Absolutely! PBS SpaceTime is like 10 seasons show, you can't start watching from season 10 and expect a great understanding; you have to start from the beginning. And as a veteran viewer, I do also think to start over from the beginning for some time to brush up my knowledge; I also want to take notes next time, I just don't have the time and focus yet.
Exactly my thoughts too. I'm so glad they maintain this level of quality without dumbing things down to the point of cliché or inaccuracy, like so many other science educators do.
Meh... not so sure. The "Edge of the Universe" episodes were the peak, let's be honest. And that series on string theory (is right/is wrong) was much better than the past year's episodes as well. But then again, when you're this good, it's easy to blow your wad early.
"The only channel that's getting better with age" A) wrong, it's not better now than it was than the last guy, you likely just mean "more entertaining", which arguably it is, but this being a teaching channel is dead and has been for years now BUT ALSO B) even if I DID agree with you, you are being needlessly myopic given many of the channels that HAVE gotten better.
It blows my mind that in one hour you have 25,000 views about an obscure problem in quantum physics. I am glad to be in the company of my nerd brothers and sisters. There are more of you than I suspected.
i honestly love these topics im not even very seasoned in mathematics, but phantom matter and this credit towards quantum entanglements research really has me high in spirits. Its humbling to remember how small/significant we are from time to time. Seeing how far the particle acceleration field, and quantum field has come towards pushing the envelope of the UNKNOWN has me so happy that as a human race our drive towards feeding a curiosity has not escaped or locked down or held back the frontiers of science.
Definitely. I have been bashing my head off Astrophysics and Quantum Physics for over two years, and I'm only just starting to get even a basic understanding of what we *think* we know so far. I love this channel for ideas and theory, and I also love Anton Petrov's channel for latest news about various discoveries and mysteries of Astrophysics. Here's a take you might like, by the well-known Sean Carroll. From his perspective, literally anything that can happen, the slight deviation in movement, spin, path, or whatever, of a single quark, all the way to the largest, incomprehensible cosmological events all does happen at once, sort of like the Multiverse interpretations. Yet what we see at macro scale Reality, is only where these things overlap the most, with the rest disappearing into oh no I can't remember and I've gone cross-eyed.
@@TheHorseshoePartyUK hey i also want to learn about all this stuff, it makes me so curious and excited. after so much time being depressed i found something that interests me, nothing interested me, nothing. im afraid I'll loose interest in this too but something atleast something after years made me excited to learn, i used to love to learn and read. 😔i want to learn but i don't know where to start. i know about the theory of relativity newtons laws just basics and thats all. astrophysics quantum physics 😔i want to learn it all. can you please give me guidance, where to begin, how to proceed. 😔😔 any books you may suggest for a beginner or topics, you are doing it for 2 years you must know.
Opposite. The methodology here is rock solid. Hence the experimenters won the Nobel. Yet the results make no sense to the classically conditioned mind.
It looked wrong THEN. Mathematicians used to be averse to imaginary numbers, they gaslit themselves into using solutions until they got the results they wanted, at the cost of going further and further away from the actual results.
Man, you're good. I have a master's in physics, but haven't been working as a physicist for a long, long time. You single-handedly revived my interest, updated me on more recent understanding, and helped me understand certain concepts that I should have understood at the time but didn't.
If you like to find an easy explanation of this and other mysterious phenomena, I will recommend you my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@aghosh5447 what's the matter? E/c^2! Come on! That's mass! 🤓 Ok you need good grades. It's like you had problems with the pandemia. But just like 2 years, dude. Go and try the best you can to achieve your goals!
@@aghosh5447 oh well.. But at least keep studying a little if you have time. It's always fun to... 😳 😟 😔 Ok. But if you have any chance, would you like to finish your f****ng career? After all, the time you spent studying is valuable, it was hmmm. You know. it requires a lot of effort... 😟🤓
Taking my undergraduate physics classes can be just a constant state of confusion with a few moments of satisfaction attained by comprehending a concept that are quickly squashed by a new even more complicated concept to understand. These videos give me a fun, easy to understand dose of physics that is still new and exciting for me.
It is not your fault that some aspects are difficult to comprehend because current physics is full of conflicting phenomena and explanations. If you want to understand what's is going on I will recommend you to find my book - Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" I wish you a pleasant time.
I always wonder how those old-timey physicists figured out very specific things without modern equipment. How much of it is direct vs indirect evidence or logical vs physical etc.
4:11 I appreciate you using phrases like "dogma" and heretic when referring to how the debate around quantum entanglement developed. It reminds us that even if science holds at its highest ideal that truth is what matters, it's a system acted out by humans, whom can easily lock down thinking that falls outside the accepted narrative
Einstein and Feynman never asserted their beliefs as fact, as their careers moved in different directions in line with what served their place and time. Physicists are not always based.
@@zanegoofgodfrey3540 I never said all physicists were biased, man. But the collective CAN become almost aggressive in knocking down hypotheses that go against what's currently the working theory. Just like how the catholic church silenced anything around heliocentrism. I remember a domcumentary of just how long it took Einstein and his supporters to convince the scientific body to budge on relativity - which is a good thing generally- but I think many were dismissing it off-hand
Just wanted to say thank you for working this hard for people like us who are not necessarily scientists or someone important but just bunch of nerds(i say this very respectfully) who wants to learn more about the universe and its mysterious ways without getting to technical about the maths behind it.. I have got bachelor in physics and i have been watching this chanel since i was in grade 11.. to be honest you guys are a big reason for me choosing to go for a physics degreee..and i am thankful for it.. i liked every second of my studies just because of the curiosity that you guys put into me..thanks very much..
I realise that most universities have limited budgets and so a head of faculty will deny research funds to scientists who are bucking the favored theory of the day but I love how many discoveries have come from people who refuse to give up on their own theories.It's what science is all about.
Funny the Bible has been talking about these things long ago… the triune God of Christianity…. consisting of three in one (used especially with reference to the Trinity).. God the father, the Holy Spirit and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are three separate entities and one God at the same exact time. Quantum Entanglement is the same concept of how Christ was able to walk the earth as 100% a man and still be one God.
So if you can prove those who have proven Einstein wrong , wrong themselves then you must win the Nobel Prize in Physics …. I love quantum physics !!! Max Planck is one of the hero of it !! ….
@@Kassiusday To be honest, they have not proven Einstein wrong. They have probably proven Einstein wrong, which is not the same. Quantum theory is always probabilistic. How probable are they? As probable as it is not probable. Their theory is technically in a superposition.
@@r.davidsenhello Thank you for your comment , because I did have the same reflexion : in quantum we are referring to statistics and probability and we fix the result ( collapsing the reality ) as soon as we are observing ( we involve our consciousness !! So are we living beings , existing beings or are nt we ?? And as you leave your cup of tea ☕️ on the table when you go to the toilet 🚻 that cup of tea can be anywhere in that room you just left … or might be also not present as solid cup of tea anymore but a wave fonction of it // here we go superposition of probabilities … nothing turns to be real in Quantum Physics . but a probability / however having said that .you can deny that distance seems not existing so as the time , at that level ….Einstein still scratching his head …
@Kassius KLAY there is no consciousness involved, you're just repeating sensational Google bs people read. A particle exist as a superposition of states and has no deleyed will or hidden variables. The point being once information about an object is taken such as speed,spin position , etc ,the variable can no longer change, yet up until that moment the object has not collapsed. This can be caused by objects without conciousness once so ever. It's like a turtle hiding into its shell after being affected by external stimuli, an observation in scientific terms means "collection of information" as opposed to "eyeing it" The misunderstanding about it generaly comes from eraser experiment. People don't understand the mechanic and read made up headline which is no different to celebrity gossip site
Thank you for pointing out that Bell's Inequality and the experiments honored by the Nobel Prize only rule out local hidden variables theories. I'm not saying I'm necessarily advocating for pilot waves or any other non-local theory, but it's been annoying seeing videos discussing this topic completely ignore that they may be disproving locality rather than hidden variables.
Until I saw Sabine's video on the topic, I spent a few sleepless nights worrying about fundamental randomness & non-realism, having only seen glowing headlines. I already knew that these experiments had been done, but I didn't realize they were only now getting the Nobel recognition. So when everything I see just says that the Nobel prize was given out for proving reality isn't real, I get very worried. Luckily Matt and Sabine are here to talk us down. I'm sure it's in this video somewhere, too, but pilot waves are far from the only escape hatch here. Many Worlds never collapses a wavefunction, so all results still exist and the results don't have to square until they're brought together, at or below the speed of light. It's really very elegant when you look at it as just math and forget about everyone telling you there are branching realities. "Superdeterminism" is the more popular option, though, I believe, and it really isn't different from just taking determinism seriously. With either of those interpretations, you get to keep locality by thinking about realism a little differently.
But at some point you need interpretation in order to make sense of the results of experiments. To sort out wrong hypothesis only more and more sophisticated experiments are necessary.
I think 0 is the hidden variable.. it's right in plain sight, but hidden because it doesn't objectively exist.. 0 also cannot defy locality be abuse it isn't matter.. in my thinking 0 is also infinity tho.
My education is in business but my love is physics. I admit I do not have the brain to understand the in-depth aspects of all the branches of physics. This channel is awesome in helping me understand on my level. Thank you particularly as I have a really easy time understanding you and staying attentive.
Same here. I am from commerce background but quantum physics is my new found love . Have been following PBS- Space time, Sabine Hossenfelder for a while but I can understand only a bit like 10% of what they explain. Are there any other channels which are good for beginners like me?
This is legitimately the first time someone actually described fundamental quantum mechanics in a way i could at least get somewhat of a grasp of the concept. You´ve definitely earned a subscription! And you´ve earned it the hard way since i´m not all that clever. 😅👍
Funny the Bible has been talking about these things long ago… the triune God of Christianity…. consisting of three in one (used especially with reference to the Trinity).. God the father, the Holy Spirit and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are three separate entities and one God at the same exact time. Quantum Entanglement is the same concept of how Christ was able to walk the earth as 100% a man and still be one God.
Haha! And this is just one aspect. Absolutely the most baffling however. He has a way with words. I like anyone who can attract people who haven't spent the years I have on the subject. It's people like him that first got me interested in Einstein.... 14 years later and I still know very little about what actually governs the physical properties of our universe. We have a long way to go. We'll only ever arrive through inspiration to learn more.
As usual PBS Space Time does an outstanding job explaining complicated subjects like quantum entanglement - makes me want to study Physics - keep up the excellent work! Thank you!
Feynmann would never say it was wrong to try, he was saying it was impracticable for that lab at that time; not the same thing. He was not closed minded and well understood the value research of this type.
I hope that broad and long lasting impact of this channel on humanity will be remembered in the annals of physics history a hundred years from now. Wonderful job, all.
These videos are always super dense and I've been watching them for years. But it wasn't until I became a nuclear engineer, over the past few months, that I came to really value and appreciate the science covered in these videos. They cease to amaze me!
My friend saw this video and he (a fellow Researcher but in the field of Virology) asked me (a physics PhD) why at 5:58 it is alluded that the entangled photon or electron pairs must have an opposite spin. I had to explain the law of conservation of angular momentum to him. This video was excellently made and simplified. Due to the uncharacteristically high interests in this topic from non-physics people, it is however good to mention even this simple aspects we usually take for granted.
I love watching these! Especially the parts where my brain gets entangled, and then untangles a bit as the details are shown. I call it the "Neuro-quantum antistupification effect".
Thank god for this video. So many videos said hidden variables had been disproven completely by this when they obviously hadn't. They also really lent into the "universe is not locally real" without explaining what that actually meant, or why the research was limited. Subscribed.
Dr. Quantum Entanglement has been working very hard in their field for years without the recognition they deserve. I personally congratulate Dr. Entanglement for their deserved Nobel win
Question! Is there a fundamental limit on how large an entangled system can be (not counting super-determinism)? Matt mentioned particles and molecules for size scale -- I don't necessarily mean physical size of each entangled piece, but rather how many particles/molecules can be entangled at once. I'd love to hear if that is a field of research that's growing, or if that's not a relevant possibility due to some maths principle I/we haven't heard of just yet. Thanks!
@@ObjectsInMotion Entropy doesn't beak entanglement. It is positively correlated with it. Because anytime a superposition "breaks", that is actually just the measurer becoming entangled with the particles. The statement is entropy "breaks" superpositions.
