Your Daily Equation #14: Quantum Entanglement or Einstein's Spooky Action

[@galacticedge1583]

I'd love to see this series continue in the future, even if it's only weekly or monthly or whatever your schedule allows.

[@mosestekper7659]

I concur

[@juan3d660]

I love the content, thank you for taking the time to do this, Professor! I just want to call you Brian, because I've seen so many of your lectures but hesitate to do so because I have so much respect for you. I'm not a mathematician or physicist, however, I'm fascinated by these ideas. I've been following these lessons (at my own pace, of course, because I'm trying to understand and be able to do these derivations on my own. I can honestly say that if I had been inspired by you earlier in life, I would have studied physics. Regardless, I'm still grateful for all the knowledge and insight I've gained from listening to you for some time, so once again, thank you!

[@Unexpectedthings007]

Being a physicist I have huge respect for guy like u buddy who show interest on how the nature works

[@juan3d660]

@@Unexpectedthings007 I can't imagine anything more interesting and breathtaking than physics. Thank you!!!

[@owlmedicine5023]

Help! I need a physicist!!!! But seriously, What if the interaction of two spinning particles caused a synchronization of the spin of the particles? Something that small would spin so fast that it would take another interaction or a (relatively) long time to desynch. Would that be a way that could be explained in different words? wouldn’t that have the same effect as spooky action at a distance? The interaction synchs the spin of the entangled particles so even after they’re separated their correlated. No longer spooky. Like girls who dorm together Wesley effect if the live alone after no socially dominant female or a romantic partner in theory you would know the cycle of one according to the cycle of the other. But since they’re so much smaller theres less complexity to throw off the cycles

[@meerarao3582]

Following every single episode from the beginning, it just gets so intuitive and understandable, especially the derivations and implicate use of math. Being an extremely huge fan of Dr. Brian, I've watched nearly every hr long episodes from varied concepts like String theory, multiverses and it gets so beautiful and interesting. Thank you for spending some time from your busy schedule just to make such beautiful interactive videos.

[@mountainclimber48]

Dr. Greene I hope you read these comments. Your Daily Equation vids are really helping me get through the COVID-19 home imprisonment. I’m a retired mechanical/nuclear engineer and lifelong student. Please don’t stop these, at least until life goes back to normal. 👍👏😊🙏

[@gunnergeorge]

Brian Greene is the kind of teacher we all wanted to have

[@breakyourinertia2914]

Thank you for your work! I've been a pupil of Quantum Physics since 2007 officially and I use it to teach people how to manifest since we know that observation does in fact affect reality. Entanglement is what I use to show people that what happens to one happens to ALL, so kindness and love are imperative for us to BE.

[@RBRB-hb4mu]

I’ve Solved Einsteins Riddle. Space and Time is being smashed into your face at the speed of light. Then retreating at the speed of light thus creating an illusion of time, hence backward time travel.

[@anasabousalham9793]

This is the first new thing I've learned from this series and I've gotta say, there is no better way that I would like to learn the mathematics of quantum entanglement.

[@markheller197]

This is what the promise of the internet was hoped for. Thank you Doctor

[@FocusedDedication]

I am definitely interested!! Please continue these. I had to pause it for a second just to post this after that comment. Thank you so much for your passion and time!

[@stephenleftly4206]

Boy these lectures are fun. I feel very lucky to be able listen to these lectures. It is a real pleasure to be able to sit here at home and have my grey matter so profoundly rattled ..... (in a good way). Thank you so much for doing them at this difficult time.

[@spnhm34]

At this moment, I’m fairly sure that there are more people wearing unpaired socks than ever before. I would like to hear more about John Bell and how he managed to show what’s happening before we look at something

[@prayogdash3564]

professor Greene can you please explain in the up coming videos about STEPHEN HAWKING's equation on identifying the area of the event horizon by the entropy of a black hole.

