Quantum Mechanics 10a - Bell's Inequality I

1935 was a big year for quantum weirdness. In the previous video we examined the Schrödinger's cat paradox. Here we look at the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) paradox. Does quantum mechanics require that "reality" at one place depend instantaneously on what occurs at another place? Is reality "non local?"
Part b: • Quantum Mechanics 10b ...
Comments, including questions, suggestions and constructive criticism are always welcome.
The Quantum Mechanics playlist: • Quantum Mechanics
My development of Bell's inequality was largely motivated by the version presented in "The Meaning of Quantum Theory" by Jim Baggott, Oxford Univ. Press, 1992, ISBN 019855575

[@jfoadi]

I agree with the majority of people who commented on this. It's one of the best explanations of the subjects so far on youtube. An excellent balance between simplification of the subject, level of details and correctness of ideas. Well done!

[@viascience]

+James Foadi Thanks so much.

[@dmh20002]

This and part b are the best explanations of bell’s inequality I have seen on KZbin and I’ve watched a lot of them, given my feeble brain power.

[@viascience]

Glad to hear this.

[@kaustubhrao5653]

This was such a beautiful explanation, especially bringing about the mechanism of how the inequality works. Thank you for posting it!

[@viascience]

Glad it was helpful.

[@emrecoltu]

Strongly recommended. Good quality and easy to understand! Thank you for this.

[@AliJorani]

This is hands down the best video that I have watched on this subject. Thank you for making it.

[@viascience]

You are most welcome.

[@suzettejansen9808]

Thank you Mr Viascience.This was a joy to watch.Subtlety at a leisurely pace with utter clarity.Not often accomplished

[@viascience]

You are most welcome.

[@comprehensiveboy]

I have found this presentation the best of several on KZbin.

[@GertCuykens]

Very very well explained, my gratitude.

[@saragct1]

That's a fantastic video. Thanks a lot from Singapore.

[@imstevemcqueen]

Still today, the best explanation of Bell's inequality on KZbin

[@mikaelfiil3733]

Thank you for a brilliant explanation, that I have come back to over the years. It is so well done, so logical in the steps it takes, so consistent and exactly so complete in the details, that it gives you this sought after rare and precious aha moment! Look no further.

[@viascience]

You are most welcome.

[@charleshudson5330]

Excellent explanation. The Venn diagrams are also very helpful.

[@chawkzero]

Awesome as always! I eagerly await part 10b.

[@viascience]

Thanks.

[@hjalmarschacht2559]

Beautifully done. Thank you very much.

[@NordinZakaria]

this is so far the best explanation I've ever come across on the topic. How did you produce these videos? it actually look close to professional.., must have been lots of efforts?

[@viascience]

Thank you. It was a lot of work, but a labor of love. I've been learning the video-making part by trial and error.

[@Higgsinophysics]

Thank you very much for these amazing videos!

[@Xanthippaa]

Awesome physics videos! Thank you for making them.

[@blazingcatfur]

Cool!

[@NeedsEvidence]

Nicely done!

[@Gregorovitch144]

I am, as always, transfixed by this video, watched it twice so far trying to catch the whole argument. Can't wait for the next episode.

[@viascience]

Thanks.

[@butterf1sh]

Great explanation

[@grahamdavies8924]

After watching a very poor video by minutephysics, I spent many hours searching for a proper explanation of Bell's Theorem. This is it. I doubt that you will find anything better unless you have more than half-an-hour to spend watching / reading it.

[@viascience]

Glad to hear it was helpful.

[@pierorivera7162]

I enjoyed your explanation. Thank you!

[@viascience]

You're welcome.

[@joaopaulolima8699]

Just Perfect!! Thank you So much!

[@1vootman]

Very well done

[@tombombadil1868]

Hey, I still don't really understand. Do you first measure x and then p on the same particle? Wouldn't the measurement of x destroy the entanglement, such that measuring p afterwards doesn't give me information about the other particle anymore?

[@cosmos821]

You do a very good job explaining complicated ideas. Please keep making videos!!

[@viascience]

S Soto Thanks. I have a couple in the works.

[@tajulislamkhan1062]

Simply brilliant.

[@paulg444]

"The ultimate goal of physics is nothing short of the complete description of the totality of existence" - Youll have to define "existence" first... in a few million years when you have that figured out we can try to get that sentence right.

[@danzuck8936]

Helpful. Thanks.

