How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 EXPLAINED
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 май 2024
- Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger conducted ground breaking experiments using entangled quantum states, where two particles behave like a single unit even when they are separated. Their results have cleared the way for new technology based upon quantum information.
Merch!
I think Scientists are Rockstars so I made t-shirts to celebrate it
Einstein Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Curie Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Schrodinger Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
0:00 The 2022 Physics Nobel Prize
0:51 Is the Universe Real?
1:58 Einstein's Problem with Quantum Mechanics
5:09 The Hunt for Quantum Proof
7:37 The First Successful Experiment
11:06 So What?
#Einstein #nobelprize #entanglement
Interested in what I do? Sign up to my Newsletter.
100% free forever and good for the environment.
drbenmiles.substack.com/
My Links:
/ drbenmiles
A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some of these are affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.
My gear:
My camera : amzn.to/3ed5Xac
My lens: amzn.to/3xIAZyA
My lav: amzn.to/2SeE20Y and amzn.to/3nK33wA
My mic: amzn.to/3gUYYEv 
Наука
I think Scientists are Rockstars 🤘so I made t-shirts to celebrate it. More links in description
Einstein Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/rockstar-scientist-tee-einstein
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः । अनेन वेद्यं सच्छास्त्रमिति वेदान्तडिण्डिमः ॥
ब्रह्म वास्तविक है, ब्रह्मांड मिथ्या है (इसे वास्तविक या असत्य के रूप में वर्गीकृत नहीं किया जा सकता है)। जीव ही ब्रह्म है और भिन्न नहीं। इसे सही शास्त्र के रूप में समझा जाना चाहिए। यह वेदांत द्वारा घोषित किया गया है।
Brahman is real, the universe is mithya (it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal). The jiva is Brahman itself and not different. This should be understood as the correct Sastra. This is proclaimed by Vedanta.
Source - ब्रह्मज्ञानावलीमाला
I think u may know about Adi Shankaracharya (Vedanta)
scientists are mostly liars that ride on the coattails of the real rockstars, the mathematicians.
ultimately this ends in war. fair warning.
How nonsense took over legitimate research is a better title.
FYI - the wave state is real.
The outcome is variable, like almost everything in nature.
Growing up is the challenge for folks.
It's time...
I wanna know though: Can I control my local un-realness within my brain's neurons, so that I can have ABSOLUTELY UNDOUBTFULY free will?
Tell me that. Please I need to know!
I don't know if I have free will or not. Maybe this term (free will) isn't much useful. If it isn't indeed useful, then tell me what the heck I have. Free-what? Free brain function?
I need to know if I control my brain or determinism controls my faith. Or maybe determinism that looks like randomness controls myself.
Tell me please. Does this experiment prove anything regarding free will?
Also....
Libet's experiments proved nothing. He just spotted some brain activity. So what? He can't prove this brain activity supports the existence of free will. He also can't prove that this brain activity excludes the possibility that free will exists. Maybe this activity he spotted isn't relative to free will at any way. Maybe it was just parallel activity.
What does science and neuroscience tell us about free will today?
Please answer me! I have OCD and I believe there is no free will at all. So I live the same loops of daily life again and again and again. I am not a possibilist either. I think possibilism regarding free will, is just an excuse in order to avoid deep research in human nature. I think possibilists merely don't want to find out what really is the case there.
Please read my comment and answer me!!!
Can you better explain the reasons why both curves shown in 09:35 should necessarily have the shapes shown between 0 and 90 angles, for both propositions? @DrBenMiles
I can confirm this with my daily observations. I can place an object on my table, countertop etc. It appears stable and should not fall over. The moment I turn my back, at a random interval of its choosing, the object will fall over, or end up on the floor. Initially, I believed it to be poltergeists, but I'm now convinced it's Matthew McConaughey
*quiet organs play in the background*
It was me and harpua, and we couldn’t care fewer, it happens all the time!
I'm thinking it must be Shrodinger's Cat !
@@renitixz "quiet"?
Are you sure it wasn't Patrick Swayze?
I met a theoretical physicist the other day. I was surprised to learn they actually exist.
go back to your ramer before they cut your pay again
What else doesn't exist? For them it's the scientific method.
I'll just have to take that on faith.
@@watamatafoyu You're way too trusting. Ask them to show practically.
But are they locally real?
I find these concepts a struggle, and I had to watch this twice, but I ultimately obtained a better understanding of local real-ness than I’ve previously been able to muster. Thank you for laying it out so well.
the explanation is crystal clear
Lies are often hard to understand because they are the product of insanity. The reasoning collapses on itself. If nothing is real then the experiment that 'proves' that nothing is real is also not real as the experiment exists inside the so called illusion. This is a paradox. The experiment is contaminated by existing within the so called illusion. The experiment and it's findings would have to be illusory as well. Otherwise they are saying that everything is false but the experiment exists outside the illusion and so is true. This would literally make the experiment itself God and the scientists would be godmen able to move the experiment outside of the illusion. Welcome to your new religion. Though it is actually an ancient and false one called 'Gnosticism' just as 'evolution' was based on Hindu concept of Samsara. If you believe in evolution you are already a Hindu. If you believe in the simulation theory argument you are already a gnostic. What is creepy is that these 'scientists' are holding out on you and not telling you that they have been deeply religious people all along but only pretended to be atheists. They had us all fooled!
There are several ways to help understand it. While watching this screen you can see people doing things but your phone or pc is just recreating images from the past so although they look real it is similar to the world you see using your brain as a decoder.
Next way is to realise that everything has been proven to be made up of the same ingredients ie. atoms sub atomic particles etc. etc. All variations are illusory just like a face that appears in a cloud would disappear if you got up closer to the cloud.
Our brains hallucinate our realities..... I'd suggest watching a video of the same title but our brains evolved over time favouring survival over reality. Seeing reality is not a trait that will lead you to having lots of offspring. An aggressive caveman will get laid more often than a monk who meditates 24/7 lol
The more you enjoy the dream called life and the more you are willing to sacrifice to preserve this wonderful daymare to more likely you are to survive and prosper and also suffer and still die just slower and with lots of grandchildren. Our eyes and brain create colour for example. That helped us become better killers so imagine what else our brain creates that isn't real........hint.... everything.
Next up .. transience.
Is an event real? Where is your 3rd birthday? What is the difference between your dreams and your 3rd birthday. Not much. Both are just vague memories and you and your world will become memories and eventually be forgotten. What isn't permanent, isn't real. Nothing is permanent.
Some Hindu sages say that reality is attainable. It's very hard to describe. It can only be pointed to and although it is nothing it can be experienced but it's beyond words like experience yet to someone who has been to the state that millions of people meditate in an attempt to......not exist......it is far from dead. It's pure awareness and instead of emptiness it's immensely full. It feels like everyone you ever loved is in it but not separate from you. I glimpsed it once and the shock of it knocked me back to my dream or program that I have been ingraining into myself thanks to society and others since I was 2 years old.
The idea that I'm a body in this hell hole is a troublesome concept but my destiny will fulfill itself as will yours. Hope it goes well for me/you as we are the same illusory being
think of it like rendering in a video game. stuff Is there when your not rendering it but it isn't physical; it's pure information, ones and zeros. but when observed, "rendered", it appears as tangible "real" stuff. but you know ultimately speaking it's still just a bunch of one's and zeros that when rendered a certain way, "observed", give one the appearance of "real" stuff
any recommended books
Put the information sources in the description. It will make the video much better.
I agree. But I simply searched for "Nobel Prize in Physics 2022" and the source came as the first search result on Nobel Prize website.
