EINSTEIN - BOHR DEBATE TO QUANTUM INFORMATION | ALAIN ASPECT

[@Fransamsterdam]

I am not a native English speaker, and si je dois parler en Français pour quinze minutes, je suis tres fatigué. His school-english is perfect for me and the sound is good. So many times it seems too difficult to record a human voice in a proper way at univesities in the 21st century. Great upload.

[@alexandraMathematica]

Thanks for the share ❤

[@IdeasinScience]

@alexandraMathematica A pleasure for @Ideas in Science! Thanks!

[@BarryKort]

In the case of modeling the orientation of the E-field of a photon, we have the not-so-hidden variable of Maxwell's Equations, where one can reckon the orientation of the E-field to be any specified value from 0° to 360° with a precision of as many decimal places as you like. But in applying Bell's Theorem to the case of measuring the orientation of the E-field, we have the strange requirement that the variable, λ, is only allowed to have one bit of precision. This is like saying that the experimenter is going to make a wild guess about the orientation of the E-field and then report that the "measured" angle is ±45° around the wild guess. That's a hell of a lot of uncertainty in the orientation of the E-field. That's not my idea of a realistic or useful hidden variable. More generally, if the presumptive hidden variable is time varying, then one also has to appreciate that for twin particles separated in space, one cannot use a single reference clock for both of them. Clocks are affected by gravity. Gravitational gradients suffice to ensure that the twin photons age at differential rates. Their Maxwellian functions are not precise mirror images of each other and when they are plugged into the mathematics of Bell's derivation, they do not algebraically cancel out. There would arise a residual non-zero "beat frequency" that does not vanish. What I conclude is that there could well be a "hidden variable" which is time varying and for which the twin photons age independently at their own idiosyncratic rates. In short, the not-so-hidden variable is time itself, and one has to reckon differential timekeeping for the twin particles as they speed apart from each other.

[@schmetterling4477]

Yes, you don't understand physics. So what? ;-)

[@yacc1706]

50:00 EPR didn't recognize as problem

[@naimulhaq9626]

Quantum entanglement is more than information, it exposes the hidden dimensions of reality, when strings make sense, when superconductivity of black holes provide huge spin, when Sean Hartnoff's liquid of quarks and gluons. The universe functions as a QC (Maldecena), enabling fine tuning of the parameter space.

[@yacc1706]

17:50 singlet state

[@D800Lover]

I wonder if Einstein came back, would he still insist that QM is "incomplete" and that EPR got it wrong and Bohr was right after all? One thing for sure, his friendship with Bohr was never in question.

[@BarryKort]

I reckon that Einstein would not only say QM is incomplete, he would also have exposed a glaring flaw in the derivation of Bell's Inequality.

[@schmetterling4477]

EPR didn't get it wrong. Einstein simply didn't like what he knew about quantum mechanics.

[@D800Lover]

@@schmetterling4477 - The irony is that Einstein was trying to do a Schrödinger of sorts in EPR. He pointed out something that to him was absurd if proven true. And then after he and Bohr passed away, you had guys like Bell (I don't think liked it either), then Clauser (definitely didn't like it) and finally Aspect (who embraced it and gave credit to Bohr, though not being able to prove it, that Bohr's intuition was proved right) and it now was accepted as true. So EPR was correct when it was supposed not to be by Einstein's counting. The exact same reason that Schrödinger came up with his wave equation, only to find it getting absorbed into QM. So we have a double-irony I suppose.

[@yacc1706]

12:45 nothing happened

[@mickaelb.3931]

Pfouuuuuu.... quel accent du père Aspect ! Dommage, quand même, que ce ne soit pas en français... parce que la problématique de l'intrication quantique en français, c'est déjà pas simple, mais en franglais, c'est pire que tout...

[@PeterPan-wq3kx]

No wonder this post has so few views. Not only the french accent is too heavy, he also speaks too fast. And the narrative is too "his own style of knowing things". It would have helped if he had a better communication skills, building the lecture with the listener at the center.

[@schmetterling4477]

If you are a physicist, like the people in the audience, then all of this is rather trivial stuff.