Hidden Variables-How We Know They Don't Exist In Quantum Mechanics

In this video I show you what a hidden variable is and then show you a proof of Bell's Theorem that shows how we know that hidden variables don't exist in quantum mechanics. Some of the information in this video was adapted from DrPhysicsA ( • Bell's Inequality ). I highly recommend his channel for more in depth physics subjects.
Get Your Experiment Box Here: theactionlab.com/
Checkout my experiment book: amzn.to/2Wf07x1
Follow me on Twitter: / theactionlabman
Facebook: / theactionlabofficial
Instagram: / therealactionlab
Watch other popular videos from my channel
Gömböc-The Shape That Shouldn't Exist
• Gömböc-The Shape That ...
Shooting a Nerf Gun Backwards While Driving At The Bullet's Speed Forward
• Shooting a Nerf Gun Ba...
Superhydrophobic Knife Slices Water Drops in Half
• Superhydrophobic Knife...
Real-Life Invisibility Cloak Can Hide Anything! How Does It Work?
• Real-Life Invisibility...
What's Inside the Worlds' Fastest Heat Conductor?
• What's Inside the Worl...
Can You Use Umbrellas Instead of a Parachute?
• Can You Use Umbrellas ...
Opening a Bottle of Liquid Nitrogen Under Water!
• Opening a Bottle of Li...
Warning: DO NOT TRY-Seeing How Close I Can Get To a Drop of Neutrons
• Warning: DO NOT TRY-Se...
*Any experiment you try is at YOUR OWN RISK. The Action Lab assumes no responsibility for any injury if you attempt anything you see in this video or on The Action Lab channel.

[@TheActionLab]

Let me clarify something that a few people are getting caught up on. The 1,2,3 polarizers are not the order in which the photons are going through the polarizers. They are representing the information that the photon would need to have predetermined beforehand about the polarizers. If there were hidden variables, then the photon would need to "know" beforehand what polarizer it could go through regardless of whether or not we were planning on doing an experiment with them. For example, if there were hidden variables, if you put the polarizers in this order +45° then 90° then a single photon might make it through if it had the hidden variable 1,4 or 5 assigned to it but not 2,3,6 or 8. Another example, if you have +45° then 90° then -45° polarizers in that order then some light gets through, but if you have +45° then -45° then 90° then no light goes through. If there are hidden variables that are predetermined then a photon needs to have decided before any experiment whether or not it can make it through +45°, 90°, and -45° polarizers regardless of what order we decided to put them in.

[@jadentoh3218]

Didn’t ask tho

[@leo-um3pj]

ljhgf

[@jacoblindsey6796]

I was wondering can you use an electromechanical transducer like those available in a microphone to use environmental noise to charge a battery

[@jacoblindsey6796]

Or if using that same electromechanical transducer from the microphone you see if it's possible to use like the volume on your TV to charge a cell phone

[@jacoblindsey6796]

Theoretically it seems possible

[@damiencouturee6240]

For anyone coming from today's short, skip to about 2:00 for the answer, the beginning is pretty much covered in the short. Or just watch it all cause That Action Lab is awesome lll

[@abhayramms1576]

God exists

[@beastcodmobile1201]

Thanks

[@sachinrajmukti]

Salute

[@BarredRock]

thanks

[@shredz5790]

Not all heros wear capes

[@giancarloantonucci1266]

Bell’s theorem proves that you cannot have local hidden variables. Nonlocal hidden variables are allowed.

[@pmcate2]

What is the difference?

[@davidlewis6728]

​@@pmcate2 local means the things interact directly, global often refers to things such as the either (which was debunked some time ago) in where it's influence is spread out beyond it's local vicinity. pilot wave theory, for example, implies that particles are always particles, but are sometimes directed through a universal wave, similar to how vibrating silicone oil droplets bounces off the ripples it creates.

[@robjeanbras1130]

I suspect you are a programmer.

[@trucid2]

It's an even weaker claim than that. Bell's theorem and its ilk assume statistical independence between the measurement apparatus, the scientist, and the thing being measured. Since the objects inhabit the same universe, there is no reason to think there is no correlation between them. If the assumption is violated then that allows determinism and locality with hidden variables.

[@davidlewis6728]

@@trucid2 superdeterminism is also somewhat difficult to prove, though it sounds much more likely than true randomness. both assumptions lead to science as a method being unreliable, either due to magic, or the inability to measure scientific data, and should thus be relegated to the back of our minds when asking scientific questions, at least until we are forced to acknowledge them.

[@tHEuKER]

The hidden variable (ie, the unknown input that made the system's outcome vary) was your finger preventing one of the strings from moving. The strings being intertwined is not a variable, but just an initially unknown feature of the system's nature.

[@ivarangquist9184]

The hidden variable was whether he held the bottom openings or not.

[@kinarast]

That's exactly why we don't know why/how the universe exist

[@silverblank1139]

Pedantic af

[@mdtarequzzaman5485]

*THIS MAN'S SHIRT WILL BE THINKING UNTIL THE END OF SPACE-TIME*

[@nathanielburns6692]

Me watching the first minute: we’ve been tricked, we’ve been backstabbed, and we’ve been quite possibly bamboozled.

[@skrydon78]

We've been duped! Bamboozled!! We've been SMECKLEDORFED!!

[@flurng]

HOODWINKED, even!!!

[@oumardiop1]

@@brandonvdongen exactly i thought he rebuilt it and just cut to a new clip lol

[@CodeKujo]

"These are the only bits of information that it can have" @8:05 Reducing the behaviors of polarizing, filtering, and entangling to these simple booleans seems error-prone to me. All that Bell's Theorem demonstrates to me is that it's not that simple, but I feel like I already knew that because of the way polarized filters can twist polarization.