As someone who pays attention to quantum theories, my feeling is that the universe has infinitely more details and twists the more we look. It’s basically making details up the more we look, keeping up with what we’re capable of measuring.
We can't even grasp the additional dimensions above our own, so that makes sense
we are building the complexity of the universe... We're are a training program for it and it for us. Perpetual amplification.
@@GeekyGizmo007 ok dud sure thing
@@GeekyGizmo007 I somewhat believe we're alone in the universe but not sure I want to (historically, again) demand we're the center of the universe with which it all revolves around. More likely: We just don't understand, and maybe cannot.
Yes l had the idea a particle only comes into existence when it's postulated by a physicist.
I couldn't imagine a bigger flex than having gotten the Nobel Prize for keepin' it real.
Damn underrated joke right there. Dave chappelle would be proud
thanks for keeping this joke real
Getting kicked out of Feynman’s office. When keeping it real, goes wrong.
Realest shit you ever wrote.
Word.
Thank you. I love this. I appreciate how you simplified this for people like but I didn’t feel that I was missing anything either. 💯 % 👏
Thanks for another great video, look forward to many more!
Man Alice and Bob have had a lifetime of stories together.... they should make a scifi tv show at this point jeez lol
Alice and Bob? Oh no! Not that again!
@@porridgeandprunes Welcome to Einstein's Nightmare.
Well, I am Bob and I have never met an Alice as far as I can remember so like the man says I haven't and will never know whether we agree or not. Still have to go with Einstein.
alice and bob vs the evil claire
When They can't solve the problem They say the math is incorrect
Thank goodness this had a "So what?" chapter. Whenever I read or watch items concerning quantum theory I often end up wondering if it's significance is "locally real".
How I felt when I was reading, then skimming, an article on this for the "so what?" Bit. Bc I'm pretty sure philosophers already touched on this existential crisis 💀🤣
@m_train1 never let what out?
Well, if nothing is real then we might as well go ahead & blow ourselves up then.
It’s going to happen eventually anyways.
@m_train1 I did.
Apart from the fact that it drives the modern world (like the computer you wrote this on) quantum theory is completely irrelevant.
Awesome video. So clearly explained and much easier to follow than many other videos I've watched on quantum physics. I'll be checking out your other videos. Thanks and keep up the good work.
lmk where the good quantum physics videos are
World news
Thank you for the great explanation! I have learned a lot because of you. What I'm wondering is, how come the winners of the Nobel Prize in 2022 only won it then when the experiment was already conducted in 1972 and John Clauser wrote a paper about it and already proved back then that the universe isn't locally real? Does somebody know what I'm missing here?
i think it was something like: they proved that it was the final frontier of quantum mechanics
Great! So, next time I'm faced with a situation I don't want to deal with in life I can say it's not real and run away! Thanks Quantum Physics!
Universe may be unreal but so are we...so for us everything is real ...
But you can't run away.
You face it and see if the situation can run away from you. 👍
Wish I could tell that to a traffic cop !😂
Not real like I'm right here come on man.....
Some people are so smart they outsmarted themselves
And you will omit reality disastrously with all its consequences that can be much worse and bitter for you later on. If you had taken it real, you could have destroyed all bad consequences at once that now you need to face in the future.
They way I had "understood" so far, was that according to quantum physics, the property of a particle is random until it is measured. However, if I am getting this right, whenever we measure again the same particles, the value of the property will change again, to a previously unknown value (so that it's value sometimes is or isn't 180-Δθ) . If that is the case, the value of the particles' property could be changing randomly all the time and we just get a snapshot of it's value at the precise moment that we measured it.
Yes..or, rather than "changing randomly" maybe they are all possible properties at the same time, or no properties at all, ..are they just simply "undefined" ... But now we're back to a cat in a box lol
It’s more like we don’t know the properties, like with the cat. Doesn’t mean everything is truly random until you look.
Perhaps we hav no measure for All that exists.
I'm pretty sure what you're describing is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and also superposition but I think the difference here is that the two particles are in a state of entanglement I believe they're still in superposition but upon measurement a wave function collapse occurs so as to not violate conservation of momentum by having the particles spin in opposite directions, which is what was apparently proven.
I'm not fully educated in some of this. Giving a Nobel prize for saying something changes properties when measured differently. That doesn't sound like a award winning break through.
Your explaining skills are amazing! Subscribed.
I was actually happy when I heard Alain Aspect won a Nobel prize. It's well deserved.
Questions of science suddenly become questions of philosophy and psychology the deeper we move into them, science and philosophy essentially look like brothers.
Science has made philosophy irrelevant
@@AbandonedVoid only to people devoid of any heart who would rather sound like robots instead of freakin human beings
@@AbandonedVoid You say that because like most people, you dont understand the purpose of philosophy and mistake it for some sort of attempt at pseudo science. Physics student btw, so not a philosophy fanboy by any means, but philosophy doesnt just deal with stuff like "what is reality anyways lol", same way not all of phsyics is about solving highschool pulley problems.
@@AbandonedVoid Philosophy creates science essentially. Must come up with an idea and test them. Quite simple.
Natural philosophy
In fairness, I’m not very smart. But I’ve tried so many times to understand quantum entanglement and you single-handedly explained it to me in just a few simple sentences.
I am eternally grateful. I can finally impress my grandmother.
Never use the word against your self. You are super intelligent.
I think it's fair to say that even the smartest people have trouble understanding entanglement - that's why they all propose theories.
@@waldwassermann we can't all be intelligent, some of us (like myself) are unable to grasp mathematics and physics
Quantum mechanics is something you can't really understand fully, and anyone claiming they do are lying.
Ditto! 🤩
Fabulously presented. Thanks. It seems to indicate that there is/are more to a particle and/or the universe than the variables being examined. Riding on the surface of space-time is going the long way around the mountain. There must obviously be another path.
Adding polarizing filters collapses the wave function except those exactly aligned with the filter...but there is always leakage no matter.
I agree with Einstein that randomness is not a fundamental feature of nature. Just because the behaviour of some particles appears to be random, it doesn’t mean that it is. Every particle’s behaviour must have an explanation - there must always be A REASON to explain why a particle moves this way or that way. .just because we don’t know that explanation yet, this doesn’t mean that we can or should attribute it to randomness.
Seems intuitive, but apparently it's not correct.
Sometimes
Problem is, there have been tests done on the "hidden variable" hypothesis, and the randomness really does seem baked into the universe.
Determinism or randomness is not primarily a problem of physics but of the epistemology of the observer. Man's abilities are limited because man is not an absolute creature. He will never be able to trace all the causes - down to the last root or all the consequences - through determinism. One can never be certain of detecting causality or correlation in all its entirety because there will always be something that he does not see, does not know at that moment and that affects the object of observation. Therefore, it cannot verify the validity of determinism, because either determinism applies absolutely or it does not apply at all.
It all sounds logical until it's proven wrong, then it makes sense.
So the universe isn't real because it turn out the way we thought the universe worked is not how it actually work ?
It's somewhat amazing how little of the universe and physics as a whole we actually know
Gravity isn't real ??? If that is True take you cat and drop them off a 40 story bundling? Ill be waiting for your response?? 😁
"Real" is a technical term, just like "local" is. It essentially means the choice of whether you measure something does not affect the thing you're measuring. In this case, the idea is that the polarization (etc) are already determined whether you measure them or not, which turns out to not be true. "Real" is unrelated to "true" or "actual" in physics-speak.
