NEW RESULTS! Cosmic Quantum Bell Test
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- Try 23andMe at 23andme.com/phy...
Original paper: journals.aps.o...
How do you test quantum mechanics with ancient stars? A new experiment aims to close loopholes to the iconic "Quantum Bell Test", with new results published in Feb. 2017!
If you liked this video check out these:
What is a Black Hole? - Stephen Hawking's final theory
• What is a Black Hole? ...
Why aren't plants black? 🌿
• Why aren't plants blac...
Creator/host: Dianna Cowern
Animator: Kyle Norby
Writer: Sophia Chen
Editor: Jabril Ashe
/ thephysicsgirl
/ thephysicsgirl
/ thephysicsgirl
physicsgirl.org
Paper:
journals.aps.o...
Photo of detector thumbs-up and quantum receiver apparatus photo: Thomas Scheidl
Guth/Zeilinger/Kaiser photo: Ari Daniel
Cosmic Bell Group photo: Courtesy Dave Kaiser
Music: APM and RUclips
This is actually one of my absolute favorite videos of PhysicsGirl. I couldn’t stop thinking about quantum mechanics and entanglement for months. This video, along with many of the other quantum mechanics related videos, convinced me to take on a physical chemistry (I’m a chemistry major) class on quantum mechanics. Although I concentrate in biochemistry, quantum mechanics still absolutely fascinated me!
Diana! You are so into what you are talking, it's hard not to get excited watching and learning from your vids. And got really nice finishing touches on the animations too - props to Kyle.
Channels like yours inspired me to start my channel in English. Even have a small clip of you in my intro. Sending you positive vibes from Turkey! Keep doing your thing!
Woohoo more kewl channels!
So what you're basically saying is: "everyone, I have a channel, please sub to me!"
KnoSci q
iSquared Yes. That's not a bad thing.
You rub my back I'll rub yours youtube channel commercial.
Thanks for simplifying this experiment for lay people. The graphics help more than any text-based explainer could. The interview with Kaiser was icing on the cake.
I love this channel! I have no idea about what Dianna explains but, makes me think how humble we should stay about what we really know about everything around us.
Thank you Physics Girl ❤
She is very entertaining as well as intelligent but a lot of what she says goes over my head. Like, how do you measure the spin of a particle and how do you entangle them?
a) I like that the kittens are asleep or awake instead of dead or alive.
b) That's a lot of little kittens you have there! :O
Not everyone likes cats believe it or not. I like mice and other little rodents.
Ian MacDonald
live taste better...
Able Baker my neighbour catches and eats cats. does big batches in her wok
The future is relative to the energy and momentum of the cat!!!
now throw in the fact that cats have 9 lives . now do you have to kill 9 to save one.i think that would be be better then neutering or as i would say castration . just saying
Hi Dianna! Love the clarity in your explanation. I attended David Kaiser's lecture at MIT Museum where he explained this experiment, but that was the first time I heard the term "quantum entanglement". Things make more sense now! I am giving a presentation on entanglement at the department colloquium of my uni tomorrow
isn't it true that every particle in the universe is entangled with every other. they were all one point once.
Great piece! I've been working with Central Square Theatre and the MIT Museum on a one-act play about the experiment and entanglement which is running on certain weekend afternoons at the MIT Museum through the end of the August. Working with Dave and the other MIT scientists was a lot of fun. Wish we'd had your video to show to our actors when we started rehearsals!
You got Schrodinger's Cat wrong. Its actually a counter example for the application of quantum mechanics to macroscopic objects. Its meant to demonstrate a flaw in our interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Nope, you've got it wrong. In the original thought experiment, the cat lived or died according to whether a single atomic nucleus underwent a decay (the decay would be detected by a device that would then release poison that would kill the cat). The experiment clearly shows exactly how to extend superposition to macroscopic objects.
Thank you Michael for getting this "orientation" and history correct.
@Michael
I'm afraid you're merely perpetuating a misconception. A quick 10 second google search is all you need to disprove your point of view. But hey, I'm nice so I'll do it for you:
*From Schrödinger, Erwin (November 1935). "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics)". Naturwissenschaften. 23 (48): 807-812.*
---- > "According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state is observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics"
+GDI _"But hey, I'm nice so I'll do it for you:"_
It's your claim, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.
You cite a paper by Schrodinger, and then give a quotation that refers to him in the third person. I find it very hard to believe that the quoted passage comes from the cited paper.
I did all the work of finding it, now if you actually care if you're right you'll read it.
You're truly the best Dianna. Your explanations are cogent, extremely well narrated, easy to understand, memorable and you always manage to deliver well-timed banter remarks. You're the new Carl Sagan (a person I greatly admire)!
Bingo! A new Carl Sagan!
Actually, superposition is a very normal phenomenon. My subwoofer is both a speaker and my nightstand.
Speaker/nightstand product commercial.
You're saying that the more accurately you measure its speakerness the more uncertainty you have about its nightstandedness? Sounds legit.
Its a floor wax and a dessert topping...
00crashtest Nice.
Lol.
What Schrodinger was really criticizing in his famous letter to Einstein that included the cat was the idea that there is something special about "observation". (And he was right, which is why we don't usually use that term in physics anymore, it leads to the misleading notions that Schrodinger criticized.)
Einstein had forgotten that he had previously said something very similar to Schrodinger and so Schrodinger was given credit. Einstein told him it was a brilliant idea, forgetting that Einstein had actually thought of it first.
Just found out I'm quantum mechanics. I'm both awake and sleeping at the same time.
Wow, you're amazing
I watched you while you were sleeping so no, you were asleep.
Thats the alcohol.
