Quantum Entanglement, Bell Inequality, EPR paradox

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

To see subtitles in other languages: Click on the gear symbol under the video, then click on "subtitles." Then select the language (You may need to scroll up and down to see all the languages available). --To change subtitle appearance: Scroll to the top of the language selection window and click "options." In the options window you can, for example, choose a different font color and background color, and set the "background opacity" to 100% to help make the subtitles more readable. --To turn the subtitles "on" or "off" altogether: Click the "CC" button under the video. --If you believe that the translation in the subtitles can be improved, please send me an email.

[@Torterra_ghahhyhiHd]

theory alternative to biblical theology and sciences explanations: the purpose of the spirit through manifestation that takes on reality it's to create a soul and the soul makes a (key) that (key) let one travel on the map of the absolute everything the process call justice (map and path to change to a better form of space time). spirits move and make that quantum fluctuations that is related to philosophical meaning of existences change or interact in a more complex compresión of info. in the meaning full world different than a just manifestation world the meaningful world it's above the light speed. the world of the essentials its the world of the always have been regarless of the time line, there for is the lesson over the relation of many histories of the been. the speed of information always have been the true on a higher dimension where the light wrap up it, the light are the space where those spirit inhabit. the mind have the particularity to have a potencial to escape entropy so we sincro meaning with some on this spirit(essences of some true about any being) that's how mind travel though karma. and not every things it's meaning less fill up of paradox like rick and morti cartoons. there are 2 paths.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Well done again! My compliments. It still leaves that unpleasant feeling that, although we can see and describe what is happening, we do not really understand anything about it.

[@Tasermaxx]

I still don't understand it. And now I'm craving watermelon.

[@kevinpotts123]

ha! I was thinking the same thing. Then I wondered if my watermelon had blue seeds, would yours also have blue seeds, even if from certain perspectives, you ate your watermelon first?

[@DudeWhoSaysDeez]

im glad im not the only one

[@msgcheckout]

See if I can explain it in a laymans terms, say you and your work mate were suppose to be on a guard duty, where one of you has to take a compulsory rest so that when your work mate feels tired you take over, so that your boss has a 24 hrs guard over his Gold bullion, so whenever your boss comes in, he always finds that one of you is always on guard and the other one is taking his rest, he will become angry if both of you were taking a rest and leaving the gold bullion unguarded, or that if both of you were fully awake guarding the gold bullion, again the boss won't be happy as he only knows that if you were both awake and guarding then it is likely that you both will feel tired together and go to rest leaving the Gold bullion unguarded. So what do you do when any one of you hears the boss coming in, the first guard who hears the boss will tell the other workmate to quickly fall asleep before the boss catches them both awake, so whenever the boss comes in he always finds 100% of the time that one of his guards is always resting and one of them is always watching, but what boss doesn't know is who will be on guard, so he finds that it is either Harry or Tom 50% of the time, but if Boss comes in more frequently he might find that Tom is on guard 83% of the time, and if he comes 12 hours late, he finds that Harry is on guard 83% of the time. So what we learn from this quantum experiment is that we are the boss, (observer) and quantum particles are our workers, where one must take a rest and the other watching, so if boss comes in creeping, and Harry or Tom don't hear him coming in, the Boss might find both sleeping or both awake 15% of the time. the Boss won't be happy and to him it would be illogical as he did not expect them both sleep or both awake. Quantum bits are clever little bastards, they know when you are watching them, how do they know that you are, they do know when the light is present (electromagnetic waves) because any detector or observer needs light to see matter or particles, without light they don't care if they are both awake or both sleeping because they know when boss comes in and he can't see them without light if it was jet black darkness. So when boss switches light on, both knows that one of them must awake up and the other should remain sleep, but often they panic and are both caught sleeping or awake, about 15% of the time.

[@birricforcella5459]

Now I'm really confused . . .

[@vamps1385]

I think your close to something when you say 'light'..the heat from the friction of these particles also can be a factor...One thing that makes this a sort of an unnatural observation is ,the particle accelerator they use to diagnos this impact uses magnetic to keep the particle in an arc as the go around the colliders tubes, this I believe is giving the particles and magnetic property or charges poles...and these poles are flipping.(inaccurate experiment)

[@ceceliapassarella8485]

I'm not a scientist or a mathematician but I enjoy these videos because they require imagination to visualize a theory that is abstract this is eminently attractive to my curiosity's about how things work and why

[@raphaelfrey9061]

I think students need a visualisation

[@89vette1]

If the message is instant, is it really traveling?

[@tadeushogenelst7537]

correlation

[@maff5002]

No

[@DavidG2P]

@@tadeushogenelst7537 please explain! What's the difference between correlation and hidden variables?

[@MeWrecks]

Are you trying to break people's brains? ;)

[@naturegirl1999]

It’s us using predictions, instantaneous travel isn’t needed. That’s like saying that if you know that a coin is heads and the other coin has to be tails, the coin with heads sends a message to the other coin telling it to be tails. This doesn’t happen. We know that they are different. Similarly, each particle contains 3 properties, 2 of which cannot be measured simultaneously in the same particle. If we know the particles are entangled, we can use the properties of one particle to predict the properties of the other particle. It seems that 2/3 properties can be the same, but no particle can share the exact same set of properties. Knowing this, we can deduce the properties of the particles. There needn’t be FTL travel to explain this

[@zeycus]

I find the presentation of the paradox too slow (but clear!), and the claimed "logical resolution" too fast and vague.

[@KhalilEstell]

I usually speed up their videos.

[@chrisl4999]

Kind of like when a charlatan is trying to pull one over in you.

[@alepel792]

I love what you create Eugene. Keep it up and I'm sure you'll earn the audience you deserve.

[@Joshua-fr9fi]

Well? Did it happen?

[@alepel792]

@@Joshua-fr9fi they really went from like 10k subs when I posted this to almost 1mil!

[@Joshua-fr9fi]

@@alepel792 that's good! They're great videos

[@Museko]

Very interesting, I finally understand what we don't understand.

[@thomassouthern807]

Another explanation could be that the two measurements happen at the same moment from the perspective of the entangled system. Remember, to even notice this, we have to being the measurements together "no faster than causality allows". In other words, we are not looking at messages nor are we looking at time travel of messages. Rather this is about how time is formed from entanglement of mass particle systems. We have six entangled photon experiments that basically tell us all we can currently know about how this works. 1. Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment 2. Photons entangled in time experiment 3. No definite causal order of a photon in a quantum gate experiment 4. Toy universe time experiment 5. Time is continuous toy universe experiment 6. No objective quantum reality experiment But that is not all. See, it is all about the fact that even decohered entanglement information can always be recovered if the information is relevant between two subsystems. That is the main point of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. This information being recoverable means that the idea of entanglement history or entanglement entropy or entanglement bulk has reality. Now, if you remember maxwell's demon from this same series, then you know the solution is in the brain of the demon which holds the missing entropy. Well, guess what? That entanglement bulk might as well be the demons brain. Anyways, I love these videos dearly even though I very much disagree with the solution to the paradox in this case.