@@insainsin If the statement is entropy breaks superpositions, isn't a superposition a sum of 2 wave functions? Meaning it breaks wave functions. And if entanglement means two particles have the same wave function, doesn't that mean entropy breaks entanglement? Or does superdeterminism change the answer to some definitions? I don't care for superdeterminism but figured I'd ask for clarification lol
while I don't fully understand every topic you share with us on thew channel I appreciate that you don't shy away from talking about the more difficult to understand subjects
I love PBS Spacetime! This episode puts together so many of the elements that give me pleasure. Thank you Matt and team for another informative episode enlightening us lay persons on the sometimes weird world of physics, including the right measure of whimsy to make it digestible.
The biggest issue with the scientific community is the strong willingness to cling to dogma and ostracizing those that challenge the status quo. Scientists are human, but we have to put away hubris and be open to challenge and the testing of everything. This needs to be the case even if it results in previously established hard work being sent back to the drawing board or us being proven wrong. It's chilling the number of brilliant scientists whose monumental contributions were only acknowledged, not by practical analysis by the scientific community, but said individuals being extremely determined to go against conventional wisdom and prove their worth. Who knows how many scientists that were brilliantly on to something, but backed down from pursuing it, as result of ridicule and negative support by the scientific community. For those that do preserve, and their findings demonstrated as plausible, it's a bit irritating that all of a sudden, the scientific community supports and backs these individuals, pretending as if they were unbiased, and never demonstrated unnecessary ridicule or blatant disdain, during the initial process.
You're right in general. It's laughable how they claim one thing then quickly change the tune and don't admit being wrong. But in this case they were trying to prove status quo stuff
I'm sure that there existed a group within academia in every field of science or natural philosophy going all the way back to the Greeks who felt the exact same way. It's all part of the process of shifting paradigms as new information becomes incorporated into our understanding of the natural world, science is an ever-updating process, as I'm already sure you're aware.
@@pseudoname3159 That's the thing, all scientists should be aware of this and act in this manner, sadly there are way too many stories within the community historically and at present where there's unwarranted venomous criticism against those that challenge the status quo. There's a lot more "Don't rock the boat" versus "That's interesting let's test this idea out and see what we can learn". The culture is this, if the challenging scientist persist and can preserve from attacks that could possibly end their careers, and they happen to be right, the scientific community will eventually applaud them. If they don't, many in the community will treat them as a laughingstock and as a pariah b/c they dared make a challenge. This behavior has absolutely nothing to do with science. This culture gives unnecessary power to dogma and actually damages our understanding and advancement. I understand that getting funding can be difficult, and if your entire life work was on a previously established scientific principle that all of a sudden is at jeopardy b/c some upstart has some ideas that may jeopardize everything you've done, you're going to be filled with hostile emotion. As difficult as it is, we can't use these feelings to intimidate and create unnecessary ridicule in hopes that the challenger will give up and go away. The scientific method is a cruel beast that cares not of our credentials, not of our livelihood, and most of all cares nothing for our pride. As a species we need to check these feelings at the door and be as objective as we can. The scientific community does an ok job at present, but definitely needs much more improvement.
Dude, no one has had as many people come at him as hard as Einstein has. That’s not dogma, that’s literally how science should operate. Nor is it dogmatic to state the conclusion here: the theory of general and special relativity is the most successful single scientific theory in human history. We know that because of hundreds of thousands of attempts to prove it otherwise have almost always failed to do so. And accepting that conclusion is not dogmatic either
I've always wondered if quantum physics issues arise because we're 3d creatures trying to understand multidimensional objects. What if entangled particles share a higher dimensional coordinate. Like how polynomial equations can have two answers, entangled particles intersect our 3d reality at multiple locations. So information isn't traveling "faster than the speed of light" but instead it's basically just one system connecting the two points in 3d space. This could also explain the weird shape of atomic orbitals and stuff in chemistry too. Those might be "perfect shapes" in higher dimensions.
That extra dimensional coordinate would be a hidden variable, and given the results of these experiments, that coordinate would need to be independent of everything else happening in spacetime, if it even exists. For more about this, look up "Superdeterminism"
@@falnica I agree, except the way I see it is the particles are the result of the system, not the system it's self. Like the x intercepts in a polynomial. What we see is only a part of the system. Our reality is the x axis in that analogy. So the particles might not have the extra variable, the system that exists in higher dimensions have the variables. The particles just intersect our 3d reality at those points. And us being 3d entities are trying to reverse engineer the system from our limited perspective. I dunno to be honest, that's just sorta how I've always imagined it working in my head, and "dark matter" is just these systems that dont intersect our 3d reality; however, it influences the rest of the systems that do intersect our reality
@@KastorFlux I mean instead of arguing a fact, I think you should Google first. I’m not going to get derailed from my original argument as this is irrelevant. Even if your argument was factual, I still believe there are more than 4 dimensions. Also, you keep adding “lol” to the message condescendingly, but you should reevaluate your confidence. Invest in some humility, it’ll save you from looking foolish in the future.
Matt, I love your series! One comment - Sabine posits that Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" is in reference to the instantaneous collapse of the wave function everywhere and not to entanglement. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that. BTW it'd be fantastic if you would collaborate on some videos together!
Measuring an entangled pair collapses their shared wave function, so the Nobel laureates’ experiment proved both. So while the focus is entanglement, they also demonstrated instantaneous wave function collapse in a more specific case.
Sabine seems very grounded in reality and is open to saying we don't know things instead of riding an infinite number of ridiculous trains off into the sunset. She is my go to for sensible physics, as well as don. This channel, while often silly or talking about topics they don't know a lot about, can be enjoyable to watch though.
@@mikkel715 I'd love to hear them discuss it. Their process and approach is almost more interesting than the actual conclusion. I'm not saying Sabine is right or wrong, would just love to hear them together. Though it would also be good to somehow figure out definitively what he was referring to.
Whether you understand it a little or a lot I just appreciate the opportunity to see more information on the nature of reality. There is so much we don’t know and so many ways to tease it out of the universe. The next couple decades are going to be wild.
I'll chime in with support for episodes like the previous one! I'm nowhere near good enough at math to comprehend it all but seeing these kinds of things explained does at least give some insight into things in broad terms. While I don't really understand them I'm glad someone does.😁
The coefficients (1/2s) in the wavefunction before the basis states should be square rooted (otherwise it's not normalised)! The wavefunction itself doesn't provide probabilities associated with each state, not until you multiply it by its conjugate transpose ...
This, has consistently been the most in-depth youtube channel when it comes to science. Other channels talk about how weird quantum mechanics is, without explaining anything. They just talk about strange stuff without the history and without the interpertations. This channel talks about alternate explanations and some mathematical reasons as to why we believe quantum mechanics works the way it does. Bravo!
I'd straight up tell Rich he's less than a scientist if he opposed my testing him right/wrong. That's exactly what being a scientist is. Always testing things right and wrong hoping for the most accurate outcome.
@@hoebare Feynman was famously anti-philosophy and very much in the "Shut Up and Calculate !" school when it came to quantum foundations - basically, he thought it was a waste of time and that physicists should concern themselves with _using_ quantum physics rather than worrying about what it all means. Very glad this video didn't let him off the hook on that score (because I fundamentally disagree with his position).
My personal gut feeling is that it's not so much "hidden variables" as a system we don't understand. That is, I think both relativity and QM are very good approximations, but there's a system that ties it all together and explains the "spookiness"
@@coolblue5929 Basically what’s going on is there’s a substrate of reality of logic/syntax. The self referential nature of this logic/syntax at an infinite scale is cognition/consciousness and teleological. It referencing itself at an infinite scale produced cognition and self awareness. Because it’s infinite it has the nature to explore itself infinitely. Space time and the human experience is an interface or useful fiction for this consciousness to simplify. Ex. When you drink a glass of water it looks to you like you picked up a cup and drank it. In fundamental reality it was trillions x trillions of computations that you in the human experience couldn’t instantly perform.
I'm no scientist by any means, I'm just an IT guy with a passion for physics and I just want to say thank you to you and everyone in the RUclips science community for bringing the joy of science to a layman like me, once again thank you ❤️
That's sort of true of most populist science when it comes to quantum mechanics, they tend to play up the mysterious and magical - rather than using terms like "we don't, as yet, know how this particular thing works".
@@JudeMalachi : Alternatively, it's the Locality assumption that's wrong, not the Reality assumption. Note: in the EPR paper, Locality was named Separability.
@@JudeMalachi I'm in the field and likely just biased cause I read a few of his papers where he could easily have been more pedagogic (but likely then those papers would have had lower impact if not intentionally made mysterious).
19:41 LOL For real, it was a relief to hear it takes 10 years of coursework to learn the Lagrangian because that video was a trip, one I immensely enjoyed despite my very mathematically repulsed brain. Love your work.
Quantum entanglement is usually referring to the entanglement of energy in double bonds to the point of electrons and the bond breaks or the election spins off the halogen or transition metal nearby. The superposition and spin flip issue is the functional quality of the NMR or MRI imaging system. They appear to be mixing their metaphors.
I remember reading about the Bell inequality and the epr experiment when I was a kid and I'm really glad people went through and did the experiment. One thing that has puzzled me though is why took that experiment to convince people of non-localities/ indeterminism. The thing that really convinced me and frankly it was shocking and very disturbing was the first experiments with single Photon and single electron two slit diffraction. To this day I'm unclear why a careful examination of that seminal experiment isn't as clear an illustration of non-locality/ in determinism. If anyone wants to explain how you can get single Photon and single electron to Slit diffraction patterns in a local/deterministic universe, I would be interested.
@@Wiewiurek that's a good question and the answer is covered in other videos. I'm not a big fan of veritasium but he did a good video on this. The long and short of it is that if you assume hidden variables you get a different result by about 12%, then you do if you assume indeterminacy until measurement. If you remember your basic trigonometry you can go through the math and you'll see there's a difference.
Doesn't the very notion of a physical process being "instantaneous" throw a wrench into relativity? For something to occur instantaneously, that would imply two events occurring truly simultaneously, and that would seem to imply a preferred frame of reference?
It does, so I think a better way yo frame it is that the order you do the measurements doesn't matter. That has the same meaning experimentally and I think better reflects how the quantum mechanics plays out
As a result it doesn't matter if some reference frames see A first or B do the measurement first. So instead of claiming one 'instantly' changed the other the claim is instead that the observables commute, meaning that the order doesn't matter. And since the order doesn't matter there's no conflicts between reference frames, while still preserving the strange correlations from entanglement.
Superdeterminism is a a bit silly. Not only would everything be planned since the start of the universe, but it would be planned in such a way that it would appear random to us
For some reason, this year's Nobel prize has really grabbed my attention and ever since I've been watching videos on quantum physics, quantum mechanics quantum entanglement quantum fields... And quantum computing because I'm a software engineer. I'm like obsessed with it for some reason, I'm not sure why. I think the more videos that I watch I'm going to understand it all the sudden any more than physicists understand it already which is ...not as well as I would like.
Looks like you are looking for a logical explanation of the mysterious quantum world. I will recommend you my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" there on the easy language are explained all the current puzzles in Physics and Astronomy.
Coming up with a theory that postulates a model of quantitative relationships and interpretations which fits existing observations and explain existing problems is one part of the scientific process. The other, more underrated part, is coming up with clever ways to produce viable observations that stress the peculiar corner case hypothesis of said model.
Hi Matt, in her video Sabine Hossenfelder says that Einstein didn't meant the entanglement when he said 'spooky action in a distance' but the collapse of the wave function after measurement so who is wrong here?
Yes it's the collapse that Einstein meant. Annoying, I know that this is often used synonymously. Entanglement itself is just a statistical behavioir of a system. There is nothing really spooky about that.
If QM is indeterminisitic, then that is the point where the collapse of the wavefunction becomes "skooky". An indeterministic theory requires this superluminal communication between two particles (although no information could be transfered in any meaningful way using entanglement).
Well, Einstein (by the sounds of it) was referring to the fact that the wave function collapse occurs in all places, simultaneously. I'm not sure what the issue is tho, the wave function describes the statistical likelihood of outcome... for example, run an experiment a thousand times, each time you find the electron in a different place, the wave function tells you where it will appear more often and where less often. But, in a single experiment, it appears in a single place... the wave function "collapses" to this single value, because the wave function is a prediction, which the observed outcome is consistent with.
The two are fundamentally related, which is why they are often used interchangeably. But pedantically, I believe Sabine is correct. When you're being pedantic, Sabine is usually the one who gets it right.