Tell that to your supervisor.
no, you're just Schrodinger's cat.
I love your videos, always. They are great.
I only have one thing: audio volume, please when creating final output, set volume to max, and let the viewer adjust volume. That way you make audio less noisy for us too.
Keep it up, more about quantum physics and all the weirdness it has.
As far as I know, entangled objects don't affect each other. What's correct is only the other part of the statement: knowing the state of one of them lets you know the state of the other one; that is to say, if you shake the box to wake up a kitten, the other kitten would not be put to sleep by your action.
Sort of. If I have two socks, left and right and someone puts them in separate boxes, opening one lets me determine the contents of the other. However The Bell Inequality shows that in fact entangled particles behave differently than this, it seems they can't be set up 'at the start' and then have nothing else to do with one another, there has to be an actual link of some kind.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this educational and entertaining video. Great job. Hope that each day you are feeling better than the day before.🙏
Love your videos, but the sound is really soft on this one. Can you boost it a bit for future episodes?
Thanks! Love you, your effort and enthusiasm!
+G. Scott Taulbee yah thanks for the note. I'm not sure what happened on this video!
Physics Girl The sound was low because it was deadened by all the plush animals.
Chaosnaut God is light
God has saven colors
The thing about testing is not about being sceptical, it is about being curious.
What happens under these new circumstances?
Most of the time, thing go according to plans and the physical laws as we know them.
When things however are not behaving as predicted, we are sceptical about the accuracy of the results, we do more tests to see if we can get repeats. And some times we find the flaws in the test (faster than light neutrinos) or there is just no way to repeat the results and we have to write it off as an unknown anomaly in the test setup and measurement.
Once we have verified results, we start looking at tweaking the laws as we know them to handle this new case, without invalidating everything else. This last part is quite important.
Skepticism is not about throwing away the old, it is about questioning the new data, until it is verified.
The first law of thermodynamics, you don't talk about thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics, you don't talk thermodynamics. #physicsclub
Altwerk Vyner Thank you.
Bless You.
Altwerk Vyner this legit made my week
Altwerk Vyner This joke is so original! I'm glad that someone in the internet is still doing this.
Altwerk Vyner
Is there a fate worse than heat death?
Altwerk Vyner dark death
Physics Girl, I love your videos! It really is fascinating to learn about these new studies in physics. Seeing you get so excited about it, it's hard not to get excited too! Looking forward to the next vid!
Before someone can understand why making the random number generator less questionable would close a loophole in the Bell's Inequalities (BI) experiment, someone would first have to understand the BI experiment. Before someone can understand the BI experiment, they would need to understand the reason for it. This is commonly explained by using the Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox. You need to learn about that too.
Physics Girl doesn’t bother with the background and jumps to her fascination of using starlight to generate random numbers to determine detector angles in a BI experiment. Physics Girl overdoes the fascination. (To her credit, she justified this style of education in another video.)
For those of you who didn’t follow the reasoning of the video, there’s no need to self-blame. You just need to start elsewhere. If you do, it’s worth it.
BI addresses the primary question of the universe. It’s where knowledge hits the wall.
Nehmo Sergheyev Your comment is extremely pertinent. A lot of presentations on entanglement and superposition repeat the same mantra to amaze viewers but fail to go anywhere near answering my question. I continue to have trouble understanding "instantaneous"causality by measurement in the face of the obvious alternative that twiddling with your detector at a macro scale does nothing to how you'll measure the pauli-excluded quantum states. Better reference is what I seek... and the popular science presenters all tediously repeat each other.
Nehmo Sergeyev, you give too much credit to someone who stands in front of a mirrror and thinks that mirror flips anything, just to say. That starlight - control is just another shiny-polished bullcrap random number generator. I don't see it as different, as there has to be a human-generated algorithm to translate the polarisation, which algorithm in the end is as good as a random number generator. Maybe I lack data/knowledge but to me it rather seems that either the experimenter lacks logic or relies on the lack thereof with potential funders.
Chris King - that's it - they are repeaters. The human mind knows questions that can't be answered. The old philosophy/metaphysics tried to somehow answer them. The modern glorified metaphysics, called quantum mechanics to pose it as real science, on the other hand, gives answers that can't be questioned. It's decided, it's agreed, then a few years later...it was wrong! But you may not question the basics of this religion, as that would disturb them while -wor- playing with light sensors and lasers, comfortably consuming public funds. Once disturbed, they would have to realise all the problems of the world, the hungry, the discriminated, the homeless, and they would need a safe space, I think. Or bullies. Fear of getting bullied would help them produce less bullcrap.
These popular science repeaters just help setting beliefs in stone.
Yes. Schrödinger was presenting a _reductio ad absurdum._
But after the manner of many physicists, he added a bit of whimsy to make it more memorable. This would make it memorable alright, but the absurdum part is lost on the modern generation for whom Latin is something you add to goth movies to make it mor gothy. They seize on the whimsy: 'gee, quantum mechanics is really weird'.
Were he alive today and making youTube vids, Schroedinger would more flaty declare that the experimental inference is absurd, and here's what really goes down:
That cat is alive: We learn nothing, except that the nucleus didn't decay.
The cat is dead: We bring in a forensic pathologist to find out if rigor mortis has set in, or if the animal is still warm, and that way we get an accurate reading of about _when_ the cat died, and thus when the nucleus kicked the bucket as well.
That is to say, that there is no mystery about the matter whatsoever.
Locality(classical physics, relativity, mass etc) arises from nonlocality(quantum co-entanglement and quantum discord etc)! This occurs through differential relativistic quantum fractalization(quantum holographic fractal informational co-entanglement entropy, syntropy, syn-entropy and en-syntropy) or symmetry breaking(as well reforming) and forms new nonlocal co-entangled interrelationships via Light Time Dimension theory!