[@omfgacceptmyname]

entanglement is in the sentience and reality collapses once one observes/chooses/does? all of our observed realities are crashing against each other as wavefunctions

[@M.athematech]

Instantaneous messaging is not the majority view of what is occurring. What Bell failed to mention (or which he and other physicists are unaware of) is that his inequalities are just George Boole's inequalities for checking if data is being modeled correctly by random variables - if the data violates the inequalities it means your variables are chosen inconsistently. The obvious flaw in this case is the ignoring of the fact that the X, Y and D are not properties solely of the particles in the pair but of the combination of particles and detector configuration. The particles are not little balls but a phenomenon spread over space as represented by the wave function, including the region of space connecting the detectors and the wave function is altered by alteration of detector configuration. Even in delayed choice experiments alteration of the wave function occurs within relativistic constraints.

[@IronLotus15]

Is what you're talking about basically superdeterminism?

[@M.athematech]

@@IronLotus15 Nope not at all. Superdeterminism is a fancy way of saying "conspiracy of nature" and that is just as whacky as instaneous messaging. What I am talking about is incompatibility of observables which leads to different probability spaces. Bell's inequality and similar no-go theorems all somewhere in their aguments are assuming that all observables involved are random variables defined on a common joint probability space - but that simply isn't the case. The probability spaces depend on the experimental configuration.

[@varunnrao3276]

Thank you so much, as person who has struggled to understand the entanglement and Bell's experiment, I see how carefully you proceed to explain the difference between classical prediction and quantum prediction. Then instead of straightway introducing the actual Bell's experiment, you introduce a variant which is easy to understand where there is 100% agreement between diagonal and X/Y axis. This made all the way easier for me to understand when eventually there is the actual 85% agreement. Initially the spin of the entanglement particles are also kept same instead of being opposite, to avoid any confusion. This extreme detailing and super care in the method of teaching in this video is amazing. I clearly understood why Bell experiment implies either communication between the particles or super determinism. Thank you so much.

[@amaterasu1211]

What do get? I'm struggling and I'm leaning to the side that there's a wrong assumption in the experiment. Let's say we have 2 photons that we know have the same polarization but that is random, then we throw a polarizer at a random orientation along their paths and see if the polarizer emits a photon at the end (it doesn't let it through, it spits a new one aligned to it's polarization), so we find that if they polairzers are perfectly aligned they'll agree 100% in their predictions, also they'll disagree 100% of the time if they're perpendicular to each other, and there's the cos^2 x relationship which included the 0 and the 90 degrees. Let's talk more about polarizers, we know that if a randomly polarized photon goes through a polarizer, it will make it through 50% of the time, this can be proven by passing unpolarized light through a polarizer, 50% of the intensity will make it through by means of new polarized photons emitted. So we would expect that any random light has a 50/50 through any polarizer. Oddly enough though, when we have a twin state photon, we know that there's a relationship between the 2 photons, they'll share polarization, meaning, if we have 2 randomly aligned polarizers, we'd expect each to be a 50/50 but we find that if one yields a result the other follows the polarizer equation for intensity yield in respect to it. Here's where my issue is. Why do we get 100% correlation when the filters are aligned when we know that is very unlikely that we just randomly picked the actual polarization of the photons? The answer floating around says that the state of both photons get defined by observing one. That seems to me like we're jumping off a logic cliff for no reason. It makes more sense to me to say that this is the first time we have ever been able to test passing the "same" photon through a random polarizer and that we found out that that same photon would always cause an emission at any point where it does, essentially if we shoot the same photon through the same polarizer (impossible to test without twins, i think) we'll always get teh same result, not a different result each test, therefore proving that it was defined that it would cause an emission through that orientation or not. Therefore, I think that we're assuming polarizers act a certain way but they don't and we're assuming that twins don't have predefined things that will say how they would cause that dielectric to act but the experiment actually shows that it does, since sending the "same" photon through the same setup, always has the same result.

[@multicrogamer]

@@amaterasu1211 Would this imply that there are more parametrs which are used to describe photons. Something we cannot actually define yet or measure. It seems that photons you described differ to each other and that is reason why they pass or not. Not just spin but something else which actually crushes probability and makes it deterministic?

[@QuicksilverSG]

The point at which the spin of the entangled particles is determined is when the wave-function of the measurement device becomes entangled with the wave-function of the particles. It doesn't matter which particle is measured because both entangled particles share the same wave-function. The crucial point to understand is that these wave-functions don't manifest in physical space-time, they propagate instantaneously throughout Configuration Space, a complex-valued domain of potentially limitless numbers of dimensions where the wave-function is defined. No information is transmitted between particles in physical space-time, all entangled particle properties derive from their entanglement with the measurement device. What we observe in relativistic space-time is the quantum mechanical projection of events that evolve deterministically in Configuration Space.

[@Krishnajha20101]

Who is here after the Nobel in 2022? It was awarded to Clauser, Aspect and Zelinger for doing the experiments for Bell’s inequality.

[@BarryKort]

In the derivation of Bell's Inequality, he posits a presumptive hidden variable, λ(x,t). One member of the twin particles has a position +x at time t, while the twin has a position -x at time t. But note that Bell blithely adopts a common master clock, t, so that λ(x,t) can be algebraically canceled out by λ(-x,t), regardless of the function λ(•). If you appreciate that a gravitational gradient perturbs timekeeping so that the particles speeding off in opposite directions age at their own idiosyncratic rates, then one can no longer algebraically cancel out λ. The derivation of Bell's Inequality breaks down; the presumptive hidden variable λ(x,t) remains present. Indeed one can say the hidden variable is time itself. That is, in reality, each particle ages according to its own local clock, rather than being governed by a common master clock. In Aspect's experiment, λ(x,t) could be Maxwell's Equation for the photon, or (equivalently) Feynman's rotating vectors. But recall that photons traversing a gravitational gradient gain or lose energy and thus change their wavelength (or color) accordingly. The two photons are thus represented by sinusoids which are not perfect mirrors of each other and thus cannot be algebraically canceled out. They will have a residual nonzero "beat frequency" which remains present, thus spoiling Bell's convenient cancellation of λ(x,t) midway through his derivation. That's why Bell's Inequality doesn't hold in the real cosmos where there is no universal master clock that keeps identical time everywhere and everywhen. The not-so-hidden variable is time, itself.

[@josephcoon5809]

When you say “local click,” you seem to imply how each perceived tune from their own frame of reference. Any object within its own grimace of reference perceives local time and space the same as any other object in their own frame of reference perceives local time and space. For instance, one partial carrying a pocket watch will see a second tick by just as fast as any other particle will see seconds tick by on their own watches. However, how those clocks tick from the other’s perspective will be different than how their perceive their own respective clocks. This means, any time dilation perceived has to come from the passage of time observed within another frame of reference: non-local. My problem with these experiments is how light is treated as a particle when it’s actually a spherical wavefront in the electromagnetic field. That wavefront will travel in all directions so that the peak of the wave on one side of the sphere will be peak on the opposite side of the sphere as well as everywhere else on that sphere. Acting like photons a re point-like particles is merely a shortcut to deal with the interference patterns resulting from multiple vibrating ions.

