This Could Test the Quantum Twin Paradox

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 10 ноя 2024
  • Check out courses in science, computer science, or mathematics on Brilliant! First 30 days are free and 20% off the annual premium subscription when you use our link ➜ brilliant.org/....
    Physicists have come up with a new experiment to test the quantum twin paradox using a pair of atoms in a superposition. It's an interesting idea because it could tell us more about how Einstein's equivalence principle works in the quantum realm, ultimately helping us develop a theory of quantum gravity.
    Paper: journals.aps.o...
    🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
    💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
    📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.sub...
    👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
    📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfe...
    👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.c...
    🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
    / @sabinehossenfelder
    🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
    #science #sciencenews #physics #einstein

Комментарии • 711

  • @traian2041
    @traian2041 Месяц назад +65

    "Back then, when thinking still worked" is true for so many things these days it's scary.

    • @AstroGremlinAmerican
      @AstroGremlinAmerican Месяц назад +4

      Complaining is the new thing. Other people are so lazy and dumb!

    • @FurBurger151
      @FurBurger151 Месяц назад

      Thinking still worked because our thinking was still primitive.

    • @RS-ls7mm
      @RS-ls7mm Месяц назад +2

      The interviews of college students is frightening. So indoctrinated, so little learning.

    • @leonhardtkristensen4093
      @leonhardtkristensen4093 Месяц назад

      That may be the problem, Maybe people don't think any more. They just accept anything that they are told. That is very dangerous today as we can be told anything and as this video today could be done without Sabena even knowing it (artificial intelligence) we don't even know if she believes her self what she is saying. Critical thinking and multiple sources is the only thing sane.

    • @imacmill
      @imacmill Месяц назад

      ​@@RS-ls7mmWhatever are you referring to?

  • @dudemcdudeman5274
    @dudemcdudeman5274 Месяц назад +17

    Love the idea for this experiment, very cool. Please keep us posted!

    • @romank.6813
      @romank.6813 Месяц назад

      In fact, they've reinvented Pound-Rebka experiment done 64 years ago.

  • @aaronjennings8385
    @aaronjennings8385 Месяц назад +11

    Optical tweezers can be configured in various ways to achieve different trapping and manipulation capabilities. Here are some of the different beam configurations and techniques used:
    Single Gaussian Beam:
    The most common configuration involves a single, highly focused Gaussian laser beam. This setup is used to create a diffraction-limited spot that acts as the optical trap. The beam is typically focused through a high numerical aperture objective lens.
    Counter-Propagating Beams:
    This configuration uses two beams propagating in opposite directions. This setup can be used to trap particles in two dimensions or to extend the working distance of the optical tweezers.
    Structured Light:
    Advanced configurations involve structured light, such as:
    Annular Beams: Used to shift the beam in the radial direction.
    Fresnel Lenses: Used to shift the beam in the axial direction.
    Linear Gratings: Used to shift the beam in specific directions.
    Multiple Traps: Created by combining gratings for each beam.
    Tug-of-War Beams: Specialized beams for specific manipulation tasks.
    Line-Shaped Traps: For trapping particles along a line.
    Beams Carrying Orbital Angular Momentum: For more complex manipulation.
    Chiral Beams: Using annular subzone vortex phase plates.
    Polarized Beams:
    Some setups split the laser beam into orthogonally polarized beams, which can be used for more precise control over the trap.
    Dynamic Beam Steering:
    The angle of the beam entering the objective can be actively steered using motorized mirrors, acousto-optic or electro-optic deflectors to control the trap position inside the sample chamber.
    These configurations allow for a wide range of applications, from simple trapping of microscopic objects to complex manipulation and measurement of forces at the single-molecule level.

    • @jonathanodude6660
      @jonathanodude6660 Месяц назад

      Are you an AI chatbot or do you just have ASD? why the text dump?

  • @Thomas-gk42
    @Thomas-gk42 Месяц назад +16

    I really like these attention checks, educational necessary for such a complicated topic😊

    • @fathertimegaming17
      @fathertimegaming17 Месяц назад +1

      Seems like educational necessary in writing English sentences.

  • @DataIsBeautifulOfficial
    @DataIsBeautifulOfficial Месяц назад +138

    Einstein vs quantum twins - sounds like the next Marvel movie.

    • @osmosisjones4912
      @osmosisjones4912 Месяц назад

      Its finally completed: ruclips.net/video/ULDI-8gIYPM/видео.html

    • @brothermine2292
      @brothermine2292 Месяц назад +6

      Or a Marvel-DC crossover: Antman versus The Atom.

    • @t.c.2776
      @t.c.2776 Месяц назад

      or a kinky sci-fi porno...

    • @DjSapsan
      @DjSapsan Месяц назад +4

      or a video on a certain site:
      Two hole experiment with quantum twins

    • @lovesmiabunches
      @lovesmiabunches Месяц назад

      @@DjSapsannice

  • @chadbailey3623
    @chadbailey3623 Месяц назад +27

    I worked with optical tweezers in a biophysics research lab when I was in college. We tweezed much larger things: silica beads attached to the ends of human motor proteins. But it’s fascinating how many different applications the technology has!

    • @billberg1264
      @billberg1264 Месяц назад +5

      Optical tweezers are almost as versatile as sonic screwdrivers!

    • @Chicmac51
      @Chicmac51 Месяц назад

      @@billberg1264 There are sonic tweezers as well.

  • @janami-dharmam
    @janami-dharmam Месяц назад +28

    Thanks! I hope the experiment can be done within the budget allocated

  • @thedubdude
    @thedubdude Месяц назад +1

    This video is at the center of my interest for what you cover. Thank you.

  • @ericlipps9459
    @ericlipps9459 Месяц назад +5

    Acceleration will also be involved as the twins separate, since presumably the twin aboard the rocket starts at zero velocity, and during the trip back, _after_ the rocket turns around, since the rocket twin will want to arrive home at zero velocity.

  • @noelstarchild
    @noelstarchild Месяц назад +4

    Always my favourite physicist Sabine Hossenfelder....thank you.

