How Physicists Proved The Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 EXPLAINED

  Рет қаралды 8,835,392

Dr Ben Miles

Dr Ben Miles

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 16 000
@DrBenMiles
@DrBenMiles Жыл бұрын
I think Scientists are Rockstars 🤘so I made t-shirts to celebrate it. More links in description Einstein Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/rockstar-scientist-tee-einstein
@bhardwajchandru9725
@bhardwajchandru9725 Жыл бұрын
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः । अनेन वेद्यं सच्छास्त्रमिति वेदान्तडिण्डिमः ॥ ब्रह्म वास्तविक है, ब्रह्मांड मिथ्या है (इसे वास्तविक या असत्य के रूप में वर्गीकृत नहीं किया जा सकता है)। जीव ही ब्रह्म है और भिन्न नहीं। इसे सही शास्त्र के रूप में समझा जाना चाहिए। यह वेदांत द्वारा घोषित किया गया है। Brahman is real, the universe is mithya (it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal). The jiva is Brahman itself and not different. This should be understood as the correct Sastra. This is proclaimed by Vedanta. Source - ब्रह्मज्ञानावलीमाला I think u may know about Adi Shankaracharya (Vedanta)
@youarenotme01
@youarenotme01 Жыл бұрын
scientists are mostly liars that ride on the coattails of the real rockstars, the mathematicians. ultimately this ends in war. fair warning.
@Christopher_Bachm
@Christopher_Bachm Жыл бұрын
How nonsense took over legitimate research is a better title. FYI - the wave state is real. The outcome is variable, like almost everything in nature. Growing up is the challenge for folks. It's time...
@dimkk605
@dimkk605 Жыл бұрын
I wanna know though: Can I control my local un-realness within my brain's neurons, so that I can have ABSOLUTELY UNDOUBTFULY free will? Tell me that. Please I need to know! I don't know if I have free will or not. Maybe this term (free will) isn't much useful. If it isn't indeed useful, then tell me what the heck I have. Free-what? Free brain function? I need to know if I control my brain or determinism controls my faith. Or maybe determinism that looks like randomness controls myself. Tell me please. Does this experiment prove anything regarding free will? Also.... Libet's experiments proved nothing. He just spotted some brain activity. So what? He can't prove this brain activity supports the existence of free will. He also can't prove that this brain activity excludes the possibility that free will exists. Maybe this activity he spotted isn't relative to free will at any way. Maybe it was just parallel activity. What does science and neuroscience tell us about free will today? Please answer me! I have OCD and I believe there is no free will at all. So I live the same loops of daily life again and again and again. I am not a possibilist either. I think possibilism regarding free will, is just an excuse in order to avoid deep research in human nature. I think possibilists merely don't want to find out what really is the case there. Please read my comment and answer me!!!
@marcelcukier
@marcelcukier Жыл бұрын
Can you better explain the reasons why both curves shown in 09:35 should necessarily have the shapes shown between 0 and 90 angles, for both propositions? @DrBenMiles
@evokaiyo
@evokaiyo 2 жыл бұрын
I can confirm this with my daily observations. I can place an object on my table, countertop etc. It appears stable and should not fall over. The moment I turn my back, at a random interval of its choosing, the object will fall over, or end up on the floor. Initially, I believed it to be poltergeists, but I'm now convinced it's Matthew McConaughey
@renitixz
@renitixz 2 жыл бұрын
*quiet organs play in the background*
@Madcatcon199
@Madcatcon199 2 жыл бұрын
It was me and harpua, and we couldn’t care fewer, it happens all the time!
@Donavery1
@Donavery1 2 жыл бұрын
I'm thinking it must be Shrodinger's Cat !
@hcrawford
@hcrawford 2 жыл бұрын
@@renitixz "quiet"?
@cesarsantellana1768
@cesarsantellana1768 2 жыл бұрын
Are you sure it wasn't Patrick Swayze?
@gumshoe2273
@gumshoe2273 2 жыл бұрын
I met a theoretical physicist the other day. I was surprised to learn they actually exist.
@nextlevelenglish5858
@nextlevelenglish5858 2 жыл бұрын
go back to your ramer before they cut your pay again
@vthomas375
@vthomas375 2 жыл бұрын
What else doesn't exist? For them it's the scientific method.
@watamatafoyu
@watamatafoyu 2 жыл бұрын
I'll just have to take that on faith.
@vthomas375
@vthomas375 2 жыл бұрын
@@watamatafoyu You're way too trusting. Ask them to show practically.
@andrewday7799
@andrewday7799 2 жыл бұрын
But are they locally real?
@AncientEsper
@AncientEsper 2 жыл бұрын
As someone who pays attention to quantum theories, my feeling is that the universe has infinitely more details and twists the more we look. It’s basically making details up the more we look, keeping up with what we’re capable of measuring.
@ianokay
@ianokay 2 жыл бұрын
We can't even grasp the additional dimensions above our own, so that makes sense
@GeekyGizmo007
@GeekyGizmo007 2 жыл бұрын
we are building the complexity of the universe... We're are a training program for it and it for us. Perpetual amplification.
@Edw9n
@Edw9n 2 жыл бұрын
@@GeekyGizmo007 ok dud sure thing
@ianokay
@ianokay 2 жыл бұрын
@@GeekyGizmo007 I somewhat believe we're alone in the universe but not sure I want to (historically, again) demand we're the center of the universe with which it all revolves around. More likely: We just don't understand, and maybe cannot.
@leonardgibney2997
@leonardgibney2997 2 жыл бұрын
Yes l had the idea a particle only comes into existence when it's postulated by a physicist.
@shanemurphy-od6ej
@shanemurphy-od6ej 6 ай бұрын
Gday mate.I am 52 yo and left school at14 years of age.I do enjoy wisdom and have a broader general knowledge than most people i know however often feel stupid thinking i obviously missed the stepping stones to learn things most educated people take as a given.. my wife is a veterinarian surgeon and often while talking with her colleagues i feel totally out of place perhaps even deliberately made to feel stupid,tickling some sort of ego by a few. thank you so very much from the bottom of my heart for explaining concepts above my understanding in way that even i CAN understand. especially your demeanor tone and body language without any arrogance or self superiority makes listening to you much much more to than just educational... i simply cannot say THANK YOU as big as i mean it.
@Liliarthan
@Liliarthan 4 ай бұрын
If it tickles your fancy, it’s never too late to do formal studying. Of course, universities, TAFE etc aren’t the only places one can do that - lots of online universities, open universities etc that cost a lot less and may be easier to get into. Or the many websites that offer lower cost tuitions now that doesn’t necessarily lead to any formal qualifications but if you’re interested just in learning about certain subjects for enjoyment’s sake (like I am currently) that doesn’t matter at all. I particularly enjoy putting on the Stanford free lectures, some amazing teachers there. Good on you for continuing to seek knowledge and finding something you enjoy learning about. I’m sure you have a lot to teach the rest of us too, about very important life lessons that one never gets taught at schools or universities.
@TheToxicTank
@TheToxicTank 4 ай бұрын
Great post. I appreciate your self awareness and eagerness to grow new knowledge. I would say most I meet in a similar situation aren't capable of such thought or self observation. I wish you well on your knowledge journey and personal growth. I would say something you can fix very quickly is how you present yourself both physically and digitally here on KZbin for example. Work towards the basics as boring as they might be such as grammar. Grammar is the number one thing people will notice as a major education deficiency. Work towards breaking old habbits. Others perception of you will change and your own confidence will raise over time. Everytime you begin a new sentence, use a capital letter. Also, stop using two periods after every sentence.. Lastly, anytime you refer to yourself as "i" in a sentence, that should also be capitalized as "I" even if it's in the middle of the statement. There is definitely more to learn like the appropriate use of commas but just those three things will make a huge difference for you. I am friends with a gentleman who doesn't understand anything about how to write a sentence, not even when to add a period so he doesn't. Instead, he places a big awkward space --------- between words to signal that he is starting a new sentence. This results in zero punctuation. Meanwhile, he's trying to have serious discussions online in the political arena and people do not take him serious.
@anukalgudi6216
@anukalgudi6216 4 ай бұрын
Don't put yourself down. You clearly have intelligence about life that no one ever will. Meanwhile, plenty of people with degrees know nothing of reality. And you have a veterinarian wife. Intelligent women pick intelligent men. They don't respect a man they don't feel safe with. So your proof of intelligence is in that pudding ;)
@Marynicole830
@Marynicole830 4 ай бұрын
@@TheToxicTankwait, if he knows where to put the spaces why can’t he put periods there instead?
@Plethorality
@Plethorality 3 ай бұрын
Dunno. ​@@Marynicole830
@Yantrajaal
@Yantrajaal Жыл бұрын
Thanks. Shankaracharya in his exposition of the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta ( ~ 8th Century CE) had asserted "Brahma Satya, Jagat Mithya" or The World is an Illusion, only the primordial Consciousness is real.
@OllyWood688
@OllyWood688 2 жыл бұрын
I couldn't imagine a bigger flex than having gotten the Nobel Prize for keepin' it real.
@oldbot64
@oldbot64 2 жыл бұрын
Damn underrated joke right there. Dave chappelle would be proud
@supernana7263
@supernana7263 2 жыл бұрын
thanks for keeping this joke real
@jonathanwright5338
@jonathanwright5338 2 жыл бұрын
Getting kicked out of Feynman’s office. When keeping it real, goes wrong.
@beastemeauxde7029
@beastemeauxde7029 2 жыл бұрын
Realest shit you ever wrote.
@Krystalmyth
@Krystalmyth 2 жыл бұрын
Word.
@periclestoukiloglou1196
@periclestoukiloglou1196 2 жыл бұрын
They way I had "understood" so far, was that according to quantum physics, the property of a particle is random until it is measured. However, if I am getting this right, whenever we measure again the same particles, the value of the property will change again, to a previously unknown value (so that it's value sometimes is or isn't 180-Δθ) . If that is the case, the value of the particles' property could be changing randomly all the time and we just get a snapshot of it's value at the precise moment that we measured it.
@MaxWinner
@MaxWinner 2 жыл бұрын
Yes..or, rather than "changing randomly" maybe they are all possible properties at the same time, or no properties at all, ..are they just simply "undefined" ... But now we're back to a cat in a box lol
@lxlumen
@lxlumen 2 жыл бұрын
It’s more like we don’t know the properties, like with the cat. Doesn’t mean everything is truly random until you look.
@mariakutschera3087
@mariakutschera3087 2 жыл бұрын
Perhaps we hav no measure for All that exists.
@TheDarkblue57
@TheDarkblue57 2 жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure what you're describing is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and also superposition but I think the difference here is that the two particles are in a state of entanglement I believe they're still in superposition but upon measurement a wave function collapse occurs so as to not violate conservation of momentum by having the particles spin in opposite directions, which is what was apparently proven.
@420SupaK
@420SupaK 2 жыл бұрын
I'm not fully educated in some of this. Giving a Nobel prize for saying something changes properties when measured differently. That doesn't sound like a award winning break through.
@helifynoe1034
@helifynoe1034 9 ай бұрын
If you take two polarized filters and place them on top of each other, and have them sitting on a light source, you will notice as you rotate one of the filters in a linear fashion, that the change in light intensity passing through, is not linear. One may calculate the outcome by using a Malus Law Calculator.
@butterfacemcgillicutty
@butterfacemcgillicutty 2 жыл бұрын
Great! So, next time I'm faced with a situation I don't want to deal with in life I can say it's not real and run away! Thanks Quantum Physics!
@Arcticdawn1093
@Arcticdawn1093 2 жыл бұрын
Universe may be unreal but so are we...so for us everything is real ...
@zanussidish8144
@zanussidish8144 2 жыл бұрын
But you can't run away. You face it and see if the situation can run away from you. 👍
@chrisbrown8640
@chrisbrown8640 2 жыл бұрын
Wish I could tell that to a traffic cop !😂
@jimberry5318
@jimberry5318 2 жыл бұрын
Not real like I'm right here come on man..... Some people are so smart they outsmarted themselves
@azizkurtoglu6243
@azizkurtoglu6243 2 жыл бұрын
And you will omit reality disastrously with all its consequences that can be much worse and bitter for you later on. If you had taken it real, you could have destroyed all bad consequences at once that now you need to face in the future.
@bilson7523
@bilson7523 2 жыл бұрын
My complaint about this stuff is the use of "real" or "realism." I much prefer your use of "deterministic," as I think it helps convey the reality of what is going on and how the models capture it. Not to say it invalidates any of this, but I know it does create a barrier to understanding the concept for people like my wife who responded by touching a table and saying: "So... This table isn't real?"
@1994mrmysteryman
@1994mrmysteryman 2 жыл бұрын
Haha 😄
@eufrosniad994
@eufrosniad994 2 жыл бұрын
I very much agree. It may have been long forgotten, but realism and anti-realism are terms that do already exist in Philosophy as well. This form of loading onto the term does not help someone avoid misunderstandings upon first hearing these theories. That being said, it is worth pointing out that almost all of modern science is founded upon anti-realist foundations and motivations while accepting realist foundations for carrying out the scientific methodology. So if one were a scientist who strictly adheres to the anti-realist motivations, they would answer your wife's question that "they can never be sure the table is actually there, let alone know what is truly meant by a table". This is because since Hume, principle of causality has been rejected as doubtful, which in turn means that our sensory information cannot be trusted.
@ILoveGrilledCheese
@ILoveGrilledCheese 2 жыл бұрын
Agreed, I think often these complex scientific theories get muddled by poor communication.
@aqualust5016
@aqualust5016 2 жыл бұрын
@@ILoveGrilledCheesesome people keep it that way to gate keep and flex as if they’re smarter than everyone else. In fact, they’re fools if they can’t rationally explain their thesis to the world in such a way that others can infer their stance and agree on it based on the communication methods used
@triaswinter296
@triaswinter296 2 жыл бұрын
But doesn't also the philosophical term "realism" gets used to describe a objective world which isn't affected by our doings and our mind? Hume says we cannot know this, but didn't this quantum measurements "disprove" (as far as this is possible) the possibility of a inherent realistic world, also in terms of philosophical realism?
@parasharsomprabh4970
@parasharsomprabh4970 2 жыл бұрын
Questions of science suddenly become questions of philosophy and psychology the deeper we move into them, science and philosophy essentially look like brothers.
@AbandonedVoid
@AbandonedVoid 2 жыл бұрын
Science has made philosophy irrelevant
@cassandragemini_
@cassandragemini_ 2 жыл бұрын
@@AbandonedVoid only to people devoid of any heart who would rather sound like robots instead of freakin human beings
@AlFredo-sx2yy
@AlFredo-sx2yy 2 жыл бұрын
​@@AbandonedVoid You say that because like most people, you dont understand the purpose of philosophy and mistake it for some sort of attempt at pseudo science. Physics student btw, so not a philosophy fanboy by any means, but philosophy doesnt just deal with stuff like "what is reality anyways lol", same way not all of phsyics is about solving highschool pulley problems.
@doml998
@doml998 2 жыл бұрын
@@AbandonedVoid Philosophy creates science essentially. Must come up with an idea and test them. Quite simple.
@ayee4363
@ayee4363 2 жыл бұрын
Natural philosophy
@bryanmorwood
@bryanmorwood 3 ай бұрын
Locality: Nothing, not even information, can travel faster than light. (0:40) This is what Einstein believed, and Einstein was right. John Clauser’s 1972 experiment does not demonstrate that communication between entangled particles is instantaneous - specifically, it does not rule out the possibility that such communication travels at the speed of light. Suppose that two entangled particles are 1 light year apart. We observe one of them to determine its spin, this collapses the wave function, and we now know the spin on the other particle. Or do we? This is where the confusion arises. We know what it should be if we could observe it, but our knowledge is local - the other particle is 1 light year away. To check, we have to travel one light year to observe it, and when we do, we find its spin is as expected. Good news, but when did it take on this spin? The answer is: when the quantum information, travelling at the speed of light, arrived at the second particle (1 year later) to collapse its wave function. This is far from instantaneous, so Einstein was right (about locality).
@takedonick101
@takedonick101 2 жыл бұрын
Man Alice and Bob have had a lifetime of stories together.... they should make a scifi tv show at this point jeez lol
@porridgeandprunes
@porridgeandprunes 2 жыл бұрын
Alice and Bob? Oh no! Not that again!
@violet.senderhauf2187
@violet.senderhauf2187 2 жыл бұрын
@@porridgeandprunes Welcome to Einstein's Nightmare.
