Quantum Entanglement : The Movie - by Scientific American

SUBSCRIBE to our channel: goo.gl/aLpxX
PART TWO is here: goo.gl/Lai6G
__
Quantum-entangled twins or hoaxsters? In this dramatized film Scientific American editors George Musser and John Matson try to convince a colleague that their brains are entangled on the subatomic level.
--
For our latest videos visit the Scientific American video page scientificamerican.com/video.cfm or subscribe via RSS rss.sciam.com/sciam/global-videos

[@billfargo9616]

Apparently, Scientific American's video producers know more about maximizing audio levels than they do about explaining quantum entanglement.

[@GlynWilliams1950]

That was interesting Great explanation

[@hussain55019]

great video...

[@smileynick]

she is STUNNING!

[@kellymartin1099]

Let's hear it for misogynism and chauvinism Standing Tall with American males

[@WoundedEgo]

How to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics? Perhaps it is as simple as reconciling oneself to the idea that probability is an immutable (or mutable!) property of particles. If this property is mutable then there is no end to the mischief we can cause. If immutable then our goal/pleasure is to enjoy said property.

[@mikearmstrong6736]

She just wants them to "scrub her bowl" Dirty Girl !

[@WoundedEgo]

The “Uncertainty Principle” proves that the possibilities of the trajectory of a projected particle are greater than 1 and that the possibilities of “entangled” particles is always one but the Uncertainty Principle offers no particular evidence that possibilities are infinite. Maybe there are forty-two possibilities. The point is that possibilities seem to be demonstrably bound to existential physical realities. How they are encoded and enforced is for others to determine but that they are enforced (with a teasing inconsistency in the short run) is *well* established (with lucrative commercial applications).

[@maureen982]

I have a question about quantum entanglement.....they say that twins have a natural ability to almost read each other's minds. Recently there was a story of twin girls who married the same day (maybe it was planned, but...) they found out they were pregnant on same day, with two separate due dates. They delivered on the same day, three hours apart (one had a girl, the other a boy). My questions is, could this be similar to quantum entanglement or is it just coincidence?

[@baddoggie101]

Just coincidence. There must be hundreds of thousands of identical twins about but you only hear of the "weird" incidents such as that. All the rest are unheard of as they are unremarkable.

[@snarky77005]

I found one flaw in this video. Instead of the entangled "cards" in this example or particle spins in quantum physics being the same the actually assume the opposite spin of the entangled twin. Not the same spin.

[@BarryKort]

In this dramatization, Mary plays a subtle role that is easily overlooked. She is acting as timekeeper, or master clock, so that John and George advance in synchrony governed by Mary's timekeeping signals. If John and George each carried their own personal clocks and flipped their cards at predetermined times according to their own separate clocks, then there arises a subtle phenomenon first predicted by Einstein in his Theory of General Relativity. Clocks are affected by gravity, so that otherwise identical clocks run at slightly different rates once they are separated in space. Einstein might have called this "spooky timekeeping at a distance." Bell's Inequality can be derived just fine if you assume uniform timekeeping everywhere and everywhen in spacetime. But if you appreciate that there is no such thing as a master clock that pervades the cosmos, then the twin particles in the Bell Test Experiment drift out of phase and this throws a monkey wrench into Bell's derivation. That's why Bell's Inequality doesn't hold in a cosmos where there is spooky timekeeping at a distance.

[@tamsinthai]

@psilosybr i was given to understand that when one particle stopped spinning in one direction and restarted in the opposite direction, so did the other. That's the 'spooky action at a distance'. So theoretically, this vid is correct.

[@kellymartin1099]

Watch the videos again and again and again as I see it will take a while for you to grasp what you were seeing and hearing

[@dennisblewett5768]

What QM theory involves particles meeting each other and possibly coming back or being entangled once they've met each other? Say I interact with a woman. I meet her during the year 2007. Do her and I have some kind of quantum bond because her and I have physically interacted with each other?

[@MrBooshibonton]

even so, the brain doesn't rely upon spin direction to function.

[@dlbattle100]

They should have had a collection of entangled particles with them that they could consult.