  • @ariadnepyanfar1048
    @ariadnepyanfar1048 Месяц назад +9

    Universe bless you Sabina. I have a degenerative disease that affects my concentration. But despite being 99% bedbound now, I have just enough concentration to sometimes watch these bite sized physics and climate videos, and stay a little connected. I love the universe so much. Reality is a godless miracle.

  • @collinstanton
    @collinstanton Месяц назад +3

    Terrific show, thanks so much, you are Brilliant and an excellent teacher. Thank you so much.

  • @edwardlulofs444
    @edwardlulofs444 Месяц назад +2

    Excellent video. Thanks.

  • @luudest
    @luudest Месяц назад +2

    1:27 1. Does the amount of acceleration matter regarding time dilation? 2. Does it matter with wich speed the twin flew away and returned? 3. And does it matter how long the twin was away?

    • @leonhardtkristensen4093
      @leonhardtkristensen4093 Месяц назад

      According to my calculations acceleration doesn't matter one little bit. Speed matters and so does length contraction but that depends on speed. Time away matters in the way that if you age at say half speed then if you travel say 1 year earth time you will have aged 1/2 year only. 10 years away make you only 5 years older.
      My method of calculation is trying to put two points on your space ship along your traveling way say A and B. If you go half the speed of light and you start a light beam from A then when the light front reaches where B should have been then B is already half the way between A and B further away. You will find that it will take light 2 times as long to catch B than if it was at standstill. If you then have a mirror at B you will find that it takes 2/3 the time for the light to come back to A.
      This parallel time clock does not show correct time compared to a perpendicular time clock that Einstein used unless you also invoke length contraction. Then it shows the same.
      What I get from this is that it is most likely an electronic clock internal in every atom or maybe even on a smaller scale that actually does it. Electric pulses travel at the same speed as light in vacuum and it would probably appear as vacuum at those scales. It explain why a Muon life longer when at speed.

  • @nunomaroco583
    @nunomaroco583 Месяц назад +5

    Super interesting, great explanation, allthe best.

  • @lightlegion_
    @lightlegion_ Месяц назад

    That is so great! Pls stay in touch!

  • @STEVEBURTON99
    @STEVEBURTON99 Месяц назад +48

    "Just checking to see if you're listening" Gotta love her dry humor.

    • @Thomas-gk42
      @Thomas-gk42 Месяц назад +3

      😂

    • @user-ov5nd1fb7s
      @user-ov5nd1fb7s Месяц назад

      Her humor is so dry that even P. Daddy's gazillion lube bottles won't make a difference.

  • @lukesellars7178
    @lukesellars7178 Месяц назад +68

    Interesting. Oh, happy belated birthday btw

    • @CheapHomeTech
      @CheapHomeTech Месяц назад +4

      18 September 1976 (age 48) Frankfurt, West Germany. Reminds me of Dan Hooper which I was looking up earlier this morning: 16 December 1976 (age 47) Minnesota, United States. I wonder how many prominent particle physicists were born in 1976?

    • @elfeiin
      @elfeiin Месяц назад +2

      Happy birthday, Sabine!

    • @NO-WAR-WINGS
      @NO-WAR-WINGS Месяц назад

      Sabine's reasoning and solution theorieum more practical than most scientists.

  • @Femtoxide99-ni3sq
    @Femtoxide99-ni3sq Месяц назад +19

    The interesting part of the twin paradox is that it can be constructed without acceleration (eg. with synchronizing clocks in spaceships passing by each other) and - if the topology of the universe is circular - without change of direction even (going away in the ship in one direction and arriving back from the other). Simply referring acceleration does not completely solve the paradox in all its variants.

    • @darrennew8211
      @darrennew8211 Месяц назад +4

      Even just saying "One twin goes one light year, turns around, and comes back, and the other goes five light years, turns around, and comes back" shows it isn't the acceleration. They Did The Math. There's a bunch of ways to have people meet up twice with only one accelerating.

    • @alexanderkohler6439
      @alexanderkohler6439 Месяц назад +3

      "if the topology of the universe is circular" So basically you are suggesting a flat spacetime that is cylindrical with a timelike cylinder axis. In case of such a space time, symmetry between both twins will be broken. There is just one preferred inertial frame of reference, let us call it A, in which the time axis would be "aligned" with the cylinder axis of the space time. Any other reference frame B that is moving with constant velocity relative to A would have a time axis that is not aligned the with the cylinder axis of this space time. The twin at rest in B will always be younger than the twin in frame A when they meet again after one revolution.

    • @zemm9003
      @zemm9003 Месяц назад +3

      No it cannot. The twin paradox is absolute. We need one of them to deviate from the geodesic of motion otherwise they all age at the same rate.

    • @SEBE3835
      @SEBE3835 Месяц назад +1

      That's correct. Special Relativity does not concern accelerations.

    • @brothermine2292
      @brothermine2292 Месяц назад +4

      Plot the two paths on a (Minkowski) spacetime diagram, and then compare the proper elapsed time of both paths.

  • @GamelanSinarSurya
    @GamelanSinarSurya Месяц назад

    Thank you for all of your great videos. As a lay person, your excellent graphics, as well as your wicked sense of humor, really keep someone with a non-scientific bent such as myself engaged. Keep at it!