Bell's theory for those who haven't yet heard of spin, (or even Schroedinger's cat). Gonna work.
0:29 Vibrations and waves by A.P.French 😍
It's one of the best physics textbooks I've ever read!
Why are we assuming that the "two" entangled particles are *actually* distinct at all?
It could easily be one multi-dimensional particle. Consider two circles. You observe one rotating clockwise. The other is 100% guaranteed to be rotating counter-clockwise. Seems mystical and magical until someone points out "The circles are cross sections of the same sphere." Step it up one dimension: Two apparently unconnected 3d sphere's, could be cross sections of the same 4d sphere.
And, that's keeping things pretty simple "just spheres". Those circles could've been cross sections of something more complicated: an egg, a cone, etc. The possibilities in 4-space are much more extensive, and it's entirely possible there's more than just 4. Why not? (Prove it! Ha!)
So, I figure (like ALL statistics): Quatum mechanics is just shorthand for "I don't know all the variables."
ALL particles are really just one multi-dimensional particle, viewed from different perspectives in 3-space. (That is: Gluons, photons, higgs and quarks etc,.....are all the same thing, they just appear different depending on the 3d cross section we happen to be witnessing.)
In fact, given infinite dimensions.....ALL of reality, every apparent particle, could actually be different 3d view points of two multidimensional particles. As the position of these two god-particles change with respect to the other, everything we observe changes. Complicated enough that we can only predict small windows of behavior. The rest, we just enumerate, average and report the statistic.
Excellent video as usual. But I think the real question is. Does it actually communicate faster than 186,282 miles per second.? I heard there was evidence that it does not move faster then causality. But scenarios that can achieve faster-than-light speeds. Such as the expansion of the universe. Do exist. Is this really one of them. I hope so. And if it is. Then I would venture a guess that there is no actual communication. In that there is no set of information moving from one atom to the other. I think it would be more accurate to say. That even though they maintain different spatial locations. That in some way they are sharing a spatial location. And thus whatever you do to one you do to the other. Because for all intensive purposes it is the same thing. And that would be a truly instant reaction. I thought I heard that this mechanism was nailed down like a decade ago. I guess not. but finding out if it is. Is extra exciting.
I have to say I have never heard these words used in the same sentence "kittens, unicorns and quantum entanglement"....................Yup gets a subscription from me! Keep up the great work.
You can never talk enough about quantum mechanics. It's infinitely fascinating!
I didn't know this was what quantum mechanics was but I've always wanted a time machine to be like "would this happen if I said yes, and would it changed if it said no?"
❤️
Simply terrific! Using starlight as part of the experiment is such an elegant solution!
my ear phones wires are always entangled
The jacks aren't the correct dimensions to make the necessary contact with the channels
Possibly the deviation of tolerance is off for the channel contacts as well
Entanglement, the start of entropy. Everything in the universe seeks to be entangled with it's twin part, procreates in the process and then rots away.
Figure 8 me
Entanglement can be understood this way: all matter below around 120 atomic weight on it's own devices will be in the state of EM (electromagnetic) wave energy. There is no such thing as a particle below a certain atomic weight, it it's natural state. the wave becomes a particle when disturbed/observed. Think of it as you blow a bubble and it floats as a perfect sphere (wave movement) until it is popped by a disturbance. If you've ever seen a balloon pop in slow motion, the sheath (circumphercial sphere) actually retreats around the empty air of the sphere until it becomes a blob of rubber (the particle instead of the bubble) at the place opposite of wherever it was popped. Back to waves. All waves "travel" as in sinusoidal movement - upcrest, peak, change direction, down to center, negative crest, to negative peak, change direction, back to center. Quantam entanglement is this: by necessity, if this side of a wave starts as an upwards moving peak, the other end will be the negative peak returning to zero. Top peak one side, negative peak other side. Simple enough? Now, why is distance does NOT affected by time? Well, which reference frame are you in? To you, it takes the speed of light to go from your location to the other end of that EM wave. To you, if the wave is one light second long, you wonder why in time zero, if you "pop" (cause the wave to precipitate into a particle) one side if spin up (up crest) will cause in zero time, spin down on the other, there should be no mystery to understand. From your reference point, it should take one second, but it happens instantly, so you think the information is going at super luminal speed, but it is NOT. In the reference frame of the wave, travelling at light speed, all waves precipitate in time zero, because, as you approach the speed of light, time slows down. But, to the wave itself, going the speed of light, time has STOPPED. That's right, no matter how long a wave travels (without being and until it is disturbed/observed), it's span of distance occurs in NO TIME, within it's own reference frame, travelling at the speed of light. Deep breath. So hopefully, this is nothing mysterious, just really, really cool stuff that we need to learn how to use to our advantage. I love thinking about this stuff! PS - just purchased my acoustical levitation kit! Thanks for introducing me to that Physics Girl!
1. Yet entanglement happens with electrons, too. And atoms.
2. Light does have a maximum speed in my frame of reference, in which the experiment is done. No frame jumping.
3. Quantum entanglement is not simply wave crests, of course. even if it were, we could measure along an axis perpendicular to the crests.
It's like all our laws of our universe don't apply for quantum systems who seem almost outside the universe while they don't decay.
You should come by S.T.A.R. Labs sometime.
I don't know what that is. Google told me too many things.
Darn, that means your not a fan of the Flash. Oh well, you're still awesome though Dianna. Keep up the good work!
Barry Allen username checks out
Doesn't everyone who works for S.T.A.R. eventually meet a horrific fate?
