Did Einstein Crack the Biggest Problem in Physics…and Not Know It?

[@fultzjap]

Brian Greene is about as good as it gets at physics science communicator. I love that he's operating right at the boundary between proven theory and speculation, and he's always very honest with himself and his audience about where each topic lies on that spectrum. It must be pretty hard to be authoritative, open minded, and not talk down to people all at once when you're that smart, because most of his peers fail miserably at one of the three.

[@TheNewPhysics]

This is not the boundary between proven theory and speculation. This is quackery, charlatanism, and crackpottery, all done with a smile on their faces and lots of self-confidence (a.k.a. self-delusion under the best assumptions and charlatanism under the worst assumptions). Since these people are not stupid, I assume this is Charlatanism.

[@puffthemagiclepton7534]

He's a great communicator but he has also been taking String Theory as Gospel Truth without any experimental evidence for the past 25 years. That's more Faith than Science.

[@TheNewPhysics]

By the way, my argument supporting my evaluation was presented in other comments (see above). They might delete them since they are not as flattering as yours. Feel free to disagree with my comments.

[@danielpaulson8838]

Agreed. His capacity to bridge the gap between complex science knowledge and the reasonably intelligent layman's desire for knowledge is just phenomenal. The pacing is always great and he interjects at the right times to make sure everyone stays up as well as possible. I fully appreciate being able to view these video's over and over again.

[@Jay-ft3xh]

His self awareness is truly wonderful

[@EveK-North]

I hope you watch Sabine Hossenfelder's video published today, which was critical of this. It would be lovely if Brian Greene and Sabine Hossenfelder could have a conversation about this topic. I'm such a huge fan of both.

[@VincentZevecke]

Sabine will would destroy Brian Greene

[@EveK-North]

@@VincentZevecke maybe. I mean, I don’t want to set this up like some boxing main event or anything. They’re both thoughtful, articulate people who disagree on the importance of this. I bet Brian would agree with a lot of what Sabine has to say. They’ve been on panel together before. I think it could be an interesting discussion.

[@VincentZevecke]

@@EveK-North I can point out a KZbin video that Sabine destroyed Brian Greene.

[@mariusgirbo8614]

yep interesting video, I wonder if Brian will also see it

[@MrPageyjim]

It is clear that this was a simulation and Sabine is just mad that scientists are studying things that she doesn't like. That is why she took her bat and ball and is basically just a KZbinr these days. She has finally found her home.

[@bishopdredd5349]

Did Brian Greene really read this study in detail? Because there’s a quite few people that don’t agree with this, thought with his skillset he would have come to the same conclusion.

[@isatousarr7044]

Some of Einstein's predictions, such as the existence of gravitational waves, were not confirmed until decades later with the advent of advanced detection technologies. Furthermore, Einstein's skepticism about certain aspects of quantum mechanics, such as entanglement, has led to ongoing debates and discoveries in quantum physics. The possibility that Einstein's work contained hidden solutions or insights that future generations would uncover highlights the profound and often unforeseen impact of foundational scientific contributions. It underscores the idea that groundbreaking discoveries can emerge from the interplay of theory, experimentation, and evolving technological capabilities, even when the original thinkers might not fully grasp their implications.

[@boremir3956]

Bot.

[@SA-er1op]

Would love a longer, in depth explanation of ER=EPR, such a hard concept that 40mins with multiple quests does not quite do the job. Still, thanks for all that you are doing for science, appreciate it!

[@chrisdark999]

Watch the many videos of Susskind talking about it

[@mrhassell]

It is Ironic Einstein, who defined the first Quantum Subatomic Particle, the "Photon" in fact, didn't favour many ideas and concepts proposed by Neils Bohr and others in Quantum Mechanics. Einstein famously said, “God does not play dice,” expressing his belief the universe is deterministic and quantum mechanics incomplete. The Einstein Rosen and Einstein Podolsky Rosen papers (ER - EPR), set about invalidating as Einstein believed, arguments to dispute since proven principles of Quantum Entanglement (2022 Nobel Prize for Physics). Nathan Rosen, had other ideas. He knew how to capture consensus of Boris Podolsky and Albert Einstein and these two papers are really produced by his efforts. He included attribution of the great name Einstein and even listed him a joint author, included as core concepts existing as properties in General Relativity. Einstein didn't particularly like the work, saying he thought "it could have been better". Nathan Rosen and Albert Einstein, already were already bound like 2 dimensions of a Schwarzschild Radius (boundary/singularity), producing the Einstein-Rosen Bridge, aka the "Wormhole". The ER branches from this work and connects to Boris Podolsky, resulting in the EPR. Outstanding outcome of social engineering and applied science, truly genius.

[@pinkfloydhomer]

Check PBS Spacetime and others, they have videos on it

[@stefanob1371]

@@chrisdark999 I prefer the videos of Peter Voidt and Sabine Hossenfelder...

[@SA-er1op]

@@chrisdark999 thank you, they are absolutely brilliant

[@_John_P]

It's not that Einstein did not know it. It's because Einstein had the static universe mindset, as that was the data at the time. Only after Hubble, it changed, but unfortunately too late for Einstein. Because of the static universe mindset, Einstein introduced the cosmological constant and, in the case of the bridges (wormhole was coined later by Wheeler), concluded that they were impossible because they were unstable when using a static model, just as his cosmological model was. Much later, other physicists introduced rotating wormholes, which stabilises the wormhole with the need of less magic.

[@RajHearts]

thank you.= that helps

[@murkdurk8961]

Nice to hear Seth Rogan making sense for once in his life.

[@charlottemckean2650]

Seth Rogen with a smattering of Christopher Walken

[@mr.ch4rli3_]

If newman and rogan had a kid

[@honeyj8256]

😅 😂😅

[@reddblackjack]

Yeah. I see casting this movie too when they have something worthy of a good movie. From right to left. Seth Rogan, Amy Poehler, Ed Begley Jr , and maybe Bill Maher as Brian Greene. 😂

[@jenkem4464]

@@charlottemckean2650 Hah. That's perfect.

[@fraemme9379]

I still didn't understand what is the connection to wormholes.. it seems that they just managed to teleport a qbit in a quantum computer made of a few qbits. It doesn't prove anything about a connection to wormholes. I have briefly thought about these ideas even before knowing about these papers, but the problems that I saw are: 1. If entanglement is equivalent to a wormhole between two particles, where is the required negative energy ? (Entanglement happens for sure, but we never measured any negative energy). 2. If fundamental particles are tiny black holes as also one of the speakers suggests, where is all the Hawking radiations that they should emit?(in fact, the smaller the bh, the higher the radiation) . We don't measure it. In the best hypothesis, it seems to me that this correspondence could be useful at most as an analogue, a bit like in analogue gravity where they use hydrodynamics to get some ideas about gravity (of course not claiming that they are the same physical systems).

[@irievibrations333]

Answer to 1 is quantum vacuum zero-point energy: The exotic (energy condition-violating) mass-energy fields that are known to occur in nature are: • Radial electric or magnetic fields. These are borderline exotic, if their tension were infinitesimally larger, for a given energy density. • Squeezed quantum states of the electromagnetic field and other squeezed quantum fields. • Gravitationally squeezed vacuum electromagnetic zero-point energy; • Casimir Effect energy in flat or curved spaces. In general, the local energy density in quantum field theory can be negative due to quantum coherence effects. • Other examples that have been studied are Dirac field states: the superposition of two single particle electron states and the superposition of two multi-electron-positron states. • Cosmological inflation, cosmological particle production, classical scalar fields, the conformal anomaly and gravitational vacuum polarization are among many other examples that also violate the energy conditions.

