I saw this video when it first came out and thought it was really interesting, now I’m in college and just finished taking classes over quantum physics and laser physics and I actually recognize/understand a lot of the concepts and math here which is so cool to me! Thanks for inspiring younger me to go into physics!
Me too man. I saw this video when I was, like, 15 and understood jack shit of any of this, but now after haven taken both a EM, QM and an optics course I just can't see what's paradoxical here
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why. You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler. John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it. According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
Your statement can be true :p 85% didn't understand. Then that same 85 watched twice (because if you understood you wouldn't watch again) and still didn't understand so 100% is true.
I loved this video and occasionally watch it. It is also the subject of the 2022 Nobel physics prize and one of if not the best explanations of it I've seen so far. By the way, the contributor of the last paper shown as an example of the studies about the bell theorem is the Nobel Laurette Anton Zeilinger. I really hope this video gets more watch man, thanks a lot!
It’s a crap explanation. You don’t even need polarisation to explain it. Just complicates it. See Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody
@@lukeno4143The paper you referenced www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/mermin/Mermin_short.pdf is far less intuitive than sunglasses, my dude.
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why. You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler. John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it. According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
Just a fun fact, the first person to have designed - and conducted - an experiment to show what is described at 9:10, was Allain Aspect. He had met with Bell, talked about it, and Bell told him to publish his idea. He later on got money and realized the described experiment.
Actually, this video and many others inspired me to study physics at university. And I'm now a phd student in Alain Aspect's group, doing experiments I coudn't even dream about!
Fun fact: John Bell in his original paper "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" did not conclude that his theorem debunks "hidden variables" but only states that if they exist it would imply nonlocal effects. Bell in his paper "Against Measurement" criticized the "no hidden variable" approach saying that it places too much emphasis on measurement (and thus observer) dependence and thus makes it impossible to imagine how the theory could be scaled up to large systems. He then, in his paper "On the impossible pilot wave," became a major contributor to Bohm's pilot wave interpretation, which posits that nonlocal hidden variables can explain quantum mechanics intuitively, and further Bell expresses his frustration in that paper that people aren't taking such ideas seriously. When you actually learn the history of Bell, you realize how bizarre it is that this video presents Bell's theorem as a disproof of hidden variables and then calls a nonlocal interpretation (which was Bell's own interpretation of his own theorem) as "crazy," not bothering to address any of Bell's arguments against it (or Einstein's, or Schrodinger's, etc).
@@amihart9269Fun fact, Bell set out to disprove quantum mechanics and his theorem was disproven, thus proving QM. Fun fact, Einstein, Schrodinger and Bell are proven wrong about QM. Fun fact, pilot wave interpretation violates Einstein's own special relativity, but Copenhagen doesn't. Locality has the backing of relativity theory, but reality has no theoretical backing. If at least one has to go, reality goes first
photons are units, so if I made a really dim light, instead of the light getting dimmer and dimmer, eventually it will just hit in as single photons less and less often. Bell's inequality is sort of how it takes more gas to drive the same distance in less time. When you have three polarizers 22.5 degrees apart, more photons come through than two 45 degrees apart; the photons do not have to change their polarization as much in each step, so it would take less energy, but since photons are quantum, they get through less often instead of having less energy. It is analogous to carrying a pile of bricks, if I asked 100 students to carry 100 bricks 50 yards in a single trip, no one would be able to do it, but if I allow more trips, more people will be able to do it, if there is no limit to the trips everyone can do it.
Their argument (and Bell's) seems flawed. Say we know that from position A a robot can shoot a basketball into a hoop hung at B 12 feet away 85% of the time (or symmetrically from B to A at 85% also). From position B the robot can shoot to position C 12 feet away from B also with 85% success (or from C to B at 85% also). Also, experiments and theory have shown the robot can shoot from A to C 50% of the time. [note we haven't said where C is relative to A] Say we carry out an experiment analogous to the description in the video: Two similar robots decide if they will both go to position A or position B except that one goes to one part of earth and the other to the opposite part of the planet. (the two courts are set up the same way as goes A B and C etc.) The experimenters recording the data at the two locations can't beforehand see where the robots position themselves, but they can independently at the same time direct the nearby robot to shoot at A, B, or C. Once the robots shoot, the experimenters will know the positions and can record hit/miss and tally %s over many trials with many new sets of robots. Later they compare notes. They find the 85% and 50% (and 100%) hit rates mentioned in the video, depending on where shoots were taken. Now, this experiment was not with quantum particles but just like the eye glasses and beards in the video, we can use it as an analogy to explain the set theory. Except that the Venn diagrams apply to properties that presumably can both be true at a moment. But this is not true for these experiments. The particles cannot go through multiple filters and start in multiple states (that was the first half of the video and it was a flawed argument). Same for the robots, each pair of robots goes to exactly one location and shoots exactly once. It's only when tallying many such trials that we can see the overall effect (like when we see an interference pattern through slits). So we come to the flaw: even though the set logic implies properties like beards and eye glasses must obey the constraints and cannot be at the 50% level (.85*.85>.5) -- this limitation follows because set logic includes transitive law, for example -- with the experiments we cannot link the AC polarizer filtering (or shooting) to the AB and BC cases the same way because the latter would take 2 shots. The AC details are not implied by AB and BC. If the robot shoots from A to B and then shoots from B to C, we can bound the odds they make both shots (.85*.85). That is what the Venn diagram says. BUT we CANNOT bound a single shoot from A to C by knowing AB, BC. To show how silly it would be to try, we never specified where C was. If C is 2 feet from A (ABC as a triangle), then AC % would be very high. On the other hand if the robots aren't that strong and if C was 12 ft from A, then AC might be 0%. The point is that we cannot put tight bounds on AC, hidden variables or not, based on AB and BC results. It's more than conceivable that a particle might easily slip through an opening at 22.5 degrees from its position yet have a very difficult time going through a 45 degrees adjustment, for example. And this has nothing to do with hidden variables or for that matter quantum mechanics (we can see that macroscopic waves can have interference patterns and other quantum wave properties). Conclusion: the Venn diagram argument puts bounds on a third result that can follow transitively from two other results (ie, all be true at once), but it can't put a limit on a third action (going from A to C) based on two other distinct actions (AB, BC). After all, going from A to C likely doesn't follow the path taken from A to B and then from B to C any more than shooting a basketball from A to C is done by shooting at basket B and then getting the ball to go back up in the air after going through the B hoop but without hitting the ground -- ridiculous. How can we conclude Bell was correct? The video and Bell made a valiant effort to preserve the Copenhagen interpretation, but that needs to die. It's the 21st century for goodness sake. [In both related and unrelated news, Schrodinger's "cat" is either dead or alive, not both or neither, IMO]
Speaking as an accountant: Financial reports are largely unaffected by the laws of physics and most university-level mathematics. Both US GAAP and IFRS seek to create a system which ignores Gödel's incompleteness theorems (as a side effect of preventing technically-legal financial chicanery).
This is much better than other explanations because it explains the main idea. Take this video as a great heuristic explanation. It doesn't pay to get stuck on the details of polarization filters and what could be going on inside them... What these creators do so well: They try to make the whole scenario intuitive rather than stuffing everything into equations and relying on mysterious integral tricks and suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat. That's the style I was used to from undergrad physics. Thank you, keep up the great work.
He is creating a sloped gradient change in the lights orientation because of inputting a middle glass. The 2nd glass orientates the light 22.5 degrees allowing the light to pass throw the 3rd glass filter with higher probability. It's not as weird as they are pretending it to be. Kinda like bouncing a basket ball off of the backboard to make the shot.
I shared this with one friend and we talked about it, I then shared it with another and then the first friend stated we never talked about it. Then after that conversation with the first friend, the second friend asked what we were talking about.
You and your friends( if real) miss the point that actually mentioned in the video. You see, after you share dialoge that you had with your first friend( I really hope that you have that conversation with someone) you change past and now your second friend thinks you are crazy and you are crazy because you just killed your first imaginary friend just by sharing this info by your second imaginary friend but relax, its OK. Now you know why.
When i click a video like this, i usually NEEED to understand what its talking abt, but in this case i just dont and its driving me up the wall. So thank you for using your perfectly clear language using words that i DEFINITELY understood
That's because they don't actually make sense, here. The classical explanation for the three-polarizer problem is that as the light passes through each polarizer, both its amplitude AND its polarization change. These are two independent properties of a photon, but they're bringing in "entangled particles" for no good reason, muddying the water. Bottom line is, the video is Just. Plain. Wrong. Don't waste your time; find a better video to explain this.
What if the filters are changing the orientation photons that pass through them? A photon that passes through A but does not pass through C might suddenly be able to pass through C after passing through B if B changes the orientation of the photon just enough to make it able to pass through C.
that's what I was thinking. but the experiment with entangled photons seems to negate this possibility, I think? But I don't know how that experiment was done. the video just suggests that it has been done.
It does, but not physically. It's the act of observing that does it, not the filters themselves physically. The filters themselves cannot change the orientation of the photons, only block them.
@@AveryHyena arrr you sure? because, a mirror or a prism change the orientation of light that gets reflected or refracted, why wouldn't a polarizing lens be able to do so? Then the classical solution makes perfect sense.
@@Alkimi Because all a polarizing lens does is block light. You suggesting mirrors or prisms and then saying "so why wouldn't a polarized lens be able to do so?" makes no sense. They're completely different things that have nothing to do with each other. It's like you're saying "apples grow on trees, so why wouldn't a cat be able to do so?". Also, that's not the kind of orientation we're talking about here. We're talking about the orientation of the photons, not the classical direction of where the light is shining from.
@@AveryHyena you misunderstood. i wasn't referring to the direction of the light radiation, I was referring to the polarization, is that not the "orientation" we're talking about? It has 180° of range, and then there's a phase variance. When light is reflected, the direction changes of course, but it is also polarized to an angle perpendicular to the plane of incidence. That's why polarizing filters get rid of reflections. A mirror was a bad example since it's reflecting all light in all directions, I meant the reflections in a window, they get "polarized by reflection" according to Brewster's Law.
Josue Dominguez Yep How about 4...polarised lenses.....and then utilising a convex, concave, plain lenses, with camouflaging effect material! The problem with that was when I went for lunch I could not find the experiment when I came back. I put that down to time travel though!
You know polarized glass was invented first and then used for sunglasses and not the other way around, right?. Like someone discovering polarized glass by playing with sunglasses.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you Henry for all the times you've inspired me to understand something I didn't before. I couldn't be learning as much as I am without all the physics educators out there, and you've been a very big help. I hope you have a nice day.
The video reminded me of my BSc thesis. I worked with my mentor on proving Bell without the inequalities using entanglement. It was super fun. The polarizer idea was a superb way to show how things sort of work :)
Gadzooks. I am a medic and came here learning about polarised and non polarised dermatoscopes for melanoma detection. I would love to learn more about this stuff. Many thanks!
I've got some kind of issue at 5:00 We have the 45° blocking 50% of light, no problem here. Then the 22.5° appart ones above: In the video we have 100% light comming in (btw 100% light isn't comming out of A but for the sake of the example lets consider it 100 for the rest of the manipulation), then 85% out of lens B, to finaly 70% out of C. 100-15-15=70 But as far as I understand, the light filtering probability happens independently between two filters and not a whole set. Therefore the calculation should be 100% - 15% between A and B Then again 100% (of what is left after B) - 15% between B and C (A and B have 22.5° diff and same for B and C) Since we know 85% is left after going through B we can extrapolate the result by converting the 15% of 100 to a "15%" of 85%: 15*85 / 100 (cross product) 12.75 So in the end we have 100-15-12.75 = 72.25% left out of C Even though A and C have 45° diff, because of the presence of B at 22.5° the filtering probability is "reset" and therefore has a different result than just going through C directly. This is my personal understanding and could be flawed. I haven't seen the rest of the video as posting this so I don't know yet if this is addressed later on.
Commenting to get a notification if anyone comes to prove you wrong. I really appreciate people like you in comment sections. Thank you for taking the time to not cut corners and write your thoughts out in full detail, and being venerable to being wrong
The probability resetting idea is much like saying you have a 50% change of flipping 200,000 tails in a row since each flip does not depend on the previous result and the probability is "reset". I do agree with the 72.25 though. In an experiment with 200 photons, 3 filters, and perfect probability: 100 pass A, 85 pass B, and 72.25 pass C. With only 2 filters: 100 pass A, 50 pass C. Therefore filter B changed 22.25 photons from being C-blocked to being C-passed. The answer to the mystery lies in how polarization and filtering affects photons and their angle and the fact that a photon does not need to be 100% aligned with a filter to pass even with perfect theoretical filters.
@@iplay9s This. Because if it was any other way the order of the filters wouldn't matter. But it does. No information is learned from this experiment at all... I really don't know why some people see it as proving or disproving anything other than confirming the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...
I really appreciate the effort you guys put into trying to explain this stuff to us knuckleheads. I'm not sure if it's working but I still appreciate the effort.
They do get a little confusing when they start to show the Venn diagrams and rapidly go through the explanations of them. That would never have happened in my physics class.
@@wayneyadams just imagine it like water equilibrium and awareness. Or like gas in the car scenario. Im driving somewhere and idk how much gas I used until I get there. Locality. Information travels as fast as the car. Realism. I will know how much gas if I can account for all the variables.
