EPR Paradox: EASY Quantum Mechanics VISUALISED, Why Einstein HATED Spooky Action At A Distance

[@ParthGChannel]

Hey friends, thanks for watching this video! Please check out this video's sponsor, Skillshare, here - for a limited time, you can get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/parthg09201

[@81giorikas]

Doesn't measuring the particle's spin mean decoherence anyway? AND how exactly do they guarantee vacuum in the experiments?

[@skylineuk1485]

It should be noted that Albert was the one who noticed that quantum entanglement could occur due to quantum theory and also that he did not disagree with the theory but believed that there was something not probabilistic underpinning it (he believed it was “incomplete”. That is what bugged him). Also some models of quantum theory (many worlds etc.) do not oppose EPR. Personally I’m happier to think things are probabilistic as the alternative is we are just on a set course already planned out for us.

[@Jehannum2000]

At 9:29 I think your coefficients are off. (1/4)^2 is not 1/2. They should be sqrt(1/2).

[@Drytube]

he must be trying to show (1/4)^1/2 probably.

[@YossiSirote]

You are correct

[@ParthGChannel]

Yeah you're totally right - it should be 1/sqrt(2) - whoops

[@dhanashrikulkarni5878]

@@ParthGChannel Nice.....

[@dhanashrikulkarni5878]

Admitting your own mistake is a little difficult.....😅😅

[@NicolaiNita]

Funny title "Easy quantum mechanics..." 🤣

[@koushikchintalapudi8942]

I heard this word " EPR PARADOX " in the movie AVENGERS:END GAME Where Tony tells to Steve while giving him his shield before creating the quantum time machine Which explains why Lang turns a baby

[@sagaa4143]

Great stuff Parth. I want audiobooks in your voice now.

[@dhanashrikulkarni5878]

Totally bro...

[@rosarionapoli9765]

What about the second part? I couldn't find it!

[@dk6024]

"Yes, that guy, again." - S Hossenfelder

[@sunithasomalingam2668]

Einstein cartoon is Of Course humourous.. But your Hairstyle is better now..😎 Good Explanation.. Always Support ur Content 🙂

[@akshatnerella5995]

Hello Parth, Big fan of yours. You inspired me in having whole new approaches to science. I went into deep thoughts and I have several theories about the way Space-time works and the expansion of the universe involving Dark matter. The problem is that I don't know the math involved, since I am only a high school student. Also, I do not know how to publish a scientific paper. I was willing if you could listen to my theories and help me with the Math, if you think my assumptions are valid and consistent with science. I will be waiting to hear from you.

[@nicholaskryger-nelson7793]

hey, im interested in hearing your theories

[@rationallion9438]

Please create a series of videos called "We're Not Going To Go Into That Right Now" and go into those topics.... Spin up or Spin down would be a fantastic first video. Thanks!

[@riadhalrabeh3783]

The reason why spin entanglement is easier than others is because spin is more difficult to destroy by external interactions- hence the persistence of vortices in fluids for a very long time before being destroyed by external interactions or internal loss of energy by friction. regards.

[@aygunatesoglu1068]

@parth Thanks for the video, as simple as possible but not simpler )))

[@martinsanchez-hw4fi]

Thanks for your videos

[@riadhalrabeh3783]

There is a simple explanation to entanglement. It is conservation of momentum. It is impossible to move a mass to one direction without moving an equivalent to the opposite direction at the same time. This applies to everything as small as an electron and also to photons and at any distance across the universe. This is also the basis of the Mach principle of distant masses, which is entanglement. Any two entangled particles will remain so for ever till they meet other particles to entangle with and destroy/decohere the first or to be precise get superimposed on it. That is the whole universe is a superposition of pairs of entangled particles. Einstein locality is still preserved as energy can't travel instantaneously as it involves space and time variables and thus includes motion. So while you know the state of the entangled pair, changing this with time involves energy or radiation that can only move at the speed of light. regards.

[@siliconvalleyceo1059]

Yeah, your voice in an audio book will awesome

[@anmolsubba7394]

Will be fun to watch this

[@nathaliebopp6964]

Nice video. Bur where is the second part? I just can't find it, which ist very frustrating!