The mysteries of RUclips. You watch the video, then open replies to 34 minute old comment to find 43 minute old reply...
"One effects the other, instantaneously.". So here we are dealing with simultaneousness. However, from a second frame of reference, Cat-A may seem to have been affected before Cat-B. And, from a third frame of reference, Cat-B may seem to have been affected before Cat-A. If you can understand how it is that all three of these different observations can occur, then you understand quantum mechanics.
How are entangled particles created?
Slowly. Or suddenly. Maybe both at the same time.
I wondered that myself. One way is using polarization. For example, use vertically polarized photons and send them through diagonal polarizers that also "split" the photon into 2 photons. You can "split" photons by passing them through non-linear crystals if the resulting photons have the same total energy as the first photon. So after passing through the polarizers, you don't know which way they come out polarized. Here's a good video that helps explain it visually: ruclips.net/video/FB1VWXe-fY4/видео.html
Physics Girl , RocketSurgeon thanks! So essentially the photon splits into a photon and it's anti-particle, another photon, but with opposite spin, is that correct or is this different? So is entanglement always between a particle and it's anti-particle or have I got this horribly wrong?
Nah, there are loads of ways to entangle a particle. For instance when an atom emits a photon and that photon can come from multiple different energy transitions now you have a photon entangled with the energy state of an atom. Measure the atom, and you know the state of the photon and vice versa.
its not a different photon, its the same photon but its properties has split into probabilistic states
Much easier than measuring light from the closer stars too! The source of all good random number generators does actually already come from the cosmic microwave background radiation - in the form of static - that is the noise influencing a simple transistor junction. You can measure part of the cosmic microwave background radiation with a wire (aerial) hanging out your window, but even better, use a focused dish to help remove local random "noise".. which is also wide band static noise anyway. Astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias measured it by accident in 1964.
Kitty asleep?
Wake up kitty!
Why doesn't th.... Daaaaad!!
Galo Aguirre you can kill the other cat and then this cat would live
Okay, heard enough of the mystical "Spooky Action at a Distance" Quantum Mumbo Jumbo. Here is a No-Go challenge for Bell’s Theorem.
The Bell’s Inequalities Challenge -
Can one by combining Macroscopic Real Objects with classical wave functions violate Bell’s Inequalities?
This can be achieved by using a large pool, small self-propelled model boats that do not have a steering system and a series of short parallel walls that can vibrate and produce waves.
First one has to create the parallel walls that are just wide enough so that if a boat is sent on a parallel direction to the canals created that they can reasonably pass through without the boats touching the wall (which would be a fail). Then send the boats on slightly canted angles and using classical wave mechanics most should hit the wall and fail the test and not violate Bell’s Inequalities.
Now vibrate those walls in which pressure from the waves creates a low-pressure zone in the center of those walls so that the boats will head that direction in a path that is parallel to the walls. The boats should then be able to Violate Bell’s Inequalities.
If that is achievable, then virtually every experiment in quantum physics should be reproducible using just local wave functions.
I'm a simple man, I see a physics girl upload, I watch, hit like and get back to overwatch.
Rick Sanchez we must me entangled
Josh Burgess Because you do exactly the opposite?
Rick Sanchez yep
Overwatch commercial.
I'm a complicated woman. I can't see a physics girl download, I unwatch, lightly tap the dislike and stop playing COD
The smart thing to do would be to take the results at face value. Since information cannot, in our matter-oriented reality, travel faster than the speed of light, at some level of existence the particles are not separated at all. We PERCEIVE them as separated. Same with the particle/wave duality. It's only duality due to our limited perception and perspective. We are made to "pluck the string" so to speak at fixed intervals. So we see this base frequency and its harmonics (the Planck length). Harmonics are probably why electrons can only exist at fixed intervals. They can't vibrate out of tune with the fundamental frequency, so when they loose (or gain energy), the hop to the next lower (or higher) harmonic, but never somewhere in between.
Re: No bias.
OR... OR his noodle-y appendage was at work!
A true believer! Praise be to pasta! May the meatballs be with you, always. Ramen!
The awe factor is the distance they can be seperated but yet communicate. Distance relates to the time it would take for information to propogate to space but time itself is an illusion.
Your audio is very low.
yes it is. my headphones barely keep up with the eating noise my mouth makes
I used to have a quantum phone cord...
Cheers PhysicsGirl, you make the barely intelligible surprisingly comprehensible! I was thinking about gravity the other day as I made a mental journey to earth's core and found myself to be badly crushed and burned but eerily weightless. The pull of gravity all around me was perfectly balanced resulting in zero G. I extrapolated these findings to the centre of exploding stars and realized the highest gravitational field strength would lie in an elliptical spheroid vector around it's core, and if a singularity were to form it would probably be initiated at either pole where lower centrifugal forces due to rotational velocity provided less counteractive force against the gravitational attraction. I only mention this as the singularities that give birth to black holes may be the birth of universes such as ours via the big bang seen from the outside of it's event horizon. The subsequent polarization of the singularity may be the explanation for our perceived lack of anti-matter in that a relative preponderance of either types of matter is produced at the opposite poles, perhaps even being flung in different temporal directions into the fledgling universe and so destined never to meet unless the universe were to eventually stop expanding and begin contracting into the big crunch. I'm not sure how much truth lies in these conjectures but if there is any at all I think it would explain the force or effects we ascribe to 'dark' this, that and the other. Hope this reaches you happy and healthy and if worthy of any thought you might be in a position to 'crunch' the numbers! Love and light from England x
What's to say the state of the two items in superposition isn't predetermined at the point of the entanglement process? I don't claim to know anything about this stuff, but it sounds like the trick is that as the lasers are fired from the source, their state of random polarisation is set, so it doesn't matter when you subsequently measure it, they will always be in phase with one another, and there is no quirky instantaneous communication in play. The cats' fates are decided as soon as they are magically entangled.