[@LeonhardEuler1]

This is an excellent discussion of Bell Inequality. I may have asked this before, but do you have any plans to do something similar in the future for quantum field theory? The internet seems rather devoid of nice video on QFT, which is somewhat understandable, as it is a difficult subject, but there are quite a few topics I think could be handled in this sort of manner. I hope to do something of the sort myself one day (perhaps one series from a physical perspective, and one from a mathematical perspective via category theory or something), but that'll likely be a while from now...

[@viascience]

I have sketched out a video on Dirac's equation. The trouble with QFT is that I feel like I'd need to do some videos on electromagnetics first. Then we could look at how that transitions to quantum electrodynamics and then to general QFT.

[@LeonhardEuler1]

Neat! I'll be looking forward to it! And yeah, I think that would be a good way to get into the QFT stuff… when I took my first course on QFT, I didn't really know any classical electrodynamics, and it definitely didn't help! :D

[@shubhamdawda7288]

Simply beautiful

[@GingerAtheist]

This may be a bit off the specific topic of Bell's inequality. In reaction to contrasting Einstein and Bohr, I wanted to get your view on work in Bohmian Mechanics (de-Broglie Bohm theory), such as from David Albert. This of course contrasts with the Copenhagen interpretation that Bohr may have espoused. I am beginning to read Albert's take on what he calls the problem of measurement and can see it closely relates to this inequality. Is this something you thought of covering in a later video?

[@viascience]

We'll touch on the concept later in this video very briefly - just as one way to interpret the quantum weirdness. The deBroglie-Bohm approach is interesting, but in my view is extra work without the benefit of new predictions.

[@BarryKort]

If you assume that the state variable, x, is static (not a function of time), then the analysis is fairly simple. If you allow that the state variable is a time varying function, then you can still retain the simple analysis provided that there is a master clock such that twin particles going off in opposite directions age in perfect phase-locked synchrony. Whatever phase the time varying state variable is for one particle, it's in the exact same phase for its twin. But what if there is a gravitational gradient such that one particle is ascending the gravitational gradient while the other one is descending it? Then one can no longer assume the two particles have the same phase at equal distances from their point of origin. This is where the math of Bell's Theorem goes awry. He algebraically cancels out the presumptive hidden variables, as if they are both governed by a common master clock that pervades the cosmos (or at least the laboratory). If you allow that each particle ages independently (as a function of the local gravitational field strength along its path), then one can no longer algebraically cancel out the hidden variable in Bell's derivation. In other words, time itself is the not-so-hidden variable.

[@badhombre4942]

To find one's calling, is a gift, to share it, is divine.

[@viascience]

Thank you. I am always happy to hear when someone finds these video useful.

[@frankmccann29]

Thank you so much for the presentation. At 2:35 I heard you talking about momentum not being real. Hit me recent experience might challenge this if I live to see it. Hahayt

[@JohnFairstein]

Thank you!

[@ionutpopescu8946]

EPR and Bell inequalty asumes a linear isotermic background ??? where and when such a event (volume,space time...) was recorded

[@jessstuart7495]

15:15 ... Or state variables a,b,c are not independent, or are changed by the tests.

[@andrewwells6323]

Great video. Did you use movie maker?

[@viascience]

I used Sony Vegas.

[@solapowsj25]

2:32 Maybe we must determine a transient graviton at the center each time two gamma photon arrays arise when a positron merges with an electron. This would also have the value of or multiples of Planck constant and not zero. ☁️☁️☁️

[@bharathreddygudibandi492]

amazing man.........

[@viascience]

Thanks.

[@totoritko]

Thanks for the vid!

[@viascience]

You're welcome.

[@david203]

I agree with Bell's inequality indicating for sure that QM is nonlocal and cannot be local with hidden variables. However, the EPR thought experiment is incorrect, and it really bothers me that no one seem to notice this. The problem with EPR is in its reliance on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) as representing QM. It does not. HUP is a direct, provable mathematical consequence of the fact that x and p ARE NOT INDEPENDENT VARIABLES. The fact is that p is directly proportional to the time-derivative of x (that is, the velocity of the particle). Just as in Fourier Analysis, where frequency and time are related to each other, and thus dependent, velocity and position are related to each other, and thus dependent. The whole EPR hypothesis is based on simple mathematics and therefore has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics. It is always true that you cannot measure position and velocity simultaneously with infinite precision, but the reason for this is that the two measurements are related to each other, not that a wave function exists.

