time).
Consider also that this fits with Zeno's concept of 'infinitely' divisible time, space, position.. and a single point/ geometry being a more accurate description of what reality actually is.
Not to mention how the above also fits nicely with Fourier transforms..
Plz also note that without space, the concept of a rotation is not the same as that in classical physics, in that there is no radius.
However, the equivalent of a radius value can be generated with rotations in other direction/axis .
something else that seems to fit is the way in which a solar system can be modelled as a series of rotations (processions etc).
As I say, I am not a physicist, PLZ consider the above as a way that some difficult concepts and mathematics can possibly be made into something more elegant/ understandable.. food for thought, even if it relies on hypothesis/speculation.
Something else that seems to fit with the above too.. is that wherever we go in the universe, it is the same universe, rotated and scaled.. not another random universe.
+mars Cubed I tend to agree with you, that the explanation for entanglement will most likely involve a redefinition of our concept of space, which is beginning to look seriously flawed.
gary berger Thanks for your comment.
I didn't really make my point above clear..
Is it possible to make a 'mini universe' by rotating an object in a number of fields?
ie, programming a rotation series into a small sphere perhaps suspended in a magnetic field (or in micro gravity etc).
It seems that being able to do something like that, even if it was not very complex nor much like our own universe, might still be useful for computing & general investigation of the concept.
No clue...!
gary berger
Apparently, the probabilistic position of the Planck unit at P temp, P time.. is a volume the size of the Universe.
Perhaps like a 3d raster point drawing existence., endlessly chasing itself, following a course of least action through a space that it continuously redefines by its own action/phase.
A rotating sphere made to precess (wobble on its axis due to being in a field & thus having one side moving in the direction of the field, with the opposite side moving in a direction opposing the field etc).. with more fields inducing wobbles of wobbles.. is adding information to the sphere.. as frequency/amplitude/phases of wobbles.
The fact that such an apparently simple and symmetrical object can be loaded with information in this way, is fascinating in itself.
Something IDK, but I wonder about, is, do precessive motions remain within the volume of the sphere.. or does/at what point does the sphere itself begin to move around.. or does it? (obviously function of field phase and rotation speed)
Does the concept of a rotating point itself break down, or, like a bicycle wheel, does the rotation hold despite intense field strengths acting on it?
It just seems that it would be very useful to have a desktop machine that had a tiny, precise rotating and wobbling sphere in it.. not least if analogues between its motion, fields used to program it and computing something to do with reality could be established.
Even if it is just a toy.
It might have implications for cosmology too.
if rotations prove to be a useful interpretation of reality, such a machine would be the first ever physical universe humanity had purposefully created.. albeit a very simple one.
maybe is like a program which can change everything since is sending signals to particles directly instead of make particles sending mensages each others....
This is the coolest thing ever
probably the only ted-ed video i didnt understand 😅😅
i guess einsteins mistake was, that special relativity only states, that no particle could be accelerated to be faster than/ equal to the speed of light, since E=MC² conducts that that particle`s mass would be infinite. but if these particles are entangled in a field or something, where the information does not need to travel, bec. a) higher dimensions (string theory) or b) it has nothing to do with anything mass-related than his theory and quantum mechanics actually could both work out together right?
Shouldn't it be "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" instead of "Spuckhafte Ferwirklung" (2:45) because that would be the proper translation for "spooky action at a distance". Or it's not german, but what is it then...
what happens when you measure both particles at the same Planck time interval?
Separation can’t be fully recognized or complete due to non conformation of bi nominal trajectories. Electrons and protons immersed into two dual states supersede the trans nominal factors that can’t be equivalent in separation much more than the tangled mix match of pure protons electrons absent. Constant separation is completely impossible. Look at roegans proton scheme of separating under existential factors.
There's a mistake at 2:44: It's called "Spukhafte Fernwirkung" and not "Spuckhafte Ferwirklung"
good animation
Is this similar to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?
why they have to send a signal to each other? I didn't understand why necessary they communicate? if they only exist like opposites and similar things?
What if the particles are not entangled but they all are the same? That's why it seems like they can transfer information so fast...but actually what's happening is we are looking at different manifestations of the same particle? Omnipresence?
Bell's Inequality (which is observed to be falsified by actual experiments) involves a mathematical derivation in which the presumptive hidden variable, λ(t), vanishes.
But to get λ(t) to vanish for particles separated in space, Bell has to assume a universal cosmic clock, t, and the absurd claim that the twin particles age in precise phase-locked synchrony, so that he can algebraically cancel them out. This assumption is absurd because 1) there is no universal cosmic clock, t, and 2) the presence of a gravitational gradient means that each particle ages according to its own local clock. For this reason, Bell cannot cancel out λ(t) from his calculus.