  • @billwesley
    @billwesley Месяц назад

    This will be an interesting experiment, I look forward to learning about the results.
    It takes no energy to maintain a speed (in empty space which is also empty of gravity) because once a speed is established it stays the same. In effect the word "energy" is simply a way of objectifying what is not actually an object, it simply means "change" Potential energy simply means "potential change". (we are treating a verb as a noun)
    Acceleration is no different from deceleration, to do ether requires some form of change which is termed some form of "energy"( a rocket, a collision, gravity).
    If one twin stays put and the other twin travels away and then comes back then the twin that left and came back experiences more change than the twin who stayed put, so the extra change required to move away and then reverse direction and come back is said to cause the traveling twin to experience "less time".
    The thought experiment is such that if the stationary twin could instantaneously see (not see by light) the traveling twin moving about in their cabin time would only seem to have slowed down for the traveling twin to the degree they were accelerating or decelerating , but not when the traveling twin is maintaining a constant speed.
    For the traveling twin if they could instantaneously see (not see by light) the stationary twin back on earth the reverse would be observed, the stationary twin would seem for the traveling twin to be living in sped up time to the degree the traveling twin was accelerating or decelerating but not when the traveling twin is maintaining a constant speed.
    Time is a measure of change, if nothing changes we can not measure time.
    We could alter the interpretation of this thought experiment from the traditional interpretation which is that time is not absolute.
    We could treat time as absolute and unalterable and imagine that the changes in "time" that are instantaneously observed by ether twin when the traveling twin is accelerating or decelerating are not changes in the passage of time for ether twin but are limits on all other forms of change (all other forms of energy).
    Like a bank account the energy we withdraw to change velocity must be subtracted from the energy available for other activities.
    That is changes in velocity limit all other forms of change giving the illusion of a change in the passage of time.
    Therefore we are not actually forced to conclude that we are witnessing TIME dilation in absolute energy (the speed of light represents an absolute measure of energy) but instead we could just as easily interpret that we are witnessing ENERGY dilation in ABSOLUTE TIME.
    Thus the twin paradox is actually a quadruplet paradox, we have arbitrarily chosen one interpretation of the thought experiment over the other, this other interpretation is not considered because we have preferred for energy to be absolute but for time to be relativistic, but time is only a measure of change, it is not the changes that are measured.

  • @ericthecyclist
    @ericthecyclist Месяц назад

    I had been wondering about twin problem for a while, the whole question of who is slowed down. Thank you for shedding some light on it.

  • @CurtisHoareau
    @CurtisHoareau Месяц назад +9

    "even atoms have better focus than I do on a Monday morning..."..you are awesome!

  • @TheSkystrider
    @TheSkystrider Месяц назад

    Love you Sabine! Keep up what you're doing, we all absolutely love your daily videos! You've really improved and nailed the format, pace, detail level, jokes, etc - high value videos without it being impossible to make one per day (actually how is it possible?!) Obv you must have a great team too so this is recognition for all of you! I love what you've done/doing and I also really think highly of you Sabine! Daily dose kinda makes it feel like you're a coworker or friend lol!
    - Mark from Canada

    • @DonnieGoodman-tz7kz
      @DonnieGoodman-tz7kz Месяц назад

      Easy Skystrider,The lady is already spoken for. Unless you'd like to be the main star in my next video? We're going to be de-bunking quantum immortality . The yearning I have for her love is so strong. It could pull the light back from across the event horizon of a supermassive black hole.
      Donnie Goodman
      Bering Sea Alaska

  • @VicMikesvideodiary
    @VicMikesvideodiary Месяц назад +3

    I'm a third of the way through this and am stunned by what's being said. Because I've been quoting and thinking about my own version of the paradox, and why things then just don't make sense under just velocity and finally arrived at the conclusion that acceleration has to be the difference factor. Only to be told some time later by someone supposedly more knowledgeable that acceleration had nothing to do with it only velocity---but it turned out I was right, which I'm just finding out about now.

    • @allanolley4874
      @allanolley4874 Месяц назад

      Because it is somewhat complicated. Both twins could undergo the same acceleration at different times and the resolution would be the same as if one had not accelerated.
      Twin A and B both get in a rocket ship that accelerates to 0.5 c (the speed of light), but just as it finishes accelerating (assume acceleration is ludicrously fast almost instantaneous) Twin A realizes they don't want to go on the ship and get in an escape pod that accelerates them really really fast (to like 0.99 c) to head back home and then matches speed with home and so is back home. Twin B spends years (according to Twin A) traveling away from home and then fires retrorockets to go really fast in the opposite direct (again like 0.99c) returns and accelerates again to match speed with home (the same accelerations as Twin B at different times), they are home much later much less aged than Twin A. But in terms of amount of acceleration both are the same.
      This is because what matters is the length of the spacetime trajectory the twins take. Having different accelerations mean they take different trajectories, but it is where and when they accelerate that determine those lengths. I never really learned how to calculate lengths of space time trajectories (x^2+y^2+z^2-t^2 I think ?), but it is easy to keep track by just paying attention to what the time dilation an observe from a single frame of reference for the entirety of Twin A and Twin B's trip should see, it doesn't have to be home's frame it can be any single frame (Twin B and Twin A both change frames, although Twin A in this scenario is only in any frame other than home for moments). Like an observer may be traveling at the same speed Twin B does for his entire outbound trip. He will observe a large time dilation for both Twin A and Twin B at home, and no time dilation while Twin B has matched speeds with the observer but will observe an even greater time dilation for Twin B during his return trip than he observes for Twin A staying at home.

    • @axle.student
      @axle.student Месяц назад

      I am not a physicist, but I have always interpreted it much the same as Sabine stated at the start.
      You have to separate the concepts of time dilation, due to gravity/acceleration from time dilation due only to velocity. They are different effects :)
      Yes there is a subtle relationship but not in the twins paradox. 2 different concepts get blurred together :)

    • @ShonMardani
      @ShonMardani Месяц назад

      Both twins will die, one from the rocket and the other one while waiting. This Twin Paradox is one the most stupid theories I ever heard of. Which fool thinks that the time changes by speed. What happened to relativity, If the rocket is moving at the speed of the light, then it should mean that the earth is moving away from the rocket at the speed of the light and time should slow down for everyone on the earth.

    • @axle.student
      @axle.student Месяц назад

      @@ShonMardani You may need to rephrase that word salad. It is quit ambiguous to the reader.
      In the last part of your statement in context, no ones actual time should slow down or change.

    • @ShonMardani
      @ShonMardani Месяц назад

      @@axle.student One guy imagined [while being drunk] that if you move faster your time is slower based on the assumption that time is what we see, other words if we go as fast as the light then what we see remains the same and frozen, since we are moving with the photons.
      Since then millions of scientists had talk about it for millions of hours, yet nobody can understand it and everyone has a different take on the subject, because it is an invalid imagination.

  • @SebSenseGreen
    @SebSenseGreen Месяц назад +1

    2:40 I was actually not listening... and you brought me back in! Good job!

