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

[@DrBenMiles]

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]

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]

scientists are mostly liars that ride on the coattails of the real rockstars, the mathematicians. ultimately this ends in war. fair warning.

[@Christopher_Bachm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*quiet organs play in the background*

[@Madcatcon199]

It was me and harpua, and we couldn’t care fewer, it happens all the time!

[@Donavery1]

I'm thinking it must be Shrodinger's Cat !

[@hcrawford]

@@renitixz "quiet"?

[@cesarsantellana1768]

Are you sure it wasn't Patrick Swayze?

[@gumshoe2273]

I met a theoretical physicist the other day. I was surprised to learn they actually exist.

[@nextlevelenglish5858]

go back to your ramer before they cut your pay again

[@vthomas375]

What else doesn't exist? For them it's the scientific method.

[@watamatafoyu]

I'll just have to take that on faith.

[@vthomas375]

@@watamatafoyu You're way too trusting. Ask them to show practically.

[@andrewday7799]

But are they locally real?

[@AncientEsper]

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]

We can't even grasp the additional dimensions above our own, so that makes sense

[@GeekyGizmo007]

we are building the complexity of the universe... We're are a training program for it and it for us. Perpetual amplification.

[@Edw9n]

@@GeekyGizmo007 ok dud sure thing

[@ianokay]

@@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]

Yes l had the idea a particle only comes into existence when it's postulated by a physicist.

[@shanemurphy-od6ej]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@@TheToxicTankwait, if he knows where to put the spaces why can’t he put periods there instead?

[@Plethorality]

Dunno. ​@@Marynicole830

[@OllyWood688]

I couldn't imagine a bigger flex than having gotten the Nobel Prize for keepin' it real.

[@oldbot64]

Damn underrated joke right there. Dave chappelle would be proud

[@supernana7263]

thanks for keeping this joke real

[@jonathanwright5338]

Getting kicked out of Feynman’s office. When keeping it real, goes wrong.

[@beastemeauxde7029]

Realest shit you ever wrote.

[@Krystalmyth]

Word.

[@butterfacemcgillicutty]

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]

Universe may be unreal but so are we...so for us everything is real ...

[@zanussidish8144]

But you can't run away. You face it and see if the situation can run away from you. 👍

[@chrisbrown8640]

Wish I could tell that to a traffic cop !😂

[@jimberry5318]

Not real like I'm right here come on man..... Some people are so smart they outsmarted themselves

[@azizkurtoglu6243]

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.

[@periclestoukiloglou1196]

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]

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]

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]

Perhaps we hav no measure for All that exists.

[@TheDarkblue57]

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]

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]

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.

[@takedonick101]

Man Alice and Bob have had a lifetime of stories together.... they should make a scifi tv show at this point jeez lol

[@porridgeandprunes]

Alice and Bob? Oh no! Not that again!

[@violet.senderhauf2187]

@@porridgeandprunes Welcome to Einstein's Nightmare.

[@bobbyb9712]

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]

alice and bob vs the evil claire

[@abedan1258]

When They can't solve the problem They say the math is incorrect

[@SJKPJR007]

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]

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]

@m_train1 never let what out?

[@royalbloodedledgend]

Well, if nothing is real then we might as well go ahead & blow ourselves up then. It’s going to happen eventually anyways.

[@GameTimeWhy]

@m_train1 I did.

[@donaldduck4888]

Apart from the fact that it drives the modern world (like the computer you wrote this on) quantum theory is completely irrelevant.

[@parasharsomprabh4970]

Questions of science suddenly become questions of philosophy and psychology the deeper we move into them, science and philosophy essentially look like brothers.

[@AbandonedVoid]

Science has made philosophy irrelevant

[@cassandragemini_]

@@AbandonedVoid only to people devoid of any heart who would rather sound like robots instead of freakin human beings

[@AlFredo-sx2yy]

​@@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]

@@AbandonedVoid Philosophy creates science essentially. Must come up with an idea and test them. Quite simple.

[@ayee4363]

Natural philosophy

[@tomislavbunjevcevic9912]

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.

[@DanielPeaster]

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]

Never use the word against your self. You are super intelligent.

[@draganbacmaga8981]

I think it's fair to say that even the smartest people have trouble understanding entanglement - that's why they all propose theories.