[@localverse]

Can you elaborate? Are you saying Bell's is flawed? Also what type of errors? Genuinely curious, not disputing nor agreeing.

[@CodeKujo]

​@@localverse Presumably it's my understanding that's flawed, hehe. But suppose that if the photon and the filter don't match, then the outcome depends on the phase of the photon and the distance between the filter and the emitter. Or maybe the brownian motion at the detector. Or some other external influence like the previous particles that have gone through the filter. I'm guessing all these kinds of things have already been considered and rejected for how well accpeted Bell's is, but I only have the knowledge from videos like this.

[@localverse]

@@CodeKujo Our understanding might be flawed, maybe our maybe not, but it's good to question things! Normally I'd think they probably would've already considered those things you said, but if this video is correct, then Bell's theorem only addresses a scenario of the photon already being 'prepared' for the filter, which wouldn't even touch on the potential effects you suggested. Plus, it's odd that in these types of demos they seem to only insert the 3rd polarizer in the center... what would happen if they instead simply stuck the polarizer at the end?

[@TheAverageDev1]

I am actually dying, when in the beginning, he pulled the left side, and then both bottoms went up, and he went. HUH? Time Stamp: 1:30 Edit: I don't even know why lol.

[@alaididnalid7660]

"HM?" lol

[@abhayveersingh9060]

Because he didn't hold any of the string.....

[@123lizemo]

Singing I get to into your videos and forget to like them! This is my absolute favorite science channel on KZbin nothing can beat the action lab!!!! I wish I could afford to buy the boxes for my kids to show greater support and my kids more involved but watching your videos are what we can do and that's good soupy for me!

[@ldrago2019]

You keep me inspired to learn more and more,🔥

[@kshitijpandey6514]

@L Drago Exactly

[@msmani5343]

S

[@fuseteam]

i think you're polarizer example was a bit vague this time, while it is true that 25% goes through the second one, you didn't talk about why that is weird; that you'd expect the second one to block everything since the light coming through should be polarized vertically and thus should be blocked by the 45° angled one. i know you have a video on this maybe you should've plugged it xD

[@88Timur88Bahmudov88]

And the fact that if you put third polarizer between two opposite polarizers (that are blocking 100% of light) at 45° then some light is getting through

[@1adamgriffin1]

He should have plugged karma peny who's video this is literally copied from

[@fuseteam]

@@88Timur88Bahmudov88 yeah this too

[@TNaizel]

@@88Timur88Bahmudov88 I love that experiment, a great way to show a tangible effect of quantum mechanics to people

[@88Timur88Bahmudov88]

@@TNaizel exactly! :)

[@Nightcrawler333]

Man, you make great educational content. I also love your shorts and never miss to click on those. Keep it up 👍👍

[@rodrigoappendino]

4:37 Wait. P for photon instead of gamma? Triggered!

[@MisanCuber]

A photon is a ball that has p written on it instead of gamma.

[@VulcanGray]

Could the polarizer be polarizing the light that comes through it, and each other polarizer has a chance to polarize the light in a new direction with a 0-100% chance sweeping through angles 0-90?

[@goodvibes0101]

This channel is so entertaining I like the shorts and these longer videos awesome thanks a million for the content 🙂

[@StormyIsGone]

This was so cool! I'm glad I found that short^^

[@andygoh6835]

Why is your channel so interesting!!!???

[@PittCougar]

This reminds me of how a group psychology works. If a single person is placed in a situation, it's very difficult to predict their reaction to that situation. But if a crowd of people are together, it's much easier to predict it's reactions. The larger the crowd, the more predictively it will react.

[@ss01101]

That is how chaos or chaotic systems work. However, Psychology, as a discipline, is barely consistent or rigorous.

[@adrian.banninksy]

Awesome little lecture! This channel is like a magnet to me. The chance that I will watch a video is 100% !!!

[@rockapedra1130]

Easiest explanation of Bell’s Theorem I’ve seen so far! Excellent! I have an idea for a follow on video: cover some cases where the apparatus isn’t perfect. Maybe some photons get lost, maybe a polarizer is a bit weird, or some other imperfection. Show that the argument still holds in these real world conditions. No one has been able to find a plausible defect that explains the results classically!

[@EdwardUnthank]

Doesn’t this assume we have a STATIC variable, UNCHANGED by passing through 1 into 2? What if the hidden variable is DYNAMIC and affected by these interactions? E.g., moving as waves.

[@costa_marco]

Congratulations, you discovered quantum mechanics! :D

[@benjaminhauptmann6511]

This is a good question. To my understanding, the problem with it lies in the entanglement of the two particles. If the hidden variable of photon A is changed when it passes through a polariser, then it MUST somehow communicate this change to photon B, since they are entangled and always have the same state. However, these experiments have been preformed with the two photons seperated by many miles, and with very accurate timekeeping. By doing this, scientists managed to prove that if photon A DID have a hidden variable, then it would have to communicate it to B faster than the speed of light, which violates special relativity. And that would break physics even more than quantum randomness does.

[@StefanReich]

They only pass each photon through one polarizer in the second experiment

[@RoGeorgeRoGeorge]

Close enough. Not static, not dynamic, to be more precise it's random. Bell inequality shape can be seen when noise is added.

[@gamekyuubi42069]

@@benjaminhauptmann6511 Why is it assumed that information is communicated across a distance? Why are we not assuming that instead of violating lightspeed, they just have access to the same physical space, relying on the same exact variable simultaneously through a hypothetical fourth spatial dimension?

