Hi everyone! Welcome to Up and Atom :) I've received a lot of comments saying the lack of explanation of the Q-move was disappointing. I'm sorry! I'll make sure to fully explain everything I mention in future videos, even if that means including some math. Thank you everyone for the feedback, it's appreciated as I am still learning. Welcome again and I look forward to getting to know you all!
I agree that a deeper explanation would have been nice. Even just throwing a bit of an explanation over the revised decision diagram presented towards the end would have helped. I found myself having to rewind and pause to ponder the diagram and determine why the Nash equilibrium changed. I would suggest putting less of an emphasis on how superposition works, you have an earlier video (The Quantum Bomb-Tester) that goes over Schrödinger’s Cat so you could point people unfamiliar with the concept towards that video. Although I did like the cartoon of the Geiger counter assisting in the cat’s untimely (maybe?) demise :)
A fundamental problem is knowing that the q move is reflected in the actions: oh good, the q move says they stayed quiet, I’ll report back that I did too, but act differently. It is a communication link, as presented. I feel as I’m missing a subtlety (quite apart from the obvious point of having quantum computer equipment removed by the cops)
Up and Atom I thought you are from Physics Girl, but you are also an Australian. And they are at "Dominant Strategy Equilibrium", by the way. Anyway, probably going to return in the future!
Maybe Dianna used to be a hard-boiled beat cop taking perps off the street because she made a promise to someone long ago before they were gunned down by a two bit hood? It's feasible.
I was waiting for her to actually explain what changes when introducing superpositions of choices, only for her to hand-wave it away as "too mathy". Great, those are six and a half wasted minutes I'm not getting back…
it's pretty simple. It's a Quantum entangled move where both moves are in Tangled to be the same, and you move to stay silence. There's no equivalent in physical reality which is why this example breaks down
So they invented a variation on prisoner's dilemma that isn't a dilemma? Without discussing the Q-move or applications of this result in more depth this is pretty underwhelming.
@@SimonWoodburyForget "Sums up hype on the internet pretty well" If you take this part of your comment out I'd say you make a good point. I disagree with it. But still, well thought out. The greed which exists in human nature was necessary for survival as humans first walked the planet. Unfortunately this trait is still with us and may be our downfall before all is said and done. I do not believe either one of these young women is guilty of hype in this video. I found it educational and entertaining. No disrespect to you sir. You have a right to your opinion just like all of us. Cheers, John Noe
I agree. This shows the fallacy of game theory. It assumes not just a lack of altruism, but a positive desire for destructive selfishness. Neither of those things is inevitable. In real life you will know your collaborator and can make some educated estimates of their behaviour. Since you each benefit the most from saying nothing, that's the best strategy and it unifies you, unless the other person is horrid. As you say, you can also just talk beforehand about what to do if you get caught.
"It's not that hard to understand if you just forget everything you know about the world." This is the probably the most concise and accurate description of what learning quantum mechanics feels like that I've ever heard.
Wonderfully made video. I am slightly astonished, I must admit, that actual scientific conference talks usually get 300-400 views on RUclips when they are much seen, while this has reached almost 170.000 views. Thanks so much for so nicely covering our work in any case - masterfully done.
Okay, great video, (I subscribed to your channel) but I would like to correct some things that I saw when you showed the payoff matrix, and some terminology that you used about the Nash Equilibrium. First, USE NEGATIVES! This is a very important part of weighing outcomes, especially when it comes to calculating the probability of mixed strategies. Basically, you have positive outcomes and negative outcomes, and 0 is not a positive outcome. You could argue that they are just back where they started, but they actually have a better life then before, considering they are done with the experience. Now a little bit about the Nash Equilibrium. Yes, what you said is correct, but you are missing one important factor that could clear up some people's confusion (that I know exists, because I had it when I started game theory). What you are using is an iterated game, and especially in this case, it is important to note that a NE is not necessarily the best outcome, just one that is inherently stable. But great video!
Some constructive criticism. If your video is about something (how quantum theory relates to the prisoners dilemma), it's sort of frustrating if you don't fully explain that. I liked your video but was frustrated that you buried the lead. Good luck for future videos.
Yes. She could have left the in-depth prisoner's dilemma, quantum state and quantum entanglement stuff out; there are dozens of videos about that. We want to know how the q-move works!
Obviously the mathematical proof was a challenge to make intuitive but I agree, it was the subject of the video and had to be addressed. Why not show the characters both grab a single coin and toss it in the air? The coins are revealed (the wave collapses) and you explain what the outcomes are.
Interesting video, but what exactly is the "Q-move"? As in applying it to the prisoner's dilemma will ensure both prisoner's don't snitch, but what is it exactly? Just some theoretical quantum thing that can't be applied to real life? Was hoping you were going to explain this. But interesting video!
Right. I've heard of this paper before, but it always seemed to me that it left the prisoner's dilemma unchanged. Like, Dianna and Jade still only have two real moves: snitch or not. Doesn't seem like the warden is going to let them do some sort of quantum snitching and then erase it if the q-bit comes out right. Even if he did, it seems like the best strategy is to lie to the other by operating on the q-bit as if they weren't going to snitch, but then snitch. So regardless what they read in the q-bit, the best move is still to snitch.
If your system can be constrained by the laws of superposition and entanglement then you have the choice of obeying the “Q move” which ensures that the entanglement resolution is the choice made on both sides. It’s suggesting how quantum systems can be used to improve the outcome of game theoretic scenarios
Soooooo,,,like a sheet of paper ,,REMEMBER I HAVE INFINTI power and TIME BABy,,, they always skip that part,,,,,I set YOU down on the sheet and YOU are in the MIDDLE of INFINITY your entire LIFE,,,not one day not one second YOUR ENTIRE LIFE,,,,now,,,i set the next sheet down on or under YOU ,,,and that persons,,,INFINITY they LIVE IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE,,,which is HALF of my LIFE,,,,I move,,,stretch, YUP,,sssstretch,,,,it the FANTASTIC four was a hint,,,now THEY feel OUTSIDE you but they TOO are in the MIDDle,,,just one mIDDLE yeah,,right>,,,,so NOW i put ONE MORE SHEET on top of or UNDER their INFINITY,,,oh,,YEah,,we gettting there man ,,,gimme a minute,,HOW LONG IS a minute dad?,,,shti it dont know YOU ALL made this stuff up,,,I JUST WORK WITH IT,,,,,ok keep going,,thanks DUMB DUMB,,,now set over there and listen to techno and let me use your hands for a while,,,is that BETTER mister MR.....,,,what?,,,im listening to techno CRYSTal method,,,thru a CRYStal,,,kid,,,let it go already,,,and give me that terrible tasting carrot back,,,,you dont want it after where I PUT IT,,,in my black hole,,,OH DAD,,,,yes dumb dumb,,,?,,,nothing ,,,,keep showing them,,,OK,,,be a little quieter and GIMME THE SHT stick orange it is,,,,HERE,,,it stinks,,,,YEAH,,,I LIKE MY FLAVOR,,,,,,Oh,,,the third sheet of paper,,,yeah that thing,,,I stretch it LIKE THE FAN 4 stretch man,,and there we go,,,3 infinity,,,,but,,,oh i gotta do all the dOGs,,cats,,,trees,,the car,,,and the bird that just flew by giving me the finger
Hmm, couple of things that can lead to some big misconceptions, Schrodinger actually meant the cat to be an absurd paradox, not really something that happens. (To cats, or other macro scale objects that is.) There have been interpretations of the physics that imply it does happen, but there is a lot of nuance to it and its never really accurate to say the cat is alive or dead based on a human looking at it. Also I dont think it was made at all clear that no information travels instantaneously in entanglement. You can not send any kind of signal between people who have entangled particles. A classical channel of information is always required to make use of it. Not realising that is a common mistake which leads people to believe you can communicate faster than light with entanglement. Unfortunately, (Or perhaps fortunately given what that could do to causality if it worked.) there is no known way to do it.