[@juanlizarazo2307]

Dear Dr. Greene, thank you for making these videos. I have a question regarding fields that I hope you could address. In QFT a particle is a wave-like perturbation on a field, the speed of a wave is determined by the media, but the speed of a particle is determined by the source. How these two are reconciled in QFT. QFT reconstructs the particle-like behavior by adding an infinite number of planar waves. However, in experiments we can have a particle traveling with any speed we like (less than c). On the other hand, it is known of waves that their speed is determined by the media on which they travel. I couldn't have a wave on the surface of a pond travel at any speed I like. The speed is determined by the characteristics of the pond. So, how these two are reconciled in QFT. Any pointers of where to find the answer are highly appreciated. Thank you very much, Juan.

[@sharafhussain1987]

What a beauty of physics, it made me love physics even more.

[@jlo3349]

Hi Prof Greene, could you do an episode on supersymmetry please! I did basic field theory and understand how symmetries are crucial for physics, but never managed to learn supersymmetry! Would love to see how it is so popular and crucial in string theory.

[@philochristos]

"That has not been ruled out." I wish you'd do a whole video on that.

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

I think that some possible underlying substructure of what we consider today as 'elementary' particles, may explain these strange behaviors. And I think exactly this is what hasn't been ruled out.

[@brothermine2292]

What Bell's theorem ruled out are Einstein's local hidden variables. What isn't ruled out is nonlocal hidden variables. In other words, showing one of the axioms (specifically Separability) in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper was wrong doesn't imply the paper's conclusion about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics was also wrong. Proving Einstein was wrong doesn't imply Bohr was right.

[@mikaelfiil3733]

@@brothermine2292 How is non-local hidden variables different from local hidden variables? My understanding is that what has been ruled out, is that the results are predetermined, that the (pre-dertermined) hidden variables simply don't exists.

[@tdoneview]

Q: Sin² x + Cos x² = 1 is true only on euclidean geometry. We already know that space is curved so why do we use this assumption in derivations of quantum equations?

[@apratimchatterjee2665]

Professor Greene, it has been quite fascinating to learn from you about these beautiful equations and ideas. In the upcoming episodes, I would like to know about the Paul Dirac equation regarding the existence of antimatter and also about the equation that Professor Stephen Hawking asked to be put on his tombstone. Thank you professor. Your way of explaining the concepts is really quite inspiring.

[@peregrinussolutionsllc6010]

I'm a happy World Science Festival subscriber, but I just discovered this series! Looks like I have 13 episodes to catch up on, but "Your Daily Equation" sounds like it had a great deal of fun and interesting content! :-D Thank you for sharing such high quality content with the world!!!

[@friedrichn7767]

Ahahaha another one Who gonna sleep late this night😁😁😁

[@TheMorpheuuus]

Thanks Brian, I can't wait to see the episode on John Bell contribution on entanglement.

[@ianmorgan889]

I have seen many videos about Entanglement and on some level at least, I do understand what is being spoken about although I couldn't give a lecture lasting more than 45 seconds on it ! What intrigues me though is the actual physical process of "entanglement", how exactly are the individual particles manipulated? I just don't see how an entangled particle could be first separated from its partner and transported to some distant spot, I know I probably sound stupid but often with me, seeing a demonstration or having the technical process spelled out are the only ways I can absorb the information I seek. Thanks Brian-and BIG BIG THANKS for the WSF!

[@mef9327]

I love videos like this. Thank you. I have a couple of, probably ignorant, questions. First, what happens to the particles *_after_* you measure them? Do they spontaneously return to a “fuzzy haze” such that if you remeasure them a second time you could get the opposite result? Secondly, how do you know two particles are entangled without first measuring/observing them? Lastly, how are the particles known to be entangled then separated and moved to a different location to observe/experiment? Do scientists put them in a special box and fly one to New York and the other to California? Yes, I know the NY and CA example was just an example? But, I would assume that even in the same lab *first you have to know the particles are entangled.* Then you have to separate them some distance to verify that each is always opposite of the other and the second to be observed seemingly “decides” faster than light. This stuff is incredibly fascinating. But, I think I know how my dog feels when I try to explain algebra to him.