And yet day after day, dogmatic science is rammed down people's throats as definitive and undebatable -
@@MattRoadhouse Huh? There's no such thing as "dogmatic science." You might have some dogmatic scientists, but dogmatic is the opposite of science. If you're complaining that government claims that science says something it doesn't to assert control over you, that isn't science, that's government.
None of which has anything to do with the technical definition of "real". (And if I could remember where I saw the physicist define it, I'd post it.)
@@darrennew8211 you are correct, and yet look at the state of the world and tell me I am actually wrong
one question though. So from the fact that 2 distance entangled particles can instantly communicate with each other, the conclusion is that the universe isn't locally real. But couldn't the other conclusion be that the universe is locally real, just that sometimes it actually is possible to communicate faster than light? what if they are conencted in a 4th dimension that allows instant transmission?
yes
As long as relativity and quantum mechanics are proved experimentally, probably there will be a explanation for their different conclusions,; how far are we ? Could string theory help? Very good video. Thank you.
Yep. A theory that explains both relativity and quantum mechanics (the standard model) would be called a theory of everything and I think it’s safe to say string theory is the best candidate so far.
Einstein (Podolsky and Rosen) weren't proven wrong. They proposed a question as a response. It just took a long time for subsequent theoretical physicist to respond. The question was so good it deserved a Nobel prize worthy answer.
I was thinking how does this prove it isn’t real it just proves to me we don’t understand everything yet
That is true. These sharlatans still trying to sell us their mysticism crap by attacking determinism. To have the audacity...
@@slipcaseslitpace Any good answer poses new questions ;)
Correct answers can be simple of course, but usually those are only answers to the most simple of questions...
Really good answers change how we understand something.. so we always end up with more questions ;)
@@a_diamond ok? This doesn’t prove that the universe isn’t real tho.
No one is saying it isn’t real. Something is here.
Really well explained.
I found this easier to follow than the PBS spacetime episode 👍
I think he should be super radical and rename Alice and Bob.
Link to the PBS Episode, please. ??
This is all bs nonsense. Science is based on OBSERVATION. If nothing we experience is real, then science doesn't exist and neither do these goofballs. For all intents and purposes, everything we experience is REAL. There is no way to define a state of being "not real" based on scientific principles, because, again, science is based on OBSERVATION.
@@infinity2394 🙅♂️
@@infinity2394
You can know what pain and suffering is without knowing goodness. Therefore you can know evil without knowing goodness. Case closed.
The content is crazily good. How come youtube never suggest u to me until now
Here's a question I have. Quantum entanglement... let say one particle is in the room with me and the other(half of the pair) is at the edge of the observable universe. Does the fixed point in time where the particles exist have any meaning? So the particle in my room is actually just one that is apart of a random object. At the edge of the universe, does that particle need to also be apart of a similar random object? Can two particles that are entangled have completely different uses within the universe as long as their spin stays same.
Are you trying to say "a part" of an object, as in part of one object or did you mean to use the word "apart," which means separate from an object?
Once you collapse the field then all connection is lost.
@@throgwarhammer7162 My apologies. (a part). Do both entangled particles have to exist in the same manner?
Niels Bohr, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, did not believe that the universe is not real. In fact, he believed that the universe is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the way we observe and measure it.
Bohr believed that the physical world is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the constraints of our measurements and observations. He argued that we should focus on the pragmatic and experimental aspects of quantum mechanics, rather than trying to understand the underlying reality behind it.
Who told you what Niels Bohr" believed" , and why do you believe them?
If only you had some idea of what you mean by or could even begine to define, " the universe".
Apart from imaginary what is the universe?
You have absolutely no idea?-No surprises there
Hey you know, Bohr was on to something there.....for all his theoretical prowess, he was the most pragmatic of them all, it seems.
@@vhawk1951kl Another desperate "simulation" theorist.
Quantum Physics does not exist, it is a evil that will be driven out of this world.
This was really good. As an expert PhD in the field of theoretical physics, I am glad to see such explanations. Just kidding, I failed pre-al in high school... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night
What's the relevance of the Holiday Inn please? :/
@@JonathanGillies The Holiday Inn Express used to have really funny commercials.. like where a guy is doing a surgery pretending to be an actual surgeon. When he messed things up, they asked him if he was a doctor, and he said, "no, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night". They had a few similar ones :)
Just as funny as an obscure reference that I get, is the confused people who don't get it lol
@@indigatorveritatis219 Ok thanks for the explanation lol!!!!!! :D
Somebody give this man the key to Detroit!
If you take two polarized filters and place them on top of each other, and have them sitting on a light source, you will notice as you rotate one of the filters in a linear fashion, that the change in light intensity passing through, is not linear. One may calculate the outcome by using a Malus Law Calculator.
Same kind of question as,
What was the man doing when he jumped off the cliff ?
I started reading quantum physics books when i was too young to understand them, about 1982 13 years old, now I'm 53 years old, and still feel i don't understand it much, but this video made me feel like i learned something over 40 years, because some of this was familiar. I have always been drawn to this, even though I'm mostly a trained engineer, and now an old man hanging out in a home mancave building a humanoid robot at a slow pace. Cool video, thanks.
Try DMT/5g of Mushrooms. It will make more sense.
@@ravenragnar Yeah no. If it was, then scientists would have done it and achieved a massive breakthrough in regards to quantum physics but reality is often disappointing.
@@user-mp3eh1vb9w Yeah no. You are wrong. Look up where the birth of the internet came from. It was a massive breakthrough.
@@ravenragnar 😂 My guy is comparing the internet and quantum physics lmao
Not a sex bot is it?
Regarding particle spin, with one particle splitting into two, there is a theoretical way they can both have the same spin, versus opposite, which is if they split along the axis of spin, versus perpendicular to it. Like in the video example, you have the two particle split away along the "equator", from which logic would dictate that they should not maintain identical spins. But if they instead split apart separating from the north/south pole, it would be intuitive for them to have the same spin, and counterintuitive for them to have opposing spins.
Great video! Although I am a little confused about the ending. The whole point of the experiment was to prove the universe is not locally real and therefor these particles ARE communicating faster than the speed of light, but in the end you said we are limited because the speed of light IS as fast as anything travels?
Because you can't transmit information faster than light, even with this. The particles have some internal property that makes both wave functions collapse when you read one particle. However, you can't use this to transmit information readable faster than light. When you read a particle, you change the results, and therefore the entanglement states between both particles can't be observed in a way that could be used to communicate.
He explains that it is not locally real not because particles appear to communicate FTL. It is not locally real because there is no defined state if an observer does not seek for a defined state. He explained what real-ness means in the video.
@@thefran901 yeah... now what would that be...? LOL
Entanglement just need an additional dimension (like in string theory or similar), to still include locality..distance and speed of light would not be relevant, if the information of entangled particles would be somewhat connected on a higher dimension..
My complaint about this stuff is the use of "real" or "realism." I much prefer your use of "deterministic," as I think it helps convey the reality of what is going on and how the models capture it.
Not to say it invalidates any of this, but I know it does create a barrier to understanding the concept for people like my wife who responded by touching a table and saying: "So... This table isn't real?"
Haha 😄
I very much agree. It may have been long forgotten, but realism and anti-realism are terms that do already exist in Philosophy as well. This form of loading onto the term does not help someone avoid misunderstandings upon first hearing these theories. That being said, it is worth pointing out that almost all of modern science is founded upon anti-realist foundations and motivations while accepting realist foundations for carrying out the scientific methodology. So if one were a scientist who strictly adheres to the anti-realist motivations, they would answer your wife's question that "they can never be sure the table is actually there, let alone know what is truly meant by a table". This is because since Hume, principle of causality has been rejected as doubtful, which in turn means that our sensory information cannot be trusted.