The funniest thing I find about Schroedinger's cat is that he was trying to show the absurdity of the proposed explanation, but it turned out to be right.
Well this “quantum” stuff seems idiotic for me. So you just assume that until you measure / see / touch something - it is not defined or not there ??? Don’t know about yours but the only world I have ever been to doesn’t work like that. 1. [About bits] If I put a “1” in a box , and give the box to you , in my world you would say : “ There is either a “1” *or* “0” in that box no matter I open the box or not, and NOT say “There are both a “0” *and* a “1” in there before I open the box” 2.In your weird world you are talking about If i close my eyes then my TV that is in front of me *either* exists or not , until I open my eyes - then it would be one or another ? And if I sleep in this “quantum” world then the universe (including) myself stop existing (either exist or not until I open my eyes) ? Because in my world if I close my eyes or sleep , my TV stays in place and the universe still exists. 3. i am very open-minded to listen and try to understand any opinion or explanation about this subect . Feel free to reply.
Physics girl is so damn fine with those big eyes of hers & very pretty face too AND she's a math genius? Lol how do you even approach a woman like this.
I guess it's convenient, but I think physicists need to eventually stop talking about "wave function collapse." Everything is a quantum system, including your macroscopic measuring devices. Making a measurement doesn't collapse a wave function. It causes two quantum systems (the thing being measured and the measuring device) to interact, resulting in a new combined quantum system and corresponding wave function. That new combined wave function makes it appear that the smaller quantum system has chosen one out of its many possible superposition states, but what you did by measuring it is radically alter the nature of the system you're trying to measure. Moreover, "where is the electron" is a bad question, and as a result, when you ask a bad question like this, you get a bad answer that looks like the electron "collapses" to a single a location. The Schrödinger equation only tells us the probability of finding something in a location if we look there. It's just a mathematical model that fits the data, it gives no insight into what might be the real underlying phenomenon, and it's pretty much universally agreed among physicists that the Copenhagen interpretation is a bad and misleading interpretation.
Thank you. Though, I guess I get why channels that endeavor to simplify the ideas do so in the way they do. It's more useful than the woo woo that is often associated with quantum-anything in pop culture. We need to start uplifting the general public if we're going to shift towards quantum computing, same as we did a couple generations ago with digital technologies and the basic concepts of the atom and electrons.
This is just a small part of what we must use in quantum physics. Since on the quantum level, existence does not operate by any known human logic, we use probability and statistics rather than accurate and definitive thinking. Now, you self-proclaimed physicists have fun trying to rip apart what I just stated.
If it didn't operate by any known human logic, we'd be incapable of describing it's rules. ;p But yes, the logic of it is very strange and seems rather alien at first glance.
table @ 6:11... it looks too confusing (if not wrong)... 1. why it is 3,3 for lower left and top right? as long as one of them stay quiet, 3 is impossible to appear... regardless of the quantum dice.. 2. the pair of "top middle" & "bottom middle" AND the pair of "left middle" & "right middle" as long as one of them snitch,,, how is it even possible the other's choice can flip the outcome?
The thing that always gets forgotten about Schrodinger's Cat is that Schrodinger himself was not a fan of quantum mechanics and he meant that particular thought experiment to be an example of how ridiculous quantum mechanics is.
I already knew about the prisoners dilemma and about quantum entanglement. I came to see how you combined them, but apparently your title was clickbait. For shame.
I've never subscribed to anything as quickly and enthusiastically as I have to this. I'm not even halfway done with the first video. I love physical science, I love social science, and I like the branch of philosophy that connects the two: this is awesome!
In the table at 6:13, the point (Q-move, Q-move) doesn't seem to be a Nash equilibrium. Why does it stay stable then? In other words: If I choose to go Q-move, what prevents my opponent from forgetting about that quantum stuff and just snitch?
Well, she is rapidly approaching 200K (as of 6/2020) which is quite an achievement. But it is literally a crime (punishable with 3 years in quantum jail?) that she doesn't have 1M
Good video, but it seems as though it's quite simplified. Take Schrödinger's cat. This thought experiment was invented by Schrödinger to show how quantum effects like superposition don't actually apply on a macroscopic scale. The cat is either dead or alive but cannot be in a superposition of both states because it's a macroscopic object, and wave function collapse happens all the time in macroscopic objects, which is why they behave like classical objects. Saying wave function collapse happens when you open the box is only good as an analogy if you clearly state that it IS an analogy, why it's not possible and the "observer" from the observer effect really is any kind of interaction with the outside of the quantum system. Which, in this case, will happen with or without someone to open the box, on a microscopic scale. Sure, quantum physics is hard and very counter-intuitive, but maybe it would be more useful to really dive into it and still try to explain it in a way that's not too overly complicated. I mean, I'm sure that you know what you're talking about and that these simplifications are only here to help people understand, and I think many people will understand it's an analogy, but some viewers won't get the subtle nuances, like how superposition is not being in several states at the same time. Instead, it's a distinct kind of continuous quantum state which determines the probabilities of being in one of the discrete classical states when wave function collapse occur. Really, I have no problem with the use of analogies and oversimplification, only with not showing what they really are : a convient way of trying to understand complex concepts faster. I think we should all try to remind ourselves that "all models are wrong, some are useful". Anyway, I hope that helps. Other than that, I don't think there is anything else to improve in your explanation.
Thanks for that! I'm so frustrated to see the same misunderstanding of the Schrödinger's cat over and over again, because people actually think that a cat can be dead and alive at same time. After they have learn wrong things like that, it's quite impossible to teach them anything about real world.
+William Lambert There isn't anything wacky. The cat is either dead or alive, no superposition or non-collapsed wave function of the cat. You just don't know which one is the fate of the cat. Just like you don't see what happens behind your back. Nothing quantum about it.