@bobbyb9712
@bobbyb9712 2 жыл бұрын
Well, I am Bob and I have never met an Alice as far as I can remember so like the man says I haven't and will never know whether we agree or not. Still have to go with Einstein.
@cvspvr
@cvspvr 2 жыл бұрын
alice and bob vs the evil claire
@abedan1258
@abedan1258 2 жыл бұрын
When They can't solve the problem They say the math is incorrect
@DanielPeaster
@DanielPeaster 2 жыл бұрын
In fairness, I’m not very smart. But I’ve tried so many times to understand quantum entanglement and you single-handedly explained it to me in just a few simple sentences. I am eternally grateful. I can finally impress my grandmother.
@waldwassermann
@waldwassermann 2 жыл бұрын
Never use the word against your self. You are super intelligent.
@draganbacmaga8981
@draganbacmaga8981 2 жыл бұрын
I think it's fair to say that even the smartest people have trouble understanding entanglement - that's why they all propose theories.
@julianemery718
@julianemery718 2 жыл бұрын
Quantum mechanics is something you can't really understand fully, and anyone claiming they do are lying.
@tubehepa
@tubehepa 2 жыл бұрын
Ditto! 🤩
@christopher.m.dickinson0315
@christopher.m.dickinson0315 2 жыл бұрын
It's all good there are many levels of intelligence out there but at least you have a willingness to learn and that's really what's more important
@CamraMaan
@CamraMaan Жыл бұрын
Regarding particle spin, with one particle splitting into two, there is a theoretical way they can both have the same spin, versus opposite, which is if they split along the axis of spin, versus perpendicular to it. Like in the video example, you have the two particle split away along the "equator", from which logic would dictate that they should not maintain identical spins. But if they instead split apart separating from the north/south pole, it would be intuitive for them to have the same spin, and counterintuitive for them to have opposing spins.
@aapjew18
@aapjew18 4 ай бұрын
But doesn't that assume the particle has a spin already? And then that would confirm that something else has set that particle in motion to spin. Which aligns with the underlying idea.
@theoptimisticskeptic
@theoptimisticskeptic 6 ай бұрын
A couple of questions: I know this is a year old but here goes, LOVE your channel by the way: 1. If two particles are entangled from the moment they divide so before they are a Universe apart then their aren't values detertermined at that moment? 2. Doesn't that mean, once we've measured the state of one particle we know the state of the other, even if it's traveled a Universe away. 3. But how does anyone get that means any of those states were determined at the time of measurement rather than at the time they were created? If one was spinning clockwise and the other counter-clockwise, wouldn't they have been doing so since they divided? 4. If the anwser is no, then how? How are they not spinning? And it can't just be because we haven't measured it yet, I would think. We know these particles are in fact actual physical object despite their size. They have to be. Otherwise trillions of them wouldnt make up a physical object, that seems to go against common sense to me. Of couse that could be the nature of Quantum Mechanics, but my gut tells me it's more a limitation of our measuring technology and that one day we will be able to do things like measure both spin and location at the same time. On the other hand, I'm also a layman hobbyist when it comes to physics and science so what do I know compared to Nobel Prize winners or an optical theoretical physicist, heh.
@OneLine122
@OneLine122 3 ай бұрын
1. They are but you can't tell. 2. If the other was not interacted with, yes, you know, but the information is useless. 3. It's the same question as 1 isn't it? Spin in physics is not the same as what we use the word for, it's a metaphor. But overall they do have a spin, you just can't tell which until you measure. Particles are not "physical objects", they have no matter and can't be divided. The way they make a physical object is by materializing in a way. They create bonds with each others and it's those bonds we perceive as material and objects. Basically it's the "forces" that make them "real" in the normal sense of the term. You could think of it as an emergent property of the particles. It's pretty accepted you can't ever measure both at the same time with total precision. It's logically impossible, it just took physicists a long time to figure it out and accept it. There is one way you can though get something at the same time. You can calculate position and then hear music so to speak. It's what they do to calculate gravitation waves. Music is not a measurement, but you know it's there and it has different qualities.
@RWMAirgunsmithing
@RWMAirgunsmithing 3 ай бұрын
They have done experiments with multiple detectors at different stages that demonstrate entanglement no matter when you measure the particle (before or after). Edit : the moment you take your measurements or interact with your particles is the moment the wave function collapses, roughly speaking... until then its all probability and quantum mechanics.
@gr637
@gr637 Жыл бұрын
I agree with Einstein that randomness is not a fundamental feature of nature. Just because the behaviour of some particles appears to be random, it doesn’t mean that it is. Every particle’s behaviour must have an explanation - there must always be A REASON to explain why a particle moves this way or that way. .just because we don’t know that explanation yet, this doesn’t mean that we can or should attribute it to randomness.
@sliglusamelius8578
@sliglusamelius8578 11 ай бұрын
Seems intuitive, but apparently it's not correct.
@DuckDodgers69
@DuckDodgers69 11 ай бұрын
Sometimes
@MrClickity
@MrClickity 11 ай бұрын
Problem is, there have been tests done on the "hidden variable" hypothesis, and the randomness really does seem baked into the universe.
@stipostipo2051
@stipostipo2051 11 ай бұрын
Determinism or randomness is not primarily a problem of physics but of the epistemology of the observer. Man's abilities are limited because man is not an absolute creature. He will never be able to trace all the causes - down to the last root or all the consequences - through determinism. One can never be certain of detecting causality or correlation in all its entirety because there will always be something that he does not see, does not know at that moment and that affects the object of observation. Therefore, it cannot verify the validity of determinism, because either determinism applies absolutely or it does not apply at all.
@charlesmiller8107
@charlesmiller8107 10 ай бұрын
It all sounds logical until it's proven wrong, then it makes sense.
@TheStatisticalPizza
@TheStatisticalPizza 2 жыл бұрын
I suppose this would be a great way to preserve processing power in a simulated universe. I mean, why compute anything if nothing is around to observe it? It would be better to have those resources available to be used for something else if the need should arise.
@TheEndude
@TheEndude 2 жыл бұрын
I like to think of it the way graphics in video games work to conserve computer resources.
@bluerider9204
@bluerider9204 2 жыл бұрын
If I am in a simulated reality...they better upgrade me. This VR program sucks. 🤣
@obscurity3027
@obscurity3027 2 жыл бұрын
That’s why far away galaxies look so blurry in Hubble images. The universe is obviously just using the low res models because there’s no reason to fully load them in high detail being so far away.
@Maho6137
@Maho6137 2 жыл бұрын
@@obscurity3027 Wouldn't that be a great premise for a Matrix movie? That they're going to crash the Matrix by loading too much data into memory by somehow 'observing' and thus loading everything? let it overflow
@ibashcommunists6847
@ibashcommunists6847 2 жыл бұрын
God said that when Christ c9mes back, heaven and earth will be merged and that the old earth will be gone. This universe will disappear juat like that.
@GHOST-331
@GHOST-331 Жыл бұрын
Niels Bohr, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, did not believe that the universe is not real. In fact, he believed that the universe is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the way we observe and measure it. Bohr believed that the physical world is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the constraints of our measurements and observations. He argued that we should focus on the pragmatic and experimental aspects of quantum mechanics, rather than trying to understand the underlying reality behind it.
@vhawk1951kl
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
Who told you what Niels Bohr" believed" , and why do you believe them?
@vhawk1951kl
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
If only you had some idea of what you mean by or could even begine to define, " the universe". Apart from imaginary what is the universe? You have absolutely no idea?-No surprises there
@alals6794
@alals6794 Жыл бұрын
Hey you know, Bohr was on to something there.....for all his theoretical prowess, he was the most pragmatic of them all, it seems.
@liquidmagma
@liquidmagma Жыл бұрын
@@vhawk1951kl Another desperate "simulation" theorist.
@madhatter3492
@madhatter3492 Жыл бұрын
Quantum Physics does not exist, it is a evil that will be driven out of this world.
@tomislavbunjevcevic9912
@tomislavbunjevcevic9912 5 ай бұрын
This video takes its time to explain obvious things and then flies over the stuff that were actually here to see explained. I hope there will be a followup video.
@SJKPJR007
@SJKPJR007 2 жыл бұрын
Thank goodness this had a "So what?" chapter. Whenever I read or watch items concerning quantum theory I often end up wondering if it's significance is "locally real".
@allieharmon3926
@allieharmon3926 2 жыл бұрын
How I felt when I was reading, then skimming, an article on this for the "so what?" Bit. Bc I'm pretty sure philosophers already touched on this existential crisis 💀🤣
@GameTimeWhy
@GameTimeWhy 2 жыл бұрын
@m_train1 never let what out?
@royalbloodedledgend
@royalbloodedledgend 2 жыл бұрын
Well, if nothing is real then we might as well go ahead & blow ourselves up then. It’s going to happen eventually anyways.
@GameTimeWhy
@GameTimeWhy 2 жыл бұрын
@m_train1 I did.
@donaldduck4888
@donaldduck4888 2 жыл бұрын
Apart from the fact that it drives the modern world (like the computer you wrote this on) quantum theory is completely irrelevant.
@HistoryoftheUniverse
@HistoryoftheUniverse 2 жыл бұрын
This was so well done, so clear and easy to follow. Thanks!
@kapoorh
@kapoorh 2 жыл бұрын
Easy to follow? I was lost at Photon...
@InTonalHarmony
@InTonalHarmony 2 жыл бұрын
What’s a photon?
@gabejohnson4535
@gabejohnson4535 2 жыл бұрын
@@InTonalHarmony A photon is a particle of light.
@jaaaake
@jaaaake 2 жыл бұрын
Dislike. They proved it wasn’t locally real - don’t support clickbait titles
@infinity2394
@infinity2394 2 жыл бұрын
evil only exists if goodness exists since you wouldn't know evil without first knowing goodness. Think of it like this. you cannot have shadows without light, but you can have light without shadows. So how is it that we know why good is good? if you're an atheist you don't know why it's wrong to kill a person you just know it's wrong though you don't know the reason. You see we know the universe had a beginning based on The Cosmic Microwave Background, which is "the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe" it is a 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, it was released soon after the 'Big Bang'. Scientists consider it as an echo or 'shockwave' of the Big Bang. this paired with the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding while also winding down. Not only did the matter in the universe have a beginning, but also the forces such as space, and gravity, and quantum forces, and time we know this from general relativity which shows that you cannot have space without time and you cannot have time without space and you cannot have matter without space or time! meaning that what could have caused the big bang would have to be outside of the realm of time and space meaning it's nonmaterial ! because nothing cannot happen to create something because there is nothing to occur to create something... So how does this go back to morality you ask? well would you believe it if I told you I just proved GOD's existence? You see GOD is outside of space and time! he is the one that was the cause of the universe he was the beginning, and since he is outside space and time. He is eternal meaning there was nothing before him he was always there and always will be. Now onto morality the reason we know it's wrong to kill someone is because GOD created us with a conscience con meaning with science meaning knowledge so when we kill someone we do it with knowledge that you just killed someone. The thing about your conscience is that it is GOD given society shaped. YOU can also shape your conscience the more you do things against it the quieter you make it it's like removing the batteries from your fire detector especially if you're loving the thing your conscience is warning you against.
@Argonova
@Argonova 2 жыл бұрын
I don't understand why inherent randomness means that the universe is not "real". Later in the video, you shift that to "locally real". Isn't it still possible that these particles are interacting in a classical way, on a level that we just can't see? Or that the connection between them is being broken? More explanation of this would be appreciated, because while the numbers may not make sense, I'm not sure why this eliminates the possibility of hidden variables.
@vaibhavbv3409
@vaibhavbv3409 2 жыл бұрын
But why isn't it real
@seditt5146
@seditt5146 2 жыл бұрын
Basically because it is saying there is no predetermined outcome as in a particle does not have ANY defined state until its observed. Not that we simply dont understand the state, just that the state has not even been determined, IE, does not even exist, until observed. I mean, while this is grounded in reality as a statement, its highly misleading and reporting on it is rather garbage. This does NOT rule out super determinism as in, the entire Universe is predetermined. For reasons unknown to me, Science is and has been hell bent on proving they can separate a chunk of the universe from the rest and calculate its properties definitively. This is surely impossible. But, this does not mean it was not all determined from the start of the universe. I think they just want to leave room for free will at all cost. IDK why, just how it is.
@absolutium
@absolutium 2 жыл бұрын
Think about it as if it was a computer program where you can fly a very fast plane.. if I asked you what the max speed of the aircraft can be.. you would be compelled to answer in Mph or Kph.. But the speed of the plane can only be that of the processor's clock. At that moment if you were on the plane as a passenger the speed of the plane is no longer real is it?
@havenbastion
@havenbastion 2 жыл бұрын
It's not inherent randomness at all. All statistical ideas are a measure of the upper limit of predictive certainty, Not facts about reality. Those may only be known by actual measurement or logical necessity, not probability, which is all a wave function is.
@maflones
@maflones 2 жыл бұрын
It's philosophy, so basically it's as dumb as religion.
@mirceadigulescu
@mirceadigulescu 3 ай бұрын
Dudes.. it's like the solar neutrino problem:.. guess what.. particles vary in time: as a function of time. They are "entangled" like lovers on the TV Show - they "know" what the partner thinks, because their functions of variation over time are entangled - antithetical for example. So basically particle A varies with fA(t) and particle B varies with fB(t)=-fA(t) for example. They "sync" their functions when they are in close proximity.
@ZenHulk
@ZenHulk 2 жыл бұрын
I started reading quantum physics books when i was too young to understand them, about 1982 13 years old, now I'm 53 years old, and still feel i don't understand it much, but this video made me feel like i learned something over 40 years, because some of this was familiar. I have always been drawn to this, even though I'm mostly a trained engineer, and now an old man hanging out in a home mancave building a humanoid robot at a slow pace. Cool video, thanks.
@ravenragnar
@ravenragnar 2 жыл бұрын
Try DMT/5g of Mushrooms. It will make more sense.
@神林しマイケル
@神林しマイケル 2 жыл бұрын
@@ravenragnar Yeah no. If it was, then scientists would have done it and achieved a massive breakthrough in regards to quantum physics but reality is often disappointing.
@ravenragnar
@ravenragnar 2 жыл бұрын
@@神林しマイケル Yeah no. You are wrong. Look up where the birth of the internet came from. It was a massive breakthrough.
@神林しマイケル
@神林しマイケル 2 жыл бұрын
@@ravenragnar 😂 My guy is comparing the internet and quantum physics lmao
@draganbacmaga8981
@draganbacmaga8981 2 жыл бұрын
Not a sex bot is it?
@fifetojo
@fifetojo 2 жыл бұрын
Really well explained. I found this easier to follow than the PBS spacetime episode 👍
@BeckBeckGo
@BeckBeckGo 2 жыл бұрын
I think he should be super radical and rename Alice and Bob.
@wrestleswithangels
@wrestleswithangels 2 жыл бұрын
Link to the PBS Episode, please. ??
@ReturnOfKalki
@ReturnOfKalki 2 жыл бұрын
This is all bs nonsense. Science is based on OBSERVATION. If nothing we experience is real, then science doesn't exist and neither do these goofballs. For all intents and purposes, everything we experience is REAL. There is no way to define a state of being "not real" based on scientific principles, because, again, science is based on OBSERVATION.
@josephwhittaker442
@josephwhittaker442 2 жыл бұрын
@@infinity2394 🙅‍♂️
@firstaidsack
@firstaidsack 2 жыл бұрын
@@infinity2394 You can know what pain and suffering is without knowing goodness. Therefore you can know evil without knowing goodness. Case closed.
@jasnarmstrng
@jasnarmstrng 2 жыл бұрын
Einstein (Podolsky and Rosen) weren't proven wrong. They proposed a question as a response. It just took a long time for subsequent theoretical physicist to respond. The question was so good it deserved a Nobel prize worthy answer.
@slipcaseslitpace
@slipcaseslitpace 2 жыл бұрын
I was thinking how does this prove it isn’t real it just proves to me we don’t understand everything yet
@davidabdollahi7906
@davidabdollahi7906 2 жыл бұрын
That is true. These sharlatans still trying to sell us their mysticism crap by attacking determinism. To have the audacity...