[@electrikhan7190]

So if you could buffer the background gravity to a calm equality everywhere then perfectly symmetrically perform this experiment what feedback would it create within itself. Would the gravitational disturbance of the initial particle send fluctuations ahead of itself to the detectors before it even splits and effect its own results? If the universe is destined for the heat death then all gravitational gradients would be gone and all time would flow at the same rate for everything everywhere.

[@BarryKort]

@@electrikhan7190 ~ Here on the surface of the earth, one has the tidal forces due to the sun and the moon, yielding gravitational gradients all over the place. To eliminate gravitational gradients, one would have to set up a Bell Test Experiment in orbit, where the environment is in free fall.

[@52flyingbicycles]

But don’t we know how fast each particle ages due to knowing how fast they are going? They are also traveling at presumably the same speed just in opposite directions.

[@BarryKort]

Photons travel at the speed of light in all directions, but their oscillating E-M fields oscillate at distinct frequencies, depending on the strength of the local gravitational field along their axis of motion. Any gravitational gradient along that axis causes them to drift out of phase-locked synchrony.

[@Cosmalano]

Hooray for more quantum videos

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+electrocat1, and more are on their way.

[@Gregorovitch144]

Great explanation of quantum entanglement thing. I do find the final conclusion somewhat unconvincing though. It sounds like a sticking plaster covering cracks in relativity to me. This is because of the arbitrary definition of "information" as a message in which the contents are actually known (or can be set) at the point of sending and can therefore have "meaning" to human beings. Therefore the argument rests on the idea that "information" is fundamentally different to "data" and I find that unsatisfactory and unconvincing - you could argue "information" was a special subclass of "data" where that data has a tangible or specific meaning to *us* (which has the whiff of anthropomorphism about it to me) but not that it was a fundamentally different thing. "Meaning" to which observer in what context?

[@locutusdborg126]

+1234gregor If you know how the second particle will spin based on your measurement of the first particle, it is not information because it is not new, you already know how the second particle will react. This is why you can't use entanglement to send information.

[@Tensquaremetreworkshop]

But if you do, of do not, measure a quantum value the other particle quantum function will collapse. So, the other particle will, or will not, show interference patterns. This transmits information.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

Why does the other particle show interference patterns? I don't even think one particle can ever do that, you have to like in the 2-slit experiment shoot a bunch of particles and see their overall pattern.

[@Jaroen66]

Information is just any signal that can 'cause' some interaction somewhere else. The speed of light is the speed of causation. So signals going beyond the speed of light, or instantaneously, cannot be part of the causal chain of events. This is another way of looking at 'information', as signals capable of causation. This is completely independent of the human perspective.

[@plasmaballin]

The reason it is still compatible with the theory of relativity is that it doesn't allow for any violations of causality. The information being sent back is random, so nothing can be encoded in it based on future events to cause something to happen in the past. Furthermore, the information sent doesn't allow any observer to actually know that any information was sent, since the result still seems random to them until they communicate with the person who measured the other particle, and communication with that person can't happen faster than light.

[@bloggervista]

The most longest and the most best and informative video :) really i wonder how much hard is to make such a good videos :)

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+Shirshak Bajgain, thanks for the compliment on my video.

[@MartinBuzon]

Its seems that the probabilities of an opposite spin it is given by sin(90º) for "Y" which is 50% possitive or 50% negative. To find probabilities on a diferent angle we just have to pick an angle for a sine wave due to sin(45º) is 0,70 (70)% chance as quantum physics tell us. I chose the golden relation of angles which is 137,5º (degrees), or 42,5º. Then the probabilities of D(42,5º) X and Y to be opposite from each other are 67,5%. It would be REALLY INTERESTING to see the results in a graphic. For each value of golden degrees I got the probabilities which respect the golden ratio logic. Here they are: 2,5º = 4,3% Chances of DXY begin opposite 5º = 8,7% 7,5º = 13% 12,5º= 21,6% 32.5º = 53,7% 52,5º = 79,3% 85º = 99,6% 137º= 67,5% 222,5º= 67,5% 360º= 100% After that they start going backwards 67%,67%,99%,79% all the way until reaching the "0º"(or 360º or 115920º) of 100% chance, but considering the "incrementation" that fibonacci gave us it would be a total of 322 Cicles until reaching the 100% chance again, and incrementing over time.

[@Daniel-fv1ff]

Once again this channel seems to be the only one that can actually explain what's going on from first principles.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

I recently created a Patreon account for people who want to help support my channel. The link is on my KZbin home page. Also, in case, you have not already seen them, I uploaded several other videos recently. As always, for each video that you like, you can help more people find it in their KZbin search engine by clicking the like button, and writing a comment. Lots more videos are coming very soon. Thanks.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+Helper, yes I knew about Fan Funding, but I decided to use Patreon instead, as it seems to me that Patreon has a number of advantages, such as the fact that it can be used in any country, whereas Fan Funding only works in certain countries. Though, thanks for mentioning that option.

[@RiadhBoukratem]

+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky Your video is Beautiful, Thank you! In Quantum Mechanics, Why nothing can travel faster than speed of light? If logically the two photons in the opposite limits of the universe travelling with same acceleration, and if we calculate the speed of the point A relatively to the point B. The speed of point A will equal to the double of the speed light, Va = Vb = 2C. How Faster than speed of light backwards in time. How can the motion affect time, if time is the language of motion? But if the opposite what most controls the spin ( to be equal each other 50/100 of time/pairs, doesn't put the question of an anti-particle what might be missed in our expriments?

[@jeremiahwatson1611]

Are you willing to publish your transcripts along with your videos?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Jeremiah, the transcript is already written on the screen, so I am not sure what you are asking for.

[@-danR]

Riadh Boukratem QM doesn't address the velocity of light. That's a topic for Relativity. Anyway, velocity in relativity is only in terms of reference frames. An external reference frame doesn't go about measuring the velocity of two things and then add them together. That's completely irrelevant concept. If you want to measure and 'add' their velocities, you have to stand _on_ one or the other and the then find the relative velocities between the two. It will always be < c .

[@guillaumemartin6778]

You explain so good ! I hope you are a teacher now, and I hope your students will be one of those who will unify Quantum Mechanics and relativity !

[@Jopie65]

I think, this is the fundamental reason of why we can partly predict the near future. On this level, it means current events are entangled with future events. So what we 'measure' now predicts something about future measurements. Hence action/reaction is an emergent property of this phenomena

[@MrKmanthie]

I think it's nice how you have a kitty-cat as the "observer" in the animation, as opposed to some animated person, etc. Is that a nod to Schrodinger?