This option is called “local hidden variables”, and it’s exactly what this experiment rules out. Bell’s theorem states that given local hidden variables, the probabilities of certain outcomes must satisfy certain inequalities, but experiments show that’s not the case. Look up Veritasium’s “Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance” video for an in-depth explanation in simple terms. To understand entanglement itself, you may want to take a look at the Many Worlds Interpretation for a new perspective, where entanglement is actually the norm, and the opposite, called decoherence, is a special case.
I don't get it. The measured results would still be just the same as they would be when obserded, but instead of us observing one particle determining the state of the other, the states of the particles were all ready determined at their creation.
So the kittens aren't in both states until observed. One of them was created alive and the other one dead at the moment that they were entageled. We are just observing in which state they were originally created.
I don't really understand anything more than highschool physics though. Can we observe the same quantum particle multiple times? And can we change their state? As in observe a particle and its entngled partner, then affect the same particle to change it's state and confirm the change withe its partner? If thet is so then yeah it is spooky.
I Hope you get what I mean.
threeheadedpuppy I
+Renee Rehe _"Can we observe the same quantum particle multiple times? And can we change their state? As in observe a particle and its entngled partner, then affect the same particle to change it's state and confirm the change withe its partner?"_
Once either of an entangled pair interacts with something else, the entanglement is broken.
OK, so the entanglement is a one time thing. So who's to say the "entanglement" isn't just 2 linked particles that have the oppsoite values? How can we prove that the particle only has a value once we observe it? Maybe it allways had that value and the entangled particle the opposit value.
i swear this is better than what they teach us at school , Thank you !
My daughter will be born in a month, it would be wonderful if she were a physicist like you, of course, if she wants to.
Wallacy Freitas congrats!
Wallacy Freitas Is she awake and asleep at the same time while in the womb? XD
ElectricPyroclast Yes ;)
Overly zealous parent warning.
Great experiments. Adding next spatial dimension it explains it for me well. Electrons can entangle too and jump from orbit to orbit as well.
What's good
Synonymous sup fam
whats good wid it
I think the issue that people are having with "Entangled" particles is that they are not looking at two different particles that are entangled, but they are looking at one half of a particle that is in a higher dimension and so appears to be in two places at once.
Like a coin that exists in the 8th dimension. You see it spinning in New York and Orlando. You check which side is facing you while in New York and you see heads, so you know for a fact that Orlando is seeing tails at the same time.
Same coin in 8 dimensions. Not two entangled coins.
Entangled kittens are going to add to the complexity for years.
Dianna, I love you
By showing the Bell experiment, I think this video is one of the best explanations of entanglement in general. Also, thank you for changing the Schrödinger cat from dead/alive to sleeping/playing in the usual explanation, much much cuter and less morbid!
strange stuff...
Dianna! Great! I like many of your videos, but this one tops them all.
Please Physics Girl, don't take me wrong. I love your videos, and I need your help, meaning all physics communicators.
1. It's true, QM is more than 90 years old. Isn't time to check it out? I would suggest you read Steven Winberg's latest communication here: www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/ or you wouldn't begin to believe me. There are too many "anomalies" in QM- It's time for a scientific revolution.
2. The physics community will not accept this idea easily, and that is understandable - too many generations of physicists have been educated along QM paradigm. To trigger a scientific revolution we need innovators, and then early adopters - science communicators. The Physics community will be, at most, early majority, if you know what I mean in terms of diffusion of innovations.
3. The problem you address in this video is where the trigger is - Bell's experiments. I hope you will be curious enough to check wikipedia on this subject en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments , where you can read in the introduction, that the same Alain Aspect responsible for the influential 1982 Bell's experiments, late 2015 recognises that "No experiment can be said to be totally loophole-free". So there is no evidence of quantum entanglement. (by the way ... everytime you see a Bell's test performed with photons, please ask what were the detection efficiency of the detectors, because if less than 67,7% all Bell's tests performed with photons are inconclusive, meaning no way to affirm entanglement - and if they answer you it is over that number, you ask them what method they used to calculate that efficiency, and if it is not Klishko, you say Hummmm ...).
4. To finish this - you can now ask yourself why, the 3 major and unique quantum technologies proposed by QM, the quantum computer, quantum teleportation, and quantum encriptation, are all funded by companies that see the quantum computer as a threat to their secrets - both financial and military. No entanglement, no quantum computer. You see the problem?
That will be the major barrier to a scientific revolution in Physics - we take down entanglement, and the funding disappears.
I hope to hear from you soon.
scientific regards
Teresa (teresa.f.mendes@gmail.com).
You sound pretty biased, please provide evidence.
Hi Delysid,
Thank you for answering.
About being biased: I'm a revolutionary (of science). I believe physics is in a scientific crisis, today. And a scientific crisis is a phase where researchers begin to question the dominant paradigm. For that I gave you the evidence - Steven Weinberg, whose credibility is above questioning. When a physicist of his stature says he recognises that for many decades a whole community of very smart people has tried all possible ways to find a new solution for the "new physics" and that solution can come now from anywhere, I hope that that would make everybody think.
To help speed up this scientific revolution there is the need to show people that the core point that is inhibiting physics to evolve - the idea that Local Realism was experimentally rejected, is not true. For that I gave you several examples, but when Alain Aspect, the "father" of those falsification tests of Local Realism, called Bell's tests, declares publicly that there is no conclusive evidence for that, one should listen, even if those declarations were not as "clearly" stated as Weinberg's, but they are there, in writing, for the whole world to read.