[@DixonCyderBusch]

I feel like you should've gone more in-depth on some of the ways to prove quantum entanglement like Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion (SPDC). Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion (SPDC) is a nonlinear optical process where a single photon of higher energy (the pump photon) is spontaneously converted into a pair of photons of lower energy (the signal and idler photons). This process is governed by the conservation of energy and momentum. How it works * Nonlinear crystal: The process occurs within a nonlinear crystal, a material whose optical properties change with the intensity of the light passing through it. * Pump photon: A high-energy photon (usually from a laser) enters the crystal. * Down-conversion: Inside the crystal, the pump photon interacts with the crystal's lattice, causing it to split into two lower-energy photons. These new photons, the signal and idler, are emitted in specific directions determined by the crystal's properties and the pump photon's energy. Key properties of SPDC * Entanglement: The signal and idler photons are inherently entangled. This means that measuring the properties of one photon instantly affects the properties of the other, regardless of the distance between them. * Conservation laws: The process adheres to the conservation of energy and momentum, meaning the total energy and momentum of the pump photon must equal the sum of the energies and momenta of the signal and idler photons. * Phase matching: For efficient SPDC, phase matching conditions must be met. This involves carefully selecting the crystal orientation and the pump photon's wavelength to ensure that the signal and idler photons interfere constructively. Applications of SPDC * Quantum optics: SPDC is a fundamental tool for generating entangled photon pairs, which are essential for quantum information processing, quantum cryptography, and quantum computing. * Single-photon sources: SPDC can be used to create highly efficient single-photon sources, which are crucial for various quantum applications. * Quantum metrology: SPDC-based sources can be used to develop precision measurement techniques with enhanced sensitivity. Much love, thanks ✌️

[@TaranovskiAlex]

* Entanglement: The signal and idler photons are inherently entangled. This means that measuring the properties of one photon instantly affects the properties of the other, regardless of the distance between them. why this explanation and not "causality/complements: at the exact moment of the interaction, the initial photon splits in two, in a random unpredictable way (predictable, if we could measure it very precisely), but with said laws of conservation - then if one of the out photons has characteristic X, the other one simply has to have the characteristic Y due to the conservation laws, without any faster then light communication"?

[@juliavixen176]

This sounds like it was written by ChatGPT or similar LLM.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

These things are being talked on for decades. The task is to build a consistent theory, that works. Einstein's ER paper was to try to explain particles using space-time, that didn't exactly work. But QFT wasn't mature back then. Any re-attempt must examine all the possibilities, not just confirm their own bias.

[@aditya234567]

Soo true!!! I'm amazed someone thinks like me!!

[@Rityam369]

the only thing that works is field theory. the universe is made up by three primary fields being the dielectric field, the magnetic field, and the electromagnetic field. they are all necessary for each others existence because the dielectric field and the magnetic field manifests the electromagnetic field so with out one you don't have the rest. electromagnetic radiation in this model is merely a field perturbation modality of electromagnetism. the electric wave doesn't create the magnetic wave, it converts into it and vice versa which as you should know sheds energy doing so and then goes on to perturbate as electromagnetic radiation along the magnetic field. everything that is within the physical universe is also within the magnetic field because it manifests physical empty space. when light or matter travels beyond C then it loses its magnitude and vanishes from the physical universe and once enough mass has vanished a black hole appears. but of course black holes are nothing but masses of dielectricity. the lack of dielectricity is magnetism and the lack of magnetism is dielectricity. black holes simply are masses without magnitude and can also be described as dark stars.

[@zemm9003]

​@@Rityam369 hi Terence.

[@Rityam369]

@@zemm9003 be honest to yourself. you didn't and don't understand a word of my comment. I'll bet anything you have no idea how the particle physics model describes anything yet will still try to pretentiously mock people like a brain dead rat.

[@steveflorida5849]

​@@Rityam369the laws of nature and the three fields you mentioned... do Not care about the welfare of humans. Human Values are not found in the aforementioned and mathematics.TOE can not be complete without values of... love, goodness, truth, and idealistic beauty.

[@CraigGeiger]

In my opinion, quantum states are time reversible. The information is going forward and backward in time until a measurement is made, then the system is fixed going forward in time only.. For entangled particles, when one of the pair is measured, the information of the measurement goes backward in time to the start of the quantum state and passed to the other particle. The end result being, a 18:57 t the end of the quantum state, gives the illusion that the information was instantaneously transported across the distance seperating the particles.

[@boohoo5419]

this doenst make sense at all. lol. what even is a measurement in your definition. this is as scientific as saying. its god or time traveling space whales. you rather believe in time travel then (some) hidden variables. thats crazy. its more likely that the information was there in the first place. like everything else in the observable universe. why make up these crazy theorys. you cant even test time travel but your sure thats the thing that drives quantum states. LOL! you just say random words at this point.

[@HaneScott]

That's an interesting thought. Where did you get this idea from? I've read a little about interpretations of quantum mechanics, but have never heard of anything like this.

[@garyellison9615]

An elegant discussion. The only thing missing is a little more personal touch. Acknowledgment, appreciation and deferral would have greatly enhanced this session. Being a scientist does not relieve one from the essential human values. Love, respect and gratitude. (Maria Spiropúlu is a rock star of this field. I felt that she was a bit underappreciated)

[@VaBellaBeautz]

I saw Einstein in the title and i knew what time it was 😎 shout out to Brian.

[@edzupbelow2198]

I really loved the discussion and explanations made for me who tries to understand what’s going on to make sense of the universe. Thank you and please have more of these informative talks. Hats off to Brian Greene and team.

[@CooperGreenman]

Does this disprove a multiversal extrapolation of the Penrose Diagram? What are the implications on the Many Worlds Interpretation?

[@PeterParker-gt3xl]

Prof. Sean can hold some of the audience's interest explaining the philosophical concept of something as small as Planck constant, starting from double slit experiment all the way to the "probability" of events, one thing we know scientists seem to love (supersized) doughnut configuration.

[@drxyd]

This is my favorite bit of physics that I've seen in my life time, I remember reading about ER=EPR in high school more than a decade ago, can't wait to read the paper.

[@coolbanana165]

The idea that wormholes and entanglement are connected seems quite obvious when it's pointed out. Connection even with physical distance.

[@worker-wf2em]

Connected in an abstract maths model. No link to reality

[@ThomasAnselmi1337]

This literally freaked me out! I'm shocked at how well that initial model algorithm successfully transferred everything through the quantum relationship. I'm very curious to see what improvements get made to the accuracy as that side of the research is optimized!

[@aaaaa5272]

I stiil not have seen any physical formula in which information is part of. Which letter is used for information, and what is the unit in the MKSA system?

[@carlhitchon1009]

Bits?

[@juliavixen176]

The letter "S" it's entropy. In Quantum systems it's the ratio of the entropy of the probability density matrix to the Shanon entropy... so I guess that's units of Energy per bit.

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

Heat is momentum. Measurement is an exchange of momentum. The "quantum" state of a qubit only happens when it's cooled to a point of near absolute zero momentum, putting it in a state of non-measurement. The reason we don't observe quantum behavior under normal circumstances is continuous measurement (exchange of momentum).

[@schmetterling4477]

Momentum exchange is not enough. You need energy exchange. You almost got it right, you just picked the wrong quantity.

[@thingsiplay]

Rust and unsafe blocks So the universe is thread safe and programmed in Rust? Don't forget, even Rust allows for unsafe block. I imagine the programmer of the universe used Rust as the language and used unsafe block to write Black Holes. And these places are thread unsafe, meaning they bend the rules and contain bugs.