Small mistake: At 3:04 , the wave function showed is not normalizable (sum of probabilities is not 1) . Because 1/2 squared + 1/2 squared = 1/2. Which is wrong because it should be 1. So you need to add square roots in your wave function on both 1/2 halfs. Thank you 💙
When I first heard of Quantum Entanglement I was blown away, the more I learn about Quantum Entanglement the more I'm convinced that it's just two marbles of unknown color, in two boxes.
Dear PBS Space Time: is it possible that gravity waves could interact with themselves at great distances vs their source matter, in such a way as to explain the effects we attribute to dark matter? I wonder if there is a gravitational refraction effect taking place at a distance from other sources of matter, one that would create an amplification point to where the effect affects stars at the edge of a galaxy as if something else were physically there when its not?
Was wondering if you could explore the relationship of this to the quantum eraser. The double slit experiment fails to be predictable due to a worm hole between the entangled particles whereby time is irrelevant?
Well done Matt on your fluent descriptions. I have one question regarding Quantum entanglement and the principle of instantaneous action at a distance. Assuming the two entangled particles measured by Alice and Bob, are each taken in their spaceships going in opposite directions at speeds that create some measurable time dilation; when the instantaneous action happens, do Bob and Alice see the effect happen at the same time, or is the ‘instant’ measured as being at the relative times of each? If the latter is true, on one objective perspective, the action takes place at a future time relative to the other and creates an interesting dilemma. If the former is true (ie at a time agreed by the observer to be the same (not sure how), then Alice and Bob measure the ‘instantaneous action’ as taking place at different times.
The point at which the spin of entangled particles is determined is when the wave-function of the measurement device becomes entangled with the wave-function of the particles. It doesn't matter which particle is measured because both entangled particles share the same wave-function. The crucial point to understand is that these wave-functions don't travel through physical space-time, they propagate instantaneously throughout Configuration Space, a complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the wave-function is defined. No information is transmitted between particles in physical space-time, all entangled particle properties derive from their entanglement with the measurement device in Configuration Space. Thus, there is no information that travels through space at any speed, hence nothing that exceeds the speed of light. What we observe in relativistic space-time is the quantum mechanical projection of events that evolve deterministically in Configuration Space. Such events appear randomized to us because the projection into space-time is probabilistic rather than deterministic. In short, the universe we observe exhibits non-local realism, exactly as demonstrated by Bell Inequality experiments.
Fallen Star Features, I think you just gave the most concise and accurate description of the DeBroglie/Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics that I have ever seen. BTW, it's not easy to find a good modern description of that these days. I'm not sure I buy into it though, although the point I want to make here is something completely different, having nothing to do with Bohmian Mechanics (Fallen Star Features useful comment merely inspired me to post my own, different comment). I want to quibble with one minor point made by Matt and Fernando of PBS Space Time. PBS Space Time states (13:35) that "both Einstein and Feynman were wrong." Einstein wrong since one way or another the quantum world is indeed quite spooky. [I dispute that, depending on your definition of spooky. Einstein did believe in quantum mechanics (he helped invent it for cripes sake), but just thought it wasn't sufficient or complete enough in some sense,] But I claim both Bell and Einstein were right here, because the "not complete enough" that Einstein was looking for was most likely the conditional-probability interpretation of quantum measurement. On the one hand, Feynman was right in thinking that Clauser would never disprove standard quantum mechanics; but Feynman was wrong in thinking Clauser shouldn't try. At 13:52, PBS Space Time concludes "hidden variables were worth testing" (thus Feynman was wrong in saying don't bother) - and I concur with that part. And also "spookiness is real" (thus Einstein was wrong in being leery of such spookiness and wishing for a deeper explanation (of which hidden variables is one such attempt at). The latter is the part I quibble with a bit. I agree that Feynman was wrong-headed in the above sense. But I disagree that Einstein was wrong-headed in a so-called similar sense. Einstein was right-headed to seek a deeper explanation. It's just that subsequent pundits have posthumously pinned all of Einstein's hopes for a deeper explanation on the idea of a classical hidden-variables theory. Nothing like (after the fact) betting all of Einstein's money on a horse that is already known to lose the race! The clarification/deeper-understanding Einstein was looking for probably should come from a better understanding of the measurement problem - and said understanding (in full) is probably still pending. My own guess is that the (ongoing, in my opinion) misunderstanding of the Bell results comes from an improper statistical approach to the measurement process in conjunction with Bell Experiments. Properly understood, my guess is that both Bell's and Einstein's (and of course, quantum mehanics' and Feynman's) insights were and still are correct. There's been a lot of good videos on the Bell's Theorem topic subsequent to the awarding of the latest Nobel Physics prize (with this video among the best), but the biggest complaint I have about at least some of the expositions on the topic is the seeming attitude of "boy we really showed that smart guy Einstein to be wrong," or the seeming emphasis on "see, we really showed that there is spooky action at a distance" that is almost unanimously taken as foundational in virtually all expositions of Bell's Theorem. Bohmian Mechanics notwithstanding, I still remain not fully convinced that there is anything spooky-at-a-distance going on. The Bell proof is a proof by contradiction, and I maintain that it is still an open question as to what exactly is contradiction. The experimental verification (of Bell's work) by our three Nobel Laureates is a great piece of work that I don't wish to minimize in any sense, but bear in mind that this experimental work essentially verifies quantum mechanics methodology and confirms (as Bell stated) that both reality and quantum mechanics methodology stand in confirmation of the theoretical proof-by-contradiction that Bell laid out. It remains an open question as to which initial supposition of Bell's proof-by-contradiction ought to be selected as prime choice to be thrown out. Since the really weird loopholes are nearly all thrown out by now, everybody and his brother leaps to the conclusion that we ought to throw out the locality assumption - that is, we should conclude that there is creepy action at a distance after all. I say this does not follow logically. Rather, it is a personal choice, in a sense. I think it much more likely that there are one (or maybe more) additional (unwritten) assumptions that Bell made rather innocuously, and that it is the latter that ought to be thrown out to rectify Bell's proof-by-contradiction.
@@jimatperfromix2759 - Thank you for your complement, and for your insight in recognizing my explanation as Bohmian in origin. I also think your criticism of PBS' characterization of Einstein's reservations is well taken. From what I've read, Einstein did not dispute the non-locality of quantum mechanics nor the validity of Bell's analysis, he believed it indicated a deeper explanation was required to resolve the contradictions between QM and General Relativity. I found some insight in a private letter from Einstein to Bohm regarding the Born Rule. Einstein wrote, in part: "According to Born the physical meaning of the psi-function follows: it determines probabilities (f.i. for the value of impulses). This makes sense only if the impulse is defined independently of the mathematical theory by some feasible measurement... If it is at all possible to attribute meaning to Born’s interpretation then the impulse, the probability of which appears in the theory, has to be put equal to the impulse thus measured... Born’s probability, therefore, has to be interpreted as relative to the impulse thus measured if this probability is to have any meaning at all." My interpretation is that Einstein viewed relativistic space-time as fundamental and was searching for a way to reconcile the properties of the quantum wave-function with real-world measurements. If you start with the wave-function of a single particle, it's tempting to map its Configuration Space representation directly to the three axes of physical space. But with more than just a single particle, this fails to properly model relativistic space-time. From the opposite direction, there have been attempts to model Bohmian Pilot Waves as fields propagating in physical space-time rather than in Configuration Space. While this appears to be mathematically feasible, it required an infinite number of physical fields to model quantum entanglement... My own conclusion is that the interference patterns observed in Double Slit experiments demonstrate that the quantum wave-function must exist in some operational sense which underlies physical space-time. (Because the observed cancellations are produced by the complex-valued mathematics of the wave-function.) Thus, the quantum wave-function evolves within its own non-local, deterministic domain of Configuration Space, which is projected probabilistically (according to the Born Rule) upon the physical realm of relativistic space-time.
Feynman was tired of young physicists wasting their time trying to understand quantum mechanics. According to me we need to realise that there is more than one way to travel faster than light. If we don’t realise that, then indeed we will be wasting our time.
Is entanglement a higher dimentional connection between quanta? If one of the entangled particles is relatively stopped as much as possible and the other(or the other inside a box) is accelerated to the speed of light. And then they meet together after a random period of travel(one spun more and the other spun less - we assume that it really spins). At the moment will they maintain the entangled state? If so, the experiment shows that entanglement is not deterministic and partly time-independent.
@@mikkel715 I’m wondering if there is a way to craft a buffer overflow code privileged code insertion hack without a segfault causing the universe to dump core.
Great episode. Thanks for explaining simply (well .. as simply as possible for this type of subject). Survey only took 7 minutes and I hope next season comes soon!!
I am just so amazed by the knowledge of the physicist. To understand these principles, write the formulas, explain something that you don't see, etc. Even if you simplify the explanation, the ordinary viewer like me will never understand this.
Sean Carroll's latest book is exactly about the fact that the average person _can_ understand this. Not in excruciating detail but it is no impossible feat for "normal people" to understand how the equations work and what the symbols mean and how to use them to understand things we don't see. Perhaps you'd be interested in his "the biggest ideas in the universe".
@@castonyoung7514 I mean, it's as simple as googling the Schroedinger equation and matching them, but who has time for that just to prove someone wrong on a YT comment section...
When it comes to entanglement, the one thing I've never understood about it is why you can't exploit information theory to get FTL communication using two entangled particles. It's possible, at least from an information theoretic POV to encode data that doesn't care about the relative orientation of the particles so long as it's consistent. So, given that, what actually prevents FTL information transfer or, more likely, what have I missed?
There is no information passed between entangled particles. If Alice measures a spin up particle, then she knows that Bob will then detect his to have a spin down particle. That is all. There is no way to detect the particle to make it have whatever spin you want, eg up=0 and down=1, so you cannot transmit any information. Wavefunction collapse is a purely random process.
Generally, the issue is that while you get the measurements of both particles simultaneously, the actual results themselves are random. Yes, you get two lists which are exactly anti-correlated, but there's nothing meaningfully learned from the second list that isn't already there in the first list. The result is that what you have is akin to static on the radio or old analogue TV. Now, I'm not sure that exactly answers your question, but it's the approach to it that I am recalling from my reading.
@@tonywells6990 Which is the bit that doesn't quite make sense. For entanglement to make sense, and for "spooky action at a distance" to make sense, there would need to be (and I'm obviously missing something) some consistency in behaviour between the two particles. Otherwise, what makes them entangled, unless the very act of observation destroys entanglement, thus allowing entanglement to be observed momentarily, but not thereafter, this the "spooky action" is more of a metaphorical light gust around your ankles than anything more meaningful.
@@tonywells6990 Let's say there are 10 entangled pairs. In every pair particles are in 50/50 superposition of emiting a photon and not emiting a photon. Bob on the moon measures his particles. About 5 of particles on my side emit a photon. Then I instantly know Bob "pushed the button". Bob can have many buttons each with a letter corresponding to it. Thus he can send an arbitrary message instantly. Where is the mistake in this logic?