Furthermore, all scientific community, all physics teachers and science communicators declare, without further checking, that "dozens of experiments, done by different teams during several decades prove the experimental rejection of Local Realism". There is a TED video on that subject done by Chad Orzel, ruclips.net/video/DbbWx2COU0E/видео.html, where you can check what I mean.
To make ir worse, entanglement, a prediction of quantum mechanics, can only be "proved" if Local Realism is disproved, is the foundational issue that gives the motivation of maintaining that mistake - the funding for research on quantum computer and related applications. The same for quantum teleportation. For the moment, those quantum technologies are only wishful thinking.
So, that is my bias. How do you fight wishful thinking? Physics needs a paradigm shift and I think the role of physics and science communicators are crucial to speed it out. Nothing good come out from the revolutionary phase of a science. Only when that science returns to a "normal" phase, after a paradigm shift, results will appear for the benefit of humanity.
My purpose is to help Physics. Is that yours too? I will be happy to drive you through each one of the Bell's tests made until today. It will take some time ... but that is ok by me. :)
Thanks for clarification. I would say that classic materialism is in a crisis. The materialistic view managed to stay dominant over the last decades. I would appreciate a change of that.
I still get a chuckle from the Schrodinger's cat joke a couple years ago on the tv show "Bones (yeah, I know, I know) . Schrodinger is driving down the road and he sees the flashing lights from a police cruiser in his mirror. He pulls over, and the officer gets out, asks for the licence and registration, as per usual, then asks what he has in the trunk. Schrodinger says "just my cat" . The officer, alarmed, asks him to open the trunk. "Sir , you cat is dead" the officer says . Schrodinger says, annoyed, "well, it is NOW"
Gorgeous and intelligence... heaven!
So you are trolling her channel and comments? Is that what Jesus would do?
Nah. Jesus would probably have never met her as her intellect would've been quelled and she would've been married off for a nice dowry at age 14 to a 45 yr old Roman. And she had better act like she ain't smarter than her husband cuz back then men were insecure and violent.
Heaven sent!
ALAS, WHAT IS THIS? A FEMALE?!
She can read
Your vids just get better and better. Brilliant!
The video blatantly did not even try to address how particles get entangled, how anyone knows that superpositions are a thing or how the positions already having set values before they are sent was ruled out. Obvious solutions that I'm sure have been addressed and perhaps take a long time to fully explain. But without that introduction, EVERYTHING in this video becomes next to meaningless. You barely even address what spin even means. Is it a metaphor or a literal rotation? Cover at least something of the basics before you skip to the end. In my experience, pretty much every video about quantum mechanics on RUclips skip directly to the conclusion and pretend they explained anything.
EE Ehrenberg she did an incredible job explaining the concept in a fairly short video. if you want to truly understand spin and superpositions you need about 4 years and a degree lol, and even then you won't really get it. This video isn't marketed as an "intro to quantum mechanics" it's a video about a new experiment and it's results, so expecting an entire semester worth of lectures preceeding the experiments results is a bit naive.
how will you not really get it? what's the purpose of 4 years and a degree then?
EE Ehrenberg I could not agree more!
EE Ehrenberg oh and to your question to spin that I can more or less answer:
It is no actual spin at all.
An electron is not a small sphere, it is a cloud of probability. Spin is a useful and effective concept to describe magnetism and so on, it can be experimentally prooven but there is nothing really spinning
+Unknow0059 # _"how will you not really get it? what's the purpose of 4 years and a degree then?"_
You won't get it after four years because it is a very difficult subject, and you won't even get to the more advanced bits until your fifth or sixth year. The purpose of the four-year degree is to prepare you for graduate school.
I think the secret is in the method used to create the entangled photons, and there isn't anything spectacular about it. Half silvered mirrors create the entangled photons by splitting an incoming beam of laser light, occasionally rather than taking one path or the other, the photon splits into a photon pair, entangled, one with a counterclockwise magnetic polarity/spin and the other one clockwise - always just the opposite. The detectors are photo-electric devices that convert the photons to an electrons only if the photon had the correct spin/polarity. No electron, it had a down spin, produced an electron, it has spin up.
Now then, why do they turn this into some sort of mystery? Its because they still don't understand what I just told you.
By the way, show me the experiment where they say that one of the pair actually changes the state of the other one and I'll bet that it won't be hard to find an error in their logic there as well.
ahhh she's gorgeous
jacob minkin and awesomely intelligent!
Love your channel and enthusiasm!
You Rock Diana!!! You explain science extremely well... Even I make science videos... Be sure to check them out😊😊😊
One of the books in the background is "Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945", by David M. Kennedy. It is about a period in American history that not only ran parallel with the development of Quantum Theory, but there were important (crucial) events that influenced both significantly. It's a good read for anyone interested in modern history, economics, and the social structure in which key scientists worked. It has little to do with physics, but without physics, the outcome of the book would have been drastically different.
More at GoodReads: www.goodreads.com/book/show/106317.Freedom_from_Fear
The Schrödinger
cat concept in the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, generated
a discussion among physicists that persists from the beginning of quantum
theory to the present day: "Does Quantum Mechanics depend on human
observation?" This view of dependence was advocated slightly by
Schrödinger, but was strongly endorsed by Werner Heisenberg and the Danish
physicist Niels Bohr (hence this view is also known as "Copenhagen
interpretation"), and is currently dominant in Quantum Physics, although
many do not agree with this view and consider the opposite. See, for example: 1
- Robert B. Griffiths - “Consistent Histories and the Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics” - Journal of Statistical Physics, v36, July 1984, doi.org/10.1007/BF01015734,
and 2 - Sheldon Goldstein - “Quantum Theory Without Observers - Part I” - Physics
Today, v51, nº3, March 1998, doi.org/10.1063/1.882184 - Part II -
Physics Today, v51, nº4, April 1998, doi.org/10.1063/1.882241.