[@julianemery718]

Quantum mechanics is something you can't really understand fully, and anyone claiming they do are lying.

[@tubehepa]

Ditto! 🤩

[@christopher.m.dickinson0315]

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

[@Yantrajaal]

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.

[@bilson7523]

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]

Haha 😄

[@eufrosniad994]

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]

Agreed, I think often these complex scientific theories get muddled by poor communication.

[@aqualust5016]

@@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]

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?

[@theoptimisticskeptic]

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]

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]

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.

[@moremileyplease4387]

I have a bad feeling that in the future, we will discover that distance doesn't mean what we think it means.

[@369universal4]

Agreed. I feel that how we think and understand 'time' will also be transformed.

[@ericssonlin7114]

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]

@@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]

Maybe distance is irrelevant in other dimensions?

[@sadhiktm2141]

I think every thing is interconnected as a drop of water deeply connected with ocean as whole both are one

[@jasnarmstrng]

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]

I was thinking how does this prove it isn’t real it just proves to me we don’t understand everything yet

[@davidabdollahi7906]

That is true. These sharlatans still trying to sell us their mysticism crap by attacking determinism. To have the audacity...

[@a_diamond]

​@@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]

@@a_diamond ok? This doesn’t prove that the universe isn’t real tho.

[@cammack07]

No one is saying it isn’t real. Something is here.

[@GHOST-331]

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]

Who told you what Niels Bohr" believed" , and why do you believe them?

[@vhawk1951kl]

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]

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]

@@vhawk1951kl Another desperate "simulation" theorist.

[@madhatter3492]

Quantum Physics does not exist, it is a evil that will be driven out of this world.

[@bryanmorwood]

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).

[@ZenHulk]

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]

Try DMT/5g of Mushrooms. It will make more sense.

[@神林しマイケル]

@@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]

@@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]

@@ravenragnar 😂 My guy is comparing the internet and quantum physics lmao

[@draganbacmaga8981]

Not a sex bot is it?

[@CamraMaan]

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]

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.

[@Argonova]

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]

But why isn't it real

[@seditt5146]

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]

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]

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]

It's philosophy, so basically it's as dumb as religion.

[@WankiTank]

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.

[@TheStatisticalPizza]

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]

I like to think of it the way graphics in video games work to conserve computer resources.

[@bluerider9204]

If I am in a simulated reality...they better upgrade me. This VR program sucks. 🤣

[@obscurity3027]

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]

@@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]

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.

[@robbujold7711]

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]

the explanation is crystal clear

[@lastthingsministry]

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]

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]

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]

​any recommended books

[@mauette2000]

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]

LAYMANS TERMS U MEAN

[@angaleejones]

Sac le blur

[@vasvas8914]

There's basically an inherent connection between two photons that transfers information faster than speed of light, controversing modern physics worldview.

[@randomgrinn]

Yeah he didn't explain it to me. Still don't understand why non-determinism equals not real.

[@FullCircleTravis]

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.

[@anibalplaza8633]

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?

[@indigatorveritatis219]

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]

What's the relevance of the Holiday Inn please? :/

[@indigatorveritatis219]

@@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]

Just as funny as an obscure reference that I get, is the confused people who don't get it lol

[@JonathanGillies]

@@indigatorveritatis219 Ok thanks for the explanation lol!!!!!! :D

[@brettsmith5903]

Somebody give this man the key to Detroit!

[@stevedwa345]

Put the information sources in the description. It will make the video much better.

[@krys_is]

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]

Its allready there, but not locally

[@ji-youngj573]

😂😂😂​@@panicdispenser6586

[@MrDosonhai]

A simple Google search will reveal this. This is a Nobel Prize we're talking about.

[@tivenspqr]

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]

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]

@@bosstradingpro1910 was a good read

[@bosstradingpro1910]

@@poetryofcinema6957 Thank you. Well appreciated.

[@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar]

@@bosstradingpro1910could be Jack the Ripper.. or someone “ripping” wind around you 🌬️ 💩💨

[@bosstradingpro1910]

@@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar lol, do you mean that person, or me?

[@ghhdgjjfjjggj]

My teacher asked me where is my homework the other day. I was trying to tell her that the homework isn't actually real.