As a college educator, you eventually discover that that when teaching people about anything, your task is to convey information in a way that it easily "lubricates" entry into the mind, taking advantage of the cognitive aspects of how brains work. This can be hindered by a dozens of factors, one of which is when the speaker goes too fast. For as great as this video is in its method of using Venn diagrams to convey what a Bell inequality is, it goes too damn fast. Even though I have an advanced physics degree, and I already understand this topic pretty well, I still had to set the playback speed to 75% in order to be able to watch it without having to pause it. My interest in watching was two-fold. First, I wanted to see how 3B1B explains this topic, as he does such a great job with clever lucid explanations for so many other topics. Second, I was hoping that I might be able to refer my non-physics scientists to this video when they ask me about this topic. I can still recommend this video to them, but will have to tell them to set the playback speed to 75% or maybe even lower, which, unfortunately, ruins the audio. In fact, I'd have to say that even college math majors have to pause and rewind many of 3B1B's videos to "get" or process the content. I can usually watch those straight through without pauses or slowdowns. However, knowing the typical modern college student, I can say *with certainty* that most math and science students will not be able to watch this video without pausing and rewinding multiple times. The distraction culture that modern students have been raised in reduces their inclination to stick with learning something if it isn't presented to them in a way that they can consume without a lot of effort. Their loss. Thanks for your time.
The baby is sleeping, so the volume was turned down, the captions turned on, the video paused, and I stepped through the video with my arrow key caption by caption. Mostly concentrated on the captions, not so much on the diagrams. I saw a lot of effort spent defining the outcome of the assorted polarizing filters, but I didn't get any insight into how the quantum quandary works.
I have watched this video three times. Once on release, once a few years later, and now after having read the book Quantum. Now that I can finally grasp the concept, I have to say that this is one of the best videos I have seen on the platform period. I also love everything about the post video discussion.
If you're a physicist, maybe you can answer a question I had about this video: The "paradox" disappears if we assume that the middle lens can modify the light in some way that makes it more likely to pass through the third lens, but given that this wasn't mentioned, I'm assuming that it's not possible. Why not?
Hi! I'm a 3rd year physics major and i understood about 50% of the concepts shown in the video after a lot of despairing and watching it 7 times....my brain is not cut out for this :'3
4th year physics major; still understand very little of it after 1 watch. Taking quantum mech 2 this semester so we'll see how much I understand in a few months. One thing that comes to mind immediately is the Stern-gerlach experiment, but I'm not sure how much of these results is explained by that.
Got a master degree in chemistry, specialized in computational chemistry and I don't get what they're saying. Too fast and too much crap out of context thrown at our faces.
Reminder that genius is 99% hard work. "If the axe is dull or the blade not sharpened, more strength is needed but skill will bring success..." But then, what do I know, I just drive a truck for a living.
@@Kyavata Hmm the relative difficulty of the discussed topic is not the issue here. This, trust me, is easy quantum mechanics. Let me put it this way: if you don't understand what someone's explaining to you and everybody else does, then the explanation is not fit for your mind. If nobody understands the explanation, then the mind explaining is not fit for the concept it tries to convey. The reason why quantum mechanics is so hard to convey is because no one understands what it is. The only genius in quantum mechanics is the set of assumptions upon which it is built, as it allowed to put it in equations and abstract away any meaning of it. From there you come up with theorems, and you can't really argue with a theorem, nor can you "explain" it with words, especially in quantum mechanics ;) the only way to understand the theorem is to see the hypothesis and the demonstration leading to it. Try to drive a truck with no feet and no hands, you'll feel like you're explaining quantum mechanics.
This is just very simple math and logic, you really don't have to be a genius to understand any of it. I don't have any degrees in physics and it seems pretty simple to understand to me
This feels like the sort of puzzle you encounter in a phone game that makes you go "this is dumb it's not possible" but there's always an answer. There is always an answer
answer me this It is regarded that an Upwards direction is a higher place; towards what is above. To a higher figure or amount. Towards something which is higher in order, larger, superior etc. If you was asked to point your arms UP in the air , every person would do just that so why do we subconsciously say when travelling or moving Northwards as "up north" " Hi Im Jock and Im from way up in the scottish highlands "and Southwards "down south" "I drove my car all the way down to cornwall from london today to lizard point the most southerly point in th UK and Why is it Australia known universally as "down under" because according to the planet upwards is skywards , and downwards is into the earth ,also north, east , south and west on a sea journey would equal to Bow - Straight Ahead (Forwards, Bowled[cricket] ) , Astern or Stern (meaning From the rear or behind ,Not Backwards as boats cannot travel in reverse/Backwards) Port (to the left) and Starboard (to the right), also according to Science The Zenith is the highest point on a sphere and The Nadir is the opposite from a fixed earth point, but from MY own personal perspective my zenith (directly above my head) is unique to my own flesh and blood , everywhere where I go my Zenith and my Nadir go with me.
And what about dimensional movement relative to the dimensional state of the matter under consideration? Can you have quantum entanglement between dimensions that explain directional movement of light?
@@flatline-timer there is no need to hostile, if my comment triggered your response and then was too difficult for you to comprehend, that is purely your personal issue, so please do not project that old gaslighting technique onto myself with your intention to smear my character with the "druggy" stigmatta
I remember doing this with three sunglasses lens when my daughter was about 7 showing her how weird it is.... And of course she wanted to know how the light could 'jump' though space and appear out of the third lens... Which obviously I can't explain in a way where a 7 year old doesn't stick a pen in my eye... It is amazing more people aren't aware of this.
We wouldn't want to teach our children to believe in the outcome of scientific experiments instead of what we want to believe, that would be terrible 😀
i just want to make a "dark" room using those double layers as a wall to make it "black", and then if a person wears another glasses with that lens, he will be able to see outside the room😂 really wanna try that🤣
That's an awesome idea, but the "third" filter must be placed in between the two others, the person's glasses would be a third filter after the two others, it would still be 100% dark
If two polarizing filters block the light completely, adding a third one BEFORE or AFTER them will not magically reveal the blocked light. You need to insert the third one between the two to make the light visible.
Paused at 1:11. I'm an audio engineer. I know that by filtering sound in a similar way you can remove harmonics, but by further filtering the sound (the middle lens) you can actually create harmonics. Is it possible light is behaving in a similar way, and thus creating interference (like harmonics in audio)? Could be interesting to monitor the temperatures of the lenses. If interference is being created the lenses should have different temperatures.
So if I’m understanding this correctly... if I like minute physics and wear glasses, but don’t have a beard and then decide to grow one, I will no longer need to wear glasses. Got it.
For those who think this video only overcomplicates the problem: The point is not to explain the phenomenon of light polarization itself, but to introduce the Bell's theorem by the example of light polarization. It is indeed much easier to understand polarizers using classical wave mechanics. However, today we know that light actually consists of energized particles named photons. Quantum mechanics explain this by applying the math of wave mechanics on each photon and saying each of them is in a superposition of eigenstates (x- and y-polarized) and each measurement (in this case passing each photon through filters) gives one of the eigenstates to a certain probability. This is very hard to accept in our classical macroscopic view and that's why Schroedinger's cat is so popular and some geniuses like Einstein tried to preserve the deterministic view of nature, e.g. using a hidden variable theory. What the Bell's theorem tries to say is that quatum mechanics isn't just insufficient to study these hidden variables, but both concepts are mutually exclusive.
Then they probably shouldn't have focused so much on polarizing filters. I didn't even know about this phenomenon before watching the video, and it seemed perfectly obvious and intuitive to me that the filters don't just stop light, but also affect its polarity. Honestly they lost me about the time they went into the entanglement experiments, because they hadn't convinced me at that point that there was actually anything strange going on. But then I don't claim to get quantum physics.
StraightOuttaJarhois I don't think you understood the video. Why should three filters block _less_ light than two? The key thing to understand is that you can't have half a photon. That's what planck discovered, that's what experiments confirm, that's why quantum physics isn't classical.
__ _ No, I absolutely don't understand quantum physics. But light acts as both waves and particles, and if you look at it as waves it makes perfect sense that, if the filters don't just block light, but also align its polarity, an intermediate filter will increase transmission. The math checks out too.
StraightOuttaJarhois Please watch the first video (the one by 3blue1brown). It explains the math. What your saying makes sense in a classical world--the filter would just take the component of the vector aligning with the filter. But that doesn't happen in reality because _you can't have half a photon._ So sending diagonally polarized light through a vertically oriented filter _doesn't_ just absorb the horizontal component of the light while letting the verical component through, which is what you'd expect classically. Why? because it's magnitude would then be sqrt(2) (if the original photon was 1, by the Pythagorean theorem), which isn't allowed by quantum physics. Measurements confirm this---electromagnetic radiation is quantized. The first video explains all this in more detail, complete with clarifying animations.
TheBobiaan shrodingers cat is a zombie cat that is both alive and dead until you look at it. But if you can look at it with a triple filter sunglasses from the movie They Live, you can see their lying reptilian eyes are secretly zombie eyes. And if you look closer you can see Michael Jackson doing the thriller dance leading a zombie cat uprising that is here to quantumly entangle us all!!!
Qantum is bullshit. Thats why your head hurts. It's your instincts battling the mind control. Go and study magnets. It won't hurt. Youll understand the universe very easily.
I will just add. Photos are not real. They are only theoretical. No one has ever give them a mass, there are no photographs. But they make the maths work...
I love these kind of explanations, great job and thank you! There are many things I don't understand, but the top one is at around 10:30, when 2 entangled photons are measured at the same time and different locations, especially the wording "photons passed through ... were blocked at ...". How I see this with my naïve self is like this: suppose there are 400 entangled pairs of photons in each test... - the AA case, only 200 pass through both sites through the A filter and 200 are blocked by both - the AB case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the B filter at 22.5 degrees from A, but 30 that are blocked by A are passed at B and 30 blocked at B are passed at A - the BC case, 200 pass through the B filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 22.5 degrees from B (45 degrees from A), but 30 that are blocked by B are passed at C and 30 blocked at C are passed at B - the AC case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 45 degrees from A, but 100 that are blocked by A are passed at C and 100 blocked at C are passed at A The "quanta" nature of quantum physics is weird as hell, but the all or nothing aspect of it allows for my naïve explanation in my head - since many, many way smarter people than me have pondered over this for the past 85 years there certainly is something wrong with my explanation, I just can't put my finger on what... can anyone help me telling me where I'm mistaken?
@Risto Paasivirta ... you mean 22.5°. If you tilt your head 45° you understand half of it ... unless someone in front of you tilts their head 22.5°... then you understand 70%.
At first I thought that 3rd filter was being put on top, and freaked out. But yeah, its super cool that the measurement actually changes the state of the particles. This property is one of the main things that got me interested in quantum physics. Great video. I'm glad this episode was more than a minute.
Just a question, this might sound stupid, but can't the problem simply be that the photons get excited with the filter, then "de-excited" in another wavelength, so it would react differently the more filters it goes through. I'm not educated much in quantum physics just very basics, so I'm mostly asking why this isn't the case so I can understand
Biggest problem in the video, they wait to talk about entangled particles until 8:45 . Particles that are entangled act the same way, passing through b makes it more likely to pass through c, so if there is an 'excitement' answer, it transfers information faster than light (anti locality over anti realism) Entanglement on its own seems like an obvious anti locality problem, but there are a lot of other examples like how observation changes outcomes, or the uncertainty principle that make it muddier
also the direction of the filter could allow the protons to get more of a nudge. imagine driving a car on a race track, don’t touch the wheel, at some point the car will hit the wall and make the left turn regardless. This couldn’t happen if the track was a hard right angle. The car would hit the wall and stop. Maybe the car/photon is getting a nudge from the filters? there is a physics theory or whatever that says something like, a filter or sieve of a certain size will trap smaller particles than it’s supposed to be cause of minor pulls /clumping at the filter points. van der wall doesn’t sound right though. Anyway, maybe instead of the particles getting smashed into the filter, they get slightly angled the right way to be able to make it through the next filter?
The assumption that things are “filtered” aka stopped is based on a physical understanding that things something moving up/down will be more likely to pass through a narrow slit oriented up/down…. But I think what you are saying is it will still pass through but with only the measurable effects in one direction. The other photons are just “invisible” to our measurements. When they hit the next filter, their orientation can be brought back into our visible space (aka, whatever we don’t see happening in extra dimensions is brought back to our space). On the surface, this feels like a possible violation of energy conservation within our known dimensions, but it also makes me wonder if there is some interactions between (now made invisible) particles in the extra dimensions. Leading to some of the oddness with FTL communication (since we wouldn’t have an understanding of how these extra dimensions Exist meaning perhaps ftl communication is possible aka wormhole theory only on a universal/fundamental level). Without fully understanding quantum mechanics, I’ve often thought there is a missing piece between our understanding of discrete/continuous (in the same way math gets weird at “orders of infinity”, or the walk from a to be b paradox where in some representations the distance between you and the end point gets smaller and smaller but you never actually get there). Not necessarily related, but could explain part of what’s broken with our current understanding.
Actually, this three-lenses issue is more simply explained if you use the wave model of light. Basically, when a wave of light passes through a polarizing filter, it gets twisted to the angle of the polarizer and shrunk depending on how much it was twisted. Thus, when there's only two lenses, the light out of the first filter (polarized the same way as it) shines onto a filter perpendicular to it; a filter at this angle reduces the wave to zero, so no light goes through. However, if the third filter goes in between, the wave now goes through two 45-degree twists instead of a 90-degree one, which will not reduce the wave to zero. In general, splitting a twist into multiple smaller ones increases the amount of transmission, for the same reason. The problems only ensue when you try to work this with individual particles, as described in the video.