Bell's Inequality is really complex, and while Bell himself tried to cover all possibilities (given that it was just ideas and not actual experiment yet) he still could have missed alternative explanations, like super-determinism and non-locality (and who know what else ... perhaps assuming that hidden variables would be exactly corresponding to classical understanding, on which after all is always based the generally accepted conclusion that "there are no hidden variables"). While all ideas are interesting at least to consider and compare to each other, I don't think super-determinism is the explanation. Not because I believe in free will (Free will only need not knowing that something is impossible or inefficient :)), but because I think it will lead to ridiculous paradoxes as the conscious observer or retro-causality that the dogmas of the standard model lead to. I've been following the randomness-determinism / local-variables topic for years now, and have to say that most of them just repeat the common interpretation "hidden variables don't exist", and only few (I can think of 3 at the moment) that consider the other alternatives. And one of these alternatives is non-Locality, which as Brian Greene put it "Locality is dead". I'm grossly oversimplifying of course. Bell's inequality theorem doesn't kill Locality on its own, but when you consider also the experiments showing that sometimes it doesn't work you should at least consider that so far we've only seen a sub-set of reality and laws of physics in which Locality works, and that perhaps it's one of those classical ideas that we need to finally put to rest (or at least test very very much). As you said in this video, Locality can be described as the information/factors for a particle behavior encapsulated in that particle itself, which is indeed the classical thinking (which works fine for large non-quantum balls :)), but today we know of example where fields give birth of particles, or particles behaving like a wave (beside being quantizable as particle) ... So we should at least consider that what we observe as particles are just excitations of a field (which by the way is the official definition of a particle!), and as such it's actually very likely that that field determines (or at least influences) the particle behavior. We know of at least one field that is apparently an actual physical thing rather than just an abstract idea, and which sometimes behaves (stretches) faster than light, and breaks the 1st principle of thermodynamics - the Space-Time. Is it that difficult to think that we're just scratching on the surface of theory of fields? Even when we can see demonstrations on macro-level (ie non-quantum) of many otherwise quantum phenomenon? For example the walking droplets on a surface of (usually silicone oil) we can see that the pilot-wave is at least a macro-world phenomenon. But also we can see that the resonance (in combination with other factors like surface tension) can lead to stable configurations, like having several drops move in formation, and at exact distance from each other - like in crystal structure; or that small droplets can bring stability to large ones that would be unstable on their own. What I'm trying to point out isn't just that if we can see it on macro-level then it must happen on quantum level - that would be logical fallacy on its own. But that these phenomenons are result of geometry and wave theory ... both of which are valid for the quantum world and we should at least try to find (or disprove them) on quantum level. There is no theory or field in science that benefits from keeping assumptions as dogmas, not matter how practical are they in the real-life. There should always be a strive to UNDERSTAND Reality deeper, rather than just "shut up and calculate". Otherwise we'll see videos like "Bell inequality experiment shows local variables don't exist" for decades to come ... There are just too many unanswered question to consider the subject closed!
@@saprkyingvalkyrie2136 Thank you for your positive feedback! I'm not scientist. Actually ... I think I was a bit drunk when I wrote it :) But I'm interested in physics (incl. quantum physics as it's supposed to be studying the foundations of the universe) for many years now. The topic above is one that drives me mad, because it's used as a dogma in modern quantum mechanics (there are several), and alternatives are either completely ignored or slowly allowed to surface, and most often only get brief mention. Unfortunately for me I'm not good in the math used in physics (I was good on high-school & university level, but I haven't used it outside of school) and that limits me to using only common sense on topics as the above. But common sense imo is enough to spot that there's something very wrong with the attitude of the leading quantum physicists, most of them refuse to consider alternatives, and believe their own assumptions to be proven facts (which many of them simply are not), and this is just leading to a dead-end. It's very important to keep and open mind not just to be able to make new discoveries easier, but because it's extremely important to communicate current science achievements to regular people. Otherwise we'll get more and more people believing that Earth is flat or other non-sense like that. Of course Universe isn't obliged to make sense to us (and our intuition has often been wrong), but I still haven't seen proves of this, only opinions and assumptions. For example if you look for a proof that Universe is inherently random on quantum level (as standard model insists) you'll likely come to the Bell's inequality and the following experiments on it. And Bell's work & I'm sure Aspect, Zeilinger & Clauser deserve their awards, what troubles me is that the interpretation of these experiments are lazy & incomplete and in a hurry to decide things that we don't really understand. If you're interested in this topic you might see this video (prof. Brian Greene - Your Daily Equation #21: Bell's Theorem and the Non-locality of the Universe) ruclips.net/video/UZiwtfrisTQ/видео.html most of it covers the already established status quo, but towards the end he openly states the consequences & possibilities of these experiments, which is much better - a great point to move forward, rather than assuming Universe is random (non-deterministic) and we shouldn't even attempt to look further.
@@carlo70no He didn't do anything "with the help of quasars, either". Please read the article. Even the abstract contains trivial errors that a high school student should be able to find. :-)
I have just learned that "If you influence one of the entangled photons, rotating its polarisation direction, the direction of polarisation of the second photon stays uninfluenced." In that case, I don't think the pair of photons are still in a state of quantum entanglement after measurement.
Local rotations are local unitary operations and hence leave the other photon unaffected. If you want to change the joint state you have to do something more drastic such as a projective measurement. Say you project photon #1 into horizontal and vertical polarization. Given the measurement outcome you immediately know the polarization of photon #2 as well.
@@KirosanaPerkele The photon pair should not be considered to be in a state of quantum entanglement or they should be considered 'no longer' in a state of quantum entanglement AFTER the wave function of one has been collapsed by measurement which also led to the collapse of wave function of the second photon.
Alain Aspect is one of those strange cases like Einstein after his boffo publication outburst of 1905: everybody knew that they had to give him a Nobel, but they weren't sure what for, or which one, and maybe some part of the whole thing was wrong. 'Course this whole Bell's Inequality thing is going to be with us for a while yet. We're just in the opening rounds -- again rather like the situation with quantum mechanics after Einstein's 1905 photon seemed to be the ring to hold the wrestling match in.
Well if photons travel at the speed of light, and experience no time, then from the photon's perspective it still hasn't moved away from it's entangled pair. So I would submit that action creates a zero distance wormhole between them which collapses at the moment of measurement.
@@GEMSofGOD_com no, only massless particles (like photons) can travel at the speed of light. But in this case you can also entangle anysorts of other particles and even atoms and possibly macroscopic systems that definitely cannot move at the speed of light (anything with mass would require infinite energy to accelerate them to the speed of light)
@@GEMSofGOD_com so this experiment can be done with electrons for example, but they don't exhibit the same characteristics as photons, and their polarization works very differently, so the system of (photon) polarizers at the end would not work and you would need to come up with another system. I guess that the conclusion is that this type of experiment is doable with other entangled particles, but that it would require quite the revamping
@@michal.gawron Well then tell me why the spin of an electron cannot be communicated to its entangled pair, via a photon, since electrons can merge with positrons and become photons, and vice versa. It's all the electromagnetic field.
Reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics is the holy grail of physics. Whoever finds the solution should get all the Nobel prizes till the end of time
this channel is almost exactly what i want!!! the explanations are still a little too hard to understand for a regular person so i end up having to replay certain parts or just cant continue paying attention through the whole thing. I really want to be able to watch this type of channel i love learning tho. Please simplify the explanations!!!
Would it be possible to launch a spacecraft toward Voyager that could act as a sort of signal booster between Earth and Voyager? The signals would still take the same amount of time to reach us, but because this craft would be closer to Voyager than the Earth, it could amplify and relay the signals from Voyager once Voyager's signal is too weak to reach us on its own.
A very well presented video with clear explanations and accurate information. I am a 'superluminalist' so I found it a relief to know that there are researchers out there who may suspect this possibility.
I’ve been researching quite a bit about Alain aspect and quantum entanglement since I have an assignment to do and my brain is now completely fried every time I think I got it they would introduce a new idea I’m honestly thinking of failing it by now😅
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Going against both Einstein and Feynmann, I guess they were *super determined*
@@unbearablepun8608 apt username
I both hate you, and love you.
Are you my dad?
Bell himself, who proposed the Super Determinism explanation of quantum mechanics, would love this comment.
Including your comment.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I just want to say this is the only channel thats getting better with age, thanks for not underestimating your viewers.
Absolutely! PBS SpaceTime is like 10 seasons show, you can't start watching from season 10 and expect a great understanding; you have to start from the beginning. And as a veteran viewer, I do also think to start over from the beginning for some time to brush up my knowledge; I also want to take notes next time, I just don't have the time and focus yet.
Exactly my thoughts too. I'm so glad they maintain this level of quality without dumbing things down to the point of cliché or inaccuracy, like so many other science educators do.
Indeed, I'd rather know if something doesn't make sense that's it just because I'm an idiot, not because the show I'm watching is.
Meh... not so sure. The "Edge of the Universe" episodes were the peak, let's be honest. And that series on string theory (is right/is wrong) was much better than the past year's episodes as well. But then again, when you're this good, it's easy to blow your wad early.
"The only channel that's getting better with age" A) wrong, it's not better now than it was than the last guy, you likely just mean "more entertaining", which arguably it is, but this being a teaching channel is dead and has been for years now BUT ALSO B) even if I DID agree with you, you are being needlessly myopic given many of the channels that HAVE gotten better.
What a time to be alive. I'm 8 mins into this and clueless but just happy at the strides science has made. Incredible.
In other words, esoteric claptrap is all you need to believe in a specious theory as enormous as quantum mechanics. 🙄
String theory also sounds fascinating but it's meaningless.. if you don't understand it how can you know its not bs?
*Soon, somebody will prove that astrology is true and planets affect us.*
@@YOTUBE8848 well the planets must effect us they can't not effect us tbh
It would not be traveling faster then light if distance was an illusion
It blows my mind that in one hour you have 25,000 views about an obscure problem in quantum physics. I am glad to be in the company of my nerd brothers and sisters. There are more of you than I suspected.
Sup, fam?
i honestly love these topics im not even very seasoned in mathematics, but phantom matter and this credit towards quantum entanglements research really has me high in spirits. Its humbling to remember how small/significant we are from time to time. Seeing how far the particle acceleration field, and quantum field has come towards pushing the envelope of the UNKNOWN has me so happy that as a human race our drive towards feeding a curiosity has not escaped or locked down or held back the frontiers of science.
It's now 55,000
@@phily-hu5pr So....many....nerds....
they solved this on ant man and the wasp new movie quantanium!
As a non-physicist, I feel I won something whenever I can follow your videos all the way to the end.
Definitely. I have been bashing my head off Astrophysics and Quantum Physics for over two years, and I'm only just starting to get even a basic understanding of what we *think* we know so far. I love this channel for ideas and theory, and I also love Anton Petrov's channel for latest news about various discoveries and mysteries of Astrophysics.
Here's a take you might like, by the well-known Sean Carroll.
From his perspective, literally anything that can happen, the slight deviation in movement, spin, path, or whatever, of a single quark, all the way to the largest, incomprehensible cosmological events all does happen at once, sort of like the Multiverse interpretations. Yet what we see at macro scale Reality, is only where these things overlap the most, with the rest disappearing into oh no I can't remember and I've gone cross-eyed.
Yes thats Matt's talent for getting this through in the layman's terms
@@TheHorseshoePartyUK I can't get on board with the many worlds interpretation
@@TheHorseshoePartyUK hey i also want to learn about all this stuff, it makes me so curious and excited. after so much time being depressed i found something that interests me, nothing interested me, nothing. im afraid I'll loose interest in this too but something atleast something after years made me excited to learn, i used to love to learn and read. 😔i want to learn but i don't know where to start. i know about the theory of relativity newtons laws just basics and thats all. astrophysics quantum physics 😔i want to learn it all. can you please give me guidance, where to begin, how to proceed. 😔😔 any books you may suggest for a beginner or topics, you are doing it for 2 years you must know.
@@woodynotes No I really don't know a whole lot and I'm utterly confused by about 90% of what I've tried to learn so far, sorry
Quantum mechanics feels like those math questions you got right as a kid, but when you showed your work, you were going about it wrong.
YES THIS AFGSVZBZ
Even though you know you were correct
Opposite. The methodology here is rock solid. Hence the experimenters won the Nobel. Yet the results make no sense to the classically conditioned mind.
Yeah then they take all the claim through your work. Might as well stand in front of a mirror and say I'm right and you're wrong. Obstinate bastards.
It looked wrong THEN. Mathematicians used to be averse to imaginary numbers, they gaslit themselves into using solutions until they got the results they wanted, at the cost of going further and further away from the actual results.
Man, you're good. I have a master's in physics, but haven't been working as a physicist for a long, long time. You single-handedly revived my interest, updated me on more recent understanding, and helped me understand certain concepts that I should have understood at the time but didn't.
If you like to find an easy explanation of this and other mysterious phenomena, I will recommend you my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
Nice, which specialty?
I have one of those in quantum stuff for semiconductors
@@aghosh5447 what's the matter?
E/c^2!
Come on! That's mass!
🤓
Ok you need good grades.
It's like you had problems with the pandemia. But just like 2 years, dude.
Go and try the best you can to achieve your goals!
What a bunch of Western malarkey, Chinese scientists have advanced more of this shiet than any european fckers.
@@aghosh5447 oh well.. But at least keep studying a little if you have time. It's always fun to...
😳 😟 😔
Ok.
But if you have any chance, would you like to finish your f****ng career? After all, the time you spent studying is valuable, it was hmmm. You know. it requires a lot of effort... 😟🤓
Taking my undergraduate physics classes can be just a constant state of confusion with a few moments of satisfaction attained by comprehending a concept that are quickly squashed by a new even more complicated concept to understand. These videos give me a fun, easy to understand dose of physics that is still new and exciting for me.