[@TOO_RAW]

Thats exactly what i thought when i first saw quantum kitty

[@Joshua-fr9fi]

Until you check if it can actually see, it's both observing and not observing

[@JIMJAMSC]

I would be happy if these mental giants could take a lunch break and figure out a mixture that could fill potholes and last a few decades rather than months. Surely if they can speculate on blackholes, entanglement etc, a solution for potholes could not take long.

[@BarryKort]

In the opening animation, the spin axis is depicted as a fixed direction in space. But suppose the spin axis is precessing around that mean direction. Then, the instantaneous spin direction is time-varying, with a mean direction that is fixed. Now, when the particle passes through the detector, the outcome will depend randomly on how much the orientation of the detector varies from the mean spin direction. Sometimes, the particle's instantaneous spin direction will lean beyond the 90° mark, thereby giving an otherwise unexpected measurement. Moreover, this notion of a time-varying hidden variable throws a monkey wrench into Bell's derivation. Where Bell comes to the point where his presumptive hidden variables perfectly cancel out, we now end up with a non-vanishing "beat frequency" due to the fact that time-keeping is not uniform for all locations in space. The violation of Bell's Inequality is to be expected for time-varying hidden variables, given that each particle is governed by its own idiosyncratic clock, rather than by a common universal clock that keeps the same time everywhere and everywhen in the cosmos.

[@marveloussoftware4914]

Its not "something is wrong with the rules of logic as we understand them." Its simply because some of our assumptions are wrong. Its amazing how humans seldom think they could be wrong. When most of the time when we find things to be illogical or weird its because our beliefs, interpretations or assumptions are wrong.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

in this case, the idea of locality would be the wrong assumption

[@user_375a82]

The reason you get a sine wave is that you cannot DETECT the particles spin without error. Its the inherent DETECTION error that makes it a sine wave.

[@addyad_yt]

I feel so sleepy because of the pace of the video and the soothing background piano music

[@kokopelli314]

Another way to look at this is to consider the way marbles, or particles are "pre-paired". That, in itself is a type of measurement.

[@PremVijayVelMani]

Double likes. Now I can understand EPR paradox without understanding the hidden variable of bell inequality. Actually I watched this when it was released but now again I watched to understand more deeply. I request for videos explaining different interpretations of quantum in more detail. Thank you.

[@RockerProf]

Besides being a fantastic explanation, the Chopin music in the background is beautiful.😁 Thank you.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliments. I am glad you liked my video.

[@zeycus]

Regarding the "logical paradox", the way I understand this (forgive my simplicity, I am a humble mathematician) is that having two particles that always return the same value for the same property, and being able to measure just one property of each particle, is logically equivalent to not having particle-pairs at all, and being able to measure two properties of any given particle. If there are no hidden variables, and property values are decided only when measured, then there is nothing paradoxical in having particles that when asked their X and D properties say they are equal 100%, the same when asked for Y and D, and however that is not true when asked for X and Y. For that matter, they could even always be different for X and Y. Kind of like whimsical people that if asked if they think that the Chicago Bulls are good, and later if they think the Lakers are good, will always say the same (yes/no), and the same if instead they had been asked about the Chicago Bulls and later the Pistons. But in same time if you had asked about the Bulls and the Pistons, would always get a different answer. Having people answering like that shows no logical contradiction, it would only if we assumed that when someone answers, is just disclosing information already "stored" in their brains.

[@Luisitococinero]

That information being disclosed is actually equivalent to having both states "red" and "blue" coexisting together before any measurement is made, and later on, while one of the particles is being measured, the other one is forced to be in a certain state.

[@wesjohnson6833]

Consider the follow truth table: 1. A, B,C 5. ~A, B, C 2. A, B, ~C 6, ~A, B, ~C 3. A, ~B, C 7 ~A, ~B, C 4. A, ~B, ~C 8. ~A, ~B, ~C A and not B equals lines 3 and 4. B and not C equals lines 2 and 6 A and not C equals lines 2 and 4 Set theory demands Sets 2 and 4 are equal or less than Sets 2,3,4,and 6. (All positive results). QM predicts in certain cases that Sets 2 and 4 are greater than sets 2,3,4,and 6. that is A and not C is GREATER than (A and not B) + (B and not C) That is the paradox. Quantum mechanics is not compatible with set theory without entanglment and non-locality. This is one version of Bell's Inequality.

[@zeycus]

Three years later I am disagreeing with myself, I think in my reasoning, when I said it is equivalent to having no particle-pairs, and measuring two properties, I was wrong. That ignores the distance between the two particles, therefore the need for non-locality. So, I may be more clever now, or more stupid, because I do see the paradox now. Mind boggling!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

You can help translate this video by adding subtitles in other languages. To add a translation, click on the following link: kzbin.info_video?v=v657Ylwh-_k&ref=share You will then be able to add translations for all the subtitles. You will also be able to provide a translation for the title of the video. Please remember to hit the submit button for both the title and for the subtitles, as they are submitted separately. Details about adding translations is available at support.google.com/youtube/answer/6054623?hl=en Thanks.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Maybe our sample size is just to small. Maybe it's this way now but not always.maybe we catch things in the random streak like flipping a coin 10 times and landing on heads all the time. Nothing we see is this we if we measured billion years ago or billion years in the future.

[@ammobake]

I'm currently reading Roger Penrose's book "Cycles of Time" and so far I highly recommend it. But consider this for a moment. You can't measure the spins of two particles at once and you can never predict with certainty what the particle spin will be until it is measured - at which point you will instantly know the spin of the other entangled particle (like the video illustrates). But might it be possible to measure the particle spin with a detector, then organize all left spinning particles in one area, all right spinning particles in the another - maintaining a constant observation of the particles so that the spins cannot change (in other words they would be in a detector the whole time). Now consider all those particles are entangled with particles on the other side of the galaxy. Would it then be possible to align the captured particles in sequence to send a digital message to the other side? (0 for left spin, 1 for right spin - as an example).

[@Boozley]

No You get Decoherence when another particle enters the detector, then that particle gets "decohered" by the next etc, etc

[@hotcrossbones]

I just love the narrator. Very nuanced.

[@PoliticalJohn]

+Richard Raymond LOL, I get it.

[@turbokungfu]

This is really great stuff! I'd love to see a video about Doppler radar and how detection is affected by frequency and PRF. These are great videos.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+turbokungfu, thanks for the compliment on my videos. I'll add Doppler radar to my list of topics for future videos. Thanks for the suggestion.

[@RalphDratman]

What emerges is that it is possible to "send messages backwards in time" as long as the effect of sending and receiving such messages is only to ensure that entangled events obey the laws of particle physics. It appears to us time-based creatures as though such fix-up changes are applied as the last step in the construction of an event script, which has to be created and adjusted outside of our system of time, to make sure everything adds up in the final tally. But everything that is surprising about quantum mechanics has this atemporal quality. It is intuitively obvious from the first that no sequence of events could ensure that energy is quantized, that photons are emitted when electrons jump from energy level to energy level, that spins can be measured only as up or down, and so forth. Einstein’s thought experiment simply pulls such events apart in time to make the puzzling atemporal quality of the effects more obvious.