Agreed, I think often these complex scientific theories get muddled by poor communication.
@@ILoveGrilledCheesesome people keep it that way to gate keep and flex as if they’re smarter than everyone else. In fact, they’re fools if they can’t rationally explain their thesis to the world in such a way that others can infer their stance and agree on it based on the communication methods used
But doesn't also the philosophical term "realism" gets used to describe a objective world which isn't affected by our doings and our mind?
Hume says we cannot know this, but didn't this quantum measurements "disprove" (as far as this is possible) the possibility of a inherent realistic world, also in terms of philosophical realism?
As an individual who miserably failed Algebra 1 in high school (and still can't do long division) and is effectively math challenged, you did a great job at making this easily digestible, and understandable. 👍👍👍
there is no spoon!!!
@@bobancikic7458 😃😃
Don't worry homie, I'm in a college math degree and none of my friends can do long division at all haha. On another note, I'm glad you understood the video :)
@@ammardian Thank you for letting me know that I'm not the only dunce/dumbass left in the world. 😆😆😆
@@scout3058 Even in college we still find addition and subtraction the largest area we make mistakes in on exams. Believe me, we are all dumbasses in this world haha
When you showed those sheets in layers over light, it kind of sparked an idea.
So, I’m no genius, but I have an idea of how energy interacts, and magnetic/polarity etc kind of works.
What if, like in your visual of the two orbs spinning in opposing directions, could actually be a magnetic function of the cores within each orb, and their individual magnetic interaction in opposition to each other, creating a polar barrier and the spin of the planet….
I don’t think that a regulated communication beacon is the syncing mechanism….
But, it could be. I have no idea. Really.
What I’m saying really is, maybe it’s a gradual cooperation. Like, opposing magnets create a vibration or ripples causing spin.
And stuff like that.
In the CHSH proof, how exactly do you produce 2 entangled photons? Everything about quantum mechanics and entanglement is pretty solid, but how exactly are we producing 2 particles that are entangled with each other? I thought that was the thing stopping us from practically harnessing this concept?
Spontaneous parametric down conversion, with non-linear crystals, BBO, PPTKP types, with these terms you can search for experiments, if you have enough money (for a car) you can buy a kit and do it yourself!
Quantum computers use entanglement, it’s definitely being harnessed
12:44 damn bro got the outro
The Universe is not stranger than Einstein ever imagined; it is stranger than he wished it to be. He was perfectly capable of entertaining the same ideas as everyone else, but decided they didn't fit the tone of the Author he imagined.
The Universe is not strange. Our mind is strange, with its claim to know how the Universe should behave to be "normal".
@@andsalomoni Well life itself is strange. The fact that we are intelligent and self aware is itself strange when you compare it to billions of other species that have walked the earth yet we are the only one to attain intelligence that surpasses others.
As they said about quantum physics "the more you know, the less you know".
Plato thought it first
Very well said. I suppose we all like to be right, especially when thinking about the fundamentals of reality. It is mind-blowing to me how many folks still hold so tightly to the story of Adam and Eve, refusing to update the biblical story one bit, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of a different creation story on a very different timeline.
@@SuperManning11 You know why? Because people cannot let go of culture. Religion is so deeply rooted just like how we want to protect and preserve historical objects, arts, cultures etc...
Also, religion has become mainstream that it is simply hard to erase it. It is also a good thing since religion makes humans afraid of consequences.
I’ve been saying reality is an illusion for years and people call me mad for it,I’m glad I stumbled on this because it definitely makes me want to calculate more towards that theory.
So is this along the lines of proving the going-ons of Acausality? The properties of the universe which function outside of Cause-and-Effect?
Excellent explanation. Thanks for putting complex concepts available to “normal” people. I am an engineer and I like these topics, but it is really hard to find someone who can explain with simplicity and with beauty like this video did.
Time is like the measuring of distance between events spawning from a sigularity and consciousness is the recording of the disorder as it flows. Entropy must continue so the record is stored in the universe by dark energy and the information is then evolved
so that the samething does not infinity repeat. My perspective on the reality of the universe for everyone is different and subjective to that organism\being ,for an example. Scientist states that viruses, bacterias or cells are examples of living organisms that even live in our bodies and they carry out functions. Human beings also carry out functions; but we look at cells and viruses as a lesser life form of life. If there are advance
or higher forms of life, they can also measure us human beings and state also that we are a lower form of life just as human beings may observe an ant as a lower form of life. However, because of this an ant may not be important to us, but if you try to squash an insect it will try to flee and preserve it's life thus means it's life must mean something to itself; but not to us. Even blood cells defend themselves when under a threat just as we do, but is the life of one blood cell important to us? Is the life of a human being urgent to a tree which is also a living organism. Human beings are the main cost for the destruction of trees whichin they've been here before we we're in existence. So are trees a higher life form than us? A more advance and higher life form may look at a tree and say this tree is much more important than a human being because it sustains life on this planet but human beings destroy the planet with human helping technology (depending on their perspective). All of this said humans may not be as prominent as we think If we remember the laws of physics breaks down on a quantum level. There are lengths like the plank length that are so small that it can be compared to the scale of the universe. So doesn't this mean that being that small you are in a universe of its own , within another observable universe but only observable by our knowledge by humans. If this is so then there must be other places the laws of physics break down also. If it does for the extremely small why not for the extremely big? Who is big and small anyways? We are small to our planet but our planet is small to our sun. This can go on and on. We are the size of a universe to an atom in our body ,thus means also we are big. However, this happens to everything everywhere. If there is space that has particles, those particles may be within an atom, trillions of atoms are in a cell (more than stars in our galaxy) whichin cells are IN our blood ( 37 trillion cells). Our blood in our organs and muscles which is within our bodies. Our bodies may be within a house which is within a constituency, which is within a town, which is within a city/state/island which is within a country which is in a continent which is within a planet, which is within a solar system, within a galaxy, within A super cluster, which is within Galactic walls which is within the Cosmic web . "Everything is 'WITHIN' " which The Cosmic web itself is 'within' The Universe WHICH is 'within' a bubble or phenomenon that we cannot see. "Everything is within" something. Hold just a minute here though! We cannot see someone waving at us from an airplane. We only see the construct of the landscape, not the entities within them. Or an ant from the top of a sky scrapper, neither can we see blood cells attacking viruses n vice versa. Which is evidence just because we cannot see oxygen or detect an atom WITHIN does not mean its not there. The human eye cannot see U V rays or even oxygen and we are surrounded by it. So this means the Laws of physics as we KNOW it only applies to our subjective and objective reality. If u step back and look at the universe . We will only see the Cosmic Web of everything. Which seems to be all touching and connecting. Not until we zoom In does things seem to seperate. Just like a cell that make up our skin. Or a dog standing on an island. From far we only see the landscape , but as we zoom in other entities become observable. Inturn becoming a noticeable part of your reality. Things like Dark matter plays not with Morden physics and we cannot see it but it must exist because of the forces that pulls galaxies together and dark energy pushing entropy without the universe collapsing. However back to the Cosmic web. From a far everything is connected, but if u go close or zoom more is revealed within. The universe itself may be 'within' a muti-verse , another unverse, a blackhole, a quantum computer simulation or even apart of another living organism body that seems infinity large. But as we are universal size to an atom the universe can be a drop in the ocean or space to a greater being which most earthly beings cannot fathom or even believe because it is beyond preposterous. Even if your human eyes can go in front of it is to large or small to amke out. You cant see a mountain top from the exact bottom. It is to high in the clouds. Thus u cannot see the universe from one end to the other. The universe legs may be to long (just a joke ) .Somewhat though these are very much what it seems for the great reality. As laws of physics break down at quantum levels, entanglments, singularities and so on. There are dimensions that we cannot see and cannot detect things like :(earthly terms, but they seem to have more meanings) Super positions, past , future, the unconscious, concious thought, different colors of light , pure and dark energy etc. Please excuse my long reply , but this is just a brief explanation of not an objective or subjective reality. Which is infallible, but of the asubjective existence which seems verisimilitude.