William Lambert Do you mean, since you have no way of knowing what is in the box, regardless of the actual non-quantum state of the cat, in your mind, you cannot tell if it's alive or dead (assuming you have no way of exchanging information with the inside of the box), and that state of mind is kinda like a superposition from a philosophical point of view ? I mean, why not (and actually, this is pretty interesting), but... it's kind of off topic. The argument I was making was about communication, I'm just worried this is not the best way to make people learn about quantum physics, or really about science in general, or actually, I think, about anything there is to learn. Analogies are good and super useful, but they're also dangerous if they look like they're about the actual thing you're trying to teach people about and give them a false impression of understanding. Which is a big problem. People aren't stupid; they're ignorant, as we all are. It's normal to struggle to grasp things as weird and complex as quantum physics, even the experts are pretty clueless. This is why I think it's a mistake to try and dumb down the topic in the hope that people will learn, instead of accepting the limitations of our poor brains and try to get something more valuable out of it, even if it means being confronted with our own ignorance. I'm sure she meant no ill will, like many of the science communicators on youtube that do the same thing (especially in the US, although that's probably just my anecdotal impression). I don't really know if this is some kind of trend (though it's definitely not a problem with all science communicators, far from it) or if it's a niche thing, but this is definitely a big problem.
Ok, I have a couple questions. What does it mean for a wave function to "collapse"? And when you say that with macroscopic objects it happens "all the time" - what does that mean? Do you mean it's constantly happening, or happening at regular intervals in time, or what? I think my question is probably not-even-wrong, but hopefully you kinda get what I mean. I take for granted that a cat is either alive or not, and the idea that it's "in-between" is nonsense. I'm really not even sure what "macroscopic" means. I'm a chemist: from my POV, photons barely exist, electrons are tiny, proteins are HUGE, and Fluffy the Cat is utterly inconceivable. Cats are macroscopic, so superpositions don't apply - ok. What criteria determines whether an object is macroscopic or not? What is the dividing line?
Hey nice. I just discovered your channel. Great going. Please do keep making Physics videos. The world needs as many Physics preachers as possible to create newer and newer Physics enthusiasts. I have had great Physics Teachers in my life. Many would not have the same. I hope they get that from all these Physics channels like yours, Physics girl, Veritasium and many others. Don't consider what some shit people say. You are doing a great job. Keep going.
I watched "Physics Girl" a few times and was hoping for some real physics but found that she dumbed everything down and had some pretty lame content. I unsubscribed "Physics Girl". I stumbled across your channel and was delighted that you make it fun while keeping content based solidly in math or physics. Thanks. I have subscribed and hope you quickly overtake Dianna and her lame content.
About the Spinning: a Ball WIth a Center line drawn on it, Spin it one Direction, Then Mark The SPinning Direction of the Upper part With an Arrow and Do the same with the Lower part of the ball. You Looking at it from Above , it would be ClockWise and looking at it from underneath Would be Spinning Anti-Clockwise ...
Two of my favorite people on the Internet ! "The judge gives you BOTH 3 years for dishonesty and, ....................wait for it.....................being bad friends!" LLOOLLOOLL Cheers, John Noe
Game Theory was invented by a strategist with Schizophrenia. In reality assumptions in Game Theory are wrong about people. I don't think it can be applied like this in reality (good in theory on a paper, in reality maybe not so much). You can find the in depth overview and interviews (including the man who invented Game Theory) in documentaries made by Adam Curtis. It is over serveral ones, but game theory part can be found in the documentary "The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom", documentaries after that deal with the results (mostly).
So it showed me the feed back loop yesterday...like a speaker and WE are the speaker and all THIS OUT HERE the microphone....the power SHARE is out of balance and like a microphone if unchecked it’s a positive GAIN LOOP ...until the speaker is .....destroyed...or you BALANCE the loop....that is ALL the creator does is BALANCE...we call it good or bad.....the Buddhist say “IF YOU CAN WRITE IT DOWN...that...is....not.....it”. Meaning the creator of all life cannot be explained in any book no matter how much you WRITE!
As far as my understanding goes, superposition doesnt mean that the particle/bit is in both states at once, it means it is on a circle radius 1 in a coordinationsystem like with imagnary numbers. So 1 translates to (1,0) and 0 to (0,1). Beeing "in both states" could be interpreted as (0,707/0,707) {2^0.5 / 2 } or any other combination resulting in a length as one
Fun fact! You can create a REAL life entangled particle system super easy. It's barely an inconvenience. First, get yourself a deck of cards. Now throw out all the cards except for the Ace of Hearts and the Ace of Spades. Shuffle your two aces up so you now no longer know what one is what and then put them in envelopes so you can't see them. Boom! your Aces are now in a superposition of being BOTH an Ace of Hearts and an Ace of Spades and are entangled. Give one of the envelopes to your friend and have your friend fly to the other side of the world. Now you can collapse your card's superposition at ANY time by just opening up that envelope you kept and looking at the card. As soon as you do that it is now either an Ace of Hearts or an Ace of Spades and the superposition of the OTHER card ALSO collapses at the EXACT same moment you look at your card. Of course... now you can perhaps see a couple of minor flaws in entangled particles... 1) The superposition of the two cards only collapses for you, NOT your friend. Just because you now know the state of both cards, to them both cards are in a superposition. 2) You can not use this to INSTANTLY transfer information from one place to another. It still took you however long it took to get one of those cards from this side of the world to the other side of the world. 3) When you looked at your card NO information was passed to the other side of the world. Sure you could get on the phone and tell your friend the results but because of 1 and 2, you aren't magically transferring information from one end of the world to the other. Now imagine if you will instead of playing cards, you had a set of instructions in each envelope. You might write something like this on both "You have been caught by the police, and have reason to believe your ally has as well. In such an event you have been assigned the following tasks...". Everything else about this though remains the same as the playing card entangled thing. When you open your envelope for guidance, you know what guidance you received, and you now also know what guidance your ally has received (though you don't know if they've looked at it or not). But that's all. You have no way of now telling your ally to open their envelope and do their end of things. You also have no way of knowing if your ally opened their instructions. Perhaps you know that if your ally opened their instructions that they'll follow them to the letter (as this is a logic puzzle after all), but again you just simply do not know if they have opened them or not. As it is a logic puzzle you can be sure that if they were also caught that they would have checked their instructions. Effectively introducing a Q bit to the prisoner's dilemma is saying "As criminals, you get to make a plan before getting caught on what to do if you find yourself in the prisoner dilemma." but that's about it.
Subscribed after your Tom Scott video, really excited about your content and already happily sharing links with both my wife and brother. Thanks for your awesome work!
To explain how you could use entanglement to send messages over distance, if you design an 'obstacle course' for one of your entangled particles so that it has a 5% chance of interacting if it's spin up, but a 95% chance if it's spin down. Now imagine you sent thousands of entangled particles on that course. The other particles they are entangled with will collapse the spin as well, but not at the 50/50 rate one would expect if not entangled, but at that 5% 95% you coaxed into them with your obstacle course. You can use this probabilistic anomaly to transmit information. As you can see, sending information this way is inherently fuzzy and prone to error, but it's manageable with adequate error correction.