The design of the experiment was genius. Could you explain how the light from the star was changing the orientation of the detector?
I think entangled particlas are in fact 1 partical, they are visable on 2 places like some kind of mirror image. There is not really a distance between them. It is on 1 place but we see 2 for some kind of reason.
I posit that: There are no particles. There are only waves. Superposition is constant. The illusion of a “particle” existing in a single position is a limitation of the observer’s ability. Spooky action is not spooky at all. Everything is connected, even though we can’t (yet) completely observe the connection. In other words, two observable instances that seem to interact in tandem are doing exactly that because they are connected by some kind of actual transaxle. Because we can’t (yet) detect the invisible transaxle, there appears to be no connection between the two instances, so, we can’t understand how they share information.
It's very nice to talk in some details and with the researchers about new papers, not that often we can see that on yt. Keep it up!
Diana is such a charming, excellent presenter. She explains complex topics very well.
I liked it. You used the words weird and strange just enough to make sure I watched it all the way to the end.(I was going to watch til the end no matter what). Great Job, Thank you and Stay Awesome : )
So a zoo contracts with a supplier for animals for its collection. It orders a zebra and a narwhal. One crate arrives on time, but the other has not shipped yet. So until they open the crate to see which one it is, the occupier of the crate is in a superposition of states; it is both zebra and narwhal. A unicorn, if you will. But when the crate is opened, the waveform collapses, and not only do we know what is in this crate, we know what is in the other crate too, instantaneously, even though it is thousands of kilometers away. This is what disturbed Einstein, who called it spooky action-at-a-distance, since why would anyone ship a narwhal in a crate, instead of a water-filled tank? The narwhal could die in a crate, making it a Schrödinger narwhal.
I love how enthusiastic you are!
If I am understanding this correctly, you are saying that at its smallest foundational building blocks, the universe is in a state of potentiality until it is affected by observation. One could say that reality is something like a complex relationship between the observer and the observed. But if the universe is in a state of potentiality until it is observed, then that begs the question, "What is capable of observing the entire universe?"
What if quantum particles are Klein waves, existing in a total of 4-6 spacial dimensions? By entangling particles, you aren't breaking classical physics entirely with their instant communications. Maybe the waves synchronize in higher dimensions during initial entanglement, which means information would have a shorter path to travel through higher spacial dimensions, thereby not breaking the speed of light, but instead going around the limitations of distance we tend to experience.
The waves converge and overlap in higher spacial dimensions, and changes in one amplify an equal and opposite change in another, or they both load up together, depending on how they're entangled.
It's just that the two particles are actually one, but we see them separately. They are not entangled, but one. Quite similar to what we call time we see sequentially whereas it's just a dimension. Those two being one, it's obvious that once you see one face at one point, the other side will show the other face.
I think the problem is we still think of photons as primarily particles when in fact they travel as waves and only become particles when observed. Meaning they are energy spread out and when the energy hits a detector it collapses. If two photons are traveling together or are entangled those energy waves will lay on top of each other and at the instant one is detected the energy from that one will collapse into the detector affecting the spin of the other because it is removing energy from the combined wave pattern giving the other observed particle an opposite spin.
Also on the topic of schrodinger's cat. In order for this thought experiment to be carried out the cat must have been put in the box without being observed in any way. because any observation would have affected the results. So the cat must have already been in the box, but at this point the thought experiment is equivalent to saying is there a cat in this box or isn't there. Also even if the cat was in the box would the cats ability to observe events affect the outcome of the experiment? in either case wether we put the cat in the box or the cat is observing the cat will die based on the parameters of the experiment.
Coming back to and older video to realize that now I’m in a course where I’m reading that French book everyday. It’s really a well written book.
Slight of hand sometimes involves speed faster than the eye or observation.
Really enjoyed the longer more in depth video!
Quantum entanglement means that communication can be achieved without electromagnetism. No delays between ground station and spacecraft. No interruptions due to storms, lightning, solar flares etc. Instant communications etc. Awesome.
Hi Diana,
Why do sub-atomic particles need to be "spooky"?
Please, can you demonstrate why we need to believe that a particle has to ACTUALLY EXIST in a superposition and change upon observation, rather than the idea that particles are one way or the other (even if we don’t know yet because we haven’t observed it) and that the only thing in a “superposition” is OUR UNDERSTANDING of the particle in question. (Why can’t it be that when we open the box, we simply find out if the cat was dead or alive all along?)
This does not preclude the idea that two particles of a common origin could consistently be found - upon observation - to be 'mirror pairs', ‘up & down’ or ‘left & right’ so to speak.
If you send my boots to two recipients in different galaxies in two opposite directions, each guy could only guess if he got the right or the left boot. But, upon opening the box, he will - in that very instant - know, with certainty, which boot his buddy has received two galaxies away! and the same can be said for the other guy...
What is the practical difference; under what circumstance, would it make a difference?
I would love to hear your thoughts.
~Bill
Its the "action at a distance" (a possibly arbitrarily large distance) that Einstein found spooky and unbelievable.
Bill Iam No, you're missing the point that each boot is actually both a left AND a right boot, until one of them is examined.