[@K0wface]

In order to understand this, I need to watch/listen to each sentence 4-5 times... I love this kind of reasoning. Simple yet complex. Can't wait!

[@IronLotus15]

I still don't understand how you pull these videos out this fast! You must animate very quickly. I realize that some of these animations were previously made, but still man, impressive.

[@jonowack]

One question that came to mind while watching the ending, regarding having no control over what we detect: what if the red and blue states are oscillating before the initial detection? Perhaps oscillating with respect to time at a higher precision than we can measure. For example, one plank time it is red, the next plank time it is blue, etc. When we go to measure it, it would seem random, but is actually with respect to initial time0. If this were the case and we were capable of tracking which oscillation we were on, we would be able to send messages.

[@wesjohnson6833]

They are in a superposition of states all the time. The video just makes them look like they oscillate in a pattern.

[@alex92569]

@30:10 If some observers see reversed order of events for messages sent from A to B it does not mean that they gain the ability to "reverse time". When you see the flash of the lightning and only then hear the thunder it does not mean that you "reversed the time" It is only means that you are capable of observing the sequence of events in reversed order at some particular circumstances. But it gives you no means to affect those events for any other observer. You cannot change that event. It is only reversed in your frame of observation.

[@Luisitococinero]

That's true, but such observations shouldn't be possible because of c limit.

[@berekexer8158]

Can someone provide some kind of documentation, video or otherwise, on how these experiments are actually performed in such detail to be repeated instead of only theoretical? This is a major disconnect for those who do not have access.

[@mels9485]

Огромное спасибо за труд !

[@Miss__Understands]

The entanglement paradox arises because we commonly ignore time when calculating distances. Because the two particles are on the same null cone, the spacetime interval between them is zero (tthey have the same absolute location in 4D space). ► They are the SAME particle. They are in different places in 3D, but that's only part of the story. Because spacetime is pseudometric, objects can be in different 3D places at different times, as long as they stay on the null cone. That's because the interval equation describes a hyperbola: d² = x² + y² + z² - ct² You SUBTRACT the time distance (ct²) from the space distance to get the absolute distance (the spacetime interval). Elapsed time acts like "negative length." Two particles can be in the same 4D location and still be at different 3D locations as long as the space distance equals the elapsed since the particles were together (ct) at pair production. Then time and space distances cancel. This will be anywhere on the null cone, yet they can still be in different 3D locations. The paradox is an artifact of our insisting that we're not moving when we sit in a chair. ALL mass moves in the direction of future time (per Feynman). In fact, that's all mass IS: momentum in the direction of future time. So even sitting still in 3D, we are moving at c in 4D. The price we pay for believing we are stationary makes everything we observe appear smeared out in the time direction. That's why the null cone looks like a cone and not the point that it really is. This fact is also behind double slit. It becomes easy to see why light has a dual nature. It is a particle (a point) when it hits the screen, but at an earlier time in a different place, it appeared existed as a wave. Look at the standard illustration of light cones. Light is a particle where the two cones touch, and a wave everywhere else. It gets interesting when null cones of two events intersect. Because the moon is one light-second away, "you right now" and "the moon one second ago" exist in the same 4D (absolute) location. Gravity isn't emitted by the moon, it IS the moon, in the past. But you perceive it as a wave, just like the slits in double-slit. A whooooole lot of things become simple when you surrender and understand that: ► Elapsed time is negative distance. The interval metric equation says so, specifically and explicitly. ► We are hurtling through time at c.

[@wesjohnson6833]

Entanglement and the double slit work equally well with electrons and atoms, all not on the null cone.

[@hojoonjung6903]

This is the best explanation of Bell's Inequality and Quantum entanglement I've seen.....

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment about my explanation.

[@ahmadfodeh3413]

now i understand and dont understand both at the sametime, so without observers i cant make up my mind, but when someone asks me i instantaneously make up my mind that i don't understand it :)

[@rushunnhfernandes]

This is the best physics channel on KZbin.... Thanks a lot 🙏.. Btw what the name of the music at 19:33

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment. All the music in this video is from the free KZbin audio library, and the names of the songs are the following. From_Russia_with_Love Stale Mate C_Major_Prelude E_Minor_Prelude

[@akkaya8032]

Eugene, according to your lottery example, in fact it is possible to send information back in time. For example, If the winning lottery number is 1 out of numbers set {1,2}, and if I choose red to be correspondent of the 1; after the result of the lottery I open entangled marble sets until the last one opens up as red. I mean if the first opened marble is blue, then open one marble twin more. By this way we can send a real "information".

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

The problem is that the "information" we are sending is a random outcome that we have no control over. Hence, we can't encode any useful messages.

[@dsdomestic]

Has any one else lost their marbles?

[@tadeushogenelst7537]

no

[@rickh3714]

The Greeks. Lord Elgin took them. But the British Museum always puts a positive spin on this fact

[@mellis9143]

yes

[@eigenvector123]

So, basically, hidden variables suggest that if we measure the spin of two particles in the same direction and get opposite spins 100% of the time, and for two different directions at a 90-degree angle, we get opposite spins 50% of the time, then for one vertical and one at a 45-degree angle, we should expect to get 75% instead of the 85% predicted by quantum mechanics. Conversely, if we adjust to get 85%, then we should expect two different directions at a 90-degree angle to result in 70% opposite spins instead of 50%, right?

[@신예원-u2j]

Great video for ones who do not have much background information, like me. I love your quantum mechanics videos

[@iskandermukatayev6119]

Thank you very much for the video. Just some questions: 1. Just to clarify. at moment 24:40. We cannot measure at one marble at one time X and Y parameters. The same about X and D right? I mean their properties cannot be measured. 2. When we measure X parameter (let's sat it's red) at one marble the "message " instantaneously sent to partner marble and X for the second one will be also red. But what about D of this marble? It also will be red when we measure it? But if we measure that when D of partner is red, X parameter of partner is neither red or blue. But in this case how "message" knows beforehand what to convert X or D? Thanks for your time reading my comment. Best

[@JuBerryLive]

I heard they may be "communicating" extradimentionaly, not faster than c, but we perceive it as instantaneous in our dimension.

[@bargainbassist]

Les Idées Reçues Speed is contingent upon time, and time is a component of the space-time continuum. Space-time is a property of the physical universe. So, if, as you say, it is "extradimensional" (meaning a phenomenon that exists apart from our 3-dimensional, physical universe), why would it need to assume a speed? The evidence is that time and speed are not factors at all outside of our immediate 3-dimensional reality. Instead, transferral of information requires no time or speed, but, rather, is instantaneous.