[@Krone-Magistrate]

Love this lol 😆

[@lazyeclipse]

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]

True. Each of our actions should affect the universe in some way.

[@jatinkholiya6644]

True

[@ruthnovena40]

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]

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]

The soul is pure consciousness. It is outside the universe. The universe is a projection of consciousness.

[@Barnaclebeard]

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]

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]

@@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.]

Plato thought it first

[@SuperManning11]

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]

@@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.

[@gr637]

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]

Seems intuitive, but apparently it's not correct.

[@DuckDodgers69]

Sometimes

[@MrClickity]

Problem is, there have been tests done on the "hidden variable" hypothesis, and the randomness really does seem baked into the universe.

[@stipostipo2051]

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]

It all sounds logical until it's proven wrong, then it makes sense.

[@extropian314]

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]

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

[@HistoryoftheUniverse]

This was so well done, so clear and easy to follow. Thanks!

[@kapoorh]

Easy to follow? I was lost at Photon...

[@InTonalHarmony]

What’s a photon?

[@gabejohnson4535]

@@InTonalHarmony A photon is a particle of light.

[@jaaaake]

Dislike. They proved it wasn’t locally real - don’t support clickbait titles

[@infinity2394]

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.

[@tartipouss]

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]

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]

"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]

And yet day after day, dogmatic science is rammed down people's throats as definitive and undebatable -

[@darrennew8211]

@@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]

@@darrennew8211 you are correct, and yet look at the state of the world and tell me I am actually wrong

[@scout3058]

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]

there is no spoon!!!

[@scout3058]

@@bobancikic7458 😃😃

[@ammardian]

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]

@@ammardian Thank you for letting me know that I'm not the only dunce/dumbass left in the world. 😆😆😆

[@ammardian]

@@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

[@gonzogil123]

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?.

[@fifetojo]

Really well explained. I found this easier to follow than the PBS spacetime episode 👍

[@BeckBeckGo]

I think he should be super radical and rename Alice and Bob.

[@wrestleswithangels]

Link to the PBS Episode, please. ??

[@ReturnOfKalki]

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]

@@infinity2394 🙅‍♂️

[@firstaidsack]

@@infinity2394 You can know what pain and suffering is without knowing goodness. Therefore you can know evil without knowing goodness. Case closed.

[@klh1133]

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]

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]

"Our" being you and which identifiable immediate interlocutor?

[@richardwebb9532]

These experiments all require an observer, without an observer, nothing can exist, it would all be a wave function.

[@johnchesh3486]

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]

Walter russell, The Secret of Light There is Nothing Outside Yourself Nothing moves not even Light

[@s.c.6113]

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]

Duh

[@mohinderkumar7298]

Uh

[@vinceplatt8468]

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]

I read your comment and now I'm going to actually watch this because I always get "lost."

[@KikiTheHobbit]

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…💀

[@mirceadigulescu]

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.

[@KnownotProductions]

I love that the most replayed point of the video is the when he starts to explain the experiment and you just know it's because people had to go back and watch it again to really wrap their heads around it.

[@hikesystem7721]

I think it was the men in costumes and the explosion, lol. Neanderthals.

[@Ozone946]

@@hikesystem7721 you mean the Monty Python scene? And are you calling people Neanderthals?

[@carlosleonelli1139]

Coincidentally I replayed the experiment because my sister started to talk to me randomly

[@hikesystem7721]

@@Ozone946 it's called humor

[@DannyTillotson]

How do you know it's the most replayed part? Is there a way to see these statistics?

[@connorswanson]

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]

Depends on the angular momentum which is a cause and effect of hitting the block at a certain angle

[@ludicrous7044]

Whoa! You lost me!!

[@professordey]

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]

lol

[@ic7481]

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]

Walter russell THE WAVE

[@Alan_CFA]

I’ll mention your concerns to the Nobel Committee when they call.

[@BryanChance]

Did someone actually send an entangled particle "light years away" to test the theory?

[@Wylie288]

no. Its probably true. Which as usual, means fucking nothing.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

not that far. but it has been tested at closer distances

[@dont.beknown5622]

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]

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.

[@harrysu7643]

so basically reality has a depth/view parameter where things outside of that aren't completely rendered

[@GeometricPidgeon]

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]

@@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]

@@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]

@@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]

@@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.