Your show reminds me of a documentary about a Greek mathuticuanv who was doing the same math we use to take us into space. His work was lost dir hundreds of years. What mb akevhis CD work notable was he was explaining things as your doing. Very nice, because I understand all this only I'm not very good at solving equations but understanding quantum mechanics in s as clear as mud...but growing up, next to English, math was my worst subject because of how it was tsught I've come to learn... thank you, peace
No one could ever explain the dead cat and the q-bits to me and why everyone things that things are happening only when you measure it. There are so many other explanations. For example the cat is either dead or alive, but you don't know the information. It's the same with q-bits. There was an electronic die that uses high frequency clock to rotate through all the possible combinations many times when you press a button. When you let go it shows a truly random number. That's because the 1. frequency of measurement is much-much lower than the frequency of rotation and 2. there are invisible (to the player) factors that alter that frequency slightly - temperature instability, electromagnetic interference, aging of electronic components. So you still get random numbers even if you push the button with very accurate frequency. So why do everyone find the q bit and entanglement with other q-bit strange. What if it's just oscillating with very high frequency more than anything known to men. You'll say if you measure it with constant frequency it'll just alias with lower frequency to create a repeating sequence. Yeah, but you don't know much about q-bits. What if there is some interference that's altering the q-bit in a way that you cannot predict. You'll say "entangled". There are many possible explanations for that too. What if the frequency is so high that you can't really imagine it. And what if it's so stable that it's million times more stable than the most stable frequency that you can measure it with. Then the interference is actually in the measuring device (which sounds reasonable). So you create the two q-bits and they oscillate together with 180 degree out of phase . You'll say what if we don't measure them in the same direction - why you don't notice consistent results? Well they are not really spinning, right. Maybe Your model is wrong and comparing the "spin" with spinning is what makes it look random and unpredictable. Derek tried to explain how they tested if two entangled bits are moving in predefined fashion. I didn't quite understand it, but at the end he said the experiment didn't convince all the scientists in the either of the two options - 1. predefined patterns or 2. communicating instantly beyond the speed of light even when far away.
The whole point of the Prisoner Dilemma is that you can't comunicate and make a contract. If you can guarantee what the other Person ist doing with QBit or a unbreakable contract, then there is no Dilemma. BTW nice channel and content.
4:47 I think some of these observations have to do with our perspective. If you crossed your eyes looking at one ball, you would see two balls at some distance apart doing exactly the same thing. I'm not suggesting that this explains entanglement, but scientists need to think outside of their linear propositions, and ask themselves (or theoretical mathematicians/physicists) in what way(s) could this phenomenon occur that have nothing to do with our preconceptions? Could it be that distance is an illusion? Could it be that you've somehow opened two frames of reference to observe the same particle? Just my perspective.
Can someone explain what a q-move is? How does a player do a q-move? Does he check his qubit and use it as an oracle? Does he set his qubit, and by entanglement, the other qubit is set too? How is this different from given them both a mobile phone or any other communication channel?
so either i commented on this video or i didn't and only when you look will the comment be there or not and then either you will reply or not and only when i look will your reply exist or not
The reason John Nash won an economics Nobel, is because he introduced it as a problem in said field, and it went something like this: Imagine two companies, A and B, sell the same product. Let's say, tobacco. If either company advertises their own product, their income will take a 10% hit. If neither A nor B advertise, their income will stay at 100% If A decides to advertise, but B does not, A gets a 40% bonus, at a total of 130%; B stands at 100% If B decides to advertise, But A does not, it's B that gets a 40% bonus, at a total of 130%; A stands at 100% If both, A and B advertise, customers will have added awareness of both companies equally, so their income will decrease by 10%. So both will be at 90%. It's just like the prisoner's dilemma, but instead it's a scenario about company rivalry.
great colab: Now you just need to add Looking Glass Universe then we have a true physics dream team. :-) If just 10% of physics girls's subs subscribe to you your channel will increase approximately 8 times. No pressure :-) Or maybe a video on pressure. Well done.
![Quantum Biology [Part 1] - How Plants Use Quantum Mechanics](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zc9Xk99gCr4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Quantum Biology [Part 1] - How Plants Use Quantum Mechanics](/img/tr.png)
Hi everyone! Welcome to Up and Atom :) I've received a lot of comments saying the lack of explanation of the Q-move was disappointing. I'm sorry! I'll make sure to fully explain everything I mention in future videos, even if that means including some math. Thank you everyone for the feedback, it's appreciated as I am still learning. Welcome again and I look forward to getting to know you all!
I also came from physics girl, who's a pro at this. You piqued my interest. I'd also like to see you go into the math.
Up and Atom if you get deep into derivatives, my eyes will gloss over, but I'll still keep the video going until I snap out of the maths.
I agree that a deeper explanation would have been nice. Even just throwing a bit of an explanation over the revised decision diagram presented towards the end would have helped. I found myself having to rewind and pause to ponder the diagram and determine why the Nash equilibrium changed.
I would suggest putting less of an emphasis on how superposition works, you have an earlier video (The Quantum Bomb-Tester) that goes over Schrödinger’s Cat so you could point people unfamiliar with the concept towards that video. Although I did like the cartoon of the Geiger counter assisting in the cat’s untimely (maybe?) demise :)
A fundamental problem is knowing that the q move is reflected in the actions: oh good, the q move says they stayed quiet, I’ll report back that I did too, but act differently.
It is a communication link, as presented.
I feel as I’m missing a subtlety (quite apart from the obvious point of having quantum computer equipment removed by the cops)
Up and Atom I thought you are from Physics Girl, but you are also an Australian. And they are at "Dominant Strategy Equilibrium", by the way. Anyway, probably going to return in the future!
The best move would be to tell the police that the money in the vault was there until they tried to measure it.
good one bro, good one
or tell them where is the money, so they can't measure how much money is there
@@hirokokueh3541 No no, tell them precisely how fast the money is moving and how much it weighs. Then they'll _never_ find it.
Hahaha
This comment is why I love physicists
Things I learned: You and Dianna both bought the same prisoner costume, but Dianna either bought, or already had the handcuffs
I'm going with already had, because Dianna knows what she likes!
She strikes me as ..erm ... adventurous. (?)
Maybe Dianna used to be a hard-boiled beat cop taking perps off the street because she made a promise to someone long ago before they were gunned down by a two bit hood? It's feasible.
I am guessing she has had them since college, just a guess.
@@krashd I'd watch this TNT TV series.
Came from physics girl. You have an awesome channel. Definitely subscribed :)
Me too..
Me 3. Pretty cool indeed
As have I!
Same here.
Me five
I hope you will make a more "in depth" video about the q-move.
Ya, this video was very shallow. Entertaining but not informative
not entertaining nor informative. Honestly can't tell if she's really a physicist.
I was waiting for her to actually explain what changes when introducing superpositions of choices, only for her to hand-wave it away as "too mathy". Great, those are six and a half wasted minutes I'm not getting back…
Thank god you didn't waste more time writing a pointless comment!
it's pretty simple. It's a Quantum entangled move where both moves are in Tangled to be the same, and you move to stay silence. There's no equivalent in physical reality which is why this example breaks down
Hire a third criminal to break the legs of whoever goes free?
P E A C H then you go to that third criminal and break his arms.
I'm with you PEACH
Just get your lawyer to slip the judge an envelope.
Is this the real explanation of the quantum bit?
@@Drager85 yes. Snitches get stitches is the quantum insurance both keep their gobs shut.
No insight about the Q-move? Disappointing.
I find it hilarious that you're yelling at a camera with a "Quiet Hours" sign behind you :D
I think that might have been deliberate :D
Or she was doing the vid outside of whatever the posted quiet hours are.