[@echkon00]

Someone could subtitle about Bell experiment in the video please,

[@omsingharjit]

5:28 exciting turn 😁🤓

[@Neueregel]

Nice

[@WoundedEgo]

I've been giving this "spooky" stuff some thought and I think the solution is simple to this problem but depends on an even spookier but accepted law of science: The Law of Probability. That is, the probability of these "entangled" particles being is synch is one to one. The same law of physics that dictates that the house always wins (only more specific) dictates that the two particles randomly land on the same Roulette sweet spot every time. Since we accept the Law of Probability as inviolable one only has to use one's imagination to accept that these two particles, regardless of distance, are *bound inextricably* to have the same result in any random situation. So the question is not *what is the mechanism* but rather *how does the mechanism of probability actually work and how do these two particle "register" a probability of one to one? I think Einstein would have liked that analysis.

[@samramdebest]

If they had time they would have be able to prearange it just the same rule as before if you have the left hand and the opposite of the old rule for the right hand

[@lidarman2]

That is exactly what the Bell experiment is about. To show there is no hidden variable--a way to prearrange an algorithm to cheat or bias the outcome.

[@kingjeremysircornwell7847]

The new dog at my home, was the same hair type as Mary. Weird

[@stephengagliardi]

if the cards are analogous to spin shouldn't they be opposite if entangled? granted their brains are entangled this abstraction kind of confuses the point for some one looking for examples of Qe. The story should have done an intro clip of the dr.s working on the proof and concocting the prank saying they got to close and became entangled. Then the real spooky mystery could shine. good try but confusing.

[@pauliuso]

That's exactly what I thought, it should be X and 0 or 0 and X, not X and X or 0 and 0 if entangled, this video is misleading.

[@amihartz]

Photons that are entangled orient themselves in the exact same way, not opposites. Watch the next video for an experiment that shows this.

[@stephengagliardi]

photons are not in question the information is; photons are produced by an electrons change of state. all I'm saying is that to the lay person a clearer image of entanglement could be made. math and science is hard enough clouding it makes it impossible.

[@baddoggie101]

Maybe you are thinking of entangled electrons, one with spin up and the other with spin down.

[@markmd9]

There are entangled photons with opposite polarisation and entangled photons with the same polarization. So either way is correct analogy.

[@WoundedEgo]

I also conclude that The Law of Probability is both the key to a great many other mysteries and the greatest unsolved mystery of all. How can "changing my bet" affect the *result* of my subsequent choice (the Monty Hall Problem)? That is the great link between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And to further unify the problem with Schrodinger's cat, isn't opening the box a random event? And if so, then the Law of Probability is the principle to look to explain whether the cat is dead or alive when you peek inside. You won't find infinite parallel universes but rather the precise (or possibly the exact) number of universes encoded in the particles involved (probably one, just like entangled particles, but who knows)?

[@baddoggie101]

The Monty Hall Problem is pretty easy transparent with a good explanation. Search and yea shall find.

[@WoundedEgo]

I did subsequently figure it out. Thanks.

[@Gytax0]

Hmm... The tenth digit of pi would have to be 6, as there's an 8 following the 5.

[@mELONHEAD1899]

I have that New York City shirt on right now. Weird. Got it in Chinatown

[@yassertariqvideo]

Nice attempt at explaining the unexplainable.

[@WoundedEgo]

What in the Real World is actually binary? Isn’t it all analog? “Black and White” are abstractions. True colors are “fifty shades of grey” (with all the unnecessary spanking that implies)! There *are* binary operations. But there are operations with three, four, forty two, etc. possible outcomes. To find the range is a math/science issue while to find the value will preoccupy the rest of us. Let us aspire to define both the range of possible outcomes, our power to interfere and the wisest choice of all.

[@texjarhead]

I agree with Einstein......never thought I would say that.

[@kingjeremysircornwell7847]

The dog in my home is making me sick, get it out!

[@psilopsybr]

I certainly don't want to pretend to know more than SciAm (or even a fraction of) but there was a big boo boo in the explanation. Entangled particles always give the opposite result of the partner, not the same. So in the demonstration, when John put down an X, George should have put down an O. When John put down an O, George should put down an X.