[@pg2116]

Heyyy parth Parth here🤣 I really believe that quantum mechanics is right😁😇

[@theartofmusic05]

I have watched your video before I go to school now and now I am going to school have a good day Parth Kisses from Cyprus

[@user-vg7zv5us5r]

7:10 "Well, it's just, like, your opinion man". Big Minkowski

[@dhanashrikulkarni5878]

You just explain complex things very nice! Just one complain-Post your videos atleast once in a week!!??

[@Wannabetolkien]

Hi Bro ! How are you? Why have you removed the “How to Cambridge “ playlist?

[@harshbhogal4439]

the videos are still there. :)

[@dColorOfBoom]

I recall a video about not measuring the speed of light one way. That it could be almost 3e8 m/s and instantaneous on the way back. What if entanglement fucks off the long part of the journey.

[@xbfotos]

In entangled particles, when we measure one particle that causes wave function to collapse, does that cause the other particle’s wave function to collapse too or we find the result after measuring it?

[@adamjondo]

Where's Part 2 (Bell's theorem') ?

[@dougaltolan3017]

Cliff hanger! Noooo!!! In 11 minutes this video has helped me more than anything else over the last several years. Then just as you were getting to my fundamental stumbling point...... "with all that being said, I'll finish up here" Noooo!!! ps Subscribed.

[@T0NYD1CK]

If spin is either up or down and no other situations are possible, does that mean we know which way up the universe is? That is, all the spin-up vectors point to the top of the universe and all the spin-down vectors point to the bottom.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, those among us who have not been drinking know where up and down are. :-)

[@KaliFissure]

With a classical fluid flow model entanglement is logical as the entire qm probability sphere is the actual physical system of a photon. A bubble, of membrane thickness the wavelength, which expands at c from collapse/implosion of electron orbital

[@KaliFissure]

It's just they worked out qm first and as inflow/outflow at the time had nowhere to come from/to it seemed to make no sense. Even though it is actually the logical extension of Heavyside equations

[@KaliFissure]

Maxwell applied to a medium with variable density and this variable permeability and permitivity relative to energy density

[@LyndaWilliamsSRJC]

Too many ads. dang. otherwise, love it. can't assign to my modern class with so many ads though.

[@harshbhogal4439]

"3 spooky 5 me" me: yes.

[@larrybecker6131]

I couldn't find the link to Part 2. Can someone provide the link? Thanks.

[@SachinKumar-de8nd]

So Do we know which one is the correct one ???

[@ChanakyanStudent7971]

Your content is awesome, I am Subscribing

[@kavitabani6340]

Hey parth, it would be really helpful if you also made a video in degrees of freedom following the thermodynamics videos.🙏🏻

[@Zeno2Day]

Good summary

[@lored6811]

Maybe set focus to a constant so it doesn't try to autofocus everytime?

[@schmetterling4477]

The quantum mechanical ensemble is still an ensemble. Superposition only tells us something about the ensemble. It does not tell us anything about the individual system. It just happens that the quantum mechanical ensemble does not behave like a classical ensemble would and there is no possible classical mechanism that can be substituted for it. One should not try to "blame" the individual system for that by assigning the ensemble's wave function to it. That's illogical.

[@dawoodnazamranjha646]

Why quantum mechanics was incomplete in term of EPR paradox? How we understand this mathematically🤔🤔

[@person1420]

How are experiments done on particles to find the data? What happens when we measure both the particles spins at the same time, in this case which measurement causes the collapse of the wavefunction?

[@schmetterling4477]

There is no such a thing as "same time" in a relativistic universe. Synchronicity is observer dependent. You can not understand what is going in here by trying to pretend that the system is non-relativistic. It isn't.

[@pmrMountaineer]

Would be better to increase a part of the screen where a topic is described.

[@prashanthramg9005]

9:56 - if the measurement axis is orthogonal to spin direction, measurement device can't detect anything. Only if the alignment is just a bit less than 90, it would say spin-up and if it's little over 90, it would say spin-down. There's nothing strange about 50:50. Strangeness are the 2 facts (i) when you measure along an axis, spin direction aligns to that (ii) corresponding entangled electron which is not subject to measurement aligns similarly

[@lepidoptera9337]

That is not true. If the measurement axis is orthogonal to the spin direction then the spin statistics is 50-50, even for a spin state that is pure in another direction.