[@disgruntledwookie369]

Everyone is wrong. The point that this video misses and that everyone seems to miss except for the smart people like Feynman and Dirac is the following: the particle do not communicate with each other! They don't need to. They are ENTANGLED. This means their possibility spaces overlap. The fundamental point is that the final state in which both particles have the same spin is NOT PRESENT IN THE WAVEFUNCTION. The universe doesn't care about human intuition and physical interactions. It only cares about possibilities. It is not POSSIBLE for the particles to have the same spin. That is the ONLY rule. And that is why they are always opposite. It has nothing to do with any kind of communication and that is a basic misunderstanding of quantum physics that almost everyone gets wrong. The EPR paradox was never a real thing, it only exists in the minds of individuals who do not understand what entanglement actually is. The fact that the particles must have opposite spin was decided at the time of creation. You want there to be a "message" sent between them because your brain thinks in terms of physical interactions. You see only the final state, but the wavefunction is the fundamental reality and it ALWAYS prohibited the particles from having the same spin. Think of it like this: there were only ever TWO possible outcomes... 1) The "left" particle has spin "up" and the "right particle has spin "down", or 2) The "left" particle has spin "down" and the "right" particle has spin "up". These are the ONLY possible outcomes!! So when you measure one of the particles, really you're measuring the state of the TOTAL wavefunction of the particle pair. There was never any option for the particles to have the same spin, so there was never any need to invoke nonsensical ideas about FTL messages and all that crap. This is precisely what people like Dirac were trying to explain but it's clear to see that even in 2017 most physics scholars still don't get the concept.

[@rittenbrake1613]

hey how can I msg u?

[@MetabolicMichael]

James White why is the the ONLY comment about this situation I actually agree with? The fact we are getting illogical results must be a consequence of observing the situation, and understanding of the situation improperly. Right?

[@algreen-nobubble]

Thank you! Very well expressed! Possibility spaces overlap and it's not information that travels. Because of this misconception, quantum entanglement serves a lot of people for their conspiracy theories. The other important concept is decoherence.@@disgruntledwookie369

[@BobrLovr]

Amazing as per usual. Keep up the great work.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+Jayo Caine, thanks.

[@jiddey]

I cant sat that I understand Bell's experiment but this well-crafted vid helps me to understand the idea. Excellent! Kudos!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+jiddey, thanks. Glad to hear that my video was helpful.

[@xoppa09]

why do we get always the same outcome if we choose a marble and its partner. what makes a marble a 'partner' ? i am missing some step here

[@dallyh.2960]

It's just a metaphor for quantum entanglement. It's 'partner' is really just the marble representing the partner that it is entangled with.

[@SystemUpdate310]

@@dallyh.2960 It's a very bad metaphor. It doesn't bring any clarity, yet it introduces unnecessary abstraction.

[@trdi]

I liked the video, it presented the topic differently than I'd seen it elsewhere. Still at the end, those two observers messed me up a bit. I understand the principle, but is the video claiming that the message WAS sent from one marble to the other at the moment of measurement? Is this currently the scientific consensus? If so, how exactly is that message sent, how are they connected?

[@TheNorgesOption]

Okay, heard enough of the mystical "Spooky Action at a Distance" Quantum Mumbo Jumbo. Here is a No-Go challenge for Bell’s Theorem. The Bell’s Inequalities Challenge - Can one by combining Macroscopic Real Objects with classical wave functions violate Bell’s Inequalities? This can be achieved by using a large pool, small self-propelled model boats that do not have a steering system and a series of short parallel walls that can vibrate and produce waves. First one has to create the parallel walls that are just wide enough so that if a boat is sent on a parallel direction to the canals created that they can reasonably pass through without the boats touching the wall (which would be a fail). Then send the boats on slightly canted angles and using classical wave mechanics most should hit the wall and fail the test and not violate Bell’s Inequalities. Now vibrate those walls in which pressure from the waves creates a low-pressure zone in the center of those walls so that the boats will head that direction in a path that is parallel to the walls. The boats should then be able to Violate Bell’s Inequalities. If that is achievable, then virtually every experiment in quantum physics should be reproducible using just local wave functions.

[@enclave2k1]

So, does the collapsed wave function of one particle "travel" faster than light in order to accurately predict the partner's property? Or are the two particle inexorably linked; such that observing one partner to predict another's properties is akin to looking at one side of a coin to predict the other side?

[@srh80]

If we synchronize two clocks. Two observers both agree in advance the tick value of the clock they would measure. Separate two observers by a large distance. At the agreed tick value they measure the entangled pair. Is there instantaneous messaging in this case? But wait, can they ever measure at the exact same instant? Even if same number of ticks have occured for both clocks? Even if there is a small quantum time worth of difference between two events, that precludes instantaneous messaging, right?

[@52flyingbicycles]

Of all the videos I’ve been watching trying to explain it, of course it’s Eugene Khurtoryansky that gets me the closest. Logically, when I think of spooky instantaneous message transfer, I think we’re just able to deduce information that was already there. For example, send two letters to your friends across the world, one red one blue and saying so in the letter. When a friend opens their letter, they know what color the other friend got before even asking them, even if the other letter hasn’t been opened yet. It’s “like” the other letter’s color told the other to change when the first was revealed, even though it’s *really* just deduction. The marble example was direct enough to show quantum mechanics cannot be that simple. Experiments show you can’t deduce all the other colors from just one because of this sine wave pattern instead of the linear one. *BUT* this video, unlike previous ones, explained the math well enough that my go to explanation of “you changed the property be measuring it” feels… threatened? The detector obviously messes with the particle because it can change an up/down spin into a diagonal or left/right spin. But if the 85% comes from the diagonal being at a weird angle, then why do they both measure the same when on the diagonal? Shouldn’t they differ like 28% of the time? Ok but maybe there’s a “perpendicular spin” affecting that. It would also explain the perpendicular detection being 50/50 but always the same. But then the diagonals would be 50/50. Unless a little spin goes a long way on perpendicular but not diagonals? But it can’t be up to pure “detectors be crazy” or the diagonals wouldn’t be consistent. See the point of Bell’s Theorem is to make me confused if I’m confused I understand it

[@baloung7622]

Are you going to talk about the Schrödinger equation at all? Anyways, thanks for what you are doing, it's awesome. Math and physics are so much better when watching your videos than a lot of people might think they are from school.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+Baptiste Loreau, yes I plan on doing a video on Schrodinger's equation. I haven't mentioned it so far simply because I wanted my previous Quantum Mechanics videos to be accessible to people who do not have a strong background in mathematics. And thanks for the compliment about my videos.

[@primeobjective5469]

31:30 -- So *IF* random information CAN be sent backwards through time, it's definition is changed to Not Information, because it's random. Then is anything *REALLY* being sent backwards through time? NO.

[@alexandrugheorghe5610]

Correct.

