Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 Explained: Quantum Entanglement, Proving Einstein Wrong

The Nobel Prize for Physics in 2022 was awarded "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science". But what does this actually mean?
Around the time quantum mechanics was gaining steam as a way to describe the universe on the smallest scales, there were more and more questions cropping up about the meaning behind the theory. Although it made near-perfect mathematical predictions about what should happen in any given scenario and experiment, it went against a lot of theories that came before it (classical physics) in terms of the assumptions and implications of the theory.
In classical physics, if you get enough information about a system, you can exactly predict how it should behave at a later point in time. For example, if you know a particle's position and speed at a given point in time, you can work out where to find it some time later. This prediction would also work every single time we repeated the experiment of measuring the particle's position at a later point in time.
In quantum mechanics, however, we can get different experimental results for repeating the exact same experiment multiple times. And before each experiment, the only thing we can do is predict the probability of getting each possible measurement result (rather than predicting the exact result we'd get). Before the measurement, the system is in a blend, or superposition, of all possible measurement results. And upon doing a measurement, the wave function "collapses" into the single measurement result we find.
All of this goes against "common sense" and also classical physics. More importantly, this goes against "determinism", the idea that everything follows a set of rules that can exactly predict the result of an experiment given enough knowledge and information about the system.
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) didn't like this. They used the logic employed by quantum mechanics to try and come up with a logical inconsistency. They studied the behavior (theoretically) of a pair of "quantum entangled" particles, separated by a large distance. Since the particles were entangled, making a measurement on one of them immediately also gave us information about the state of the other. But if quantum mechanics was right about the system being in a superposition before the measurement, and then collapsing right after it, then how did the second particle "know" when the measurement had been made?
They reasoned that the unmeasured particle, in order to obey other laws of physics, would have to instantaneously collapse into the right state (i.e. as soon as the first particle was measured). This went against the idea known as "locality", which said that information can only be communicated between two points of space as quickly as light could travel between them. "Instantaneous" collapse, after all, did occur faster than light could travel between the particles.
Therefore, they showed that the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics broke both determinism and locality. And this was a problem because both classical physics and Einstein's theories of Relativity were heavily reliant on both principles. So EPR suggested an alternative explanation, known as a "hidden variable" theory.
They suggested that hidden variables, which we would never have access to, were engrained within the particles and told the particle what state to be in at any time and position. This way, we would just "catch" the particle in a particular state when we did a measurement. In other words, the hidden variable determined (deterministically) what state the particles should be in (i.e. no random wave function collapse), and since the variable was engrained into both particles, there was no faster-than-light communication.
Doing an experiment to explain the difference between these two hypotheses (hidden variable vs. quantum) was difficult, until John Bell came along and showed that correlations between results of MULTIPLE such measurements were expected to be different between the hidden variable and quantum theories.
This is where our Nobel Prize winners come in. They each worked on improving Bell's theorem so it could be experimentally verified, did the experiments, closed loopholes, and further developed quantum information theories to study ideas like quantum teleportation!
Thanks for watching, please do check out my links:
MERCH - parth-gs-merch-stand.creator-...
INSTAGRAM - @parthvlogs
PATREON - patreon.com/parthg
MUSIC CHANNEL - Parth G's Shenanigans
Here are some affiliate links for things I use!
Quantum Physics Book I Enjoy: amzn.to/3sxLlgL
My Camera: amzn.to/2SjZzWq
ND Filter: amzn.to/3qoGwHk
www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/summary/
wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
0:00 - Quantum Physics Basics
6:27 - EPR Paradox
10:53 - Hidden Variables, Bell's Theorem, Nobel Prize

[@ParthGChannel]

Hi friends, thanks so much for watching, and for your support! Please check out my Quantum Mechanics playlist here for some other videos on this rather cool topic :) kzbin.info/aero/PLOlz9q28K2e4Yn2ZqbYI__dYqw5nQ9DST

[@81giorikas]

Was Einstein wrong or was that locality is not preserved? Meaning that some theories are not complete? Do you think the real experiment is loophole free by the way?