@a_diamond
@a_diamond 2 жыл бұрын
​@@slipcaseslitpace Any good answer poses new questions ;) Correct answers can be simple of course, but usually those are only answers to the most simple of questions... Really good answers change how we understand something.. so we always end up with more questions ;)
@slipcaseslitpace
@slipcaseslitpace 2 жыл бұрын
@@a_diamond ok? This doesn’t prove that the universe isn’t real tho.
@cammack07
@cammack07 2 жыл бұрын
No one is saying it isn’t real. Something is here.
@WankiTank
@WankiTank 6 ай бұрын
I love watching such videos as someone with a school grade understanding of physics it's just listening to these things in awe and thinking, man they're just making up stuff that doesn't make sense at all - - but you know, of course, to them it makes sense. there is so much beauty in what the human brain is capable of, just by looking at what different kind of knowledge can fit into it.
@klh1133
@klh1133 Жыл бұрын
Listening to Robert Edward Grant earlier and he posits that the speed of light is just our current perceptual boundary and not the final measure for what's possible in terms of (quantum teleportation?) He's really doing some fascinating work on using mathematics to redefine what we know as reality. Thank you for explaining this so well for us arm chair physicists Dr!
@Piscesbitcx
@Piscesbitcx Жыл бұрын
Yes I believe so to! I think bc we are material physical beings we can only get to light speed bc anything more than that we physically cannot achieve due to the plane of existence we are on (physical/material) But there are more quantum levels of traveling as you mentioned in the higher dimensions:)
@vhawk1951kl
@vhawk1951kl Жыл бұрын
"Our" being you and which identifiable immediate interlocutor?
@richardwebb9532
@richardwebb9532 Жыл бұрын
These experiments all require an observer, without an observer, nothing can exist, it would all be a wave function.
@johnchesh3486
@johnchesh3486 Жыл бұрын
There IS no final nor complete nature of events known. That's his philosophical idealism mistake. There are no abosolutes nor realities. That is our brain delusion. And einstein said and physics has shown. Measurements and descriptions are NOT absolute. The length of th4 shoreline depends upon how you measure it. By 10 cm. intervals. By 100 m. lengths. By whether you drive alone it, or sail along it or walk along it. It all depends upon HOW you measure it nd that is arbitrary. Sorry, there is NO ab solute coast line figure. Because yhou cannot measure the postin of each grain of sand to each greain of sand, either. & the nature of coastlines to change over time with weather, currents, temps, and many other ways. There is NO absolute sea level, either. Because the factors which make sea level are changeable, adn when more than 3 factors, and those are real, it eomces complex system and thus not amenable to final understandings. Harbour shape, ships in port, temps as water expands and congract, winds, and currents; and the pull of the lunar and solar tides Also change the sea levels. And the land levels, too. Complex systems are also ignored by this article. and that is a major, major conceptual fail, as well.
@itsonlyapapermoon61
@itsonlyapapermoon61 10 ай бұрын
Walter russell, The Secret of Light There is Nothing Outside Yourself Nothing moves not even Light
@indigatorveritatis219
@indigatorveritatis219 Жыл бұрын
This was really good. As an expert PhD in the field of theoretical physics, I am glad to see such explanations. Just kidding, I failed pre-al in high school... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night
@JonathanGillies
@JonathanGillies Жыл бұрын
What's the relevance of the Holiday Inn please? :/
@indigatorveritatis219
@indigatorveritatis219 Жыл бұрын
@@JonathanGillies The Holiday Inn Express used to have really funny commercials.. like where a guy is doing a surgery pretending to be an actual surgeon. When he messed things up, they asked him if he was a doctor, and he said, "no, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night". They had a few similar ones :)
@adraedin
@adraedin Жыл бұрын
Just as funny as an obscure reference that I get, is the confused people who don't get it lol
@JonathanGillies
@JonathanGillies Жыл бұрын
@@indigatorveritatis219 Ok thanks for the explanation lol!!!!!! :D
@brettsmith5903
@brettsmith5903 Жыл бұрын
Somebody give this man the key to Detroit!
@hugoclarke3284
@hugoclarke3284 2 жыл бұрын
If a particle "makes up its mind" only when it is observed, that suggests that it is always changing, but human perception is only capable of observing a single state. Therefore Einstein isn't really wrong in his deterministic viewpoint; it is just that there are multiple, presumably infinite plains of existence that are connected. The best way I can describe this is with music. A melody sounds the way it does depending on what comes before and after it in the passage of time. This horizontal plain is like determinism, because context is defined by what has already been played. For example, a motif has significance when it is repeated. But a single melody can also be expressed in different harmonic contexts, i.e notes placed above/below it to form vertical chords. Here, context is determined by what is NOT played; the notes you cannot hear leave the shape of the chord (or single note).
@Find-Your-Bliss-
@Find-Your-Bliss- 2 жыл бұрын
That is an exquisite visual you presented!
@Sheen023
@Sheen023 2 жыл бұрын
🤔
@missk1697
@missk1697 2 жыл бұрын
It's one of many possible explanations.
@BryanChance
@BryanChance 8 ай бұрын
Did someone actually send an entangled particle "light years away" to test the theory?
@Wylie288
@Wylie288 7 ай бұрын
no. Its probably true. Which as usual, means fucking nothing.
@nmarbletoe8210
@nmarbletoe8210 21 күн бұрын
not that far. but it has been tested at closer distances
@robbujold7711
@robbujold7711 Жыл бұрын
I find these concepts a struggle, and I had to watch this twice, but I ultimately obtained a better understanding of local real-ness than I’ve previously been able to muster. Thank you for laying it out so well.
@digguscience
@digguscience Жыл бұрын
the explanation is crystal clear
@lastthingsministry
@lastthingsministry Жыл бұрын
Lies are often hard to understand because they are the product of insanity. The reasoning collapses on itself. If nothing is real then the experiment that 'proves' that nothing is real is also not real as the experiment exists inside the so called illusion. This is a paradox. The experiment is contaminated by existing within the so called illusion. The experiment and it's findings would have to be illusory as well. Otherwise they are saying that everything is false but the experiment exists outside the illusion and so is true. This would literally make the experiment itself God and the scientists would be godmen able to move the experiment outside of the illusion. Welcome to your new religion. Though it is actually an ancient and false one called 'Gnosticism' just as 'evolution' was based on Hindu concept of Samsara. If you believe in evolution you are already a Hindu. If you believe in the simulation theory argument you are already a gnostic. What is creepy is that these 'scientists' are holding out on you and not telling you that they have been deeply religious people all along but only pretended to be atheists. They had us all fooled!
@TheSubpremeState
@TheSubpremeState 11 ай бұрын
There are several ways to help understand it. While watching this screen you can see people doing things but your phone or pc is just recreating images from the past so although they look real it is similar to the world you see using your brain as a decoder. Next way is to realise that everything has been proven to be made up of the same ingredients ie. atoms sub atomic particles etc. etc. All variations are illusory just like a face that appears in a cloud would disappear if you got up closer to the cloud. Our brains hallucinate our realities..... I'd suggest watching a video of the same title but our brains evolved over time favouring survival over reality. Seeing reality is not a trait that will lead you to having lots of offspring. An aggressive caveman will get laid more often than a monk who meditates 24/7 lol The more you enjoy the dream called life and the more you are willing to sacrifice to preserve this wonderful daymare to more likely you are to survive and prosper and also suffer and still die just slower and with lots of grandchildren. Our eyes and brain create colour for example. That helped us become better killers so imagine what else our brain creates that isn't real........hint.... everything. Next up .. transience. Is an event real? Where is your 3rd birthday? What is the difference between your dreams and your 3rd birthday. Not much. Both are just vague memories and you and your world will become memories and eventually be forgotten. What isn't permanent, isn't real. Nothing is permanent. Some Hindu sages say that reality is attainable. It's very hard to describe. It can only be pointed to and although it is nothing it can be experienced but it's beyond words like experience yet to someone who has been to the state that millions of people meditate in an attempt to......not exist......it is far from dead. It's pure awareness and instead of emptiness it's immensely full. It feels like everyone you ever loved is in it but not separate from you. I glimpsed it once and the shock of it knocked me back to my dream or program that I have been ingraining into myself thanks to society and others since I was 2 years old. The idea that I'm a body in this hell hole is a troublesome concept but my destiny will fulfill itself as will yours. Hope it goes well for me/you as we are the same illusory being
@kdub9812
@kdub9812 10 ай бұрын
think of it like rendering in a video game. stuff Is there when your not rendering it but it isn't physical; it's pure information, ones and zeros. but when observed, "rendered", it appears as tangible "real" stuff. but you know ultimately speaking it's still just a bunch of one's and zeros that when rendered a certain way, "observed", give one the appearance of "real" stuff
@itsonlyapapermoon61
@itsonlyapapermoon61 10 ай бұрын
​any recommended books
@Barnaclebeard
@Barnaclebeard 2 жыл бұрын
The Universe is not stranger than Einstein ever imagined; it is stranger than he wished it to be. He was perfectly capable of entertaining the same ideas as everyone else, but decided they didn't fit the tone of the Author he imagined.
@andsalomoni
@andsalomoni 2 жыл бұрын
The Universe is not strange. Our mind is strange, with its claim to know how the Universe should behave to be "normal".
@神林しマイケル
@神林しマイケル 2 жыл бұрын
@@andsalomoni Well life itself is strange. The fact that we are intelligent and self aware is itself strange when you compare it to billions of other species that have walked the earth yet we are the only one to attain intelligence that surpasses others. As they said about quantum physics "the more you know, the less you know".
@machinmon.
@machinmon. 2 жыл бұрын
Plato thought it first
@SuperManning11
@SuperManning11 2 жыл бұрын
Very well said. I suppose we all like to be right, especially when thinking about the fundamentals of reality. It is mind-blowing to me how many folks still hold so tightly to the story of Adam and Eve, refusing to update the biblical story one bit, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of a different creation story on a very different timeline.
@神林しマイケル
@神林しマイケル 2 жыл бұрын
@@SuperManning11 You know why? Because people cannot let go of culture. Religion is so deeply rooted just like how we want to protect and preserve historical objects, arts, cultures etc... Also, religion has become mainstream that it is simply hard to erase it. It is also a good thing since religion makes humans afraid of consequences.
@tivenspqr
@tivenspqr Жыл бұрын
Excellent explanation. Thanks for putting complex concepts available to “normal” people. I am an engineer and I like these topics, but it is really hard to find someone who can explain with simplicity and with beauty like this video did.
@bosstradingpro1910
@bosstradingpro1910 Жыл бұрын
Time is like the measuring of distance between events spawning from a sigularity and consciousness is the recording of the disorder as it flows. Entropy must continue so the record is stored in the universe by dark energy and the information is then evolved so that the samething does not infinity repeat. My perspective on the reality of the universe for everyone is different and subjective to that organism\being ,for an example. Scientist states that viruses, bacterias or cells are examples of living organisms that even live in our bodies and they carry out functions. Human beings also carry out functions; but we look at cells and viruses as a lesser life form of life. If there are advance or higher forms of life, they can also measure us human beings and state also that we are a lower form of life just as human beings may observe an ant as a lower form of life. However, because of this an ant may not be important to us, but if you try to squash an insect it will try to flee and preserve it's life thus means it's life must mean something to itself; but not to us. Even blood cells defend themselves when under a threat just as we do, but is the life of one blood cell important to us? Is the life of a human being urgent to a tree which is also a living organism. Human beings are the main cost for the destruction of trees whichin they've been here before we we're in existence. So are trees a higher life form than us? A more advance and higher life form may look at a tree and say this tree is much more important than a human being because it sustains life on this planet but human beings destroy the planet with human helping technology (depending on their perspective). All of this said humans may not be as prominent as we think If we remember the laws of physics breaks down on a quantum level. There are lengths like the plank length that are so small that it can be compared to the scale of the universe. So doesn't this mean that being that small you are in a universe of its own , within another observable universe but only observable by our knowledge by humans. If this is so then there must be other places the laws of physics break down also. If it does for the extremely small why not for the extremely big? Who is big and small anyways? We are small to our planet but our planet is small to our sun. This can go on and on. We are the size of a universe to an atom in our body ,thus means also we are big. However, this happens to everything everywhere. If there is space that has particles, those particles may be within an atom, trillions of atoms are in a cell (more than stars in our galaxy) whichin cells are IN our blood ( 37 trillion cells). Our blood in our organs and muscles which is within our bodies. Our bodies may be within a house which is within a constituency, which is within a town, which is within a city/state/island which is within a country which is in a continent which is within a planet, which is within a solar system, within a galaxy, within A super cluster, which is within Galactic walls which is within the Cosmic web . "Everything is 'WITHIN' " which The Cosmic web itself is 'within' The Universe WHICH is 'within' a bubble or phenomenon that we cannot see. "Everything is within" something. Hold just a minute here though! We cannot see someone waving at us from an airplane. We only see the construct of the landscape, not the entities within them. Or an ant from the top of a sky scrapper, neither can we see blood cells attacking viruses n vice versa. Which is evidence just because we cannot see oxygen or detect an atom WITHIN does not mean its not there. The human eye cannot see U V rays or even oxygen and we are surrounded by it. So this means the Laws of physics as we KNOW it only applies to our subjective and objective reality. If u step back and look at the universe . We will only see the Cosmic Web of everything. Which seems to be all touching and connecting. Not until we zoom In does things seem to seperate. Just like a cell that make up our skin. Or a dog standing on an island. From far we only see the landscape , but as we zoom in other entities become observable. Inturn becoming a noticeable part of your reality. Things like Dark matter plays not with Morden physics and we cannot see it but it must exist because of the forces that pulls galaxies together and dark energy pushing entropy without the universe collapsing. However back to the Cosmic web. From a far everything is connected, but if u go close or zoom more is revealed within. The universe itself may be 'within' a muti-verse , another unverse, a blackhole, a quantum computer simulation or even apart of another living organism body that seems infinity large. But as we are universal size to an atom the universe can be a drop in the ocean or space to a greater being which most earthly beings cannot fathom or even believe because it is beyond preposterous. Even if your human eyes can go in front of it is to large or small to amke out. You cant see a mountain top from the exact bottom. It is to high in the clouds. Thus u cannot see the universe from one end to the other. The universe legs may be to long (just a joke ) .Somewhat though these are very much what it seems for the great reality. As laws of physics break down at quantum levels, entanglments, singularities and so on. There are dimensions that we cannot see and cannot detect things like :(earthly terms, but they seem to have more meanings) Super positions, past , future, the unconscious, concious thought, different colors of light , pure and dark energy etc. Please excuse my long reply , but this is just a brief explanation of not an objective or subjective reality. Which is infallible, but of the asubjective existence which seems verisimilitude.
@poetryofcinema6957
@poetryofcinema6957 Жыл бұрын
@@bosstradingpro1910 was a good read
@bosstradingpro1910
@bosstradingpro1910 Жыл бұрын
@@poetryofcinema6957 Thank you. Well appreciated.
@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar
@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar Жыл бұрын
@@bosstradingpro1910could be Jack the Ripper.. or someone “ripping” wind around you 🌬️ 💩💨
@bosstradingpro1910
@bosstradingpro1910 Жыл бұрын
@@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar lol, do you mean that person, or me?
@dmondot
@dmondot 9 ай бұрын
@DrBenMiles: I disagree with the paper. We have known for a while that placing a third polarized filter between the other 2 polarized filters as shown at 7:00 will allow some light through. Just based on that an knowing how much light is transmitted, we can predict, regardless of what actually causes the phenomenon, quantum or not, that the correlation of the light received by the 2 detectors in the experiment will follow the equation 0.5-sin(x)*sin(x)*(0.5-1/pi) from x=0 to x=pi/2 which matches the graph shown at 10:13. Doing the experiment was nice to confirm that, but since this could have been calculated, the experiment doesn't proves anything that we didn't already know.
@dmondot
@dmondot 9 ай бұрын
You can plot the equation in wolframalpha to check that the 2 curves match. adding a link to it seems to cause my comment to disappear.
@s.c.6113
@s.c.6113 2 жыл бұрын
I have watched a lot of videos on quantum physics, this is the first that has actually explained how entangled particles become entangled, how they are created at all. And upon actually being explained it seems so simple, it makes me wonder why other channels didn't bother. So, thanks for actually taking the time to explain how it's related to conservation.
@cappiece3786
@cappiece3786 2 жыл бұрын
Duh
@mohinderkumar7298
@mohinderkumar7298 2 жыл бұрын
Uh
@vinceplatt8468
@vinceplatt8468 2 жыл бұрын
Except they don't really explain "how" they're created at all! They've theorized that they must exist simply because all these experiments require them to exist in order for the results to make sense. At least until they have a better explanation anyway.
