I'm making a live version of this course and the first cohort starts this week- I'm closing signups by this Tuesday (sorry, I know that's very soon!). The lectures will all be free and. available on youtube, so the course is just for those who want to go a bit deeper by doing homework problems, a weekly tutorial, and asking questions. If that sounds interesting to you, there's more information here: looking-glass-universe.teachable.com/p/quantum-mechanics-fundamentals
This might be my new go to video to introducing my friends and fam to help lure them into learning about Quantum Mechanics. Just wonderfully presented, in simple and understandable presentation. Respect.
Fundamental Reality is not stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine. Well OK entanglement has a lot of interesting implications for locality and realism, but it has been pointed out the correlation is still CREATED locally.
a more appropriate coin analogy, would be to take them appart and then flip them, if they still only land one heads and the other tails, something strange is a foot.
At its most basic, entanglement means you can prepare two polarized photons that agree both horizontally and diagonally. If you pass them each through a horizontal polarizing filter, then they will either both pass through or both not pass through. Alternatively, if you pass them each through a diagonal polarizing filter, then they will either both pass through or both not pass through. A photon that 100% will pass through a horizontal filter is horizontally polarized, and horizontally polarized photons only pass through diagonal filters 50% of the time. So you can't make a single photon that will both 100% pass through a horizontal filter and 100% pass through a diagonal filter. For a single photon, will-pass-through-horizontal is incompatible with will-pass-through-diagonal. Despite that, you can make a pair of photons that simultaneously 100% agree on will-pass-through-horizontal and will-pass-through-diagonal. This gives an inkling of why entangled states are said to be fundamentally multi-particle states, rather than a combination of one-particle states. The amazing thing is that, combined with the postulates of quantum mechanics, simultaneously agreeing on will-pass-through-horizontal and will-pass-through-diagonal implies agreeing on will-pass-through-filter-with-angle-t for all t. Even more than that, it implies an agreement rate of cos^2(t/2) when passing through filters whose orientations differ by t radians. And this leads inevitably into violating Bell inequalities, winning certain coordination games more often than would be possible classically, by carefully choosing how to conditionally orient the filters.
Yeah, so my understanding is that you can't fully explain why entanglement is so special without this angle-dependent agreement rate you mentioned. Is that correct? I think it's impossible to explain why the up/down entanglement is different from two correlated coins. The entangled electrons aren't going to agree more or less than the coins. You could easily explain it with a hidden state. But looking at how two entangled particles "agree" at different angles is impossible to explain by hidden states, right? I guess unless that hidden state is some kind of function, but I suppose that solution quickly gets infinitely complex as you have more entangled states?
@@auspiciouslywild Actually, you can tell the difference between entangled photons and the correlated coins because Bell's theorem. You have to understand probability theory to really understand the difference. It's about making many such measurements and taking averages. Bell's theorem actually rules out the possibility of hidden variables if you make the reasonable assumptions of "realism" (or the property that they definitely have a particular state whether our not you measure them) and "locality" (meaning that interactions cannot occur faster than light).
So does entanglement mean that if you measure the spin of one entangled electron, it will impact how the other electron (the one that wasn't measured) behaves? If not, how is looking whether one coin is heads or tails any different from the entanglement talked about here?
Tbh you can't distinguish between them just with up/down measurements. But if you change the measurement basis, you _can_ observe a difference. For instance, if you turn both detectors sideways (so you're measuring the spins left/right instead of up/down), the entangled electrons will _still_ have opposite spins, whereas the clasically random ones will have independent spins.
This major issue with your phrasing is that you are presuming that you have two different objects. When you word it as "what I do to ONE, does it affect the OTHER?" The issue is which is which? Is there a difference between them? Or are they in this state 1 object non-locally existing? If you were to speculate with Penrose's and Hameroff's quantum consciousness ideas, you might imagine that if your consciousness is a quantum effect, your ability to feel your foot and head while ignoring your torso, would be like having a non-local quantum state of being at your head and at you feet at the same time. And that's not that difficult to think about.