@@bosstradingpro1910 was a good read
@@poetryofcinema6957 Thank you. Well appreciated.
@@bosstradingpro1910could be Jack the Ripper.. or someone “ripping” wind around you 🌬️ 💩💨
@@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar lol, do you mean that person, or me?
So if the universe is not real, could u just kindly transfer me all your money since its all not real anyway
Food for thought… It wasn’t Schrödinger’s cat, but it was his box.
There are three points on the graph where you can compare state, at the crossover you can send information.
I have a bad feeling that in the future, we will discover that distance doesn't mean what we think it means.
Agreed. I feel that how we think and understand 'time' will also be transformed.
This is already a thing. In string theory a universe that is smaller than a Planck length is physically identical to a universe bigger than a Planck length, and distance is completely redefined. I believe “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene goes more into detail if you’re interested.
@@IM-ef7nf my uncle Fred says that the secret of bigfoot episode of The Six million Dollar Man was infact a test run for the secret ai android army being built by Elon Musk and the military industrial complex which will be disguised as Bigfoots (so as not to arouse suspicion) and dropped into our enemies China and Russia
Maybe distance is irrelevant in other dimensions?
I think every thing is interconnected as a drop of water deeply connected with ocean as whole both are one
This was so well done, so clear and easy to follow. Thanks!
Easy to follow? I was lost at Photon...
What’s a photon?
@@InTonalHarmony A photon is a particle of light.
Dislike. They proved it wasn’t locally real - don’t support clickbait titles
evil only exists if goodness exists since you wouldn't know evil without first knowing goodness. Think of it like this. you cannot have shadows without light, but you can have light without shadows. So how is it that we know why good is good? if you're an atheist you don't know why it's wrong to kill a person you just know it's wrong though you don't know the reason. You see we know the universe had a beginning based on The Cosmic Microwave Background, which is "the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe" it is a 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, it was released soon after the 'Big Bang'. Scientists consider it as an echo or 'shockwave' of the Big Bang. this paired with the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding while also winding down. Not only did the matter in the universe have a beginning, but also the forces such as space, and gravity, and quantum forces, and time we know this from general relativity which shows that you cannot have space without time and you cannot have time without space and you cannot have matter without space or time! meaning that what could have caused the big bang would have to be outside of the realm of time and space meaning it's nonmaterial ! because nothing cannot happen to create something because there is nothing to occur to create something... So how does this go back to morality you ask? well would you believe it if I told you I just proved GOD's existence? You see GOD is outside of space and time! he is the one that was the cause of the universe he was the beginning, and since he is outside space and time. He is eternal meaning there was nothing before him he was always there and always will be. Now onto morality the reason we know it's wrong to kill someone is because GOD created us with a conscience con meaning with science meaning knowledge so when we kill someone we do it with knowledge that you just killed someone. The thing about your conscience is that it is GOD given society shaped. YOU can also shape your conscience the more you do things against it the quieter you make it it's like removing the batteries from your fire detector especially if you're loving the thing your conscience is warning you against.
Hi Dr Miles where can I get into a forum about with other scientists?
Regarding the tree conundrum - when a tree falls in a forest, it only ever makes a 'noise' if there is an 'experiencer' present to hear it (an ear plus a brain; either human, animal, bug, or whatever). Otherwise, it falls and produces regular natural sound waves, but zero 'noise', because nothing sentient was there to experience it. I hope that made sense.
Yes that makes sense except although “ I” was not there but something - a cricket perhaps that “ hears” sound waves heard it. But the cricket doesn’t matter, doesn’t communicate that experience so we missed it. Doesn’t mean The thing ( sound) did not happen. We weren’t around to observe or record it. To Measure what happens if anything , use an instrument rather like a stand in for you and I the absent. Polarization state! Maybe but all we can access is locality without the instruments. Impossible to know until it is measured and we do have the finite to ground us, literally. Fortunately I am a multi particle agent.
You explained it beautifully. With no Eyes or Ears or the Brain, we cannot experience nothing. Yet for the emotions we feel you do not require the Three. How will Quantum explain that?
Everything is mind, the tree exists, there doesn't need to be an individual observer since the universe itself is the activity of the only one true observer or medium of mind (as bernardo kastrup says). This is my interpretation. There's also a lot of evidence to show that there's intelligence in the universe and reality itself and that could be called god. I think this will be the mainstream framework of reality once science opens up and starts thinking outside the box
@@simonsanchezkumrich8489 If you accept the existence of the Mind all else follows “How the Mind came into being” we cannot assume that the Mind is the Powerful Medium. imagination is an attribute of the Mind and it varies by Age and other influencers. The Mind can perceive a whole scenario or a single object and has the ability to infuse life like motion as demonstrated in Dreams.but it is not reality. You can perceive it but cannot touch it, just like the Atoms. So all the marvels we can see, touch, taste and hear are a preferred variety in comparison to Perceived phantoms.
@@Nektaria11000 i dont think anyone can explain or even know how god/mind/reality came into being, we just can know that it is reality, but idk maybe in some higher plane or dimension or with an all powerful and higher perspective we may be able to know how reality came into being and how it works exactly
Listening to Robert Edward Grant earlier and he posits that the speed of light is just our current perceptual boundary and not the final measure for what's possible in terms of (quantum teleportation?) He's really doing some fascinating work on using mathematics to redefine what we know as reality. Thank you for explaining this so well for us arm chair physicists Dr!
Yes I believe so to! I think bc we are material physical beings we can only get to light speed bc anything more than that we physically cannot achieve due to the plane of existence we are on (physical/material) But there are more quantum levels of traveling as you mentioned in the higher dimensions:)
"Our" being you and which identifiable immediate interlocutor?
These experiments all require an observer, without an observer, nothing can exist, it would all be a wave function.
There IS no final nor complete nature of events known. That's his philosophical idealism mistake. There are no abosolutes nor realities. That is our brain delusion. And einstein said and physics has shown. Measurements and descriptions are NOT absolute. The length of th4 shoreline depends upon how you measure it. By 10 cm. intervals. By 100 m. lengths. By whether you drive alone it, or sail along it or walk along it. It all depends upon HOW you measure it nd that is arbitrary. Sorry, there is NO ab solute coast line figure. Because yhou cannot measure the postin of each grain of sand to each greain of sand, either.
& the nature of coastlines to change over time with weather, currents, temps, and many other ways. There is NO absolute sea level, either. Because the factors which make sea level are changeable, adn when more than 3 factors, and those are real, it eomces complex system and thus not amenable to final understandings. Harbour shape, ships in port, temps as water expands and congract, winds, and currents; and the pull of the lunar and solar tides Also change the sea levels. And the land levels, too. Complex systems are also ignored by this article. and that is a major, major conceptual fail, as well.
Walter russell, The Secret of Light
There is Nothing Outside Yourself
Nothing moves not even Light
What really confuses me when talking about quantum measurement is the assumption that we somehow exist outside the system and can measure it. But that can't be, since ultimately we're describing the universe.
True. Each of our actions should affect the universe in some way.