[@broncokonco]

Could it be that the entangled particles aren’t perfectly entangled? Or could there be a hidden variable in the polarizer rather than in the particle? Have those assumptions been disproven?

[@ExMuslimProphetMuhammad]

It's 💯 perfectly entangled to render applications like quantum secure communication systems. There's no hidden variable in polarizer, that probability has been ruled out in original Bell's experiment

[@yankeeshoota]

@@ExMuslimProphetMuhammadhow do we know that the hidden variables don't affect each other? That could explain the discrepancy. For example, if some hidden variable allows something to pass, then the entangled hidden variable could make sure it doesn't pass, causing a discrepancy.

[@santonioprovenzano4882]

Such a handy video! Thanks for investing the time 😃

[@constpegasus]

Thank you for this. One of your best yet.

[@x1area51ii7]

I can see this guy as magician for side line job 😅🤣😂 .. smart dude

[@Spartan322]

Still feels like we're making a lot of assumptions here. Assumptions that can't be demonstrated.

[@jrockerstein]

You are doing great work my friend! I've had this explained to me hundreds of times, but for the first time I think I understand quantum mechanics. No hidden variables. It is completely random. I am still struggling with why is it completely random though. 🤔

[@AyratHungryStudent]

I started watching this guy 1 year ago. So I didn't see this video. Interestingly, he made a short with a link to this video. Smart thinking.

[@brycering5989]

1:30 yea nah. 2020 I'm done.

[@Hikafujo]

@@crazy420gaming3 ok then

[@sachizumi2177]

@@crazy420gaming3 what the fudge man you shouldnt do this

[@somethingsinlife5600]

There are many problems with QM...First thing, we don't even know how exactly the light is being blocked. Second "Probability of reality is not reality", QM is literally just Probability and Statistics and we shouldn't be stretching it this far into Real Events. 3. The rest of the Universe is deterministic, the highest chances are that we don't really know what's going on at the smallest scales so we have no choice but to use probabilities. However, it is very likely that it is deterministic down there too.

[@Powerracer251]

Unfortunately Quantum Mechanics has a good enough track record at this point to more or less completely disprove the possibility that it could be deterministic. I'd recommend looking into the Double Slit Experiment for a cool demonstration of this. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a good formulation of the undeterministic nature of particles too.

[@somethingsinlife5600]

@@Powerracer251 I know quite a bit about the double slit experiment, even that isn't what you think it is. And even the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a limitation on our abilities to measure things, it says nothing about particles themselves not knowing what they are doing. Lastly, it's not just me, alot of scientists also do not believe in QM being more than just probability and statistics. And just like me they are also sick of all the "Quantum woo". Most of "Quantum woo" actually comes from what the QM proponents say and they say it wrong, which allows charlatans like Deepak Chopra spew out even more bullcrap. Sooner or later we will have a better understanding than QM. if not then we will at least have a better understanding of it's limitations and interpretations.

[@Powerracer251]

@@somethingsinlife5600 I know very well what the uncertainty principle means. The reality is that we will never overcome that obstacle though. How can we possibly measure the position of a particle without influencing it in some way? To me Quantum Mechanics is an accepance of the limitations of our ability to gather data and understand the world. I find it unlikely that we will overcome many of it's uncertainties even if the universe technically isn't obeying the rules as we state them.

[@uniquetobin4real]

I feel it can be deterministic too but after I read about the double slit experiment I changed my mind🤣

[@somethingsinlife5600]

@@uniquetobin4real You misunderstand the double slit experiment.

[@sharadthecurioustardigrade1533]

Why is your channel so good? There must be some *Hidden Variables*

[@babujiana]

Thanks sir. It's best understanding video ever...

[@EthanAllred1]

*I am a hidden variable*

[@zzz6730]

You exist, action lab has been proven wrong

[@3nertia]

I'm a Quantum Mechanic :D

[@justjerm1823]

kid in the back of the classroom: *intensifies*

[@brando3342]

@Curious Random Actually, you aren't entirely wrong. Except you aren't hidden, but surely you aren't random, you just have free will.

[@josefwakeling7103]

username checks out

[@foxnyl4141]

Great video :) I know it is not the focus of this video, but how do we know that entangled photons would necessarily have the same hidden variables? I am not a physicist, so sorry if that is a noob question.

[@uniquetobin4real]

Nice question

[@NorthernBeachesBrass]

This is the crux of his proof, without which the whole example is meaningless. He’s proving “randomness” but implied the entangled pairs have the same polarisation. Surely the 25% simply shows that they don’t always.

[@BrianBors]

He is (deliberately, because it would complicate things) missing 2 options at the 9:46. He "forgets" to mention when they both grab the same type of filter. If he would have mentioned those situations he would have told you that in 100% of the cases the result is the same. So that would point to the fact that if the photons did have hidden variables, they would both have the same hidden variables. In my view that is an essential part of the information he neglected to mention. But otherwise it's a good video!

[@cato451]

Thanks for explaining this. Cleared up some confusion I had.

[@ronaldatkinson9165]

Interesting stuff. I came to understand that the premise of two polarizing filters could have a photon blocking effect and allow no light through, when I was a lot younger. Two polarizing filters can have a selective blocking effect on the photons. I believe that an eye with amblyopia would benefit, at least partially, from an angular adjustment of two polarizing filters. Those "paddles" with holes at the optometrist have the pinholes too far apart to help correct vision. They primarily identify the problem, and correct nothing. -Ron

[@bodan1196]

Should there not be a fourth polarising filter, a 'horisontal' one? (0, 45, -45 and 90 degrees) One in four, thus 0.25? ;-)

[@ShadowHawkThe3rd]

Try filling out the hidden state and measurement tables with 4 filters, I think you might be surprised with how it turns out. Just tried it out in a spreadsheet, the lowest chance is still 1/3, not 1/4 like the experiment shows.

