Does Quantum Entanglement Allow for Faster-Than-Light Communication?

  Переглядів 1,250,380

Cool Worlds

Cool Worlds

День тому

Quantum entanglement allows particles to affect one another faster than the speed of light. So does this mean we could one day build a device to exploit this and enable superluminal communication? A popular trope in sci-fi for sure, but today let's look at the science.
Presented by Prof David Kipping (Columbia). Special thanks to Prof. Ehud Altman (Berkeley), Prof Tim Byrnes (NYU) & Prof. Raquel Queiroz (Columbia) for fact checking our script.
→ Support our research program: www.coolworldslab.com/support
→ Get Stash here! teespring.com/stores/cool-wor...
THANK-YOU to our supporters D. Smith, M. Sloan, C. Bottaccini, D. Daughaday, A. Jones, S. Brownlee, N. Kildal, Z. Star, E. West, T. Zajonc, C. Wolfred, L. Skov, G. Benson, A. De Vaal, M. Elliott, B. Daniluk, M. Forbes, S. Vystoropskyi, S. Lee, Z. Danielson, C. Fitzgerald, C. Souter, M. Gillette, T. Jeffcoat, H. Jensen, J. Rockett, N. Fredrickson, D. Holland, E. Hanway, D. Murphree, S. Hannum, T. Donkin, K. Myers, A. Schoen, K. Dabrowski, J. Black, R. Ramezankhani, J. Armstrong, K. Weber, S. Marks, L. Robinson, F. Van Exter, S. Roulier, B. Smith, P. Masterson, R. Sievers, G. Canterbury, J. Kill, J. Cassese, J. Kruger, S. Way, P. Finch, S. Applegate, L. Watson, T. Wheeler, E. Zahnle, N. Gebben, J. Bergman, E. Dessoi, J. Alexander, C. Macdonald, M. Hedlund, P. Kaup, C. Hays, S. Krasner, W. Evans, D. Bansal, J. Curtin, J. Sturm, RAND Corp., I. Attard, M. Donovan, N. Corwin, M. Mangione, K. Howard, L. Deacon, G. Metts, G. Genova, R. Provost, B. Sigurjonsson, G. Fullwood, T. Mitchum, B. Walford, J. Boyd, J. Quayle, & N. De Haan.
::References::
► Gisin (2014), "Quantum measurement of spins and magnets, and the classical limit of PR-boxes", : arxiv.org/abs/1407.8122
► Pawlowski et al. (2009), "Information causality as a physical principle", Nature, 461, 1101: arxiv.org/abs/0905.2292
► Einstein et al. (1935), "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?", PhysRev, 47, 777: journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/...
► Salart et al. (208), "Testing spooky action at a distance", Nature, 454, 861: arxiv.org/abs/0808.3316
::Further video resources::
► "Why You Can't Use Quantum Mechanics to Communicate Faster Than Light?" by Looking Glass Universe • Why Can't You Use Quan...
► "The puzzling tension between faster-than-light communication and quantum mechanics" by NYU Quantum Technology Lab: • The puzzling tension b...
::Music::
Music licensed by SoundStripe.com (SS) [shorturl.at/ptBHI], or via Creative Commons (CC) Attribution License (creativecommons.org/licenses/..., or with permission from the artist
► Brad Hill - When Darkness is No Longer Dark (0:00) [open.spotify.com/track/2hU8Ly...]
► Chris Zabriskie - Cylinder Five (2:09)
► Falls - Life in Binary (5:09)
► Falls - Ripley (10:05)
► Chris Zabriskie - Cylinder Four (13:24)
► Brad Hill - There Is but One Good (16:10) [open.spotify.com/album/4pmiXc...]
► Chris Zabriskie - The Sun Is Scheduled To Come Out Again Tomorrow (22:20)
► Brad Hill - At Sunrise (25:33) [open.spotify.com/album/3l3efy...]
► Indive - Trace Correction (28:11)
::Film/TV clips used::
► Moonfall (Lionsgate)
► Passengers (Sony Pictures Releasing)
► Mankind: The Story of All of Us (History Channel)
► Foundation (Apple Inc.)
► Interstellar (Paramount Pictures)
► Contact (Warner Bros.)
► Arrival (Paramount Pictures)
► Back to the Future (Universal Pictures)
► Avatar (20th Century Fox)
► Mass Effect 2 (Bioware)
► The Matrix (Warner Bros.)
► Star Trek: The Next Generation (Paramount Television)
► Star Wars: the Last Jedi (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures)
► Genius (National Geographic)
► Star Trek (Paramount Television)
► Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Paramount Pictures)
::Chapters::
00:00 The FTL Dream
02:10 Relativistic FTL?
03:41 Quantum FTL?
06:27 Quantum 101
09:01 FTL Action at Distance
10:33 How to Exploit?
12:23 Idea 1: Repeat Measurements
14:16 Idea 2: Double Slits
18:04 Idea 3: XY Switching
22:20 Where From Here?
28:11 Outro & Credits
#Quantum #ftlfasterthanlight #CoolWorlds