[@MedlifeCrisis]

Wild stuff. Can’t believe “it’s the universe real” is such a reasonable question with such a complicated answer. Excellent explanation!

[@sneakymilkman4203]

Ahh yes I love asking “it’s the universe real”

[@ReturnOfKalki]

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]

@@infinity2394 are you a muslim?

[@hiiamjustacoolrandomuser168]

@@infinity2394 can you pls stop spamming

[@dellalyn9918]

@@sneakymilkman4203 'Is', Changed for people like you who never make mistakes....a$$-wipe.

[@to2burger]

What’s the riff at 7:53 from?

[@VisionThing]

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]

Exactly! I feel like a lot of Quantum Physics is a case of the naked emperor

[@VisionThing]

@@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]

@@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]

@@yodaheabebe3756 if people can’t understand what is a woman how could they understand this 😮

[@yodaheabebe3756]

@@AlejandroP1980s 🤣 I think people know what a woman is tho. lol. Just that some people are deliberately confusing them

[@sertulariae8294]

if the universe isn't real, i'm not paying my bills anymore

[@larrydommer9109]

What does paying your bills have to do with the universe. The bible says render unto Ceasar. You don't need a universe if you believe the Bible. You just have to pay your taxes.

[@hiiamjustacoolrandomuser168]

Bruh it was a joke lol

[@christopherhamilton3621]

@@larrydommer9109WTF does the Bible have to do with ANY of this? 😂

[@123supporter]

You must be tons of fun at patties.

[@robertonavarro7713]

But my friend Elmer is a real bill collector and might be knocking at your door a little later. 😮

[@jesuschristwithwifi8181]

Are we not gonna talk about how bro has an outro? 12:38

[@ChrisGarciaJSB]

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?

[@agmc77]

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]

@F.u.c.k You people like you do too much of this 🗣 and not enough of this👂

[@BoomBustProfits]

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]

@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]

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]

@@BoomBustProfits look for Roger Penrose. He has a theory about what was before the Big Bang, and he also won the Physics' Nobel Prize.

[@jeffcurrey8765]

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]

Same. I'm trying.

[@MichaelClark-uw7ex]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the theory that the universe doesn't exist and therefore we don't exist.

[@PineappleOnPizza69]

same dude :D maybe if im reincarnated as a phycisit

[@nayanpardeshi5955]

Same bro

[@nayanpardeshi5955]

Comment that i was looking for 😃

[@robertsarracino9349]

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]

Einstein admitted Tesla was the most intelligent person of his time. His words.

[@Stuart.Branson.]

Einstein was a bad actor who actually did nothing except promote stupid stories for dummies

[@-godsspeed-9159]

​@@TheMrmartind40he probably would have said his wife if she was a guy lmao

[@Noctoletsgo]

When you say theory, do you mean to say that in practicality it is not really a thign that happens?

[@robertsarracino9349]

Just the opposite. Something becomes a "theory" once it's fully established.

[@MissingInPerson]

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]

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]

@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]

@@MissingInPerson yup

[@jojolafrite90]

I was actually happy when I heard Alain Aspect won a Nobel prize. It's well deserved.

[@JamesKerLindsay]

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]

Dear Prof. , How can one REALLY say that the universe is Not REAL? heard of performative contradiction? with Love, A carpernter

[@AlmostReady504]

Speak for yourself there Professor there

[@zvikabar-kochva3641]

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]

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]

✋ *SToP "ChanneL PoaChinG" you buM.!!* 😠

[@sharifzareeai8954]

12:44 damn bro got the outro

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

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]

No

[@michaelblankenau6598]

Too bad you’re wrong .

[@rodsmith494]

Ironic then that Einstein abandoned the reality principle with relativity

[@ennaancestors4625]

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]

"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]

@@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]

Bull. We do NOT agree, so you should stop lying.

[@patrickday4206]

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]

The best kept secret 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 🔥🔥

[@andrewkelleher2415]

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]

@@infinity2394 It's not ALWAYS wrong to kill a person.

[@cbreezy]

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]

Any mathematical pattern will reduce the amount of randomness a quantum computer has.. It’s statistical.

[@vinniehuish3987]

Mathematical patterns that are theoretically correct in their assumptions ofc.