@valeriewilliams6576
@valeriewilliams6576 2 жыл бұрын
I read your comment and now I'm going to actually watch this because I always get "lost."
@KikiTheHobbit
@KikiTheHobbit 2 жыл бұрын
because the channels are obviously made for a different audience? if you’re teaching advanced english, you won’t start with A1 level phrases either…💀
@scout3058
@scout3058 2 жыл бұрын
As an individual who miserably failed Algebra 1 in high school (and still can't do long division) and is effectively math challenged, you did a great job at making this easily digestible, and understandable. 👍👍👍
@bobancikic7458
@bobancikic7458 2 жыл бұрын
there is no spoon!!!
@scout3058
@scout3058 2 жыл бұрын
@@bobancikic7458 😃😃
@ammardian
@ammardian 2 жыл бұрын
Don't worry homie, I'm in a college math degree and none of my friends can do long division at all haha. On another note, I'm glad you understood the video :)
@scout3058
@scout3058 2 жыл бұрын
@@ammardian Thank you for letting me know that I'm not the only dunce/dumbass left in the world. 😆😆😆
@ammardian
@ammardian 2 жыл бұрын
@@scout3058 Even in college we still find addition and subtraction the largest area we make mistakes in on exams. Believe me, we are all dumbasses in this world haha
@professordey
@professordey Жыл бұрын
I think my biggest contention or point of confusion is in the fact that I don't see why there _wouldn't_ be a curve-like relationship between the particle matches when we already know that polarised light interferes with itself and even in vacuum can split into electrons and photons etc, meaning surely it's possible for a system to have interference patterns that cause an increase in likelihood for a greater likelihood of appropriately matched results at a certain angle. Not to mention that the polariser itself provides a non-trivial influence on the behaviour of the photons in question because it's a physical object with both physical and electromagnetic properties and the photon that leaves a transparent material is almost certainly not the same as the one that entered it, merely having some of the same intrinsic values due to the energies involved. The three polariser issue can, to my understanding, be at least superficially explained by considering that the middle polariser drastically increases the chances of light, that is polarised with a spin matching the spiral that the polarisers describe, will be present on the other side with fewer deviating wavelengths than before it, acting as a filter or like the blades of a fan, producing a less turbulant environment after light has passed through. This, therefore, would allow _more_ light to pass through the final polariser as more of the light that's getting through is being interfered with and resulting in deviation greater than can pass through the polariser. The only way I'd know how to test that experimentally would be to try and see if stacking polarisers also then produces more reflected light of other polarisations compared to fewer stages.
@iandonohoe
@iandonohoe Жыл бұрын
lol
@ic7481
@ic7481 11 ай бұрын
If you stack multiple polarisers in series, in the centre, and have them incrementally rotate to gradually align with the last polariser, you can theoretically achieve near 100% transmittance. In practice, transmittance is perhaps 80-90% due to losses, and needing an infinite number of perfect intermediate filters to achieve 100% transmittance.
@itsonlyapapermoon61
@itsonlyapapermoon61 10 ай бұрын
Walter russell THE WAVE
@Alan_CFA
@Alan_CFA 9 ай бұрын
I’ll mention your concerns to the Nobel Committee when they call.
@extropian314
@extropian314 10 ай бұрын
10:22 Isn't it incorrect though to conclude that the photonic property after the wave function collapse is *random*? Couldn't the wave function result from underlying physics -- analogous to macro properties of gases -- hidden from us in this spacetime?
@nmarbletoe8210
@nmarbletoe8210 21 күн бұрын
same thing. if we cannot know, it's not real. so determinism could be true but it is not real to us. it's like a universe that we cannot see. it could be there but it is not part of science
@robertsarracino9349
@robertsarracino9349 Жыл бұрын
What impresses me so much about Einstein, is his hand in so many foundational discoveries of the 20th century. It was Einstein (along with Rosen and Podolsky) who discovered entanglement -- although, as Miles points out here, Einstein thought of it as a fatal flaw in quantum mechanics. Still, it was Einstein (not trying to diminish the contributions of Rosen & Podolsky) who made this critical realization, that entanglement arises out of quantum theory. This is something which Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Fermi (all of whom I admire greatly), for all their contributions and their support of quantum theory, evidently hadn't realized.
@TheMrmartind40
@TheMrmartind40 Жыл бұрын
Einstein admitted Tesla was the most intelligent person of his time. His words.
@Stuart.Branson.
@Stuart.Branson. Жыл бұрын
Einstein was a bad actor who actually did nothing except promote stupid stories for dummies
@-godsspeed-9159
@-godsspeed-9159 Жыл бұрын
​@@TheMrmartind40he probably would have said his wife if she was a guy lmao
@Noctoletsgo
@Noctoletsgo 11 ай бұрын
When you say theory, do you mean to say that in practicality it is not really a thign that happens?
@robertsarracino9349
@robertsarracino9349 11 ай бұрын
Just the opposite. Something becomes a "theory" once it's fully established.
@BrianHSC
@BrianHSC Жыл бұрын
Einstein simply said Quantum mechanics is "incomplete". Which it still is. He didn't deny the properties of Quantum mechanics. He just said it isn't explained which is still true. People were aware of gravity before Einstein. They knew the properties and used it. But it wasn't explained before Einstein. Quantum mechanics is currently at that state of gravity before Einstein. We know the properties and we use it but we can't explain it.
@schmetterling4477
@schmetterling4477 Жыл бұрын
How is it incomplete? Be precise now. ;-)
@robertv4076
@robertv4076 Жыл бұрын
@@schmetterling4477 It cannot really solve anything, even the Hydrogen atom is incomplete. Helium is impossible to solve so they construct unreal purely mathematical wave-functions with thousands of terms then fit the experimental data while claiming QM is the most precise theory ever.
@tbunreall
@tbunreall Жыл бұрын
@@schmetterling4477 Where's our theory of everything?
@schmetterling4477
@schmetterling4477 Жыл бұрын
@@tbunreall We most likely had it since roughly 1620. It's relativity. ;-)
@bustercam199
@bustercam199 4 ай бұрын
Right, and Einstein is right. The others are dead wrong.
@stevedwa345
@stevedwa345 Жыл бұрын
Put the information sources in the description. It will make the video much better.
@krys_is
@krys_is 8 ай бұрын
I agree. But I simply searched for "Nobel Prize in Physics 2022" and the source came as the first search result on Nobel Prize website.
@panicdispenser6586
@panicdispenser6586 7 ай бұрын
Its allready there, but not locally
@ji-youngj573
@ji-youngj573 7 ай бұрын
😂😂😂​@@panicdispenser6586
@MrDosonhai
@MrDosonhai 6 ай бұрын
A simple Google search will reveal this. This is a Nobel Prize we're talking about.
@anibalplaza8633
@anibalplaza8633 9 ай бұрын
9:24 Can someone explain to me why we expect it to be a linear transition?? If we assume Alice is at 90 degrees from the x-axis, “stood up” in the video, and put Bob at a 45 degrees angle from Alice, so away 45 degrees from both axises, I’m pretty sure they only disagree when the light was sent in a, 1. 90 degrees angle from Alice, so Alice won’t see it, or 2., 90 degrees angle from Bob, so Bob won’t see it. Aren’t all other angles visible to both? If so, then it won’t be a 50/50 chance of disagreeing, which make the 45 degree prediction, if linear, false immediately, no necessity of weird stuff going on. Am I wrong? I know the experiment is correct, but is it well explained in the video or I’m missing something?
@lazyeclipse
@lazyeclipse 2 жыл бұрын
What really confuses me when talking about quantum measurement is the assumption that we somehow exist outside the system and can measure it. But that can't be, since ultimately we're describing the universe.
@jaideepshekhar4621
@jaideepshekhar4621 2 жыл бұрын
True. Each of our actions should affect the universe in some way.
@jatinkholiya6644
@jatinkholiya6644 2 жыл бұрын
True
@ruthnovena40
@ruthnovena40 2 жыл бұрын
The fact that one can go back and see data from other civilzations that plotted the sun ,moon and other stars says something is real.
@googol990
@googol990 2 жыл бұрын
No, that's just it. We AREN'T outside the system, and we aren't the only things considered observers. The idea is that it's impossible to measure/observe quantum interactions without interacting with them, and therefore altering the state of the particles at the moment of observation. As far as I understand all atoms are quantum observers at the the moment of interaction. So if the universe is not locally real, then either interactions can happen regardless of distance in space-time, or that the fundamental stuff of reality does not have inherent definite measurable properties and instead only manifests properties at the point of interaction with an observer.
@brianhyde5900
@brianhyde5900 2 жыл бұрын
The soul is pure consciousness. It is outside the universe. The universe is a projection of consciousness.
@moremileyplease4387
@moremileyplease4387 2 жыл бұрын
I have a bad feeling that in the future, we will discover that distance doesn't mean what we think it means.
@369universal4
@369universal4 2 жыл бұрын
Agreed. I feel that how we think and understand 'time' will also be transformed.
@ericssonlin7114
@ericssonlin7114 2 жыл бұрын
This is already a thing. In string theory a universe that is smaller than a Planck length is physically identical to a universe bigger than a Planck length, and distance is completely redefined. I believe “The Elegant Universe” by Brian Greene goes more into detail if you’re interested.
@3dguy839
@3dguy839 2 жыл бұрын
@@IM-ef7nf my uncle Fred says that the secret of bigfoot episode of The Six million Dollar Man was infact a test run for the secret ai android army being built by Elon Musk and the military industrial complex which will be disguised as Bigfoots (so as not to arouse suspicion) and dropped into our enemies China and Russia
@SiegDuPreez
@SiegDuPreez 2 жыл бұрын
Maybe distance is irrelevant in other dimensions?
@sadhiktm2141
@sadhiktm2141 2 жыл бұрын
I think every thing is interconnected as a drop of water deeply connected with ocean as whole both are one
@VisionThing
@VisionThing 2 жыл бұрын
But doesn’t this just prove that measuring an object can change its state (through sheer interference), rather than that it exists in some kind of limbo until measured which then “materializes” properties out of it?
@yodaheabebe3756
@yodaheabebe3756 2 жыл бұрын
Exactly! I feel like a lot of Quantum Physics is a case of the naked emperor
@VisionThing
@VisionThing 2 жыл бұрын
@@yodaheabebe3756 I think that may be the case, it’s like Occam’s Razor didn’t exist for some of these guys. I can’t understand how matter could "know" that it’s being measured which would then somehow magically will matter to materialize. Coming to that conclusion instead of just assuming that poking at stuff changes its state baffles me.
@yodaheabebe3756
@yodaheabebe3756 2 жыл бұрын
@@VisionThing Someone once said, "There's so much confusion and lack of clarity with Quantum Physics today that if you claim to understand it, you actually don't." This feels like such an unscientific deliberately confusing voodoo junk that I hate to see.
@AlejandroP1980s
@AlejandroP1980s 2 жыл бұрын
@@yodaheabebe3756 if people can’t understand what is a woman how could they understand this 😮
@yodaheabebe3756
@yodaheabebe3756 2 жыл бұрын
@@AlejandroP1980s 🤣 I think people know what a woman is tho. lol. Just that some people are deliberately confusing them
@MissingInPerson
@MissingInPerson 4 ай бұрын
I did not get 2:50 what is a quantum particle and how we just assume that it breaks in to 2. is everything a quantum particle, should particle be broken into 2 for this theory to work?
@nmarbletoe8210
@nmarbletoe8210 21 күн бұрын
The reason they split a particle is to get two particles that obey a conservation law. For example, spin is conserved. So if we split a particle with zero spin, the two daugher particles must be spin up and spin down, totalling zero.
@MissingInPerson
@MissingInPerson 21 күн бұрын
@nmarbletoe8210 if we split a ball we will have two non balls both stationary. The ball must be a quantum ball for what you are proposing to apply.
@nmarbletoe8210
@nmarbletoe8210 20 күн бұрын
@@MissingInPerson yup
@chuckjones9159
@chuckjones9159 2 жыл бұрын
I tend to suspect that an undetected field exists "beneath" these other fields and this field can communicate ftl. I know it is not a popular theory but maybe one day we will be able to prove its existence. I think this same field is either closely related to or is directly responsible for what we perceive as gravity.
@blijebij
@blijebij 2 жыл бұрын
Probably there is a quantum information field under it, and under that a pure information field that is non local. Spacetime, is probably not the bottom of reality, but rather it is emergent.
@Anon.G
@Anon.G 2 жыл бұрын
Show your math for it
@andrewbarrett1537
@andrewbarrett1537 2 жыл бұрын
I know what you mean and for me I believe in this as another dimension that is hard to perceive or explore.
@blijebij
@blijebij 2 жыл бұрын
@@Anon.G That is not so easy, you must have studied physics and math for it and then on top have the right insight. People think always math solves all automatically, but math is a tool. without the right insight that tool doesnt do the job. You wanne see an example for that..The quantum field catastrofe. Yes science knows math and they calculate the energy of empty space with it, yet the answer is extremely wrong. Reason...they lack insight over what empty space is precisely and there for the tool (math) totally fails giving the right answer. Insight precedes math. So if you dont have the right theoretical perspective, math simply fails.
@blijebij
@blijebij 2 жыл бұрын
@@andrewbarrett1537 Well that is not such a strange look on it at all. We are spacetime beings with spacetime machines to detect and measure. All that is outside of spacetime will be hard for us to detect and proof. Erik Verlinde, a famous physics&math expert about string theory and gravity told 5 years ago that we slowly enter a time where we wont be able to proof anymore everything. That for sure there will be parts of reality outside our reach to proof. And that makes a lot of sense. It would be very strange that for beings constucted inside a spacetime chamber our reach is infinite to test, proof and know all thats outside spacetime. Reality can not be proven and measured 100% for humans. Tech will have its limits in the end.
@andrewkelleher2415
@andrewkelleher2415 2 жыл бұрын
I was reading an article earlier today about how the used a series of laser set up to match the fibinoci sequence for a quantum computer and it was able to help reduce the amount of randomness the quantum computer had... I obviously don't perfectly understand the whole thing but its interesting how this technology is developing.
@jimreynolds2399
@jimreynolds2399 2 жыл бұрын
@@infinity2394 It's not ALWAYS wrong to kill a person.
@cbreezy
@cbreezy 2 жыл бұрын
That experiment is a breakthrough in having the information stored on Quantum Computers not be so sensitive to outside perturbations. Currently a change in temperature can easily erase all information.
@vinniehuish3987
@vinniehuish3987 2 жыл бұрын
Any mathematical pattern will reduce the amount of randomness a quantum computer has.. It’s statistical.
@vinniehuish3987
@vinniehuish3987 2 жыл бұрын
Mathematical patterns that are theoretically correct in their assumptions ofc.
@judyd1
@judyd1 2 жыл бұрын
@@jimreynolds2399 I've tried asking people what if their best friend was horrifically injured, in unbearable pain, with no help available such that eventual death is inevitable, begging you to kill him. "Their" answer: in today's modern world that would never happen. (Edited to clarify confusing language)
@khyzan8527
@khyzan8527 2 жыл бұрын
I've always had an issue with the "if no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound" idea. A sound wave goes by the same fundamentals as the tree, both are made of matter that act and react according to what messes with it. As far as we have seen, the universe has done it's own thing long before anyone was able to witness it, and it will continue to do so after. It seems odd to say particles act different when being observed. If observing it changes it's unpredictable properties, then why do we rely on any of the results knowing they are wrong? Wouldn't this more validate the "unknown variables" concept that Einstein mentioned? I'm not trying to throw flak, I'm just curious. If my questions have already been answered in other videos, let me know.
@LuisCasstle
@LuisCasstle 2 жыл бұрын
The act of observing affects particles, due to the fact that you have to shoot photons or electrons at whatever you're trying to observe. Thus affecting the particle. If you aren't trying to observe it then it's not being bothered. In a nutshell.
@wpriddy
@wpriddy 2 жыл бұрын
Two slit test
@khyzan8527
@khyzan8527 2 жыл бұрын
​@@LuisCasstle Ah, that makes sense. I'm still hesitant on the tree making a sound analogy though.
@BremenSA
@BremenSA 2 жыл бұрын
@@khyzan8527 The tree making a sound question is more a philosophical one than a physical one. IE "are particles of air vibrating around still a sound if no one hears them?" I think the comparison to the physical principles here was more an aesthetic comparison than an implication that they work the same.