[@bodan1196]

@@ShadowHawkThe3rd Please excuse me for taking your word for it.

[@neelpatel8953]

1:35 *Surprised Pikachu face*

[@eggytv3411]

I think this is one of the best videos in your channel so far.

[@BrianSu]

Thanks for the great and easy to understand explanation

[@ShivamS268]

Wow 😮 it's amazing .Now, I have a New trick. Where do you find these things. Your all video's are amazing.

[@ssjjj3697]

Yes,true I never found such interesting things.

[@HariJ2008]

@@ssjjj3697 Yes, me also.What is place where you find these things .They are amazing I can show them in my class.

[@ShivamS268]

Thank you all for your support.

[@noahway13]

Cut , spliced at 45 seconds. . Camera tick

[@mofoshrimp]

Great video! I liked the string in tube device, good physical analogy of the hidden variable theory. One thing I never quite got about Bell's Inequality was why it must be true for ALL possible hidden variable theories. It certainly makes sense in the standard ABC/eight-possible-options configuration, but how do we know for sure that we couldn't come up with some kind of much more complex format for hidden variables that Bell's Inequality wouldn't apply to? It seems like Bell's Inequality is said to apply to any hidden variable configuration where the variables have some definite value period. But couldn't the hidden variables be much more complex than the simple 1 bit, pass/fail arrangement seen here? Thanks!!

[@JadRaouda]

You're awesome - it's the only explanation that has finally made sense

[@sospiroso]

Beautifully explained and I just about got it.....Well done! 👍

[@saeedabdolahi8223]

Best quotes regarding quantom physics: "Hmm?" (Time: 1':36") 🤣

[@jimi02468]

It was not the normal "hmm." It was an unexpected; surprised "hmm"

[@omgicanflybro]

I feel like this man does these videos because he loves science and loves sharing the amazing reasons behind how and why things are the way they are and not to catch money.

[@YolandaGarcia-dw3wl]

I love watching people who love what they do

[@daniellejdevlin8882]

Excellent tutorial!!!

[@blackbear92201]

Wow. What an awesome explanation of hidden variables! I think I need to study Bell's Theorem...!

[@bhavyajain638]

This channel changed from vacuum chamber to physics. And I like that.

[@gabor6259]

Vacuum chamber IS physics.

[@themarv__]

Jada Pinkett Smith: "so you could say the strings are ... entangled?"

[@n0nenone]

Lmao

[@joshyoung1440]

Too soon, you're going to hell

[@alaididnalid7660]

I don't get this joke. Is it posted last year by someone who came from the future and actually saw the 2022 Oscars?

[@user-jt6ej7vh2p]

Thank you for this explanation ❤

[@Amyousing]

In the field of stage performance physics, audience calls this as "Magic"😉 Nice one dude.

[@mehulkansal8332]

Love your work. Even if can't always understand it.

[@zaf_henry]

Huh?

[@Hawidaku]

What’s to not understand???? Huh ???? U r dum or some ting???

[@maheshdev5772]

@@Hawidaku nah he or she is just a child

[@zaf_henry]

@@maheshdev5772 im an 15 year old

[@manguy01]

Wasn't your experiment to determine the string movement _ALSO_ being disrupted by the test itself (fingers over the holes)? I've always thought that in quantum mechanics, there must be some disruption caused by our methods that we don't realize.

[@haros2868]

You need to know, that the system doesn't change because we "know it" or "saw it". The wave function collapses because seeing is shooting photos on it, hence physically changing the system. The universe doesn't do that because it knows we are doing an experiment, because certain interactions disrupt certain outcomes. Seeing a string doesnt change the outcome but shooting a photon on a single particle does. So what you say is nonsense because youre trying to give quantum properties to macroscopic objects

[@manguy01]

@@haros2868 What you describe is the way I've always thought it would have to work. But I've been told many times that's explicitly not how it works. Despite being told that so many times, I still don't accept it. But that's what they say.

[@haros2868]

@@manguy01 I don't get what your saying. What exactly you cannot accept i lost you. Only observing quantum phenomena disturbes the system. Not by some kind of magic but just because particles interactions

[@manguy01]

@@haros2868 Yes. That's what I said. But that's not what quantum physicists say. I agree with you. I disagree with them. They're the experts, but I somehow can't accept it. Like Einstein, I can't help but say "God does not play dice"

[@haros2868]

@@manguy01 Bro i say exactly what quantum physics say too. Einstein was wrong, God plays dices. And Heisenberg was true. I am with indeterminenism and thats also what our latest modes suggest. Einstein in his era didn't have the knowledge we have today so i don't get were we disagree with reality. And if you can comprehend i also made an analogy before an hour on why determinatism and hidden variables are contradictions and false: Deterministists -> hidden variables Hidden variables -> causality violation Causality violation ≠ determinism, indeterminenism. So non local hidden variables would contradict everything. Strict deterministists trying to prove everything is predetermined by rejecting quantum mechanics and allowing the possibility of changing the ALREADY DETERMINED past with retricausality. See the paradoxes. Now how do we avoid all this fuzzness?? Simple, reality needs randomness, its essential fir existence. So hidden variables have been disproven and also make sense to be disproven and non local hidden variables do the paradoxes i showed above. So if you read i don't know where we got lost but i agree with randomness, causality and quantum mechanics. If you do so you are in the right side.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

And immediately my brain went to a complicated system of gears and pulleys inside this tube. Amazing how elegant and simple your solution is.