[@judyd1]

@@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]

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]

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]

Two slit test

[@khyzan8527]

​@@LuisCasstle Ah, that makes sense. I'm still hesitant on the tree making a sound analogy though.

[@BremenSA]

@@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]

@@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.

[@hayk.galstyan]

Your explaining skills are amazing! Subscribed.

[@U.s.e.r.3493]

Great video. As a person who failed physics in high school, I appreciated your clear and simplified explanation

[@rlh4648]

As someone with too many degrees in physics and science theres no judgement here - a good explanation is universal

[@beansworth5694]

@@rlh4648 provided one can understand the language involved, whether it be in terms of structure or terminology lol

[@swagmastersam5839]

as a person who passed college physics, I don't know I did not go to class.

[@bincollector6762]

As someone who went to high school that didn’t have a physics program…I could careless

[@toxicity6629]

All you have to do is follow logic how did you fail

[@BrianHSC]

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]

How is it incomplete? Be precise now. ;-)

[@robertv4076]

@@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]

@@schmetterling4477 Where's our theory of everything?

[@schmetterling4477]

@@tbunreall We most likely had it since roughly 1620. It's relativity. ;-)

[@bustercam199]

Right, and Einstein is right. The others are dead wrong.

[@seventhtenth]

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

[@MaskedMarble]

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.

[@magnanimousmartyr421]

This is the kind of situation that occurs when someone starts overthinking a subject and becoming so lost within it, that they are no longer able to recognize reality…

[@hekeptdying1428]

me when I'm high AF

[@kw5021]

Yes these pompous ass hats got us to believe were monkeys spinning on a ball six times the speed of sound.

[@gandalf_thegrey]

@@hekeptdying1428 me right now brother

[@publicopinion3596]

Its called subjective thinking the very nature of social reality is based on collective agreement humans put meaning to things that don't reflect a function based on how it is physically but on how or what function it has. So a human will usually impose meaning onto the universe in term relative to benefits or conditions that serve humanity

[@magnanimousmartyr421]

@@publicopinion3596 Umm.....okay???

[@thewizardssleeve119]

The closer we look at things the more complexity will be generated - this process has no end.

[@jessegentry9699]

If complexity has no end then it had no beginning.

[@No_Name_2604]

Yeah the beginning would be defined by where we started looking and the ending by where we will stop. It‘s basically a „do whatever you want with it as long as it‘s still fun.“ Situation.

[@adithyavraajkumar5923]

Not sure that's true. We can't look at anything on a smaller scale than Planck units, right?

[@tabby73]

@@adithyavraajkumar5923 not yet

[@imdeexpert5828]

I turned to religion and realised what it say is correct and science is proving it now

[@AlegIronFist]

The Universe while sending asteroids our way: “We will see who isn’t real”

[@Kathy-n7f]

Hahahaha!!!

[@ingerasulffs]

The part starting at 9:12 needs to be broken down and SLOWLY explained to me step by step with examples. This video doesn't do that. Anyone know of one that does?

[@ahrenstarr6273]

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]

Good question mate!

[@ingeniouswild]

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]

@@ingeniouswild How would this splitting of photons work? What's the mechanism here?

[@bigdaddynero]

@@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]

Go read the paper

[@norbis3939]

We haven't really ruled out hidden variables, we've just placed limitations on what they might be.

[@nickwilson8119]

If I understand correctly, any conserved quantity can cause entanglement, and bells theorem shows they are randomly measured at the detectors (not pre-defined when they entanglement occurs) which means non of these variables are hidden variables. Conserved quantities are: charge, spin, energy, momentum... what other variables are there that can be hidden?

[@kakistocracyusa]

@@nickwilson8119 uhh ..why did you think it was originally called "hidden variable" back in Einstein's day?

[@norbis3939]

@@nickwilson8119 The basic answer to that is "stuff we don't know about yet." Or maybe stuff we do know about but have been thinking about incorrectly.

[@loodog555]

My understanding is that this was actually disproven, that any meaningful label about how the particle exists, even if we are in capable of detecting it, is impossible: The particle literally exists in both states until observed.