This. Reminds me of using a steel rod. Pounded against the wall and it is instantaneous. There are more examples of a steel rod vibrating from end to end.
What exactly constitutes the (first) measurement? The first interaction the particle has which is influenced by the entangled state? The way you explain it you'd think you need a conscious observer to define spin for both by determining apin for one of them.
So is it definitely our measurement that cause the collapse of the state? Can you elaborate on that in another video please? I love the fact that any stupid question I ask (like this one) if forgiven when its Quantum Mechanics :)
It's been nice to see you making videos about quantum topics again! I didn't realize elections came in moods other than crying and sad, but meh was a very electron-like mood as well. Low energy, I'm guessing.
It sounds like entanglement is a valence state in full electron shells where these electrons must be in different states. This unfortunately is a very localized state.
I think you should talk more about very high. Energy light longitudinally pulse preturbating magneto dielectric. Spacial counter spacial reference plots
now if you think the superposition of up and down is a different state than just a mix of up or down, then there must be some action to change the state on the other side. but this is a very loose argument, my longer one is better.
I got distracted by the 100 lire coin 😅where did you find it?? By the way will the next video explain how the 2 electrons communicate the collapse of state?
12:20 If you measure the electron on the left, you say it collapses the superposition. How do you know that the electron on the right is no longer in a superposition unless you measure it?
I think it would have been less confusing if the video had described: (1) how the entangled pair of electrons was produced, and (2) how the only information we know about the states of the entangled electrons (prior to measurement) is that the sum of their spins is zero due to the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The zero sum implies that if the spin of one of the electrons is measured to be x, that measurement would imply the other electron's spin is -x, assuming both electrons experienced identical influences after they became entangled. (An example of identical influences is sending the two electrons through two Stern-Gerlach devices oriented at the same axis. In the video, the orientation axis is vertical for both Stern-Gerlach devices, in order to measure whether the electrons' spins are up or down. But the choice of axis is unimportant... what's important is that both Stern-Gerlach devices are oriented the same way.)
1:35 - may I disagree for a second and if I'm wrong please I'd love an explanation. because I thought it would be easier to differenciate suporposition from entanglement exactly with that argument. Entanglement means there's correlation between both states, the difference is with the coins you have a fixed state but with the particles you'd have a superposition. But entanglement means exactly that, figuring out one also makes you sure about the other, in the superposition state you would then have a superposition where up-up and down-down components are 0; the coin having a fixed state is the point that breaks the analogy but what's happening in the solution set is the same thing. Even though the coins can't be like particle entanglement their connection kinda means the same thing. Like if you pair up heads with up and tails with down then there should also be a valid connection between the outcomes of the coin and the particle tangles.
What's missing from this video is a discussion of the hidden variables theory of quantum mechanics and how bell's inequality and experiments like the quantum eraser are able to prove that there are no hidden variables.
Hey, no expert here, but - from what I got - the difference between entangled particles and the two coins is that the entangled particles are in a superposition, which is not the same thing as being in one of the states OR the other, as we saw in the previous video. I hope my explanation is helpful (if it's correct that is 😅)
@@yiannchrst Yeah, I think you put it a lot clearer than I did in the video. The coin and the entangled particles are pretty similar in that they're correlated. But the reason is different. The coin is correlated only because you don't know something. The entangled particles are correlated because of superposition- even though you do know the exact state
@@LookingGlassUniverseI think it would have been helpful to show an experiment that can distinguish between a (classically) random choice between "up-down" and "down-up", versus a pure entangled "opposite spins" state; eg measuring the spins sideways (so in the former case the spins become independent of each other, but in the latter they remain correlated). That wouldn't rule out hidden variables, but it would show that there's at least _something_ different between classical uncertainty and quantum entanglement.