  • @gusv6137
    @gusv6137 Месяц назад

    That's a nice one. I am keen on the outcome.

  • @blablablubb1
    @blablablubb1 Месяц назад +1

    Happy Birthday, and thank you for making these great videos! That's a cool experiment! I wondered, isn't there also acceleration when moving the traps apart? Is that exactly the same for both branches? How do they control for that? (skimmed through paper but didn't see it mentioned...). [My estimation: Acceleration causing the effect: delta g = 2g*0.1m/R_earth, approx 3*10^-7m/s^2. To get the traps 0.1m apart on a timescale of 10s, an acceleration of at least 2*10^-3m/s^2 is required. So if the trap branches experience accelerations that do just vary by a factor of 10^-4, the effect of delta g is expected to be at 1 noise level.]

    • @brothermine2292
      @brothermine2292 Месяц назад +1

      Presumably both superposed paths are designed to have an equal acceleration.

    • @blablablubb1
      @blablablubb1 Месяц назад

      @@brothermine2292 Thank you!

  • @Nivola1953
    @Nivola1953 Месяц назад

    One of your best videos, explaining something complicated in a way even lay people like me can understand, or at least I think I did 🤔🤭, and with few drops of German humour 😊!

  • @heisag
    @heisag Месяц назад

    About time they do this experiment..

  • @Jumbohef
    @Jumbohef Месяц назад

    I love your sense of humour x

  • @Robert-yc9ql
    @Robert-yc9ql Месяц назад

    Thank you for your honesty and integrity.
    It is a pleasant respite from all the abundant scientific garbage being spewed by people still trying to turn lead into gold, or in this case, a bad idea into money.

  • @lycz9869
    @lycz9869 Месяц назад

    If we assume that time=expansion of the universe, would this directly cause a moving object to experience time passing/universe expanding slower? A "static" object would be the reference for time passing, as all other points in the universe move away from it. Moving objects would "stick" to other objects which they move towards to, and work against the expansion in that direction. The only way to stop time would be to move in all directions (expand), like a wave (e.g. light).
    Expansion as time is weird, but to me it makes sense because it would explain things in only a 3D room, without a fourth dimension of time. Without expansion, nothing could change as particles could not move into another state (Pauli principle). Time as fourth dimension implies that our universe moves within another space (i.e. time) which makes no sense. Moving our universe a bit to the side would mean that objects take the place of other objects, becoming those objects. This could be circumvented if the movement goes in all directions, i.e. expansion.
    Probably nonsense, but to me it is much more intuitive to think of time as the process of expansion of our universe than something out of our 3D space.

  • @36SSB
    @36SSB Месяц назад

    Have to agree with the other comments. Sabine's humor always makes me smile. 🙂

  • @ricardoabh3242
    @ricardoabh3242 Месяц назад

    Best simple explanation ever… I always confused the eve t of speed.

  • @docholiday8029
    @docholiday8029 Месяц назад +1

    Love thought experiments!

  • @DanielLCarrier
    @DanielLCarrier Месяц назад

    Time dilation does depend just on speed, but that's if you're looking at it from a given frame of reference. Under special relativity, the solution is that the twin that comes back has to change their frame of reference, and this changes what their idea of "right now" is for distant objects. While they're leaving, they see their twin as younger, but then when they turn around, under their new frame of reference, the twin gets older.
    With general relativity, you can include acceleration instead of just changing frames of reference. In that case, while the twin is turning around, if they use Rindler coordinates, they'll feel that they're in a gravitational field and the twin they're accelerating towards (who is "above" them) has less gravitational time dilation and thus ages super fast.

  • @johnwronski9852
    @johnwronski9852 Месяц назад

    I love your sarcasm!!!

  • @regolith1350
    @regolith1350 Месяц назад

    1:19 "The passage of time doesn't depend on speed. That's just a misinterpretation of the math. What actually changes it is acceleration."
    Holy smokes!! How have I missed that detail all these years??? Wow, thank you. I never realized I was getting it wrong all this time.

  • @Young-JuLee
    @Young-JuLee Месяц назад

    By the way, regarding quantum physisc,
    Electrosatic potential V(r) ~ 1/r^2, assumes point particles.
    However, we regards electron clouds in hydron atom model.
    And we solve Schrodinger differential equation.
    Up to how small vallue of position r, can we differentiate?
    up to Plank length?
    It's still applicable the V(r) ~ 1/r^2 in the electron clouds?
    These are my personal self questions.

  • @TheJoergenDK
    @TheJoergenDK Месяц назад

    I love what you're doing. I love your sense of humor. I even love your, with all due respect, somewhat noticeable accent, or what I usually call "The Chairman Accident". I want to thank you for being so honest, curious, intelligent, sceptical, charming, funny and beautiful. Seven things I respect more than all other personal traits. Good on you, good bless you and gute fahrt!

  • @martf1061
    @martf1061 Месяц назад +1

    5:05
    Best quote ever..
    " back then, when thinking.."

  • @tmarti69
    @tmarti69 Месяц назад

    Got a definition for Time in a Plankxel perspective. Time is the change of entanglements in each plankxel. Consider the space time as a photograph and each pixel is a plankxel. The neighboring entaglments may be leaking say 50% but as more plankxels overlap or crowd each other the entanglements accumulatively average out to say 10% (gravity), or the faster you travel spreading englments to other plankxels 10%. So, the change of entanglement is slower, and time is slower. As a computer model this would be easy to simulate, would each plankxel overlap, compress or something in between?

  • @AstroGremlinAmerican
    @AstroGremlinAmerican Месяц назад

    1:31 I think you meant to say "decelerated" for the twin that turns around. Or maybe I'm traveling fast and thinking slow. Big fan.

    • @leoglisic8324
      @leoglisic8324 Месяц назад

      Acceleration is a change in velocity in any direction. Plus 5 meters per second or minus 5 meters per second are both acceleration, just viewed from a different frame of reference

  • @winstonsmith6065
    @winstonsmith6065 Месяц назад +4

    Dana Scully wrote her thesis on Einstein’s twin paradox… somebody should ask her about it. 👍

    • @ypey1
      @ypey1 Месяц назад +1

      Ask her if she is still single while you’re at it

    • @Anonymous-df8it
      @Anonymous-df8it Месяц назад +1

      Good luck with that!