I'm right there with you, Luke!
It is not your fault that some aspects are difficult to comprehend because current physics is full of conflicting phenomena and explanations. If you want to understand what's is going on I will recommend you to find my book - Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe" I wish you a pleasant time.
@@valentinmalinov8424
Your book?
Where it is available?
Did you get the impression that TPTB were BSing you?
I admire you a lot for being able to explain complicated things and not be condescending about it. Thank you good sir.
The episodes where you describe experiments and how conclusions were drawn from them are my favorite. Please do more.
no please don't, we already knew about these experiments. A video on a subject with the adequate experiments related to it is better.
I always wonder how those old-timey physicists figured out very specific things without modern equipment. How much of it is direct vs indirect evidence or logical vs physical etc.
4:11 I appreciate you using phrases like "dogma" and heretic when referring to how the debate around quantum entanglement developed. It reminds us that even if science holds at its highest ideal that truth is what matters, it's a system acted out by humans, whom can easily lock down thinking that falls outside the accepted narrative
*who
Einstein and Feynman never asserted their beliefs as fact, as their careers moved in different directions in line with what served their place and time. Physicists are not always based.
@@zanegoofgodfrey3540 I never said all physicists were biased, man. But the collective CAN become almost aggressive in knocking down hypotheses that go against what's currently the working theory. Just like how the catholic church silenced anything around heliocentrism.
I remember a domcumentary of just how long it took Einstein and his supporters to convince the scientific body to budge on relativity - which is a good thing generally- but I think many were dismissing it off-hand
...only a genius or a fool would risk their whole future career on the gamble of some revolutionary new point of view.
~Atiyah
truth brother
How Matt can infuse humor into these extremely technical episodes as he did in the last Q&A answer is truly brilliant.
hes a troll
Just wanted to say thank you for working this hard for people like us who are not necessarily scientists or someone important but just bunch of nerds(i say this very respectfully) who wants to learn more about the universe and its mysterious ways without getting to technical about the maths behind it..
I have got bachelor in physics and i have been watching this chanel since i was in grade 11.. to be honest you guys are a big reason for me choosing to go for a physics degreee..and i am thankful for it.. i liked every second of my studies just because of the curiosity that you guys put into me..thanks very much..
I realise that most universities have limited budgets and so a head of faculty will deny research funds to scientists who are bucking the favored theory of the day but I love how many discoveries have come from people who refuse to give up on their own theories.It's what science is all about.
Funny the Bible has been talking about these things long ago… the triune God of Christianity…. consisting of three in one (used especially with reference to the Trinity).. God the father, the Holy Spirit and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are three separate entities and one God at the same exact time. Quantum Entanglement is the same concept of how Christ was able to walk the earth as 100% a man and still be one God.
If you can prove Einstein wrong in any way, you will win the Nobel Prize in Physics.
So if you can prove those who have proven Einstein wrong , wrong themselves then you must win the Nobel Prize in Physics …. I love quantum physics !!! Max Planck is one of the hero of it !! ….
@@Kassiusday To be honest, they have not proven Einstein wrong. They have probably proven Einstein wrong, which is not the same. Quantum theory is always probabilistic. How probable are they? As probable as it is not probable. Their theory is technically in a superposition.
@@r.davidsenhello Thank you for your comment , because I did have the same reflexion : in quantum we are referring to statistics and probability and we fix the result ( collapsing the reality ) as soon as we are observing ( we involve our consciousness !! So are we living beings , existing beings or are nt we ?? And as you leave your cup of tea ☕️ on the table when you go to the toilet 🚻 that cup of tea can be anywhere in that room you just left … or might be also not present as solid cup of tea anymore but a wave fonction of it // here we go superposition of probabilities … nothing turns to be real in Quantum Physics . but a probability / however having said that .you can deny that distance seems not existing so as the time , at that level ….Einstein still scratching his head …
Objectively, the haircut was wrong... my prize please
@Kassius KLAY there is no consciousness involved, you're just repeating sensational Google bs people read. A particle exist as a superposition of states and has no deleyed will or hidden variables. The point being once information about an object is taken such as speed,spin position , etc ,the variable can no longer change, yet up until that moment the object has not collapsed. This can be caused by objects without conciousness once so ever.
It's like a turtle hiding into its shell after being affected by external stimuli, an observation in scientific terms means "collection of information" as opposed to "eyeing it"
The misunderstanding about it generaly comes from eraser experiment. People don't understand the mechanic and read made up headline which is no different to celebrity gossip site
I think I'll dress as a Quantum Entangled Particle for Halloween this year and tell everyone I'm causing spooky actions at a distance.
I’m stealing this idea and making quantum mechanics jokes all Halloween.
Not a perfect idea
Reported to the joke police.
You missed out on doing this during the lockdowns.
Have a one-time pad in your pocket. It can travel faster than light.
Thank you for pointing out that Bell's Inequality and the experiments honored by the Nobel Prize only rule out local hidden variables theories. I'm not saying I'm necessarily advocating for pilot waves or any other non-local theory, but it's been annoying seeing videos discussing this topic completely ignore that they may be disproving locality rather than hidden variables.
Until I saw Sabine's video on the topic, I spent a few sleepless nights worrying about fundamental randomness & non-realism, having only seen glowing headlines. I already knew that these experiments had been done, but I didn't realize they were only now getting the Nobel recognition. So when everything I see just says that the Nobel prize was given out for proving reality isn't real, I get very worried. Luckily Matt and Sabine are here to talk us down.
I'm sure it's in this video somewhere, too, but pilot waves are far from the only escape hatch here. Many Worlds never collapses a wavefunction, so all results still exist and the results don't have to square until they're brought together, at or below the speed of light. It's really very elegant when you look at it as just math and forget about everyone telling you there are branching realities. "Superdeterminism" is the more popular option, though, I believe, and it really isn't different from just taking determinism seriously. With either of those interpretations, you get to keep locality by thinking about realism a little differently.
@@davidhand9721 Just like string theory, super-determinism is a theory that may never be proven right or wrong.
But at some point you need interpretation in order to make sense of the results of experiments. To sort out wrong hypothesis only more and more sophisticated experiments are necessary.
I think 0 is the hidden variable.. it's right in plain sight, but hidden because it doesn't objectively exist.. 0 also cannot defy locality be abuse it isn't matter.. in my thinking 0 is also infinity tho.
@@nickrindal2787 0 is a constant, not a variable.
My education is in business but my love is physics. I admit I do not have the brain to understand the in-depth aspects of all the branches of physics. This channel is awesome in helping me understand on my level. Thank you particularly as I have a really easy time understanding you and staying attentive.
Same here.
I am from commerce background but quantum physics is my new found love .
Have been following PBS- Space time, Sabine Hossenfelder for a while but I can understand only a bit like 10% of what they explain.
Are there any other channels which are good for beginners like me?
Same here I am from finance, but always wanted to be a astrophysicist
This is legitimately the first time someone actually described fundamental quantum mechanics in a way i could at least get somewhat of a grasp of the concept.
You´ve definitely earned a subscription! And you´ve earned it the hard way since i´m not all that clever. 😅👍
Funny the Bible has been talking about these things long ago… the triune God of Christianity…. consisting of three in one (used especially with reference to the Trinity).. God the father, the Holy Spirit and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are three separate entities and one God at the same exact time. Quantum Entanglement is the same concept of how Christ was able to walk the earth as 100% a man and still be one God.
@@PaulJohn283 Just stop with the BS. grow up.
Haha! And this is just one aspect. Absolutely the most baffling however. He has a way with words. I like anyone who can attract people who haven't spent the years I have on the subject.
It's people like him that first got me interested in Einstein.... 14 years later and I still know very little about what actually governs the physical properties of our universe.
We have a long way to go. We'll only ever arrive through inspiration to learn more.
@@PaulJohn283 Pretty sure you have no idea what quantum entanglement is. Don't attempt to twist science to fit your dumb fairy tales, my man.
@@PaulJohn283 great attempt to explain stuffs like that : is interesting …
As usual PBS Space Time does an outstanding job explaining complicated subjects like quantum entanglement - makes me want to study Physics - keep up the excellent work! Thank you!
Cold fusion, q-entanglement, Big Bang... another one bites the dust
Feynmann would never say it was wrong to try, he was saying it was impracticable for that lab at that time; not the same thing. He was not closed minded and well understood the value research of this type.
I hope that broad and long lasting impact of this channel on humanity will be remembered in the annals of physics history a hundred years from now. Wonderful job, all.
Entanglement surely can be used to send Mesages infinitely-fast, right?
@@loturzelrestaurant ruclips.net/video/0xI2oNEc1Sw/видео.html
These videos are always super dense and I've been watching them for years. But it wasn't until I became a nuclear engineer, over the past few months, that I came to really value and appreciate the science covered in these videos. They cease to amaze me!
The phrase is “they never cease to amaze me” not “they cease to amaze me.” Unless of course you meant that you are no longer amazed by these videos
@@sgrey9181it’s a consistent pattern among recent generations that the they mangle common idioms. 🤷🏼
My friend saw this video and he (a fellow Researcher but in the field of Virology) asked me (a physics PhD) why at 5:58 it is alluded that the entangled photon or electron pairs must have an opposite spin. I had to explain the law of conservation of angular momentum to him.
This video was excellently made and simplified. Due to the uncharacteristically high interests in this topic from non-physics people, it is however good to mention even this simple aspects we usually take for granted.
What about 3:33 ? #TowerOfBable physics is cool, but God created everything.
I loved how you stepped through the progress made in good timing, and being engaging.
Love watching the vids! Please don't stop 😅
That's what she said
I love watching these! Especially the parts where my brain gets entangled, and then untangles a bit as the details are shown. I call it the "Neuro-quantum antistupification effect".
Thank god for this video. So many videos said hidden variables had been disproven completely by this when they obviously hadn't. They also really lent into the "universe is not locally real" without explaining what that actually meant, or why the research was limited. Subscribed.
@Ukrainian Patriot More than welcome. My love and luck to your country.
Dr. Quantum Entanglement has been working very hard in their field for years without the recognition they deserve. I personally congratulate Dr. Entanglement for their deserved Nobel win
His wife, Barbara Entanglement, has been a great supporter of her husband too.
He's a bit spooky but nevertheless super determined to be relatively better, in general, than ever before
@@JorgetePanete He looks spooky from afar, but seems ok up close.
It seems a bit slow to me.
Their stuff seems like History to me.
Congrats Dr. Entang Lé Mènt
Question! Is there a fundamental limit on how large an entangled system can be (not counting super-determinism)? Matt mentioned particles and molecules for size scale -- I don't necessarily mean physical size of each entangled piece, but rather how many particles/molecules can be entangled at once. I'd love to hear if that is a field of research that's growing, or if that's not a relevant possibility due to some maths principle I/we haven't heard of just yet. Thanks!
The whole universe could be entangled in one wave function
There is no physical limit, but eventually entropy just breaks any entanglement
I believe his limit is what we can currently reasonably measure. Superdeterminism would mean everything is entagled.
@@ObjectsInMotion Entropy doesn't beak entanglement. It is positively correlated with it. Because anytime a superposition "breaks", that is actually just the measurer becoming entangled with the particles. The statement is entropy "breaks" superpositions.
@@insainsin If the statement is entropy breaks superpositions, isn't a superposition a sum of 2 wave functions? Meaning it breaks wave functions. And if entanglement means two particles have the same wave function, doesn't that mean entropy breaks entanglement? Or does superdeterminism change the answer to some definitions? I don't care for superdeterminism but figured I'd ask for clarification lol
Amazingly I was able to follow your descriptions of these developments and am very thankful for the work you put into it!!!
while I don't fully understand every topic you share with us on thew channel I appreciate that you don't shy away from talking about the more difficult to understand subjects
I love PBS Spacetime! This episode puts together so many of the elements that give me pleasure. Thank you Matt and team for another informative episode enlightening us lay persons on the sometimes weird world of physics, including the right measure of whimsy to make it digestible.
I love the lighting in this video. Super easy and inviting on my screen, and makes Matt look like a handsome rugged science Chad
Love that you guys do tributes for people in the community!
RIP and respect to Aleksander Henry Sajewski.
My condolences to any of Aleksander'd friends and family who might be watching. This was a really nice way to send him off.