i love this channel very very much. but this is (like all other quantum entanglement videos) completely incomprehensible to me. and i consider myself an expert on quantum entanglement theory at this point 😮😮😮
I think it would have been less confusing if the video had described: (1) how the entangled pair of electrons was produced, and (2) how the only information we know about the states of the entangled electrons (prior to measurement) is that the sum of their spins is zero due to the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The zero sum implies that if the spin of one of the electrons is measured to be x, that measurement would imply the other electron's spin is -x, assuming both electrons experienced identical influences after they became entangled. (An example of identical influences is sending the two electrons through two Stern-Gerlach devices oriented at the same axis. In the video, the orientation axis is vertical for both Stern-Gerlach devices, in order to measure whether the electrons' spins are up or down. But the choice of axis is unimportant... what's important is that both Stern-Gerlach devices are oriented the same way.)
So - not to be combative (thank you for your videos!), just to expand the conversation - to put forward a competing view to this explanation, as best I understand it and as best I can express it: 12:40 "It went from being in a superposition state ... to now, just being in the state, 'down'." Well, as far as you, the person who measured 'up', can tell, yes. It's a bit egocentric to think you, and your experiences, are all there is to the universe, though. How about: The electron that was not directly measured, remains in a superposition. Physics is local. It's true that *you* will only observe that electron as 'down', but quantum mechanics already has the language to express that: The 'you' that measured 'up' will only ever constructively interfere with this electron being spin down, and will only ever destructively interfere with the electron being spin up. The superposition and entanglement is there, it hasn't gotten smaller, it has gotten bigger, and you're part of it.
No problem! I happen to hold the same sort of view. I am most sold on Many Worlds interpretation (although I'm not totally sure) and I've made a few videos on it. But my intention in these videos is to teach quantum mechanics in the standard way with the standard interpretation of measurement collapse. My reasoning is that it's very hard to have a deep and nuanced understanding of QM without understanding this interpretation first.
yes, the accountancy of the statistics is summed up correctly by the discussion of the state of the system. it is however not true that this means there is or is not an interaction, not at the level of measuring in the same axis, aka up or down. this can be accounted for by hidden variables that say A is up, B is down, or , A is down, B is up. if there is such a hidden simple state preparation then yes it can be interaction free. the problem is that this particular state is the same for any axis you choose to measure them in, therefore you are logically forced into one of two solutions, just declearing it is so statistically by fiat, which is what standard quantum mechanics does in effect, this is what it means more generally to say the state is no seperable into independent states, as i discussed if it is only valid for one axis, then a preparation of independent states in that axis still perfectly well accounts for the statistics. the second option for when the relationship is the same for all measured axis, is to have real independent spin states that are set up opposit in the hidden preparation, but the real spins of both could be on any axis and could be measured at any axis with the correlation persisting, in this case you have forced into having an interaction there to explain the correlation. the way this interaction needs to work to fit neatly with how spin measurments of single spins work, such that we do not need to change anything there is as such; spin A and B start out up and down on some random axis with net 0 angular momentum, then we measure A, and it turns out up or down in some other axis than the hidden preparation that we dont know about, then all the interaction between the spins must do is to rotate the spin axis of B to the opposite orientation, if A becomes up in axis 1, then B must become down in axis 1 ect. that way we return to always being able to treat the two as seperable, but we also have to account for the interaction. to sum this up, yes it is just a statistical thing in standard quantum mechanics, does that mean there is no interaction? no. if we introduce an interaction, that makes the description simpler, and we do not need a unified inseperable state to describe the statistics of the spin entanglement. and if you run through the math of how such an interaction prepares states for the 2nd particle to be measured, you will see clearly that it reproduces the full results of bell tests and so on, with no issues, and with the possibility of the spin state always being well defined on a single axis even when we have not measures it. at any choice of measurement axis on the spins seperately btw. this is a more explicit version of what einstein called spooke action at a distance being necessary when the results are random, if we propose that the spin has a well defined state independent of being measured, then it is necessary