[@smlanka4u]

The wave function can be Deterministic. The many-world interpretation is an alternative explanation about the collapse of the wave function that removes the probabilistic nature of elementary particles, making a somewhat deterministic process.

[@smlanka4u]

@@81giorikas, The collapse of the wave function doesn't conserve its energy. So likely, the many-world interpretation is the deterministic output of the fundamental process of the wave function. Likely, dark matter is the many-worlds that it makes. According to some old texts, there are 31 planes of existence, including Hell, Ghosts, Heavenly Devas (Gods), Brahamas worlds.

[@81giorikas]

@@smlanka4u I am going to need something more than that. Firstly, I don't like to mix religon with philosophy and physics. If one of my grandkids comes back from the future today, our superstitious bullshit maybe elementary math to him or her so... But other than that, collapse of the wavefunction: Again something that may mean nothing at all at the real world. Unless one finds a clever way of co-relating results with happens before the measurements. What is waving is the probability through the evolution of time (which is what, time absolute unaffected by dilation due to gravity? Do we even consider gravity in the microscopic level?) of finding/producing a particle in a specific spot and we also have the heisenberg stuff to take into account...Those stuff make my head hurt. Still, a lot of things can be described by wavefunctions in real life but they are not waves at all unless you are going to break everything down to wave superpositions...I tend to imagine quantum level unobstructed systems as something that loses its annoying statistics once you decohere (or ...fix in positions) for real macroscopic stuff in the real world. I am a pharmacist and, we see a lot of phenomena that can be in analogy very interesting in interpreting different views. If you have time, research why salicylique acid is described as so when breaking it down it is not chemically speaking, or why a lot of estrogenic abilities in very complex moleculles are mimiced perfectly by a lof of simpler ones which have the -OH in specific places in space, pretty much ignoring the rest of the steroid ring/base. The many worlds interpretation to me is bullshit, plain and clear. Shawn Caroll makes money out of this, writes books and gives lectures. That makes him more of a youtuber asshole than him pushing the limits of his abilities, so it ends there for me. Many worlds interpretation is pretty much the waveform NOT collapsing ever, pretty much is quantum mechanics without any measurement. So it is sort of rhetorically nullifying itself for me. HOWEVER, the De-Broglie Bohm interpretation is considered a many worlds theory only that the real particle surfs, one ...wave at a time, which is like a measurement more or less. The other worlds (probabilities/waves/woo/whatever) are there, affecting its behavior, how much of it in accordance to the schroedinger equation. I don't accept the wavefunction as a real thing, more like a mathematical framework to take amazing results for real phenomena for which I don't think we can describe properly without knowing the whole picture down there. If conservation of energy is real within our knowledge of reality then many world can go stick a big one up their asses. By the way I am Christian orthodox and I don't even care about any of the asian stuff religiously anyway, no chance of taking them into account as far as pure science goes. I like Bose though! I like how he didn't want publicity but offered so much.

[@smlanka4u]

@@81giorikas, The wave function in quantum physics is only a mathematical function. But the collapse of the wave function requires an explanation to make sense of it. I converted to Buddhism from Roman Catholic religion because I could find good questions and good answers from Buddhism. Also, I could make a Binary equation that shows the existence of fundamental forms, structures, wave functions that are compatible with the teachings in Buddhism and modern science. l can use it to fix error in quantum physics and fill the gaps in science to remove the fake concept of creator god from those gaps. Creationism entirely depends on the gaps in science, and modern science already removed a lot of gaps making a lot of atheists and making intelligent scientists shy to call themselves creationists even if they try to support creationism sometimes on political reasons.

[@sspencer6052]

This was brilliant - and yes please do a video on Bell's theorem. Thank you!

[@kingkiller1451]

Yes, preferably including how it can only rule out a certain class of hidden variable model that follows the assumptions it's dependent on.

[@hotbit7327]

How was it brilliant, Parth claims they proved Einstein wrong as crap mass media did, but that's not the case! Big misinterpretation!

[@deanfields7135]

​@@kingkiller1451 . Bell doesn't rule out the hidden variable model. Like Bell's non-local AND indeterministic theorem, Bohm's pilot wave theory is non-local AND deterministic because it recovers the hidden variables. Here is what Bell wrote about Bohm "in 1952 I saw the impossible done. It was in papers by David Bohm. Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be transformed into a deterministic one. More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the “observer”, could be eliminated. … Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?"