[@arnavmishra2155]

Please continue and make more on Quantum Entanglement 🙏🏻

[@sunjayroy312]

I don't agree with Einstein in regards to his work on relativity, but I do agree with him regarding this. Nothing is probabilistic or random, not even the result of a die. If you knew the exact metrics that went into throwing a die before you released it, its outcome is not probabilistic. Its result will be definite. We however, are not omniscient and are bound with limited knowledge, so we are forced to the realms of describing physics in probabilistic terms.

[@WalidsChannel]

@21:22 I am more impressed with Brian's ability to change the sock's spin like that!!! :D

[@starroger]

I have two questions. According to the math, two entangled particles reveal their spin (or other measured property) the instant one of them is measured. Two entangled particles are in flux until particle 1 is measured spin up, then particle 2 is known to be spin down--mathematically. First question: are there any experiments that measure both entangled particles simultaneously? Question two: if particle 1 is remeasured, is particle 2 still entangled?

[@AlexHop1]

Thank you, Dr. Greene! So clear!!!

[@martintopinka8295]

Thank you for a great lecture professor Greene! Would you try to explain how the quantum entanglement - correlation of the states of the particles at the the surfaces of two black holes can lead to a wormhole “inside” between the black holes? Would this mean that we can in theory construct a stable bridge and travel back in time? Regards from Prague, Czech Republic!

[@kristapskarnitis9613]

This is great stuff Really nice to get a daily dose of light physics explanations

[@roelrovira5148]

Brian, Quantum Entanglement is real not only at microscopic/subatomic scale but also at macroscopic cosmic scale. We now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical laws and physical/mathematical equations that are predictive and precise. FYI: Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement at Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State; 2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State; and 3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State. More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific Journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE or alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA

[@ΓιάννηςΠαρασκευάς-ε7β]

I'm actually surprised how well he can explain to the general public a quantum phenomenon that is usually taught in masters degrees.

[@mcconkeyb]

Oh my god, spooky socks at a distance! :-)

[@dabulls1g]

I remember reading about this in fabric of the cosmos and it sent chills up my spine

[@ManWhoUsesComputer]

Dr. Greene, in listening to you describe entanglement where "you somehow effect" something at a distance. It makes Everett's Many Worlds interpretation seems simpler. Question: ***What's your take on Many Worlds vs. Wave Function Collapse? ***

[@samferrer]

And that is exactly the point ... a single particle is being treated as two different particles ... Imagine you stand on one side of a river and see a pipe sticking out from the water. You are a child so you get curious about it, you reach in, grab it and start dragging. Now you see another pipe moving on the other side of the river. It is the same pipe, you just don't see the segment under the water.

[@gedlangosz1127]

Learning a lot from these talks. I also love that you have not avoid writing down some actual mathematics to back ups the ides being discussed. Keep 'em coming!

[@exitolaboral]

I have a question: I understand that Einstein says that simultaneity is relative to the observer, so, some observers might or might not see the particles change spins at the same time? Does this mean that this "spooky action at a distance" is also relative?

[@Goldslate73]

Professor... Could you please tell where do you get these papers from???

[@ayarottilsandeep545]

Which particle are you mentioning about, is it the electrons, protons, positron, quarks or atom or molecules

[@matthiusantonin2652]

How does the pairing happen? Do the particles continue spinning after measurement?

[@mowood659]

Brian - could you possibly talk a little bit about the physics of quantum computing? Thank you for these lectures.

[@greaper123]

Probability is a concept wrapped in a formula used to explain what we cannot YET, for certain, specify (I stated this earlier in response to one Brian's previous videos). The roll of a die IS calculatable - it's just hard... Once we ascertain what spin is based upon, many answers will follow.