for that hidden state preparation to be prepared in the axis of measurment that we will later use to measure it, or the statistics will not work out, unless we assume an interaction between them. so the choice for hidden variables are superdereminism, that is that the state of the particle prepared without out knowledge anticipates what measurments will be done on it later. Or alternatively we can propose an interaction, then any preparation in any random direction is fine. i choose the latter option, it is ultimately much more sane, there is the problem of locality, the same problem as in instanteneous action in newtons gravity, but it also turns out that when you dive deeper into the mathematics of finite speed versions of this action and the experiments that has been done, it turns out that what we have seen so far is consistent with a superluminal locality that breaks lorentz symmetry with its effects, this is still a big change, but it is nothing like demanding a theory has non trivial statistical dependence at spacelike separation and just denying that there is any issue with that, because of defining some sort of mutual information. defining the statistics as such with a denial of causation to account for the dependence, is imo the same as proposing a heuristic superdeterministic theory. i contend that just because standard quantum mechanics does not have these hidden preparations explicitly in it, it does have the statistics of their outcomes, and must be judged on the same footing as superdeterministic hidden variables theories, and that is a cosmic conspiracy where the particles are always prepared in a way consisten with the choice of measurment. this phenomena without causation is why certain academics rush to say the evolution in quantum mechanics has to be retrocausal and forward in time, because you have this tension between preparations in the past and the future. sorry if this is a bit dense to read, i tried to say it as clearly as i can. hopefully you understand the way such a coupling between spins must work to be able to treat the preparation in a mundane way, and always treat the particle spins seperately as long as the interaction is accounted for. it is the case that when you get into the weeds and make the process a finite time process, and the collapse of a spin state onto the measurment axis given by a magnetic field, also becomes a finite time real dynamical process, you get departures from the predictions of standard quantum mechanics, but those departures has not been tested yet as far as im aware, if you know otherwise then please link me to a paper with an experiment, i have looked around for such tests, but has never found it. the cool thing about these more realistic models of what is going on, is that if they work, there is a possibility of the no telephone theorem not holding and we might get to communicate faster than light at some point.
To communicate more clearly, provide an example that explains what you mean by "interaction." I suspect you mean an interaction between a particle and a measuring device, not an interaction between two entangled particles.
Your explanation of superposition/entanglement being different from a simple lack of knowledge doesn't really follow from the arguments you present. What you're referencing in the lack of knowledge case is the hidden variables theory, which is disproven by bell's inequality and the quantum eraser. It's a fairly subtle and complex difference which you just don't touch on in this video.
That’s kind of the point. She’s not uploading a thesis paper. She’s just trying to educate laymen about a commonly misunderstood topic. Go make your own video.
What is the actual proof that information is not transferred faster than light? Isn't Bell proof based on the assumption of no faster than light travel?
Archemedes descrete lines on paper determinism used to explain congruent complexity where our minds sort through variation along the way useing good & bad measure. Like 2 captain in the wheel house of a ship stairing at each other through binoculars while inside its topography central inertia mass buoyancy is about to sink due to the qauntom hull meets entangled waters as a submarines computed torpedo is about to simulate strong indentefiers of interaction into that entire objective. Lol
I'm making a live version of this course and the first cohort starts this week- I'm closing signups by this Tuesday (sorry, I know that's very soon!). The lectures will all be free and. available on youtube, so the course is just for those who want to go a bit deeper by doing homework problems, a weekly tutorial, and asking questions. If that sounds interesting to you, there's more information here: looking-glass-universe.teachable.com/p/quantum-mechanics-fundamentals
I love how one electron is spin sad, and one is spin apathetic. There is no happy in quantum mechanics.
Tell that to the Up and Charm quarks
Yeah, they're both... _negative_.
This might be my new go to video to introducing my friends and fam to help lure them into learning about Quantum Mechanics. Just wonderfully presented, in simple and understandable presentation. Respect.
Fundamental Reality is not stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine. Well OK entanglement has a lot of interesting implications for locality and realism, but it has been pointed out the correlation is still CREATED locally.
So many videos in one month! Quantum quantum quantum!