@DavidM-vt3ur
@DavidM-vt3ur 2 жыл бұрын
@@BremenSA NO. It's an actual (if not purely physical) question. It's a question about the nature of reality. And the answer, in fact, is "No, if tree a falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, it does NOT make a sound." If that sounds crazy to you, consider: "sound" (as we experience it) is only a localized *experience* of energy. It doesn't become "sound" unless there is an observer. So a tree may fall in the woods, and it may produce wave-like emissions of energy, but it does not make a "sound" until it hears a localized receptor (ears) and put through processing (brain). Someone correct me if you think I'm wrong.
@MaskedMarble
@MaskedMarble 6 ай бұрын
8:54 - You didn't explain why, if the photons are entangled, why they would be at 90 degree polarizations to each other. I thought entangled photons (photons of lesser energy obtained from splitting a photon of higher energy) possessed the same polarization. So why then would anti-aligned (90 degree delta angle) polarizations produce agreement by the 2 observers? The video was fine up until here...but at this point it has lost its explanatory power.
@tartipouss
@tartipouss 2 жыл бұрын
So the universe isn't real because it turn out the way we thought the universe worked is not how it actually work ? It's somewhat amazing how little of the universe and physics as a whole we actually know
@roboparks
@roboparks 2 жыл бұрын
Gravity isn't real ??? If that is True take you cat and drop them off a 40 story bundling? Ill be waiting for your response?? 😁
@darrennew8211
@darrennew8211 2 жыл бұрын
"Real" is a technical term, just like "local" is. It essentially means the choice of whether you measure something does not affect the thing you're measuring. In this case, the idea is that the polarization (etc) are already determined whether you measure them or not, which turns out to not be true. "Real" is unrelated to "true" or "actual" in physics-speak.
@MattRoadhouse
@MattRoadhouse 2 жыл бұрын
And yet day after day, dogmatic science is rammed down people's throats as definitive and undebatable -
@darrennew8211
@darrennew8211 2 жыл бұрын
@@MattRoadhouse Huh? There's no such thing as "dogmatic science." You might have some dogmatic scientists, but dogmatic is the opposite of science. If you're complaining that government claims that science says something it doesn't to assert control over you, that isn't science, that's government. None of which has anything to do with the technical definition of "real". (And if I could remember where I saw the physicist define it, I'd post it.)
@MattRoadhouse
@MattRoadhouse 2 жыл бұрын
@@darrennew8211 you are correct, and yet look at the state of the world and tell me I am actually wrong
@jeffcurrey8765
@jeffcurrey8765 Жыл бұрын
Maybe in another multi-verse I understand, but in this one the concept went right over my head. I will revisit this again in some other time and place.
@Robo311Star
@Robo311Star Жыл бұрын
Same. I'm trying.
@MichaelClark-uw7ex
@MichaelClark-uw7ex Жыл бұрын
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the theory that the universe doesn't exist and therefore we don't exist.
@PineappleOnPizza69
@PineappleOnPizza69 Жыл бұрын
same dude :D maybe if im reincarnated as a phycisit
@nayanpardeshi5955
@nayanpardeshi5955 Жыл бұрын
Same bro
@nayanpardeshi5955
@nayanpardeshi5955 Жыл бұрын
Comment that i was looking for 😃
@ennaancestors4625
@ennaancestors4625 2 жыл бұрын
There are a few things that everyone agrees on. The directionality that we observe in the macroscopic world is very real: Teacups shatter but do not spontaneously reassemble; eggs can be scrambled but not unscrambled. Entropy - a measure of the disorder in a system - always increases, a fact encoded in the second law of thermodynamics. As the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann understood in the 19th century, the second law explains why events are more likely to evolve in one direction rather than another. It accounts for the arrow of time.
@RurikLoderr
@RurikLoderr 2 жыл бұрын
"Entropy - a measure of the disorder in a system - always increases, a fact encoded in the second law of thermodynamics." Except it doesn't have to always increase, there are just so many more states where it does increase than it doesn't than spontaneous entropy decreases are so unlikely as to appear to be impossible. They are not technically impossible, however.
@YawnGod
@YawnGod 2 жыл бұрын
@@RurikLoderr Entropy was invented to prevent wishful thinking. It is not technically possible to prevent wishful thinking, however, and so the entropy of the universe increases to compensate. Everyone wins: you get to believe that you understand how the universe works, and the universe sets up the conditions for a moment of humility you will experience in the future. What a great system.
@maflones
@maflones 2 жыл бұрын
Bull. We do NOT agree, so you should stop lying.
@patrickday4206
@patrickday4206 2 жыл бұрын
Yeah entropy is for chemists to understand basic things but the universe many times creates some order look at sun's and planets made up of mostly certain elements even places on earth with massive salt beds from ancient seas. Entropy is easier and once it happens it takes a lot of time or energy to reverse.
@VeganSemihCyprus33
@VeganSemihCyprus33 2 жыл бұрын
The best kept secret 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥
@kennethyoung7564
@kennethyoung7564 8 күн бұрын
Seems pretty short sighted to say faster than light communication is not possible, since quantum entanglement proves that it is possible.
@spiritwave7
@spiritwave7 2 жыл бұрын
Reality by definition is whatever happens. We draw mental boundaries for leverage within reality. What science has proven is reality is pure stabilized energy without any genuinely objective boundary. That is why quantum physics is so problematic these days (and has been for roughly a century). Science is all about improving our collection of objective boundaries, but the scientific method in effect insists that none exist. Think of reality as pure energy. That is the right starting point, logically speaking.
@lyrimetacurl0
@lyrimetacurl0 2 жыл бұрын
Yes, if someone says reality isn't real then their definition of real or reality is wrong. Similar to (but worse than) saying that "consciousness is an illusion" (because you can't have an illusion without consciousness actually).
@rodsmith494
@rodsmith494 Ай бұрын
Non-local, dimensionless energy, pure light, pure mind
@dougsmith6793
@dougsmith6793 2 жыл бұрын
I'm confused. If a particle is split so that the two halves are entangled, and momentum is conserved so that one particle becomes the [predictable] complement of the other at the moment they split, then it seems that, regardless of how far apart they are, they'll still retain the properties they had when they split. So two widely separated observers should observe complementary properties at exactly the same time relative to time zero (i.e., the moment the split occurs). The two complementary particles aren't "communicating" with each other, sharing their information with each other instantaneously over any arbitrary distance.. One half doesn't "cause" the other half to immediately become the complement of the other over a distance. They're just retaining the properties (through conservation of momentum) they acquired at the moment they split. And there's no reason why they wouldn't conserve that over any arbitrary distance. So measuring them at any arbitrary time (and therefore any arbitrary distance) from time zero will always (non-surprisingly) result in agreement. And this agreement can be predicted with pretty much 100% accuracy -- so that, when you measure one particle, you know that, at that instant, the other particle MUST be in its complementary state, regardless of how far away it is. This can be interpreted as spooky action at a distance, as if one particle seems to somehow "know" what the other is doing, or even causing the other particle to adopt a complementary state at any arbitrary moment from T0. But it sure doesn't have to be action at a distance. That is, my child has two raincoats, one red and one blue. They become "entangled" the moment she chooses one to wear, and their entanglement remains whether she's in the next room on on Alpha Centauri. So, I look in the closet and "observe" only the blue one, then I know, regardless of how far my child is away, that she has the red raincoat on. Folks a lot smarter than I am don't seem to see it this way, so I'm clearly missing something.
@Arbi5577
@Arbi5577 2 жыл бұрын
I'm probably wrong since I don't have a full grasp on this either but I think what you said is true. If you impart a momentum on a particle then the spit halves will conserve momentum and spin in opposite directions. I think where the difference is has to do with the fact they are entangled so you could later impart a different spin on one particle and the other particle will spin in the opposite direction even at vast distances apart. The idea being either some property told that particle that down the road it would need to spin opposite (hidden variables, locally real) and that property was already defined before it split, or it's not real and they are some how "communicating" the change across vast distances instantly in some quantum way. Again that was just my interpretation of it, I'm still trying to understand it too.
@bigdaddynero
@bigdaddynero 2 жыл бұрын
You just explained how quantum physics is a joke and completely useless. I am appalled at the current state of physics.
@junkyatv
@junkyatv 2 жыл бұрын
What's the point of knowing? No one observing on either side can change the state of the particle, so it cannot be used to communicate.
@timsteinhauser5652
@timsteinhauser5652 2 жыл бұрын
The idea is that if you mix the blue coat with yellow at some time afterwards it will become green and the red coat will become orange simultaneously.
@OneLine122
@OneLine122 3 ай бұрын
You are correct as far as I know. It's what that experiment proves. What you are missing is the discussion that was there at the time. Like the video said, some people thought that particles did not have a property until measured. It's what Einstein was against because it means if you measure one, it changes the other that was not measured because they suddenly have to acquire a property. So entangled particles are "local" no matter the distance and thus breaking the laws of physics. But strictly speaking, just looking at the math of the equations, it's a possible explanation and QM did not rule it out. Now it is ruled out so everything's fine.
@JamesKerLindsay
@JamesKerLindsay 2 жыл бұрын
Fantastic! What a great way of explaining things. It’s really great to see other academics on YT. I wish more of us would venture into making videos. But I also know how ridiculously time-consuming it is. Thanks.
@matthewparlato5626
@matthewparlato5626 2 жыл бұрын
Dear Prof. , How can one REALLY say that the universe is Not REAL? heard of performative contradiction? with Love, A carpernter
@AlmostReady504
@AlmostReady504 2 жыл бұрын
Speak for yourself there Professor there
@zvikabar-kochva3641
@zvikabar-kochva3641 2 жыл бұрын
In my view, the dear doctor, as well as the physics Nobel comity, who awarded the prize, got it slightly wrong. Here is a more precise interpretation of Bell's paper and the subsequent experimental results: The begin with, the basic assumption of EPR is that the universe is local (which nobody, including Bohr and Heisenberg, disputed at the time). Given this assumption, EPR paper concluded that either the particles have real properties (contrary to QM theory prevailing interpretation) or QM theory is incomplete (because one can know the values of these properties with certainty, without actually measuring them). The experiments done since, based on Bell's paper, didn't thus refute realism, or hidden variable theories (if you read Bell's work, he actually believed in hidden variable interpretation of QM, e.g. David Bohm's pilot wave interpretation), rather it refutes the locality assumption, i.e., they proves there is stuff in the universe that Bell coined "beables", which are nonlocal, i.e., in a quantum state of 2 or more entangled particles, measurement of one of them can influence the other, instantaneously, despite they could be separated by arbitrary large distance between them (but with no information passing between them, as this will contradict special relativity). That was the big surprise, which blow everyone's mind, and that's what's the fuss is all about.
@againstdrivingdrunk614
@againstdrivingdrunk614 2 жыл бұрын
just wait, something like YT is the future of education... and college institutions are hugely over priced as of now... but colleges wont go away, they will just get a lot more affordable and change a bit...
@TheAGODAMI
@TheAGODAMI 2 жыл бұрын
✋ *SToP "ChanneL PoaChinG" you buM.!!* 😠
@ifoeonline1370
@ifoeonline1370 4 ай бұрын
Instantaneous effect on the other to conserve momentum might just hint that space or distance isn't real. They may look like they are far but at a more fundamental level we may have Singularity happening. Just my thought and it may help with understanding the unified field theory.
@dont.beknown5622
@dont.beknown5622 Жыл бұрын
I believe that theoretical physicists such as Einstein would be very impressed with the work carried out so far and lend their knowledge and know-how to help to try to explain more.
@robertv4076
@robertv4076 Жыл бұрын
Einstein would probably throw up if he saw the state of physics today which largely came about because Bohr was a bully and dominated everyone's views by the force of his personality.
@MedlifeCrisis
@MedlifeCrisis 2 жыл бұрын
Wild stuff. Can’t believe “it’s the universe real” is such a reasonable question with such a complicated answer. Excellent explanation!
@sneakymilkman4203
@sneakymilkman4203 2 жыл бұрын
Ahh yes I love asking “it’s the universe real”
@ReturnOfKalki
@ReturnOfKalki 2 жыл бұрын
It's really not, this what people on the internet do for attention. It makes literally no sense for a scientist to say the universe isn't real because that literally debunks all science because all science is based on OBSERVATION and experimentation. Observation and experimentation can only constructed into a proper theory if the observations and experimental outcomes are consistent! If they are consistent, that literally defines what "reality" is. Do you understand the point I'm making? If the universe isn't real, then neither is science or any of the bs they're saying
@popcornmovietrailer960
@popcornmovietrailer960 2 жыл бұрын
@@infinity2394 are you a muslim?
@hiiamjustacoolrandomuser168
@hiiamjustacoolrandomuser168 2 жыл бұрын
@@infinity2394 can you pls stop spamming
@dellalyn9918
@dellalyn9918 2 жыл бұрын
@@sneakymilkman4203 'Is', Changed for people like you who never make mistakes....a$$-wipe.
@agmc77
@agmc77 2 жыл бұрын
Great explanation of complex concepts for the rest of us mere mortals, not physicist, but enchanted with the strange universe we are living in. Thank you very much!
@JourneyDestination
@JourneyDestination 2 жыл бұрын
@F.u.c.k You people like you do too much of this 🗣 and not enough of this👂
@BoomBustProfits
@BoomBustProfits 2 жыл бұрын
Can a physicist explain to anyone where the physical laws of the universe existed prior to the big bang?…If the laws of physics deny the creation of matter in a closed system, where did the initial ingredients (matter) come from? I think physicists need to be more comfortable with uncertainty and focus more on practical applications of the ideas of physics….Physicists very often come across as literal idiots if they venture too far away from reality…
@mekingtiger9095
@mekingtiger9095 2 жыл бұрын
@F.u.c.k You Have you not watched the video till the end? Information still cannot be sent faster than light as far as we still know even with quantum entanglement.
@mada1241
@mada1241 2 жыл бұрын
Physicists are mortals (hairless apes) with a very limited understanding of reality. Almost everything we think we know is likely incomplete or outright wrong.
@lluiscornet9020
@lluiscornet9020 2 жыл бұрын
@@BoomBustProfits look for Roger Penrose. He has a theory about what was before the Big Bang, and he also won the Physics' Nobel Prize.
@CPHSDC
@CPHSDC 8 күн бұрын
At 10:30 minutes, after waiting about ten minutes, the dude says "an experiment was done and it proved it." He never describes the experiment. Must not be too convincing, except to another theoretical physicist. And the Nobel folks. Try again for the rest of us. Counterintuitive shit is, as Einstein said "Counterintuitive." I'll watch the rest but my gut feeling is this presentation disproves what it wants to be convincing about. Sord of like doing mouth to mouth to a dead cat.
@mauette2000
@mauette2000 Жыл бұрын
I think it will be a very long time before anyone can explain what this video is trying to explain in a manner that actually does explain.
@freedom4life123
@freedom4life123 Жыл бұрын
LAYMANS TERMS U MEAN
@angaleejones
@angaleejones Жыл бұрын
Sac le blur
@vasvas8914
@vasvas8914 Жыл бұрын
There's basically an inherent connection between two photons that transfers information faster than speed of light, controversing modern physics worldview.
@randomgrinn
@randomgrinn Жыл бұрын
Yeah he didn't explain it to me. Still don't understand why non-determinism equals not real.
@FullCircleTravis
@FullCircleTravis Жыл бұрын
Imagine if your body occupied two different points in space simultaneously. One is in New York city, and the other is in Paris. If you are observing Paris, that is local. If you were pinched in Paris, the pinch is locally real. You were pinched in Paris, and felt it in Paris. However, if your body was pinched in New York, you feel it in Paris. Despite feeling it in Paris, nobody pinched you there, so forces acting on you from the universe doesn't have to be locally real to be observed. Now, the value of this is thus. Imagine if we created a computer that existed on our planet, and on an alien planet a billion light years away. If time was relatively the same in both places, whatever is typed on one computer screen would appear simultaneously in both places at once. No signals required. If you've seen the matrix movies, they show this phenomenon by the injuries in the matrix affecting your body in the real world. The idea is that our body is always a projection of the mind, so if in the mind the projection of ourselves is damaged, so is the body. It's not just a science fiction phenomenon either. When medications are tested, they do blind tests because of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is literally your body is healed in the mind, and the mind projects your healed body in reality. You show physical improvement literally because your mental projection is improved.