[@michaeldamolsen]

@3:55 Fun fact: When New York Times interviewed Podolsky and wrote that article, Einstein was absolutely furious! He blamed Podolsky for leaking the work prematurely and without his (Einstein's) authorization, and never spoke to Podolsky again. Rosen on the other hand was still in Einstein's favor, and they went on to write another famous article on wormholes in general relativity together. There is now theoretical work that combines the EPR paper about quantum entanglement with the ER paper on wormholes, theorizing that entanglement is the structure that binds spacetime together in a manner similar to the wormholes Einstein and Rosen described.

[@danielpapania6117]

Full disclosure, I don't know anything about photon polarization. In the 8 possibilities, surely only options 1,2,4 and 5 are possible outcomes. Option 3 can't happen because the two diagonal filters (let's call them filters B and C) are mutually exclusive since they are at right angles to each other, in other words, if a photon can't go through filter B then it will have to go through C, so you can never have a photon that can't go through either B or C. Option 6 says that the photon can go through B but not C, the only way this is possible (since they are at right angles to each other) is if the photon is perfectly lined up with B, in which case it should still have some component of its vibration which can pass through A, but option 6 says it can't go through A which is not possible. Similarly for option 7, again for it to pass through one diagonal filter but not the other implies that the photon vibration is perfectly aligned to filter C and hence should pass through A as well, but option 7 says it can't, so option 7 is impossible. Finally, option 8 makes no sense since surely a photon will be able to pass through one of the 3 filters, especially since 2 of them are at right angles to each other. The other thing is that if we consider all of the possible photon orientations, in most cases the photon will be able to pass through all three filters unless it happens to be at right angles to one of the three. Also, why no horizontal filter? If so, wouldn't we get the 25% probability

[@TheActionLab]

The options 1,2,3 are not the order that the photons go through the polarizers, they are the possible pieces of information that the photon could have had predetermined before the experiment even happened. If there is a hidden variable then the information would have to be there before we even do the measurement. There are only the 8 options of what the photon could predetermine that it will go through.

[@danielpapania6117]

@@TheActionLab I understand about the 8 possible scenario, but I question whether some of those options are even possible. For example in option 8, the photon isn't able to pass through any of the 3 filters, but how is this possible? What possible orientation would make the photon unable to pass through either of two orthogonal polarizing filters?

[@StefanReich]

I think it doesn't matter if some of the 8 options are impossible in real life. We are just taking the minimum probability, which remains at one third or higher.

[@sakshitandel8572]

Maybe this is a great analogy for quantum entanglement ...maybe there is some hidden mechanism which we just can't imagine yet.

[@davidlewis6728]

no shit, he is literally referring to quantum mechanics. he misrepresents bell's theorem, stating incorrectly that all hidden variables have been debunked, but he is not accounting for non-local hidden variables.

[@anandsuralkar2947]

@@davidlewis6728 do u realise..that global hidden variable is equal to randomness for..us there's no difference and it doesn't matter both ate same things

[@davidlewis6728]

@@anandsuralkar2947 how do you figure? a global hidden variable can be questioned, and at some point revealed, where as randomness, even as a theory, is completely impenetrable to scientific documentation.

[@anandsuralkar2947]

@@davidlewis6728 it could i be i am not saying its not possible i am saying even if we someday find if there is or isn't a global variable thats differant.thats not what we have problem with.in entanglement ment. If even there is global variable thats still.is better than local variable problem..atleast...global variable will allow us to have faster than light info tranfer through space which a local variable cant.. Do u understand a world with global variable is practically same for us in the realm of quantum entanglement and "spooky action at distance".. Do u understand what i am trying to say global variable will clearly allow us for FTL info transfer..probably

[@davidlewis6728]

@@anandsuralkar2947 i don't understand most of what you are saying, but the existence of a global variable does not in any way imply ftl transference of info unless the given variable has said affect instantly. gravity affects everything in the universe no matter how far away it is, but the information about gravity does not break the laws of physics by going faster than light.

[@acscp125]

This is an awesome video!

[@HariJ2008]

Wow, This is amazing .What is place where you find these things .They are amazing I can show them in class.

[@perschistence2651]

But what if the photon would simply get randomly changed when passing the polarizer depending on how the texture of the polarizer at that position on the atomic level is.

[@siegfriedabrams4918]

I would love to hear an answer for that.

[@LEGIT_HIPHOP]

If that were the case, then there would be inconsistency in the 25% that was said to have observed in the video.

[@perschistence2651]

@@LEGIT_HIPHOP Why? The 25% are just the average, I think...

[@guadalupe8589]

"Texture" at the atomic level doesn't exist. Texture requires vast amounts of atoms to be. Texture is a description on a macro, not micro level

[@ExMuslimProphetMuhammad]

At micro level or quantum level textures doesn't exist. quantum particles just phase through the filter or even solid thin obstacles(quantum tunneling) without affecting the obstacle or being affected by obstacle. example is charge phasing through solid carbon nanotubes that are used in double gated transistors of modern ICs

[@vivekyadav]

1. In the experiment how were they able to generate one pair of photons and measure if it would pass the three filters or not? 2. Has the experiment been repeated with other properties of particles instead of using polarisation of light with same result? 3. How did they eliminate the possibility that the mere act of photon passing through the first polarizing filter affected its properties in some way (like for example shifted/rotated its polarizing angle clockwise) to make it pass though the second and finally third even though the third filter was at 90° from 1st one?

[@Xenro66]

This is the problem I have with leaps in logic like this. We don't know what we don't know, and there can always be hidden variables that we have no idea exist.