[@peabody3000]

and i wonder if the hidden variables are even within the particle, or are instead a function of how spacetime propagates particles

[@8k_k8kloud48]

We'll make great progress when we realise that both Einstein and Bohr were right. They're just describing different parts of existence. Einstein understands the physics of the 3rd dimension (what we call reality but is actually Physical reality) and Bohr was beginning to understand the physics of the part of existence that goes beyond the 3rd dimension and is not limited by the speed of light (Non-Physical reality). Great video by the way 😉

[@Fredmayve]

What do you mean by non physical?

[@iantrolington6594]

@@Fredmayve You are on the wrong page if you don't understand what non-physical means lol...

[@Fredmayve]

@@iantrolington6594 Mr. Trolington by name and by nature apparently.

[@iantrolington6594]

@@Fredmayve Seriously? Anything that doesn't have a physical attribute is non-physical. What kind of question is that?

[@Fredmayve]

@@iantrolington6594 It is a question that was not addressed to you. It was specifically related to the preceding comment by someone else, in the context of *their* use of the term. May I politely suggest that you butt out ? It would be to your credit.

[@davegubbins4428]

piano at 2:02 ? anyone know? shazam can't get it.

[@chuckjones9159]

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]

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]

Show your math for it

[@andrewbarrett1537]

I know what you mean and for me I believe in this as another dimension that is hard to perceive or explore.

[@blijebij]

@@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]

@@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.

[@hugoclarke3284]

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-]

That is an exquisite visual you presented!

[@Sheen023]

🤔

[@missk1697]

It's one of many possible explanations.

[@roberttormey4312]

Well, things have been unreal for quite sometime now.

[@smsushfksk]

oh please robert you are KILLING me, Hey, you should come to my barbecue on wednesday 🙂.

[@MutsukiNY]

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.

[@fabiansvensson9588]

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]

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]

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]

@@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]

@@CaptainBrawnson thanks for this explanation. I was wondering this too

[@Jim-vq9yg]

@@CaptainBrawnson tyty

[@afrosymphony8207]

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]

Damn I need to read your comment and Google it to learn about it. Will take me long. 😭💀

[@BobaRoyaltea]

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]

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]

@@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]

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?

[@DavidPysnik]

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]

Word

[@aliceslab]

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]

Yep 💯

[@TheAnthroheart]

Ecellent rigor!

[@Crossark1]

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.

[@candlestyx8517]

"They asked me if I had a degree in theoretical physics, I said I have a theoretical degree in physics."

[@sesh7357]

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]

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]

same here,lol!!

[@abacaxidotcaxi]

I agree, it was very well explained.

[@sesh7357]

@@Bluewolf- Thanks so much. Surely look up

[@rxonmymind8362]

Your fake. 😂

[@dragonmasteraltais]

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]

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]

@@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]

How can things make sense in an inexplicable way?

[@stevezagieboylo9172]

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]

Or is there a condition where Bob would sometimes see it & also not see it periodically?

[@bustercam199]

You make a good point, and this is at least part of the reason why this whole entanglement idea is patently false.

[@kennethyoung7564]

Seems pretty short sighted to say faster than light communication is not possible, since quantum entanglement proves that it is possible.

[@palemale2501]

In the polarisation experiment, the act of observing does not alter any photon - it was the introduction of the polarising filters that affected some photons.

[@doncorleon9]

Yes. Most people interpret it that the eye observing the photons is what alters the experiment as opposed to the actual measuring apparatus. In this case, the diffraction grating. This would violate localization as Einstein said.

[@ssjderek2]

Really boggles me that people sided with the concept of schrodinger's cat, which in its simplest form amounts to "well, i wont know till i see it"

[@doncorleon9]

@@ssjderek2 you have a point. However, the cat scenario is attaching probability to the outcomes. There being majorly 2 outcomes, at one point the probability cloud will harbor a 50/50 chance that it is dead and/or alive. A description of the mathematical function as opposed to actual knowledge.

[@ssjderek2]

@@doncorleon9 im aware that its a mathematics problem based on the unknown probability, but usingit as a bases is what bothers me. However i can understand if they used it in a way of thinking along the lines of both due to probability.