@afrosymphony8207
@afrosymphony8207 2 жыл бұрын
i watched this about 5times to fully understand it, especially the photon measuring bit, for some reason i always thought the direction of the photon were known beforehand before sending them into the polarizer, the fact that the polarizer is actually what changes their state always kept slipping my thought process. amazing video!!
@sorrycantvizualize
@sorrycantvizualize 2 жыл бұрын
Damn I need to read your comment and Google it to learn about it. Will take me long. 😭💀
@BobaRoyaltea
@BobaRoyaltea 2 жыл бұрын
I was confused about that too!! I was very confused by the linear vs non-linear chart, but that makes so much more sense now.
@AK-ft7fd
@AK-ft7fd 2 жыл бұрын
does the polarizer "change the state" of the photon...or does it show us that the photon sent through it was in this particular state? wait, you mean to say that you didn't know that the light sent through the polariser was unpolarised light? p.s. please answer my second question first 😅that will make it fairly clear whether i interpreted your comment correctly or not and avoid confusion
@afrosymphony8207
@afrosymphony8207 2 жыл бұрын
@@AK-ft7fd prior to this video i had no flippin idea what polarized or unpolarized light was, so yeah i hope that answers ur question 😂😂. As for the first question, the guy states in this video that fundamentally, measuring a photon changes its state which is why adding a third polaroid results in light
@JohnW704
@JohnW704 2 жыл бұрын
not understanding your comment, but to this day no physicist truly understands light because we dont know why its constant... it doesnt accelerate, it seems to defy physics, yet make up everything we see as reality... which leads me to believe "reality" is a projection... but just how big of a projection idk... like a theatre that has a 50 foot screen the projector is set to fit that screen... but if space is our screen then just how big is it?
@fabiansvensson9588
@fabiansvensson9588 2 жыл бұрын
What I would like to know is why they need to rotate the polarisation filters. If we just keep them perfectly at 90 degrees for both Alice and Bob, we should also be observing deviations some times right? If the photon at Bob’s is measured and does not pass, this could randomly change the state of the Photon at Alice allowing it to pass. Basically, what is the need to add an additional level of complexity to the test by making the polarisation filters spin?
@CaptainBrawnson
@CaptainBrawnson 2 жыл бұрын
If the polarizers stay static, then there's the possibility that the photons AND filters are still acting deterministically as part of the same system. Basically that there might be something, some hidden factor, impacting both of them that carries that hidden variable information, carried at the speed of light. By changing the rotation of the filters at random, and using photons from distant stars as the random number generator, you are now making random changes based on information OLDER than the photon being tested, so you close that potential loophole. The trick was to make a setup that could do this faster than the travel time of the photon to the sensor, so that no information could POSSIBLY reach the sensor before the photon itself. This was achieved by not technically rotating the filter, but by using quartz that would redirect the photons to one of a series of filters at different rotations at random based on whether it was electrically charged or not, from what I understand. You use photons from distant stars as the basis for your random number generator because those photons are older than most of the universe and have existed WELL before your experiment, meaning that your experiment couldn't possibly have interacted with the creation of those photons. So you've removed the possibility that your experiment is affecting your random number generator, or your sensor to somehow provide hidden variable information within the speed of light. That's really what this Nobel Prize was for: closing the loophole that COULD explain how the universe might still be deterministic at the quantum level. We now know, experimentally, that that isn't the case for this type of experiment, because the sensor changes faster than the speed of light would take to reach it from where the photon is emitted, and changes based photons generated billions of years ago, about which no information could have yet reached us, so no hidden information could possibly reach the sensor from where the entangled photon pair is created.
@webertbaiao7045
@webertbaiao7045 2 жыл бұрын
NASA Facts: Secret NASA documents reveal the real shape of the Earth! 1 - LOCKHEED SR-71 BLACKBIRD: Technical Memorandum 104330: Predicted Performance of a Thrust Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload: Page 08: DIGITAL PERFORMANCE SIMULATION DESCRIPTION: The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions that simplify the program while maintaining its fidelity for most maneuvers and applications: point-mass modeling, nonturbulent atmosphere, zero side forces, and a “nonrotating Earth”. 2 - NASA Reference Publication 1207: Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model: 08/1988: 2.1 Page 02: SUMMARY: This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a “fiat and nonrotating Earth”. 2.2 Page 30: 3 CONCLUDING REMARKS: This report derives and defines a set oflinearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a “flat and nonrotating Earth”. 2.3 Page 102: 16. Abstract: This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a “flat and nonrotating Earth”. 3 - NASA General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft: Page 02: Rigid Body Equations of Motion Referenced to an Arbitrary Fixed Point on the Body There are several approaches that can be used to develop the general equations of motion. The one selected here starts with Newton’s laws applied to a collection of particles defining the rigid body (any number of dynamics or physics books can serve as references, e.g. reference 2). In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a “flat non-rotating Earth” are developed that are not necessarily referenced to the body’s center of mass. 4 - NASA: A METHOD FOR REDUCING THE SENSITIVITY OF OPTIMAL NONLINEAR SYSTEMS TO PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY: NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 1971: Page 12: A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE: Problem Statement: The example problem is a fixed-time problem in which it is required to determine the thrust-attitude program of a single-stage rocket vehicle starting from rest and going to specified terminal conditions of altitude and vertical velocity which will maximize the final horizontal velocity. The idealizing assumptions made are the following: (1) A point-mass vehicle (2) A “flat, nonrotating Earth” 5 - NASA Technical Paper Nº 2835 1988: User’s Manual for Interactive LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program To Derive Linear Aircraft Models. 5.1 Page 01: SUMMARY: The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and “flat and nonrotating Earth” assumptions. 5.2 Page 126: 6. Abstract: The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations sith stationary atmosphere and “flat and nonrotating Earth” assumptions.
@richardarena5281
@richardarena5281 2 жыл бұрын
@@CaptainBrawnson I evolved from a single celled organism 4.5 billion years ago. Damn I'm old. Unfortunately evolving from a single celled organism 4.5 billion years ago, won't pass the Scientific method: 1: Observations. 2: explaining the Observations. 3: Logical predictions.. 4.5 billion years ago is not Observable with absolute certainty or clarity. Which makes trusting or believing that mankind evolved from a single celled organism 4.5 billion years ago, is a Faith based proposition... ( Faith is diametrically opposed to Evidence).. There's just simply not enough evidence to suggest that mankind evolved from a single celled organism 4.5 billion years ago.. There's a greater likelihood that you could hit 777 quadrillion Royal flushes in a row, on a video poker machine.. Then for the universe to have created itself via random chance.
@alexisaguirrevideos
@alexisaguirrevideos 2 жыл бұрын
@@CaptainBrawnson thanks for this explanation. I was wondering this too
@Jim-vq9yg
@Jim-vq9yg 2 жыл бұрын
@@CaptainBrawnson tyty
@celiogouvea
@celiogouvea Ай бұрын
Maybe we perceive the universe differently then actually is. Matter may move through dimensions in a high speed or long distances, turning the universe working just like a hologram. Light may transcend through dimensions like moving from different temporal dimensions. We may only detect light when distance is zero or when is detected, this could be the reason that light doesn't interact with light.
@jamessmith785
@jamessmith785 2 жыл бұрын
I never fully grasped the concept of Schroedingers cat. Knowledge of the cat being dead or alive does not change the fact that in reality it's either one or the other, not both. Opening the box doesn't change the state it was in before the box was opened. Ignorance of something doesn't remove it from its reality. Am I missing the point? Thoughts from anyone who can better explain this?
@T1500C
@T1500C 2 жыл бұрын
Well the cats have 7 life so they are by far superior to any Photon, Electron or any any quantic particles . They can die and resurrect 7 times!! Joking
@timedforpress
@timedforpress 2 жыл бұрын
I‘ve always seen it as a limitation of how we perceive reality, both states continue to be true but when we observe it we are only observing one part of the phenomenon.
@mikemondano3624
@mikemondano3624 2 жыл бұрын
The epistemology is the point. We don't know, in general, if cats are alive when we aren't looking at them. We simply assume that they are. It makes no sense to say the cat is "really" one thing or another when we have no way of finding out if that is true. Most of our knowledge of the world is statistical. Things seem to happen a certain way all the times that we observed them. That doesn't prove that they will always be that way.
@bogusphone8000
@bogusphone8000 2 жыл бұрын
​@@mikemondano3624 What you describe is perception vs reality. Reality is absolute, while perception is subjective. The cat is whatever the cat is (alive / dead). Our perception may need updating, but that is independent of the ongoing reality of the cat. This is scientifically verified by bringing 1000 isolated separate persons in to view the cat in the box and getting 1000 consistent perceptions.
@mikemondano3624
@mikemondano3624 2 жыл бұрын
@@bogusphone8000 Nothing at all "absolute" about reality. Conferences of physicists, philosophers, and psychologists are held to try to get a grip on the nature of reality and if, indeed, it exists at all. Bishop Berkeley is being rehabilitated to explain some aspects of relativity and quantum theory. Even quantum theory states that there is only a probability of finding the cat at all.
@cynthiabotsko2449
@cynthiabotsko2449 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for this! Clears up, for me, a lot of misrepresented popularized interpretations of laypeople with major "Tartuffe"-like confirmation biases. And, yet, you explained such technical information in a very accessible way for those of us with limited knowledge of the subject. Much appreciation!
@TML0677
@TML0677 Жыл бұрын
Are you Religious?
@mohnjarx7801
@mohnjarx7801 Жыл бұрын
​@@TML0677 religious or just self-righteous, or maybe even both?!
@noneanywhere7600
@noneanywhere7600 Жыл бұрын
@@TML0677 I would not mock Religious people, but he sure does sound like the Jack Arse in the Parable floating around of the Tiger, Jack Arse and Lion.
@explodingchickpeas7408
@explodingchickpeas7408 Жыл бұрын
idk why everyone is being so hostile in your replies, keep doing you !
@sesh7357
@sesh7357 2 жыл бұрын
Not a student of physics but I do follow the subject somewhat - I really liked the way Dr Ben Miles explains things - even I could follow something! Thanks Dr Miles
@flattenthecurve8623
@flattenthecurve8623 2 жыл бұрын
Physics? You “believe” that you’re pinned to the side of a pressurized, supersonic spinning water ball that’s in three elliptical orbits at ridiculous speeds and floating in an infinite vacuum. If you believe that nonsense, then you don’t know what physics is in the first instance. Globe Earth is a Religion.
@nct948
@nct948 2 жыл бұрын
same here,lol!!
@abacaxidotcaxi
@abacaxidotcaxi 2 жыл бұрын
I agree, it was very well explained.
@sesh7357
@sesh7357 2 жыл бұрын
@@Bluewolf- Thanks so much. Surely look up
@rxonmymind8362
@rxonmymind8362 2 жыл бұрын
Your fake. 😂
@gonzogil123
@gonzogil123 7 ай бұрын
2:52min Is this a way to exaplain how (including all else) particles from a void begin to interact with each other mediated by a gravitational relation?. Separated in (4th dimensional) space, but closer to the void as limiting indeterminate particles? Still retaining that identity?.
@jimatperfromix2759
@jimatperfromix2759 2 жыл бұрын
I mostly like this video by Dr Ben Miles on Bell's Theorem and the recently awarded Nobel Prize concerting it. One positive is that he does emphasize that there are (at least) two issues at play here - Realism and Locality - and that the Realdm part is the harder of the two to wrap your head around. He also mentions the CHSH formulation (i.e., variant) of Bell's paper, which is a little bit cleaner, using photon polarization, whereas Bell's original example is a bit more difficult to follow (although functionally equivalent as a proof). I also like that he mentions the actual Clauser and Freedman paper "Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variabe Theories" in Vol 28 Num 14 of Physical Review Letters. Furthermore, he points out that the graph in Fig 3 of that paper is sinusoidal, not a linear triangle curve, which is the essence of the paper, or if you will, the crux of the biscuit. Two things I can fault in his exposition, though. First, he starts out by making the all-too-common assertion that "Einstein has been proven wrong!" This mistake is made by almost all expositors on the topic, so I guess we can let it slide maybe. But I'll tackle that issue a bit in a later paragraph, below. My other beef is a sin of omission, also made by virtually all expositors on the topic, even by premier physicists in best-selling books. Specifically, the failure to mention that Bell's proof is a proof-by-contradiction - that is to say, a reductio ad absurdum. What that means is that all Bell really proves is that one of his (multiple) assumptions is incorrect. It gives you no information as to which of those assumptions is the guilty one. It could be that the Locality assumption is incorrect (in other words, Quantum Mechanics is inherently non-local); or it could be that the Realism assumption is incorrect (or as some would say, Einstein was wrong-headed to want Realism in his QM theory; or it could be that Bell had made some unknown/unwritten hidden assumption that he himself was not even aware of, and that was the invalid assumption proven wrong by the reductio ad absurdum. We don't know for sure what the situation is. As an aside, what the experimental confirmations by many such as Clauser, Aspect, Zeilinger and others adds to the picture is that it shows agreement between Physical Reality and Quantum Mechanics, and by so doing demonstrates that there was no error in John Bell's reductio-ad-absurdum proof. That is, the proof of Bell's Theorem stands supported by reality - and it really does end up in a contradiction that needs explanation. But these experiments offer up no clue as to which of Bell's proof assumptions "was the actual wrong one." That is still as open to interpretation as is always was. However, later in the video it was mentioned that with near certainty we think that there is no faster-than-light communication allowed in Physics, so it is doubtful that Bell's Locality assumption was the one at fault. A lot of people would then cast aspersions on the Realism assumption as the obvious next candidate (and since Einstein preferred some flavor of Realism in his Quantum Mechanics Tea, that is what leads to the widespread (but mistaken, in my opinion) claims that "See, Einstein was proven wrong!" I believe that, in some sense of the phrase, "the wrong assumption" in Bell's proof was "a hidden assumption on Bell's part." Let's look deeper after a brief diversion into terminology. Elsewhere in these comments, some (probably validly) complain about the term Realism or Realist in the context of the so-called Realism assumption (that was ostensibly proven wrong by the absurdum arrived-at in Bell's reductio-ad-absurdum proof). There definitely are muddied waters via prior art for the terms among Philosophers and others. One commenter suggests Determinism as a better term. I will add a suggestion that the term Measurable or Measurement deserves to be in the definition somewhere. Specifically, I'd offer up something on the order of "Measurably Deterministic Realism" or maybe "Deterministically Measurable Realism." What's the point of my above semantic gyrations? I suggest (but cannot possibly know for sure) that the "wrong" Bell assumption (in his proof) was made when Bell "chose" a Realistic assumption intended to represent what Einstein's Realistic leanings meant in practice. Bell chose a Realism assumption that might be more accurately described as a Measurably Deterministic Realism assumption or a Deterministically Measurable Realism assumption. The "hidden assumption" by Bell was that his choice of particular explicit Realism assumption was both potentially (at least) compatible with Quantum Mechanics and also adequately embodied Einstein's Realist-leaning sentiments. In reality, neither was true. First of all, Einstein's thoughts were more along the line of "maybe Quantum Mechanics is incomplete." Now it's true that prior Newtonian Physics theories were very much Realistic and Measurable and Deterministic in nature. But Einstein never argued to go back to Newtonian Physics. He was partially credited with inventing Quantum Mechanics, after all. Einstein first and foremost suggested that "we really don't understand QM as well as we might be able to someday." The Deterministically Measurable Realism assumption that Bell landed on as a token representation of the "Quantum Mechanics is Maybe Incomplete" style of Realism that one might associate with Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, was a bad choice of Realism assumption since it is indeed incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, as Bell's Proof shows, and is also incompatible with Reality, as experiments by Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger show. The exact same problems shows up in the results of the recently-awarded Nobel experiments as what shows up as a contradiction in the Bell (who didn't get a Nobel since you have to be alive to receive the award) proof-by-contradiction. So you can look at it one of two ways, that in the end are equivalent. (1) You can say that Bell's assumption of Deterministically Measurable Realism is the "bad" assumption that leads to the contradiction in the reductio-ad-absurdum proof. Or, (2) you can say that Bell made an extra hidden assumption that the only assumption worth entertaining as a possible Realism assumption is the Deterministically Measurable Realism. Either way, wrong assumption! (1) is wrong, because as Bell's proof shows, when you add a working assumption of Quantum Mechanics being true, it leads to a contradiction, and the experiments by Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger establish that the real world is in agreement with QM, thereby agreeing with Bell's theoretical proof that there is a contradiction that needs to be resolved. (2) is false in the sense that Bell bet on the wrong type of Realism assumption. Other flavors of potential Realism assumptions might exist, and (at least some of) these alternate Realism assumptions might not be in contradiction to Quantum Mechanics as we know it today. To give the flavor of what such a flavor of Realism might look like, consider a Realism that is Real in the sense that objects have concrete numerical values for certain quantum properties, so in a sort-of sense are Real, yet these properties are never (or at least seldom) exactly measurable per se and also not deterministic. Rather, any time a quantum measurement event is instigated on said quantum object, the (so-called) Realist property is merely a number that is pumped into the dynamic creation of a probability distribution, and the actual measured value is randomly chosen from that probability distribution. If the latter sounds at all familiar to you, that is because that is pretty much a high-level description of how the quantum measurement process works in practice. Therefore it is compatible with Quantum Mechanics since it is Quantum Mechanics. That alternative Realism assumption (if indeed such a viable alternative Realism exists), would have not led to a contradiction in Bell's Theorem. It would have led to essentially the same sinusoidal graph as Clauser got in his Figure 3. So in that case (if a viable alternative Realism assumption could be formulated and if Bell had assumed such) there would be no contradiction, and Bell would not have had any proof of anything. In other words, Bell or no Bell, Clauser/Aspect/Zeilinger or no Clauser/Aspect/Zeilinger, it has not yet been established whether or not some sort-of flavor of Realism (that is at least non-deterministic Realism and not-fully-measurable Realism) exists that would be fully compatible with Quantum Mechanics. If such could be discovered, it would demonstrate that Einstein was correct in his gut feel that maybe there was some deeper explanation of how Quantum Mechanics works, but we just don't know it yet. So you see, Bell et al does not even come close to proving Einstein wrong. Rather, it shows two things: (a) the jury is still out as to whether some day we might find a deeper theory that has extra explanatory power over the current Quantum Mechanics theory; and (b) in his proof, John Bell made a bad choice in picking a fundamentally wrong (that is to say, both incompatible with Quantum Mechanics and incompatible with the reality of the universe) flavor of Realism to stand-in for Einstein-like preferences for a pseudo-realist Quantum Mechanics. This bad choice resulted in a contradiction, and thus a proof that said bad choice of a Realism was indeed a bad choice of Realism. So sadly, Bell's proof reduces to a Truism in the end. Yet I am still very greatful for the work of Bell, Clauser, Aspect, Zeilinger and others since as a result of that work we already have a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics, and we have launched the field of Quantum Computing.