[@eddyr1041]

Hence don't outsourced it ❤🤣

[@joefromzohra]

On VIXRA, The Collapse of the Wave Function, in the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, there were four major mistakes done at different levels: (1) A misinterpretation of Bell’s theorem in which the original intent did not include non-locality, but as a test to see whether or not a particle has a certain property that can be measured. (2) A misinterpretation of the disagreement between Einstein and Bohr. Einstein’s objection to the collapse of the wave function implied a spooky action at a distance, while Bohr insisted on the instantaneous collapse of the wave function which he mistook to be a real wave. (3) A misinterpretation that the wave function represents a real wave when in actuality it represents the possible states of a quantum system before a measurement. (4) When Bell’s theorem was violated by a quantum system, those violations were misinterpreted as evidence of an instantaneous collapse of the wave function and non-locality. We will argue: there is no collapse of the wave function. Bell’s theorem is not about non-locality. There is no spooky action at a distance. And Quantum Mechanics is about measuring quantities at the microscopic scales and in doing so, these quantities are altered. So what we get is partial knowledge. But in spite of that obstacle, we still get a theory of reality with considerable success.

[@darkprose]

You should do a podcast with Terrence Howard.

[@SandipChitale]

The handwavy thing about the entangled particles at a large distance is the idea that the state was truly not one or the other is never explained. What happens after the measurement is what gets talked about, which we already know intuitively, even for a classical system of say a right and left gloves. Sure, it may be difficult to explain it in English, but that is what needs to be explained, including whatever mechanisms or experiments tell us that that is the case. It may be that it is a statistical measurement and distribution of outcomes over a large sample set. Otherwise, it sounds like "just trust me".

[@cacogenicist]

For me it comes down to needing an explanation of how the spin (in this case) isn't _really_ one way or the other prior to the measurement. As is, it's difficult for me to get past the feeling that entanglement is sort of trivial.

[@SandipChitale]

@@cacogenicist Agree. The way I understand it is that the pre-measurement weirdness is supposed to be inferred from the statistical observation of the violation of Bell's inequality by quantum systems. I think that needs to be emphasized and explained in more details.

[@mikemcculley]

Yeah, the reasoning is found in understanding Bell's Inequality, which itself isn't often well explained on the internet.

[@SandipChitale]

@@mikemcculley Agree. The best explanations I have found are due to Tim Maudlin.

[@stoneysdead689]

They did stress that the particle was not in a definite state of spin up or down before being measured. They showed a graphic to represent that fact, and Brian stressed that when they say it's in a "super position" that we are to take this literally, that the particle is in this weird state of both up and down at the same time. Now I suppose he could've gone on to point out that the oddness really arises when you try to figure out how this other particle, potentially light years away, seems to instantly know what state it needs to assume in order to be in the opposite spin? In fact, how does it know to assume any definite spin at all- is it because we measured it, or would it have fallen out of super position regardless? But we all know what the skeptic will say- well it's no different than having a pair of left- and right-handed shoes, if you split them up and open the boxes 100s of miles part- if you get a right-handed shoe, you instantly know the other shoe in the other box is left-handed. They were always opposite, and they're still opposite- that's trivial. The key to this seeming magical is that you have to believe in super positional states and that the particle you measure, no matter which it is, only assumes a definite state once you measure it. But how do you prove that- because if you measure them, you destroy the entanglement- so you can't measure them multiple times and get different states for the same particle- thus proving it could be either each time you measure. There's always room for the skeptic to believe they were different from the start, and thus are different when measured- and that this is a trivial fact.

[@EROSNERdesign]

Great video!!! It doesn't get any better having Brian Greene explain the mysterious.

[@Psychic.Octopus]

Love me some Brian Greenescreen

[@scottjones-singersongwrite6193]

Exciting stuff. Almost especially the different approach to tackle the quantum gravity issue. Congrats! Keep going.

[@sindibadage]

I love to listen to wise humans like Brian. It's so uplifting in current times.. Thank you!

[@pauljs75]

The thing that Einstein and a few peers stumbled upon that is still kind of being slept on is in the work that is at the very early roots of some part of string theory. Has to do with the electric properties of a vacuum, and it is indicative of electrogravitic transfer of momentum when both fields are present. More or less when electrical and gravitational fields are overlapping, you can transfer momentum along a trajectory into rotational momentum on an axis and vice-versa. Not sure what that has to do with this (still some gap between macro and quantum - spin is a different can of worms), but it's interesting as well. Basically you can find some odd quirks by looking into the product of permittivity and permeability of a vacuum being multiplied is the same as the speed of light squared. The fun there begins with using substitution properties of equivalence in the math. And then play around with some things akin to gyroscopic precession. I think that was a thing that bugged Einstein enough to push off to the side as well.

[@MachdaleLemish]

Is the measurement problem similar to trying to measure a cars speed from the outside going 0-60. When you take the measurement the car is could be doing 60 mph but on average it was always doing 30mph? Dont know if that makes sence but i thought for a moment there i finally figured out what the problem is said to be.

[@barrypickford1443]

There is a great video by 3Blue1Brown (wonderful math videos) it’s about the Fourier Transform- and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. He uses a great analogy that helps visualise uncertainty/measurement you should check out.

[@barrypickford1443]

Think a fast played note/frequency- it’s will just sound like a click. Therefore not hear what note is being played.bit can see how fast it’s going. If you zoomed into the note/frequency you’d see/hear it spread out and you could more easily discern what note is being played but lose ability see where it’s going and how fast.

[@LaboriousCretin]

14:00 Could be manifold coupling. But other things need to be tested. A tunable metamaterial for slits and the orbital energy levels part of the tunable range. Add a rainbow for extra gradient mapping. The universe doesn't scramble every time a person blinks. lol. The smoothness of the universe, constraints on quantum foam. UV,IR limits. 20:18 only if they came from a single pure state. Not to get into, they are many body mixed states parts. Black holes are finite systems. 22:05 the center mass of a black hole is a future event. The only wormhole is to a future time from the time distortion factors, and that's if something could withstand it all. 26:52 incorrect assumption. Put time into it. The funnel shows time distortion factors. The center event able to slide further forward in time and gives rise to the virtual infinites. A black hole core is not infinitely dense, or it would such the universe in infinitely fast. lol finite system. 32:14 Shared waveforms across entangled systems. The cryptography part or information density of how many waveforms can exist on how many q-bit or photo optic can you have without decohering. 36:58 Your making a whole set of assumptions and avoidance bias blindness. 38:59 The more you know about a system, the more predictive power you can have. Black holes are finite systems in 1 timeline in a finite universe. Look into tunable metamaterial for slits. Also, hybrid quantum computing and optical computing. Make tested chips with mixes. To see if you can get more out of a set of systems or such.

[@charlesprabakar]

Good to see a time-stamped comment with an insightful observation- and so, how about I respond as we see this as a preliminary experimental proof of our TOE as well, as I had explained in my comment below. For example, as alluded in the earlier comment, we as a firm have extended this EPR=ER black- hole correspondence hypothesis to the next level - to explain the larger correspondence existing between quantum reality ( EPR) and classical reality (ER) using our variable fine structure constant(FSC) based TOE where FSC is 1/137 in our universe whereas it is higher in blackhole with lot more dense/compressed particles. This way we can explain your coupling observation including other observations (see below) 14.00 Could be manifold coupling. But other things need to be tested. A tunable metamaterial for slits and the orbital energy levels part of the tunable range. Add a rainbow for extra gradient mapping. // Again when we go FSC as the coupling, there is no way we can tune it higher or lower, as even microscopic particles are governed by FSC ( unless we go with a tunable lattice theory). This is where we have gone with a nature based coupling The universe doesn't scramble every time a person blinks. lol. The smoothness of the universe, constraints on quantum foam. UV,IR limits. //Agree that the while reality toggling is observation or measurement independent as explained in my comment 20:18 only if they came from a single pure state. Not to get into, they are many body mixed states parts. Black holes are finite systems. // Agree in lab setting, it is a pure state and so not an 100% replica of black hole or even universe. However our toggling logic explains both 22:05 the center mass of a black hole is a future event. The only wormhole is to a future time from the time distortion factors, and that's if something could withstand it all. // Well under our toggling logic, center of mass including every mass is a simultaneous event and the only difference in s back holes toggles into AdS with a tighter FSC coupling whereas our universe toggles into dS with a 137 FSC coupling 26:52 incorrect assumption. Put time into it. The funnel shows time distortion factors. The center event able to slide further forward in time and gives rise to the virtual infinites. A black hole core is not infinitely dense, or it would such the universe in infinitely fast. lol finite system. // Agree black hole core is not infinitely dense however denser than stars 32:14 Shared waveforms across entangled systems. The cryptography part or information density of how many waveforms can exist on how many q-bit or photo optic can you have without decohering. // Again wave function is here is at an microscopic qubit level and so decoherence may not apply. For decoherence occurs only at macroscopic universe context only 36:58 Your making a whole set of assumptions and avoidance bias blindness. //Agree these assumptions made testing is the next best thing to simulate real world 38:59 The more you know about a system, the more predictive power you can have. Black holes are finite systems in 1 timeline in a finite universe. Look into tunable metamaterial for slits. Also, hybrid quantum computing and optical computing. Make tested chips with mixes. To see if you can get more out of a set of systems or such. // Speaking of predicting, under our theory, we foresee a possibility of measuring multiple phase states using one particle wave function itself. In other words, we can go granular in between spin-up or spin-down values by navigating the coordinates of the complex plane of Riemann sphere . Stated otherwise, theoretically we can go up to 10 or even 100 states (aka 2 to the power 10 or 100 possibilities). We are currently in the process of testing if experimentally - and so, I welcome suggestions as well