  • @malokey7
    @malokey7 Месяц назад

    I understand that you like quantum mechanics but as a soft matter physicist, I would like to see you cover more soft matter physics and biophysics (you done that in the past).

  • @AlexisOmnis
    @AlexisOmnis Месяц назад

    Some scientists believe the dimension of time used to be a spatial dimension, at the time of the big bang. I propose that it never stopped being a spatial dimension & that the way we see it is down to our perspective.
    I also speculate that entangled particles are connected via a naturally occurring warp bubble that stretches the whole way between particles A & B & it increases or decreases it's distance depending on the distance between the particles. From the particles' perspective, they are right next to each other but, from our perspective, they are remote from each other.
    Essentially, the space between them is folded up into higher spatial dimensions.
    This, unfortunately, would mean there would be no reason to build spaceships like the Enterprise because we could make warp bubbles that warp space the whole distance from star system A to star systems B! 🤯
    It would, however, mean we could have instantaneous teleportation

  • @peterwolftips
    @peterwolftips Месяц назад

    Great and interesting video again!
    Are you open to "What if" discussions? Asking as a science-fiction writer 😊 it'll be nice to discuss my quantum physics ideas with someone who can point out areas where I'm wrong about my theories 😅

  • @Scramjet44
    @Scramjet44 Месяц назад +4

    Very interesting as usual, enjoyed the comment about the thought experiments from "back in the day when thinking worked", or something like that.

  • @SusanPearce_H
    @SusanPearce_H Месяц назад

    Did they compensate for the differential acceleration when bringing the "quantum" particles together, and then again when separating them at a later time?
    Energy is added to one particle and removed from the other, as is time dilated during both journies.

  • @daveharris2884
    @daveharris2884 Месяц назад +2

    What is a party? Never heard of it. Sounds scary.

  • @seriousmaran9414
    @seriousmaran9414 Месяц назад +2

    The sarcasm is strong with this one...
    And rightly so.

  • @AntonioRagagnin
    @AntonioRagagnin Месяц назад

    Very interesting! I thought a theory combining QM+GR is doable if the gravitational potential is a static/unchangeable background (sorry, I do not know the exact technical term). So, I wonder why it is not clear what the outcome of the experiment is.

  • @markdatko4832
    @markdatko4832 Месяц назад

    I wish journalists would include "in reference to" or similar in reporting speeds. Each time the iss is mentioned for example

  • @grayaj23
    @grayaj23 Месяц назад

    That experiment sounds brilliant. I hope it provides some answers.

  • @howtoappearincompletely9739
    @howtoappearincompletely9739 Месяц назад

    Respect for using the correct singular of "dice".

  • @samedwards6683
    @samedwards6683 Месяц назад

    Dr. Sabine,
    Thanks again for another thought provoking video. OK. My brain hurts now. For over 40 years (since I first heard about the twin paradox) I thought that "gravity" and the gravitational distortion of spacetime was responsible for the difference in aging. Now you are telling me that it is "acceleration". Please make an in-depth video explaining Why / How. I know that, when it comes to acceleration, it doesn't matter what is causing it (the gravitation or a rocket engine - hence the elevator thought experiment), which is why they've been proposing rotating space stations for decades now (over a century?). But I would Love to "see" the equation(s) that show that it is Acceleration itself (a), and not Gravity (G) that is causing the time dilation. Please don't make me ask Dr. Google.... ;)

  • @monkerud2108
    @monkerud2108 Месяц назад

    If i decide to write a proper paper or book about it, i will send it to you for review, i'll even pay you for it, because you are pretty cool. Its just very frustrating to me, that we don't have any clear way to communicate how it actually works. Just gestuiring at it in euclidian representations or minkowsky representations and making very basic verbal arguments, since the people out there don't really make that effort to learn it themselves. Thats quite a difficult part of science communications. And even within the community i think there is still quite a bit if confusion.

  • @gregoryclifford6938
    @gregoryclifford6938 Месяц назад

    Turbulence between twin celestial bodies is one cause of gravitational waves of alternating spherical bands, but does that convert to quantum scale? We don’t see atoms combining in congregated gravity pools, so a repulsive band must protect like atoms when forming metallic structures or anything else. Weak force doesn’t overcome that normally, but it does in the concentrations at an event horizon?
    The trap sounds great, but are those pairs tunneling through the unequal gravity streams that a counter can measure? Way cool.
    Or do. atoms have a limited doorway size, below that event horizon threshold? The greater density of lines of flux towards the destination apex would be greater than that in open space, unless a velocity increase causes an atom to encounter and incorporate ‘gravitons’ or whatever quasiparticle that may be.
    But is there a jet stream or Gulfstream encountered by Voyager craft that suggest non-uniformity in space? Can a sacrificial layer of atoms protect inner layers from deeper absorption, or will gravity bypass that shield and penetrate to the core faster than diverting or deflecting them?
    Would natural processes of aging or particle decay show in those split pairs? Would those processes slow on one route, such as to converge with the other in precisely the same condition without any perception of change apparent to either?

  • @MatrixVectorPSI
    @MatrixVectorPSI Месяц назад

    It should prove very interesting to know what actually is physically changing with the rate of time dilation. I think it just boils down to insufficient time keeping methods. The laws of physics are the same in all reference frames and everything exists in the present.

  • @AkantorJojo
    @AkantorJojo Месяц назад

    An experiment to test a prediction.
    Now that for once is real science.
    Thanks

  • @amedeofilippi6336
    @amedeofilippi6336 Месяц назад +1

    Am i wrong if in the twin paradox i understand that for the one who is considered at rest is the other twin’s time which is slowing down and the higher the relative speed and distance the higher becomes the slow passing of time to the twin considered as being at rest?

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon Месяц назад

      That's right, the faster B goes relative to A, the slower B's clocks tick in A's frame of reference. Distance only becomes important when one of them accelerates though.