Or was she quiet and yelling at the same time?
So they invented a variation on prisoner's dilemma that isn't a dilemma? Without discussing the Q-move or applications of this result in more depth this is pretty underwhelming.
Yeah. They just invented a different economic model and motivated it by jizzing-out some quantum stuff for no reason apart from to spice it up.
@@SimonWoodburyForget Which demonstrates the fallacy of superposition and entanglement.
@@SimonWoodburyForget "Sums up hype on the internet pretty well" If you take this part of your comment out I'd say you make a good point. I disagree with it. But still, well thought out. The greed which exists in human nature was necessary for survival as humans first walked the planet. Unfortunately this trait is still with us and may be our downfall before all is said and done. I do not believe either one of these young women is guilty of hype in this video. I found it educational and entertaining. No disrespect to you sir. You have a right to your opinion just like all of us. Cheers, John Noe
@@SimonWoodburyForget maybe you force cooperation by going over this video with your gang before the heist.
I agree. This shows the fallacy of game theory. It assumes not just a lack of altruism, but a positive desire for destructive selfishness. Neither of those things is inevitable. In real life you will know your collaborator and can make some educated estimates of their behaviour. Since you each benefit the most from saying nothing, that's the best strategy and it unifies you, unless the other person is horrid. As you say, you can also just talk beforehand about what to do if you get caught.
Great video.
"It's actually not that hard to wrap your head around if ..." - I love that sentence.
...it's a common phrase?
"It's not that hard to understand if you just forget everything you know about the world."
This is the probably the most concise and accurate description of what learning quantum mechanics feels like that I've ever heard.
Wonderfully made video. I am slightly astonished, I must admit, that actual scientific conference talks usually get 300-400 views on RUclips when they are much seen, while this has reached almost 170.000 views. Thanks so much for so nicely covering our work in any case - masterfully done.
She turns every video into pure gold!!!
Clear explanation, technically well-finished images, nice in acting.
I love this channel!!
Okay, great video, (I subscribed to your channel) but I would like to correct some things that I saw when you showed the payoff matrix, and some terminology that you used about the Nash Equilibrium. First, USE NEGATIVES! This is a very important part of weighing outcomes, especially when it comes to calculating the probability of mixed strategies. Basically, you have positive outcomes and negative outcomes, and 0 is not a positive outcome. You could argue that they are just back where they started, but they actually have a better life then before, considering they are done with the experience.
Now a little bit about the Nash Equilibrium. Yes, what you said is correct, but you are missing one important factor that could clear up some people's confusion (that I know exists, because I had it when I started game theory). What you are using is an iterated game, and especially in this case, it is important to note that a NE is not necessarily the best outcome, just one that is inherently stable.
But great video!
Some constructive criticism. If your video is about something (how quantum theory relates to the prisoners dilemma), it's sort of frustrating if you don't fully explain that. I liked your video but was frustrated that you buried the lead. Good luck for future videos.
Yes. She could have left the in-depth prisoner's dilemma, quantum state and quantum entanglement stuff out; there are dozens of videos about that. We want to know how the q-move works!
lede... bury the lede
Obviously the mathematical proof was a challenge to make intuitive but I agree, it was the subject of the video and had to be addressed.
Why not show the characters both grab a single coin and toss it in the air? The coins are revealed (the wave collapses) and you explain what the outcomes are.
Why copy and paste your stupid Google search? Go away.
Yes, I'm mad that there are stupid people like you that ruin useful videos like this.
Why does Diana have cuffs and you don't?
mine broke :(
Dianna wanted to have some?
@@patb9375 are you really.....?
Those were quantum cuffs...It was both on and off at the same time...
I harken back to the movie "War Games" for the quote: "the only winning strategy is not to play".
Physics Girl sent me here!
Interesting video, but what exactly is the "Q-move"? As in applying it to the prisoner's dilemma will ensure both prisoner's don't snitch, but what is it exactly? Just some theoretical quantum thing that can't be applied to real life? Was hoping you were going to explain this. But interesting video!
Right. I've heard of this paper before, but it always seemed to me that it left the prisoner's dilemma unchanged. Like, Dianna and Jade still only have two real moves: snitch or not.
Doesn't seem like the warden is going to let them do some sort of quantum snitching and then erase it if the q-bit comes out right. Even if he did, it seems like the best strategy is to lie to the other by operating on the q-bit as if they weren't going to snitch, but then snitch.
So regardless what they read in the q-bit, the best move is still to snitch.
My first thought was it had some to do with the EV bomb test; too lazy ta read das paper, tho
If your system can be constrained by the laws of superposition and entanglement then you have the choice of obeying the “Q move” which ensures that the entanglement resolution is the choice made on both sides. It’s suggesting how quantum systems can be used to improve the outcome of game theoretic scenarios
I came from physics girls channel, enjoyed the vid. You have found yourself a new subscriber. Keep up the good work. And thank you :)
This is such a good channel. Ive been subscribed for about a month and I am definitely satisfied. Keep up the good work!
my quantum sense is tingling .. i should subscribe instantaneously
The part that you "didn't exactly go into" is exactly the part that I wanted to know.
Soooooo,,,like a sheet of paper ,,REMEMBER I HAVE INFINTI power and TIME BABy,,, they always skip that part,,,,,I set YOU down on the sheet and YOU are in the MIDDLE of INFINITY your entire LIFE,,,not one day not one second YOUR ENTIRE LIFE,,,,now,,,i set the next sheet down on or under YOU ,,,and that persons,,,INFINITY they LIVE IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE,,,which is HALF of my LIFE,,,,I move,,,stretch, YUP,,sssstretch,,,,it the FANTASTIC four was a hint,,,now THEY feel OUTSIDE you but they TOO are in the MIDDle,,,just one mIDDLE yeah,,right>,,,,so NOW i put ONE MORE SHEET on top of or UNDER their INFINITY,,,oh,,YEah,,we gettting there man ,,,gimme a minute,,HOW LONG IS a minute dad?,,,shti it dont know YOU ALL made this stuff up,,,I JUST WORK WITH IT,,,,,ok keep going,,thanks DUMB DUMB,,,now set over there and listen to techno and let me use your hands for a while,,,is that BETTER mister MR.....,,,what?,,,im listening to techno CRYSTal method,,,thru a CRYStal,,,kid,,,let it go already,,,and give me that terrible tasting carrot back,,,,you dont want it after where I PUT IT,,,in my black hole,,,OH DAD,,,,yes dumb dumb,,,?,,,nothing ,,,,keep showing them,,,OK,,,be a little quieter and GIMME THE SHT stick orange it is,,,,HERE,,,it stinks,,,,YEAH,,,I LIKE MY FLAVOR,,,,,,Oh,,,the third sheet of paper,,,yeah that thing,,,I stretch it LIKE THE FAN 4 stretch man,,and there we go,,,3 infinity,,,,but,,,oh i gotta do all the dOGs,,cats,,,trees,,the car,,,and the bird that just flew by giving me the finger
Hmm, couple of things that can lead to some big misconceptions,
Schrodinger actually meant the cat to be an absurd paradox, not really something that happens. (To cats, or other macro scale objects that is.) There have been interpretations of the physics that imply it does happen, but there is a lot of nuance to it and its never really accurate to say the cat is alive or dead based on a human looking at it.