[@bipolarminddroppings]

Einstein was wicked smart, he was so smart that his "blunders" turned out to just be far ahead of their time. I'm gonna assume that this talk is about ER=EPR and since you don't have Susskind on the stage, there's nothing new I'm going to learn. I'm sure it's worthwhile for those less familiar with the subject, though.

[@juliavixen176]

This panel has one of the authors of the "wormhole simulation on quantum computer" paper that was in the news recently. And that's at least half of the running time of this video. (The rest is introductions for anyone who has never heard of the EPR and ER papers.)

[@billcook7483]

How can you watch a panel of brilliant experts and claim you won't learn anything? Sure, a lot of what they say will be over your head but pay close attention and you should understand some of it .

[@jovetj]

@@billcook7483 "Over his head" wasn't the problem he was addressing by his comment.

[@billcook7483]

@@jovetj How do you know ? I don't think he knows much about this stuff or he would have made a more useful comment. Reading his comment again I suspect he's pretending to be familiar with the subject but doesn't really understand it . Name dropping , i.e. Susskind , usually indicates a lack of confidence.

[@jovetj]

@@billcook7483 Because I have a very high "EQ" and am easily able to read in-between the lines. The comment expressed the opinion that Susskind is the only person that really has a clue going forward in this area, and without him this panel discussion is a waste of time. He also conveys a sense of understanding the subject matter, since _he_ won't learn anything from this panel without Susskind.

[@dic3664]

I particularily liked prof Daniel Jafferis' intellectual role; conceptually essential and structural, clear and imaginative

[@stefanob1371]

and with no connection with reality

[@arnoldvankampen3672]

Gravity can be conceptualized as a force or as the result of curved space.

[@tommyrjensen]

Maybe. But to conceptualize gravity as a force is similar to conceptualize fire as the emission of phlogistons. It looks like an explanation, but it isn't the reality.

[@jamestait324]

Entanglement is a dimensionless cause-effect relationship. Dimensionless because the entangled particles are connected in a way that does not involve Time or Distance. As for Spin? Spin has an orientation, but not a direction. Since Spin occupies no volume and doesn't move across Space in any direction, it should not be thought of as a vector property. Spin is dimensionless. Also, if you think about it, Time shares some fundamental properties with Spin.

[@paulbk7810]

A gift to the world.

[@PatrickGinter]

The reason one neutron is up and one neutron is down is because data travels alone the strings in waves that capture the information of one moment of time from vibrations around in waves of natural space in the density of mass and antmatter sorts out the various waves of rippled patterns and sort into a working order of patterns of uniformity that link together of time itself of one moment in thought and the moment action of one pattern and antimatter puts the sorted waves into pattern of one moment and the patterns come together in forms that are sent into the past of the age of a moment that once travelled alone in a distorted rippling wave that antimatter will give order to the many bits of many patterns linking the patterns together into a read picture form of the age that becomes pushed into the past moment by moment by antimatter and that's why one neutron is up and one neutron is down as they can never be the same together a freedom of choice to stay individual in an ever changing universe.

[@Killer_Kovacs]

If you imagine a surface that particles traveling across, and that surface were rotating underneath; then the spin would be the center point between the two. But Quantum spin isn't classical spin.

[@TheHi-NoteFunClub-BeatsByMike]

"A tunnel through space..." Lately I've been thinking more like boundry a spatially dimensionless "distance" through the "time" dimension of "spacetime". Think like a theoretical "point" - where length, width, and height meet, so to speak - with the event observed as actually happening in the grand scheme, because it did, and the factor/question of "How much more time is necessary for this event to transition from 'in occurrance' to 'occurring'? Equalling Zero.

[@robmsmithdumbhandle]

Good video. Greene is awesome, as always, such a grounded relatable speaker.

[@paviad]

Would it be theoretically possible to test for the existence of non-traversible wormholes by feeding mass into one end, and watching the event horizon of the other end change?

[@arnoldvankampen3672]

What is the use to try to explain spin if there is also something as an up and a down quark? Worse: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom. And according to QCD, quantum chromodynamics, there are so-called color charges: red green and blue. Etc. Let's say these are all properties, but it is very(!) hard to make that relate to our everyday macro world? In the end, I guess, it can only be understood in mathematics? Understood in the sense that there is enough knowledge of the subject to make predictions that can be physically lab-tested for validity. It is pretty abstract but then so is the trajectory of a projectile under gravity. After all, no one has ever seen a trajectory, it is an abstract notion?

[@jimparr01Utube]

Amusing that the word Cubits from ancient texts is pronounced the same as Qbits. Nearly all of this interesting dialogue was over my head, but I appreciated having the the opportunity to watch it.

[@chrismack5908]

I love Einstein! Brilliant!

[@MachdaleLemish]

Me too. If not for Einstein would we even be able to see this video today? Or even know what video is?

[@brulsmurf]

@@MachdaleLemish Einstein invented youtube back in 1952.

[@celiogouvea]

It could be that the superposition of a particle is where time splits into two three-dimensional universes within a four-dimensional universe. In other words, when we measure a particle in our universe, the entangled particle is measured in another universe at the same time. What separates these two universes is time, because I think superposition transcends the limits of time. So, we can say that there are two entangled three-dimensional universes and whatever happens here also happens there.

[@matthemming9105]

Well, this talk brings me one step closer to understanding the science in Godzilla: Singular Point

[@D...M...A...]

Sabine DISMISSED this dribble ...

[@TSeries502]

Its because time doesnt exist, only now exists so it doesnt matter how far apart the entangled particles are, as far as they are concerned they are still together in the now. The distance is irrelevant

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

We Go By "Hours, Minutes, & Seconds", Electrons Go By "States", Perpendicular States Are Minimum: "Up & 0% & Midnight"; Maximum: "Down & 100% & Noon"?!?

[@myrlyn1250]

I am glad that people have stopped saying "observation" collapses the wave function, but saying "measurement" still implies intelligent interference. Any interaction with another system is going to change or collapse the wave function. Like Brian says, WORDS MATTER!

[@duprie37]

The wave function isn't formally "collapsed" if nobody's there to observe it. If nobody's there to observe it, who's to say if it's _really_ collapsed or not? It's a fair assumption sure, but still an assumption.

[@myrlyn1250]

@@duprie37 That would mean that the universe did not formally "exist" until there were humans (or other sentient beings) to observe it, despite the evidence.