[@DanielKarbach]

As for 3, I fell for that one too, but that's why it's done with an entangled pair in parallel instead of just shooting one photon through both filters in succession.

[@LeAdri1du40]

Yes but they may be entangled but they are not at the same atomic position and don't go on the same trajectory, it might very well be there is atomic differences in the filter where the photon is passing.. This experiment doesn't prove there aren't hidden variables at all

[@ExMuslimProphetMuhammad]

The actual Bell's experiment was done , measuring the spin of electron and not polarization of light whereas this is just simplified version. The polarizers don't affect shift or rotation, even if they would then again there's would be a clear visible pattern. In quantum mechanics there's a saying that you know who's standing on the bridge only when you stand on that bridge

[@vivekyadav]

@@ExMuslimProphetMuhammad Thank you!

[@insectinvasion4201]

Could the loss be attributed to the fact that we live in a imperfect world and air or an imperfect polarizer or something may have messed with or absorbed the photons which could change the results

[@cocmaster3608]

Intresting LOVE THIS! 😍😍😍😍

[@azhakabad4229]

How many of you like Quantum Mechanics?

[@Geologist_Mike]

@The Action Lab great video! If you haven’t seen this polarizer trick it will blow your mind. Get three polarizing films, put one left-right and on top of it put one up-down. It goes dark right? Now insert a third polarizer in between those two and rotate it. The light comes back due to circular polarized photons being in superposition as they pass through.

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Nice job tricking us into learning with that baiting short!! 😤😤😤💪🏻💪🏻✊🏻💯

[@ShopperPlug]

Good explanation.

[@curtfehr]

What if there are multiple hidden variables that work together to produce the limited output? You could get 25% by having 8 variables for example, as this would produce 28 possible entanglements on the chart. All this seems to disprove is one variable having a direct say /impact on the outcome. It also assumes that if there were hidden variables, the values would be evenly distributed in the universe, and we already know symmetry is broken fundamentally, or else matter might not even exist.

[@xtieburn]

You can still have hidden variables, they just have to be non-local. I.e. the hidden variables themselves have to surpass the speed of light. Its how a set of interpretations of quantum mechanics deal with entanglement. That does come with its own problems of course. E.g. Information cant travel faster than light otherwise you almost unavoidably break causality, but its still a possibility for things like entanglement where no information can be passed.

[@trucid2]

That's not true either. You can have locality, hidden variables *and* determinism through superdeterminism.

[@Wilfoe]

Your reaction when both strings went up was gold XD

[@NelsonClick]

Wow. I was utterly enchanted. Thank you.

[@yaxjoshi8655]

This guy moves his head like he doesn't want to make eye contact while making eyecontact

[@christiansmakingmusic777]

I remember working as a data analyst and having a coworker ask me to help him understand why certain numbers in his spreadsheet didn't ad up. I wasn't an expert in Excel but I knew how to do math. I quickly reduced that "errors" formed a pattern that implied a hidden variable. Low and behold there was a hidden sheet, a layer of information that was password protected. The truth of quantum is not a universe without purpose but a lock barring your way to complete mastery. Either accept the boundary and the model for what it is or don't but only the Master has the key.

[@tim40gabby25]

Nice point. Who designates the Master, I wonder?

[@Saint_Owned]

What if you add 2 more additional polarizers? Would you have additional possibilities or less? (Its a fun experiment that raised more questions for me.)

[@xXninjaturtleiam1Xx]

is there a possibility that there might be another polarization angle that isn’t being accounted for that would result in that 0.25?

[@mrpancakes]

Well i learnt a magic trick at least :)

[@darckwolf458]

nothing says that entangled photons should have the same polaryzation, i could be a hidden variable that is defferent for each photon

[@bscutajar]

I never got Bell's theorem. The possibility matrix assumes that photons are unchanged when they pass through the filter. What if by going through filter 1 the photon is changed in such a way that it can go in filter 2 when it otherwise wouldn't?

[@unrecognizable_face]

That tube creation he just made would be a sick magic trick.

[@shaileshkumar-sw9ug]

His tshirt is stil thinking 🤔🤣

[@shannonlove4328]

Strictly speaking, true randomness is an unproven hypothesis. In every case to date, except quantum mechanics, all initially seemingly random phenomena have proven deterministic upon further investigation. Why should we assume that quantum mechanics is “truly” random instead of assuming, as we do with so other phenomena, that the deterministic mechanisms remains hidden. Just from a philosophy of science perspective, it seems an unprecedented and unwarranted assumption.

[@TheActionLab]

The entire field of quantum mechanics would collapse if there were local hidden variables. It demands true randomness.

[@shannonlove4328]

The Action Lab - I’m unconvinced. Look at the problem from the other direction: How does randomness even exist? What breaks causality? Moreover, if it’s truly random, why is there a statistical pattern at all? Remember, in all other domains, statistics simply represents a partial/superficial description of a deterministic system. As my statistics professor pointed out, regardless if how many black and white balls in ones sample, there is an actual fixed ratio of balls in the urn. Not sure you can evoke randomness, when randomness is completely unobserved in any other context. Randomness is not an Answer, it’s a hypothetical condition evoked at different points along the evolution of knowledge.

[@shannonlove4328]

The Action Lab - I don’t think that “field x” will collapse without randomness, is a valid argument. All scientific theories, regardless of utility, are mere approximations that at some point will be refined. In all other context, randomness means a lack information B about the system. It’s reasonable conclude the same thing applies with quantum physics. Besides, were does true randomness come from? There would have to be a mechanism for destroying information which is impossible as far we know. If the information isn’t destroyed, then it’s hidden. Random is really just term for unpredictable causality, which evaporates upon further examination. Evoking “true” randomness is to evoke an unobserved phenomena to explain a special case. Occam’s razor says that special pleading is usually incorrect.