[@gillescoutlee2379]

All my gratitude! This is really fantastic! Rendu à un âge plus avancé, je peux enfin prendre le temps qu'il faut pour consolider mes connaissances en science...et mieux prendre conscience à quel point l'univers est fascinant...vous êtes un pédagogue hors pair!

[@gdmsave]

Please, tell us more about Bell's theorem. I looks to me that it is a kind of sophistry. Manipulation with statistic formulas.

[@mikkel715]

Quantum Entanglement is in its beauty a brilliant solution. But also needed.

[@glenndavisson8085]

Outstanding presentation. Thank you. I am grateful.

[@Daniel-ed5zd]

best teacher ever

[@msanguanini]

Does it make sense to describe the process of entanglement and spin direction with the color change, which changes the direction during splitting?

[@myvideopaws]

the spookiness is due to the fluctuations in potential fields - that causes the probabilities to change states hence an oscillator is just humming around in its potential shell... I realised how complex potential fields are considering implications of computers... But also led me to consider how potential fields function and that is I would suggest relativistic action... Entanglement only functions where dependencies exist independence specifies just that an independent solution...

[@dominoarte]

Thank you for your eloquent explanation of complex physical phenomena. My question is, how do we know that the spin state of the second particle changed instantly without measuring it? The experiment carried out by Alain Aspect points to yet another scenario, namely that the change in status of the second particle, in this case the polarization of the photon, only takes place at the moment when the photon interacts with the polarizer, i.e. not when the first photon is measured , because at this moment the position of the polarizer on the other side is not even set. The setting of the second polarizer occurs randomly, so the status of the second photon therefore does not depend on the measurement of the first photon, but on the setting of the second polarizer.

[@RBRB-hb4mu]

Ive soved Einsteins “Spooky Action” riddle. Space and Time are being pressed up into your face at the speed of Light then returning back instantaneously thus, resulting in the illusion of time. “ Time is but an illusion.”

[@nahulseyon54]

Thank you soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much professor for such a wonderful equation😊☺🙂🙂☺😊......

[@hrkp06a]

At 5:05 you say Einstein called entanglement spooky action at a distance. Yet Sabine Hossenfelder claims Einstein mentioned spooky action at a distance while discussing wave collapse upon measurement. Why do you disagree with her? Thanks.

[@TheRarest1]

Love the long ones, more the better, any uncommon facts

[@neiln62]

Are all particles correlated? How do you get them to be correlated? Could you say something about quantum computing which relies on entanglement.

[@ljsmooth69]

No it's not a fuzzy Hayes it's in a flux of up-and-down and the other particle is influx of up-and-down just like it. And if you were to Clyde them together that fuzzy case you're talkin about it's just an exact function of that particle. In the same with the other particle. And when they collide there should be two different outcomes that could emerge. And that would be has a flexing up-and-down back and forth they hit. Dim colliding together hitting together. Starts a chain reaction that synchronizes them hitting an opposite spins at the same time causing them to synchronize. Not forming into one thing at all like some people say. But obviously synchronizing each other with the spin are the directional toggle up and down or whatever you want to call it that they're doing backwards of one ball is pointing up and the other one is playing down at mpac the one that was pointing up is not pointing down in the one that was putting down is not pointing up and they're still flexing back and forth up and down up and down up and down up and down thus for that synchronizing moment the wavelength would look exactly the same like one of them disappeared. Even though it really didn't. And they go floating off by themselves in the directions they were hidden you know the motion the force. And if we can find those exact same particles again. we know by our tests that they are synchronized so as long as we can find the one we know the other one would be pointing in the other direction that's pretty simple question in there?

[@strikeblade6669]

u should have put the link of the paper on the description

[@redneckrevolt1]

“You do the experiment again.” Does that mean immediately after you do the first experiment or do you entangle the particles again? Because that will change the visualization to learn how it really works.

[@muhammadshuraim9007]

Sir Brian Greene! I request you to make a video about the intrinsic quantities of matter : charge, spin and mass. That we actually wanna to gain the concept of intrinsic quantities of matter into a some physical appearance..