@Pailgingerman
@Pailgingerman 2 жыл бұрын
Holy shit man this is a blog not a comment lol
@cruisingkirby.8188
@cruisingkirby.8188 2 жыл бұрын
@@Pailgingerman You actually read the whole thing? 😂😂😂
@MFS-
@MFS- 2 жыл бұрын
How can I reply to such extensive drivel?
@marniekramarich2278
@marniekramarich2278 Жыл бұрын
I enjoyed this comment more than the video
@paman8er209
@paman8er209 Жыл бұрын
WHEW! I liked it. Whoop! Whoop!
@dragonmasteraltais
@dragonmasteraltais 2 жыл бұрын
Superbly made. These particular concepts in a strange and inexplicable way, almost seem to make perfect sense. Whether or not something can be categorised as "Locally Real" has always been incredibly important, and I'm honestly impressed with the simplistic yet highly informative explanation given. This is truly exciting!
@infinity2394
@infinity2394 2 жыл бұрын
evil only exists if goodness exists since you wouldn't know evil without first knowing goodness. Think of it like this. you cannot have shadows without light, but you can have light without shadows. So how is it that we know why good is good? if you're an atheist you don't know why it's wrong to kill a person you just know it's wrong though you don't know the reason. You see we know the universe had a beginning based on The Cosmic Microwave Background, which is "the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe" it is a 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, it was released soon after the 'Big Bang'. Scientists consider it as an echo or 'shockwave' of the Big Bang. this paired with the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding while also winding down. Not only did the matter in the universe have a beginning, but also the forces such as space, and gravity, and quantum forces, and time we know this from general relativity which shows that you cannot have space without time and you cannot have time without space and you cannot have matter without space or time! meaning that what could have caused the big bang would have to be outside of the realm of time and space meaning it's nonmaterial ! because nothing cannot happen to create something because there is nothing to occur to create something... So how does this go back to morality you ask? well would you believe it if I told you I just proved GOD's existence? You see GOD is outside of space and time! he is the one that was the cause of the universe he was the beginning, and since he is outside space and time. He is eternal meaning there was nothing before him he was always there and always will be. Now onto morality the reason we know it's wrong to kill someone is because GOD created us with a conscience con meaning with science meaning knowledge so when we kill someone we do it with knowledge that you just killed someone. The thing about your conscience is that it is GOD given society shaped. YOU can also shape your conscience the more you do things against it the quieter you make it it's like removing the batteries from your fire detector especially if you're loving the thing your conscience is warning you against.
@ACuriousChild
@ACuriousChild 2 жыл бұрын
@@infinity2394 Superb summary, could not agree more. Only to add one thought. Satan, the opposition to ALL EXISTENCE, exists! But equally as GOD not as a material being. Satan appears to be THE SPIRIT of THE MATERIAL (no direct only indirect access to THE IMMATERIAL - GOD - by witnessing HIS CREATION) , that has been created by GOD out of THE IMMATERIAL (HIMSELF), in order to detect HIMSELF - HIS CREATION in THE MATERIAL. Like THE HUMAN MIND needs a "device" (book, laptop) to detect KNOWLEDGE IN THE MATERIAL GOD seems to need the device HUMAN for ONE type of detection mechanism within THE MATERIAL - HIS SPACE AND TIME - OUT OF HIM, THROUGH HIM AND IN HIM. All said there isn't even a contradiction regarding SCIENCE or (QUANTUM) PHYSICS. It rather rhymes perfectly with it. It is such a marvel and at the same time the curse described in SCRIPTURE that THE HUMAN MIND is proving again and again that GOD exists and at the same time it is unable to "seeing the forest for the trees". The pride of THE UNFAITHFUL HUMAN MIND cannot get over the fact that it only exists based on THE FLESH GOD CREATED for HIMSELF in order HIM to be able to look into HIS ONGOING PROCESS OF CREATION. THE HUMAN FLESH is HIS VEHICLE for the equipment necessary to continue HIS PROCESS OF CREATION based on the HUMAN EXPERIENCE OF HIS SPACE, TIME AND MATERIAL.
@rodsmith494
@rodsmith494 Ай бұрын
How can things make sense in an inexplicable way?
@seventhtenth
@seventhtenth 2 жыл бұрын
7:20 this doesn't ring true to me. The relationship is proportional to cos^2(\theta) and depending on the kind of polarization plate / film you use determines how it interacts with nonlinearly polarized and 'natural' light
@lordbr1798
@lordbr1798 7 ай бұрын
0:01 Solitons Explanation: Since no one knows, I'll answer the problem. Think of a roller, the water is not just water, there is oxygen around it, this oxygen works like mini balls that do the work, when they are hit the effect happens
@stevezagieboylo9172
@stevezagieboylo9172 2 жыл бұрын
I keep getting stuck on our interpretation of polarization, never mind the entanglement part. We run the photons through a polarizing filter, so the photons that make it through are now measured, and all have a polarization of (let's say) 0 degrees. If we add a polarizing filter at 90 degrees, then zero photons get through. That makes sense. But if we insert a 45 degree filter between them, then some photons get through the whole system. That tells us that their polarization actually changes -- it's not a fixed value. If it were a fixed value and didn't change, then inserting the 45-degree filter wouldn't affect whether or not any given photon can make it through the other two filters, but it obviously does by simple experiment. Since I know that 50% of light will make it through two filters at 45 degrees from each other, that says that for any given photon polarized at 0 degrees, when it hits the 45 degree one it has a 50% chance of getting through AND if it does, it will be re-polarized to the new angle. I believe that this is an over-simplification, but I don't understand what it is we are saying really happens at the photon level. I do know that 50% of the light gets through the 45 degree filter and the light though the second filter is polarized to it. It makes a lot of sense if you don't think about individual photons, but instead just think of light as a wave that has an amplitude and a polarization. Moving through the filter reduces the amplitude to the sine of the angle, exactly as you'd expect given that model. But individual photons don't have an amplitude that can be reduced, they are blocked or they pass through, right? How could we apply this to the experiment above? If the entanglement they describe is correct, then I would think that we could start with Alice and Bob sending their photons through first a 0-degree polarizing filter, and then a 90-degree one. Of course, no light would pass through either. Then Alice, but not Bob, inserts a 45-degree filter between her two filters. As with any time that she were doing this on her own, she should now see 25% of the light get through all three filters. Does Bob also suddenly see some light getting through both of his filters? If his photons are entangled with Alice's, then I would think he would, but I'll bet he doesn't.
@SimbaUchihaa
@SimbaUchihaa 2 жыл бұрын
Or is there a condition where Bob would sometimes see it & also not see it periodically?
@bustercam199
@bustercam199 4 ай бұрын
You make a good point, and this is at least part of the reason why this whole entanglement idea is patently false.
@harrysu7643
@harrysu7643 2 жыл бұрын
so basically reality has a depth/view parameter where things outside of that aren't completely rendered
@GeometricPidgeon
@GeometricPidgeon 2 жыл бұрын
As a 3d artist I always described quantum particle behavior as just so small our reality rendering engine just starts to glitch, just so i could make a little sense of the theory that was in front of me. What you describe is what we call near and far clipping planes in 3D rendering! Of course there's also occlusion culling but that is way different.
@aristotle_4532
@aristotle_4532 2 жыл бұрын
@@GeometricPidgeon It is merely complex beyond our current level of understanding, but people have always had the habit of preferring metaphysical nonsense that sounds interesting over admitting ignorance. The way to treat the metaphysical, and I mean that which we cannot yet observe, is not unfounded theories, but contradiction. Contradiction is the only tool. We do not know what light is because we do not know the medium of light, but merely some of the effects of light. We do not know what polarization really does to light. When in the future so many claimed discoveries will go down the drain, we will say that such is the nature of science, but this time it was different. We did not form incomplete descriptions of reality, we allowed imagination to form the descriptions. We acccept unfounded theories and build on them, taking great care to only consider what is compatible with what we have already invested in
@GeometricPidgeon
@GeometricPidgeon 2 жыл бұрын
@@aristotle_4532 yeah I don't claim to have an understanding of quantum particles or mechanics, it is just my own metaphor for explaining why quantum particles do that. Just a massive error lol
@aristotle_4532
@aristotle_4532 2 жыл бұрын
@@GeometricPidgeon When we do understand the principles, it will be simple. A cube rotation is easy for the software user and the software developer, but a magical complexity if you attempt to follow it on the actual electronics of the computer. Complexity is always a sign of failure on the level of principles.
@markangelorgs.2773
@markangelorgs.2773 2 жыл бұрын
@@aristotle_4532 some of know what light is. You can as well if you study Walter Russell and read his book "The Secret of Light". His work will also explain why cube ratios work in 3d programming. Enjoy your enlightenment.
@dariofromthefuture3075
@dariofromthefuture3075 Жыл бұрын
For the confused amongst us - i think all he saying is that at the photon level - particles appear for us based on the necessity for them to be observed. When no one is looking they are in an ‘uncertain’ state. This introduces the idea of the universe as a set of policies rather than a set of rigid structures. The policies are like principles of the creator - that enable life to be lived as we know it. At the end of the day it’s probably all conscious-beingness reflecting and playing with itself. . That’s my take.
@trucid2
@trucid2 10 ай бұрын
A good way to save computational resources if we are in a simulation: Don't simulate things that aren't being looked at. Like occlusion culling in video games where we don't render objects that can't be seen but taken to a whole new level.
@ChrisGarciaJSB
@ChrisGarciaJSB Ай бұрын
9:30 yeahhhhh. i do not understand. i’ve watched so many explainers…. so: why? why in the context of the rest of the video should we expect a curved graph if the particles are quantum entangled? my first guess was one particle was somehow jostling the other as it went through the filter. but further exploration informed me this isn’t the case. so what explains the curve?
@earthling_parth
@earthling_parth 2 жыл бұрын
My first video of this channel and instantly subscribed. I'm a wannabe physicist but am not good at advanced maths. I'm still fascinated by new discoveries in physics and space but can't work in that field, so if someone can make me appreciate the physics in simple English, I would forever be grateful.
@Rob4thawin
@Rob4thawin 2 жыл бұрын
Homie, as an extreme dumb ass who is currently studying physics, hoping to become a theoretical physicist, I gotta tell you. If you really wanna go further into physics, you just gotta let go of that doubt and keep trying. Physics isn't for everybody, but if you genuinely enjoy it and want to study it and understand it more than anything else, I don't think you should let anything discourage you. There's not a lot of people learning physics, so even if you're the dumbest physicist (Which you can't be, that's my position.) you'll be able to contribute to something.
@mgsmemebook
@mgsmemebook 2 жыл бұрын
I'm terrible at maths too but that shouldn't stop you from learning
@nilsodor
@nilsodor 2 жыл бұрын
I study math (not advanced yet but a candidate) and I don't understand this for a second! If alice and bob anti-align: bob and alice sees the photon or none. OK! If alice and bob align: one of them sees photon, one of them don't. OK! If it's between: wtf? Well shouldn't they see it to some degree? And lets say it SHOULD be linear like: bob sees photon but rotates 45 degree, oh he only sees half photon, symmetric to alice and so on... Yeah I guess that sounds right? But if it's not like that, then why is Bohr right? It was even a nice, symmetrically curved curve that didn't look random at all? The photon couldn't make up his mind and was suprised and panicked?? How did anyone watch this and go "this makes perfect sense"?
@jackyjack9660
@jackyjack9660 2 жыл бұрын
@@Rob4thawin nah that's bs.. Curiosity should be more than be in good at maths... If you're curious you'll be certainly improve your maths... Curiosity itself isn't for everyone... Many people don't understand maths because all they did was practice nothing understanding the real essence of maths...or didn't read from some good teacher... Physics is for everyone who enjoys it...
@jackyjack9660
@jackyjack9660 2 жыл бұрын
@@nilsodor what's half photon? PEE is explained by particle nature of light.. So it can't be half photon... That's entanglement I guess which he did mentioned in video..
@dr.wianmeintjes9028
@dr.wianmeintjes9028 2 жыл бұрын
Dr Miles. First time viewer. Best 13 minutes I have spend in a long lime. I am a psychiatrist and love the concepts we discover and how it deepens our understanding of reality ( or un reality ?) Satisfying our curiosit. Masterful. Thank you
@flattenthecurve8623
@flattenthecurve8623 2 жыл бұрын
In your reality, you’re pinned to the side of a pressurized, supersonic spinning water ball that’s in three elliptical orbits at ridiculous speeds and floating in an infinite vacuum. Globe Earth is a Religion Fool.
@germanjohn5626
@germanjohn5626 2 жыл бұрын
Sigmund Freud would have a blast analyzing today's psychiatrists. One of the only profession who constantly has to re-invent the wheel to stay in lime light.
@ravon0277
@ravon0277 2 жыл бұрын
Check out Jerry Marzinsky Dr Wian. 🤯
@cieslaolsztyn8266
@cieslaolsztyn8266 2 жыл бұрын
No! The earth is not flat
@omarronwuatuegwu8432
@omarronwuatuegwu8432 2 жыл бұрын
@@cieslaolsztyn8266 how do you know smarty-pants? Have you seen its shape? No i don’t think so
@kricke243
@kricke243 2 жыл бұрын
I don't think superdeterminism has been ruled out, and I don't think it can be because the correlations would have been determined already at the big bang (at least). In short, Bob and Alice measuring the polarization at the detector doesn't have a "free will" to chose what measurement to perform.
@missk1697
@missk1697 2 жыл бұрын
"think" is the key word here
@bustercam199
@bustercam199 4 ай бұрын
Superdeterminism is garbage and just a cop out.