True
The fact that one can go back and see data from other civilzations that plotted the sun ,moon and other stars says something is real.
No, that's just it. We AREN'T outside the system, and we aren't the only things considered observers. The idea is that it's impossible to measure/observe quantum interactions without interacting with them, and therefore altering the state of the particles at the moment of observation. As far as I understand all atoms are quantum observers at the the moment of interaction. So if the universe is not locally real, then either interactions can happen regardless of distance in space-time, or that the fundamental stuff of reality does not have inherent definite measurable properties and instead only manifests properties at the point of interaction with an observer.
The soul is pure consciousness. It is outside the universe. The universe is a projection of consciousness.
The best explanation I heard!
Very interesting. I have never learnt physics, but am interested by it since a long time. I love space since the go together, I found myself interested in space and physics. Great video.
Wild stuff. Can’t believe “it’s the universe real” is such a reasonable question with such a complicated answer. Excellent explanation!
Ahh yes I love asking “it’s the universe real”
It's really not, this what people on the internet do for attention. It makes literally no sense for a scientist to say the universe isn't real because that literally debunks all science because all science is based on OBSERVATION and experimentation. Observation and experimentation can only constructed into a proper theory if the observations and experimental outcomes are consistent! If they are consistent, that literally defines what "reality" is. Do you understand the point I'm making? If the universe isn't real, then neither is science or any of the bs they're saying
@@infinity2394 are you a muslim?
@@infinity2394 can you pls stop spamming
@@sneakymilkman4203 'Is', Changed for people like you who never make mistakes....a$$-wipe.
I have watched a lot of videos on quantum physics, this is the first that has actually explained how entangled particles become entangled, how they are created at all. And upon actually being explained it seems so simple, it makes me wonder why other channels didn't bother. So, thanks for actually taking the time to explain how it's related to conservation.
Duh
Uh
Except they don't really explain "how" they're created at all! They've theorized that they must exist simply because all these experiments require them to exist in order for the results to make sense. At least until they have a better explanation anyway.
I read your comment and now I'm going to actually watch this because I always get "lost."
because the channels are obviously made for a different audience? if you’re teaching advanced english, you won’t start with A1 level phrases either…💀
The exploration of quantum phenomena pushes the boundaries of our understanding, reminding us that the universe is full of mysteries yet to be unravelled. As we delve deeper into the quantum realm, we are confronted with a reality that defies our classical intuitions, urging us to question and redefine our notions of what is possible.
how to reconcile the speed of light squared when most say the speed of light cannot be exceeded?
I suppose this would be a great way to preserve processing power in a simulated universe. I mean, why compute anything if nothing is around to observe it? It would be better to have those resources available to be used for something else if the need should arise.
I like to think of it the way graphics in video games work to conserve computer resources.
If I am in a simulated reality...they better upgrade me. This VR program sucks. 🤣
That’s why far away galaxies look so blurry in Hubble images. The universe is obviously just using the low res models because there’s no reason to fully load them in high detail being so far away.
@@obscurity3027 Wouldn't that be a great premise for a Matrix movie? That they're going to crash the Matrix by loading too much data into memory by somehow 'observing' and thus loading everything? let it overflow
God said that when Christ c9mes back, heaven and earth will be merged and that the old earth will be gone. This universe will disappear juat like that.
4:16
The entanglement paradox should take into account the transit time of seperating the particles after the entanglement event.
An uncomfortable result is whether the measurement determines the result when you are using deduction and not simultaneous detection on both of the entangled particles.
Their differences could be irreconcilable. Divorce lawyer would the best option.
i wouldn't be so sure with that last conclusion. I bet this could lead to faster than light communication in some form.
Or because they showed that if one looks at the foundation of all matter then one encounters that its undefined/uncollapsed wave function and this may enable different possible states.
Or because if one goes back in time at the beginning of the dialectical generative processes of all matter nothing, almost, is there. Hence the more complex things that ground themsleves upon this collpasing cannot exist because they only appear at higher levels of gravitationally temporal interactions.
I love that the most replayed point of the video is the when he starts to explain the experiment and you just know it's because people had to go back and watch it again to really wrap their heads around it.
I think it was the men in costumes and the explosion, lol. Neanderthals.
@@hikesystem7721 you mean the Monty Python scene? And are you calling people Neanderthals?
Coincidentally I replayed the experiment because my sister started to talk to me randomly
@@Ozone946 it's called humor
How do you know it's the most replayed part? Is there a way to see these statistics?
What impresses me so much about Einstein, is his hand in so many foundational discoveries of the 20th century. It was Einstein (along with Rosen and Podolsky) who discovered entanglement -- although, as Miles points out here, Einstein thought of it as a fatal flaw in quantum mechanics. Still, it was Einstein (not trying to diminish the contributions of Rosen & Podolsky) who made this critical realization, that entanglement arises out of quantum theory. This is something which Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Fermi (all of whom I admire greatly), for all their contributions and their support of quantum theory, evidently hadn't realized.
Einstein admitted Tesla was the most intelligent person of his time. His words.
Einstein was a bad actor who actually did nothing except promote stupid stories for dummies
@@TheMrmartind40he probably would have said his wife if she was a guy lmao
When you say theory, do you mean to say that in practicality it is not really a thign that happens?
Just the opposite. Something becomes a "theory" once it's fully established.
1:39 but if it produces the same properties when you measure it, then it isn’t hopeless to assume that it has definite properties.
According to Vedanta, thoughts are faster than speed of light. We can send a thought to another person in another galaxy and that person would know it instantaneously.
I love how I clicked on this as if I would understand any of it 👍😂
Gotta start somewhere . If you keep watching similar content, eventually everything will slowly make more sense
I love how I watched it through and then discussed it with my friend as if we can understand any of it
They don’t even understand it … but they’ll try telling you there is no GOD. 🤣🤣
@@Johnny2Feathers Aw yeah because there's so much evidence of a god ever existing.
@@Jono_93 well yea there is.. we’re alive
This is the kind of situation that occurs when someone starts overthinking a subject and becoming so lost within it, that they are no longer able to recognize reality…
me when I'm high AF
Yes these pompous ass hats got us to believe were monkeys spinning on a ball six times the speed of sound.
@@hekeptdying1428 me right now brother
Its called subjective thinking the very nature of social reality is based on collective agreement humans put meaning to things that don't reflect a function based on how it is physically but on how or what function it has. So a human will usually impose meaning onto the universe in term relative to benefits or conditions that serve humanity
@@publicopinion3596 Umm.....okay???
I'm a little confused, determism didn't actually disappear. Because the one photon affects the other photon predicably, so mathematically determined beyond our reach, theoretically?
I like the video, but for someone completely ignorant to the topic, I still can’t understand by saying that “the universe isn’t real”? Clearly a title very much intended for clickbait, at least he should’ve offered a better explanation for us ignorant people that are not familiar with physics, as to what does that mean?
Thank you for this! Clears up, for me, a lot of misrepresented popularized interpretations of laypeople with major "Tartuffe"-like confirmation biases. And, yet, you explained such technical information in a very accessible way for those of us with limited knowledge of the subject. Much appreciation!
Are you Religious?
@@ilicdjo religious or just self-righteous, or maybe even both?!
@@ilicdjo I would not mock Religious people, but he sure does sound like the Jack Arse in the Parable floating around of the Tiger, Jack Arse and Lion.
idk why everyone is being so hostile in your replies, keep doing you !
This was my first video watched on this channel (following a RUclips recommendation), but what an excellent well-paced explanation!
same here! this guy is special
I have always thought about it like a video game, things do not render locally until a player needs to see or interact with it, this is to save recourses. But that also always made me wonder if looking further out into space makes the universe “grow”. All seems a lot like the observer effect.