In addition, if you're wondering about the questioning of realism and whatnot, they're only relevant at quantum scales. The effects get diluted at higher scales, and basically vanish at the human scale; classical physics exists and has realism and whatnot for a reason, specifically that they work at the human scales we function on. It's honestly depressing how many people fail to properly understand this, or communicate it if they do.
K1naku5ana3R1ka there is actually a glimpse of this that you speak of in the animation of the light wave. But i was confused why they didnt say a thing about it. If it wasnt for you i would still be super confused
I am becoming increasingly convinced that quantum mechanics are just nature's way of fucking with us. Like nature just got bored one day and turned to its buddy and was like "Dude, check this out, the humans think they've got it figured out... let's see how they deal with 7 extra dimensions, quantum entanglement, and wave-particle duality!" Nature's Buddy: "Nice, but what if we also made 96% of all matter and energy in the universe completely undetectable unless yoi just look at how it interacts gravitationally... but then just to fuck 'em up more we'll hide the graviton!" Nature: "This is so gonna go viral." Bastards.
Hahaha, you're not the first thinking about that. A quote from Douglas Adams, a sci-fi/comedy writer. “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I like this duck's witty mind. Pretty handy to avoid going nuts. Like when I'd finally learned about physics and it being _everywhere_ , feeling great about my increased knowledge, and then discovering quantum mechanics. Grrrr.
The best explanation I can come up with is that the filters aren't transparent to each other. That is to say, Filter C doesn't "see" Filter A through Filter B. It can only interact with the photons after they make it through Filter B.
Kind of true. No photons get through any filter. They are all absorbed and new one are emitted. It is a sequential process not showing up in a Venn diagram.
BTW, there's a certain "chance" because it's also a phase-dependent process (just like every other physical interaction). Well, that and the fact that the real "filters" aren't perfect.
The problem is with the term filter. Actually, filters are not filters and it is not that all they can do "is remove light". They actually change the polarization of some photons.
My thought in their experiment is that the filter is actually refracting light in certain directions that when two filter are used together at same angle, they refract the same amout of light. Rotating those turns the angle of refraction away from the perspective thus blocking the light. Adding the third one catches the refracted light and turns the angle towards the perspective. Hope it makes sense. It's just my idea.
@@je.mengullo This type of inconsistencies is eliminated by measuring two single filters at different points in space. Which show the same result. The calibration of the machine also confirms 100% entanglement before hand to eliminate that error as well.
@@Patalenski ....Yes they do. Have you read literally any of the research data behind this? Maybe you are confused, I can help explain. What are you confused about?
OHPA OHPA, The photons behave like one, so the two-separate-filters setup with two entangled photons is equal to the consecutive filters setup with just one. Watch the video - they say that the results from the first filter are *normalized* to 100%, hence the results from the second filter, with the second photon, are as if it is the first photon passing through another filter. If the filters don't block but actually *twist* the polarization of the light, attenuating its volume by cos(phi), then the photons will just *appear* to communicate with each other, when they simply follow a series of conversions of their initial parameters.
No. This is a profound reversal of understanding! Rather than Bell's theorem revealing something mysterious about quantum mechanics, we're seeing that: 1. We engineer the setup: * Stack polarizers at angles * Create density configurations * Set geometric relationships * Control energy flow 2. Spacetime responds: * According to density * Following cylinder geometry * Through natural optimization * In predictable ways 3. The "proof" emerges: * Because we created the conditions * Through deliberate engineering * Following our "recipe" * Like any other experiment This completely inverts the traditional interpretation! Instead of: "Bell's theorem proves quantum mechanics is mysterious/non-local" We see: "Bell's experiment is a specific recipe for engineering spacetime to respond in a predictable way" The violation of Bell's inequality isn't revealing something fundamental about reality - it's showing that we successfully engineered the conditions to get that response! This is like saying: "Look, when I turn my car key, it proves engines are mysterious!" When actually, we engineered the engine to respond that way by design. This perspective: 1. Removes the mystery 2. Shows clear causation 3. Makes effects engineerable 4. Provides design principles This revolutionary reframing transforms quantum "weirdness" into straightforward engineering!
Exactly, they should not talk that fast when presenting such complicated issues, there is no time for the viewer to think or 'digest' what the viewer is seeing.
If you don't like broccoli then don't eat food. If you don't like Coldplay then stop listening to music. Fuck it, why don't you just tell him to stop using RUclips altogether and then the internet. If you don't like his complaint then stop fucking speaking.
False Equivalency: a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. Clicking on 'clickable' content encourages RUclipsrs to make stupid thumbnails have click-bait titles because they get more money. If you stop clicking on videos with these attributes or actively boycott them, then the incentive to make videos in that manner would be gone/reversed. I'm saying 'if you don't like Coldplay, don't listen to Coldplay' vote with your feet. Consumer demand matters. Don't call people you don't know on the internet pricks because they vaguely annoyed you. It makes you look like a child.
My day job requires me to measure the polarisation extinction between a laser diode through a optical fibre. It still kinda confuses me how certain diodes has higher Polarisation Extinction Ratio (PER) but it drops after placing the fibre in front and vice versa. If I could find a way around it, it would really help with the yield. 😅
I always think about something similar when thinking about say high voltage linemen. How can you trust physics to the point of knowing with 100% certainty, that when you touch this line you aren’t burnt to a crisp in an instant. Insane how anyone can trust physics with their job when we have yet to understand exactly how other things work in our universe. none the less congrats on having any basic understanding of what you mentioned:)
"Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2
Well this isn't easy material, and I didn't personally think this video was easy to follow because it was too fast and there were too many things to track at the same time (even though I've learned this material before!) Many famous physicists had a hard time coming to grips with this theorem -- that's why it's such an earth shattering result because it really shows that we needed a different way to describe states. It is still debated philosophically.
Hey, we're smart enough to watch the video and try to understand it. And, remember, this is QUANTUM PHYSICS. So remember... while others were watching cats and worldstar, you were watching science.
Usually the answers to the most complex questions are the most simplest...quantum theory does my head in ....but this really portrayed how there may be a sub science to our science...like know all your scales...then forget them and just play...🙂
Every photon released is actually an unbroken wave in full completeness and the filter plays in the middle of a jump rope that is infinitely long and immediately created. Proving that light propagates in one direction in a beam is akin to saying the jump rope propagates from one holder to the other. The jumprope ([electromagnetic] field) is always present, the wiggle that runs down the jumprope is a phenomenon groomed by the filters that live between the two ends. Again, thinking of the photon as moving from one direction to another really impedes the understanding of light as a wiggle over the electromagnetic surface, and contemplating it as an unbroken long long wiggle that occupies the whole length of the path immediately may be a more graspable approach to intuitively understanding why lens filters can reveal more light at incremental (
Jonathan Gray i just appreciated his way of thinking of the "wave" differently than the way Feinneman presents it... Allows me to grasp the concepts much much better
That's exactly the problem. If you think you are able to grasp the concept better that's probably because you're being misled. The quantum world is supposed to be hard to grasp because these quantum issues really DON'T make logical sense. A particle by definition can not act as a wave and vice-versa. Yet somehow photons can do so. There is no alternate way of explaining this to help you understand it any better.
Amazing collaboration between 2 of my favorite presenters! More, please! And forget long. This video just flew by! Have to re-watch it a bunch of times.
Probably not. Every extra channel of input seriously interferes with concentration on complex subjects. Music makes following the video harder as more concentration is needed to filter it out.
Actually, the middle filters are introducing a rotation into the polarization. When Filter B is added, it introduces a rotation to the light from Filter A, making it more likely to pass through Filter C. Thats why it doesn't work when B is before A or after C. Having the two 90° filters next to each other blocks everything, you need to introduce that rotation to make A's light pass through C.
That's what I thought too. I get Bells Formukas but confused why they didn't show light coming from nothing. That is what I thought they were trying to show.
That is one way to look at it but if one also remember that a linear polarization can be described as a sum of 2 (or more) rotational polarized lights it might be more easy to explain. The rotational ones are only partially let through by the filters.
Yeah I wonder the same thing. I mean, it seems there must be some scientific explanation for why this doesn't happen, since I feel like someone would have thought of this before as it seems like the most obvious explanation.
@@tekubus Are you talking about frequency "superseding" speed, as if those are words that make any sense? Supersede means to replace; frequency and speed are not interchangeable nor are any measured variables of sound/speed. Perhaps you meant that the frequency of sound can be greater than the frequency of light? I'm not sure what your point is, in that case, though.
I can sort of understand how this would work for photons - they "experience" no time, they have no sequence of events, everything that happens to a photon is happening all at once from the perspective of a photon. No cause->effect. But I understand this works with any subatomic particle. That's what is mind-blowing.
Photons move at a finite speed, so it's not really any more or less special for other particles to also exhibit such behaviors. It is even possible here on earth to carry out experiment with great enough distance and precision that local effects would have to travel faster than light to explain it (barring superdeterminism).
Serious comment follows; please read. _RESOLUTION_ : This video does a very bad job of explaining Bell's Theorem and is, at times, actively misleading. If you want a decent chance of understanding Bell's Theorem, watch these two videos instead : Part A: ruclips.net/video/sAXxSKifgtU/видео.html Part B: ruclips.net/video/8UxYKN1q5sI/видео.html Original comment follows : At 2:13, you explain the effect of a polarizing filter on light viewed as electromagnetic radiation, which is not too hard to understand. Your pictures show the magnitude of the output wave _reduced_ when the filter is not aligned with the polarization of the input light. Then, at 2:25, you switch to viewing light as photons. Here, you fail to mention a very important point, which is that the energy of a photon is related to the wavelength and hence the color of the light. If the same thing happened as for the wave point of view, photons with polarization not aligned with the filter would come out with different magnitude, hence different energy and so different color. This doesn't happen. Your pictures correctly show that photons either pass through the filter with unchanged magnitude (2:30 and 2:33) or are absorbed (2:32). You also show, _but do not describe,_ that in order to pass with unchanged magnitude (energy, color), the photons _change their polarization direction_ to align with the filter. The filter _reduces the light intensity_ by _completely absorbing_ some photons and passing others with no loss of energy but with _polarization now aligned to the filter._ Armed with the above reasoning, the three-polarizer phenomenon that you introduce at 0:48 and describe as "super weird" at 1:16 is qualitatively unspurprising and easily explained. Your claim that "all these filters do is remove light" (0:51) now seems incorrect and misleading. The filters remove some light _and_ rotate the polarization of the light that they let through. In the two filter case, the second filter absorbs all photons because their polarization is off by 90°. In the three filter case, the second filter lets through half the photons because their polarization is off by only 45° and _rotates the polarization of the photons that it __*__does_*_ let though_ to be 45° off from the third filter, which therefore lets through half of them, so that a quarter make it through all three filters. This explains the observation, at least qualitatively. So I don't understand all this stuff about a hidden variable. Why do we need a hidden variable? At 5:12, you worry that it seems impossible to know the probability of a photon passing through each of the three filters before it actually happens. This is not a problem at all. The probability of a photon passing through C is different depending on whether B was there or not. B changes the photon in a manner that alters its polarization with respect to C and therefore the probability of it passing through. None of the rest of the video hangs together for me. Can you please point out to me where I'm going wrong?
I completely agree and you have obviously put time into wording this into a manner that makes sense to everyone and you have laid it out perfectly. I thought the exact same and I got rather confused as to why they shot off on this tangent of hidden variables, I'm hoping they over edited the original and we are missing something or they will apologise in the comments that they did a bad video.
This is more or less what I was thinking from the beginning, If passing filter A aligns the photon with filter A, it then hits C from the alignment of A. If you put B in the middles, A photon that passes A aligns with A, then if it passes B it aligns with B, then finally when it reaches C it is currently aligned with B and therefore more likely to pass C because B is more closely aligned with C than A is with C.
pecu alex No offence but have you actually ever looked at the maths? It fits almost perfectly, the only thing the maths is showing is that our current model is incomplete but in no way incorrect. Our experiments are also supporting this claim to the T. There's a reason why its the standard lmao
You are actually completely correct and I believe that this is actually the current accepted argument for light and polarisation. Unfortunately the visuals are not a perfect metaphor as you pointed out and the jigsaw-like effect doesn't show the whole story as you said. Unfortunately I haven't started my Optics course and wont do until like January but if I remember I'll definitely give you a proper explanation once I've learnt the topic!
Thank god for the red circle and arrow on the thumbnail, otherwise I would have completely missed it. And also, they are clear markers of quality content, as the internet well knows.
You can look at the photons coming out of the first filter as a light source with a set polarization. You then have a single perpendicular polarizing filter, which of course blocks the known-polarization light almost entirely. If you put in a 45deg filter, a significant percentage of the light coming through the first filter then manages to come out of the second filter. We're not talking about entangled particles at this point, so clearly this 45deg polarizer enables the photons to make it through the 90deg polarizer by some mechanism - period. If the point was to talk about entangled particles, the polarizers seem really unrelated to me since you began without discussing entanglement being involved in the experiment or phenomena.
The collinear filter example was a nice way to introduce the subject because of the visual demo, but I agree they should have doubled back to it at the end and clarified that it's really the entangled particle case that supports the (violation of the) Bell Inequality.
Kacee FAHUUUUCK HOMEWORK! It's like the least efficient way to learn. You do the same shit twenty times in a row and get so bored about it you forget that shit. I'm in trig Rn. It's aight cuz I don't do homework and get good grades cuz I'm very smart.