[@canis2020]

This makes me sad. Educational tubers are always overshadowed by things that don't matter in a few weeks. How are you under 200k subs?

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

Because some people do not appreciate actual science but rather treat it as a joke not something serious.

[@ParthGChannel]

Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it! Hopefully we'll get there someday :)

[@canis2020]

@@keith.anthony.infinity.h Unfortunately

[@unclegardener]

I thought he was at a million from the way he spoke. I’m sorry I’m new to this channel. 😅

[@nothingspecial9370]

brother this is nothing... i see some channels below 50k subscribers delivery really great content

[@wayneyadams]

The David Bohm book is one of my Quantum Mechanics books. It is a good book, probably among my top three books on the subject. I like to read as many books as possible on various topics because the different approaches give me good ideas for teaching. Sometimes there will be a golden nugget that makes a point better than any I have seen before.

[@suatustel746]

Yes David Bohm!! Father of quantum world... When Einstein quoted'God doesn't play dice'and his response to him 'don't tell God what he can do'

[@l.h.308]

@@suatustel746 With all due respect to Bohm, this famous and humorous answer was from danish physicist Niels Bohr - as far as I know. When you say "Father" this also points to Bohr, who was active as early as 1913. (Difference of only one letter makes confusion easy)

[@suatustel746]

@@l.h.308 Yes you're right, l mixed up with similarity of the names... I think Heisenberg uncertainty principle was belong to Bohr if I'm right..

[@santerisatama5409]

"Science, Order and Creativity" by Bohm and Peat is a life changer and still highly recommended.

[@kissmiss1936]

@@santerisatama5409 should I read it ?

[@user-ne3rb8ps8j]

I'd be glad if you'll cover the topic more in-depth :) Looking forward to your video about Bell's inequality!

[@CATARACT11]

Absolutely the best explanation of these phenomena that I have found on KZbin - and I’ve watched a whole bunch of em. You have a truly gifted at explaining things and building your teaching points up in a very clear step-by-step manner, without making a sudden leap where the listeners wind up in a ditch on the side of the road. That is a real gift, especially for teaching! I’m liking, subscribing and commenting on Parth G. Consider me a Parth Groupie!!!

[@Ikigai747]

wind up in a ditch that cracked me up totally, that's basically me after half an hour into my mathematics class guess its high time i fix that up bruh-

[@christian979]

Hey, Parth thank you for the video you explained everything so well and simple so I could understand and you also added a lot of visual examples to enhance the experience, 10/10!!!

[@GuillotinedChemistry]

Thank you for perspective on this and I'm glad my research on this year's prizes brought me to your channel! Congrats to all the winners (though I'm partial to Dr. Clauser, because I dig his vibe).

[@buckrogers5331]

Thank you for this. One of the best on this subject/Novel Prize of Physics 2022. Keep up the great work!

[@d1donlymxcan643]

Just subbed. Thanks for the effort of educating others.

[@ebenolivier2762]

This is an excellent explanation, best I have seen! Looking forward to seeing the Bell inequality being explained some more.

[@akashpoudel571]

Too good bro... Your simplicity is what I love and respect the most....every time you bring a topic you make it intresting, even if we don't get everything... It's some what like 2018 i have joined your channel... You are a gem .. Wish you the best in life ahead

[@IBITZEE]

...and I'll just borrow this gentleman words...

[@vincentpinto1127]

Yes, please do the video explaining Bell's inequality. Pl dont hesitate if it is long. We look forward to it. And then, if you dont mind, please explain what C, A, and Z did in each of their experiments. You could make a video each.

[@amartya9895]

An amazing explanation! Looking forward to seeing the Bell inequality video

[@notanemoprog]

Great stuff. Yes please make a separate Bell's Inequality video - and make it the best Bell's Inequality video ever ;)

[@UnexpectedBooks]

Yes, please make a video about Bell’s Inequality.