I planned out a series of 10 videos and filmed the first 5 over a week. Got to film the next 5 once I finish editing these ones 😅
a more appropriate coin analogy, would be to take them appart and then flip them, if they still only land one heads and the other tails, something strange is a foot.
At its most basic, entanglement means you can prepare two polarized photons that agree both horizontally and diagonally. If you pass them each through a horizontal polarizing filter, then they will either both pass through or both not pass through. Alternatively, if you pass them each through a diagonal polarizing filter, then they will either both pass through or both not pass through.
A photon that 100% will pass through a horizontal filter is horizontally polarized, and horizontally polarized photons only pass through diagonal filters 50% of the time. So you can't make a single photon that will both 100% pass through a horizontal filter and 100% pass through a diagonal filter. For a single photon, will-pass-through-horizontal is incompatible with will-pass-through-diagonal. Despite that, you can make a pair of photons that simultaneously 100% agree on will-pass-through-horizontal and will-pass-through-diagonal. This gives an inkling of why entangled states are said to be fundamentally multi-particle states, rather than a combination of one-particle states.
The amazing thing is that, combined with the postulates of quantum mechanics, simultaneously agreeing on will-pass-through-horizontal and will-pass-through-diagonal implies agreeing on will-pass-through-filter-with-angle-t for all t. Even more than that, it implies an agreement rate of cos^2(t/2) when passing through filters whose orientations differ by t radians. And this leads inevitably into violating Bell inequalities, winning certain coordination games more often than would be possible classically, by carefully choosing how to conditionally orient the filters.
Yeah, so my understanding is that you can't fully explain why entanglement is so special without this angle-dependent agreement rate you mentioned. Is that correct?
I think it's impossible to explain why the up/down entanglement is different from two correlated coins. The entangled electrons aren't going to agree more or less than the coins. You could easily explain it with a hidden state.
But looking at how two entangled particles "agree" at different angles is impossible to explain by hidden states, right?
I guess unless that hidden state is some kind of function, but I suppose that solution quickly gets infinitely complex as you have more entangled states?
@@auspiciouslywild Actually, you can tell the difference between entangled photons and the correlated coins because Bell's theorem. You have to understand probability theory to really understand the difference. It's about making many such measurements and taking averages. Bell's theorem actually rules out the possibility of hidden variables if you make the reasonable assumptions of "realism" (or the property that they definitely have a particular state whether our not you measure them) and "locality" (meaning that interactions cannot occur faster than light).
This is the most adorable explanation of entanglement. ^.^
11:00 This is Hidden Variables, which Bell's inequality and the Non-locality works have shown to be incorrect.
11:50 This is Non-locality.
Thanks for the series! It has been really helping me in having a more nuanced understanding!
So does entanglement mean that if you measure the spin of one entangled electron, it will impact how the other electron (the one that wasn't measured) behaves? If not, how is looking whether one coin is heads or tails any different from the entanglement talked about here?
Tbh you can't distinguish between them just with up/down measurements. But if you change the measurement basis, you _can_ observe a difference. For instance, if you turn both detectors sideways (so you're measuring the spins left/right instead of up/down), the entangled electrons will _still_ have opposite spins, whereas the clasically random ones will have independent spins.
This major issue with your phrasing is that you are presuming that you have two different objects. When you word it as "what I do to ONE, does it affect the OTHER?"
The issue is which is which? Is there a difference between them? Or are they in this state 1 object non-locally existing?
If you were to speculate with Penrose's and Hameroff's quantum consciousness ideas, you might imagine that if your consciousness is a quantum effect, your ability to feel your foot and head while ignoring your torso, would be like having a non-local quantum state of being at your head and at you feet at the same time. And that's not that difficult to think about.
This.
Reminds me of using a steel rod. Pounded against the wall and it is instantaneous.
There are more examples of a steel rod vibrating from end to end.
What exactly constitutes the (first) measurement? The first interaction the particle has which is influenced by the entangled state? The way you explain it you'd think you need a conscious observer to define spin for both by determining apin for one of them.