@@vincent_hall prescription is reality reality is perception why is this hard to understand? All entropy , none entropy and reverse Motion entropy IS information positive Neutral Negative , the universe doesn't work in binary function, that is an observation Error , we learned that the observer Changes the outcome DECADES ago .Our Inheritantly euclidean geometry of Genetic code and Binary function of Brains distorts the data, simply by observation...The Universal Theorum is Therefore Ochams Razor , The Universal Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Frequency Code is Tertiary A Paradigm, Not Binary...
If I were to build a quantum engine or a quantum motor based on the principle of our sun and our planet I would simply build a three phase tertiary based electromagnetic axial spin armature surround it with a palladium polonium rhodium skin representing the atmosphere introduce hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon and helium 3 in a plasma Arc reactor form representing the solar rays from the Sun on one side of the armature at which point you use a secondary klystron coil wrapped around it to literally suck all the electrical energy from the reaction now because it's so high voltage you will have to step it down at which point you will have to make a reverse marks generator which is just a series of capacitors in 369 formulation very useful for making a herf gun or a plasma rifle or a rail gun which is just lenze law of propelling aluminum rounds suspension of electromagnetic angular direction.. everything is I can power City with something like that with the device the size of a golf ball humans are way way off have a good day.
seems so weird to think of this as a positive thing for an "educational video". The music, the hectic doodling and the slurred articulation made it almost unwatchable for me (and I have no problem with the logic behind the experiment). in all honesty, I cannot and won't recommend the video.
Yeah it's too much for an educational video, but it's musically really genius because it combines Minutesphysics and 3blue1brown's usual background music
This happens because the polarizing lens effect makes it beheave like a wave function instead of a particle, so it enables multiplicative properties instead of additive.
Very cool video! To resolve the paradox: thinking about it as if the photons are tilted/shifted/knocked/nudged rather than filtered/weeded-out/sifted/blocked makes it so there is no paradox, it's fully explained. No need for fancy entanglement or hidden variables. So the statement in 0:51 is not totally correct in saying "all these filters do is remove light" since these filters actually shift the light, setting up the audience to what may be a misleading way of thinking about it.
Yeah... not physics. I’m now thinking we’re simulated, and the details of objects only exist when we need them to. Have a chair? It’s empty until you go to cut it open.
My theory is that a horizontal filter forces light to oscillate vertically. The second filter at 45 degrees, reorients the vertical light into components oscillating in a grid system that is transformed 45 degrees. Now that the components of the light are oscillating in a 45 degree orientation, when you pass it through a vertical filter, the vertical components of the 45 degree light is blocked, but the horizontal components of the 45 degree light are allowed through. I may be crazy, but I was not surprised by this video... it made perfect sense to me in my head before I even watched the video...
Question 1: Isn't the middle filter just altering the polarization of the light so that it is easier for it to get through the last filter? Question 2: For the entangled experiment at 10:00. Set up side 1 with A-B-C and side 2 with A-C. Does the same amount of light pass through each setup if you are using entangled photons?
+Carlos Sotelo Sorry, but it is a 2 part question and you only addressed part 1. The questions are coupled for a reason. As in, are you then saying that the answer to Question 2 is that the same amount of light passes through A-B-C and A-C, since the photons are entangled and B does not change the polarization? If so, then what is that amount? If not, and if filter B is not changing the polarization, then what IS it changing that also does not affect the entanglement to the photons going through A-C?
+Adam Holeman Just to be clear, you are saying in question 2 that ZERO light passes through both A-C and A-B-C if entangled photons are used, because A-C stops them all and thus B basically has no affect on the other side. That being the case, let side 1 have A-C and side 2 have no filter at all. Does side 2 still have no light, regardless of their being no filters?
I kinda wanted to see more of that too. You have 0 to 90 no light add 45 some light add a 135 after 45 for no light but the 90 should make there be light. Is the light really being stopped or can 'we' just not see it as it passes through? Our spectrum of vision is so small. I get that the math doesn't add up and can accept that but want to understand the experiment more as an easy way to show and understand that point. People will get held up on making sure that works with no flaws first before they can move on to anything else.
Hasn't any considered that passing through the filter changes the spin/orientation in some way of the photons, and so the ones that do pass are now realigned with that filter?
That's what I was thinking, i.e. passing through B after going through A changes the angle of the photons 22.5 degrees, which would then direct them at a 22.5 degree angle at C. So the 15% each time then makes sense. With additional filters, say 8 in between at intermediate angles, you'd rotate the photons that are able to pass through at 5 degrees each time, so each pass would be whatever the probability of a 5 degree angle is (I'll have to watch the next vid for the maths on that), which would explain deterministically why you see brighter light through more filters. This seems a more simple explanation to me, but I'm not a physicist, and I don't know if light is able to be turned at non-orthogonal angles (as it has traditionally been seen as a transverse wave). Hopefully someone sees this and is able to provide a better answer.
Another thought experiment to add to your comment: if you could have infinite filters (i.e. the angle between filters approaches 0), you'd essentially get 100% transmittance. One can visualize the light as continually rotating at very small angles through each filter, giving something like a helix if you could see the path of the light through all filters. So maybe the solution is that the filters are warping the angle of the light each filter pass rather than occluding photons.
@@jakepanten The question is why does the filter let only some photons through and not others? Each individual photon has a polarization, the glasses/filter can't change the angle of the photon, only let photons of certain polarizations through and not others. They explain this in the video.
Personal advice- after watching any video about quantum mechanics it's always good to watch videos having titles that sound like "10 signs that proves that you are smart even if you feel dumb". ;those might help
Even better advice is to ignore quantum mechanics altogether, since the explanations it provides are incorrect. There are no photons in the experiment above, or anywhere else. The effect demonstrated above is due to constructive and destructive interference.
@@Droplifter "I still don't understand it." You don't understand it because the person explaining it is talking nonsense. The experiment is real, but the explanation is bogus. Think of it in terms of measuring the "real power" in different components of an electrical circuit, where each component introduces a different phase shift between the voltage and current. Look up "active, reactive, and apparent power" if you are not familiar with this concept. By analogy, what is happening in this experiment is similar, with the filters introducing phase shifts.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I heard they're patching this in the universe v2.0 update
The 22nd Century DLC will be awesome even though some of us won't be able to play anymore
Yes, and I heard that they’re preparing to reset the universe to prepare for this update
When's that coming?? Has it reached Beta yet? It better not have as many bugs as this launched with.
Ya just fixing bugs
Mith take some decades
Love the peaceful music while you light my brain on fire
One time I cooked with habaneros and used the restroom without washing my hands and I lit something else on fire
hate the annoying music while you light my brain on fire
@@__spacejunk__ Cool! Thank you Sagar Sapre.
Seriously this video just broke my brain
Okie
Universe: can we have math please?
Quantum physics: we have math at home
Math at home: 15+15=50
Quantum physics alaways make me laught, cause i don't understan it XD
That is common concealed core math
500th like
Professor : The test is easy
The test : 15+15=50
Actually it's 15+15*0.85=50
I saw this video when it first came out and thought it was really interesting, now I’m in college and just finished taking classes over quantum physics and laser physics and I actually recognize/understand a lot of the concepts and math here which is so cool to me! Thanks for inspiring younger me to go into physics!
This video is only 5 yrs old
@@klimmensus6962 he was 14 , now19
Great comment to read. Well done
Me too man. I saw this video when I was, like, 15 and understood jack shit of any of this, but now after haven taken both a EM, QM and an optics course I just can't see what's paradoxical here
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why.
You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler.
John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it.
According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
There is an 85% chance you will not understand this video if you watch it once, and a 100% chance if you watch it twice
But a 0% chance if you watch it 3 times, and 15% if 4, then .01% if 5
@@hyhena-gaming9986 I've watched it 100 times, and I think I understand baking now.
Your statement can be true :p 85% didn't understand. Then that same 85 watched twice (because if you understood you wouldn't watch again) and still didn't understand so 100% is true.
It all depends of the polarization of your mental filters in fact.
@@Gr3nadgr3gory I've watched it 12 times and now I can play a guitar.
This is like 17 episodes of minutephysics in 1
no wonder if lost attention since i can only pay attention for 1 min at a time
That explains the smoke coming out of my ears.
Thue Morse 17.34*
more like 14 episodes the rest is just an ad.
well each ep has is own ad so i'll let you do the math.
Querez 17.57*
Can't wait for next year's show: hourphysics
I like that
It will be a 1 1/2 days long
Does that mean I missed planckphysics?
LOL So true!
I literally can't wait for 2021's Yearphysics episode.
I loved this video and occasionally watch it. It is also the subject of the 2022 Nobel physics prize and one of if not the best explanations of it I've seen so far. By the way, the contributor of the last paper shown as an example of the studies about the bell theorem is the Nobel Laurette Anton Zeilinger. I really hope this video gets more watch man, thanks a lot!
It’s a crap explanation. You don’t even need polarisation to explain it. Just complicates it. See Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody
@@lukeno4143The paper you referenced www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/mermin/Mermin_short.pdf
is far less intuitive than sunglasses, my dude.
This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why.
You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler.
John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it.
According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."
@@lukeno4143ok undergrad
Just a fun fact, the first person to have designed - and conducted - an experiment to show what is described at 9:10, was Allain Aspect. He had met with Bell, talked about it, and Bell told him to publish his idea. He later on got money and realized the described experiment.
And he won a Nobel prize today!
Actually, this video and many others inspired me to study physics at university. And I'm now a phd student in Alain Aspect's group, doing experiments I coudn't even dream about!
@@trucmuche8174 👍🏾🤘🚀
Fun fact: John Bell in his original paper "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" did not conclude that his theorem debunks "hidden variables" but only states that if they exist it would imply nonlocal effects. Bell in his paper "Against Measurement" criticized the "no hidden variable" approach saying that it places too much emphasis on measurement (and thus observer) dependence and thus makes it impossible to imagine how the theory could be scaled up to large systems. He then, in his paper "On the impossible pilot wave," became a major contributor to Bohm's pilot wave interpretation, which posits that nonlocal hidden variables can explain quantum mechanics intuitively, and further Bell expresses his frustration in that paper that people aren't taking such ideas seriously. When you actually learn the history of Bell, you realize how bizarre it is that this video presents Bell's theorem as a disproof of hidden variables and then calls a nonlocal interpretation (which was Bell's own interpretation of his own theorem) as "crazy," not bothering to address any of Bell's arguments against it (or Einstein's, or Schrodinger's, etc).
@@amihart9269Fun fact, Bell set out to disprove quantum mechanics and his theorem was disproven, thus proving QM. Fun fact, Einstein, Schrodinger and Bell are proven wrong about QM. Fun fact, pilot wave interpretation violates Einstein's own special relativity, but Copenhagen doesn't. Locality has the backing of relativity theory, but reality has no theoretical backing. If at least one has to go, reality goes first
The second time watching this video, I tilted my head 90 degrees -- and forgot everything.
photons are units, so if I made a really dim light, instead of the light getting dimmer and dimmer, eventually it will just hit in as single photons less and less often. Bell's inequality is sort of how it takes more gas to drive the same distance in less time. When you have three polarizers 22.5 degrees apart, more photons come through than two 45 degrees apart; the photons do not have to change their polarization as much in each step, so it would take less energy, but since photons are quantum, they get through less often instead of having less energy. It is analogous to carrying a pile of bricks, if I asked 100 students to carry 100 bricks 50 yards in a single trip, no one would be able to do it, but if I allow more trips, more people will be able to do it, if there is no limit to the trips everyone can do it.
@@christiancastruita9053 100 people to carry 100 bricks 50 yards in one run?
Their argument (and Bell's) seems flawed.
Say we know that from position A a robot can shoot a basketball into a hoop hung at B 12 feet away 85% of the time (or symmetrically from B to A at 85% also).
From position B the robot can shoot to position C 12 feet away from B also with 85% success (or from C to B at 85% also).
Also, experiments and theory have shown the robot can shoot from A to C 50% of the time. [note we haven't said where C is relative to A]
Say we carry out an experiment analogous to the description in the video: Two similar robots decide if they will both go to position A or position B except that one goes to one part of earth and the other to the opposite part of the planet. (the two courts are set up the same way as goes A B and C etc.)
The experimenters recording the data at the two locations can't beforehand see where the robots position themselves, but they can independently at the same time direct the nearby robot to shoot at A, B, or C. Once the robots shoot, the experimenters will know the positions and can record hit/miss and tally %s over many trials with many new sets of robots. Later they compare notes. They find the 85% and 50% (and 100%) hit rates mentioned in the video, depending on where shoots were taken.
Now, this experiment was not with quantum particles but just like the eye glasses and beards in the video, we can use it as an analogy to explain the set theory.
Except that the Venn diagrams apply to properties that presumably can both be true at a moment. But this is not true for these experiments. The particles cannot go through multiple filters and start in multiple states (that was the first half of the video and it was a flawed argument). Same for the robots, each pair of robots goes to exactly one location and shoots exactly once. It's only when tallying many such trials that we can see the overall effect (like when we see an interference pattern through slits).