[@guffeluffe5987]

@@myrlyn1250 Youre wrong. Look at the slit experiment. The wave only collapses when measurement devices are active. Protons cant travel in a room without interacting with things all the time. Hence its a measurement that causes collapse not just interaction.

[@paxwallace8324]

The connection between supermassive black holes and worm holes must be fundamental and profound.

[@coffeetop1131]

Whoops; they almost spilled the beans at 8:56. Thankfully Brian interrupted and steered to discussion to a safe space.

[@andrewwright1922]

Please spill the beans if you are able to.

[@AmbrishSaxena12]

He was sabotaging the entire conversation Greene had with the panel by saying, "You don't know, but it should be known," and Greene steered towards the safe place, signaling all of us to deter faux pas.​@andrewwright1922

[@peanutnutter1]

The particle knows all along what it's spin direction is, it's not random.

[@sergeyromanov5560]

you are implying there are some "beans to spill" and some conspiracy that does not want them to be spilled, but neither say what the beans are nor provide any evidence. another low-iqer.

[@pinkfloydhomer]

​@@peanutnutter1bell inequality and experiments say otherwise

[@DanFrederiksen]

gravity doesn't have any apparent wave function collapse option, you can't slap a planet and make it disconnect from another planet. And gravity propagates at the speed of light, entanglement is a faster creature so where is the bridge?

[@eiseks3410]

7:00 Tsipras 2.0 - Only legends will understand

[@EconAtheist]

I, half-jokingly, wonder if someone off-stage held up a sign to Daniel Jafferis that said something like "TOO TECHNICAL" He went from "far too much shop talk" into "fleshing-out and analogies" and it made a significant improvement on the whole group conversation. Whatever it was that got him to shift gears, the segment was much better once he started speaking to a more general audience. IMHO enough so that I went from 'ah jeez... this might go off the rails quickly' to 'whoa, that guy could be a science communicator'

[@pompousprick6143]

Sometimes, the answer isn't hidden; it's just waiting for us to change the way we look at things. Edit for people who don't Gedit! Another way of saying the same thing is: "Sometimes, the answer is staring us right in the face; we just need to change our viewpoint to see it."

[@jcamacho5103]

I'm operating from a place of ignorance, however, isn't that how many or most or all discoveries work?

[@snarzetax]

@@jcamacho5103 yup

[@slappyortega2449]

Using that argument, it's never hidden.

[@pompousprick6143]

@@jcamacho5103 Usually, the answer isn't a matter of changing our perspective; it's genuinely hidden and requires diligent effort to uncover.

[@steveflorida5849]

Abiogenesis is still hidden from reality.

[@thedellow2093]

Daniel Jafferis’ voice is like a blend of Christopher Walken and Seth Rogan lol

[@Mary.R.]

I was actually thinking if they ever make a biopic of Daniel Jafferis, Seth Rogen should definitely play him!!!

[@geoffwales8646]

Yes, I picked up the unusually stressed syllablesas soon as he spoke.

[@shawns0762]

Yes he did, but it's about galaxy rotation curves. Dark matter is dilated mass. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates. All binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.

[@Pseudo___]

i bet he does a good christopher walken impression

[@larrye.goinesjr.1535]

The Model Of Spinning Particles With A Mixture Of Up & Down, Is Like Saying 0°, 180° & 360°, Are The Same Thing?!? Two Clashing Wormholes?!? In The Bloch Sphere, Vectors Pointing Up Are Zero %, Pointing Down Are One-Hundred %. (Solving For Dimension-States, Format Two Decimal Points To The Right Or "Percentage") X = Width Dimension Y = Depth Dimension Z = Height Dimension #1) ρ = √ ( [X] ² + [Y] ² + [Z] ² ) #1) Dimension-State = ½ × ( 1 + ( -1 ) × [Dimension] / [ρ] ) #2) Dimension-State = ½ × ( 1 + ( -1 ) × COS ( [Angle] × π / 180° ) ) #1) Angle = ACOS ( [Dimension] / [ρ] ) × 180° / π #2) Angle = ACOS ( 1 - 2 × [Dimension-State] ) × 180° / π #1) Dimension = [ρ] × COS( [Angle] × π / 180° )

[@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549]

O and 360 are the same thing

[@binbots]

General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. This is an observational interpretation of the mathematics we currently use based on the limited perspective we have with the experiments we choose to observe the universe with.

[@pinkfloydhomer]

@@binbots you do not understand any of the two theories or how they are used.

[@binbots]

@@pinkfloydhomer explain why please.

[@pinkfloydhomer]

@@binbots you assume that what you describe (which isn't accurate), the time component of looking out in the universe is at odds or isn't taken into account with the locality of a quantum experiment (which funnily enough, is precisely not local in nature, entanglement happens over any distance and spacetime and locality is probably not fundamental for all we know). Theoretical physicists have tried all sorts of ways to combine the two and the problem is not taking into account what you describe but that we haven't found a way that doesn't result in infinities or that is still elusive (string theory, loop quantum gravity etc). It is fine to get new ideas but they then have to be made precise enough to make new predictions. You can't just give handwavey explanations. Also, you have to know prior art in detail to critique it. Know the mathematics of QM and GR, know the mathematics of the attempts made and why they failed. Only then will you have a chance of contributing. Because there are a century of results and observations that these two theories match perfectly and that you have to match as well. The hard part is two-fold: 1) come up with a married theory of both that doesn't explode in infinities. Make new predictions from that 2) test against the new predictions. This will not be done in everyday scenarios on Earth but will probably only be relevant at extremely large energies, small sizes etc. It can only be directly experimented with close to the big bang, near a black hole or in a very powerful accelerator etc. You can also be lucky that you can find indirect statistical evidence from cosmology, cmb or wherever. No one has done 1) yet, nevermind 2). And your vague words do not help to get closer to either.

[@binbots]

@@pinkfloydhomer of course I can give what you call hand wavy explanations. This is a KZbin comment. Sounds like you have a problem with the way I presented my idea more than the idea itself.

[@pinkfloydhomer]

@@binbots no, my problem with your idea itself is that it is too hand wavy to make any predictions, let alone new predictions. Point me to real papers discussing it precisely

[@TotaMaina-ev6bb]

If Quantum entanglement is possible, then communication can be instant, but first need to seperate entangled particles between transmitter and receiver. If one set of particles are used as Signal, to form a picture on screen at transmiiting computer, then instantly, the entangled pair of those particles will arrange, to Signal Negative of that picture on receiving Computer.

[@ibendcrazy]

China has already demonstrated quantum entanglement communication at least sixty miles apart. The communication was instantaneous and did not involve linear speed.

[@brianhenry9793]

Hi Brian, why do I very rarely hear Bells Theorem when watching American physicists talking about EPR. It’s almost as if he’s forgotten. Being from his home town I’d love to hear him get his dues.

[@mikefischbein3230]

Perhaps he isn't mentioned enough in presentations to the public. But, as an American physicist, I can assure you that Bell's Theorem is a standard part of the physics curriculum here, and its significance as one of the most important contributions to the understanding of nature is widely appreciated.

[@SandipChitale]

@@brianhenry9793 Tim Maudlin always talks about Bell.

[@marfmarfalot5193]

See the new paper discussing tachyon field possibilities! Bells Theorem will get a lot more talk if tachyons exist

[@carlhitchon1009]

@@mikefischbein3230 Is it? Then why are some physicists always denying non-locality and saying stupid things like there is an alternative which is something about non-reality.

[@Galoxieview]

@@carlhitchon1009 Because they're desperate to preserve Copenhagen and their measurement problem.

[@tonibat59]

So the new paradigm would be ER = EPR = N-rays ? Amazing stuff

[@prophetofthesingularity]

Round table world science festival videos are the best! Nothing makes me regret getting an accounting degree instead of science more than these shows 🤣

[@mikef5291]

but you came out on the other side with 💵 (not a bad outcome). 😂

[@CTimmerman]

Entropy is like accounting. Without a flow of energy/resources, things tend towards a homogamous mess.