[@FabrizioSberla]

Hi Parth G! Ty for your content! I i'd like to know, what software do you use tu create the graphics? I really love them

[@jasjitsingh5457]

Great Video Parth. I am surprised why don’t you have more than a million subscribers. But I am sure you will there very soon.

[@imranafzal5225]

Thanks a lot. You always explain very difficult concepts with clearity and with amazing words.

[@albasitdanoon7211]

excellent, and succinct explanation. Keep the great work. Thanks.

[@anubhav5679]

I was waiting for this video from you and also Great mustache Parth ji👍

[@ScienceCommunicator2001]

I like his mustache too! He's the Anglo-Indian Einstein!

[@shivamojha4754]

You make all info collective. Good work parth👍 Go for Bells theorem surely we need it

[@cophnia61]

Even before watching the entire video I feel the urge to say THANK YOU for dropping the music right after the opening. I've tried to watch other 2 videos about the topic but the background music was so out of place and intrusive that I had to close them. Finally a video that won't give me migraine!

[@kilianpotts3914]

amazing video! so well done, thanks man :)

[@mcwulf25]

I love your videos. Clearly explained for anyone with a little knowledge and interest. Would love to see your take on Bell.

[@markhuebner7580]

Thanks! Loved Alain's experiment years ago. Great to see someone dig up and broadcast the background! The theory explanation seems good, kinda hand-wavy, but it doesn't get all the way to the current Nobel prize. Maybe I missed that part?

[@ernestlau0214]

Yes, I would really appreciate it if you could do an explanatory video on Bell's Inequality. Waiting eagerly.

[@mikaelbiilmann6826]

This was explained so well. Thank you. I have watched many videos on this subject and always got lost, but this was brilliant, even though I struggled towards the end as my brain was struggling to keep up. 😄

[@kokopelli314]

The wave function doesn't describe properties, it describes the probability of results of measurements. If there is no measurement then there is no collapse (solution) to a wave function. So with an entangled pair of particles each with an opposite spin, that state will remain until after one of the pair, say the Local one is measured. If a second measurement is made on that Local particle, and the spin different from the interaction of the first measurement then the Remote particle may be measured to have a different spin or orientation. Correlated, but not necessarily opposite. Hidden variables are not necessary.

[@shaney8275]

I have listened to many videos on this subject because I was deeply curious about it. Since I'm a mere intellectual mortal when it comes to physics, I looked at many in hopes of finding one that I could understand. This one is one of the best I have found on the subject. I'm gonna check out some of your other vids to see if you did a follow up which explains the experiments. Thank you for this enlightening video.

[@arimirarim]

I loved your video, one of few physics video which I - non-physician- was able to follow :-). All explained in simple understandable language in a sensible pace, well done 😉.

[@danieleppelsheimer9273]

Please have a longer version of this topic.

[@ramkrishnadas4230]

Great video Parth. It will be incomplete without Bell's inequality. There are others, I have watched them but not gotten completely. Something tells me, I will get it if you are the teacher.

[@DerrickHF]

Just, thank you. I love understanding this stuff and you did a stellar job. Very interesting.

[@GH-li3wj]

Thank you for your great video on this topic. In my humble opinion, the problem arises because there is a misunderstanding at the level of the measurements and on what we really measure, the measurements are not carried out at a distance but at the level of the correlation therefore very locally. It is all the interest of the EPR experiments to make clear the nature of the measurement in the experiment without which one arrives at absurdities like the instantaneous transmission in complete contradiction with relativity.

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Excellent video. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.

[@TheMatiaxXXx]

Thank you man. I watch many videos and couldn't understand the Nobel prize winners well, but you make it very clear. Greetings from chile 🇨🇱

[@pavangaonkardonigadde]

I never miss your videos.. keep on producing quality content...

[@ArvinAsh]

Haha. Love your new thumbnails buddy!

[@user-nl6hr8oq3d]

Sir please you also make a video on this topic

[@tana4043]

Yes we need it!!!

[@SamSarabi]

Absolutely coherent and brilliant explanation. Well done. You have a new subscriber.

[@yougoog1]

Thank you Parth for your clear explanation! I wish Einstein was still alive and hear what he would say about the experiments done by these three Nobel Prize winners.