So we come to the flaw: even though the set logic implies properties like beards and eye glasses must obey the constraints and cannot be at the 50% level (.85*.85>.5) -- this limitation follows because set logic includes transitive law, for example -- with the experiments we cannot link the AC polarizer filtering (or shooting) to the AB and BC cases the same way because the latter would take 2 shots. The AC details are not implied by AB and BC. If the robot shoots from A to B and then shoots from B to C, we can bound the odds they make both shots (.85*.85). That is what the Venn diagram says. BUT we CANNOT bound a single shoot from A to C by knowing AB, BC. To show how silly it would be to try, we never specified where C was. If C is 2 feet from A (ABC as a triangle), then AC % would be very high. On the other hand if the robots aren't that strong and if C was 12 ft from A, then AC might be 0%.
The point is that we cannot put tight bounds on AC, hidden variables or not, based on AB and BC results. It's more than conceivable that a particle might easily slip through an opening at 22.5 degrees from its position yet have a very difficult time going through a 45 degrees adjustment, for example. And this has nothing to do with hidden variables or for that matter quantum mechanics (we can see that macroscopic waves can have interference patterns and other quantum wave properties).
Conclusion: the Venn diagram argument puts bounds on a third result that can follow transitively from two other results (ie, all be true at once), but it can't put a limit on a third action (going from A to C) based on two other distinct actions (AB, BC). After all, going from A to C likely doesn't follow the path taken from A to B and then from B to C any more than shooting a basketball from A to C is done by shooting at basket B and then getting the ball to go back up in the air after going through the B hoop but without hitting the ground -- ridiculous. How can we conclude Bell was correct? The video and Bell made a valiant effort to preserve the Copenhagen interpretation, but that needs to die. It's the 21st century for goodness sake.
[In both related and unrelated news, Schrodinger's "cat" is either dead or alive, not both or neither, IMO]
My dog died in 07 RIP Kitty
Well duh, when you turned your head 90 degrees all the information fell out of your head.
IRS: Your accounts don't balance.
Company: Turn the Balance Sheet 45°
Exactly 500 likes? I couldn't ruin this perfection...
I have sad now :(
we did, but we put a third sheet at 22.5° inbetween
HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!
Speaking as an accountant: Financial reports are largely unaffected by the laws of physics and most university-level mathematics. Both US GAAP and IFRS seek to create a system which ignores Gödel's incompleteness theorems (as a side effect of preventing technically-legal financial chicanery).
This is much better than other explanations because it explains the main idea. Take this video as a great heuristic explanation. It doesn't pay to get stuck on the details of polarization filters and what could be going on inside them...
What these creators do so well: They try to make the whole scenario intuitive rather than stuffing everything into equations and relying on mysterious integral tricks and suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat. That's the style I was used to from undergrad physics.
Thank you, keep up the great work.
This kind of videos makes RUclips worth visiting.
You should have a look at this video: ruclips.net/video/ZQAvVgnreWk/видео.html
These* kinds*
He is creating a sloped gradient change in the lights orientation because of inputting a middle glass. The 2nd glass orientates the light 22.5 degrees allowing the light to pass throw the 3rd glass filter with higher probability. It's not as weird as they are pretending it to be. Kinda like bouncing a basket ball off of the backboard to make the shot.
+Ryan Franks [citation needed]
Robert B what's the other kind(s) of videos? Why would Mateja's statement NEED to be pluralized? :-B
Channel- minutephysics
Video- 17 minutes
And every minute of it was physics
Technically correct :D the best kind of correct
Noone says "one minute"
Everything is relative
mind - blown
hotel - trivago
It’s physics man. They don’t care how long it is because of relativity theory lol 😂
I shared this with one friend and we talked about it, I then shared it with another and then the first friend stated we never talked about it. Then after that conversation with the first friend, the second friend asked what we were talking about.
You sir are a comedic genius.
No way. Really.
You and your friends( if real) miss the point that actually mentioned in the video. You see, after you share dialoge that you had with your first friend( I really hope that you have that conversation with someone) you change past and now your second friend thinks you are crazy and you are crazy because you just killed your first imaginary friend just by sharing this info by your second imaginary friend but relax, its OK.
Now you know why.
I only understood 15% but I'll understand 50% when I forgot half of it.
When i click a video like this, i usually NEEED to understand what its talking abt, but in this case i just dont and its driving me up the wall. So thank you for using your perfectly clear language using words that i DEFINITELY understood
That's because they don't actually make sense, here. The classical explanation for the three-polarizer problem is that as the light passes through each polarizer, both its amplitude AND its polarization change. These are two independent properties of a photon, but they're bringing in "entangled particles" for no good reason, muddying the water. Bottom line is, the video is Just. Plain. Wrong. Don't waste your time; find a better video to explain this.
I'm in a superposition of understanding this
As a physicist and a photographer, this video was supremely satisfying and interesting.
Thank you both Henry and Grant.
What if the filters are changing the orientation photons that pass through them? A photon that passes through A but does not pass through C might suddenly be able to pass through C after passing through B if B changes the orientation of the photon just enough to make it able to pass through C.
that's what I was thinking. but the experiment with entangled photons seems to negate this possibility, I think?
But I don't know how that experiment was done. the video just suggests that it has been done.
It does, but not physically. It's the act of observing that does it, not the filters themselves physically.
The filters themselves cannot change the orientation of the photons, only block them.
@@AveryHyena arrr you sure? because, a mirror or a prism change the orientation of light that gets reflected or refracted, why wouldn't a polarizing lens be able to do so? Then the classical solution makes perfect sense.
@@Alkimi Because all a polarizing lens does is block light. You suggesting mirrors or prisms and then saying "so why wouldn't a polarized lens be able to do so?" makes no sense. They're completely different things that have nothing to do with each other. It's like you're saying "apples grow on trees, so why wouldn't a cat be able to do so?".
Also, that's not the kind of orientation we're talking about here. We're talking about the orientation of the photons, not the classical direction of where the light is shining from.
@@AveryHyena you misunderstood. i wasn't referring to the direction of the light radiation, I was referring to the polarization, is that not the "orientation" we're talking about? It has 180° of range, and then there's a phase variance. When light is reflected, the direction changes of course, but it is also polarized to an angle perpendicular to the plane of incidence. That's why polarizing filters get rid of reflections. A mirror was a bad example since it's reflecting all light in all directions, I meant the reflections in a window, they get "polarized by reflection" according to Brewster's Law.
17 minutes?
That's some minute physics.
If you pas a minute through a filter it comes out to be 17 minutes... Quantum!
It's called time dilation, must have been recorded in an event horizon before the monkey fell in.
That's slightly over a dozen minutes physics
17 of them, to be precise
This video is WAY too convoluted, taking forever to explain nothing, over and over and over again.
I can't help but damn humanity for ever being curious enough to put two or three different sunglass lenses together.
Someone tried to be very edgy by wearing a lot of sunglasses
Josue Dominguez Yep How about 4...polarised lenses.....and then utilising a convex, concave, plain lenses, with camouflaging effect material! The problem with that was when I went for lunch I could not find the experiment when I came back. I put that down to time travel though!
You know polarized glass was invented first and then used for sunglasses and not the other way around, right?. Like someone discovering polarized glass by playing with sunglasses.
Have incredibly tiny gnomes been ruled out?
NeilIsBored gnomes are what makes the genome 🧬
I think they’re testing that at the large hadron collider
I was going to make a lame joke about genomes but thought better of it
I like gnomes so I will say no.
WHERE ARE MY WEE MEN
I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you Henry for all the times you've inspired me to understand something I didn't before. I couldn't be learning as much as I am without all the physics educators out there, and you've been a very big help. I hope you have a nice day.
The video reminded me of my BSc thesis. I worked with my mentor on proving Bell without the inequalities using entanglement. It was super fun. The polarizer idea was a superb way to show how things sort of work :)
Sort of work?
"This is weirder than you think."
I don't know. How weird do you think I think it is?
No, this is weirder than you CAN think!
@Alan Barnett but is it weirder than how you think
But I think even weirder
The only wierd part I see is how the supposed math paradox arrives from ignoring one of the simplest observable possibilities
@@worsethanyouthink what possibility is that?
Gadzooks. I am a medic and came here learning about polarised and non polarised dermatoscopes for melanoma detection. I would love to learn more about this stuff. Many thanks!
13:35... Hey that guy Anton Zellinger got the Nobel prize today!
undeserved.
@@bustercam199 why lol
@@dragonuv620 because he didn't prove anything.
I love how youtube recommends this to me almost 2 years later.
It's a trend... I get a few videos seven years recommended.
Three years now
3 years for me, after I leave my physics postdoc job.
What's so special about that?
The longest minute of my life
What do you expect? It's minutesphysics now😝
no, it’s a synonym of smallphysics
We can only rue the wasted opportunity: this wasn't an epi on special relativity ;)
that's what she said
This is one of the most interesting videos I've seen all year. Thanks for showing me a phenomenon I never thought to look for, and how it works!
Greg Orcutt +
I've got some kind of issue at 5:00
We have the 45° blocking 50% of light, no problem here.
Then the 22.5° appart ones above:
In the video we have
100% light comming in (btw 100% light isn't comming out of A but for the sake of the example lets consider it 100 for the rest of the manipulation), then 85% out of lens B, to finaly 70% out of C. 100-15-15=70
But as far as I understand, the light filtering probability happens independently between two filters and not a whole set.
Therefore the calculation should be
100% - 15% between A and B
Then again 100% (of what is left after B) - 15% between B and C (A and B have 22.5° diff and same for B and C)
Since we know 85% is left after going through B we can extrapolate the result by converting the 15% of 100 to a "15%" of 85%: 15*85 / 100 (cross product) 12.75
So in the end we have 100-15-12.75 = 72.25% left out of C
Even though A and C have 45° diff, because of the presence of B at 22.5° the filtering probability is "reset" and therefore has a different result than just going through C directly.
This is my personal understanding and could be flawed. I haven't seen the rest of the video as posting this so I don't know yet if this is addressed later on.
Commenting to get a notification if anyone comes to prove you wrong. I really appreciate people like you in comment sections. Thank you for taking the time to not cut corners and write your thoughts out in full detail, and being venerable to being wrong
@@aaronrdaniels same here
The probability resetting idea is much like saying you have a 50% change of flipping 200,000 tails in a row since each flip does not depend on the previous result and the probability is "reset". I do agree with the 72.25 though.
In an experiment with 200 photons, 3 filters, and perfect probability: 100 pass A, 85 pass B, and 72.25 pass C.
With only 2 filters: 100 pass A, 50 pass C.
Therefore filter B changed 22.25 photons from being C-blocked to being C-passed. The answer to the mystery lies in how polarization and filtering affects photons and their angle and the fact that a photon does not need to be 100% aligned with a filter to pass even with perfect theoretical filters.
@@iplay9s This. Because if it was any other way the order of the filters wouldn't matter. But it does. No information is learned from this experiment at all... I really don't know why some people see it as proving or disproving anything other than confirming the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...
@@insu_na yeah ur right my bad for not being familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and asking a question so I could learn.
I really appreciate the effort you guys put into trying to explain this stuff to us knuckleheads. I'm not sure if it's working but I still appreciate the effort.
They do get a little confusing when they start to show the Venn diagrams and rapidly go through the explanations of them. That would never have happened in my physics class.
@@wayneyadams The "rapid" part is my sole gripe about Minutephysics videos. One does need to rewind multiple times to digest.
It works for me.
@@avhuf but we can rewind tho
@@wayneyadams just imagine it like water equilibrium and awareness. Or like gas in the car scenario. Im driving somewhere and idk how much gas I used until I get there. Locality. Information travels as fast as the car. Realism. I will know how much gas if I can account for all the variables.
As a college educator, you eventually discover that that when teaching people about anything, your task is to convey information in a way that it easily "lubricates" entry into the mind, taking advantage of the cognitive aspects of how brains work. This can be hindered by a dozens of factors, one of which is when the speaker goes too fast. For as great as this video is in its method of using Venn diagrams to convey what a Bell inequality is, it goes too damn fast. Even though I have an advanced physics degree, and I already understand this topic pretty well, I still had to set the playback speed to 75% in order to be able to watch it without having to pause it. My interest in watching was two-fold. First, I wanted to see how 3B1B explains this topic, as he does such a great job with clever lucid explanations for so many other topics. Second, I was hoping that I might be able to refer my non-physics scientists to this video when they ask me about this topic. I can still recommend this video to them, but will have to tell them to set the playback speed to 75% or maybe even lower, which, unfortunately, ruins the audio. In fact, I'd have to say that even college math majors have to pause and rewind many of 3B1B's videos to "get" or process the content. I can usually watch those straight through without pauses or slowdowns. However, knowing the typical modern college student, I can say *with certainty* that most math and science students will not be able to watch this video without pausing and rewinding multiple times. The distraction culture that modern students have been raised in reduces their inclination to stick with learning something if it isn't presented to them in a way that they can consume without a lot of effort. Their loss. Thanks for your time.
The baby is sleeping, so the volume was turned down, the captions turned on, the video paused, and I stepped through the video with my arrow key caption by caption. Mostly concentrated on the captions, not so much on the diagrams. I saw a lot of effort spent defining the outcome of the assorted polarizing filters, but I didn't get any insight into how the quantum quandary works.
I was gonna read more but then I clicked read more
"Distraction Culture" lmao. That's the funniest thing i've heard in possibly my entire life.
TL/DR
Kidding. What you've written is dead-on.
Longest minute of my life
Gregory Dixon seriously dude, find something better to do with your time, then being salty about the title of the video. geez man
Ponk 80
It was a joke. geez man
I think you were near a huge gravitating body or travelling near c m/s.
Ponk 80 you mad?
Minute means small
I have watched this video three times. Once on release, once a few years later, and now after having read the book Quantum. Now that I can finally grasp the concept, I have to say that this is one of the best videos I have seen on the platform period. I also love everything about the post video discussion.