[@prashanthramg9005]

@@lepidoptera9337 Why should the spin direction change due to imperceivable field since measurement is in orthogonal direction !! hmm that can only be due to imprecise orthogonality through the length of measuring device.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@prashanthramg9005 I don't know what "imperceptible field" you are talking about. There is a strong magnetic field gradient in e.g. a Stern-Gerlach experiment. That is hardly "imperceptible". Every "measurement device" is a very concrete physical system. It's not some abstract flimsy, non-important concept. The detectors at CERN are weighing 7,000 tons (ATLAS) and 14,000 tons (CMS) respectively. That is hardly "flimsy".

[@prashanthramg9005]

​@@lepidoptera9337 Is dia of the electron beam coming out of SG as narrow as electron dia?? or dia of the beam should remain constant if passed through cascaded SG (all in similar up-down orientation). And then magnetic lines can't be perfect straight lines too (mag dipole).

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@prashanthramg9005 Just to be exact (most of the information on the internet is wrong about this), a Stern-Gerlach is not being done with electrons. They are charged and would get deflected very strongly in the fields due to their charge, which would completely swamp the spin detection. The original experiment was done with neutral silver atoms if I remember correctly. There is no need to have "beams". All of this can be done with single quanta. Single electrons can be easily detected with a scintillator or MCP. No need for "beams". Single atoms can also be detected with a bit more work.

[@lakshthaker6379]

Love your videos

[@chrisreay5799]

So I’m a sophomore in highschool and I just recently found an interest in physics, I didn’t really do very well in math in the last years, is there still hope for me if I wanted to peruse physics in college

[@Hyumanity]

Yes. I'm almost 30 and I'm trying to pursue physics, if not I will regret, and I don't want to regret.. xD

[@stevekru6518]

I wanted to a tennis pro but at 6 feet tall I weighed 220. Tennis became easier when dropped below 190. Physics with poor math skills is like being an obese tennis player, but just a BMI can drop from 30 to 24, you can become proficient in math. Good luck.

[@wilsongomes3360]

Very good.

[@dendanedjalil2436]

zero dislike i think the first one would from Einstein from the parallel universe

[@christianlibertarian5488]

I gotta say, I am still stuck in Einstein’s camp. I have heard many, many explanations of the double slit experiment and the collapse of the wave function. Unfortunately for me, I can’t do the underlying math anymore. But it still appears to me that Schrodinger’s equation is a map, not anything more. Laying two maps on top of one another but offset gives a wave pattern, or really a Moire effect. But it gives the effect on the maps, not the actual roads. The wave function doesn’t collapse. The measurement is just a special case of the function. But I’m not good at this crap anymore. So how am I (and Einstein) wrong?

[@lepidoptera9337]

The problem is not the math. The problem is that most people have never done quantum experiments. Without understanding what it is that we are actually observing it's very hard to make sense of the formalism. So what are we observing? We are always observing quanta of energy, momentum, angular momentum and charge. The individual quantum doesn't carry any relevant physical information. Only frequentist histograms of these quanta tell us something about our physical systems. So while the actual physical measurement is always ONE quantum at a time, what the theory calls "measurement" is actually one of these histograms, or better, the law of large numbers extrapolation into a probability distribution. So, no, there is no collapse of the wave function. The probability distributions are always the same, no matter what outcome an individual physical measurement has. That's no different from the case of dice.

[@mirogasparic7959]

Why don't we use quantum entanglement for long range communication?