Also I dont think it was made at all clear that no information travels instantaneously in entanglement. You can not send any kind of signal between people who have entangled particles. A classical channel of information is always required to make use of it. Not realising that is a common mistake which leads people to believe you can communicate faster than light with entanglement. Unfortunately, (Or perhaps fortunately given what that could do to causality if it worked.) there is no known way to do it.
Game theory AND quantum mechanics! My brain hurts, but in a good way! Great collab Jade, editing was spot on. ;)
"Stop someone cheating by using photons" ?
You mean... like... not leave them out of sight?
The funniest thing I find about Schroedinger's cat is that he was trying to show the absurdity of the proposed explanation, but it turned out to be right.
Well this “quantum” stuff seems idiotic for me. So you just assume that until you measure / see / touch something - it is not defined or not there ??? Don’t know about yours but the only world I have ever been to doesn’t work like that.
1. [About bits] If I put a “1” in a box , and give the box to you , in my world you would say : “ There is either a “1” *or* “0” in that box no matter I open the box or not, and NOT say “There are both a “0” *and* a “1” in there before I open the box”
2.In your weird world you are talking about If i close my eyes then my TV that is in front of me *either* exists or not , until I open my eyes - then it would be one or another ? And if I sleep in this “quantum” world then the universe (including) myself stop existing (either exist or not until I open my eyes) ? Because in my world if I close my eyes or sleep , my TV stays in place and the universe still exists.
3. i am very open-minded to listen and try to understand any opinion or explanation about this subect . Feel free to reply.
Wait... So could you transmit information at speeds waaaay faster than light using quantum entanglement?
For complicated reasons, no, you actually can't.
So the situation described was just a hypothetical, you can't actually have them entangled from such long distances?
Physics girl is so damn fine with those big eyes of hers & very pretty face too AND she's a math genius? Lol how do you even approach a woman like this.
Physics girl was instrumental in talking about the infinity that keep speeding up and moving away from us that was instrumental
why didn't we have the quantum equilibrium in our economics class when presenting game theory?^^
6:10 I don't understand. What are you talking about? I have a Qibit and suddenly Diane keeps quiet?
but how do you use the q bit
I guess it's convenient, but I think physicists need to eventually stop talking about "wave function collapse." Everything is a quantum system, including your macroscopic measuring devices. Making a measurement doesn't collapse a wave function. It causes two quantum systems (the thing being measured and the measuring device) to interact, resulting in a new combined quantum system and corresponding wave function. That new combined wave function makes it appear that the smaller quantum system has chosen one out of its many possible superposition states, but what you did by measuring it is radically alter the nature of the system you're trying to measure. Moreover, "where is the electron" is a bad question, and as a result, when you ask a bad question like this, you get a bad answer that looks like the electron "collapses" to a single a location. The Schrödinger equation only tells us the probability of finding something in a location if we look there. It's just a mathematical model that fits the data, it gives no insight into what might be the real underlying phenomenon, and it's pretty much universally agreed among physicists that the Copenhagen interpretation is a bad and misleading interpretation.
Thank you. Though, I guess I get why channels that endeavor to simplify the ideas do so in the way they do. It's more useful than the woo woo that is often associated with quantum-anything in pop culture. We need to start uplifting the general public if we're going to shift towards quantum computing, same as we did a couple generations ago with digital technologies and the basic concepts of the atom and electrons.
Oh Diana, get better.
Leave it to the ladies to lead the way thank you thank you thank you can you know who is that coming from
Didn't quite get the Q-move. What is it exactly? Needed more elaborate explanation
It's that you both have evidence, for the involvement of the other person, that get leaked in case the other snitches.
FactoryofRedstone so you know what ur partner is going to say?
Definitely need more info on the Q-move. Can't just gloss over it like that! :/
At 1:02, Dianna is wearing some math dress. Where did you get it from Dianna? I want a t-shirt like that.
But you forget when that person gets out of jail They might want some revenge.
That would be the iterated prisoner dilemma.
Lucky you for such a great collab!!!
For some sick reason, I laughed so hard at the qubit jumping on her face when she opened the box.
This is just a small part of what we must use in quantum physics. Since on the quantum level, existence does not operate by any known human logic, we use probability and statistics rather than accurate and definitive thinking. Now, you self-proclaimed physicists have fun trying to rip apart what I just stated.
If it didn't operate by any known human logic, we'd be incapable of describing it's rules. ;p
But yes, the logic of it is very strange and seems rather alien at first glance.
Why is statistical mechanics not 'accurate and definitive'? Only a very outdated Newtonian dogma would conflate statistical with inaccurate.
You are making quantum physics as my daily thought process day by day, thank you very much. Explanation are quite nice.
First glance I thought you were both giving each other the middle finger
I wish you had been my classmates in High School.
table @ 6:11... it looks too confusing (if not wrong)...
1. why it is 3,3 for lower left and top right?
as long as one of them stay quiet, 3 is impossible to appear... regardless of the quantum dice..
2. the pair of "top middle" & "bottom middle" AND the pair of "left middle" & "right middle"
as long as one of them snitch,,, how is it even possible the other's choice can flip the outcome?
Two hot, smart girls who love physics, I'm in heaven!
The thing that always gets forgotten about Schrodinger's Cat is that Schrodinger himself was not a fan of quantum mechanics and he meant that particular thought experiment to be an example of how ridiculous quantum mechanics is.
I already knew about the prisoners dilemma and about quantum entanglement. I came to see how you combined them, but apparently your title was clickbait. For shame.
One of my two favorite female brainiacs!
Bit = binary digit ???????????
This explains what technically "risk taking" is
physics girl !!!!!!!
I've never subscribed to anything as quickly and enthusiastically as I have to this. I'm not even halfway done with the first video. I love physical science, I love social science, and I like the branch of philosophy that connects the two: this is awesome!
its very sad what happened to Dianna. she has long coved
In the table at 6:13, the point (Q-move, Q-move) doesn't seem to be a Nash equilibrium. Why does it stay stable then? In other words: If I choose to go Q-move, what prevents my opponent from forgetting about that quantum stuff and just snitch?
Two of my favorite RUclipsrs, at least in the category of physics. Always have interesting ways to demonstrate what you're trying to say.
why did schrodinger kill his cat?
Wow! I just realised that you don't have 1M subs. From the start, I was thinking that you would have! Such was the quality of your video👍
Well, she is rapidly approaching 200K (as of 6/2020) which is quite an achievement. But it is literally a crime (punishable with 3 years in quantum jail?) that she doesn't have 1M
Great concept, but the lack of explanation for the Q Move was disappointing. Wasn’t that the point of the video?
Good video, but it seems as though it's quite simplified.
Take Schrödinger's cat. This thought experiment was invented by Schrödinger to show how quantum effects like superposition don't actually apply on a macroscopic scale. The cat is either dead or alive but cannot be in a superposition of both states because it's a macroscopic object, and wave function collapse happens all the time in macroscopic objects, which is why they behave like classical objects. Saying wave function collapse happens when you open the box is only good as an analogy if you clearly state that it IS an analogy, why it's not possible and the "observer" from the observer effect really is any kind of interaction with the outside of the quantum system. Which, in this case, will happen with or without someone to open the box, on a microscopic scale.