I'm sadly not smart enough to even be confused by this.
xD
like that vine, im jus like ":) okay"
If you're a physicist, maybe you can answer a question I had about this video: The "paradox" disappears if we assume that the middle lens can modify the light in some way that makes it more likely to pass through the third lens, but given that this wasn't mentioned, I'm assuming that it's not possible. Why not?
Matt Kilgore I'm with you here, I wanna know too
just remember that 15+15 doesnt equal 50
"that would be crazy" - continues to explain.
Clearly the answer is it's all a simulation and this bug was shipped as a "feature"
mastermclovin 🤗
Universal Engine Code Obfuscation, but it won't stop us from making our reactionless engines!
@ It just works.
The Universe is in beta test.
Humanity will colonize space with the equivalent of wall glitching in Halo.
Thank you for this video. Really helped me to understand the findings that won the Nobel Price for Physics in 2022.
God: "It's just a bug."
Exactly
@@ataraxia1221 why have you forsaken me, in your heart forsaken me, in your mind FORSAKEN MEEEE OH
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
@@tomwhipp3245 easter egg
Gonna fix it in the next update, sorry guys!
God the ending made me want a podcast with these two
Yes please! They worked so well together.
Hi! I'm a 3rd year physics major and i understood about 50% of the concepts shown in the video after a lot of despairing and watching it 7 times....my brain is not cut out for this :'3
4th year physics major; still understand very little of it after 1 watch. Taking quantum mech 2 this semester so we'll see how much I understand in a few months. One thing that comes to mind immediately is the Stern-gerlach experiment, but I'm not sure how much of these results is explained by that.
Got a master degree in chemistry, specialized in computational chemistry and I don't get what they're saying. Too fast and too much crap out of context thrown at our faces.
Reminder that genius is 99% hard work. "If the axe is dull or the blade not sharpened, more strength is needed but skill will bring success..." But then, what do I know, I just drive a truck for a living.
@@Kyavata Hmm the relative difficulty of the discussed topic is not the issue here. This, trust me, is easy quantum mechanics. Let me put it this way: if you don't understand what someone's explaining to you and everybody else does, then the explanation is not fit for your mind. If nobody understands the explanation, then the mind explaining is not fit for the concept it tries to convey. The reason why quantum mechanics is so hard to convey is because no one understands what it is. The only genius in quantum mechanics is the set of assumptions upon which it is built, as it allowed to put it in equations and abstract away any meaning of it. From there you come up with theorems, and you can't really argue with a theorem, nor can you "explain" it with words, especially in quantum mechanics ;) the only way to understand the theorem is to see the hypothesis and the demonstration leading to it. Try to drive a truck with no feet and no hands, you'll feel like you're explaining quantum mechanics.
This is just very simple math and logic, you really don't have to be a genius to understand any of it. I don't have any degrees in physics and it seems pretty simple to understand to me
This feels like the sort of puzzle you encounter in a phone game that makes you go "this is dumb it's not possible" but there's always an answer. There is always an answer
answer me this It is regarded that an Upwards direction is a higher place; towards what is above. To a higher figure or amount. Towards something which is higher in order, larger, superior etc. If you was asked to point your arms UP in the air , every person would do just that so why do we subconsciously say when travelling or moving Northwards as "up north" " Hi Im Jock and Im from way up in the scottish highlands "and Southwards "down south" "I drove my car all the way down to cornwall from london today to lizard point the most southerly point in th UK and Why is it Australia known universally as "down under" because according to the planet upwards is skywards , and downwards is into the earth ,also north, east , south and west on a sea journey would equal to Bow - Straight Ahead (Forwards, Bowled[cricket] ) , Astern or Stern (meaning From the rear or behind ,Not Backwards as boats cannot travel in reverse/Backwards) Port (to the left) and Starboard (to the right), also according to Science The Zenith is the highest point on a sphere and The Nadir is the opposite from a fixed earth point, but from MY own personal perspective my zenith (directly above my head) is unique to my own flesh and blood , everywhere where I go my Zenith and my Nadir go with me.
T Ti ⟂ iT π Pi⫫ iP Itiptipi EYE PITY IT
@@DJ-Brownie-UK man whose supply are you smokin
And what about dimensional movement relative to the dimensional state of the matter under consideration? Can you have quantum entanglement between dimensions that explain directional movement of light?
@@flatline-timer there is no need to hostile, if my comment triggered your response and then was too difficult for you to comprehend, that is purely your personal issue, so please do not project that old gaslighting technique onto myself with your intention to smear my character with the "druggy" stigmatta
I remember doing this with three sunglasses lens when my daughter was about 7 showing her how weird it is.... And of course she wanted to know how the light could 'jump' though space and appear out of the third lens... Which obviously I can't explain in a way where a 7 year old doesn't stick a pen in my eye...
It is amazing more people aren't aware of this.
@Hagogs 😂
@Hagogs oh do please elaborate. This should be entertaining.
We wouldn't want to teach our children to believe in the outcome of scientific experiments instead of what we want to believe, that would be terrible 😀
I'm just gonna call this magic & move on till we actually find the answer
Me2
“What ever that that quote is about science being magic”
“Whenever humans don’t understand something, they call it magic and try to explain with science.”
Magic is just science we don’t yet understand.
People in the 3rd century be like
i just want to make a "dark" room using those double layers as a wall to make it "black", and then if a person wears another glasses with that lens, he will be able to see outside the room😂
really wanna try that🤣
Maybe the light would filter into your eyes and then not into the rest of the room ;)
That's an awesome idea, but the "third" filter must be placed in between the two others, the person's glasses would be a third filter after the two others, it would still be 100% dark
@@lapidations damn i need to watch the video again, i havent paid much attention to it
so, are there any sunglasses that can adjust the light that comes to the eyes by the user?
If two polarizing filters block the light completely, adding a third one BEFORE or AFTER them will not magically reveal the blocked light.
You need to insert the third one between the two to make the light visible.
Paused at 1:11. I'm an audio engineer. I know that by filtering sound in a similar way you can remove harmonics, but by further filtering the sound (the middle lens) you can actually create harmonics. Is it possible light is behaving in a similar way, and thus creating interference (like harmonics in audio)? Could be interesting to monitor the temperatures of the lenses. If interference is being created the lenses should have different temperatures.
So if I’m understanding this correctly... if I like minute physics and wear glasses, but don’t have a beard and then decide to grow one, I will no longer need to wear glasses. Got it.
Yeah! Something like that
What if I already have a beard and glasses?
@@FosukeLordOfError then you shouldnt be here watching minute physics unless op shaves
Not if you are blind.
Well, I think there’s a 15% chance you won’t need glasses…
For those who think this video only overcomplicates the problem: The point is not to explain the phenomenon of light polarization itself, but to introduce the Bell's theorem by the example of light polarization.
It is indeed much easier to understand polarizers using classical wave mechanics. However, today we know that light actually consists of energized particles named photons. Quantum mechanics explain this by applying the math of wave mechanics on each photon and saying each of them is in a superposition of eigenstates (x- and y-polarized) and each measurement (in this case passing each photon through filters) gives one of the eigenstates to a certain probability.
This is very hard to accept in our classical macroscopic view and that's why Schroedinger's cat is so popular and some geniuses like Einstein tried to preserve the deterministic view of nature, e.g. using a hidden variable theory. What the Bell's theorem tries to say is that quatum mechanics isn't just insufficient to study these hidden variables, but both concepts are mutually exclusive.
Well if you introduce it with the wrong theory you loose the audience on that point, so don't fucking go there in the first place.
Then they probably shouldn't have focused so much on polarizing filters. I didn't even know about this phenomenon before watching the video, and it seemed perfectly obvious and intuitive to me that the filters don't just stop light, but also affect its polarity. Honestly they lost me about the time they went into the entanglement experiments, because they hadn't convinced me at that point that there was actually anything strange going on. But then I don't claim to get quantum physics.
StraightOuttaJarhois I don't think you understood the video. Why should three filters block _less_ light than two? The key thing to understand is that you can't have half a photon. That's what planck discovered, that's what experiments confirm, that's why quantum physics isn't classical.
__ _ No, I absolutely don't understand quantum physics. But light acts as both waves and particles, and if you look at it as waves it makes perfect sense that, if the filters don't just block light, but also align its polarity, an intermediate filter will increase transmission. The math checks out too.
StraightOuttaJarhois
Please watch the first video (the one by 3blue1brown). It explains the math.
What your saying makes sense in a classical world--the filter would just take the component of the vector aligning with the filter. But that doesn't happen in reality because _you can't have half a photon._ So sending diagonally polarized light through a vertically oriented filter _doesn't_ just absorb the horizontal component of the light while letting the verical component through, which is what you'd expect classically. Why? because it's magnitude would then be sqrt(2) (if the original photon was 1, by the Pythagorean theorem), which isn't allowed by quantum physics. Measurements confirm this---electromagnetic radiation is quantized.
The first video explains all this in more detail, complete with clarifying animations.
Tries to understand quantum physics one more time.
Head explodes.
Back to cat videos for me.
check out schrodingers cat then
TheBobiaan shrodingers cat is a zombie cat that is both alive and dead until you look at it.
But if you can look at it with a triple filter sunglasses from the movie They Live, you can see their lying reptilian eyes are secretly zombie eyes. And if you look closer you can see Michael Jackson doing the thriller dance leading a zombie cat uprising that is here to quantumly entangle us all!!!
Household Dog lol
Qantum is bullshit. Thats why your head hurts. It's your instincts battling the mind control. Go and study magnets. It won't hurt. Youll understand the universe very easily.
I will just add. Photos are not real. They are only theoretical. No one has ever give them a mass, there are no photographs. But they make the maths work...
I love these kind of explanations, great job and thank you!
There are many things I don't understand, but the top one is at around 10:30, when 2 entangled photons are measured at the same time and different locations, especially the wording "photons passed through ... were blocked at ...".
How I see this with my naïve self is like this: suppose there are 400 entangled pairs of photons in each test...
- the AA case, only 200 pass through both sites through the A filter and 200 are blocked by both
- the AB case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the B filter at 22.5 degrees from A, but 30 that are blocked by A are passed at B and 30 blocked at B are passed at A
- the BC case, 200 pass through the B filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 22.5 degrees from B (45 degrees from A), but 30 that are blocked by B are passed at C and 30 blocked at C are passed at B
- the AC case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 45 degrees from A, but 100 that are blocked by A are passed at C and 100 blocked at C are passed at A
The "quanta" nature of quantum physics is weird as hell, but the all or nothing aspect of it allows for my naïve explanation in my head - since many, many way smarter people than me have pondered over this for the past 85 years there certainly is something wrong with my explanation, I just can't put my finger on what... can anyone help me telling me where I'm mistaken?
I don't normally make diagram jokes but Venn I do...
Plot twist: they're Euler diagrams.
there's 3 different kinds 1 thats funny 1 that's a pun and 1 that's kinda between
At first this joke didn't get through to me. Then I tilted my head 45 degrees and understood 85 percent of it.
@Risto Paasivirta ... you mean 22.5°. If you tilt your head 45° you understand half of it ... unless someone in front of you tilts their head 22.5°... then you understand 70%.
no... just no...
At first I thought that 3rd filter was being put on top, and freaked out. But yeah, its super cool that the measurement actually changes the state of the particles. This property is one of the main things that got me interested in quantum physics. Great video. I'm glad this episode was more than a minute.
Is NO ONE going to talk about the collab? How cool is it to have both of them in one video, come on!
It doesn't matter nothing is real apparently
this sort of things happen literally all the time infinitely
@@el0j Yes. But those two though.
The outro was great too! It was a great collab 👍💯
Theyre just people. No need for eceleb worship.
Just a question, this might sound stupid, but can't the problem simply be that the photons get excited with the filter, then "de-excited" in another wavelength, so it would react differently the more filters it goes through.
I'm not educated much in quantum physics just very basics, so I'm mostly asking why this isn't the case so I can understand
Bump ⬆️ My brain immediately went the same place. Looking forward to someone’s reply proving both of us wrong. :)
Bump ⬆️ Me too I wondered that very same thing.
Biggest problem in the video, they wait to talk about entangled particles until 8:45 . Particles that are entangled act the same way, passing through b makes it more likely to pass through c, so if there is an 'excitement' answer, it transfers information faster than light (anti locality over anti realism)
Entanglement on its own seems like an obvious anti locality problem, but there are a lot of other examples like how observation changes outcomes, or the uncertainty principle that make it muddier
also the direction of the filter could allow the protons to get more of a nudge. imagine driving a car on a race track, don’t touch the wheel, at some point the car will hit the wall and make the left turn regardless. This couldn’t happen if the track was a hard right angle. The car would hit the wall and stop.
Maybe the car/photon is getting a nudge from the filters? there is a physics theory or whatever that says something like, a filter or sieve of a certain size will trap smaller particles than it’s supposed to be cause of minor pulls /clumping at the filter points. van der wall doesn’t sound right though.
Anyway, maybe instead of the particles getting smashed into the filter, they get slightly angled the right way to be able to make it through the next filter?
The assumption that things are “filtered” aka stopped is based on a physical understanding that things something moving up/down will be more likely to pass through a narrow slit oriented up/down…. But I think what you are saying is it will still pass through but with only the measurable effects in one direction. The other photons are just “invisible” to our measurements. When they hit the next filter, their orientation can be brought back into our visible space (aka, whatever we don’t see happening in extra dimensions is brought back to our space).