@nmarbletoe8210
@nmarbletoe8210 21 күн бұрын
exactly. it cannot be ruled out, or even tested. so it is not a scientific concept. it is a philosophical objection very similar to "god created all the fossils just to fool people into thinking the world is older than 6ky"
@feynmanschwingere_mc2270
@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 10 ай бұрын
So, a quick correction. Einstein wasn't "wrong," he was the first to point out that entanglement was THE differentiating aspect of quantum mechanics and Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born, Dirac, Pauli etc DID NOT understand how significant the EPR paper was (and it was kind of ignored): Einstein UNDERSTOOD before everybody else that IF quantum entanglement was true, either locality or "realism" had to be abandoned, and if that was the case, what does that do to the primacy of special relativity? Kuhn argues, convincingly, that Einstein, not Planck, launched quantum theory in earnest (and he was able to derive Planck's equation using only Wien's law, not to mention the fact he independently derived the Rayleigh-Jeans Law). It was ultimately Einstein that INSPIRED John Bell (who was told by several peers not to even waste his time with experiments now known as Bell's theorem) to do the very experimental work that ultimately led to the Nobel Prize won by Clauser and co. Einstein, contrary to popular opinion (and this isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of several science historians, contemporaries, and physicists like Sean Carrol), understood quantum mechanics better than anybody. Without his insights Schrodinger never derives his famous wave equation; without his insights, Born never comes up with Probability waves/distributions; without his insights De Broglie never comes up with matter waves. Douglas Stone's "Einstein and The Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian" is an excellent synthetic history of this corner of scientific lore. I'd argue that Einstein was THE most influential figure in the establishment of quantum mechanics (and he also happens to be the de facto father of condensed matter physics according to Cardona and others).
@MrlegendOr
@MrlegendOr 4 ай бұрын
No
@michaelblankenau6598
@michaelblankenau6598 3 ай бұрын
Too bad you’re wrong .
@rodsmith494
@rodsmith494 Ай бұрын
Ironic then that Einstein abandoned the reality principle with relativity
@SnootchieBootchies27
@SnootchieBootchies27 2 жыл бұрын
This would help explain my multi-verse within our physically infinite universe theory. There's infinite everything, but you can't have the exact same thing twice. Entanglement keeps things mixed up. I'm not a physicist, just someone who used to do too much drugs.
@2000sborton
@2000sborton Жыл бұрын
Actually infinity demands that you have an infinite number of the exact same thing. Question. Were any of those drugs psychedelic?
@SnootchieBootchies27
@SnootchieBootchies27 Жыл бұрын
@@2000sborton so... are you saying that an infinite physical universe would demand that there be infinite identical objects out there somewhere? Because that's what I think, I don't really even know what my previous comment was about tbh.
@pr00009
@pr00009 7 ай бұрын
it doesnt actually. multiverse isnt real.
@connorswanson
@connorswanson 2 жыл бұрын
7:00 can you explain this bit further? I am not sure why the state of the particle changes only after another portion of film is placed
@sahar890
@sahar890 2 жыл бұрын
Depends on the angular momentum which is a cause and effect of hitting the block at a certain angle
@ludicrous7044
@ludicrous7044 2 жыл бұрын
Whoa! You lost me!!
@JuliusUnique
@JuliusUnique Жыл бұрын
one question though. So from the fact that 2 distance entangled particles can instantly communicate with each other, the conclusion is that the universe isn't locally real. But couldn't the other conclusion be that the universe is locally real, just that sometimes it actually is possible to communicate faster than light? what if they are conencted in a 4th dimension that allows instant transmission?
@kevinfisher466
@kevinfisher466 8 ай бұрын
yes
@j09k06
@j09k06 7 ай бұрын
Honestly i think its like folding a paper in half or something then its like yeah that works and it looks faster than light but im not a scientist guy
@jksupergamer
@jksupergamer 5 ай бұрын
@@j09k06goofy ah movie explanation.
@j09k06
@j09k06 5 ай бұрын
@@jksupergamer Thanks
@bustercam199
@bustercam199 4 ай бұрын
the particles do not instantly communicate.
@MutsukiNY
@MutsukiNY 4 ай бұрын
I am lost at 9:26 to 9:40. I don't understand why we should see a higher rate of coincidence, or even what this means. Any help is appreciated. Otherwise, it all makes sense to me and I can follow. You mean one person adds a third filter and the other one doesn't? I don't even visually understand what is happening in these few seconds. I get that there is something to do with the wave not collapsing to a position, therefore there is no "reality." But I don't concretely understand the point being made here.
@randomgrinn
@randomgrinn Жыл бұрын
So as you said the problem is the definition of real. I still have no clue why wavefunctions being unknown until you look at them have anything to do with whether the universe is real or not. Why can't the universe both be real and be unknown until measured? Why are those exclusive? Wish you had explained that better.
@Stierenkloot
@Stierenkloot Жыл бұрын
Pretty much everything in this video is explained horrendously
@nmarbletoe8210
@nmarbletoe8210 21 күн бұрын
"real" is not the right word. the experiment is about "local realism" which is comnpletely different concept
@ThatJay283
@ThatJay283 2 жыл бұрын
whats interesting about quantum mechanics: i did some testing on a simulated quantum computer in python and tried to do something to break causality lol. i tried to get information passed in the form of probability. so what i can do, is i can rotate an entangled qubit, then measure. when i do this and graph it, i see a really nice graph that shows different probabilities on what each qubit was measured as depending on the angle of rotation on 1 qubit. problem is, when i only look at the reading from 1 qubit and not both, it's just 50/50 lol, so any information being passed still relies on energy being transmitted.
@ashyslashy5818
@ashyslashy5818 Жыл бұрын
1st there is nor will there ever be a quantum pc.NEVER!
@AYVYN
@AYVYN Жыл бұрын
Interesting. Do you have it on Github?
@StupidusMaximusTheFirst
@StupidusMaximusTheFirst 9 ай бұрын
@@ashyslashy5818 yes, I think so too, at least not in the way they envision it.
@peppatheoof
@peppatheoof 10 ай бұрын
1:49 Schrödinger's cat is often misunderstood. It was originally meant to critique, not exemplify, quantum mechanics by showing the absurdity of applying quantum superposition to everyday objects. The experiment highlights the complexities and non-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics, rather than suggesting objects can exist in multiple states simultaneously in the macroscopic world. It's crucial to understand the context and intention behind it to avoid spreading misconceptions about quantum mechanics.
@particlephysics_lee
@particlephysics_lee 6 ай бұрын
ChatGPT
@gsmollin2
@gsmollin2 6 ай бұрын
It is the photon that is in both states. When it hits the detector it will either release the poison gas or not. The cat then either dies or not.
@JulesMakesYouThink
@JulesMakesYouThink 6 ай бұрын
exactly, the whole thing is an elaborated way to say: that makes no sense.
@rodsmith494
@rodsmith494 Ай бұрын
Yes exactly right. Schrödinger would be horrified that his critique has been turned on its head to justify the absurd opposite point of view. Nobody observes dead/alive cats in reality. It is literally insane. This whole thing is based on perpetuating a materialist viewpoint and is based on these assumptions and misinterpretations
@constantin58
@constantin58 2 ай бұрын
Quantum mechanics can be described as ball gears, each with its own engine, positioned closely together. Each engine can be powered by external factors, which influence the movement direction of the ball gear. When certain engines receive more power, they dictate the movement of the surrounding ball gears. When we manage to fuel these engines with exactly the same external factors in the future, the states of particles would be predictable before we measure them.
@thefoolishhiker3103
@thefoolishhiker3103 2 жыл бұрын
I keep trying to wrap my head around this entangled photon thing. How is entanglement different from putting a left and right glove in a pair of boxes and shipping the two boxes across the galaxy? The fact that I see a left glove when I open the box doesn’t determine what is in the other box. That was determined the moment the gloves were put in the two boxes. Why is the orientation of the photon any different? It’s determined the moment they are entangled you just don’t know which way until it’s measured.
@patrickday4206
@patrickday4206 2 жыл бұрын
Except they are suggesting that changing the spin on one latter on changes the spin of the other one I think.
@JorgetePanete
@JorgetePanete 2 жыл бұрын
Superdeterminism isn't proved, so don't make such a claim.
@patrickday4206
@patrickday4206 2 жыл бұрын
@@JorgetePanete I'm super determined to prove it. Lol
@miserere666
@miserere666 2 жыл бұрын
This is exactly what the hidden-variable theory suggests, i.e. that there are properties on entangled particles that determine their orientation the moment they entangle. As in your example, when you put a glove in a box, then it is determined what type it is. (but we don't know until we measure it). But Bell's theorem proves mathematically that such determined properties cannot exist in an entangled system, so that they should not be in a certain state, i.e. they are in superposition. A glove of a certain type is not in the box but its type is in a superposition. (it is both left and right). If there are two such boxes and they are entangled, the moment you measure the type of the glove in one box, the glove in the other box instantaneously comes out as the other type. But this is so absurd and unintuitive which is why Schrödinger presented his famous cat experiment to show that how can a macroscopic object like a cat (or a glove) can be both alive and dead at the same time.
@procletnic
@procletnic 2 жыл бұрын
@@miserere666 I'd like for you to explain how the non-linearity of the graph with expected results proves that hidden-variables do not exist. I just have a hard time understanding the implications of that graph - why the graph being non-linear suddenly means that the orientation of the particles isn't determined the moment they entangle?
@physicsbutawesome
@physicsbutawesome 2 жыл бұрын
Somebody on my channel linked to this video and said "far superior explanation" I really like what you did, and I can relate to the struggle of what to leave out and what to explain and how, especially with this topic. Always interesting to see what other people come up with, great video.
@notathletic4171
@notathletic4171 2 жыл бұрын
😂 you keep going. I'll sub you, love
@likhithmanjunatha9934
@likhithmanjunatha9934 2 жыл бұрын
Fantastic. And also interesting that ancient Indian philosophers also concluded that the world is “maya” or an illusion.
@sichaoxian
@sichaoxian 2 жыл бұрын
Mahayana Buddhism
@seabass666
@seabass666 2 жыл бұрын
Borrowed from Spanish maya, from Yucatec Maya mayab (“flat”)
@likhithmanjunatha9934
@likhithmanjunatha9934 2 жыл бұрын
@Void Null no shit. We didn’t have high tech scientific equipments 3000 years ago.
@likhithmanjunatha9934
@likhithmanjunatha9934 2 жыл бұрын
@Void Null what do you want man? You want to shit on my culture? Go for it! It is just interesting that few men arrived at a philosophy through experiential thought process, that happens to be coincidental with present day experimental findings. Whether either of them will remain to be true or not, I don’t know, and neither do you.
@Yatra-kj3zq
@Yatra-kj3zq 4 ай бұрын
Thoughts move much faster than the speed of light. Thoughts have power. Thoughts have energy. A thought from one person can influence another person no matter how far the distance. This is an unproven fact. Unfortunately, most people do not believe in this. Until another experiment in future proves this phenomena, we can be remain falsely satisfied that only light is faster today. Great video. Thanks for this information.
@ahrenstarr6273
@ahrenstarr6273 2 жыл бұрын
Would have liked more detail on how the experiment works. You have the polarizers. I understand how that let's you measure the polarity of a photon approaching you. How do you predetermine that two photons are entangled? How do you send them in opposite directions? Presumably without adding a new force that would dictate or influence their behavior.
@Simply_Jerry
@Simply_Jerry 2 жыл бұрын
Good question mate!
@ingeniouswild
@ingeniouswild 2 жыл бұрын
For example there are materials with the property that an incoming photon of a certain energy/wavelength can split into two photons going off in different directions, with half the energy each. Since they go off in different directions you can lead them to different parts of the experiment. Determining that they are entangled AND that this entanglement can't involve pre-determined properties of each photon by itself (which is the topic of this video) involves measuring them with photon-detectors and looking at correlations between the clicks. It took decades to invent the proper techniques to do this from the first time this was proposed, but today it can be done in an undergrad lab.
@MikeCzarnecki
@MikeCzarnecki 2 жыл бұрын
@@ingeniouswild How would this splitting of photons work? What's the mechanism here?
@bigdaddynero
@bigdaddynero 2 жыл бұрын
@@ingeniouswild The issue here is that there's no evidence to suggest they're "entangled". I'm failing to see the experiment where one photon has its property "changed" multiple times where the entangled photon, having nothing done to it, is observed to change as if nothing happened to it. All these experiments show is that, when two photons go in opposite directions with equally opposite properties, due to Newton's law, that when one is measured, the other can be thus determined. Einstein's assumption that particles are "born" with specific properties has yet to be unproven.
@flounderflounder6833
@flounderflounder6833 2 жыл бұрын
Go read the paper
@klaasbil8459
@klaasbil8459 2 жыл бұрын
This was my first video watched on this channel (following a KZbin recommendation), but what an excellent well-paced explanation!
@guerreromendieta
@guerreromendieta 2 жыл бұрын
same here! this guy is special
@DavidPysnik
@DavidPysnik 2 жыл бұрын
This isn’t really the whole story, though. There is another assumption, not talked about enough, that Bell made, which is the need for statistical independence in the experiment discussed. If this assumption is violated, then the inequalities can be violated without giving up the other properties you mention in the video. Now, it is indeed quite arguable that there is, at the most basic level, no independence in the experiment as what the experimenter does is determined by many previous events, from what they ate for breakfast in the morning and who they worked with that week, to what school they went to as a child, to events that led to their birth, to events billions of years ago tracing back to the Big Bang and the formation of the universe that also led to their experiment being conducted. This means it is not only possible the experiment was not free and independent, but actually quite plausible it was instead totally and completely determined by what came before it. If so, no trouble for Einstein, locality, realism, and the rest. This view is called Superdeterminism and, if true, actually supports Bohr was wrong, not Einstein. Many scientists, not psychologically willing to consider they do not actually have free will, have tried to downplay and dismiss the reasonable attacks on the independence assumption, but their lack of being willing to entertain it does not show it isn’t true. On the contrary, it is their belief that the experimenter can somehow be totally free from the laws of the universe and causality itself that seem truly absurd. As such, the issues in your video are still open questions and no one has proved the universe "isn't real".
@FrictionFive
@FrictionFive 2 жыл бұрын
Word
@aliceslab
@aliceslab 2 жыл бұрын
I have never thought Einstein was wrong, i just figured he couldnt find a way to explain or prove what he was seeing in his head.
@JT-bg2vy
@JT-bg2vy 2 жыл бұрын
Yep 💯
@TheAnthroheart
@TheAnthroheart 2 жыл бұрын
Ecellent rigor!
@Crossark1
@Crossark1 2 жыл бұрын
And there could be a teapot locked in orbit around the sun in such a way that we cannot ever observe it. The failure to disprove an unproven assertion doesn’t make that assertion itself reasonable to believe. You cannot assume superdeterminism is true simply because we have failed to show it isn’t - it is, indeed, an unprovable hypothesis after all. I mean, you also make assertions here that blatantly misunderstand what “statistical independence” means, and you extrapolate that experimenters believe they can be free from universal laws based on this misunderstanding, but go off with your pseudoscientific dogma that uses the same logic as Calvinism but replaces the language of God with the quasiscientific jargon.
What Does An Electron ACTUALLY Look Like?
16:02
PBS Space Time
Рет қаралды 522 М.
The Genius Behind the Quantum Navigation Breakthrough
20:47
Dr Ben Miles
Рет қаралды 1,2 МЛН
Support each other🤝
00:31
ISSEI / いっせい
Рет қаралды 81 МЛН
Cheerleader Transformation That Left Everyone Speechless! #shorts
00:27
Fabiosa Best Lifehacks
Рет қаралды 16 МЛН
It works #beatbox #tiktok
00:34
BeatboxJCOP
Рет қаралды 41 МЛН
What would we see at the speed of light?
15:01
ScienceClic English
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН
How Quantum Computers Break The Internet... Starting Now
24:29
Veritasium
Рет қаралды 10 МЛН
We FINALLY Understand Why Tardigrades Refuse to Die
19:40
Dr Ben Miles
Рет қаралды 3 МЛН
The Simple Math Problem That Revolutionized Physics
32:44
Veritasium
Рет қаралды 8 МЛН
These Paradoxes Keep Scientists Awake At Night! No Solutions!
11:15
How Gravity Actually Works
17:34
Veritasium
Рет қаралды 12 МЛН
What Actually Are Space And Time?
1:15:19
History of the Universe
Рет қаралды 10 МЛН
The EPR Paradox & Bell's inequality explained simply
18:18
Arvin Ash
Рет қаралды 593 М.
Why Is 1/137 One of the Greatest Unsolved Problems In Physics?
15:38
PBS Space Time
Рет қаралды 3,8 МЛН
Support each other🤝
00:31
ISSEI / いっせい
Рет қаралды 81 МЛН