That's why Bell's Inequality doesn't hold in the real cosmos.
Einstein made a mistake but mistake was brilliant! What can you say about this man... Respect!!!
Make a video on 'why spokes are used in wheels and why they are cross each other?? '
So Einstein was wrong because the transmission of information between entangled particles is indeed faster than light, and not defined by hidden information like Einstein chose to believe. However, since the information transited faster than light is random, it is not useful to communicate stuff at that faster than light speed. Is it correct?
Video duration = 5:09
Watch duration = 30:00
Thinking process = ?$÷%@+×&
*Help* I dont know how to make the Square Root sign or the Squared sign how do I? I usually just copy and paste the symbol thingys like √ that which I just stole from the internet but I usually do a slash / and the 2 I dont know either and dont copy and paste I use a normal 2 which is actually confusing but not confusing if you think its confusing and than think if its not confusing and just look at it for 1 second and realize *Oh hey thats simple* cause the end would be 2 like obviously and Im not typing about the answer but that is what I could be typing about but Im so like not cause if it were 22=4 like duh it wouldnt be 22=42 because 2x2 isnt 42 and 2x2 isnt 2 cause that wouldnt make sense and like -2x-2 wouldnt be 2 because it would be the same answer!! *I just need help typing the sign on IOS so yeah dont go through my long speech about realizing that nothing doesnt make sense*
This can also explain Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle
Regarding "spooky action at a distance" (and undefined superposition states in general), Einstein (a pantheist/pandeist) famously said "God does not play dice!"
Niels Bohr, in arguably one of the greatest roast responses ever, replied "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."
For those of you trying to understand physics from this video, here are some things I think you should think about. This video doesn’t even specify what is being measured. How helpful is that? 1 possibility is particle spin. But physicists do not even understand what particle spin is. They only have vague analogies for it. Physicists have been confused by, and have been arguing about, multiple physically illogical assumptions in the probability interpretation of quantum theory, ever since the theory was 1st invented. This will continue until a more logical theory replaces it. That is how bad the current state of just this 1 physics theory is. There are, arguably, 6 professionally used physics theories. My unifying physics theory, matter theory, makes all those theories, and their illogic, obsolete. Imagine, instead of learning 6 illogical, contradicting theories, and being constantly confused, learning only 1 logical theory, and immediately understanding the most fundamental observables in physics. You can find my videos using the search keywords: matter theory marostica.
i truly believe that once quantum entanglement is solved and einstein’s theory of relativity is disproved, maybe and most probably, not fully, maybe when an error is found OR a missing piece is discovered then we will have the ability to travel through space and time. my hypothesis stems from the fact that two atoms from one edge of the universe to the other can exchange information correlated to the other is similar to time travel. as relativity states that time and space is one of the same, this means that information can be transported through such great distances of spacetime, which can result in time travel. but of course this is based on another theory which i have forgotten the name for. but what do i know i’m just a university student studying for my business degree, not physics :) but i’ve always loved quantum physics. any one up to talk about my hypothesis or propose one?
what if you were to measure it twice and you got a value of 1 first time but a value of 0 second time
then if you measured the other particle would it still be an A or a B
This is assuming that the correlation is 1=A and 0=B
I do not know why somebody did even consider this "entanglement" a paradox, or a relativity violation. The action is performed at the moment of creation, not at the moment of measurement. Nothing is transmitted to the second particle when we measure the first. It is just that we instantly know the state of the second when we measured the first state, not that it somehow changes
Someone did.. but his statment is wrong
it's spukhafte, not "spuckhafte". and i really don't have a clue whether "Ferwirklung" is supposed to mean Fernwirkung (probabaly) or Verwirklichung (less likely) or Verwinklung (also not very likely)
I didn't understand the last part (minute 4:00), I think they just skip the part of why quantum mechanics is correct and that paper was wrong. (I put think because perhaps they said it and I didn't understand haha). Someone understood that part??
what if there is a athor dimension that isn't relative to the three space dimensions. this way it can have the same effect as a wormhole. but than not by bending spacetime but by an crossing fift dimension.
Slowly but surely, quantum physics is moving us beyond this phase of 'objective, scientific' thinking, and on the next level.... where we can actually easily understand the concept and applications of multiple dimensions and go beyond this so called logical and linear thinking. To paraphrase one of the most perceptive quotes of the century: "The Universe is far stranger than we can ever imagine."
How are particles measured? How can these paired particles be "moved" to another location in order to be measured?
I Googled it and found out that entangled particles are created when a photon is split into two. This made me more confused with more questions like how can a photon be further split, etc.
(die) spukhafte Fernwirkung! You do such a good job on describing such a complicated topic, but you don't have 5 minutes to look up a term from another language (even though english derived from it)?