I had the exact same reaction and made a similar thought experiment, but the thing is that statistically speaking, the Bell's Theorem test results show that is not how it works. I think the natural negative reaction to this is exactly why people are still conducting these tests a century later, looking for the "WTF" explanation for why.
A scientist said (paraphrasing here) - "Entangled particles are like a pair of gloves when they are created. If you put each one in a box and send it to the ends of the earth opening one will also instantaneously tell you about the state of the other"
That makes complete sense to me - but it still doesn't explain how you can change one here and the other one changes at the same time!
Major props for linking to a paper that isn't hiding behind a pay wall!!
Great video! Thumbs up!
I have some vague recollection of reading that Einstien dismissed the notion of quantum entanglement as nothing magic but merely liking it to having a pair of gloves locked in different brief cases and by opening one and seeing it is say a right hand then you conclude the other case must pocess a left hand glove. but I might have this completely wrong. anywayz PhysicsGirl Rocks!!! shes way to cool for a geek x
I can't believe that you succeeded in making quantum physics easy to understand!
Please do more! :)
The problem with people observing these laws is that we think in 3 dimensions (plus time). Maybe there is another dimension where the particles are directly linked, but we don't observe that dimension, just the results. That is just one hypothesis. The point is that we may not be able to see the whole picture and if we could it may very well instantly make sense.
Blew my mind - You cover all the bases of what my brain craves. Dragging plates through water - and cutting edge theories! Boom!
Diana absolutely wonderful job explaining this stuff. Thanks.
at 9:12 Diana is taking physics and he's like why's there a 🐈 dancing behind the 📷
The quantum test using star light separated by 600 years or more to determine the polarity of the testing equipment rules out the chance of something in between conspiring to orientate the quantum spins of two entangled photons.
What if we asked what would it mean if the whole universe conspired from its very beginning.
Unless i am missing something it would seem then that we could not prove or disprove hidden variables leaving us with several interpretations and counter intuitive implications to how the universe may really work.
Entanglement does not* mean the particles communicate instantaneously; it means they are correlated in a very precise, non-classical way that's difficult to explain without going through the math. There is in fact a theorem in quantum mechanics called the No Communication Theorem that shows you can't communicate with entangled particles. It's unfortunate that we use this incorrect language of "communication" in science popularization.
There are tons of videos on youtube which help explain experiments like the double slit experiment or quantum entanglement if you are still confused
I love the facial expressions of scientists as they slowly digest that they don't have the universe in their hands as they love to think.
Seems like one of them got a Nobel prize for their work
Quantum entanglement is not merely strange but it's positively amazing. The Vienna experiment was rather brilliant in its elimination of bias. I love the presenter, her enthusiasim, and the clarity of her presentations. I'd love to see her tackle some of the topics addressed in Royal Society RUclips lectures. I'm convinced the future is in quantum physics.
but in entanglement part of the issue is - you don't know what the other side will be - it will be affected, but not in a predictable way. It therefore doesn't break law of information not being able to transfer faster than light because you can't actually send useful information through entanglement.
J Decker
Actually, you do know the state of the other particle as soon as you measure one. They share the same information. That's what makes them entangled, rather than independent. You don't know the state of either until you measure one, however, and that is why you can't use them to transmit information.
Sleep and awake was cool and sweet. But, please consider the point of view, box, room, building, neighborhood, city, whatever. If we don't know, we can consider it both at the same time. Copenhagen is a nice city, but this observation influenced reality is similar to earth centered universe. Entanglement, if we have a green and a red ball mixed and separated, once we observe one to be red, we know the other one is green, regardless of distance.
Thanks for the video, excellent as always. But can we have the list of the books that you started with ?
Because the lack of explanation of what was tested. Let me try to figure out what it could be: In Lasers all photons generated inside laser has the same quantum state they behave like bosons, all they are equal, different photons posses the same quantum state, not like fermions - 2 fermions cannot take the same state, but photons like any bosons can occupy the same quantum state. (An important characteristic of bosons is that their statistics do not restrict the number of them that occupy the same quantum state.) So as I understand the same laser produces the light and the ray is split at 2 and directed to two opposite directions. All photons generated by the laser has the same quantum state so they are entangled. And the state is a super position of the polarization, unknown before measurement. At the one site the polarization was checked, and also it was checked at the other site. 4th principle of QM is when a system exists in a superposition of the states, measurement forces nature to make a choice and to choose only one of the possible states - like Shrod's Cat. And as I understand measuring polarization at the one place, is independent from the measurement of polarization at the other place, expected outcome the same results, the nature makes the same choice, but if that is the case that is not super-luminal communication speed, it is that the making choice is deterministic by something we do not know. Light also is something special it moves with exactly C everything for it from it's reference of frame happen for time 0, and all distances measured from the reference of frame of a photon is 0 as well so the light is somehow at all places together because the universe has a size of 0, and of course made the same choice. In other words if you move with exactly speed of C according to special relativity, it is possible for light and from lorentz transformation, the distance is 0, so the both photons are at the same place and they posses the same state by their birth. I could somehow expect that. The things could become fantastic if it is possible to influence at the measurement at the one place, and measure at the other place without an influence, if the influenced site can force the uninfluenced site to make the same choice, well that's it super-luminal communication a transfer of information between site A and site B with an unlimited speed, violation of special theory of relativity. If only the observed make a choice gives the same result that is NOT transfer of information between the site A and site B that is just collection the same result from the same source. Not transfer of information the events are not reason-consequence related at all and may happen within whatever time they wish including 0 making speed infinite but that is not information transfer nor teleportation of astronauts to a distant galaxy far far away. That's my speculation. If they are correct - good, if they are not correct - Better! I need to know where not correct.