[@kylebushnell2601]

Except they pretty much talk about the same few topics every single time.

[@MartinMitchell-v1i]

As you have an accounting degree could you explain how any business can make a genuine profit when they do not account in their book keeping for the pollution they cause when pollution is known to kill 8million people a year in Europe alone. Damages due are astronomical and BS about society having to bear the burden of industrial pollution is not legally sustainable?

[@zofiamroz3852]

The coherent structure, alluded to at the beginning of this video, was fully formulated by Herman Haus in 1986 by dealing with the otherwise not dealt with non-radiation condition, in his peer reviewed paper on "The Non-Radiation Condition" and then used that to derive the modern model of the electron that can, and actually was, used to first derive a classical QM theory that works every time with no need for assumptions, nor for any adjustable variables in its math, to guide the development of several practical items, like the Millsian molecular modeler (100 x more accurate than anything similar developed using SQM, and the hydrino reaction in the form of the Suncell), while academically accepted SQM was never once used to guide the development of even one practical item. Transistors were used in WW1(whisker diode), 10 years before there was a quantum anything. Same for lasers. Fusion and quantum computing, due to using wave based SQM, are both having an impossible time of getting developed. Not even one qubit exists, since the time that annealing QM computers were supposedly developed by D-Wave, starting in 1980's. That problem started with using waves, by Huygens to propose a way of explaining light, by observing waves on water, an artifact. The mechanism there is deep under the surface in the form of rotating columns of water particles at several layers, making the surface wavy part to be an artifact. An artifact cannot be used to propose as an explanation for how anything works in physics. Is why academically accepted QM is too weird for words and has to go back to 1670's and be redone from that point on. But luckily Haus and Randell Mills have done most of the ground work, since 1986 to 2018, in the form of the Grand Unified Theory- Classical Physics. It explains the 2 slit experiment the same way that any pattern of slits or fringes on a photographic film can be used to reproduce a complex 3D scene that is imbedded in its 2D pattern of thin marks.

[@carlhitchon1009]

Mills is a conman.

[@mtnimt4724]

Didn't know Seth Rogan was into Quantum Physics.

[@tinto278]

😂😂

[@Rm_OneNiner]

Lmao

[@mattorr2256]

I immediately thought the same

[@pinkfloydhomer]

@@mtnimt4724 he sounds like Christopher Walken at times

[@charlottemckean2650]

@@pinkfloydhomer yes I noticed that too😂

[@michaellege6729]

Why aren't the entangled particles synchronized? Is that a possibility? If so, then a measurement should make it possible for entangled particles to have the same spin.

[@SebastianBeresniewicz]

What experimental evidence do we have that particles are in a superposition of these quantum states? Don't we have to measure to figure out which state it's in and then when we measure it there's a definite State. So how can we possibly see that they are in a superposition? By the way, I'm not questioning that superposition is real, I understand that quantum computers depend on this being real. I'm just really curious about how we can tell that it's real?

[@SebastianBeresniewicz]

Im guessing double slit is probably one? How does that prove superposition?

[@QuantumPolyhedron]

It's a metaphysical assumption. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic so you have to describe the system in terms of probability, but it's not probabilistic in a classical sense. In a classical sense, you can reduce the system to bits of information where each bit is a 0 or a 1 with some sort of probability between 0 and 1. In quantum mechanics, you can only reduce the system to qubits, where qubits also can only be a 0 or 1, but the probability distribution has 3 degrees of freedom. So it is not between 0 and 1 but between -1 and 1 as well between -1i and 1i. When you actually go to measure it, the physical meaning of these probabilities are all the same as their absolute equivalent, for example, -1 is the same as 1 which is 100% which is also the same as -1i and 1i. However, prior to measurement, these probabilities _interfere_ with each other. For example, in classical probability, if two events have a 100% chance of occurring, then they both occur. In quantum probabilities, if one event has a -100% chance of occurring and another a 100% chance of occurring, then they cancel out and neither occur. There is no classical analog or intuitive way to understand these bizarre probabilities, so some physicists claim that the probability distribution represents some sort of ontological _entity,_ that if we describe a system with a probability distribution that contains negative and even imaginary components (called the wave function), that this is not merely a probability distribution but that the system is literally a _wave_ with these magnitudes which randomly collapses into a particle of a definite value when observed. If you believe this, then when you describe a system with a 50% chance of being in one state and 50% chance in another, then you would have to claim that prior to measuring it, it exists as a wave that is a superposition of both states.

[@JessaLynn8]

​@@QuantumPolyhedron Thank you for explaining that in such a clear and concise way 💛

[@danielpaulson8838]

Try thinking it through like this. We can see photons. Light particles. These are highly simple but can help, 1. If we are in complete darkness with no reflective surfaces around, and we shine a light behind us but towards us, yet we do not look at it and it bounces off of nothing, the photons are in a super position. They are in a constant wave of photons that we do not see because no photons are bouncing off of our eyeball by observing them, yet we still know they are there. We just turn and look or put up a reflector to bounce some of the wave back. Our eye is a directional antenna or receiver for visible energy waves. 2. A Local radio station is transmitting songs but without a radio, we do not interact with it. It is in a superposition. But when we tune it in, we interact with it and it emerges from the EM waves into something we can interact with. Rock and Roll all night and party every day. 3. UV radiation is there and it burns us even if we cannot see it. We cannot see, taste, touch, smell or hear it, but the skin damage lets us know we are interacting with invisible EM energy. We also know in thinking it through that the wave function never collapses by our observation. We only grab a bit. Many people can also interact with the same wave function simultaneously so it is not collapsed.

[@robmsmithdumbhandle]

@@danielpaulson8838 This was a better and less confusing explanation than quantumpolyhedron's. Thanks for the clarity.

[@scientific.Furqan]

Excellent

[@uapReX]

Einstein :P Love your discussions with today's top researchers in understandable layman terms. Great work!! Brian & team

[@bachong58]

Is there a chance that we can split an entangled particle and have one particle suck in the back hole .. can we then measure the effects .. the measurements and information that we have on the part outside is the measurements on the information inside the black hole ?

[@juliavixen176]

As a matter of fact... this is currently an active topic of research. ... and nobody is certain about this yet. PBS Spacetime did an episode about this recently.

[@jonathanclaudinger]

I think highly of the channel, but i hate that the titles are so similar to all the other science channels, who are not bringing the same level of content as you

[@melekdev]

KZbin titles and thumbnails have converged on 'trashy clickbait', even for fantastic videos...

[@thesecretreviewer8242]

Where's the fan blade at? I cannot tell until i put my hand in the way. I'd say those "pairs" are set and you just don't know how it really works.

[@edgenovese]

B We mortals will have to count on these brilliant people to bring the future to us. Ha ha ha... the truth is, you lost me in the first two sentences of the introduction alone! I guess I'll just go in the studio and write music, but I do love hearing these discussions. Thank God we have people like this to break the boundaries....Bravo

[@DanFrederiksen]

Even if we say there was quantum teleportation how does that bridge to gravity? isn't it just EM QM? or does the EPR ER bridge make such a strong case for entanglement=gravity? And does the teleportation violate speed of light communication or does it require speed of light shared activation to undermine FTL?

[@ibendcrazy]

There's no ftl communication because quantum entanglement has nothing to do with linear speed. It's instantaneous. No matter if it's three feet apart or three million light years away.... Quantum entangled particles' communication is instantaneous.

[@ooo-vc4xl]

How can we truly say something is in superposition if it isn’t measureable ??? And when it’s measured it isn’t in a superposition.

[@CTimmerman]

Measurement tends to disturb the quantum packet enough to lose its superposition. We know photons can be entangled because their values are related despite distance, and in superposition because their values are random.