The biggest issue with the scientific community is the strong willingness to cling to dogma and ostracizing those that challenge the status quo. Scientists are human, but we have to put away hubris and be open to challenge and the testing of everything. This needs to be the case even if it results in previously established hard work being sent back to the drawing board or us being proven wrong. It's chilling the number of brilliant scientists whose monumental contributions were only acknowledged, not by practical analysis by the scientific community, but said individuals being extremely determined to go against conventional wisdom and prove their worth. Who knows how many scientists that were brilliantly on to something, but backed down from pursuing it, as result of ridicule and negative support by the scientific community.
For those that do preserve, and their findings demonstrated as plausible, it's a bit irritating that all of a sudden, the scientific community supports and backs these individuals, pretending as if they were unbiased, and never demonstrated unnecessary ridicule or blatant disdain, during the initial process.
You're right in general. It's laughable how they claim one thing then quickly change the tune and don't admit being wrong. But in this case they were trying to prove status quo stuff
I'm sure that there existed a group within academia in every field of science or natural philosophy going all the way back to the Greeks who felt the exact same way. It's all part of the process of shifting paradigms as new information becomes incorporated into our understanding of the natural world, science is an ever-updating process, as I'm already sure you're aware.
@@pseudoname3159 That's the thing, all scientists should be aware of this and act in this manner, sadly there are way too many stories within the community historically and at present where there's unwarranted venomous criticism against those that challenge the status quo. There's a lot more "Don't rock the boat" versus "That's interesting let's test this idea out and see what we can learn". The culture is this, if the challenging scientist persist and can preserve from attacks that could possibly end their careers, and they happen to be right, the scientific community will eventually applaud them. If they don't, many in the community will treat them as a laughingstock and as a pariah b/c they dared make a challenge. This behavior has absolutely nothing to do with science. This culture gives unnecessary power to dogma and actually damages our understanding and advancement.
I understand that getting funding can be difficult, and if your entire life work was on a previously established scientific principle that all of a sudden is at jeopardy b/c some upstart has some ideas that may jeopardize everything you've done, you're going to be filled with hostile emotion. As difficult as it is, we can't use these feelings to intimidate and create unnecessary ridicule in hopes that the challenger will give up and go away. The scientific method is a cruel beast that cares not of our credentials, not of our livelihood, and most of all cares nothing for our pride. As a species we need to check these feelings at the door and be as objective as we can. The scientific community does an ok job at present, but definitely needs much more improvement.
@@Extremeredfox capitalism strikes again
Dude, no one has had as many people come at him as hard as Einstein has. That’s not dogma, that’s literally how science should operate.
Nor is it dogmatic to state the conclusion here: the theory of general and special relativity is the most successful single scientific theory in human history. We know that because of hundreds of thousands of attempts to prove it otherwise have almost always failed to do so.
And accepting that conclusion is not dogmatic either
I've always wondered if quantum physics issues arise because we're 3d creatures trying to understand multidimensional objects.
What if entangled particles share a higher dimensional coordinate. Like how polynomial equations can have two answers, entangled particles intersect our 3d reality at multiple locations. So information isn't traveling "faster than the speed of light" but instead it's basically just one system connecting the two points in 3d space.
This could also explain the weird shape of atomic orbitals and stuff in chemistry too. Those might be "perfect shapes" in higher dimensions.
That extra dimensional coordinate would be a hidden variable, and given the results of these experiments, that coordinate would need to be independent of everything else happening in spacetime, if it even exists. For more about this, look up "Superdeterminism"
@@falnica I agree, except the way I see it is the particles are the result of the system, not the system it's self. Like the x intercepts in a polynomial. What we see is only a part of the system. Our reality is the x axis in that analogy.
So the particles might not have the extra variable, the system that exists in higher dimensions have the variables. The particles just intersect our 3d reality at those points.
And us being 3d entities are trying to reverse engineer the system from our limited perspective.
I dunno to be honest, that's just sorta how I've always imagined it working in my head, and "dark matter" is just these systems that dont intersect our 3d reality; however, it influences the rest of the systems that do intersect our reality
@@KastorFlux I never forgot about time?
I’m confused about your argument. I’m talking literal spatial dimensions
@@KastorFlux no time is a temporal dimension.
@@KastorFlux I mean instead of arguing a fact, I think you should Google first.
I’m not going to get derailed from my original argument as this is irrelevant. Even if your argument was factual, I still believe there are more than 4 dimensions.
Also, you keep adding “lol” to the message condescendingly, but you should reevaluate your confidence. Invest in some humility, it’ll save you from looking foolish in the future.
Matt, I love your series! One comment - Sabine posits that Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" is in reference to the instantaneous collapse of the wave function everywhere and not to entanglement. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that. BTW it'd be fantastic if you would collaborate on some videos together!
Interesting. Bricmont claims something similar in his Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics
Measuring an entangled pair collapses their shared wave function, so the Nobel laureates’ experiment proved both. So while the focus is entanglement, they also demonstrated instantaneous wave function collapse in a more specific case.
Sabine seems very grounded in reality and is open to saying we don't know things instead of riding an infinite number of ridiculous trains off into the sunset. She is my go to for sensible physics, as well as don. This channel, while often silly or talking about topics they don't know a lot about, can be enjoyable to watch though.
Sabine loves both Einstein and Superdeterminism.
According to Brian Greene and many others, Sabine is wrong. Spooky Action was Entanglement.
@@mikkel715 I'd love to hear them discuss it. Their process and approach is almost more interesting than the actual conclusion. I'm not saying Sabine is right or wrong, would just love to hear them together. Though it would also be good to somehow figure out definitively what he was referring to.
Whether you understand it a little or a lot I just appreciate the opportunity to see more information on the nature of reality. There is so much we don’t know and so many ways to tease it out of the universe. The next couple decades are going to be wild.
Well said
I was moved by the tribute to the young man who was a sponsor of the channel. RIP Alex. 🙏
I'll chime in with support for episodes like the previous one! I'm nowhere near good enough at math to comprehend it all but seeing these kinds of things explained does at least give some insight into things in broad terms. While I don't really understand them I'm glad someone does.😁
Entanglement surely can be used to send Mesages infinitely-fast, right?
@@loturzelrestaurant that's one application that we would want to use this research for.
The coefficients (1/2s) in the wavefunction before the basis states should be square rooted (otherwise it's not normalised)! The wavefunction itself doesn't provide probabilities associated with each state, not until you multiply it by its conjugate transpose ...
This, has consistently been the most in-depth youtube channel when it comes to science. Other channels talk about how weird quantum mechanics is, without explaining anything. They just talk about strange stuff without the history and without the interpertations. This channel talks about alternate explanations and some mathematical reasons as to why we believe quantum mechanics works the way it does. Bravo!
I'd straight up tell Rich he's less than a scientist if he opposed my testing him right/wrong. That's exactly what being a scientist is. Always testing things right and wrong hoping for the most accurate outcome.
It even seems a little out of character, compared to what he wrote in his books.
He'd get pretty salty when people challenged his view of things. He was usually right, though, which is both annoying and hilarious.
Dogma is not becoming of any scientist.
@@hoebare Feynman was famously anti-philosophy and very much in the "Shut Up and Calculate !" school when it came to quantum foundations - basically, he thought it was a waste of time and that physicists should concern themselves with _using_ quantum physics rather than worrying about what it all means.
Very glad this video didn't let him off the hook on that score (because I fundamentally disagree with his position).
My personal gut feeling is that it's not so much "hidden variables" as a system we don't understand. That is, I think both relativity and QM are very good approximations, but there's a system that ties it all together and explains the "spookiness"
Consciousness being the substrate of reality projecting spacetime
@@ShallowedOutGolf That's pretty much what Planck said
@@ShallowedOutGolfso every conscious entity agrees on this perception?? 😂
@@coolblue5929 Basically what’s going on is there’s a substrate of reality of logic/syntax.
The self referential nature of this logic/syntax at an infinite scale is cognition/consciousness and teleological. It referencing itself at an infinite scale produced cognition and self awareness.
Because it’s infinite it has the nature to explore itself infinitely.
Space time and the human experience is an interface or useful fiction for this consciousness to simplify.
Ex. When you drink a glass of water it looks to you like you picked up a cup and drank it. In fundamental reality it was trillions x trillions of computations that you in the human experience couldn’t instantly perform.
@@ShallowedOutGolfgreat, thanks for word salad/explaining.
I'm no scientist by any means, I'm just an IT guy with a passion for physics and I just want to say thank you to you and everyone in the RUclips science community for bringing the joy of science to a layman like me, once again thank you ❤️
I wonder if the truly hear the one drop in a big big ocean. It mass you feel connected. Because there are those who truly feel that way
Biggest criticism of Zeilinger is that he always makes it more mysterious than it needs to be.
That's sort of true of most populist science when it comes to quantum mechanics, they tend to play up the mysterious and magical - rather than using terms like "we don't, as yet, know how this particular thing works".
I dk man. QM is pretty wild.
If you don't make QM sound like dark sorcery... are you a real scientist?
@@JudeMalachi : Alternatively, it's the Locality assumption that's wrong, not the Reality assumption. Note: in the EPR paper, Locality was named Separability.
@@JudeMalachi I'm in the field and likely just biased cause I read a few of his papers where he could easily have been more pedagogic (but likely then those papers would have had lower impact if not intentionally made mysterious).
Great stuff, Matt .... as always. The comment-responses alone were worth the journey!
19:41 LOL
For real, it was a relief to hear it takes 10 years of coursework to learn the Lagrangian because that video was a trip, one I immensely enjoyed despite my very mathematically repulsed brain. Love your work.
This is awesome work. Once again PBS spacetime knocks it out of the park with explaining things.
Quantum entanglement is usually referring to the entanglement of energy in double bonds to the point of electrons and the bond breaks or the election spins off the halogen or transition metal nearby. The superposition and spin flip issue is the functional quality of the NMR or MRI imaging system. They appear to be mixing their metaphors.
As soon as I saw the video title, my future has became pre-defined. I liked when one of the physicist said that you are a Carl Sagan of our times.
I remember reading about the Bell inequality and the epr experiment when I was a kid and I'm really glad people went through and did the experiment. One thing that has puzzled me though is why took that experiment to convince people of non-localities/ indeterminism. The thing that really convinced me and frankly it was shocking and very disturbing was the first experiments with single Photon and single electron two slit diffraction. To this day I'm unclear why a careful examination of that seminal experiment isn't as clear an illustration of non-locality/ in determinism. If anyone wants to explain how you can get single Photon and single electron to Slit diffraction patterns in a local/deterministic universe, I would be interested.
I don't understand how measuring polarization tell us something about locality and falsificate hidden variables theory
@@Wiewiurek that's a good question and the answer is covered in other videos. I'm not a big fan of veritasium but he did a good video on this. The long and short of it is that if you assume hidden variables you get a different result by about 12%, then you do if you assume indeterminacy until measurement. If you remember your basic trigonometry you can go through the math and you'll see there's a difference.
Congratulations to this years nobel prize winners. brilliant work. thanks for adding to the universe's entropy! to more disorder! cheers!
I really love how you go in-depth into the comments at the end of the videos. Really stellar teaching there!
Quantum theory -->> Imagine a red ball that's spinning... Except it's not a ball, and it's not spinning and it's green.
Doesn't the very notion of a physical process being "instantaneous" throw a wrench into relativity? For something to occur instantaneously, that would imply two events occurring truly simultaneously, and that would seem to imply a preferred frame of reference?
Relativity starts with the letters Re as in Rey or Rex...
That is actually a really good point man, I agree 100%
All is One; it is just that it isn't good to be alOne. - Wald Wassermann
It does, so I think a better way yo frame it is that the order you do the measurements doesn't matter.
That has the same meaning experimentally and I think better reflects how the quantum mechanics plays out
As a result it doesn't matter if some reference frames see A first or B do the measurement first. So instead of claiming one 'instantly' changed the other the claim is instead that the observables commute, meaning that the order doesn't matter.
And since the order doesn't matter there's no conflicts between reference frames, while still preserving the strange correlations from entanglement.
I'd like to hear Feynman's explanation on why he thought that quantum mechanics was always right.
That would be a very informative session.
Superdeterminism is a a bit silly. Not only would everything be planned since the start of the universe, but it would be planned in such a way that it would appear random to us
@@falnica Perfect plot for a Christopher Nolan movie.
@@falnica until we bring the reality of God and Divine Will into the science all the theories are silly.
Because quantum mechanics has always been right. Every single time.
I think it's important to keep in mind that just because we have a strong idea we know something, it's still important to test it in different ways.