[@__GGG__1]

Dude is a legend

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

I wonder which is stranger - black holes, or quantum entanglement... We definitely don't have an explanation about why the entanglement is happening and how the particles seem to have a connection with infinite speed, right? It really seems to me, that it can be used for communications with some advance technologies, can't it?

[@csikel22]

Dr. Green as always superb video, but you have to go down the road of the possible definite quantities in QM.

[@tinkle2bell]

Great video! Can you do a video about the math behind retrocasuality????

[@fathia3547]

Could you please talk about the principle of LEAST ACTION and Feynman PATH INTEGRALS in relation to String Theory or M-Theory ? I always hear you talking about String theory without ever seeing its main mathematical formulations ... It is time to see some equations of String Theory written down in action ..

[@ljsmooth69]

You can't have a definite correlated thing or things with them being random it's simply impossible.

[@alchemy1]

So two electrons in the same shell are entangled since they are in each other's vicinity or being in the vicinity does not necessarily mean they are interacting?

[@Brainsmachine1]

So where do these equations describe the Life that is asking the questions?

[@rayvukcevich5679]

Is there anything interesting to think about if the two entangled particles are moving in relation to one another either at relativistic speeds or at slower speeds but separated by a very large distance?

[@i_var9048]

Are there any experiments that show that the spin of the particles is random even after interaction between them?

[@onderozenc4470]

Quantum entanglement necessities the "locality" (in quantum dimensions) and " unity" that implies "overlap" as previewed by the quantum theory as from the beginning that can be exemplified by the overlap of the wave functions of two electrons localized in a box whose resultant wave function should be in the singlet state (S=0).

[@helicalactual]

the old question of what separates my conscious experience from another entities, I believe are; the degrees of entanglement. the more entangled, the more the "same" or "sharing".

[@georgegrubbs2966]

If P1 is measured and it takes on "spin up", how do we know what P2 does? We must measure it. Wouldn't that cause it to take on an exact value to "spin down"?

[@douglascarlson321]

Here is my question: From a logical perspective, if you make some measurement on the California particle (with a corresponding instantaneous effect on the New York particle) how did you determine that instantaneous effect without a similar measurement on New York? Did you also measure New York? If so, is it the same measurement method? If not, how did you know that there was an instantaneous, spooky effect?

[@johnpagliassotti4064]

Observation makes the 1st particle stop spinning in the first place and then "decide" to become an up or down spinner. The 2nd particle has to stop spinning in order to reveal itself as an opposite spinner. For a particle to stop spinning, it's probability wave must collapse for it first to be observed. The 2nd particle wasn't observed; why did it stop spinning?? It appears that two things have traveled faster than light- 1. The signal that the first particle was observed. 2. The direction of its spin. Is it possible that the 2nd particle "sensed" our observation of the 1st and at the same time "sensed" the spin of the 1st?? Did the observer become entangled with the particles???

[@David-vl4xm]

What would happen if you measured the particles at the exact same time in two different places

[@shreeniwaz]

Suppose, we have an equation, x+y = 0; Now the moment you measure the value of 'x' you know the value of 'y' without explicitly measuring it . Is this a complete description of 'x' & 'y' being entangled?

[@Mechsolution]

Sir, if anyhow we stop spinning of one partical is any effect on entangle partical according to spooky action

[@pandabearguy1]

Something on geometry would be nice. Maybe spinors or just spaces with curvature (Riemannian)

[@gulfam8761]

I like the way you explain things🙌🙌

[@MrFixi72]

if there are more space dimensions, the entanglement could be possibly explained as 2 entangled particles that have moved into the 3D dimension x,y,z but never moved into the other dimension, so that when we make the observation in the 3D space we just see the spin direction of the particles as they are moving in some way in the other dimension, that would also explain the superposition? the probabilistic result of the observation could be nothing other than the actual position of the particles in the other space dimension during the measurement or as it appears in the 3D space when it has a specific position in the other dimension of space. Same as when we move in the 3D space, we could move in 2 dimension x and z and never move in the y, so in this case, the particles can move in x,y,z and never move in the other additional dimension. Sorry if I said something obvious :-) for the Pro.