[@vikramnoronha512]

I have a question, Why is it "not C" both times we mention it while we never see "not A"

[@mpodevin]

The tests are in order which makes all the difference. He wont explicitly say it in the next video but he often refers to the tests being followed by one another.

[@edemsauce7742]

I found that a version of the Monty Hall problem leads to similar conclusions. I created a video about it. What is your opinion?

[@PedroTricking]

EPR is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. Monty Hall is a classical phenomenon. Unless your argument is that there's an analogy between the classical and the quantum then there's no hope for any such comparison.

[@andrewlinney2698]

The Venn diagram used to demonstrate the derivation of Bell’s inequality in fact exposes an error in that derivation. The area outlined in white and identified as a~b (a not b) in fact consists of two sections of the Venn diagram. The first section is the intersection of circle a and circle c but is not intersected by circle b. This section is therefore ac~b. The second section is where circle a is not intersected by either circle b or c and is therefore a~b~c. This area, identified as a~b, is equal to ac~b + a~b~c. Using the same method we can recognise that the area identified as b~c is in fact ab~c + b~a~c, and that the area a~c is ab~c + a~b~c. Substituting into Bell’s inequality expressed as: a~b + b~c >= a~c the inequality can be rewritten as: ac~b + a~b~c + ab~c + b~a~c >= ab~c + a~b~c. The terms: ab~c, and a~b~c appear on both sides of the inequality and can be cancelled, leaving the trivial result: ac~b +b~a~c >= 0. Although the initial area outlined in white appears to be unaffected by circle, c and is therefore identified as a~b, this area is not a~b because part of that area is intersected by circle c. I am not a mathematician and do not know how Bell derived his inequality, but if he used this argument then the inequality is trivial; it tells us nothing about Reality and there is nothing to test scientifically.

[@rossholst5315]

How do you know if the particles you are testing are entangled? It would seem that entangled particles would always have some anti correlation if measured along a specific direction. So you could measure two entangled particles and get a spin up and spin down when measured along the same axis. But if we change it up and measure 1 particles along 1 axis and another particle along a different axis. We will get 1 measurement along the 1st axis, if it was entangled we would get the anti correlation. But instead we measure at a different angle. Now we get an orientation along this new axis and if it was entangled we would hypothetically know what its orientation along another axis. However can we still assume the expected result of a measurement we didn’t preform? What if the particles were not actually entangled? We would be able to tell it wasn’t entangled by measuring along the same axis as the first, but we used a different setting. So would it now be possible that they were not originally entangled? Also if we assume that information travels faster than the speed of light between these entangled photons, could the information about if they are entangled also travel faster than the speed of light. In some sense could we generate entangled photon pairs that don’t share a creation event? Where they are measured before enough time had elapsed that they could influence each other? I would be much more convinced of quantum “weirdness” and less supporting of hidden variables, if entangled photons did not have some shared location in space and time that was shared between the two. Because unfortunately we can never take entangled pairs and get them outside of their temporal cones to rule out a hidden variable theory. I would also think that any hidden variable theory should also make the same predictions as quantum mechanics. I don’t think a hidden variable theory should predict linear changes on an oscillation. Waves are products of acceleration, and thus predictions should be exponential. I would think they would be highly related to exponential trig functions sine and cosine. Having a linear prediction for probabilities seems like expecting a linear velocity of the x directional component for an object rotating at a constant angular velocity. Which would seem impossible if rotation was occurring. So I still don’t see why “classical physics” should make predictions that are linear when describing an exponential process?

[@rossholst5315]

Also it would seem that the probability equation would only hold true if we repeatedly made observations on single photon, or multiple photons that shared the same states as the original photon. If the starting states of the photons are changing all of the time, it would not make sense to expect this inequality to necessarily hold. If we are measuring kids with hats, gloves, and scarves, would we expect this inequality to be true if for every measurement we used a new group of kids, who all had different proportions of each garments? The only way for the inequality to hold true would be to have a way in which the starting conditions remained exactly the same for each test. But if the starting conditions can change between tests these probabilities might actually be independent of each other. Also if we flip a coin, we expect the probability to get heads or tails is 50%. But what are the chances that 99 coin flips ends with an equal number of heads and tails. If we just started flipping a coin, we would only assume the average would trend to 50% as the number of attempts increased. However in all likelihood if we just looked at the difference between heads and tails, we would probably observe an oscillating pattern where heads went up by a few and then tails went up by a few. But every other throw one of the outcomes must be greater than the other as on an odd number of attempts the totals cannot be equal.