[@racebiketuner]

"I'm hungry. Let's get a taco."

[@KaiHenningsen]

Huh. I just realized (assuming I didn't overlook anything) that there are three different expectations for this problem. Classically we expect the particles to already be in some state; QT says they aren't, but measuring one will instantaneously change the other, but GR says that "instantaneously" isn't even defined - different observers will see one first, the other first, or both at the same time, for any two events! This means that the measurement should really assert the state of the other particle back to a point in time immediately after the two particles split.

[@DavidByrden1]

You're right about the GR issue (in fact SR is sufficient for this) but it doesn't "assert the state" of the other particle. What happens is that the observer splits - and each copy of him corresponds to one copy of the remote particle. So, if all of the observers (in their respective universes) travel over to have a look at the other particle, they will each find the appropriate version of it. But it's not like that particle "collapsed". It remained in superposition, but now the first observer is a corresponding set of superposed copies.

[@comrade_kit]

A video on Bell’s inequality, please. Thank you! 😊

[@Eterrath]

Digestible even for a high school student like me. You're just getting better and better. I'd love a video on the Bell Inequality if it is even 1/5th as comprehensible for me as this video

[@mixerD1-]

Is it known for certain that once the source is caused to produce two matched electrons, they will both definitely have complimentary/entangled/opposing angular momentums?

[@racebiketuner]

No.

[@ucheodi9927]

We do need the bell theorem video. Ur videos just make difficult things simple

[@gamerbhair-q]

please keep making these vidoes, 👍👍👍

[@alanvonweltin6820]

Yes, please add (or link) a video to Bell's inequality

[@sivapriyadharshinir7337]

I saw many videos.... But now only i understand it very well. Your way of explanation is really good. Keep rocking 💥

[@igorminion9877]

Great content. You have my subscription.

[@dtibor5903]

I don't know what happened, but in the last weeks I discovered many-many smart youtubers like you. Keep up with the work!

[@funnyclipz520]

awesome explanation ... .... I was curious to understand wether we can now communicate faster than speed of light or not since the particles can .... can we now ?

[@santiagomier8379]

Amazingly well explained, would just liked to have some type of conclusion on what one system being proven right entails for the reality of nature, does this prove that we live in a probilistic universe once and for all?

[@MatthewDickau]

I think something important to keep clear: it isn't hidden variable models per se that Bell's theorem disproves, but local hidden variable models. Bell himself repeatedly pointed out that there is a hidden variable model which makes all the same predictions as QM and which is not disproven by Bell's theorem, namely, Bohmian mechanics. It is also worth noting that the EPR argument shows that the assumption of locality actually implies that there must be hidden variables. (See Travis Norsen's articles on Bell's theorem and the EPR argument.) So by EPR, locality -> hidden variables, and by Bell's theorem, locality + hidden variables -> Bell's inequality is satisfied. Stringing the two arguments together, locality -> Bell's inequality is satisfied. But the experimental work of Aspect and others awarded for this 2022 Nobel Prize shows that Bell's inequality is violated. So what they have definitely proved wrong, specifically, is the assumption of locality.

[@coreyanderson3288]

Thank you, I was looking for this comment.

[@l.h.308]

Yes, thanks a lot for your important clarification. As far as I remember Bohm was badly treated in USA and emigrated to UK. I wonder why his theory is much ignored.

[@providence51]

Please provide a video on bells theorem, that would be most appreciated thank you

[@johnweerasinghe4139]

Excellent teaching ....I will have to watch this video many times to understand your conclusion clearly. Do you have info on the nature of the experiments that resulted in the data that proved Einstein wrong?

[@booJay]

Hey Parth, love your channel! Newb question, how do we rectify QM with say, relativity of simultaneity? For example, if there exists a frame for another observer where our past or future is indeed real, how does QM still make this uncertain if someone already knows what the outcome is? It is simply because they could never pass that information onto us?