So is it definitely our measurement that cause the collapse of the state? Can you elaborate on that in another video please?
I love the fact that any stupid question I ask (like this one) if forgiven when its Quantum Mechanics :)
It's been nice to see you making videos about quantum topics again!
I didn't realize elections came in moods other than crying and sad, but meh was a very electron-like mood as well. Low energy, I'm guessing.
Low energy- that’s so good!
It sounds like entanglement is a valence state in full electron shells where these electrons must be in different states. This unfortunately is a very localized state.
I think you should talk more about very high. Energy light longitudinally pulse preturbating magneto dielectric. Spacial counter spacial reference plots
now if you think the superposition of up and down is a different state than just a mix of up or down, then there must be some action to change the state on the other side. but this is a very loose argument, my longer one is better.
I got distracted by the 100 lire coin 😅where did you find it?? By the way will the next video explain how the 2 electrons communicate the collapse of state?
I got it in a market in Italy. The shop keeper just gave it to me free :)
No one knows how the electrons do their communication exactly
12:20
If you measure the electron on the left, you say it collapses the superposition. How do you know that the electron on the right is no longer in a superposition unless you measure it?
Measure both, and compare the results. They will have opposite spins.
The only think I want to know is what is a real world example of entangling two "electrons".
Fair enough! I cut that bit out of this video but I’ll make it into a bonus bit
That's pretty trippy.
I love your channel!
This just made me more confused 😭
I think it would have been less confusing if the video had described: (1) how the entangled pair of electrons was produced, and (2) how the only information we know about the states of the entangled electrons (prior to measurement) is that the sum of their spins is zero due to the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The zero sum implies that if the spin of one of the electrons is measured to be x, that measurement would imply the other electron's spin is -x, assuming both electrons experienced identical influences after they became entangled. (An example of identical influences is sending the two electrons through two Stern-Gerlach devices oriented at the same axis. In the video, the orientation axis is vertical for both Stern-Gerlach devices, in order to measure whether the electrons' spins are up or down. But the choice of axis is unimportant... what's important is that both Stern-Gerlach devices are oriented the same way.)
1:35 - may I disagree for a second and if I'm wrong please I'd love an explanation. because I thought it would be easier to differenciate suporposition from entanglement exactly with that argument.
Entanglement means there's correlation between both states, the difference is with the coins you have a fixed state but with the particles you'd have a superposition. But entanglement means exactly that, figuring out one also makes you sure about the other, in the superposition state you would then have a superposition where up-up and down-down components are 0; the coin having a fixed state is the point that breaks the analogy but what's happening in the solution set is the same thing.
Even though the coins can't be like particle entanglement their connection kinda means the same thing. Like if you pair up heads with up and tails with down then there should also be a valid connection between the outcomes of the coin and the particle tangles.
What's missing from this video is a discussion of the hidden variables theory of quantum mechanics and how bell's inequality and experiments like the quantum eraser are able to prove that there are no hidden variables.
Hey, no expert here, but - from what I got - the difference between entangled particles and the two coins is that the entangled particles are in a superposition, which is not the same thing as being in one of the states OR the other, as we saw in the previous video.
I hope my explanation is helpful (if it's correct that is 😅)
@@yiannchrst Yeah, I think you put it a lot clearer than I did in the video. The coin and the entangled particles are pretty similar in that they're correlated. But the reason is different. The coin is correlated only because you don't know something. The entangled particles are correlated because of superposition- even though you do know the exact state
@@LookingGlassUniverseI think it would have been helpful to show an experiment that can distinguish between a (classically) random choice between "up-down" and "down-up", versus a pure entangled "opposite spins" state; eg measuring the spins sideways (so in the former case the spins become independent of each other, but in the latter they remain correlated). That wouldn't rule out hidden variables, but it would show that there's at least _something_ different between classical uncertainty and quantum entanglement.
didnt have any problem with the video, it was nice ^^. just wrote my comment to give some context.