[@dirkbastardrelief]

Can anyone tell me why, at 14:29, he says that "the magenta region falls completely within the white and yellow regions"? Whether he's talking about the region with the magenta OUTLINE, or the region with magenta FILL, I still don't see it...

[@viascience]

The magenta outline. (The "a" circle is supposed to be red.) The region outlined in magenta falls completely within the region defined by the white and yellow outlines.

[@sistajoseph]

We have three experiments, what have they got to do with each other, why are the results in a table together?

[@GhostInTheShell29]

I'm a little confused I think. If you add A and not B. 101+100 And B and not C 110+010 Why wouldn't you always get a greater number then A and not C 110 + 100 ? Couldn't you solve the entire inequality by having A without B + B without C = A without C + C without B Or 4 = 4?

[@viascience]

Yes, under the given assumptions the inequality should always be true. Therefore, the fact that it is violated in quantum mechanical experiments implies that the assumptions do not apply to quantum mechanics.

[@erroid]

purely mathematicalIy it is not possible to violate this inequality. I feel like there is a missing part explaining how you go from 3 simultaneously tests and theirs outcome to series of pair of tests that can violate this inequality.

[@isnarmori5974]

Could you one day make a video on decoherence?

[@viascience]

That's a good idea.

[@isnarmori5974]

viascience Oh my, I didn't expect an answer so soon! Thanks for considering it!

[@stevec9470]

The fact that you cannot use physical reality to describe Quantum Mechanics is because a particle behaves in a probability distribution and smear to infinity in a bell curve, there is no physical thing in the universe that could represent infinity. Even the bell curve with the size of the universe can never show all the probable positions of a particle.

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I want to explain the only logically coherent interpretation of quantum mechanics, and in particular , the violation of Bell inequality In quantum mechanics the physical system is described through a wave function whose evolution over time is determined by the Schrodinger equation. The wave function represents infinite different possible results for the physical quantities related to the system, but when we take a measurement, only one of these infinite possibilities becomes real; after the measurement, we must therefore modify the wave function “by hand” to eliminate all other possible results, and this modification is called the “collapse” of the wave function. If all other results are not eliminated by imposing the collapse "by hand" on the wave function, the predictions of subsequent measurements on the same system will be wrong. The fundamental problem with quantum mechanics is that interactions among particles are already included in the Schrodinger equation and such equation does not predict any collapse. The collapse of the wave function is a violation of the Schrodinger equation, i.e. a violation of the most fundamental laws of physics and therefore the cause of the collapse cannot be determined by the same laws of physics, in particular, it cannot be determined by the interactions already included in the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation is what allows us to make quantitative predictions about the outcomes of future measurements; everytime we make a measurement, we receive new information about the system, and we need to "update" our wave function, i.e. to collapse it, otherwise the Schrodinger equation would provides wrong predictions relative to successive measurements. After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities. This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break. Quantum mechanics is incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. Quantum mechanics implies that physical reality (the universe) consists of the collection of all observed phenomena and such phenomena do not exist independently of consciousness. In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event. The collapse of the wave function represents a non-physical event, since it violates the fundamental laws of physics, and can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, the only consistent rational explanation of the collapse is that it occurs because consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse; I regard this hypothesis as totally unreasonable (by the way, the universe is supposed to have existed even before the existence of humans). The point is that there must be a correlation between the collapse of the wave function (=violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. The consciousness that causes the collapse of the wave function must be an eternal consciousness, that is, a conscious God. This is the idealistic perspective, which implies that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God who directly creates the phenomena we observe, according to the matematical models through which He conceived the universe (the laws of physics); the collapse of the wave function is a representation of the moment when God creates the observed phenomenon. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.