[@QuicksilverSG]

Parth commits the same sin of omission that many physicists in the Copenhagen camp have made. Though he initially characterises Einstein's EPR thought experiment as a local realism theory, at the end he omits the local aspect of the hidden variables on which it is based. In doing so, Parth leaves us with the implication that all hidden variable theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics. To avoid misleading his viewers, Parth should have made it clear that it is only LOCAL hidden variable theories that are ruled out, as demonstrated by experimental confirmation of Bell's Theorem. It was not hidden variables alone that invalidated Einstein's proposal, but rather the combination of locality and realism.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, you can not rule out that the entire observable universe is responsible for each quantum outcome. Nor do you have to. It follows trivially from special relativity. So what, though? So nothing. It's not a physically useful statement. We can simply not know the entire past state of the entire past universe. And even that is not enough, by the way, because the measurement outcome also depends on the entire future state of the universe within the forward light cone of the local observer. Unless you can tell me how you can predict the entire future state of the universe we are done here. ;-)

[@josephh891]

Well Bell's theorem showed that the local hidden variable idea was not correct and the quantum interpretation was. Have you done a video on Bell's theorem? You would need that to complete this video.

[@agnivbanerjee3848]

Quantum Mechanics made easy!!!!! And as always awesome video, loved it👍👍

[@alonshoval6267]

Oh yeah!

[@Nnamdi-wi2nu]

Is it that the both particles will have to be brought together first then separated before the entanglement will occur. Does other particles in the cosmos exhibit this properties.

[@asimkhan5629]

When will the second part come ???

[@arjunsinha4015]

Conclusion: We are still far from time travel.

[@chinesevirus7139]

see bro according to vedas and upnashidas time is a stubborn illusion, there is nothing live time travel, past present and future are all in the same box so its nothing like travel instead all three are with you all the time the only thing is that you can't understand it cause we never foccused, if you want more i can explain to you

[@blindmoonbeaver1658]

@@chinesevirus7139 I am kind of interested will you enlighten me?

[@hambarad]

I thought it was about EPR and Paradox the Rapper. 😂

[@itzeditz7299]

Ok so I’m a 9th grade high school dropout who it fascinated by quantum physics and want to learn about them and study them, is there anything I should learn before I jump into that not knowing anything?

[@mathguy770]

If you just want to understand the concepts vaguely and remember the rules I suggest you understand atleast upto Cal 2. with Cal 1. and differential equations clearly understood, watch youtube videos and read some pop science books on the topics. Then Cal 3. would also be really helpful as we live in three dimensions so Multivariate Cal. is really necessary. If you want to be a little bit more technical then try to understand all of the other topics in physics first (cal. based ofcourse) dont worry about general relativity and try to atleast do some special relativ. because most undergrad quantum dont involve special relativity. Try to really understand classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics and EM. Classical mechanics and stats. mechanics are the hardest I think because for classical mechanics it is technically newtonian physics but like super hard and stats. mechanics is just brutal. EM is also hard but I think you would be fine. Anyways it is better to go to university to study it because there is no way you can study the subject with just Cal 2. Peace!

[@andrew7955]

You should try going to university (if you're old enough). I don't know what country you're from and how it works there, but in Australia you can get a diploma of science for prerequisites, then enrol in a bachelor of science and major in physics

[@kirans1]

Quantum theory is the most successful theory in whole of physics. It doesn't matter who hates/likes quantum theory, what matters is "everytime einstein challenged quantum theory, the quantum theory won with flying colors.. be it uncertainty principle, entanglement, epr, spooky action, delayed choice expt, quantum eraser, or whatever.." There is no experiment/proof done that suggests quantum theory is inaccurate/incomplete. On comparison general relativity is more incomplete than Quantum Theory.. relativity fails at singularity. Equivalence principle doesnt quite work well in case of three star systems. There are chances Dark matter may prove gr incomplete.

[@physicsforever4793]

Hello sir we want to invite you to a virtual conference. How to contact you?

[@ILsupereroe67]

Where is part 2??

[@nissimhadar]

(1/4)^2 = 1/2?

[@BarryKort]

The magnetic moment of an electron has a mean direction plus a time-varying perturbation (Larmor Precession) the phase of which is generally unknown. What's even worse is the local conditions (e.g. the local magnetic field and the local gravitational field) affect this perturbation. Timekeeping is local. If one proposes to take the instantaneous phase into account, one must employ a gravitational path integral to account for "proper time." Bell overlooked this crucial detail, which is why he came up with a result that did not agree with laboratory experiments.