Sure, quantum physics is hard and very counter-intuitive, but maybe it would be more useful to really dive into it and still try to explain it in a way that's not too overly complicated. I mean, I'm sure that you know what you're talking about and that these simplifications are only here to help people understand, and I think many people will understand it's an analogy, but some viewers won't get the subtle nuances, like how superposition is not being in several states at the same time. Instead, it's a distinct kind of continuous quantum state which determines the probabilities of being in one of the discrete classical states when wave function collapse occur.
Really, I have no problem with the use of analogies and oversimplification, only with not showing what they really are : a convient way of trying to understand complex concepts faster. I think we should all try to remind ourselves that "all models are wrong, some are useful".
Anyway, I hope that helps. Other than that, I don't think there is anything else to improve in your explanation.
Thanks for that! I'm so frustrated to see the same misunderstanding of the Schrödinger's cat over and over again, because people actually think that a cat can be dead and alive at same time. After they have learn wrong things like that, it's quite impossible to teach them anything about real world.
+William Lambert
There isn't anything wacky. The cat is either dead or alive, no superposition or non-collapsed wave function of the cat. You just don't know which one is the fate of the cat. Just like you don't see what happens behind your back. Nothing quantum about it.
Seemed like a useful analogy for explaining the superposition of qubits and the prisoners dilemma.
William Lambert
Do you mean, since you have no way of knowing what is in the box, regardless of the actual non-quantum state of the cat, in your mind, you cannot tell if it's alive or dead (assuming you have no way of exchanging information with the inside of the box), and that state of mind is kinda like a superposition from a philosophical point of view ? I mean, why not (and actually, this is pretty interesting), but... it's kind of off topic.
The argument I was making was about communication, I'm just worried this is not the best way to make people learn about quantum physics, or really about science in general, or actually, I think, about anything there is to learn. Analogies are good and super useful, but they're also dangerous if they look like they're about the actual thing you're trying to teach people about and give them a false impression of understanding. Which is a big problem. People aren't stupid; they're ignorant, as we all are. It's normal to struggle to grasp things as weird and complex as quantum physics, even the experts are pretty clueless. This is why I think it's a mistake to try and dumb down the topic in the hope that people will learn, instead of accepting the limitations of our poor brains and try to get something more valuable out of it, even if it means being confronted with our own ignorance.
I'm sure she meant no ill will, like many of the science communicators on youtube that do the same thing (especially in the US, although that's probably just my anecdotal impression). I don't really know if this is some kind of trend (though it's definitely not a problem with all science communicators, far from it) or if it's a niche thing, but this is definitely a big problem.
Ok, I have a couple questions. What does it mean for a wave function to "collapse"? And when you say that with macroscopic objects it happens "all the time" - what does that mean? Do you mean it's constantly happening, or happening at regular intervals in time, or what? I think my question is probably not-even-wrong, but hopefully you kinda get what I mean. I take for granted that a cat is either alive or not, and the idea that it's "in-between" is nonsense. I'm really not even sure what "macroscopic" means. I'm a chemist: from my POV, photons barely exist, electrons are tiny, proteins are HUGE, and Fluffy the Cat is utterly inconceivable. Cats are macroscopic, so superpositions don't apply - ok. What criteria determines whether an object is macroscopic or not? What is the dividing line?
Hey nice. I just discovered your channel. Great going. Please do keep making Physics videos. The world needs as many Physics preachers as possible to create newer and newer Physics enthusiasts.
I have had great Physics Teachers in my life. Many would not have the same. I hope they get that from all these Physics channels like yours, Physics girl, Veritasium and many others.
Don't consider what some shit people say. You are doing a great job. Keep going.
So, you also talk about computer science? Nice! You got my follow! Btw, Diana sent me here
Great video! It's so good to see the channel grow! I'm here from 1000 and now you are collaborating with physics girl! 👍
Aren't the 3,3 and 5,0 on q-move row/column switched? it's like... if she stayed quiet the optimum play for me is snitch her, giving me a 5,0 (or 0,5)
I watched "Physics Girl" a few times and was hoping for some real physics but found that she dumbed everything down and had some pretty lame content. I unsubscribed "Physics Girl". I stumbled across your channel and was delighted that you make it fun while keeping content based solidly in math or physics. Thanks. I have subscribed and hope you quickly overtake Dianna and her lame content.
OMG... quantum science is NOT science! Superposition?? You mean, "unknown"... just stop!!
About the Spinning: a Ball WIth a Center line drawn on it, Spin it one Direction, Then Mark The SPinning Direction of the Upper part With an Arrow and Do the same with the Lower part of the ball. You Looking at it from Above , it would be ClockWise and looking at it from underneath Would be Spinning Anti-Clockwise ...
How on earth do I find this channel only know? Thanks Physics Girl.
Two of my favorite people on the Internet ! "The judge gives you BOTH 3 years for dishonesty and, ....................wait for it.....................being bad friends!" LLOOLLOOLL
Cheers, John Noe
I love your channel 😄
I knew quantum in advance, yet I like encouraging science, so I subscribed ^___^ go ahead. LIKE that
The prisoner's dilemma doesn't work. If you snitch, you both go down. Ask any policeman.
Game Theory was invented by a strategist with Schizophrenia. In reality assumptions in Game Theory are wrong about people. I don't think it can be applied like this in reality (good in theory on a paper, in reality maybe not so much). You can find the in depth overview and interviews (including the man who invented Game Theory) in documentaries made by Adam Curtis. It is over serveral ones, but game theory part can be found in the documentary "The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom", documentaries after that deal with the results (mostly).
So it showed me the feed back loop yesterday...like a speaker and WE are the speaker and all THIS OUT HERE the microphone....the power SHARE is out of balance and like a microphone if unchecked it’s a positive GAIN LOOP ...until the speaker is .....destroyed...or you BALANCE the loop....that is ALL the creator does is BALANCE...we call it good or bad.....the Buddhist say “IF YOU CAN WRITE IT DOWN...that...is....not.....it”. Meaning the creator of all life cannot be explained in any book no matter how much you WRITE!
As far as my understanding goes, superposition doesnt mean that the particle/bit is in both states at once, it means it is on a circle radius 1 in a coordinationsystem like with imagnary numbers. So 1 translates to (1,0) and 0 to (0,1). Beeing "in both states" could be interpreted as (0,707/0,707) {2^0.5 / 2 } or any other combination resulting in a length as one
Hi.........I came here from physics girl channel ..........I found your channel good ...keep it up.......
Fun fact! You can create a REAL life entangled particle system super easy. It's barely an inconvenience.
First, get yourself a deck of cards. Now throw out all the cards except for the Ace of Hearts and the Ace of Spades. Shuffle your two aces up so you now no longer know what one is what and then put them in envelopes so you can't see them. Boom! your Aces are now in a superposition of being BOTH an Ace of Hearts and an Ace of Spades and are entangled. Give one of the envelopes to your friend and have your friend fly to the other side of the world.