i love this channel very very much. but this is (like all other quantum entanglement videos) completely incomprehensible to me. and i consider myself an expert on quantum entanglement theory at this point 😮😮😮
I think it would have been less confusing if the video had described: (1) how the entangled pair of electrons was produced, and (2) how the only information we know about the states of the entangled electrons (prior to measurement) is that the sum of their spins is zero due to the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The zero sum implies that if the spin of one of the electrons is measured to be x, that measurement would imply the other electron's spin is -x, assuming both electrons experienced identical influences after they became entangled. (An example of identical influences is sending the two electrons through two Stern-Gerlach devices oriented at the same axis. In the video, the orientation axis is vertical for both Stern-Gerlach devices, in order to measure whether the electrons' spins are up or down. But the choice of axis is unimportant... what's important is that both Stern-Gerlach devices are oriented the same way.)
So - not to be combative (thank you for your videos!), just to expand the conversation - to put forward a competing view to this explanation, as best I understand it and as best I can express it: 12:40 "It went from being in a superposition state ... to now, just being in the state, 'down'." Well, as far as you, the person who measured 'up', can tell, yes. It's a bit egocentric to think you, and your experiences, are all there is to the universe, though. How about: The electron that was not directly measured, remains in a superposition. Physics is local. It's true that *you* will only observe that electron as 'down', but quantum mechanics already has the language to express that: The 'you' that measured 'up' will only ever constructively interfere with this electron being spin down, and will only ever destructively interfere with the electron being spin up. The superposition and entanglement is there, it hasn't gotten smaller, it has gotten bigger, and you're part of it.
No problem! I happen to hold the same sort of view. I am most sold on Many Worlds interpretation (although I'm not totally sure) and I've made a few videos on it. But my intention in these videos is to teach quantum mechanics in the standard way with the standard interpretation of measurement collapse. My reasoning is that it's very hard to have a deep and nuanced understanding of QM without understanding this interpretation first.
I am all in on Penrose's Twistor to Objective Reduction to Orchestrated Objective Reduction theories
Physics is also non-local...
i appreciate your video, but i believe my video is more accurate, that entanglement occurs in a subspace dimension.
yes, the accountancy of the statistics is summed up correctly by the discussion of the state of the system. it is however not true that this means there is or is not an interaction, not at the level of measuring in the same axis, aka up or down. this can be accounted for by hidden variables that say A is up, B is down, or , A is down, B is up. if there is such a hidden simple state preparation then yes it can be interaction free. the problem is that this particular state is the same for any axis you choose to measure them in, therefore you are logically forced into one of two solutions, just declearing it is so statistically by fiat, which is what standard quantum mechanics does in effect, this is what it means more generally to say the state is no seperable into independent states, as i discussed if it is only valid for one axis, then a preparation of independent states in that axis still perfectly well accounts for the statistics.
the second option for when the relationship is the same for all measured axis, is to have real independent spin states that are set up opposit in the hidden preparation, but the real spins of both could be on any axis and could be measured at any axis with the correlation persisting, in this case you have forced into having an interaction there to explain the correlation. the way this interaction needs to work to fit neatly with how spin measurments of single spins work, such that we do not need to change anything there is as such; spin A and B start out up and down on some random axis with net 0 angular momentum, then we measure A, and it turns out up or down in some other axis than the hidden preparation that we dont know about, then all the interaction between the spins must do is to rotate the spin axis of B to the opposite orientation, if A becomes up in axis 1, then B must become down in axis 1 ect. that way we return to always being able to treat the two as seperable, but we also have to account for the interaction.
to sum this up, yes it is just a statistical thing in standard quantum mechanics, does that mean there is no interaction? no. if we introduce an interaction, that makes the description simpler, and we do not need a unified inseperable state to describe the statistics of the spin entanglement. and if you run through the math of how such an interaction prepares states for the 2nd particle to be measured, you will see clearly that it reproduces the full results of bell tests and so on, with no issues, and with the possibility of the spin state always being well defined on a single axis even when we have not measures it. at any choice of measurement axis on the spins seperately btw.