And the fact that electrons don’t actually touch each other is also super odd.
And Einsteins theory seems like it favors creationism.
And if we have more cameras out in the world constantly recording and saving to a server, does that affect things, or only until a person sees it. And if more is being watched and recorded how does that affect reality.
Observation only tells you WHICH universe you are in. (The cat is alive or dead for Schrodinger. Opening the box does not affect the cat, it only tells you if you are in a universe in which the cat is dead or alive)
Great explanation of complex concepts for the rest of us mere mortals, not physicist, but enchanted with the strange universe we are living in. Thank you very much!
@F.u.c.k You people like you do too much of this 🗣 and not enough of this👂
Can a physicist explain to anyone where the physical laws of the universe existed prior to the big bang?…If the laws of physics deny the creation of matter in a closed system, where did the initial ingredients (matter) come from? I think physicists need to be more comfortable with uncertainty and focus more on practical applications of the ideas of physics….Physicists very often come across as literal idiots if they venture too far away from reality…
@F.u.c.k You Have you not watched the video till the end? Information still cannot be sent faster than light as far as we still know even with quantum entanglement.
Physicists are mortals (hairless apes) with a very limited understanding of reality. Almost everything we think we know is likely incomplete or outright wrong.
@@BoomBustProfits look for Roger Penrose. He has a theory about what was before the Big Bang, and he also won the Physics' Nobel Prize.
Are we not gonna talk about how bro has an outro? 12:38
"That classically is the problem with theoreticians. If you look at them from a distance, it just looks like a wizard trying to have an argument with you"
lol
If this isn't a common saying, it needs to be. Very accurate. The Monty Python cut to confused King Arthur was flawlessly done.
Very nicely done!
I believe that theoretical physicists such as Einstein would be very impressed with the work carried out so far and lend their knowledge and know-how to help to try to explain more.
Einstein would probably throw up if he saw the state of physics today which largely came about because Bohr was a bully and dominated everyone's views by the force of his personality.
I think it will be a very long time before anyone can explain what this video is trying to explain in a manner that actually does explain.
LAYMANS TERMS U MEAN
Sac le blur
There's basically an inherent connection between two photons that transfers information faster than speed of light, controversing modern physics worldview.
Yeah he didn't explain it to me. Still don't understand why non-determinism equals not real.
Imagine if your body occupied two different points in space simultaneously. One is in New York city, and the other is in Paris. If you are observing Paris, that is local. If you were pinched in Paris, the pinch is locally real. You were pinched in Paris, and felt it in Paris. However, if your body was pinched in New York, you feel it in Paris. Despite feeling it in Paris, nobody pinched you there, so forces acting on you from the universe doesn't have to be locally real to be observed.
Now, the value of this is thus. Imagine if we created a computer that existed on our planet, and on an alien planet a billion light years away. If time was relatively the same in both places, whatever is typed on one computer screen would appear simultaneously in both places at once. No signals required.
If you've seen the matrix movies, they show this phenomenon by the injuries in the matrix affecting your body in the real world. The idea is that our body is always a projection of the mind, so if in the mind the projection of ourselves is damaged, so is the body. It's not just a science fiction phenomenon either. When medications are tested, they do blind tests because of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is literally your body is healed in the mind, and the mind projects your healed body in reality. You show physical improvement literally because your mental projection is improved.
There are things that move faster than the speed of light, you just can't measure or observe them. This explains what we call instantaneous occurrence.
10:22 Isn't it incorrect though to conclude that the photonic property after the wave function collapse is *random*? Couldn't the wave function result from underlying physics -- analogous to macro properties of gases -- hidden from us in this spacetime?
I don't understand why inherent randomness means that the universe is not "real". Later in the video, you shift that to "locally real". Isn't it still possible that these particles are interacting in a classical way, on a level that we just can't see? Or that the connection between them is being broken? More explanation of this would be appreciated, because while the numbers may not make sense, I'm not sure why this eliminates the possibility of hidden variables.
But why isn't it real
Basically because it is saying there is no predetermined outcome as in a particle does not have ANY defined state until its observed. Not that we simply dont understand the state, just that the state has not even been determined, IE, does not even exist, until observed. I mean, while this is grounded in reality as a statement, its highly misleading and reporting on it is rather garbage. This does NOT rule out super determinism as in, the entire Universe is predetermined. For reasons unknown to me, Science is and has been hell bent on proving they can separate a chunk of the universe from the rest and calculate its properties definitively. This is surely impossible. But, this does not mean it was not all determined from the start of the universe. I think they just want to leave room for free will at all cost. IDK why, just how it is.
Think about it as if it was a computer program where you can fly a very fast plane.. if I asked you what the max speed of the aircraft can be.. you would be compelled to answer in Mph or Kph..
But the speed of the plane can only be that of the processor's clock.
At that moment if you were on the plane as a passenger the speed of the plane is no longer real is it?
Look up the Quantum Eraser by PBS Spacetime
It's not inherent randomness at all. All statistical ideas are a measure of the upper limit of predictive certainty, Not facts about reality. Those may only be known by actual measurement or logical necessity, not probability, which is all a wave function is.
Maybe in another multi-verse I understand, but in this one the concept went right over my head. I will revisit this again in some other time and place.
Same. I'm trying.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the theory that the universe doesn't exist and therefore we don't exist.
same dude :D maybe if im reincarnated as a phycisit
Same bro
Comment that i was looking for 😃
The speed of light is actually instantaneous in the nearfield, and after about 1 wavelength, it reduces the speed of light. This is predicted from Maxwell"s equations by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillation dipole source. This applies not only to the phase speed and group speed, but also the information speed of the fields. This has been experimentally confirmed by transmitting radio waves between 2 dipole antennas and measuring the time delay as the antennas are moved from the nearfield to the farfield. Both the theoretical calculation and the experimental verification has been independently confirmed by many researcher over the past 30 years. In addition, gravity has been shown to have the same behavior. This has been proven theoretically by analyzing the the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass using General Relativity. The instantaneous nearfield was confirmed by Simone Laplace in the late 1700's from the stability of the orbits of the planets in the gravitational nearfield of the sun. The farfield speed of gravity was just confirmed to be the farfield speed of light c by Ligo. Again, this speed applies to not only the phase speed and group speed, but also the information speed. Note that for the very low frequencies, the instantaneous nearfield can extend to astronomical distances. So everything is interacting instantaneously via both gravity and light. For more information: Search William Walker Superluminal Because Special Relativity is based on light being a constant, then the Relativistic consequences of this is that effects of Special Relativity on time and space are an optical illusion. Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength=c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity
Don’t still fully understand. But I think the effort is marvelous. Thank you. Maybe I will understand it one of these days.
Incredible, Would you consider continuing this subject with Conway/ Kochen's FreeWill Theorem?
I think my biggest contention or point of confusion is in the fact that I don't see why there _wouldn't_ be a curve-like relationship between the particle matches when we already know that polarised light interferes with itself and even in vacuum can split into electrons and photons etc, meaning surely it's possible for a system to have interference patterns that cause an increase in likelihood for a greater likelihood of appropriately matched results at a certain angle. Not to mention that the polariser itself provides a non-trivial influence on the behaviour of the photons in question because it's a physical object with both physical and electromagnetic properties and the photon that leaves a transparent material is almost certainly not the same as the one that entered it, merely having some of the same intrinsic values due to the energies involved.