[@david_porthouse]

An important question which should be asked more often. My answer is that the nonlocal event in question is random at least to the degree that it can be used to construct a reliable Vernam cipher. The rules of the game are different for random events. They are uncontrollable, and the apparent relativity of cause and effect, if we still insist on using those concepts, is nothing to object to. If we try to do a Lorentz transformation to catch out an event, then by the time we have done a real LT the nonlocal event is ancient history. In a computer simulation we would use a random number generator coupled to a numerical solution of a set of differential equations. There would be a button to do a Lorentz boost which would have the side effect of reseeding the RNG. The framework of the simulation would then be a temporary privileged framework which allows nonlocal processes to happen without issues.

[@booJay]

@@david_porthouse thanks! You've give me a lot to chew on, I'm going to have to dig deeper into your explanation. I'm not a physicist and definitely not a computer scientist so a lot of the terms you used are foreign to me, but I am at least familiar with LTs and nonlocal events, so will try to piece together what you've said. I also recognize how non-trivial it is to generate a truly random number, if it's even possible at all....

[@david_porthouse]

@@booJay Random number generation would be delegated to a separate module whose details are hidden to us. Initially we might use the Mersenne twister, but the module could be replaced at random and without notice with something else, for example an ERNIE-like device which uses quantum mechanics to generate a classical random number. The module would offer methods to seed it, to reseed it and to generate a new random number. The point is that the LT reseeds the RNG as a side effect, which wrecks any attempt to catch out the proposition that we have a temporarily privileged inertial framework. I call this the Protean system. We are allowed to cheat!

[@BarryKort]

Bell's Inequality doesn't categorically rule out state variables. What we can rule out is a constant state variable that has no time-varying perturbations around some ergodic mean. Bell allowed that the presumptive state variable could include a time-varying component. The most obvious one to consider would be something akin to Larmor Precession around some ergodic mean spatial direction of the magnetic moment vector. In order for Bell's math to work, one then has to adopt a framework in which timekeeping is uniform everywhere and everywhen, so that the presumptive state variable can be treated as a odd function, so that λ(x,t) ≡ -λ(-x,t) for all x and t. But under GR, we know that timekeeping varies from one location to the next, due to the presence of any gravitational gradients along the path of an integration. That is, Bell would have needed to employ a gravitational path integral to account for differential phase shift in the time-varying terms in λ(x,t). Since we have no practical way to account for gravitational gradients, we are left to reckoning the effects of decoherence (loss of ideal phase-locked synchrony), and this explains why Bell's Inequality is inapplicable to our cosmos where time-keeping is local. Thus you can hypothesize a realistic time-varying state variable (e.g. Larmor Precession around some unchanging ergodic mean), but then you have to admit idiosyncratic local timekeeping due the existence of gravitational gradients in our cosmos.

[@johneonas6628]

Thank you for the video.

[@JustsomeSteve]

That is the best explanation that I've seen. Bravo!

[@anshulojhaarts2672]

Your voice is so pleasent to ears❤️

[@ashokshah7631]

Parth, a very lucid explanation. Thank you.

[@abdouyounsi7508]

Yes we’d like you to do a video in Bell’s inequality for sure

[@daviddavidaycock9328]

best narrative so far. I subscribed, because.

[@yasirmuslim1859]

Man please make a detailed video on bell inequality

[@OnzinEnzovoort]

Great video, thank you! At some point you said that *both* locality and statistical independence are violated, but that is not true. The Bell experiments show that *either* the assumption of locality or statistical independence are broken.

[@FHLstyle]

Beautiful One. Enjoyed.

[@surojpaul14]

Hey Parth!! Please make a video on Bell's inequality

[@larianton1008]

Such a good explanation!! Thank you! My mind was blown haha

[@DHRUVILSOLANKIeee]

Yes, please make video bells inequality and best explanation man 👍👍

[@jeeboi347]

Seeing one of your videos after ages. And damn, you look completely different (noice mustache)

[@jaganathanaratnasingam4635]

Yes, would love a video on Bell’s inequality.

[@Mr_AWP]

This was a lot of information for a high school student to swallow it but somehow understood some of it Thank You for explaining it in simple words!

[@izzazahamed7547]

Excellent explanation of Quantum entanglement Plz make video abut Bell'S Theorem & Disscus about The Experiment done by Great Physicist

[@Primitarian]

Yes, I would definitely like to see your exceptionally clear yet precise mind applied to the Bell's Inequality.