this is a more explicit version of what einstein called spooke action at a distance being necessary when the results are random, if we propose that the spin has a well defined state independent of being measured, then it is necessary for that hidden state preparation to be prepared in the axis of measurment that we will later use to measure it, or the statistics will not work out, unless we assume an interaction between them. so the choice for hidden variables are superdereminism, that is that the state of the particle prepared without out knowledge anticipates what measurments will be done on it later. Or alternatively we can propose an interaction, then any preparation in any random direction is fine. i choose the latter option, it is ultimately much more sane, there is the problem of locality, the same problem as in instanteneous action in newtons gravity, but it also turns out that when you dive deeper into the mathematics of finite speed versions of this action and the experiments that has been done, it turns out that what we have seen so far is consistent with a superluminal locality that breaks lorentz symmetry with its effects, this is still a big change, but it is nothing like demanding a theory has non trivial statistical dependence at spacelike separation and just denying that there is any issue with that, because of defining some sort of mutual information. defining the statistics as such with a denial of causation to account for the dependence, is imo the same as proposing a heuristic superdeterministic theory. i contend that just because standard quantum mechanics does not have these hidden preparations explicitly in it, it does have the statistics of their outcomes, and must be judged on the same footing as superdeterministic hidden variables theories, and that is a cosmic conspiracy where the particles are always prepared in a way consisten with the choice of measurment. this phenomena without causation is why certain academics rush to say the evolution in quantum mechanics has to be retrocausal and forward in time, because you have this tension between preparations in the past and the future.
sorry if this is a bit dense to read, i tried to say it as clearly as i can. hopefully you understand the way such a coupling between spins must work to be able to treat the preparation in a mundane way, and always treat the particle spins seperately as long as the interaction is accounted for. it is the case that when you get into the weeds and make the process a finite time process, and the collapse of a spin state onto the measurment axis given by a magnetic field, also becomes a finite time real dynamical process, you get departures from the predictions of standard quantum mechanics, but those departures has not been tested yet as far as im aware, if you know otherwise then please link me to a paper with an experiment, i have looked around for such tests, but has never found it. the cool thing about these more realistic models of what is going on, is that if they work, there is a possibility of the no telephone theorem not holding and we might get to communicate faster than light at some point.
To communicate more clearly, provide an example that explains what you mean by "interaction." I suspect you mean an interaction between a particle and a measuring device, not an interaction between two entangled particles.
Quantum!!!🤩
you cannot explain quantum entanglement “without the woo”. quantum entanglement is as woo as woo can get. 😮😮😮😮😮
glass
8:51
❤❤❤
Your explanation of superposition/entanglement being different from a simple lack of knowledge doesn't really follow from the arguments you present. What you're referencing in the lack of knowledge case is the hidden variables theory, which is disproven by bell's inequality and the quantum eraser. It's a fairly subtle and complex difference which you just don't touch on in this video.
Can you explain why it doesn't follow?
That’s kind of the point. She’s not uploading a thesis paper. She’s just trying to educate laymen about a commonly misunderstood topic. Go make your own video.
What is the actual proof that information is not transferred faster than light? Isn't Bell proof based on the assumption of no faster than light travel?
Bell's Theorem is about _local_ hidden variables. It doesn't falsify global or system-wide hidden variables.
0:20 Entanglement is when objects are entangled...
The word describes the fundamental essence of the behavior.
Also 5th
I’m second!
I am firstttt😁
I am 4th
Archemedes descrete lines on paper determinism used to explain congruent complexity where our minds sort through variation along the way useing good & bad measure.
Like 2 captain in the wheel house of a ship stairing at each other through binoculars while inside its topography central inertia mass buoyancy is about to sink due to the qauntom hull meets entangled waters as a submarines computed torpedo is about to simulate strong indentefiers of interaction into that entire objective. Lol