[@davidlewis6728]

@@shannonlove4328 i think he meant that our current understanding of quantum mechanics breaks down without randomness, which he is wrong about, there are at least 2 promising theories that seem to explain the exact same data just as well without invoking randomness. the pilot wave and multiple-worlds interpretations. him not acknowledging them is, in my opinion, quite disingenuous, especially since there is no way he hasn't heard of them, or of the continued conflict these interpretations are having. the copenhagen interpretation is easier to calculate. that is basically the only thing that sets it apart from the other interpretations in practice, the pilot wave interpretation requires a medium that you must calculate that ultimately gets you to the same conclusion, the many worlds has the whole wavelength collapse = new worlds bullshit that does the same, when you know next to nothing, it is easier to invoke randomness as a predictive tool, but to insist that it is truly random is no different than insisting it was magic.

[@trucid2]

@@TheActionLab The randomness of quantum mechanics might be the manifestation of the averaging of underlying processes, similar to how the pressure of a gas is the average force exerted by a large number of molecules due to their motion. The Bell theorem doesn't disproves local hidden variables as it assumes statistical independence between the measuring apparatus and the thing being measured. This is sometimes called the free choice assumption. There is no reason to think this assumption is true--why would we assume that two objects within the same causal light cone have zero correlation? The assumption makes no sense. If there was a big bang then everything has a correlation to everything else going all the way back to big bang.

[@amarmkulkarni]

Love ur t-shirt But most lived is ur teaching 🥰🥰

[@MrIneedalifenow]

That string example is perfect for visualizing multiple variables affecting a system.

[@barefootalien]

That's incredible! You were able to single-handedly rule out one of the major theories of the underlying structure of Quantum Mechanics with some PVC, some string, and some washers! I bet all of the world's top experts in Quantum Mechanics would sure love to know that! Not only that, but you've also managed to conclude without any apparent doubt that the universe is truly non-deterministic, which is doubly impressive since the _best_ current theory of QM is deterministic. Bravo! I get that this is a channel aimed at a general, non-technical audience, but that doesn't mean you have to spread incorrect information. Just change the phrase "there are no hidden variables" to "there are no _local_ hidden variables" and you'd be presenting much more accurate information, not confusing anyone, and possibly even leaving a breadcrumb for curious-minded viewers to follow, to do some follow-up research on their own to find out why that word is in there. Similarly, is it that hard to say "it _seems_ that there _might_ really be randomness in the universe"? Even world-class experts don't use such certain phrasing about such things. Science must always allow for the possibility of being wrong. Put another way, Bayesian priors should never be exactly 0 or 1. Anyway, that said, neat trick with the strings! I'm surprised you didn't do the three-polarizer trick, which to my mind does a _much_ more convincing (if less rigorous) job of demonstrating why any simple, local version of a hidden variables theory can't be correct. If you're not familiar, it's pretty awesome, and would make a great video! Just take two polarizers, demonstrate the way light goes from 50% to 0% as the angle between them changes from 0° to 90°... and then when they're at 90°, slip a third polarizer between them at 45° and watch in awe as light can come through.

[@Arcticgreen]

I feel vexed, not from the assertion of randomness in quantun mechanics, but from the abuse of the world "prove" and from the assumption made. With the photon example, you proved only that the ASSUMED hidden variable was false, but ALSO proved that something else was going on. "Something else" also counts as a variable, and you just proved it exists. And since we are uncertain what said "something else" is, it therefore is "hidden", thus... You just showed us a hidden variable whilst claiming there were none.

[@BillyViBritannia]

hidden variable in this context means a predetermined bit of information that - if found out - allows you to predict the outcome of the experiment before making it. This was proven to not exist. If you want to call any knowledge that we still are unaware of a hidden variable then yes you're right, but that was not how the term was meant to be used here.

[@Elitematt74]

"Subscribe and if you haven't already, hit the Bell" Now why would I do that to him when he's the one that blessed us with such a theory

[@ActorVlogs]

Hi I wanted to ask, since you’ve been posting a couple videos on traveling at the speed of light, is it actually physically possible for us to accelerate to that speed without dying due to the g-force. Hope you can answer thanks!

[@-.._.-_...-_.._-..__..._.-.-.-]

It's not possible because we're not massless.

[@damiangreen299]