[@KaliFissure]

If we consider a photon as the entire probability sphere of QM as the actual physical event entanglement isn't so mysterious. An electron drops orbit, space rushes in at c , this creates a spherical implosion shockwave which propagates outward at c from origin. Space being a superfluid this sphere is a singular object. Any modification to part affects the whole.

[@LieseFury]

Do you think quantum entanglement and instantaneous messages could have implications for the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

[@sara-ie8ri]

since we don't know what property and what value each pair of both particles has, why should we assume that the message should travel from one particle to another to give the presented results ? why can't we assume that one pair of the particles is X red and its pair is blue X from the beginning? even when we weren't aware of it and before detecting it? I mean we assume that, that bunch of properties are all present at the same time and all represent the state of the particle before we observe a particle and when detecting it, it should be represented by one property and it should ALSO tell its pair to be present in on property with opposite value ?

[@wesjohnson6833]

With one single wave function shared between the particles, no message is needed. It simply collapses upon measurement to an allowable state.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

The results depend on the relative angle of measurement. There's no way to build that in to pre-arranged values.

[@davidgiardini1275]

I fell asleep 85% of the time; but the other 15% was great :-)

[@EdwardNavu]

I finally know why John Clauser was (and probably still is) pissed off at this quantum mechanics thing. My head hurt.

[@langmod]

Maybe I missed it, but was the math explained why QM predicts exactly what is observed. What equation in QM predicts the sine wave for the given scenario.

[@onehitpick9758]

When I evaluate this using classical physics with noise and complex projection, I get a sine wave. It really depends on the background noise level.

[@MartinBuzon]

The only thing I find hard to understand is why classical physics are lineal? And how could you even translate that behavior linear? They are literally rotating...

[@StrechFilm]

On this weird channel when the narrator says let's use marbles instead of particles for simplicity, actually they making the subject thousand times more complex than regular version of it. So I hate it when I hear marbles and say "Come on... Not marbles again!"

[@Luisitococinero]

Bell Inequality is actually something very complicated.

[@aaronthorfinnson7284]

They are too smart and don't know how to think dumb.

[@namsmakergodt]

24:01 I want that picture on my desktop :P

[@sinekonata]

I want the one on 35:00 xD

[@Nummi31]

Jk

[@noamtamarin4184]

love your videos mystery physics man!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+Noam Tamarin, thanks. I am glad to hear that you love my videos.

[@gubx42]

+Eugene Khutoryansky What's great about your videos is that they are different from what other science KZbinrs are doing. Which means that watching them is always worthwhile, even after watching other videos on the subject. Conversely, if one wants to learn more after watching one of your videos, watching other's videos is also likely to be interesting.

[@mahmoudnafousi2427]

The most read article in Quora on the Conundrum of Entanglement as of Friday 6th Feb 2018. Below is brief summary. For the full details click on the link below. Entanglement: When two Subatomic Particles share the same Spacetime code they become entangled. As experiments have shown that two entangled particles act as one system as if they are communicating with each other instantaneously. If this is the case, then it’s reasonable to conclude that the data stored in the Cosmic Database are indexed in accordance to their “Spacetime codes”. So any update to one record leads to updating both records. Based on this postulation, we suggest that any change in the “Cosmic record” of an entangled particle must lead instantaneously to a change in its observed physical quantum state. It also lead us to conclude that the act of entanglement is necessary for the conservation of momentum, symmetry and and other relevant information. These suggestions support the possibility that we are living in a Holographic Universe. The Measurement problem: The observed wave functions of Subatomic particles are due to the nature and characteristics of two Basic Energy Particles responsible for their existence. The particles at the quantum level could be in any one of several states until they are measured. The act of measurements leads to their recognition in terms of cosmic information in that specific state at a given cosmic second. In the double slit experiments, to explain the collapse of the wave function we speculate that as photons interact with the observed electrons. They instantly share the same “Spacetime code” which make them entangled. Once an observer capture these photons (in the act of measurement and recording of the data) a new space time codes are given to the photons. This leads to the cessation of the state of entanglements as the photons no longer have the same spacetime code of the observed electrons. In response to erasing the act of entanglement, the observed electrons reset themselves by getting their energy cloud collapsing in readiness to start a new cycle of spins.This is done to preserve the law of supersymmetry. Consciousness and data recording: It is suggested by some physicists that the act of observations through effective meditations lead to the collapse of the wave functions. We speculate that such trained meditators are able to concentrate, capture and register the information carried by the entangled photons in their memories. This act of recording by the meditators constitutes particles interactions similar to capturing the data by measuring devices. Such interactions lead to the resetting of the relevant entangled pairs, hence the collapse of the wave function. This makes us an interactive players in the quantum information collected and recorded. docs.google.com/document/d/1qpnegrI9ox0gBRnN-jvA0PXHgcbpAdhwwpS__eBocq8 [e-mail]

[@SJAutomotiveDesign]

It's not a logical problem. It's a measurement problem. The particles' parameters are not constant. They probably variate.

[@TheChrasse]

Awesome video, Eugene! I like it when you make videos long and go in-depth with the subject

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+TheChrasse, glad you liked it. Thanks.

[@michaelcox436]

Gorgeous and very clear but please do an edit where the music doesn't repeat!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Thanks for the compliment. I am sorry you didn't like the music. Once a video is uploaded, I can't edit it.

[@markakroll]

I would like to suggest a solution to the EPR Paradox, Bell's Inequalities & Neutrino Oscillations: @ 6:26 just substitute PROPERTIES with SPIN. Particles MAY have more than one spin. For example, a particle may have a complex spin in a mix of 3 PLANES I.e. x, y & z plane.

[@dzikraaksa527]

"if information can travel faster than speed of light, it means that it can send messege back in time" entangled particles are exactly like that. it can send causality back in time in delayed choice experiment !

[@esc5272]

Beautifully explained. Thank you!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+Escutia Richi, thanks for the compliment.

[@eigenvector123]

In your first analogy, does it mean that measuring the spin of both particles in the x or y direction alone gives the same result? The same is true for one measured in the x direction and the other at a 45° diagonal, or one in the y direction and the other diagonal. But measuring the spin in the x direction for the first particle and in the y direction for the second particle gives a result that is the same 50% of the time?

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Yes, that is correct.

[@filmcale]

Thank you for this video! It's the first time i'm understanding this concept. Couple questions: "If the message travels faster than the speed of light, then from the perspective of some observers, the message will arrive at point B before it was sent from point A." Firstly, in entanglement theory, the message isn't really traveling. So nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. I know this isn't the point of the explanation, but is this true? Concerning the idea of a message "traveling back in time" Is there a difference between (if it were possible) sending a message using particles, versus sending a message that travels faster than the speed of light? Are those two completely different concepts or one in the same? Secondly, regarding "sending a message back in time". I'm bewildered by the general thought of communicating with someone from the past. How is this at all possible? Whether a message is traveling faster than the speed of light, or is able to be instantaneous. An ancient alien living at the opposite side of the universe will never get my message, even if i'm able to 'measure a particle/change a particle' and send that message instantaneously. Because he's long gone. I'm alive. Some idiot on my world might say "I can see that alien from my house" but I can easily explain, no that alien existed 1 billion years ago and it's the light coming from his non-existent planet that we are seeing. Therefore, 100%, he does not exist anymore. So I just don't understand the concept of how sending a message back in time works in this example. Can you or someone explain further? I get the lottery example, but again, how would that work? If the message is instantaneous, the lottery (which I know the winning lottery numbers now) has already taken place! So who would I send the lottery tickets to? Myself? That time has already passed. And I don't exist in that place anymore. Thank you!