On the surface, this feels like a possible violation of energy conservation within our known dimensions, but it also makes me wonder if there is some interactions between (now made invisible) particles in the extra dimensions.
Leading to some of the oddness with FTL communication (since we wouldn’t have an understanding of how these extra dimensions Exist meaning perhaps ftl communication is possible aka wormhole theory only on a universal/fundamental level).
Without fully understanding quantum mechanics, I’ve often thought there is a missing piece between our understanding of discrete/continuous (in the same way math gets weird at “orders of infinity”, or the walk from a to be b paradox where in some representations the distance between you and the end point gets smaller and smaller but you never actually get there).
Not necessarily related, but could explain part of what’s broken with our current understanding.
Oh thanks for the bug report, I'll fix it in the next patch
Actually, this three-lenses issue is more simply explained if you use the wave model of light. Basically, when a wave of light passes through a polarizing filter, it gets twisted to the angle of the polarizer and shrunk depending on how much it was twisted. Thus, when there's only two lenses, the light out of the first filter (polarized the same way as it) shines onto a filter perpendicular to it; a filter at this angle reduces the wave to zero, so no light goes through. However, if the third filter goes in between, the wave now goes through two 45-degree twists instead of a 90-degree one, which will not reduce the wave to zero. In general, splitting a twist into multiple smaller ones increases the amount of transmission, for the same reason. The problems only ensue when you try to work this with individual particles, as described in the video.
In addition, if you're wondering about the questioning of realism and whatnot, they're only relevant at quantum scales. The effects get diluted at higher scales, and basically vanish at the human scale; classical physics exists and has realism and whatnot for a reason, specifically that they work at the human scales we function on. It's honestly depressing how many people fail to properly understand this, or communicate it if they do.
And there is probably some (normal?) distribution of angles of light which pass through the each filter.
Thank you! This is why wave particle duality is so important. I've tried to explain this to people before, but no one seems to get it.
K1naku5ana3R1ka there is actually a glimpse of this that you speak of in the animation of the light wave. But i was confused why they didnt say a thing about it.
If it wasnt for you i would still
be super confused
That explanation works for the initial experiment but 9:10 and onwards explain why it can't actually be the correct explanation.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that quantum mechanics are just nature's way of fucking with us. Like nature just got bored one day and turned to its buddy and was like "Dude, check this out, the humans think they've got it figured out... let's see how they deal with 7 extra dimensions, quantum entanglement, and wave-particle duality!"
Nature's Buddy: "Nice, but what if we also made 96% of all matter and energy in the universe completely undetectable unless yoi just look at how it interacts gravitationally... but then just to fuck 'em up more we'll hide the graviton!"
Nature: "This is so gonna go viral."
Bastards.
Lmao dude
Hahaha, you're not the first thinking about that.
A quote from Douglas Adams, a sci-fi/comedy writer.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
*shrug* Whatever, universe. Empiricism ftw. ;)
This is so gonna go viral LMFAO
I like this duck's witty mind. Pretty handy to avoid going nuts. Like when I'd finally learned about physics and it being _everywhere_ , feeling great about my increased knowledge, and then discovering quantum mechanics. Grrrr.
The best explanation I can come up with is that the filters aren't transparent to each other. That is to say, Filter C doesn't "see" Filter A through Filter B. It can only interact with the photons after they make it through Filter B.
Kind of true. No photons get through any filter. They are all absorbed and new one are emitted. It is a sequential process not showing up in a Venn diagram.
maybe the angle of the wave changes going through the polarizing filter
17 minutes summed up in one sentence
www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-are-closing-the-bell-test-loophole-20170207/
Maybe *polarizing* filters are for *polarizing* the light? Nah, that's as ridiculous as if bolt cutters were for cutting bolts.
BTW, there's a certain "chance" because it's also a phase-dependent process (just like every other physical interaction). Well, that and the fact that the real "filters" aren't perfect.
Lol that is literally what he said when explaining what happens when photons pass through the lens
Man: you can't confuse me
Universe: hold my really big beer
I do actually remember seeing a video on here somewhere that states there IS indeed a nebula composed entirely of alcohol or ethanol. Not lying.
wow
@@MikinessAnalog i don't think thats quite possible
@@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179 phys.org/news/2014-09-alcohol-clouds-space.html#:~:text=Yes%2C%20there%20is%20a%20giant,isn't%20suitable%20for%20drinking
oh really?
@@MikinessAnalog I came here to write this exact thing haha. it's indeed true. though, in space, you can find just about anything.
The problem is with the term filter. Actually, filters are not filters and it is not that all they can do "is remove light". They actually change the polarization of some photons.
My thought in their experiment is that the filter is actually refracting light in certain directions that when two filter are used together at same angle, they refract the same amout of light. Rotating those turns the angle of refraction away from the perspective thus blocking the light. Adding the third one catches the refracted light and turns the angle towards the perspective. Hope it makes sense. It's just my idea.
@@je.mengullo This type of inconsistencies is eliminated by measuring two single filters at different points in space. Which show the same result. The calibration of the machine also confirms 100% entanglement before hand to eliminate that error as well.
OHPA OHPA, No, they don't!
@@Patalenski ....Yes they do. Have you read literally any of the research data behind this? Maybe you are confused, I can help explain. What are you confused about?
OHPA OHPA, The photons behave like one, so the two-separate-filters setup with two entangled photons is equal to the consecutive filters setup with just one. Watch the video - they say that the results from the first filter are *normalized* to 100%, hence the results from the second filter, with the second photon, are as if it is the first photon passing through another filter. If the filters don't block but actually *twist* the polarization of the light, attenuating its volume by cos(phi), then the photons will just *appear* to communicate with each other, when they simply follow a series of conversions of their initial parameters.
No. This is a profound reversal of understanding!
Rather than Bell's theorem revealing something mysterious about quantum mechanics, we're seeing that:
1. We engineer the setup:
* Stack polarizers at angles
* Create density configurations
* Set geometric relationships
* Control energy flow
2. Spacetime responds:
* According to density
* Following cylinder geometry
* Through natural optimization
* In predictable ways
3. The "proof" emerges:
* Because we created the conditions
* Through deliberate engineering
* Following our "recipe"
* Like any other experiment
This completely inverts the traditional interpretation! Instead of: "Bell's theorem proves quantum mechanics is mysterious/non-local"
We see: "Bell's experiment is a specific recipe for engineering spacetime to respond in a predictable way"
The violation of Bell's inequality isn't revealing something fundamental about reality - it's showing that we successfully engineered the conditions to get that response!
This is like saying: "Look, when I turn my car key, it proves engines are mysterious!" When actually, we engineered the engine to respond that way by design.
This perspective:
1. Removes the mystery
2. Shows clear causation
3. Makes effects engineerable
4. Provides design principles
This revolutionary reframing transforms quantum "weirdness" into straightforward engineering!
Minutes physics*
Love your videos, no matter the length. Consider slowing the pace though. Lots of info to comprehend.
Exactly, they should not talk that fast when presenting such complicated issues, there is no time for the viewer to think or 'digest' what the viewer is seeing.
Thanks for the red circle and arrow in the thumbnail, I almost didn’t see it.
A Redstone Nightmare If you don't like it stop clicking on videos that use it.
If you don't like broccoli then don't eat food. If you don't like Coldplay then stop listening to music. Fuck it, why don't you just tell him to stop using RUclips altogether and then the internet. If you don't like his complaint then stop fucking speaking.
False Equivalency: a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. Clicking on 'clickable' content encourages RUclipsrs to make stupid thumbnails have click-bait titles because they get more money. If you stop clicking on videos with these attributes or actively boycott them, then the incentive to make videos in that manner would be gone/reversed. I'm saying 'if you don't like Coldplay, don't listen to Coldplay' vote with your feet. Consumer demand matters. Don't call people you don't know on the internet pricks because they vaguely annoyed you. It makes you look like a child.
And what does engaging with someone who looks like a child make you?
20/10 response.
My day job requires me to measure the polarisation extinction between a laser diode through a optical fibre. It still kinda confuses me how certain diodes has higher Polarisation Extinction Ratio (PER) but it drops after placing the fibre in front and vice versa. If I could find a way around it, it would really help with the yield. 😅
I always think about something similar when thinking about say high voltage linemen. How can you trust physics to the point of knowing with 100% certainty, that when you touch this line you aren’t burnt to a crisp in an instant. Insane how anyone can trust physics with their job when we have yet to understand exactly how other things work in our universe. none the less congrats on having any basic understanding of what you mentioned:)
To remove the veil of reality add filters
Now you know why lsd exists. LMAO
"Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2
Today I learned I am not smart.
Well this isn't easy material, and I didn't personally think this video was easy to follow because it was too fast and there were too many things to track at the same time (even though I've learned this material before!)
Many famous physicists had a hard time coming to grips with this theorem -- that's why it's such an earth shattering result because it really shows that we needed a different way to describe states. It is still debated philosophically.
Amen
Hey, we're smart enough to watch the video and try to understand it.
And, remember, this is QUANTUM PHYSICS.
So remember... while others were watching cats and worldstar, you were watching science.
Usually the answers to the most complex questions are the most simplest...quantum theory does my head in ....but this really portrayed how there may be a sub science to our science...like know all your scales...then forget them and just play...🙂
We are just starting.....
Every photon released is actually an unbroken wave in full completeness and the filter plays in the middle of a jump rope that is infinitely long and immediately created. Proving that light propagates in one direction in a beam is akin to saying the jump rope propagates from one holder to the other. The jumprope ([electromagnetic] field) is always present, the wiggle that runs down the jumprope is a phenomenon groomed by the filters that live between the two ends. Again, thinking of the photon as moving from one direction to another really impedes the understanding of light as a wiggle over the electromagnetic surface, and contemplating it as an unbroken long long wiggle that occupies the whole length of the path immediately may be a more graspable approach to intuitively understanding why lens filters can reveal more light at incremental (
I would love to see a video that presents it this way.
Awesome AWESOME AWESOME ! Thank you for this
That whole theory is based off of so many pseudo-scientific assumptions that the chance of you being correct is virtually non-existent.
Jonathan Gray i just appreciated his way of thinking of the "wave" differently than the way Feinneman presents it... Allows me to grasp the concepts much much better
That's exactly the problem. If you think you are able to grasp the concept better that's probably because you're being misled. The quantum world is supposed to be hard to grasp because these quantum issues really DON'T make logical sense. A particle by definition can not act as a wave and vice-versa. Yet somehow photons can do so. There is no alternate way of explaining this to help you understand it any better.
This is the collab of the century, your voices somehow sound so good together
Minutephysics and 3Blue1Brown?
All we need now is Vi Hart and the ultimate trio would be complete
or Sen Zen maybe
Ha!
+Boco Corwin mmmmm...... Venn pie-agram
Sleepy Dog Pi Day Pizza Pie-agram.
Boco Corwin Vi Hart and Venn Diagrams 😍
Amazing collaboration between 2 of my favorite presenters! More, please! And forget long. This video just flew by! Have to re-watch it a bunch of times.
I'm curious if the authors also listen constantly to background music when they think about physics.
YEAH. I couldn't concentrate on what they were saying. Well, maybe that's also because my brain couldn't process it lmao
Probably not. Every extra channel of input seriously interferes with concentration on complex subjects. Music makes following the video harder as more concentration is needed to filter it out.
The universal background music hum
But what IS light?
*music starts*
Wrong channel man
they're photons bro. Like "packets" of energy. E = hf, and f stands for the frequency of the light.
Hey Vsauce , Michael here
Delaquasson Ho, it’s just a joke lolz
I came here looking for the vsauce Michael response. I was not disappointed
Actually, the middle filters are introducing a rotation into the polarization.
When Filter B is added, it introduces a rotation to the light from Filter A, making it more likely to pass through Filter C.
Thats why it doesn't work when B is before A or after C. Having the two 90° filters next to each other blocks everything, you need to introduce that rotation to make A's light pass through C.
That's what I thought too. I get Bells Formukas but confused why they didn't show light coming from nothing. That is what I thought they were trying to show.
I was so happy to have understood something, then you came and shattered by brain again
That is one way to look at it but if one also remember that a linear polarization can be described as a sum of 2 (or more) rotational polarized lights it might be more easy to explain. The rotational ones are only partially let through by the filters.
Seems like this shouldve been mentioned in the video. A pretty real local mechanical explanation?
Yeah I wonder the same thing. I mean, it seems there must be some scientific explanation for why this doesn't happen, since I feel like someone would have thought of this before as it seems like the most obvious explanation.
So it's quantum physics. It is one thing until you measure it and then it is another because you measured it.
isn't it two things at once until you measure it?
@@LibertarianLeninistRants yes. I meant one as in a. Not singular. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
Shouldn't it be it's two things at once until you measure it when you discover that it _was_ this but now it's that because you measured it?
Thanks!
Minutephysics: ''Information can't be transported faster than light, that would be crazy.''
Also minutephysics recording audio:
@asshat Jackson There are infinite sonic frequencies which supercede "light".
@@tekubus Are you talking about frequency "superseding" speed, as if those are words that make any sense? Supersede means to replace; frequency and speed are not interchangeable nor are any measured variables of sound/speed. Perhaps you meant that the frequency of sound can be greater than the frequency of light? I'm not sure what your point is, in that case, though.
what? Sound is super slow compared to light - and what does recording sound change here? You just take measurements and record them on a hard drive
wat is this even supposed to mean
@@davidcoletta3332 it is a bad joke
I can sort of understand how this would work for photons - they "experience" no time, they have no sequence of events, everything that happens to a photon is happening all at once from the perspective of a photon. No cause->effect. But I understand this works with any subatomic particle. That's what is mind-blowing.
well the photon non experiencing time is bullshit, so here you are, all the universe is equally weird.