[@TheFirstSky]

Will it be reasonable to say that "Up" and "Down" switch places so fast that it's unpredictable unless we measure? (rather than saying that those are both up and down at the same time) And could we say that rather than entangled, these particles are just synchronized, and thus at any moment in time they are in opposition in relation to each other?

[@trucid2]

There is no way to distinguish entanglement from a past correlation.

[@CTimmerman]

​@@trucid2 You can re-entangle particles and have expected opposite random outcomes at FTL speed all over again.

[@pinkfloydhomer]

@@trucid2 bell inequality and the experiments confirming it

[@فارسليبورد-ك8و]

في المستقبل البعيد وبفضل التكنولوجيا المتقدمة سوف يتساوى الخيال مع الواقع ويمتلك الإنسان قوى الآلهة ليحول الكون والأكوان المتعددة إلى جنة خالدة ❤

[@Spiegelradtransformation]

Why all these people needs Paradise?

[@eddyr1041]

​@@Spiegelradtransformationsssttt don't offend lah... let them be letblive😊

[@Dr.Z.Moravcik-inventor-of-AGI]

How do you know what the biggest problem is?

[@jonathanclaudinger]

The biggest problem is being said by many to making a working theory about quantum gravity. Gravity is a problem splitting the physics community apart.

[@uapReX]

and it should, until its Solved.

[@robmsmithdumbhandle]

@@uapReX wrong. it should be joining them at the hip until they do solve it. Division is not the answer, other than contention being a good breeding ground for competition.

[@uapReX]

@@robmsmithdumbhandle wrong lol anywho some of us like competition... No contention involved.

[@mrhassell]

Observation, Analysis, Prioritization.

[@rfyl]

Two questions: (1) Did they actually physically achieve teleportation, rather than merely simulating it? (I know this has long since been achieved in the laboratory, although only with single particles or a very small number of particles.) In particular, when she says "There was code and there was physics", does she mean that the qubits on the left and the qubits on the right, while existing in the computer, were actually entangled ... *and* not connected by any circuit of gates, so that the teleportation was real? (2) (Someone else has posted a question or comment like this.) How does this experiment *prove* that ER = EPR? Are they even claiming that it does? Even when they talk about future experiments with larger numbers of qubits, it sounds like they are saying that, under the (mathematical) *assumption* that ER = EPR, the (real) results from EPR will let us study the (theoretical) properties of ER. Is my understanding correct? Or did I miss something where they claim it's a proof? Surely they're not claiming that they *created* a wormhole, are they? (Note: I'm not saying that ER does not equal EPR -- that's way beyond my meagre knowledge to weigh in on. I'm merely asking for clarification of what they're claiming.)

[@oystercatcher943]

My understanding is they ran it on an actual quantum computer but the noise level was high so the signal was only just discernible. The simulation told them what to expect at different noise levels. Sounds impressive but SO hard to wrap your head around. It’s really way beyond what I really understand as a physics graduate but not working physicist

[@rfyl]

Thanks for that info. Do you have any insight or opinion or comment on whether this is in any sense "a proof" of ER=EPR? Or even reveals *anything* about ER=EPR? In other words, where does the ER part come in, if at all.

[@oystercatcher943]

@@rfylkind of you to ask. I’m not at all qualified to answer really but IMHO they have something that’s perhaps better than a mathematical proof given the physical experiment. The ‘distillation’ (in ML language) of the larger model down to a smaller model I guess helps with scaling to a larger wormhole but I can’t judge that. As for scaling up to a human scale wormhole that’s a stretch to me. What about retaining the quantum state at the macroscopic level. That’s totally not understood. So I really don’t know!

[@rfyl]

​@@oystercatcher943 OK, thanks. Speaking only as an "educated layman", it seemed that they only showed EPR, i.e. that teleportation can happen in the computer. I still can't see how they *proved* ER=EPR", i.e. an *experimental* proof,somehow showing that what they had constructed *was an actual wormhole*, rather than a purely mathematical proof which after all would be "pencil-and-paper" (ha-ha) or at any rate offline prior to the experiment. And it did seem like Greene was dubious about that aspect *of the experiment* (but not dubious about the theory). But, again, merely an educated layman, so maybe I'm completely missing something. Maybe what they somehow showed was that the actual physically instantiated process of the teleportation, when subsequently analyzed mathematically, truly *is* the same as the mathematics of the on-paper description of a wormhole? Because I still have to ask, Where was the wormhole? How do we know *from the experiment* that we are justified in calling the teleportation a wormhole?

[@rfyl]

I watched it again, starting at about 26:59. My interpretation is that all he is saying (although it's significant) is that IF you accept ER=EPR, then the details of the teleportation translate into a newly discovered fact about wormholes, namely, where the negative energy comes from to keep the wormhole open, namely something about sending information classically. So yes, an important discovery *from* ER=EPR. Does that sound correct?

[@weksauce]

No, you cannot use quantum entanglement to transfer information, except in the very obvious sense that EVERY transfer of information is a result of entanglement. Photons entangle with something, then they entangle with my retina, then a bunch of stuff happens, and I get the (visual) information about the something.

[@mad_vegan]

It is not classical information being transferred, it is quantum information. You can, for example, teleport a state described by a|0> + b|1>, which has two complex numbers, to another location far away by using only 2 classical bits and an entangled particle. The neat thing is that the state a|0> + b|1> can be prepared AFTER the whole setup and only the 2 classical bits need to be transferred (at the speed of light). This seems to increase the amount of information actually being transferred, but the numbers a and b cannot be directly measured.

[@weksauce]

@@mad_vegan There's no such thing as "quantum information". There's just information, and it all comes in the quantum unit of bits. Quantum behaviors that carry/transfer information are no different than any other behaviors. EVERYTHING is "quantum" (quantized). There's no such thing as "not-quantum information", hence it makes no sense to speak of "quantum information".

[@mad_vegan]

@@weksauce Google "quantum information". There's even a Wikipedia article on it.

[@tinkeringtim7999]

You saying "photon entangling with my retina" proves conclusively you should stop using the words "photon" and "entangle" because you don't understand what is going in in physics discussions. Learn the maths, then revise your opinions, then you may end up with something useful to say.

[@mad_vegan]

@@tinkeringtim7999 There's nothing wrong with saying that the photon becomes entangled with your retina. A measurement is mathematically a form of entanglement. If a definite quantum state |x⟩ yields a quantum state |Rx⟩ on your retina, then a quantum state a|x⟩ + b|y⟩ yields a final quantum state a|x⟩⊕|Rx⟩ + b|y⟩⊕|Ry⟩ for the whole system, assuming orthogonality. If you measure |Rx⟩, the whole system collapses to |x⟩⊕|Rx⟩ and the initial quantum state collapses to |x⟩. This is precisely what entanglement is. Watch "Quantum Measurements are Entanglement" by Eugene Khutoryansky for a layman's overview of this.

[@Joshua-by4qv]

It doesn't get better than World Science Festival.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

"At opposite ends of the universe" ~ the expression itself is a clear proof that the entire discussion has nothing to do with reality, but pure SPECULATIONS. Who or how the hell did anybody test it "at opposite ends of the universe"?

[@vintagelady1]

Words cannot express my appreciation for Brian Greene's attempts & ability to make the incomprehensible understandable to those of us with little or no education in physics. The same for those people whose minds allow them to comprehend these mysteries. Brian brought up a point at the very beginninghtat I've always wondered about, the almost exclusive reliance on mathematics to explore/confirm the ideas of physics. But what if (going down the wormhole here) math only works because we created it to work based on how we observe the world/universe? What if it works b/c we designed it to, & now that we're venturing out of the observable (to us) universe, it is as fundamentally invalid as classical physics? Don't get me wrong---I love math, I love that there is something somewhere w/ actual answers. But what if it no more exists in reality than the concept of a proton---works within certain limits? How weird would that be? Do physicists have nightmares about that?