Proper feels for the shout out to Aleksander at the end. Sounds an inspirational person with a love of science, and a lovely tribute.
You have normalization error, at 3:34 it should be 1/sqrt(2) and not 1/2 as is shown in the video
For some reason, this year's Nobel prize has really grabbed my attention and ever since I've been watching videos on quantum physics, quantum mechanics quantum entanglement quantum fields... And quantum computing because I'm a software engineer. I'm like obsessed with it for some reason, I'm not sure why. I think the more videos that I watch I'm going to understand it all the sudden any more than physicists understand it already which is ...not as well as I would like.
Looks like you are looking for a logical explanation of the mysterious quantum world. I will recommend you my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" there on the easy language are explained all the current puzzles in Physics and Astronomy.
@@valentinmalinov8424 oh that sounds perfect! I will absolutely give it a shot Valentin. Thank you
1:58 I've heard about "quantum leap" but hearing "quantum balls" is an interesting articulation.
lol
Fantastic video as always, Space Time team! Superb explanations here, and the boxing at 3:50 was very clever!
Oh wow! I got it!! Such an excellent explanation of quantum entanglement. Thanks 😊❤
Coming up with a theory that postulates a model of quantitative relationships and interpretations which fits existing observations and explain existing problems is one part of the scientific process.
The other, more underrated part, is coming up with clever ways to produce viable observations that stress the peculiar corner case hypothesis of said model.
Hi Matt, in her video Sabine Hossenfelder says that Einstein didn't meant the entanglement when he said 'spooky action in a distance' but the collapse of the wave function after measurement so who is wrong here?
you.
Yes it's the collapse that Einstein meant. Annoying, I know that this is often used synonymously.
Entanglement itself is just a statistical behavioir of a system.
There is nothing really spooky about that.
If QM is indeterminisitic, then that is the point where the collapse of the wavefunction becomes "skooky".
An indeterministic theory requires this superluminal communication between two particles (although no information could be transfered in any meaningful way using entanglement).
Well, Einstein (by the sounds of it) was referring to the fact that the wave function collapse occurs in all places, simultaneously. I'm not sure what the issue is tho, the wave function describes the statistical likelihood of outcome... for example, run an experiment a thousand times, each time you find the electron in a different place, the wave function tells you where it will appear more often and where less often. But, in a single experiment, it appears in a single place... the wave function "collapses" to this single value, because the wave function is a prediction, which the observed outcome is consistent with.
The two are fundamentally related, which is why they are often used interchangeably. But pedantically, I believe Sabine is correct. When you're being pedantic, Sabine is usually the one who gets it right.
Small mistake:
At 3:04 , the wave function showed is not normalizable (sum of probabilities is not 1) .
Because 1/2 squared + 1/2 squared = 1/2. Which is wrong because it should be 1.
So you need to add square roots in your wave function on both 1/2 halfs.
Thank you 💙
You aren't taking account of the hidden variables. Since they're hidden, they don't appear in the equation.
Just to be pedantic, but 1/2 squared + 1/2 squared = 1/2
:)
0.5 squared + 0.5 squared = 0.5
@@Lcfp right, thank you for pointing out. fixed it.
@@davelordy thank you0
When I first heard of Quantum Entanglement I was blown away, the more I learn about Quantum Entanglement the more I'm convinced that it's just two marbles of unknown color, in two boxes.
I tried to remain serious but i giggled at "quantum balls"😅
Dear PBS Space Time: is it possible that gravity waves could interact with themselves at great distances vs their source matter, in such a way as to explain the effects we attribute to dark matter? I wonder if there is a gravitational refraction effect taking place at a distance from other sources of matter, one that would create an amplification point to where the effect affects stars at the edge of a galaxy as if something else were physically there when its not?
Was wondering if you could explore the relationship of this to the quantum eraser. The double slit experiment fails to be predictable due to a worm hole between the entangled particles whereby time is irrelevant?
Well done Matt on your fluent descriptions. I have one question regarding Quantum entanglement and the principle of instantaneous action at a distance. Assuming the two entangled particles measured by Alice and Bob, are each taken in their spaceships going in opposite directions at speeds that create some measurable time dilation; when the instantaneous action happens, do Bob and Alice see the effect happen at the same time, or is the ‘instant’ measured as being at the relative times of each? If the latter is true, on one objective perspective, the action takes place at a future time relative to the other and creates an interesting dilemma. If the former is true (ie at a time agreed by the observer to be the same (not sure how), then Alice and Bob measure the ‘instantaneous action’ as taking place at different times.
The point at which the spin of entangled particles is determined is when the wave-function of the measurement device becomes entangled with the wave-function of the particles. It doesn't matter which particle is measured because both entangled particles share the same wave-function. The crucial point to understand is that these wave-functions don't travel through physical space-time, they propagate instantaneously throughout Configuration Space, a complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the wave-function is defined. No information is transmitted between particles in physical space-time, all entangled particle properties derive from their entanglement with the measurement device in Configuration Space. Thus, there is no information that travels through space at any speed, hence nothing that exceeds the speed of light.
What we observe in relativistic space-time is the quantum mechanical projection of events that evolve deterministically in Configuration Space. Such events appear randomized to us because the projection into space-time is probabilistic rather than deterministic. In short, the universe we observe exhibits non-local realism, exactly as demonstrated by Bell Inequality experiments.
Fallen Star Features, I think you just gave the most concise and accurate description of the DeBroglie/Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics that I have ever seen. BTW, it's not easy to find a good modern description of that these days. I'm not sure I buy into it though, although the point I want to make here is something completely different, having nothing to do with Bohmian Mechanics (Fallen Star Features useful comment merely inspired me to post my own, different comment). I want to quibble with one minor point made by Matt and Fernando of PBS Space Time.
PBS Space Time states (13:35) that "both Einstein and Feynman were wrong." Einstein wrong since one way or another the quantum world is indeed quite spooky. [I dispute that, depending on your definition of spooky. Einstein did believe in quantum mechanics (he helped invent it for cripes sake), but just thought it wasn't sufficient or complete enough in some sense,] But I claim both Bell and Einstein were right here, because the "not complete enough" that Einstein was looking for was most likely the conditional-probability interpretation of quantum measurement. On the one hand, Feynman was right in thinking that Clauser would never disprove standard quantum mechanics; but Feynman was wrong in thinking Clauser shouldn't try. At 13:52, PBS Space Time concludes "hidden variables were worth testing" (thus Feynman was wrong in saying don't bother) - and I concur with that part. And also "spookiness is real" (thus Einstein was wrong in being leery of such spookiness and wishing for a deeper explanation (of which hidden variables is one such attempt at). The latter is the part I quibble with a bit.
I agree that Feynman was wrong-headed in the above sense. But I disagree that Einstein was wrong-headed in a so-called similar sense. Einstein was right-headed to seek a deeper explanation. It's just that subsequent pundits have posthumously pinned all of Einstein's hopes for a deeper explanation on the idea of a classical hidden-variables theory. Nothing like (after the fact) betting all of Einstein's money on a horse that is already known to lose the race!
The clarification/deeper-understanding Einstein was looking for probably should come from a better understanding of the measurement problem - and said understanding (in full) is probably still pending. My own guess is that the (ongoing, in my opinion) misunderstanding of the Bell results comes from an improper statistical approach to the measurement process in conjunction with Bell Experiments. Properly understood, my guess is that both Bell's and Einstein's (and of course, quantum mehanics' and Feynman's) insights were and still are correct.
There's been a lot of good videos on the Bell's Theorem topic subsequent to the awarding of the latest Nobel Physics prize (with this video among the best), but the biggest complaint I have about at least some of the expositions on the topic is the seeming attitude of "boy we really showed that smart guy Einstein to be wrong," or the seeming emphasis on "see, we really showed that there is spooky action at a distance" that is almost unanimously taken as foundational in virtually all expositions of Bell's Theorem. Bohmian Mechanics notwithstanding, I still remain not fully convinced that there is anything spooky-at-a-distance going on. The Bell proof is a proof by contradiction, and I maintain that it is still an open question as to what exactly is contradiction. The experimental verification (of Bell's work) by our three Nobel Laureates is a great piece of work that I don't wish to minimize in any sense, but bear in mind that this experimental work essentially verifies quantum mechanics methodology and confirms (as Bell stated) that both reality and quantum mechanics methodology stand in confirmation of the theoretical proof-by-contradiction that Bell laid out. It remains an open question as to which initial supposition of Bell's proof-by-contradiction ought to be selected as prime choice to be thrown out. Since the really weird loopholes are nearly all thrown out by now, everybody and his brother leaps to the conclusion that we ought to throw out the locality assumption - that is, we should conclude that there is creepy action at a distance after all. I say this does not follow logically. Rather, it is a personal choice, in a sense. I think it much more likely that there are one (or maybe more) additional (unwritten) assumptions that Bell made rather innocuously, and that it is the latter that ought to be thrown out to rectify Bell's proof-by-contradiction.
@@jimatperfromix2759 - Thank you for your complement, and for your insight in recognizing my explanation as Bohmian in origin. I also think your criticism of PBS' characterization of Einstein's reservations is well taken. From what I've read, Einstein did not dispute the non-locality of quantum mechanics nor the validity of Bell's analysis, he believed it indicated a deeper explanation was required to resolve the contradictions between QM and General Relativity.
I found some insight in a private letter from Einstein to Bohm regarding the Born Rule. Einstein wrote, in part:
"According to Born the physical meaning of the psi-function follows: it determines probabilities (f.i. for the value of impulses). This makes sense only if the impulse is defined independently of the mathematical theory by some feasible measurement... If it is at all possible to attribute meaning to Born’s interpretation then the impulse, the probability of which appears in the theory, has to be put equal to the impulse thus measured... Born’s probability, therefore, has to be interpreted as relative to the impulse thus measured if this probability is to have any meaning at all."
My interpretation is that Einstein viewed relativistic space-time as fundamental and was searching for a way to reconcile the properties of the quantum wave-function with real-world measurements. If you start with the wave-function of a single particle, it's tempting to map its Configuration Space representation directly to the three axes of physical space. But with more than just a single particle, this fails to properly model relativistic space-time.
From the opposite direction, there have been attempts to model Bohmian Pilot Waves as fields propagating in physical space-time rather than in Configuration Space. While this appears to be mathematically feasible, it required an infinite number of physical fields to model quantum entanglement...
My own conclusion is that the interference patterns observed in Double Slit experiments demonstrate that the quantum wave-function must exist in some operational sense which underlies physical space-time. (Because the observed cancellations are produced by the complex-valued mathematics of the wave-function.) Thus, the quantum wave-function evolves within its own non-local, deterministic domain of Configuration Space, which is projected probabilistically (according to the Born Rule) upon the physical realm of relativistic space-time.
Einstein actually came up with quantum entanglement; he deserved a nobel prize for that.
They gave it to Obama instead. The true winner.
He called it a paradox.
@@debasishraychawdhuri But it turned out to be true.
From phantom-matter/dark matter, to now quantum entanglement man has this last 5 years to decade been very refreshing to see.
Can’t believe Feynman said no. I thought he was more open minded than that
He’s just a human lol, he can do billions of mistakes
The same Feynman had ignored quarks and QCD at his time in favor of the “partons” model whom he promoted! So he also missed that!
Feynman was tired of young physicists wasting their time trying to understand quantum mechanics. According to me we need to realise that there is more than one way to travel faster than light. If we don’t realise that, then indeed we will be wasting our time.
Is entanglement a higher dimentional connection between quanta? If one of the entangled particles is relatively stopped as much as possible and the other(or the other inside a box) is accelerated to the speed of light. And then they meet together after a random period of travel(one spun more and the other spun less - we assume that it really spins). At the moment will they maintain the entangled state? If so, the experiment shows that entanglement is not deterministic and partly time-independent.
So the programmer of the universe uses global variables? Very hard to debug that kind of code.
Not global variables. They use Lazy Evaluation.
@@mikkel715 or maybe memoization. Or recursion unrolling… I wonder how big a stack space is reserved for reality.
@@NoahSpurrier Stack space is limited or say optimized to share wave function reality until observation.
Hope not they use loop unrolling &**+3
@@mikkel715 I’m wondering if there is a way to craft a buffer overflow code privileged code insertion hack without a segfault causing the universe to dump core.
@@NoahSpurrier Some sneaky tweak in the delayed choice quantum eraser with circular reference.
Great episode. Thanks for explaining simply (well .. as simply as possible for this type of subject). Survey only took 7 minutes and I hope next season comes soon!!