  • @DavidBeaumont
    @DavidBeaumont Месяц назад

    My guess is that as the "atoms" are separated, they will inevitably decohere at some point, and the atom will be measured in one location. That's mainly because I'm a believer in "direct collapse" models.

  • @jedadiahtucker2132
    @jedadiahtucker2132 Месяц назад

    i thought cosmic rays already showed that particles experienced time dilation. don't remember the specifics but it was something like the particles should decay before they make it to the ground but because of the time dilation they make it.

  • @takanara7
    @takanara7 Месяц назад +1

    From what I understand then twin paradox works if you do the calculations based on either acceleration or speed. Basically you can pick your 'reference frame' to have any velocity, if you calculate the amount of time that has to pass for each twin in that reference frame it always 'works out' for both twins when you do the math. There's no mathematical difference between calculation based on speed or calculation based on acceleration. (Or in other words, if you ignore acceleration and just assume it happens instantaneously, the calculations all work out fine)
    So for example, if you you have a reference where twin A goes and comes back, if your reference frame is such that you're following twin A, it looks like twin B is moving away at the speed of light, but then when twin A turns around and heads back, now both twins are going near the speed of light, but now twin A is going much *closer* to the speed of light then twin B was - so again if you actually do the calculations it ends up working out, even though that might not seem to be the case intuitively

    • @darrennew8211
      @darrennew8211 Месяц назад

      Except if you use gravity to change direction, or if you "sit still" by hovering (thus accelerating) in a gravity field, or if you use a gravitational slingshot to turn around, you get different answers than "it's acceleration." The right answer is that it's whoever traveled farther through the time direction of spacetime is the one that's older, and there's no trivial way to calculate which is which based on acceleration.
      Even just saying "One twin goes one light year, turns around, and comes back, and the other goes five light years, turns around, and comes back" shows it isn't the acceleration.

    • @Syphirioth
      @Syphirioth Месяц назад

      They need look at the whole picture. But they don't... Look we flying trough the universe but we forget the whole universe while doing so.

    • @you5711
      @you5711 Месяц назад

      @@darrennew8211 I have a problem with your comment, "if you 'sit still' by hovering (thus accelerating) in a gravity field." I'm sitting still in my chair in a gravity field, and I'm not accelerating because my velocity is zero, and it's constant, and therefore my acceleration is zero.

  • @erniemiller1953
    @erniemiller1953 Месяц назад

    Time is not affected by speed nor acceleration, it is a dimension external to height/width/depth. which is how speed and acceleration are measured. Time is no more affected than a measure of distance is affected...that is, it is NOT affected. If you shorten 5 centimeters by 50%, it is now 2.5 cm.

  • @PeterNield
    @PeterNield Месяц назад +2

    There's the joke about German humour being no laughing matter.
    But when Sabine is talking about quantum particle physics, you won't know until she tells the joke!

  • @endocrinemusings
    @endocrinemusings Месяц назад +1

    Alles Gute zum Geburtstag!

  • @KuchenCraft
    @KuchenCraft Месяц назад

    Optical tweezers are not crossed laser beams. Actually only one laser beam is focussed on a spot, wherein this concentrated focus is a trap for small transparent pieces (10-100 nm is huge compared to an atom).

  • @jptigrou
    @jptigrou Месяц назад

    I once heard that explaining the twins paradox by the U-turn acceleration is wrong because you could augment the twins'time difference by increasing the distance of the journey while keeping the same U-turn acceleration?

  • @Mejoche
    @Mejoche Месяц назад

    I love how funny these videos are 😂

  • @mm-yt8sf
    @mm-yt8sf Месяц назад

    i've heard of the twin paradox, twin B zooms away and comes back much younger than twin A..
    but i made a thought experiment that confuses me:
    twin A and B start out together (all times are from twin A's perspective)
    twin B gets a massive (and probably lethal) acceleration that gets him to .99 light speed in 1 second
    twin B coasts for ten years
    (both will appear red shifted and moving slower than normal but this will be reversed when they are approaching each other later)
    twin B get another 1 second burst to bring him to a stop and then another 1 second burst to make him approach twin A at .99c
    ten years later twin B gets another 1 second braking to bring him to a stop next to twin A.
    but if the time passing slowly only happens during acceleration and not while free falling/coasting then twin B should be experiencing different time passage only for 4 seconds of twin As time, so after 20 years twin B should at worst only be 4 seconds younger than twin A, right? but i thought the paradox was much more dramatic than that...?

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon Месяц назад

      Her words might be confusing, it's not about how long one accelerates, it's just the acceleration itself in special relativity is a change of frame of reference, and that brings the difference between two twin's situations. The whole twins paradox can be modeled without any object's acceleration, just twin B moving linearly past twin A, then later meeting person C moving in opposite direction and later C moving past A again. If we mark how much time passes on B and C clocks between these meetings, the sum will be shorter than time passed for A. Even if neither of them accelerated. In special relativity it all can be shown purely geometrically, how each change of reference frame is a kind of "rotation" in spacetime, how it changes relative space and time coordinates. For the 3 linear paths forming a triangle in spacetime, we get a triangle inequality where one side is longer that the sum of two others (unlike ordinary Euclidean geometry where it must be shorter).

  • @RiiDii
    @RiiDii Месяц назад

    *Here's my prediction for the experiment:* The observed difference will be smaller than expected, possibly approaching no difference. The energy applied by the optical tweezers to hold the atoms in place acts as a form of acceleration, effectively adding energy to the atom's local frame of reference and potentially negating gravitational effects.
    We can express the difference (delta) between the two arms as:
    Delta a = (a_{Arm1} - a_{Arm2} )- a_{tweezers}
    Where:
    a_{Arm1} is the gravitational acceleration in the higher trap (Arm 1),
    a_{Arm2} is the gravitational acceleration in the lower trap (Arm 2),
    a_{tweezers} is the energy-induced acceleration by the tweezers applied to both arms.*
    If a_{tweezers} is large enough to balance out the difference (a_{Arm1} - a_{Arm2}), the net effect could reduce or eliminate the gravitational time dilation between the two arms, leading to a smaller observed difference than expected.
    _* I don't know if the paper already took this into consideration. Edit: spelling_

  • @RichardKriske
    @RichardKriske Месяц назад

    I proposed a better idea. Richard Kriske again. When 2 electrons are in superposition around an atom they have to be the same age. Age is different from time itself, and is observable by both twins, it's an invariant. Time is coupled with space but age is not. When one electron travels and accelerates the other stands still, since they are in superposition they take turns and the overall orbital is a Mobius. If for some reason the orbital is changed, the electrons are no longer the same age and the atom bonds to another atom or becomes an ion. So superposition, the most fundamental property of quantum mechanics depends on the twin's paradox, on "age", which is a conserved quantity. So there's your connection between relativity and quantum mechanics, between gravity and quantum mechanics. I call it Richard Kriske's unified field theory. I discovered it, give me a noble prize, but please prove it. I am glad that I made such a big contribution to physics.