The three polariser issue can, to my understanding, be at least superficially explained by considering that the middle polariser drastically increases the chances of light, that is polarised with a spin matching the spiral that the polarisers describe, will be present on the other side with fewer deviating wavelengths than before it, acting as a filter or like the blades of a fan, producing a less turbulant environment after light has passed through. This, therefore, would allow _more_ light to pass through the final polariser as more of the light that's getting through is being interfered with and resulting in deviation greater than can pass through the polariser. The only way I'd know how to test that experimentally would be to try and see if stacking polarisers also then produces more reflected light of other polarisations compared to fewer stages.
lol
If you stack multiple polarisers in series, in the centre, and have them incrementally rotate to gradually align with the last polariser, you can theoretically achieve near 100% transmittance. In practice, transmittance is perhaps 80-90% due to losses, and needing an infinite number of perfect intermediate filters to achieve 100% transmittance.
Walter russell
THE WAVE
I’ll mention your concerns to the Nobel Committee when they call.
@6:51 it's not 90º where you see no photos going through. @6:53, you actually see it go through. Hence the 3rd polarizer still can let photons through.
What song is in your outro? I used to listen to that song all the time and I can't think of what it's called.
I work with fluorescence anisotropy looking at proteins binding DNA so I really appreciated your polarizer demo- very cool! I wonder if you have made a video on double slit experiment and it's many variations esp. quantum eraser and delayed choice?
Why are you telling us that you an an unemployed guy who didn't pay attention in high school science class? ;-)
@@schmetterling4477Why are you telling us that you an an bitter angry douche with too much time on their hands? ;-)
double slit. photons
Excellent explanation on the entanglement part. Nice video overall 👍
NASA Facts: Secret NASA documents reveal the real shape of the Earth!
1 - LOCKHEED SR-71 BLACKBIRD: Technical Memorandum 104330: Predicted Performance of a Thrust Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload:
Page 08: DIGITAL PERFORMANCE SIMULATION DESCRIPTION: The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions that simplify the program while maintaining its fidelity for most maneuvers and applications: point-mass modeling, nonturbulent atmosphere, zero side forces, and a “nonrotating Earth”.
2 - NASA Reference Publication 1207: Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model: 08/1988:
2.1 Page 02: SUMMARY: This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a “fiat and nonrotating Earth”.
2.2 Page 30: 3 CONCLUDING REMARKS: This report derives and defines a set oflinearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a “flat and nonrotating Earth”.
2.3 Page 102: 16. Abstract: This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a “flat and nonrotating Earth”.
3 - NASA General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft:
Page 02: Rigid Body Equations of Motion Referenced to an Arbitrary Fixed Point on the Body There are several approaches that can be used to develop the general equations of motion. The one selected here starts with Newton’s laws applied to a collection of particles defining the rigid body (any number of dynamics or physics books can serve as references, e.g. reference 2). In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a “flat non-rotating Earth” are developed that are not necessarily referenced to the body’s center of mass.
4 - NASA: A METHOD FOR REDUCING THE SENSITIVITY OF OPTIMAL NONLINEAR SYSTEMS TO PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY: NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 1971:
Page 12: A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE: Problem Statement: The example problem is a fixed-time problem in which it is required to determine the thrust-attitude program of a single-stage rocket vehicle starting from rest and going to specified terminal conditions of altitude and vertical velocity which will maximize the final horizontal velocity. The idealizing assumptions made are the following:
(1) A point-mass vehicle
(2) A “flat, nonrotating Earth”
5 - NASA Technical Paper Nº 2835 1988: User’s Manual for Interactive LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program To Derive Linear Aircraft Models.
5.1 Page 01: SUMMARY: The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and “flat and nonrotating Earth” assumptions.
5.2 Page 126: 6. Abstract: The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations sith stationary atmosphere and “flat and nonrotating Earth” assumptions.
the addition of a 3rd polarizing film is truly counter intuitive , so much that for me it's not clear how more light passes trough the 3 films, does the middle 45 degrees film alters the polarization of the incident photons so they match the 3rd film, how it does it ?
How can you be sure you have a perfect polarizer
Absolutely fascinating! I just found your channel for the first time and I love it! I just subscribed. I cannot wait to see what else you produce 😊🙌📚
Einstein is proven wrong yay that means faster then light travel is possible we simply have not figured out how to do it yet that's all😊
@@raven4k998 personally I don’t think it’s possible, I think we might have to deal with fatalism to explain quantum non-locality 🤔
@@djvelocity ssshhh or I'll show you Fatal kid🤣
@@raven4k998 I don’t understand, can you explain?
evil only exists if goodness exists since you wouldn't know evil without first knowing goodness. Think of it like this. you cannot have shadows without light, but you can have light without shadows. So how is it that we know why good is good? if you're an atheist you don't know why it's wrong to kill a person you just know it's wrong though you don't know the reason. You see we know the universe had a beginning based on The Cosmic Microwave Background, which is "the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe" it is a 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, it was released soon after the 'Big Bang'. Scientists consider it as an echo or 'shockwave' of the Big Bang. this paired with the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding while also winding down. Not only did the matter in the universe have a beginning, but also the forces such as space, and gravity, and quantum forces, and time we know this from general relativity which shows that you cannot have space without time and you cannot have time without space and you cannot have matter without space or time! meaning that what could have caused the big bang would have to be outside of the realm of time and space meaning it's nonmaterial ! because nothing cannot happen to create something because there is nothing to occur to create something... So how does this go back to morality you ask? well would you believe it if I told you I just proved GOD's existence? You see GOD is outside of space and time! he is the one that was the cause of the universe he was the beginning, and since he is outside space and time. He is eternal meaning there was nothing before him he was always there and always will be. Now onto morality the reason we know it's wrong to kill someone is because GOD created us with a conscience con meaning with science meaning knowledge so when we kill someone we do it with knowledge that you just killed someone. The thing about your conscience is that it is GOD given society shaped. YOU can also shape your conscience the more you do things against it the quieter you make it it's like removing the batteries from your fire detector especially if you're loving the thing your conscience is warning you against.
Somebody on my channel linked to this video and said "far superior explanation"
I really like what you did, and I can relate to the struggle of what to leave out and what to explain and how, especially with this topic. Always interesting to see what other people come up with, great video.
😂 you keep going. I'll sub you, love
So, a quick correction. Einstein wasn't "wrong," he was the first to point out that entanglement was THE differentiating aspect of quantum mechanics and Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born, Dirac, Pauli etc DID NOT understand how significant the EPR paper was (and it was kind of ignored): Einstein UNDERSTOOD before everybody else that IF quantum entanglement was true, either locality or "realism" had to be abandoned, and if that was the case, what does that do to the primacy of special relativity? Kuhn argues, convincingly, that Einstein, not Planck, launched quantum theory in earnest (and he was able to derive Planck's equation using only Wien's law, not to mention the fact he independently derived the Rayleigh-Jeans Law). It was ultimately Einstein that INSPIRED John Bell (who was told by several peers not to even waste his time with experiments now known as Bell's theorem) to do the very experimental work that ultimately led to the Nobel Prize won by Clauser and co.
Einstein, contrary to popular opinion (and this isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of several science historians, contemporaries, and physicists like Sean Carrol), understood quantum mechanics better than anybody. Without his insights Schrodinger never derives his famous wave equation; without his insights, Born never comes up with Probability waves/distributions; without his insights De Broglie never comes up with matter waves.
Douglas Stone's "Einstein and The Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian" is an excellent synthetic history of this corner of scientific lore.
I'd argue that Einstein was THE most influential figure in the establishment of quantum mechanics (and he also happens to be the de facto father of condensed matter physics according to Cardona and others).