[@ashheralikhan]

At 11:22 how can (1/4)²=1/2???

[@Arseniy_Arseniy]

10:34 Maybe the coefficients at the terms should be (1/2)^0,5 ? Then the square of these quantities will be equal to 1/2 PS What is the name of the second part of the video ?

[@jojolecce]

I think so

[@Arseniy_Arseniy]

@@jojolecce i have founf a comment below that it's correct

[@sreedevipv8749]

nice video!!!!!!

[@numbersix8919]

EPR maintained that quantum theory is incomplete and that is all. It was incomplete and it remains incomplete. Wherein, therefore, was Einstein wrong? In what sense was he wrong?

[@lepidoptera9337]

If you look at the actual paper, then you will notice that the author's definition of completeness is wrong. One can not arrive at correct conclusions if the premises are false, already.

[@numbersix8919]

@lepidoptera9337 How id it wrong? Can you 'splain it yourself?

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@numbersix8919 The paper contains the following "definition" of completeness: "Whatever the meaning assigned to the term complete, the following requirement for a complete theory seems to be a necessary one: every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory. We shall call this the condition of completeness." Every element of physical reality has a counterpart in the Copenhagen interpretation. The problem is that the theory has an element called the "wave function" that does not have a counterpart in physical reality. THAT is what throws most people off. So the authors of EPR failed to even understand what it was that they didn't agree with and they formulated their criterion in the exact opposite way in which it should have been formulated in order for it to pose a rational analysis.

[@numbersix8919]

@@lepidoptera9337 Thanks, that's very helpful. I'd say that, if I understand correctly, the question of completeness would depend on the reality of the wave function. That's it for me. If you'd like, I wouldn't mind hearing how to better define completeness and approach the problem (if there is a problem).

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@numbersix8919 There is no problem. Quantum mechanics is complete. It's just not like classical mechanics. God never promised that it had to be.

[@PrivateSi]

Entanglement is an AC flux tube.. -ve subspace gas and cells move in contrary motion on the spot in sync. If the connection is cut, the whole tube stops vibrating in the same or next instant, locking phase or spin. Photon entanglement may be a subtle field warp, rather than a blipping flux tube.. This is how it has to be given the (logical) premise of The Positronic Universe. -- Bottom-up Thought Experiment.. Constraints: As few base forces + particles as possible to form a coherent, integrated 4D multi/universe model Subspace Field: Positive cells (hard ball, quanta, +1) bound by displaceable negative gas. Matter-energy field conserves momentum -- Positron/Up Quark/Graviton (p+): Free, mobile out of place cell warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres at C + 6 DC spin loops Electron/Down Quark (e-): Hole left behind warps the field, radiating AC field cell vibration 'blip' spheres of opposite phase at C + 6 DC spin loops -- Nucleons: Proton: P=pep.. Neutron: N=P_e=pep_e.. Beta-: N-e>>P,e.. Beta+: P+e_p>>N,p.. Alpha: A=PNPN=PeP_PeP=(pep_e_pep)_(pep_e_pep) Particle Zoo: Forward-back cell blips warp and move through the field (Neutrinos?).. Unstable sprays of free cells entangled with -ve holes -- Electrostatic Force: Recoiling blip spheres propagate. Opposite direction + and - blips form a vibrating, neutral AC flux tube. Same sign = phase repel Instant-Off Long Force: Electrostatic flux tube as thin as 1 cell wide. Each cell and its -ve gas move in contrary motion (AC). Low (no?) mass -- Mass Spin Force: e-s and p+s pull in 12 surrounding cells, that bounce out, stabilising as a torus of 6 in/out DC spin loops with mass Strong Mass Spin Force: Strong Neutralisation forms more and longer spin loops merging as DC circuits between e-s and p+s -- Dark Gravity: Void cell gap grows/matter's shrinks as 1 quantum of -ve gas flows straight to each p+ centre, collides and spirals out randomly Magnetism: Spin-aligned atoms funnel some gravitational -ve gas as DC circuits with AC cell blips in the direction of flow -- Left Hand Rule: AC blips, flux tubes and DC circuits cause lateral AC compression-decompression field warp vibrations Weak Force: Geometric structural charge balance instability. Random particle and photon collisions statistically tipping the balance -- Photon: Rapid electron movement compresses the field, forming a +ve pure force energy ball that warps the field as it moves. Field warps diffract Double Slit: Laser light / particle centre's preceding, extended subspace distortion diffracts, interferes, forming wave guides observation destroys -- Time: Clocks are linked to spin loop length that grows in space and time as cell gap shrinks with gravity, C is constant and energy is conserved Phase Tick: Initial e_p pairs formed at once. p+p collisions form a same phase new e_p, combining as a proton + positron. Net result is a plasma field