[@birendrachhotaray2263]

Yes, please make a video on Bell's theorem.

[@user-nl6hr8oq3d]

Please sir make a playlist on quantum mechanics from start I am suffering from my academics...

[@alpert1stein607]

This video is amazing, truly incredible. I love it!

Thank you for that superb explanation!

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

Interesting. So is the Pauli Exclusion principle because the e.g. 2 electrons have to have opposite spins so that they have a net angular momentum of zero?

[@rudrasharma2297]

I have seen many videos on Bell's inequality but can't get the feel of it. Ig your video will change that.☺️

[@haneen3731]

Awesome explanation!

[@taylormoskalyk4483]

Please go over Bell's Inequality!! I have been self-studying QM for 6 months now and it's really the one area I have failed to understand: how determinism has been disproven.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

I think it's not determinism, but local hidden variables which is disproven (with some assumptions)

[@SC-zq6cu]

hidden variable determines the fate of the particles from beforehand, that's where the determinism comes from. without a hidden variable the fates of the particles would have to be communicated to each other over a duration of time and determinism would arrive that way. Both have been disproven thus disproving determinism.

[@MatthewDickau]

@@SC-zq6cu This is false. There is a deterministic hidden variable theory which makes the same predictions as QM in regards to the violations of Bell's inequality, namely Bohmian mechanics. Bell himself was well aware of this - learning about Bohmian mechanincs it is what motivated him to come up with Bell's theorem in the first place. What Bell's theorem and the experimental violations of Bell's inequality show is that locality is false; it does not rule out non-local hidden variables or determinism.

[@fitnesspoint2006]

@@SC-zq6cu your statement is false. John Bell was a hard determinist or superdeterminism. The lab experiments do not disprove determinism.

[@Dinnye01]

Parth, the moustache fits well. And also, know, that you have rekindled my love for theoretical physics. Being a military engineer, I veered off course from that subject, but it is never late to get back.

[@ParthGChannel]

Thank you! And welcome back to physics :D

[@gogyoo]

Mr. Aspect was told by the host of a French TV host he was disappointed he had shaved his moustache, so he answered he might have to regrow it. ^^

[@soumyajitroy4783]

tysm for explaining this topic

[@hakanegne]

The entanglement state is explained by the fact that both entangled particles have a single wave function. When you measure one particle, the wave function collapses and the other particle becomes its opposite. This is why it is claimed that the speed of light is not exceeded. But there is a problem with this explanation. The other particle cannot recover from the superposition state until the information that the "wavefunction collapses" reaches the other particle. In this case, the information that the "wave function collapses" exceeds the speed of light.

[@onlyeyeno]

@Parth G 1) Thanks for another excellent video. 2) Yes ("the royal") "we" would love to see You making a video explaining the "Bell inequality" 3)... Sooo am I stupid for believing that "Locality" and "Determinism" """"simply"""" are emergent phenomena that exist and work just as Einstein postulated in the "macroscopic context" ?? Best regards

[@dogden95]

great vid and even greater stache!

[@omsingharjit]

Spin of Subatomic parties doesn't mean Angular momentum just as in Classical physics of Rotation because Subatomic parties have Not spinning spin but that spin is intrinsic properties that's Responsible in magnetic field like Observed in Stern-Gerlach experiment .

[@vanshmalik8193]

keep going parth!

[@ayushmerai4487]

Yes, I would be more than happy to watch a video on Bell's inequality!!!

[@AgnimitraSutradhar]

Yes please make one on Bell's inequality

[@jayeshlale1999]

Bro your mustache without a beard looks awesome. 👍 Thanks for insight about the Nobel 2022✌

[@eulersfollower7140]

Please make a video on Bell's Inquality .

[@awesamhead]

YES, PLEA! A video on Bell's Inequality...

[@gabrielpalacios8832]

A video about bells inequality would be amazing

[@jremmo2000]

Where to witness the said experiment?

[@Who_Am_I_7]

Make video on Bell's theorem!!!

[@user-sv9wu5ru9l]

That was great. Thank you.

[@arjunsinha4015]

Hope it revolutionised the way we look toward Universe