[@THE-X-Force]

@@ssjderek2 Schrödinger actually came up with that "cat" analogy as a sarcastic way of saying how ridiculous he thought the concept was. Now, unfortunately, it's constantly used as if he were trying to explain the concept, lending it credibility. As far as _"observation"_ goes .. @Pale Male & @doncorleon9 are correct (not that I've seen you disagree). Sadly, a lot of click-bait garbage articles out there give the utterly false impression that human observation (ie. consciousness) has something to do with the results observed, when in fact the _"observer"_ can simply be a camera or any piece of equipment taking a measurement.

[@PaxonFrady]

I'm confused about the agree/disagree curves. It seems intuitive to me that you would get a sine wave shape, and I don't understand why you would ever get a straight line. It would seem that if the light had a hidden polarization angle (as opposed to quantum), then it would be the case that the agree/disagree curve is a sine wave shape. Can you/anyone explain the logic of why it would be a straight line with classical optics vs. quantum optics?

[@procletnic]

I would like to know too.

[@paulpelletier9422]

yeah he kind of glosses over that but you can only cover so much in one quicky video, I've seen other videos focus in on the line vs curve that seemed quite intuitive, but I don't remember well enough to explain myself

[@theostragonidis7548]

Ok, so basically there is an equation (Bell's equation) that predicts a linear graph if there are local hidden variables (a.k.a. predetermined states). Because the experiment shows that Bob and Alice disagree/agree more than what the coincidal model (predetermined states) predicts, this supposedly shows that the entangled particles indeed interact with each other at a distance.

[@outofoblivionproductions4015]

@@theostragonidis7548 "... this supposedly shows that the entangled particles indeed interact with each other at a distance."- this is a hypothesis, not evidence.

[@theostragonidis7548]

@@outofoblivionproductions4015 It's evidence but it doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables.

[@SnootchieBootchies27]

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]

Actually infinity demands that you have an infinite number of the exact same thing. Question. Were any of those drugs psychedelic?

[@SnootchieBootchies27]

@@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]

it doesnt actually. multiverse isnt real.

[@Lashistoriasdelilith]

this is so amazing. What is the conection between two particles? what are the conditions to say some are conected and other are not?

[@andywason3414]

But what happens if you change a property of one of the particles after the fact. e.g. spin? Does the spin of the other particle change? or, does the property have to be defined at the moment of entanglement?

[@kompatybilijny9348]

Changing the properties of one particle after it has been created does nothing to the other one. That's why it's not possible to communicate faster than light with quantum entangelment

[@spackle9999]

The point at which you change one of the split particles, a new 3D bubble of reality occurs and will be expressed in both particles once the established properties have been changed and measured by detectors. No violation of causality or C needs to occur. They're wrong. I'm right.

[@bigdaddynero]

@@kompatybilijny9348 Then the particles really aren't entangled, then. They're nothing more than two twins from the same source. Quantum physics is a joke.

[@kompatybilijny9348]

@@bigdaddynero They are. Because none of the entangled particles have properties until you measure one of them - when you do that, particles instantly communicate no matter the distance between them and both of them gain properties opposite to each other. After that, the particles cease to be entangled and as such do not interact with each other anymore.

[@bigdaddynero]

@@kompatybilijny9348 You're seriously not understanding my point. There is no evidence to suggest communication between the two particles. All the evidence points to Einstein's theory that they are born with opposite properites, of which we are unaware of until one, or both, are measured. That's why I called them two (anti) twins from the same source. There is literally no application that can be made from this. The whole reason quantum physics was ever studied was because the initial assumption was that two particles could affect each other after their inception, but that has constantly been disproven. The superposition is a lie and made up fiction. That's why Einstein called it impossible, because it is impossible. He knew that the two particles had properites opposite to each other after measurement, but he logically concluded that those properites existed before the measurement.

[@spiritwave7]

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]

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]

Non-local, dimensionless energy, pure light, pure mind

[@donatsu8]

I work with fluorescence anisotropy looking at proteins binding DNA so I really appreciated your polarizer demo- very cool! I wonder if you have made a video on double slit experiment and it's many variations esp. quantum eraser and delayed choice?

[@schmetterling4477]

Why are you telling us that you an an unemployed guy who didn't pay attention in high school science class? ;-)

[@mathematicalmodelz]

​@@schmetterling4477Why are you telling us that you an an bitter angry douche with too much time on their hands? ;-)

[@grummbunger]

double slit. photons