  • @SeanFlynnNB
    @SeanFlynnNB Месяц назад

    Thank you for pointing out the role of acceleration in the Twin Paradox. It drives me nuts when people talk about it in terms of just velocity. As if one twin or the other occupies a privileged frame of reference. Just look at the sharp corners in the typical space-time diagram used to illustrate the paradox. Aiiiiiieeeee!

    • @myhalong
      @myhalong Месяц назад

      When you travel in a zigzag between two cities you experience an acceleration with each change of direction but you do not invoke general relativity to calculate the length of the journey or its duration

    • @chalichaligha3234
      @chalichaligha3234 Месяц назад +1

      Two twins head away from Earth in opposite directions, both have the same acceleration program in their ships for accelerating away, cruising at constant velocity at 0.7c, changing directions back towards Earth, cruising on the way back and decelerating upon return. Twin A cruises for a total of 2 days, Twin B cruises for a total of 2 years.
      Will any of the twins have aged more than the other, and if so, which one?
      The answer: Twin B will have aged more.
      Draw what conclusion you will from this.

  • @monkerud2108
    @monkerud2108 Месяц назад

    As I said though, just saying it is acceleration, is misleading to non experts, even to some physicist, because acceleration according to who, what euclidian coordinates deribed from what inertial frame. Or usingbwhat relative units. People then run of and find contradictions that are just consequences of subtle mistakes. I think i much more generally overview of the representation theory is in order if most people are going to understand the subtleties. The way it is thought in undergrad is usually unsing minkowsky spacetime, 4 vectors andnso on, because it just solves the issue of having to keep track of what represtations quantities translates into what in another reorestation and so on, that just makes it really hard to keep straight in your head. The metric way to look at it is nicer and simpler mathematically, but it is in no way a superior or even different theory philosophically. I think a lot of physicist are unaware of how it works in euclidian space in full detail, and that leads to a lot of crackpots falling into holes they can never get out of without any skills. I think that is kind of sad. It also leads ti a lot of physicst saykng things that are just wrong, which i thinknis also a bit sad.

  • @blauemadeleine
    @blauemadeleine Месяц назад +6

    My mind boggles 😎
    I love your sense of humour 🎉

  • @dustysoodak
    @dustysoodak Месяц назад

    Didn’t they already do this with that experiment that had the really precise neutron interferometer (scattering crystal was machined almost to atomic precision) where one path was a few cm higher?

  • @doubletribble-yt
    @doubletribble-yt Месяц назад

    1:19 - "...the passage of time doesn't actually depend on speed..."
    This is the first time I've heard this (in the context of relativity). My understanding is that, from the perspective of an observer in a outside inertial reference frame, time will pass more slowly in an inertial reference frame that is moving at relativistic speeds. Can you please tell me more?
    (Yes, accelerated reference frames also effect relative time because they are changing from one inertial reference frame to another.)

  • @MChill111
    @MChill111 Месяц назад

    Happy birthday!

  • @cyclonasaurusrex1525
    @cyclonasaurusrex1525 Месяц назад +5

    I wonder if Sabine ever stops to think something like, “Holy shit, we can capture an ATOM with two fricking laser beams.”

    • @thekaxmax
      @thekaxmax Месяц назад

      From her description of it that's pretty accurate

    • @jonathanodude6660
      @jonathanodude6660 Месяц назад

      anyone whos got a degree in physics isnt very surprised at the technology theyve used for decades 😂 you can actually hold pieces of dust in two lasers, which is just a large collection of atoms. styropyro probably has a video doing just that. tbh as a chemistry graduate im more impressed with nuclear resonance spectroscopy and x-ray crystallography because of the insane maths and therefore interpretation of reality that went into the reasoning behind the methods and the analysis of the results, as well as the design and calibration of the machines.

  • @TheNewPhysics
    @TheNewPhysics Месяц назад +3

    Dr. Hossenfelder made the classic mistake....blaming acceleration for the aging difference...:)

    • @Thomas-gk42
      @Thomas-gk42 Месяц назад

      that´s not what she said.

    • @imacmill
      @imacmill Месяц назад

      Inconceivable!

  • @Shadow_B4nned
    @Shadow_B4nned Месяц назад

    Time dilation and the Twin paradox isn't so confusing once you realize that everything exists in the present. Even though mass causes the rate of time to pass slower, everything still exists in the present.

  • @RolandGiersig
    @RolandGiersig Месяц назад

    I prefer parties where people do talk about twin paradoxons and all other cool stuff that gets mentioned here on this channel. Anybody know such parties? 🤔

    • @Thomas-gk42
      @Thomas-gk42 Месяц назад

      They are rare gems in the party space, but I´m with you.

  • @andrewwkubicek5001
    @andrewwkubicek5001 Месяц назад +1

    Wait a minute! I thought they did this year's ago using atomic clocks, one in flight and one on the ground. These clocks utilize the same decay rate as you know. Isn't that similar to the wave function?