Now you can collapse your card's superposition at ANY time by just opening up that envelope you kept and looking at the card. As soon as you do that it is now either an Ace of Hearts or an Ace of Spades and the superposition of the OTHER card ALSO collapses at the EXACT same moment you look at your card.
Of course... now you can perhaps see a couple of minor flaws in entangled particles...
1) The superposition of the two cards only collapses for you, NOT your friend. Just because you now know the state of both cards, to them both cards are in a superposition.
2) You can not use this to INSTANTLY transfer information from one place to another. It still took you however long it took to get one of those cards from this side of the world to the other side of the world.
3) When you looked at your card NO information was passed to the other side of the world. Sure you could get on the phone and tell your friend the results but because of 1 and 2, you aren't magically transferring information from one end of the world to the other.
Now imagine if you will instead of playing cards, you had a set of instructions in each envelope. You might write something like this on both "You have been caught by the police, and have reason to believe your ally has as well. In such an event you have been assigned the following tasks...".
Everything else about this though remains the same as the playing card entangled thing. When you open your envelope for guidance, you know what guidance you received, and you now also know what guidance your ally has received (though you don't know if they've looked at it or not). But that's all. You have no way of now telling your ally to open their envelope and do their end of things. You also have no way of knowing if your ally opened their instructions. Perhaps you know that if your ally opened their instructions that they'll follow them to the letter (as this is a logic puzzle after all), but again you just simply do not know if they have opened them or not. As it is a logic puzzle you can be sure that if they were also caught that they would have checked their instructions.
Effectively introducing a Q bit to the prisoner's dilemma is saying "As criminals, you get to make a plan before getting caught on what to do if you find yourself in the prisoner dilemma." but that's about it.
Subscribed after your Tom Scott video, really excited about your content and already happily sharing links with both my wife and brother. Thanks for your awesome work!
To explain how you could use entanglement to send messages over distance, if you design an 'obstacle course' for one of your entangled particles so that it has a 5% chance of interacting if it's spin up, but a 95% chance if it's spin down. Now imagine you sent thousands of entangled particles on that course. The other particles they are entangled with will collapse the spin as well, but not at the 50/50 rate one would expect if not entangled, but at that 5% 95% you coaxed into them with your obstacle course. You can use this probabilistic anomaly to transmit information.
As you can see, sending information this way is inherently fuzzy and prone to error, but it's manageable with adequate error correction.
Your show reminds me of a documentary about a Greek mathuticuanv who was doing the same math we use to take us into space. His work was lost dir hundreds of years. What mb akevhis CD work notable was he was explaining things as your doing. Very nice, because I understand all this only I'm not very good at solving equations but understanding quantum mechanics in s as clear as mud...but growing up, next to English, math was my worst subject because of how it was tsught I've come to learn... thank you, peace
No one could ever explain the dead cat and the q-bits to me and why everyone things that things are happening only when you measure it. There are so many other explanations. For example the cat is either dead or alive, but you don't know the information. It's the same with q-bits. There was an electronic die that uses high frequency clock to rotate through all the possible combinations many times when you press a button. When you let go it shows a truly random number. That's because the 1. frequency of measurement is much-much lower than the frequency of rotation and 2. there are invisible (to the player) factors that alter that frequency slightly - temperature instability, electromagnetic interference, aging of electronic components. So you still get random numbers even if you push the button with very accurate frequency.
So why do everyone find the q bit and entanglement with other q-bit strange. What if it's just oscillating with very high frequency more than anything known to men. You'll say if you measure it with constant frequency it'll just alias with lower frequency to create a repeating sequence. Yeah, but you don't know much about q-bits. What if there is some interference that's altering the q-bit in a way that you cannot predict. You'll say "entangled". There are many possible explanations for that too. What if the frequency is so high that you can't really imagine it. And what if it's so stable that it's million times more stable than the most stable frequency that you can measure it with. Then the interference is actually in the measuring device (which sounds reasonable). So you create the two q-bits and they oscillate together with 180 degree out of phase . You'll say what if we don't measure them in the same direction - why you don't notice consistent results? Well they are not really spinning, right. Maybe Your model is wrong and comparing the "spin" with spinning is what makes it look random and unpredictable.
Derek tried to explain how they tested if two entangled bits are moving in predefined fashion. I didn't quite understand it, but at the end he said the experiment didn't convince all the scientists in the either of the two options - 1. predefined patterns or 2. communicating instantly beyond the speed of light even when far away.
Now all the Universe scientific knowledge turned towards Hinduism knowledge 🛐🛐🕉🕉🕉🛐🛐
The whole point of the Prisoner Dilemma is that you can't comunicate and make a contract. If you can guarantee what the other Person ist doing with QBit or a unbreakable contract, then there is no Dilemma. BTW nice channel and content.
Great video!
I have never heard of game theory before today!
4:47 I think some of these observations have to do with our perspective. If you crossed your eyes looking at one ball, you would see two balls at some distance apart doing exactly the same thing. I'm not suggesting that this explains entanglement, but scientists need to think outside of their linear propositions, and ask themselves (or theoretical mathematicians/physicists) in what way(s) could this phenomenon occur that have nothing to do with our preconceptions? Could it be that distance is an illusion? Could it be that you've somehow opened two frames of reference to observe the same particle? Just my perspective.
Mmmm, what if you entangled particles for faster WiFi?
4:12 and now I know how a superposition looks like. Will keep that in mind for my next date. :>
Can someone explain what a q-move is? How does a player do a q-move? Does he check his qubit and use it as an oracle? Does he set his qubit, and by entanglement, the other qubit is set too? How is this different from given them both a mobile phone or any other communication channel?
Hi! I'm new here and just wanted to let you know that this video has made me VERY interested about quantum physics......... So thank you!😁
glad to hear! :)))
Watch our great video on Quantum Computers - ruclips.net/video/_M0PMrzkIDE/видео.html
I'm wondering to what extent each of your very different responses to being set free reflects your actual personalities 😉
so either i commented on this video or i didn't
and only when you look will the comment be there or not
and then either you will reply or not
and only when i look will your reply exist or not
The reason John Nash won an economics Nobel, is because he introduced it as a problem in said field, and it went something like this:
Imagine two companies, A and B, sell the same product. Let's say, tobacco.
If either company advertises their own product, their income will take a 10% hit.
If neither A nor B advertise, their income will stay at 100%
If A decides to advertise, but B does not, A gets a 40% bonus, at a total of 130%; B stands at 100%
If B decides to advertise, But A does not, it's B that gets a 40% bonus, at a total of 130%; A stands at 100%
If both, A and B advertise, customers will have added awareness of both companies equally, so their income will decrease by 10%. So both will be at 90%.
It's just like the prisoner's dilemma, but instead it's a scenario about company rivalry.
So what happens when u bring a really hot particle and combine it with another hot particle into a single video? 😉
great colab:
Now you just need to add Looking Glass Universe then we have a true physics dream team. :-)
If just 10% of physics girls's subs subscribe to you your channel will increase approximately 8 times. No pressure :-)
Or maybe a video on pressure.
Well done.
Did you say "...caught rubbing a bank..." ?? Talk about bank molestation