It's not possible because either we don't have enough time, or we don't have enough energy. If we did somehow have an infinite amount of energy, that could sustain an acceleration of 2Gs for about a half a year, then yes, we could do it in that time (v=v(0) + at). That would require a constant force of 1372N to accelerate a 70Kg person (f=ma). If you somehow had a massless engine that could eject mass behind you at the speed of light, then the simplified thrust equation (f=mc) allows you to approximate that to an instantaneous mass of ~4.5mg ejected per second, which amounts to about 70Kg over half a year. But then you have to add the mass of your ship and engine and fuel, and the amount becomes ridiculous. Say the combination of you, your engine, and your ship, carrying no fuel weighed only 70000 kg (1000 times your own weight). Then it would require 1000 times the thrust just to propel that. Then you have to calculate the amount of fuel you need and extra thrust for that, which is exponential and complicated because the more fuel you need, the more thrust you need, then you need more fuel, then you need more thrust, and as I understand it the mass required approaches infinity. I believe this is sort of a different way of looking at Special Relativity, which states that the mass of an object increases as its speed increases, and approaches infinity as the object's speed approaches the speed of light. What people often forget about though is that you could theoretically collect more mass to use as fuel along the way, which might make it possible to get close to light speed if you don't have to slow down much to collect it. In fact that is essentially how some theorized propulsion systems are based. Solar sail ships collect their mass in the form of radiation from a star. But there is little radiation that can be collected when you are far from a star, and I doubt you would be able to collect anywhere close to 4.5g/s worth of mass from radiation with any imaginable solar sail. As far as I know, these ship concepts only transfer the momentum of that radiation as it bounces off the sail, and then redirect it in the opposite direction. The closest stars are approximately 4.3 light years away. You would also have to consider how to slow down. I suppose you could just slam into the star, but if you want to decelerate at 2Gs, then it would require just as much mass to decelerate as it did to accelerate. With a big sail, you are also likely to encounter space debris along the way. That could be catastrophic. Alternatively, thinking outside of the box a little here, what if we were able to grow a tiny black hole in a lab. Would we then approach the speed of light as we carefully accelerate towards it? I think that might be more possible, but instead of traveling a great distance, I believe we would ourselves shrink and our world would seem to stand still. Onlookers would see us speed up and disappear and age in an instant, but it is possible that we might actually be able to observe our micro-universe from a very different perspective. We wouldn't be able to return, but it might lead to new micro universes for us to inhabit, of course we might also die of old age before we can shrink down small enough to find somewhere that is inhabitable. Who really knows...

[@StrikeEagIe]

Nope because it’s too hard

[@brentmagazine8496]

Hidden variable, crouching probability..

[@grantmalone]

It's all done with wires.

[@shade5554]

11:44 Well, to be honest you didn't set up all the hidden variables though. When a photon is passed through a polarizer, there is a chance that it'd be deviated by external circumstances. You never know, no two polarizers are exactly same ( by same, I mean upto the quantum scale). This experiment can never be conducted in real life to get accurate results because even slightest of the deviation could result in drastic changes in results, which would appear to be "random", when actually it's not.

[@TheActionLab]

Hidden variables does not mean experimental variation. You can show your experimental error is much much less than the difference between 33% and 25%. There is not an 8% experimental error. It is orders of magnitude lower than that. You can easily show your experimental errors by using a bunch of different polarizers and calculating the variation in your results.

[@KoiGaming]

Just curious why 0 degree aka horizontal photon was not considered as a variable and only 45, 90, and -45? Because it’s interesting when my head adds the 4th photon to the scenario then in my head I get the 25% rate you refer to

[@yeadontwearitout]

Oh man this is mind boggling. That light polarization analogy was a pretty good description to describe the random factor in quantum physics. I still don't think it's random but that results are based on actions so impossibly nuanced to recreate that they might as well be. If we could find a way to AIM that photon through the polarizer it wouldn't be random anymore. The results currently seem about as random as chips falling down a plinko board. It could technically be possible to recreate results time after time if variables were all known and duplicated but that would incredibly complex to do with all those intricacies. For real world application it would be impossible essentially to control results. The sun for example has photon light particles we can't control so results would basically depend on it's movement or its energy being redirected. Nothing seems random, only predetermined if you ask me. Random implies unexpected results out of nowhere and without reason. Knowing the possible outcomes without knowing why they occur is random. A coin flipping tails side up is not random, just an unexpected result; predetermined based on the energy used to flip it and the physics and expended energy behind it's movement. In conclusion, life is abstract like a Jackson Pollock painting.

[@localverse]

Similar thinking here 🤔, if it were truly random then we should see it achieve a higher number of matching results than a coin toss would which isn't truly random. For example, we should see more cases of 100 electrons in a row all spin up or all spin down, than we'd see of 100 coin flips in a row all heads or all tails. It's the tiny imperfections in the flipping and and tiny differences between two sides a coin that prevents too many matching heads or tails beyond a certain amount. True random wouldn't have those imperfections, so their matching results could climb higher.

[@Sparezacc]

Mr. Quantum Mechanics: action man with a beard hello

[@zaf_henry]

No im noy gonna

[@Sparezacc]

xX_DINOmonter_Xx and friends learn to spell

[@Sparezacc]

xX_DINOmonter_Xx and friends dont even reply ur like 8 yrs old

[@Sparezacc]

CraZY 420 GaMinG rlly? don’t advertise urself on my comment

[@zaf_henry]

@@Sparezacc I have more subs then u and all u do is stand still and get kicked in the nut

[@harshitsingh3480]

13:35 When someone makes you fool twice 🤣🤣🤣 Read more

[@khadanandachalise135]

Lol

[@dominikmilien]

Lol

[@milkaninmorinegi]

I've been fooled by this comment thrice... Don't ask how 🤦

[@gabor6259]

Someone call Penn & Teller.

[@grifferkay9253]

I got once,the readmore got me

[@sirpoopsalot5285]

Why is there no 9th option where it can have the information of passing through number 1 and not number 2 and 3? Apologies for my ignorance, does this have something to do with number 1 being vertical?

[@abviratmishra1346]

I love your videos😍😍

[@tehknologik]

That "proof" sounds like total BS TBH.

[@Riccoo]

Hey

[@zaf_henry]

Hey

[@Riccoo]

Hey

[@zaf_henry]

Hey

[@Riccoo]

Hey

[@zaf_henry]

Hey

[@cegolau]

But you are considering that there is a 50/50 chance of one photon to go through any of those filters. What if there is a higher percentage of one type of photon polarization (vertical, for example)? Wouldn't that also affect this experiment?

[@nanigopaldutta9094]

This is awesome physics why don't you do magnetic hysteresis experiment please