[@HolidiumLabsTHUNDER]

AS THE GODFATHER OF QUANTUM MECHANICS EVERY SCIENTIST HATES APPLIED QUANTUM MECHANICS LIKE ME WHEN THEY FIND OUT I MONETIZED IT

[@dionisiaevadionisia405]

BISA TIDAK BERUBAH

[@vatsan2483]

Hi parth.. loved this one.. and hope Einstein was wrong atleast here.. just kidding.. i know where this is heading towards though..

[@vidya014]

Its better use "state", rather thah spin.

[@lepidoptera9337]

That's the exactly wrong approach to learn quantum mechanics. There are no "states" in nature. In nature we can only find energy, momentum, angular momentum and charges. It's exactly the over-generalization to the word "state" that throws most people into an intellectual crisis. If you stick to physically measurable observables, then quantum mechanics is a lot easier to understand.

[@epicscienceguy6833]

Thanks so much parth love your videos and could you plz heart my comment coz im early for the first time ! n tnx again

[@williamblake7386]

entangled particles=a magnet spin up=north pole spin down=south pole 50% probability, other pole is always the opposite, no spooky actions, very simple to understand.

[@beyourself661]

'm mmor

[@lepidoptera9337]

Wrong visualization. Light never behaves like particles. Nothing does.

[@dionisiaevadionisia405]

KNP Senin ke Selasa 2 Day

[@chinesevirus7139]

A lot has been written about quantum physics in vedas and upnashidas you can give it a try

[@dionisiaevadionisia405]

BISA BANGKRUT GW TIDAK BUAT BANGKRUT

[@ricardodelzealandia6290]

Autofocus!!!

[@myothersoul1953]

Quantum Mechanics inability to predict a measurement doesn't mean the universe isn't deterministic, it means QM fails at making a prediction.

[@zainkhalid5740]

👍👍👍👍

[@dionisiaevadionisia405]

BISA BALAS DENDAM GW TIDAK NGAJAR BALAS GW TIDAK NGAJAR GOSIP GW TIDAK NGAJAR TAWURAN GW TIDAK NGAJAR DEMO GW TIDAK NGAJAR BUNUH GW TIDAK NGAJAR KABUR FROM GOSIP PENGAP BANGET banget GW TIDAK NGAJAR BERUBAH BEBAN

[@user_375a82]

Sorry doesn't explain it at all - he must know this! It kinda fades out of a logical great sequence of sentences to fairy-land at 10.23. This is typical in these type of videos - lol. Apols for being rude, I'm merely looking for truth.

[@schmetterling4477]

A paradox, by the way, is just a fancy name for poor thinking. :-)

[@anjana8002]

:-)

[@dionisiaevadionisia405]

LAPAR HAUS BANGET banget KABUR FROM GOSIP PENGAP BANGET banget

[@dionisiaevadionisia405]

MUNAFIK adalah

[@dionisiaevadionisia405]

MELAMUN TULI BUDEK BIKIN GOSIP MASALAH BIKIN GOSIP MASALAH dalam NOVEL BUKU

[@peterladetto708]

There is nothing but evidence for the innate intelligence. That's why the universe works. According to you the infinite Harmony and perfection of the universe is achieved by dumb luck and random chance. Nonsense.

[@hectordanielazcona5689]

Criticas respecto de las desigualdades tipo Bell: drive.google.com/file/d/1RZXH80dwbCBcYiU5UbGhcV6zKvsj91K1/view?usp=share_link

[@Universko]

👍👍👍👍