[@DarwinianUniversal]

Bells Inequality may stem from a force interaction, such as……………….. If you take a pole and stand it balanced on end, then being balanced it expresses no lateral weight. As you lean the pole over incrementally within the earths gravitational field, the poles weight transitions throughout the 90 degree arc, til it is laying down. The interesting aspect is the weight transition is not proportional to the angle. "the incremental weight transition of the pole matches the quantum probability curve". This is an observational FACT, which should spike peoples curiosity!!! Summery A poles incremental weight transition in a gravitational field is an exact match for quantum probability of a photon passing or not passing a polarization filter," at that same respective incremental angle"! Unpacking this consideration "in overly simple terms" The fundamental of the poles weight transition boils down to a consideration of interacting forces. Gravitational force and the poles resistance to that force at various angles, balance and or leverage. The photon hidden variable could use the same model. Just like the pole, the photon is associated with a (position state which requires force to overcome). And the filter (possesses the capacity to impose force that overcomes the photons position state). The hidden variable can stem from this force interaction. An important clue is that the photons do indeed leave the filter having had their position states altered, which is the proposed product should such a force interaction have taken place. So there are an uncanny number of parallels between these two supposedly indifferent systems. The hidden variable as a force interaction. We are after-all talking about (EM force) and its various interactions. (FORCE) being the operative word.

[@MariahYanez]

Strangely, I understand this stuff.

[@vijayantv]

It would be good if Entanglement is explained before this video. It is nice though.

[@viascience]

We will get to entanglement in the next part. Your video on entanglement gives a good explanation.

[@TheNorgesOption]

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

[@doughiggins770]

Has

[@DFF1234]

anti matter and entanglement are the same give the my nobel dan faust this is my publish

[@FunkyDexter]

Aren't we comparing apples to oranges? Out of 8 possible states, each test can pass or fail as a 50/50, meaning they all have the same probability. The double tests (AnotC, AnotB, etc) also all have the same probability of 1/4. Meanwhile, in a polarizer, the probability of passing a test depends on the angle, and since A(notC) is at a different angle than both A(notB) and B(notC) then they don't have the same probability. Hence, the inequality doesn't hold. If this is truly Bell's derivation I can't believe no one ever noticed. There must be something wrong with your explanation.

[@bris1tol]

There is no quantum weirdness. Existence as a quantum pool table The two slit image experiment of quantum mechanics as a quantum pool table where all causation is spontaneous and probabilistic. Hence that mental causation is also spontaneous and probabilistic. Suppose you have been chosen to perform the opening break shot of a game of billiards. The balls are in the center of the table in the form of a triangle created by a rack which has been removed. You shoot the cue ball into triangular pattern of balls, which ends as none or some of the balls fall into pockets. If none fall into pockets, the next person then is free to try to pocket a ball or more. The balls on the table are analogous to quanta of energy, which are potentially particles moving in spacetime, and those balls which fall into holes, which are possible harmonious or permissible positions of actual particles in spacetime. This emulates existence, in particular the Big Bang. This also emulates the split mirror experiment of quantum physics, in which a quantum beam of photons is either fired into an image splitter or directly fired into a slot to diffract the beam: www.stevepur.com/physics/qw/qw_session_6.pdf Now since the pool table contains quanta, which are spaceless and timeless, it may also occur that shots may go through two different slits at the same time, but only form end patterns when they strike the end photographic plate. Like the pool table, where the holes are fixed, actual pool balls will only go through holes, although extrernally driven, probabilisticly. Thus we conceive of the motion of particles in spacetime as occuring spontaneously and probabilisticly, but fixed as possible harmonious sites appear in spacetime, in the Leibniz sense as occurring according to a pre-established order. -Ever since Hume, science has imprisoned us in the dark cave of materialism and empiricism and needs to restore us to the quantum sunlight of plato (plotinus) -- see my website independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

[@drh255]

I hate cliffhangers. :)

[@viascience]

All of quantum mechanics is one big cliffhanger! ;-) Basically I work on these until I have 10-15 minutes worth of material and then spit out a vid.

[@crfout1]

Bell's inequality has a fundamental flaw in that it assumes that each state is equally likely. This is equivalent to a digital system. Quantum systems are very much analog, not digital. So the entire argument is essentially a straw man that proves that square/triangle waves are not sine waves.

[@galinatokova9065]