[@ovidiulupu5575]

If every particle has a tiny black hole inside, enthengeled particles are în fact enthengeled black holes, gravity became enthengeled statistical macroscopic structures. Gravitațional constant îs some statistical mediation of enthengeled structures over univers.

[@ibendcrazy]

You're saying that macroscopic black holes are also entangled, right?

[@ovidiulupu5575]

@@ibendcrazy for ME, mincovski space îs a space of quantum discret events. Enthengeled events made particles, by mathematical lows, grup theory, also black holes are enthengeled quantum events în extrem conditions of energy.

[@ibendcrazy]

@@ovidiulupu5575 no. I'm talking about that supermassive black holes are also entangled.

[@collegephysicsforeveryone7744]

basically before the measurement is like trying to ask what a second looked like before I was alive from my perspective... just because quantum mechanics exists doesnt actually mean a particle is in a multitude of states.The fact that our top experts are trying to figure out how we dont know something when we arent measuring it is the epitome of the end of civilization

[@collegephysicsforeveryone7744]

oh and when we do measure it we find out haha

[@phoenix007ism]

You need to look into the double slit experiment before blabbering on about something you do not know a hint about.

[@collegephysicsforeveryone7744]

@@phoenix007ism I know more about the double slit experiment than you can comprehend. Its ok tho nice try

[@collegephysicsforeveryone7744]

@@phoenix007ism When you realize the double slit experiment isnt telling the whole picture, you understand the flaw in humans measuring things outside themselves.

[@collegephysicsforeveryone7744]

​@@phoenix007ism basically the screen is a projection of curves in 2 dimensions that are only a piece of the picture and our limit to that piece doesn't share all the information which has no connection to saying the information isnt there. Memories exist behind the concious experience until they are needed, it never implies they arent there. Wormholes are the paths that exist in the brain to those memories that exist outside this spacetime

[@briankuczynski4375]

"String theory" was all I needed to hear to stop watching. Throw in "traversible wormholes" and we are guaranteed to learn nothing useful or based in reality.

[@Raiyven79]

What is the alternative to string theory?

[@avo616]

@@Raiyven79g-string theory

[@larenmunday2568]

​@@Raiyven79The only alternative is to accept reality and say "We don't know". This must be the necessary next step towards a determinable theory of the underlying nature of the universe. Mathematics doesn't create reality, it is our language to define what we observe. String theory has this the wrong way around unfortunately.

[@dailynico]

Theory needs to be supported with observations.

[@72151]

@@Raiyven79Rope or Cable Theory…😂😂😂

[@Pet-Pamperer_India]

Hello from Mumbai, India 🇮🇳! It's almost 2am and what a delight it is to watch and listen to Dr. Brian Greene with you all present LIVE here

[@martinrutley-wk5ds]

Not today, bud.

[@lemmetellyousomething679]

Brian pretending naive for us really helps us understand what others are talking about. Way to go Brain. You are one hella teacher 🏆

[@Mentaculus42]

36:16 “Created a wormhole in a quantum computer”. Here we go again. I thought the massive kerfuffle that this experiment caused due to actually “promoting” that “terminology” had been fully adjudicated by their scientific peers, and in a very negative way. Sad that they get to rehabilitate in this venue. 39:17 “Have gotten a lot of PUSHBACK” is a massive understatement!! AND RIGHTFULLY GOTTEN PUSHBACK!! The whole sad episode is very “enlightening” about how science looses its credibility. 1:50 In September 2022, it was announced that deputy director for Research at Fermilab, Joseph Lykken would be transitioning to a new position to allow him the opportunity to pursue his interest in Quantum Computing. NOT SURE THAT IN THIS CASE IT WAS WISE CROWING ABOUT THIS DEPUTY DIRECTOR POSITION CONSIDERING … As it turns out, the panelist are NOT independent, but are all part of the same “Wormhole in a computer” gang that got huge pushback for scientific factual “flexibility” and their approach to self promotion. FIRST TIME I HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTED IN ONE OF BRIAN’S VIDEOS, AND THIS ONE IS DUE TO ALL THE “NEGATIVE BAGGAGE” ASSOCIATED WITH IT!!

[@charlesnwafor2580]

Very much enlightening. Thanks alot.

[@ramirodelavega7325]

For me (and I´m guessing for most regular people) it is hard to tell the difference between these "explanations" and a typical Terrence Howard non-sense talk. Just saying!

[@kylebushnell2601]

🤦‍♂️

[@ramirodelavega7325]

@@kylebushnell2601 This reaction is just dumb. Just listen to both videos from a naive point of view and tell me where you see a difference. I´m not talking about the infamous "1x1=2" but about the more general mumble jumble. The part that is impossible to decide for must human beings without direct access to sofisticated experiments. "Divulgative" talks in youtube that can only be understood by physicists are not a great idea.

[@chamindawijayasundara867]

❤

[@oneshot2028]

41:17 - Brian Greene is the king of physics hype!😁

[@amitavadatta9203]

why does Brian Greene talk about teleporting a particle? Only a state in the Hilbert space can be teleported using the quantum teleportation protocol, not a particle, this is wrong!

[@EllenPavitt]

Thankyou so much Brian for all your awesome work!

[@QuantumPolyhedron]

How is running an algorithm on a quantum computer evidence for anything? I can go run an algorithm on a quantum computer right now. IBM has quantum computers with 128 qubits that are available for public use and I have ran my own algorithms on them including quantum teleportation. Quantum mechanics already, without modifying it, predicts what the output of these programs will be. It is not evidence for anything unless you are making predictions that would _differ_ from what traditional quantum mechanics says the output should be. These people are just writing computer programs and claiming they put a black hole in a quantum computer... quantum mechanics can explain the output of that program without black holes.

[@TheBigBlueMarble]

There are some basics of quantum mechanics that are not compatible with the general theory of relativity. This is what the algorithm will hopefully resolve.

[@QuantumPolyhedron]

@@TheBigBlueMarble How? How does running an algorithm on a computer that would give the same results as we already know what the results will be in classical quantum mechanics help out here? That's what isn't explained in the video. They said their algorithm only uses 9 qubits. That doesn't even take much classical computing power to simulate at all. You don't even need a quantum computer to know the answer to that!

[@Mentaculus42]

“Created a wormhole in a quantum computer” is where this group went badly wrong the first time. I thought the massive kerfuffle that this experiment caused due to actually “promoting” that “terminology” had been fully adjudicated by their scientific peers, and in a very negative way. Sad that they get to rehabilitate in this venue. “Have gotten a lot of PUSHBACK” is a massive understatement!! AND RIGHTFULLY GOTTEN PUSHBACK!! The whole sad episode is very “enlightening” about how science looses its credibility.

[@benjamincoggins6568]

Because the quantum computer ‘IS’ the very quantum system that we are asking questions of! The inputs and outputs of quantum computations produced by a quantum computer are real measurable quantum systems (the building blocks of material reality) themselves, not simulations, with real quantum information transformations (or ‘computations’) enacted on them by fundamental quantum gravitational reality itself. Reality is computing itself and therefore the computations involving operations on quantum information are actual fundamental processes of reality itself, predictable (yay science!) deducible and verifiable by the behaviour of quantum computational systems themselves (obviously leaving out issues of sufficient complexity and noise reduction etc)! If it can happen, then it is real by definition!

[@Prabhakar-gf2oq]

Thank you very much for your very insightful video !

[@yaserthe1]

Sorry, the lady literally made no sense.

[@debranelson1987]

Agreed!

[@MrGlenndini]

Just word salad.

[@staffordcrombie566]

very rational, measured and well presented by all, shame it only has 246k views and 5k shares, more like this would help young people take science seriously again, after decades of dismissing hard science as a relevant study area for the next generation.