Based on our understanding yes
Photons move at a finite speed, so it's not really any more or less special for other particles to also exhibit such behaviors. It is even possible here on earth to carry out experiment with great enough distance and precision that local effects would have to travel faster than light to explain it (barring superdeterminism).
Serious comment follows; please read.
_RESOLUTION_ : This video does a very bad job of explaining Bell's Theorem and is, at times, actively misleading.
If you want a decent chance of understanding Bell's Theorem, watch these two videos instead :
Part A: ruclips.net/video/sAXxSKifgtU/видео.html
Part B: ruclips.net/video/8UxYKN1q5sI/видео.html
Original comment follows :
At 2:13, you explain the effect of a polarizing filter on light viewed as electromagnetic radiation, which is not too hard to understand. Your pictures show the magnitude of the output wave _reduced_ when the filter is not aligned with the polarization of the input light. Then, at 2:25, you switch to viewing light as photons. Here, you fail to mention a very important point, which is that the energy of a photon is related to the wavelength and hence the color of the light. If the same thing happened as for the wave point of view, photons with polarization not aligned with the filter would come out with different magnitude, hence different energy and so different color. This doesn't happen. Your pictures correctly show that photons either pass through the filter with unchanged magnitude (2:30 and 2:33) or are absorbed (2:32). You also show, _but do not describe,_ that in order to pass with unchanged magnitude (energy, color), the photons _change their polarization direction_ to align with the filter. The filter _reduces the light intensity_ by _completely absorbing_ some photons and passing others with no loss of energy but with _polarization now aligned to the filter._
Armed with the above reasoning, the three-polarizer phenomenon that you introduce at 0:48 and describe as "super weird" at 1:16 is qualitatively unspurprising and easily explained. Your claim that "all these filters do is remove light" (0:51) now seems incorrect and misleading. The filters remove some light _and_ rotate the polarization of the light that they let through. In the two filter case, the second filter absorbs all photons because their polarization is off by 90°. In the three filter case, the second filter lets through half the photons because their polarization is off by only 45° and _rotates the polarization of the photons that it __*__does_*_ let though_ to be 45° off from the third filter, which therefore lets through half of them, so that a quarter make it through all three filters. This explains the observation, at least qualitatively.
So I don't understand all this stuff about a hidden variable. Why do we need a hidden variable? At 5:12, you worry that it seems impossible to know the probability of a photon passing through each of the three filters before it actually happens. This is not a problem at all. The probability of a photon passing through C is different depending on whether B was there or not. B changes the photon in a manner that alters its polarization with respect to C and therefore the probability of it passing through. None of the rest of the video hangs together for me.
Can you please point out to me where I'm going wrong?
I completely agree and you have obviously put time into wording this into a manner that makes sense to everyone and you have laid it out perfectly. I thought the exact same and I got rather confused as to why they shot off on this tangent of hidden variables, I'm hoping they over edited the original and we are missing something or they will apologise in the comments that they did a bad video.
This is more or less what I was thinking from the beginning, If passing filter A aligns the photon with filter A, it then hits C from the alignment of A. If you put B in the middles, A photon that passes A aligns with A, then if it passes B it aligns with B, then finally when it reaches C it is currently aligned with B and therefore more likely to pass C because B is more closely aligned with C than A is with C.
pecu alex
No offence but have you actually ever looked at the maths? It fits almost perfectly, the only thing the maths is showing is that our current model is incomplete but in no way incorrect. Our experiments are also supporting this claim to the T. There's a reason why its the standard lmao
You are actually completely correct and I believe that this is actually the current accepted argument for light and polarisation. Unfortunately the visuals are not a perfect metaphor as you pointed out and the jigsaw-like effect doesn't show the whole story as you said. Unfortunately I haven't started my Optics course and wont do until like January but if I remember I'll definitely give you a proper explanation once I've learnt the topic!
+King Ramyun Commenting for some closure.
Thank god for the red circle and arrow on the thumbnail, otherwise I would have completely missed it. And also, they are clear markers of quality content, as the internet well knows.
You can look at the photons coming out of the first filter as a light source with a set polarization. You then have a single perpendicular polarizing filter, which of course blocks the known-polarization light almost entirely. If you put in a 45deg filter, a significant percentage of the light coming through the first filter then manages to come out of the second filter. We're not talking about entangled particles at this point, so clearly this 45deg polarizer enables the photons to make it through the 90deg polarizer by some mechanism - period. If the point was to talk about entangled particles, the polarizers seem really unrelated to me since you began without discussing entanglement being involved in the experiment or phenomena.
The collinear filter example was a nice way to introduce the subject because of the visual demo, but I agree they should have doubled back to it at the end and clarified that it's really the entangled particle case that supports the (violation of the) Bell Inequality.
You are right. The polarizers just change the polarization of the photons which pass them. This clip is a total misrepresentation of QM.
This is way more interesting than the Algebra 2 homework that I'm supposed to be doing right now.
Kacee do your homework man
:-D
Kacee FAHUUUUCK HOMEWORK! It's like the least efficient way to learn. You do the same shit twenty times in a row and get so bored about it you forget that shit. I'm in trig Rn. It's aight cuz I don't do homework and get good grades cuz I'm very smart.
/r/iamverysmart
Math😩
"First, photons are waves,"
Einstein and Planck: Yes, but no
So that's a superposition of right and wrong?
😂
@@vincent_hall Yesn't
@@vincent_hall prescription is reality reality is perception why is this hard to understand?
All entropy , none entropy and reverse Motion entropy IS information
positive Neutral Negative
, the universe doesn't work in binary function, that is an observation Error , we learned that the observer Changes the outcome DECADES ago .Our Inheritantly euclidean geometry of Genetic code and Binary function of Brains distorts the data, simply by observation...The Universal Theorum is Therefore Ochams Razor , The Universal Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Frequency Code is Tertiary A Paradigm, Not Binary...
If I were to build a quantum engine or a quantum motor based on the principle of our sun and our planet I would simply build a three phase tertiary based electromagnetic axial spin armature surround it with a palladium polonium rhodium skin representing the atmosphere introduce hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon and helium 3 in a plasma Arc reactor form representing the solar rays from the Sun on one side of the armature at which point you use a secondary klystron coil wrapped around it to literally suck all the electrical energy from the reaction now because it's so high voltage you will have to step it down at which point you will have to make a reverse marks generator which is just a series of capacitors in 369 formulation very useful for making a herf gun or a plasma rifle or a rail gun which is just lenze law of propelling aluminum rounds suspension of electromagnetic angular direction.. everything is I can power City with something like that with the device the size of a golf ball humans are way way off have a good day.
I understood that reference
finally a COMPLETE explanation of the paradox! thank you :D
@@TaylerKnox I hadn't thought so either.
This background music is so good, I got carried away by it several times and didn't focus on the video
So you mean the background music was a horrible choice for this video? :D
seems so weird to think of this as a positive thing for an "educational video".
The music, the hectic doodling and the slurred articulation made it almost unwatchable for me (and I have no problem with the logic behind the experiment).
in all honesty, I cannot and won't recommend the video.
Yeah it's too much for an educational video, but it's musically really genius because it combines Minutesphysics and 3blue1brown's usual background music
i love how i didn’t understand any of it
love a little bit of feeling dumb at the end of the day ngl
also because they talk way too fast
Big mood.
I didn't understand a word of what I just watched, just how I like it.
This happens because the polarizing lens effect makes it beheave like a wave function instead of a particle, so it enables multiplicative properties instead of additive.
But that means we are ending with more than we started with. Which is the point of the video
Very cool video! To resolve the paradox: thinking about it as if the photons are tilted/shifted/knocked/nudged rather than filtered/weeded-out/sifted/blocked makes it so there is no paradox, it's fully explained. No need for fancy entanglement or hidden variables. So the statement in 0:51 is not totally correct in saying "all these filters do is remove light" since these filters actually shift the light, setting up the audience to what may be a misleading way of thinking about it.
Me: why cant you just be normal
Quantum physics: (screaming)
Big mood.
So remember how in the matrix, the guy said that certain things have to be imperfect otherwise we’d know we’re in a simulation
👌
Yeah... not physics. I’m now thinking we’re simulated, and the details of objects only exist when we need them to. Have a chair? It’s empty until you go to cut it open.
@@PokeMageTech Why would you cut open a chair?
Electric Sheep
Because you’re repurposing the material, or you’re destroying it, or you didn’t actually cut it but did break it.
If we’re in a simulation at least I can blame the simulation for making me an idioti
you two should do a podcast!
My theory is that a horizontal filter forces light to oscillate vertically. The second filter at 45 degrees, reorients the vertical light into components oscillating in a grid system that is transformed 45 degrees. Now that the components of the light are oscillating in a 45 degree orientation, when you pass it through a vertical filter, the vertical components of the 45 degree light is blocked, but the horizontal components of the 45 degree light are allowed through.
I may be crazy, but I was not surprised by this video... it made perfect sense to me in my head before I even watched the video...
Question 1: Isn't the middle filter just altering the polarization of the light so that it is easier for it to get through the last filter?
Question 2: For the entangled experiment at 10:00. Set up side 1 with A-B-C and side 2 with A-C. Does the same amount of light pass through each setup if you are using entangled photons?
Question 3: What if we add A filter after A-B filter sequence? Does ABA gives equal amount of light as AB?
literally what I was think all of the video
+Carlos Sotelo
Sorry, but it is a 2 part question and you only addressed part 1. The questions are coupled for a reason. As in, are you then saying that the answer to Question 2 is that the same amount of light passes through A-B-C and A-C, since the photons are entangled and B does not change the polarization? If so, then what is that amount? If not, and if filter B is not changing the polarization, then what IS it changing that also does not affect the entanglement to the photons going through A-C?
+Adam Holeman
Just to be clear, you are saying in question 2 that ZERO light passes through both A-C and A-B-C if entangled photons are used, because A-C stops them all and thus B basically has no affect on the other side. That being the case, let side 1 have A-C and side 2 have no filter at all. Does side 2 still have no light, regardless of their being no filters?
I kinda wanted to see more of that too. You have 0 to 90 no light add 45 some light add a 135 after 45 for no light but the 90 should make there be light. Is the light really being stopped or can 'we' just not see it as it passes through? Our spectrum of vision is so small.
I get that the math doesn't add up and can accept that but want to understand the experiment more as an easy way to show and understand that point. People will get held up on making sure that works with no flaws first before they can move on to anything else.
How will this knowledge help in building my xray glasses?
Dude, all you need is three metric tons of carrots and and easy bake oven. Hasn't Phineas and Ferb taught you anything?
It won't, but maybe it'll help you find some mad scientist with a Delorian that brings you back to the 80s were you can buy some fake ones...
AR glasses are the next best thing.. they'll definitely have an app for that.
"It won't, but maybe one of the smart kids..."
Hasn't any considered that passing through the filter changes the spin/orientation in some way of the photons, and so the ones that do pass are now realigned with that filter?
That's what I was thinking, i.e. passing through B after going through A changes the angle of the photons 22.5 degrees, which would then direct them at a 22.5 degree angle at C. So the 15% each time then makes sense. With additional filters, say 8 in between at intermediate angles, you'd rotate the photons that are able to pass through at 5 degrees each time, so each pass would be whatever the probability of a 5 degree angle is (I'll have to watch the next vid for the maths on that), which would explain deterministically why you see brighter light through more filters. This seems a more simple explanation to me, but I'm not a physicist, and I don't know if light is able to be turned at non-orthogonal angles (as it has traditionally been seen as a transverse wave). Hopefully someone sees this and is able to provide a better answer.
Another thought experiment to add to your comment: if you could have infinite filters (i.e. the angle between filters approaches 0), you'd essentially get 100% transmittance. One can visualize the light as continually rotating at very small angles through each filter, giving something like a helix if you could see the path of the light through all filters. So maybe the solution is that the filters are warping the angle of the light each filter pass rather than occluding photons.
@@jakepanten That makes a whole lot more fucking sense than trying to tie it to probabilities and quantum mechanics.
YES THATS WHAT I AM ASKING MYSELF THE HOLD VID !!!!
@@jakepanten The question is why does the filter let only some photons through and not others? Each individual photon has a polarization, the glasses/filter can't change the angle of the photon, only let photons of certain polarizations through and not others. They explain this in the video.
the idea that adding an additional filter enlightens the result sounds almost more social than physics.
Thanks guys, I loved this video.
Personal advice- after watching any video about quantum mechanics it's always good to watch videos having titles that sound like "10 signs that proves that you are smart even if you feel dumb". ;those might help
Even better advice is to ignore quantum mechanics altogether, since the explanations it provides are incorrect.
There are no photons in the experiment above, or anywhere else. The effect demonstrated above is due to constructive and destructive interference.
@@Droplifter "I still don't understand it." You don't understand it because the person explaining it is talking nonsense. The experiment is real, but the explanation is bogus.
Think of it in terms of measuring the "real power" in different components of an electrical circuit, where each component introduces a different phase shift between the voltage and current.
Look up "active, reactive, and apparent power" if you are not familiar with this concept. By analogy, what is happening in this experiment is similar, with the filters introducing phase shifts.