    • @valentinmalinov8424
      @valentinmalinov8424 Месяц назад

      That's right, but They do not want a real result. We have the result of this experiment on a daily basis with the atomic clocks mounted on GPS satellites. Unfortunately, the result is disproving Einstein narrative. - GPS clocks are running faster despite the satellites is traveling faster than the Earth surface. The same story is with Mercury Precession. There is two separate physical interactions which "must" slow down Mercury Clocks - The acceleration near the Sun and the stronger Sun gravity. Despite this, Mercury disobey Einstein and accelerate and having "Unexplained" Precession. To cover up this "They" make a complicated mathematical computations... but the bottom line is that (-2) + (-2) = 4 but they calculate as: -2 x -2 = +4 and "Voala" Mercury precession was "explained". There is a book which explaining better all these misconceptions - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

  • @jeffw1360
    @jeffw1360 Месяц назад +1

    Twin paradox explained by acceleration? The derivation in special relativity uses only velocities. Therefore, if you have to invoke acceleration, you are implying special relativity (or some aspect of it) is wrong. I’m not aware of any fault in special relativity having been found. Would you care to explain Sabine?

    • @jeffw1360
      @jeffw1360 Месяц назад

      @@RockBrentwood The ‘derivation’ I was referring to was simply the one that derives time dilation for the ‘moving’ person. As Sabine said, this is reversible, so that from the ‘moving’ person’s reference frame, it is the ‘stationary’ person that is moving and for whom time is dilated. This remains a puzzle for me. I’d like to know how actual observations of time dilation, eg muon decay in the upper atmosphere, show why in reality there is a difference between the two frames of reference. If they do! I wasn’t thinking of the twin paradox in its entirety.

    • @jeffw1360
      @jeffw1360 Месяц назад

      @@RockBrentwood The egg on my face is more palatable than the bullshit on yours

  • @luudest
    @luudest Месяц назад +1

    4:52 Are these real actors in short video sequences or AI created?

  • @portobellomushroom5764
    @portobellomushroom5764 Месяц назад +1

    Don't we already know that quantum particles are subject to relativistic time dilation because of muon decay rates being (apparently, for earth-based observers) being slower for muons in cosmic rays than for Earth-based muons?

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon Месяц назад

      Yes, but it's about time dilation caused by velocity. There is another time dilation caused by gravity, and that's the one they want to test. The two kinds of time dilation often have opposite effects.

    • @declanwk1
      @declanwk1 Месяц назад

      @@thedeemon time dilation caused by gravity has been tested many times and has passed all the tests, this experiment is to see if it works at the quantum level.

    • @thedeemon
      @thedeemon Месяц назад

      @@declanwk1 right

  • @RaniaFarislovesRoubi
    @RaniaFarislovesRoubi Месяц назад +5

    Yehey .... more science content...

  • @doubletribble-yt
    @doubletribble-yt Месяц назад

    This proposed experiment sounds like the Pound-Rebka experiment, except instead of energy waves, they are using matter waves. (and one centimeter tall tower.)

    • @declanwk1
      @declanwk1 Месяц назад +1

      I agree, but because the tower is only 1 cm high (the distance over which the atoms stay entangled), it is that much more difficult to observe the time dilation due to the earths gravitational field gradient.

  • @simonescarinzi3491
    @simonescarinzi3491 Месяц назад

    🤔 to solve twin paradox one of the tween need to switch directions and go back, so there's not a perfect symmetry (i know probably i summaries too much what said in the video). My question is, if space geometry would be spherical can't the first twin meet the second without tourn back? And if so how the paradox may be solved?

  • @shipsahoy1793
    @shipsahoy1793 Месяц назад

    Happy Birthday, Sabine ! 🥳
    I know I'm 4 days late, but I was distracted by an out of town wedding.
    I could welcome this type of discussion at
    a party anytime. 😵‍💫I guess I'm not normal😂.🥁😉🥂

  • @paulspain6351
    @paulspain6351 Месяц назад

    I am going to go out on a limb and state that when the atoms are close, there will be no discrepancy, but when they are far, there could be. The act of moving them in and out of gravity using altitude will ultimately cancel out. But will be be good to check. (:

  • @luizbotelho1908
    @luizbotelho1908 Месяц назад

    Just try to solve the Schrödinger equation (or QED) for the Hidrogen atom in free fall in presence of the terrestrial gravitanional field or in a referential non inertial (like the lab table in uniform rotation ). What happens with the Hidrogen spectrum of bound states energy ? .

  • @gregoryclifford6938
    @gregoryclifford6938 Месяц назад

    If twins meet again via routes of different lengths, that implies a velocity change, such as in the split sheet of air in a wind tunnel surrounding an airfoil or in pipes of different diameters. A difference in pressure in a closed system suggest a push at one end and vacuum draw at the other. Is gravity known to be inelastic?
    Gravity currents recognized as the cause of time and linear distortions, at least from a 3D drafting point of view, but if acceleration is measured by the rate that gravity ‘particles’ are encountered, is that consistent with the math?

    • @gregoryclifford6938
      @gregoryclifford6938 Месяц назад

      Or, is Einstein’s math saying that faster encounters with forced density in a gravitational sea going to interfere with life processes, rather than accelerating them? The question of whether gravity is uniform like one atmospheric molecule bounded by the next, or if it’s a continuous rubber-like invisible foam that remains cohesive and all encompassing, despite sinking into centers of mass. That defies the ever-expanding universe observation, doesn’t it? If nuclei incorporate gravity vectors to orbital or resonant momentum, the inherent forces must share in that distribution of energy, unless it’s converted and radiated by friction with those of neighboring atoms. So, what is it?

    • @gregoryclifford6938
      @gregoryclifford6938 Месяц назад

      So what do they use to detect a graviton, a flea’s whisker as a plumb bob?

  • @adminchicken8608
    @adminchicken8608 Месяц назад

    Ein Spot in Jules viedeo verdient :)

  • @elbenny68
    @elbenny68 Месяц назад

    I feel entangelt to your RUclips Channel. I think this is realy a spooky Action at a distance, or isn't it. 🤯

  • @emarldiv
    @emarldiv Месяц назад +1

    can you post the arxiv links for the papers as well for those of us who don't have journal sub

  • @passerby4507
    @passerby4507 Месяц назад

    I'm surprised this hasn't been done already, I wonder what's difficult about it.

  • @mathewmunro3770
    @mathewmunro3770 Месяц назад

    The Twins Paradox definitely needs to be tested. One-way time-dilation is one thing, but two-way is another entirely.