[@valtih1978]

Can you tell us what is the 75%, 85% and 50% come from? I see that we can measure polarization of entangled light beams. Here, X and Y would be at 45°, twice smaller than fermionic electrons. In this case, Malus law is used, which says that measurements agree cos²(angle) percent of the times, which is 50% for 45°. So, the diagonal must be in the middle, at π/8. Cos²(π/8) = 85.3%. Suppose that this is what you mean. Also, can you tell how this prediction is computed with QM?

[@ahitler5592]

+Valentin Tihomirov that is your grade when you were highschool until you took drugs then it went down to 50%

[@craigkdillon]

Entangled particles can NEVER be on opposite sides of the universe...BECAUSE --- they were created together. They can only move apart from each other at the speed of light. So, they retain the "knowledge" of the spin of the other, no matter how far they travel. BUT, they can never get farther away than time allowed them to go.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

that may be an important observation there. have you heard of ER = EPR?

[@craigkdillon]

@@nmarbletoe8210 No. what is ER=EPR?

[@craigkdillon]

@@nmarbletoe8210 You like that observation??? How about -- Infinity might NOT exist. Do you like that??? Here is my reasoning (conjecture?) --- Math loves symmetry. Now, from Quantum Mechanics we know the infinitely small does NOT exist. So, if 1/infinity does not exist, then infinity does NOT exist. Voila ! ! ! How do you like that???

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@craigkdillon Yes, that sounds like a good argument why the universe may be finite in size. It certainly is finite in the size we can see!! ER = EPR is the idea that entanglement is caused by wormholes. Lenny Susskind is a major researcher in this area.

[@tomosko2669]

I really don't understand this type of physics almost at all, but. Is it possible to "measure" the particles spin only by a detector? I mean, does the particle not affect it's surrounding therefore leaving an information footprint on it? The measuring device does not have to be a detector or anyone conscious, right?

[@markkil]

Look, this was very clearly explained and I liked that part. But the voice and the music! Was that voice synthesized? It was like Quantum Entanglement was being explained to me by Siri in an elevator or a shopping mall. Blurgh

[@pausmax]

This is really interesting and helpful, thanks a lot!

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+pausmax, I am glad you found it helpful and interesting. Thanks.

[@mandolinic]

Around 2:40 I have an issue with your wording. If you have two detectors at right angles to each other, then the concept of entangled particle spins being in the same or opposite direction to each other is meaningless! The opposite to up is down, NOT left or right!

[@99twhitey]

I went through every comment, and somehow you are the only one who asks about this. Have you found an answer yet? If not, I’ll check in after another 6 years.

[@mandolinic]

@@99twhitey My comment wasn't so much a question as an observation. The commentary should have explained that with "opposite" spins one particle is measured in the red direction, and the other is measured in the blue direction - but these directions are local to each detector.

[@TemporalOnline]

Maybe that is because the particles after the entanglement keep "touching themselves" on the other spacial dimensions we don't have much access to.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+TemporalOnline, that is one possibility.

[@kcalb456]

Idk but suggesting that particle information traveling faster than the speed of light seems more ridiculous than suggesting that there is simply details that aren't considered yet prior to the seperation

[@userjames2009]

15:00 IMO, the problem is with the phrase "of the time". Time is actually two-dimensional, so when you combine probabilities per time like that you can't do a linear comparison.

[@phildurre9492]

Man why do people get this wrong all the time. YOU CAN NOT EXCHANGE INFORMATION with entanglement. Its like if someone prepared 2 boxes with gloves. 1 Left glove and one right glove. If person A opens the box it automatically knows what person B has in his box. But there is no information exchange between A and B...

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

+phil durre, That is not correct. It is not like exchanging gloves. You can't exchange "useful" information with entanglement, and I went over that extensively in the video. But, we nevertheless have evidence that something is being exchanged, and that too is covered extensively in the video.

[@blugreen99]

Too slow .Doesnt show how/why the sine wave applies in quantum case rather than the linear classical rule?

[@ClownBaby893]

I'm trying to understand this, I am probably getting something wrong, but if I'm not information could be transmitted. Observer "A", the transmitter, alternates passing the particle through horizontal and vertical detectors at regular intervals. Once he gets a spin up measurement on the horizontal detector he doesn't affect it further. Observer "B", the receiver, passes her particle through only the horizontal detector at precise intervals that are much longer than Observer "A"s detections. If Observer "A"s last measurement was spin up, wouldn't Observer "B" always get spin down? You can then pass a predetermined sequence of spins from A to B to ensure fidelity of the communication. I'm sure there is something I am misunderstanding. Can this measurement be done only once per particles?

[@wesjohnson6833]

Yes. Measurement of either particle breaks entanglement.

[@willypen8613]

As I commented on a previous video. I believe the 9 volt transmission in the brain wave, during the act of acknowledgement of colors,spins or which hole is traveled threw is effecting. The contradictions are in the different levels of brain transmission waves of the observers. That may be in the mix also. Very intriguing, I've been trying to understand this for years. My primitive experiments card suit guessing, yeilded 12 every time. It was in the odds. That's where I began this journey

[@radiofun232]

On 28.36 the word future also must be written in parenthesis.

[@evrardmusic]

The reason nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is due to the light being information in its purest form.

[@John77Doe]

Using the standard definitions of Information Theory and Coding, you are transmitting information faster than the speed of light, (instantaneously), but you are limited to one bit of information. Once you measure the spin of one particle, you know the spin of the other particle that can be light years away. Information has "traveled" to you on exactly what is the spin of the other particle, many light years away. An information bit can either be a one or a zero, and you have acquired the information of whether the bit is a one or a zero. The problem is that you cannot predict what will be the spin of the next observed particle. If an observer could influence the outcome of the observation of the property of an entangled particle even if not 100%, but just making the particle 10% more likely of having a certain outcome, then you have a viable form of faster than light communication. You would just have what is called in Information Theory & Coding, a very low Signal to Noise Ratio.

[@mikecochran1759]

they are saying that a particle makes a decision to have a certain spin at the time of measurement ? first off how does this particle know that its being measured to begin with? is possible that there are measurements of this particle that we just don't have the tech to measure it with. maybe we will have a better understanding of this entanglement if we can measure all 3 ways of measuring at the same time we spit the particle and measure both halves.