[@LekhNathDhakal]

these two particle belong to one system or different system ?

[@robertmolldius8643]

Mr Greene. what program do you use för this presentation. I am a teacher my self.

[@sanamajeed6269]

Thanks Alot to explain this topic

[@OSWALD569]

Entanglement. a quantum particle is a particle of an atom and molecule but what is not with both particles? Or is it only valid for those particles and not the rest?

[@lookmath4582]

What makes the particle decide what state it chooses when we make the measurement? What is the mechanism by which the particle chooses a certain state?

[@hibatulshafi9570]

Please talk more about bells theorem

[@apratimrastogi8697]

Sir, where can we get these original papers online?

[@RalphDratman]

"Incomplete" is not such a bad characterization even today!

[@ToasterBrain]

My socks dont match either, love it.

[@Cashman9111]

so what does it mean instanteanously or at the same time if time is relative ?

[@Blue_Azure101]

I always thought the spins are like electrons and must be in opposite directions to balance each other in order to lower the MO energy...but that’s only in close proximity. The entanglement theory seems to suggest that when the particles are separated in space, somehow, they still think they are together which is broken upon measurement. I wonder if that measurement is transferred by something faster than the speed of light?

[@sunjayroy312]

What does taking a measurement of a particle actually mean? If a particle reacts to being measured or observed, surely it wouldn't be far fetched to imply that particle has some kind of awareness, just like us humans ( a collation of particles ) are aware and react a certain way when observed.

[@apurvavasavada383]

There IS a thought that elementary particles have a consciousness of their own....heard it on this platform sometime ago.

[@sweiland75]

How do you find the two particles that are quantum entangled to each other over vast distances in space?

[@ljsmooth69]

The measurement brings out the state that we see and if we were to take a measurement of the other one that's exact same time they couldn't possibly be in the same directions what you're saying is that means there synchronized. The particles are constantly flexing back and forth between the spin. But what you liking to acknowledge that there synchronized so we test one and it's pointing up we know automatically that the other ones going down. We test that same one again and instead of this time it pointing up it points down. So we know that the other one is pointing up that synchronisation that's not spooky that's something that acts like a connection cross vast distances even though they're not because there synchronized ones up the other ones down when the other one goes up the other one goes down back and forth back and forth back and forth still haven't heard you describe anything different than what the math is saying but you're describing it in a different way that's leaving out the synchronisation that literally the only difference.

[@MitchMed]

Please do a video on Bell's Theorem. This video was great!

[@dandelion6692]

thanks for sharing dr b 🍏

[@wordysmithsonism8767]

I can't wait to learn more about John Bell.

[@ljsmooth69]

Sorry guys have to bear with me on my comments. I'm completely illiterate so I have to rely on very cheap products with Chief components in it and it sucks so thanks for bearing with me do the illiterate process and I hope this machine is actually sing everything properly. Cuz at the end there that's a really serious question that seems to pop into my head every single time. I hear something or see something about the particles in the spooky action or whatever you want to call it. How to spend a question that is intrigued me all my life. I think it was because when I was a child when I was born I was sick and I didn't get out of the hospital so I had one channel that it didn't know how to turn turned out to be public broadcasting system. And my very first friend was a guy that took me on a journey in a spaceship do was called the cosmos even though I never met him never talked to him not a letter nothing he doesn't even know I exist. But he was the only friend I had for very long time and that was Carl Seguin. Like I said he didn't know anything about me but I was a little kid he probably spoke to me through the box set me on journeys across the world and into the cosmos. My very first ride on my delusional spaceship with him. I've been hooked ever since.

[@AbhishekVerma-iz2hl]

What am I making wrong if I think this experiment as; What if both the particles are spinning at the same rate but in opposite direction, thus measurement taken on one of them at a particular instant, determines other. ?