I am just so amazed by the knowledge of the physicist. To understand these principles, write the formulas, explain something that you don't see, etc. Even if you simplify the explanation, the ordinary viewer like me will never understand this.
Sean Carroll's latest book is exactly about the fact that the average person _can_ understand this. Not in excruciating detail but it is no impossible feat for "normal people" to understand how the equations work and what the symbols mean and how to use them to understand things we don't see.
Perhaps you'd be interested in his "the biggest ideas in the universe".
There's a small typo at 3:04 in the wave function. The coefficients in front of each ket should be 1/sqrt(2) instead of 1/2.
Can no one else confirm or deny?
@@castonyoung7514 I mean, it's as simple as googling the Schroedinger equation and matching them, but who has time for that just to prove someone wrong on a YT comment section...
I think it is since there should be a squared somewhere, so that the 1/sqrt(2) becomes 1/2 and adds to 1
@@castonyoung7514 this is correct because when you normalize it and add it together, it should equal 1 for total probability
"Say the Lagrangian in front of a mirror 3 times..." I love these kinds of jokes... laughed so abruptly that my coffee went up my nose. LOL Thank you!
But how can you know if a particle is in a superposition state or in a defined state before measuring it?
By knowing how it was produced.
When it comes to entanglement, the one thing I've never understood about it is why you can't exploit information theory to get FTL communication using two entangled particles. It's possible, at least from an information theoretic POV to encode data that doesn't care about the relative orientation of the particles so long as it's consistent. So, given that, what actually prevents FTL information transfer or, more likely, what have I missed?
There is no information passed between entangled particles. If Alice measures a spin up particle, then she knows that Bob will then detect his to have a spin down particle. That is all. There is no way to detect the particle to make it have whatever spin you want, eg up=0 and down=1, so you cannot transmit any information. Wavefunction collapse is a purely random process.
Generally, the issue is that while you get the measurements of both particles simultaneously, the actual results themselves are random. Yes, you get two lists which are exactly anti-correlated, but there's nothing meaningfully learned from the second list that isn't already there in the first list. The result is that what you have is akin to static on the radio or old analogue TV.
Now, I'm not sure that exactly answers your question, but it's the approach to it that I am recalling from my reading.
It's like having two gloves, you pick one randomly and it's a left hand glove, you then know the other is the right one.
@@tonywells6990 Which is the bit that doesn't quite make sense. For entanglement to make sense, and for "spooky action at a distance" to make sense, there would need to be (and I'm obviously missing something) some consistency in behaviour between the two particles. Otherwise, what makes them entangled, unless the very act of observation destroys entanglement, thus allowing entanglement to be observed momentarily, but not thereafter, this the "spooky action" is more of a metaphorical light gust around your ankles than anything more meaningful.
@@tonywells6990 Let's say there are 10 entangled pairs. In every pair particles are in 50/50 superposition of emiting a photon and not emiting a photon.
Bob on the moon measures his particles. About 5 of particles on my side emit a photon. Then I instantly know Bob "pushed the button". Bob can have many buttons each with a letter corresponding to it. Thus he can send an arbitrary message instantly.
Where is the mistake in this logic?
Bell's Inequality is really complex, and while Bell himself tried to cover all possibilities (given that it was just ideas and not actual experiment yet) he still could have missed alternative explanations, like super-determinism and non-locality (and who know what else ... perhaps assuming that hidden variables would be exactly corresponding to classical understanding, on which after all is always based the generally accepted conclusion that "there are no hidden variables").
While all ideas are interesting at least to consider and compare to each other, I don't think super-determinism is the explanation. Not because I believe in free will (Free will only need not knowing that something is impossible or inefficient :)), but because I think it will lead to ridiculous paradoxes as the conscious observer or retro-causality that the dogmas of the standard model lead to.
I've been following the randomness-determinism / local-variables topic for years now, and have to say that most of them just repeat the common interpretation "hidden variables don't exist", and only few (I can think of 3 at the moment) that consider the other alternatives.
And one of these alternatives is non-Locality, which as Brian Greene put it "Locality is dead". I'm grossly oversimplifying of course. Bell's inequality theorem doesn't kill Locality on its own, but when you consider also the experiments showing that sometimes it doesn't work you should at least consider that so far we've only seen a sub-set of reality and laws of physics in which Locality works, and that perhaps it's one of those classical ideas that we need to finally put to rest (or at least test very very much).
As you said in this video, Locality can be described as the information/factors for a particle behavior encapsulated in that particle itself, which is indeed the classical thinking (which works fine for large non-quantum balls :)), but today we know of example where fields give birth of particles, or particles behaving like a wave (beside being quantizable as particle) ...
So we should at least consider that what we observe as particles are just excitations of a field (which by the way is the official definition of a particle!), and as such it's actually very likely that that field determines (or at least influences) the particle behavior. We know of at least one field that is apparently an actual physical thing rather than just an abstract idea, and which sometimes behaves (stretches) faster than light, and breaks the 1st principle of thermodynamics - the Space-Time.
Is it that difficult to think that we're just scratching on the surface of theory of fields?
Even when we can see demonstrations on macro-level (ie non-quantum) of many otherwise quantum phenomenon?
For example the walking droplets on a surface of (usually silicone oil) we can see that the pilot-wave is at least a macro-world phenomenon. But also we can see that the resonance (in combination with other factors like surface tension) can lead to stable configurations, like having several drops move in formation, and at exact distance from each other - like in crystal structure;
or that small droplets can bring stability to large ones that would be unstable on their own.
What I'm trying to point out isn't just that if we can see it on macro-level then it must happen on quantum level - that would be logical fallacy on its own.
But that these phenomenons are result of geometry and wave theory ... both of which are valid for the quantum world and we should at least try to find (or disprove them) on quantum level.
There is no theory or field in science that benefits from keeping assumptions as dogmas, not matter how practical are they in the real-life.
There should always be a strive to UNDERSTAND Reality deeper, rather than just "shut up and calculate".
Otherwise we'll see videos like "Bell inequality experiment shows local variables don't exist" for decades to come ...
There are just too many unanswered question to consider the subject closed!
Sir/mam are you a scientist? Your grasp and wisdom on superdeterminism is quite commmendable
If you'd like , we can talk on reddit or something
I am just a mere student from 11 grade in high school
But I can't help but think by seeing your comment that you have proposed your arguments in very detailed and understandable way.
@@saprkyingvalkyrie2136 Thank you for your positive feedback!
I'm not scientist. Actually ... I think I was a bit drunk when I wrote it :)
But I'm interested in physics (incl. quantum physics as it's supposed to be studying the foundations of the universe) for many years now.
The topic above is one that drives me mad, because it's used as a dogma in modern quantum mechanics (there are several), and alternatives are either completely ignored or slowly allowed to surface, and most often only get brief mention.
Unfortunately for me I'm not good in the math used in physics (I was good on high-school & university level, but I haven't used it outside of school) and that limits me to using only common sense on topics as the above.
But common sense imo is enough to spot that there's something very wrong with the attitude of the leading quantum physicists, most of them refuse to consider alternatives, and believe their own assumptions to be proven facts (which many of them simply are not), and this is just leading to a dead-end.
It's very important to keep and open mind not just to be able to make new discoveries easier, but because it's extremely important to communicate current science achievements to regular people. Otherwise we'll get more and more people believing that Earth is flat or other non-sense like that.
Of course Universe isn't obliged to make sense to us (and our intuition has often been wrong), but I still haven't seen proves of this, only opinions and assumptions.
For example if you look for a proof that Universe is inherently random on quantum level (as standard model insists) you'll likely come to the Bell's inequality and the following experiments on it. And Bell's work & I'm sure Aspect, Zeilinger & Clauser deserve their awards, what troubles me is that the interpretation of these experiments are lazy & incomplete and in a hurry to decide things that we don't really understand.
If you're interested in this topic you might see this video (prof. Brian Greene - Your Daily Equation #21: Bell's Theorem and the Non-locality of the Universe)
ruclips.net/video/UZiwtfrisTQ/видео.html
most of it covers the already established status quo, but towards the end he openly states the consequences & possibilities of these experiments, which is much better - a great point to move forward, rather than assuming Universe is random (non-deterministic) and we shouldn't even attempt to look further.
Zeilinger also performed the Bell test with quasars, described in the PBS Nova documentary Einstein’s Quantum Riddle.
No, he didn't. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 he did and he won the physics Nobel for Q Teleportation and applications
@@carlo70no Zeilinger did not create pairs of entangled quasars. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 ‘with’ (the help of) quasars, of course he didn’t entangle quasars, fussy! ;)
@@carlo70no He didn't do anything "with the help of quasars, either". Please read the article. Even the abstract contains trivial errors that a high school student should be able to find. :-)
I have just learned that "If you influence one of the entangled photons, rotating its polarisation direction, the direction of polarisation of the second photon stays uninfluenced." In that case, I don't think the pair of photons are still in a state of quantum entanglement after measurement.
Local rotations are local unitary operations and hence leave the other photon unaffected.
If you want to change the joint state you have to do something more drastic such as a projective measurement. Say you project photon #1 into horizontal and vertical polarization. Given the measurement outcome you immediately know the polarization of photon #2 as well.
@@KirosanaPerkele The photon pair should not be considered to be in a state of quantum entanglement or they should be considered 'no longer' in a state of quantum entanglement AFTER the wave function of one has been collapsed by measurement which also led to the collapse of wave function of the second photon.
@@simon6071 Correct
a measurement on photon A does not influence the state of photon B
@@simon6071 there is no wave function collapse
Alain Aspect is one of those strange cases like Einstein after his boffo publication outburst of 1905: everybody knew that they had to give him a Nobel, but they weren't sure what for, or which one, and maybe some part of the whole thing was wrong.
'Course this whole Bell's Inequality thing is going to be with us for a while yet. We're just in the opening rounds -- again rather like the situation with quantum mechanics after Einstein's 1905 photon seemed to be the ring to hold the wrestling match in.
WOW!!!
AWESOME RESEARCH!!!
Well if photons travel at the speed of light, and experience no time, then from the photon's perspective it still hasn't moved away from it's entangled pair. So I would submit that action creates a zero distance wormhole between them which collapses at the moment of measurement.
This experiment can be done with any entangled particles, not just photons.
@@michal.gawron all travelling at the speed of light, no?
@@GEMSofGOD_com no, only massless particles (like photons) can travel at the speed of light. But in this case you can also entangle anysorts of other particles and even atoms and possibly macroscopic systems that definitely cannot move at the speed of light (anything with mass would require infinite energy to accelerate them to the speed of light)
@@GEMSofGOD_com so this experiment can be done with electrons for example, but they don't exhibit the same characteristics as photons, and their polarization works very differently, so the system of (photon) polarizers at the end would not work and you would need to come up with another system.
I guess that the conclusion is that this type of experiment is doable with other entangled particles, but that it would require quite the revamping
@@michal.gawron Well then tell me why the spin of an electron cannot be communicated to its entangled pair, via a photon, since electrons can merge with positrons and become photons, and vice versa. It's all the electromagnetic field.
What a sweet message for Alec and his family. Rest in peace my man
Reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics is the holy grail of physics. Whoever finds the solution should get all the Nobel prizes till the end of time
Why are you telling us that you don't know anything about physics? ;-)
I'm so glad I found this channel you are fantastic to listen too
"Put one of your balls in a box and send it to the moon" ouch😅
this channel is almost exactly what i want!!! the explanations are still a little too hard to understand for a regular person so i end up having to replay certain parts or just cant continue paying attention through the whole thing. I really want to be able to watch this type of channel i love learning tho. Please simplify the explanations!!!
9:03: I think the quote you wanted is "Difficult takes a few seconds. impossible? A few minutes."
Or maybe I'm thinking about different wormholes. ;)
Would it be possible to launch a spacecraft toward Voyager that could act as a sort of signal booster between Earth and Voyager? The signals would still take the same amount of time to reach us, but because this craft would be closer to Voyager than the Earth, it could amplify and relay the signals from Voyager once Voyager's signal is too weak to reach us on its own.
A very well presented video with clear explanations and accurate information.
I am a 'superluminalist' so I found it a relief to know that there are researchers out there who may suspect this possibility.
I’ve been researching quite a bit about Alain aspect and quantum entanglement since I have an assignment to do and my brain is now completely fried every time I think I got it they would introduce a new idea I’m honestly thinking of failing it by now😅