"Entanglement" = "Objects EXCHANGE some of their material"= "EXCHANGE of material between objects makes the objects "CONNECTED" ("intertwined") to each other" CONNECTED ("Interwined")= "Entangled" =(means) "what happens to one object will EFFECT the another object" "(Example 2 people. one person has 4 oranges. Other person has 4 watermelons. Person with oranges gives 1 of his oranges to person with watermelons. Person with watermelons gives 1 watermelon to person with oranges. Now: One person has 3 oranges and 1 watermelon (a fruit from the other person) and Other person has 3 watermelons and 1 orange (a fruit from the one person)." "At Start One person: 4 oranges other person: 4 watermelons "EXCHANGE of material between objects" (example "EXCHANGE of some fruit between 2 people")" = "Entaglement" Finish (Result) one person: 3 oranges and 1 watermelon other person 3 watermelons and 1 orange 2 people NOW are CONNECTED ("Interwined") (example "what happens to one person will EFFECT the other person") = 2 people Now Entangled" "Discover the possibilitys of Time Travel, Other Universes, Teleportation, Faster than Light Speed Travel and Much using Quantum Mechanics, String Theory and M Theory, Lie Algerbra, Biology books." Click Below to Read more "USING THESE TEXTBOOKS (LISTED BELOW) YOU CAN UNDERSTAND TIME TRAVEL, OTHER UNIVERSES, TELEPORTATION, HOW TO TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED AND LOTS OF OTHER INTERESTING MATERIAL" Physics Textbook name: Quantum Mechanics Authors: David AB Miller "In this textbook you will discover about Time Travel, Teleportation, particles (like electrons) Inside atoms and outside atoms, and how Material works/behaves when it is close to a portal and Much More" www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Scientists-Engineers-Miller/dp/0521897831/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504474490&sr=8-1&keywords=quantum+mechanics+david+AB+Miller Physics Textbook name: String Theory and M Thoery Authors: Melanie Becker, Katrin Becker, John H Schwarz "In this textbook you will discover about different portals, the structure of a portal, how a portal works, ("string= Universe") also ("string can be found extremely deep inside a particle like extremely deep inside an electron", Time Travel ("Time Travel =Travel through a Stable portal"), ("portal" = "hole in space" = (example) "Stable wormhole" (this is one kind of a Stable portal) = (similar to) "pore in your skin (where sweat comes out of)" , Teleportation ("Teleportation = (means) Travel through space very fast"), and how Material works/behaves when it is OUTSIDE a portal, CLOSE to a portal, AND INSIDE a portal." ("portal" = "cosmic string") ("cosmic string looks like a shoelace. This shoelace (cosmic string)is very deep inside atoms" ("example deep inside an electron)") ("Outside a portal" = "(means) outside a cosmic string") ("Close to a portal" = "(means) Close to a cosmic string") ("Inside a portal" = "(means) Inside a cosmic string") www.amazon.com/String-Theory-M-Theory-Modern-Introduction/dp/0521860695/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504474532&sr=8-1&keywords=string+theory+and+m+theory+a+modern+introduction Physics Textbook name: A First Course in String Theory Authors: Barton Zwiebach "In this textbook you will discover about different portals, the structure of a portal, how a portal works, ("string= Universe") also ("string can be found extremely deep inside a particle like extremely deep inside an electron", Time Travel ("Time Travel =Travel through a Stable portal"), ("portal" = "hole in space" = (example) "Stable wormhole" (this is one kind of a Stable portal) = (similar to) "pore in your skin (where sweat comes out of)" , Teleportation ("Teleportation = (means) Travel through space very fast"), and how Material works/behaves when it is OUTSIDE a portal, CLOSE to a portal, AND INSIDE a portal." ("portal" = "cosmic string") ("cosmic string looks like a shoelace. This shoelace (cosmic string)is very deep inside atoms" ("example deep inside an electron)") ("Outside a portal" = "(means) outside a cosmic string") ("Close to a portal" = "(means) Close to a cosmic string") ("Inside a portal" = "(means) Inside a cosmic string") www.amazon.com/First-Course-String-Theory-2nd/dp/0521880327/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504474576&sr=8-1&keywords=string+theory+a+first+course Physics Textbook name: Lie Algebra and Lie Groups Authors: D.H Sattinger, O.L Weaver www.amazon.com/Algebras-Applications-Geometry-Mechanics-Mathematical/dp/0387962409/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&qid=1504474676&sr=8-21&keywords=lie+algebra Biology Textbook name: Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (14th edition) Authors: Gerard J. Tortora, Bryan H. Derrickson "In this textbook discover the different types of lifeforms (living organisms like cells, muscles, nerves, connective tissue, epithelial tissue and others. Space and the material (atoms, particles, electrons and other objects) in it is very much like a Living Organism. "Understanding living Organisms (in biology)" = "Understanding how material inside atoms, and deep in space works." www.amazon.com/Principles-Anatomy-Physiology-Gerard-Tortora/dp/1118345002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504475006&sr=8-1&keywords=principles+of+anatomy+and+physiology+14th+edition+tortora