[@mrtpsoroush]

+Premliana you're wrong

[@itisonlyadream]

It occurred to me, while viewing this video and reading these comments, that quantum entanglement may be an illusion that can be explained simply by the multiverse concept. If there are in fact an infinite number of parallel universes in which every possible outcome is played out, then it seems possible that if we perform an experiment that appears to verify quantum entanglement, then we may simply be living in a particular universe where changes to the distant (so-called) entangled particle just happen to agree consistently with the result of disturbances that we intentionally apply to the local (so-called) entangled particle. Because we are unaware of the failures of similar experiments, which are occurring in many trillions of parallel universes, then the result of our experiment only appears to verify that the particles used in our experiment are somehow entangled, when in fact they only happen to agree by coincidence (in our particular universe). To put it another way, with an infinite number of possibilities, it seems conceivable that an infinite number of sets of twins (who live far apart), can roll the dice and one set of twins out of countless trillions will consistently get the same numbers by chance. But, that is a consequence of selecting one case out of an infinite set of possibilities, because that particular case happens to support the favored hypothesis, it's not necessarily the result of "spooky action at a distance". I'm sure that many other people thought of this simple explanation long before I did, and I've probably been exposed to this idea before without the full implications of it sinking in until now, but it's always fun when one finally connects the dots and a new insight suddenly pops into the brain. In any case, quantum entanglement has always bothered me and this interpretation of it makes me feel somewhat more comfortable than the other interpretations, which seem too much like metaphysical hocus-pocus to suit me.

[@markmd9]

Isn't it simpler to assume that entangled particles have instant communication? I think infinite parallel universes theory is a nightmare alternative explanation.

[@itisonlyadream]

@@markmd9 To say it's just "Instant communication" may be simpler, but it doesn't explain anything. It doesn't even propose a theory about how entanglement works, so it sounds more like magic than physics to me. Plus, it contradicts the speed of light limitation, which has been verified so many times that I can't just discard it. What I don't understand is how can anyone prove that things happen instantaneously over vast distances if the only way we have to verify the distant result is to communicate the result by radio waves, which we know can't travel faster than light. I agree that what I proposed is complicated, and the multiverse is only a speculation at this time, but at least what I proposed does provide a explanation for quantum entanglement that makes sense.

[@markmd9]

Actually my explanation for instant communication is the gloves example. You have two two gloves in two boxes and when you open one box you instantly know what glove is the other box no matter how far away is that box. The reason why I doubt the proof of entanglement is that the experiment is very complex and few people tested it and that there is very high chance that they made a mistake that gets copy/paste. I think some day someone will find it and they will have to rewrite the books.

[@itisonlyadream]

@@markmd9 Some scientists hypothesize that quantum entanglement will someday be used for instantaneous communication across vast distances. It seems to me that the glove example is only good one time, how could that be used for communication? If there is no useful application for quantum entanglement, then it's just a mental exercise.

[@markmd9]

@@itisonlyadream that's the point, there are no practical applications of entanglement, not in communications neither in computing, only hypothesis. Google invested millions in building a quantum computer and after a decade that computer can't compute even 1+1. They just managed to make it generate some random numbers that are useless for computing. You know what, I think I'm the one that will prove they are wrong, wish me luck, I'm gonna need a lot of it 😆.

[@protectyourassests1028]

I'll stay up all night long, to do some late night reading with her......

[@kellymartin1099]

Ho hum

[@WoundedEgo]

Perhaps Einstein was wrong. Perhaps God does roll dice. Perhaps he’s a compulsive gambler but with an uncanny ability to count cards and “do the math” of gambling. Perhaps the science of the future is to find out how to predict the future by understanding the intrinsic probability that plays master to a particle?!

[@AzuriteReverb]

switched to 720p

[@PerroneKayser]

what is esp?

[@kellymartin1099]

Not !

[@ultrakool]

spukhafte Fernwirkung ist stierscheisse -albert einstein

[@AirshipNorway]

Wow- she was soo beautiful. ..I feel entangled

[@bashkillszombies]

This is so bad it's ... bad. >_>

[@XxYwise]

Cool vid, but the fan service at 2:36 is a bit gratuitous... if I didn't find her so attractive, I might even say it was sexist!

[@TurdFurgeson571]

Women sit like that all the time. It's not a big deal.