КОМЕНТАРІ: 6 900
@Schottingham
@Schottingham Рік тому
I love how many of these videos with a question in the title turn out to be "probably not", because you're clearly not setting out to prove these things wrong; in fact you (and maybe most of us) want the answers to be 'yes', but you seem to really work through the science and find that the evidence is just not there. This is the sort of critical thinking we need to teach.
@chrisbarry9345
@chrisbarry9345 Рік тому
Except that our understanding of sciences laughably and complete. It's openly acknowledged that we can't account for 96% of the effects within the universe. We want to call it dark this or dark that but when you consider how quantum particles are said to pop in and out of fields and combine that with us calling the universe so-called dark, isn't there a lot to say there could be more that we don't know like other dimensions
@SteedRuckus
@SteedRuckus Рік тому
It's sad how so few people actually understand that the scientific method doesn't just bilaterally prove or disprove something tested - either the results are statistically significant in a way that supports one's hypothesis (and further research is necessary for any kind of confidence in confirmation), or you get the "null" result of "something else", which doesn't prove or disprove anything either, it simply indicates that the very specific variable tested is not the cause to your very specific effect (and further research is necessary for any confidence in de-confirming anything). Basically, no matter what the result, further research is necessary nearly 100% of the time.
@Schottingham
@Schottingham Рік тому
@@chrisbarry9345 I was careful to say 'probably' because yes, of course there could always be something we haven't discovered yet
@rockdesertsun8246
@rockdesertsun8246 Рік тому
@@chrisbarry9345 I can account for 100% 'of the effects within the universe'..... God.
@SteedRuckus
@SteedRuckus Рік тому
@@rockdesertsun8246 I hope that's sarcasm, otherwise it's a literal logical fallacy to bring in an "argument from the metaphysical" because all rules of logic are now out the window in a debate/discussion. Saying "God did it" is the singularity of debate - once you pass it's event horizon, it's impossible to continue that specific course of logic.
@BRUXXUS
@BRUXXUS Рік тому
I've watched, read, and listened to hours of explanations of why QEC should be impossible, and you effortlessly, finally made it clear. It's so much simpler than I tried understanding that it makes me a little frustrated that it's been so poorly communicated by others.
@Elmithian
@Elmithian Рік тому
And I still think we should try to attempt the impossible. If we just decide stay within the boundaries of what we think are the laws and limits, we just end back at the 1899s when patent commissioner at the US branch made the claim "everything that can be invented has been invented." Yes, I am fully aware that lot of stuff is very likely just as it seems, but we still are going to hafta push the boundaries, otherwise, how are we going to fully map out all of said boundaries? Plus, outside the box thinking is what got us the theory of relativity and quantum theories after all. Science should not deal in complete absolutes. If someone tells you "this will never work" they are likely not worth listening to. If they say that "by our current understanding of how things operate it should not work", then they are worth atl lending an ear to. Again, ofc you should ratio your doubts in accordance in science to how well something has been tested, but you should not just wave off left field ideas before you have made sure to make the appropriate tests to confirm that is something that doesn't seem to work.
@e_neko
@e_neko Рік тому
There's still a little problem there. Bell's experiments so far show that entangled pairs are NOT like pre-selected left or right shoes in sealed boxes. The selection really does happen when the "boxes" are opened. Perhaps one day we can find how to exploit this.
@BRUXXUS
@BRUXXUS Рік тому
@@Elmithian Oh, I totally agree!
@murphyrichard6485
@murphyrichard6485 Рік тому
He did a great job explaining
@usmh
@usmh Рік тому
Yeah, that's something I've noticed in general. Physicists are terrible at communicating their field.
@dmsoundcollective6746
@dmsoundcollective6746 7 місяців тому
I don't know how to express how wonderful these videos are. I guess I can only say thank you David!! I love what you're doing
@WilliamDeanPlumbing
@WilliamDeanPlumbing Рік тому
This is exactly why I Proclaim that we have never been visited by other life forms, they have the exact same problem that we do, the vast distances and the slow speed of light prevents any survivability to make it from point A to B.
@silvergreylion
@silvergreylion 8 днів тому
When referring to light, you probably mean transverse light, or transverse EM waves. Longitudinal EM waves propagate at practically infinite speed. It's just that they are much fainter, so very hard to pick up, and in the development of radio communication since its inception, everyone just assumed longitudinal EM waves didn't exist. They do, but it takes a spherical antenna for transmitting, and very sensitive equipment AND a spherical antenna, for receiving.
@pereirahawk
@pereirahawk 6 днів тому
​@silvergreylion Give me one reference for what you stated. I really mean this. I'll go read it as soon as you post. You're saying speed of light (longitudinal) in a vacuum is much faster (infinitely). Correct?
@silvergreylion
@silvergreylion 6 днів тому
@@pereirahawk This is currently being researched. The research hasn't been published yet, but the speed would be the reciprocal of the Planck constant, so ~1.5x10^33 m/s.
@mjbarge
@mjbarge Рік тому
Finally! An explanation I can actually understand. Your ability to communicate very complex ideas in such a clear and understandable way is by far the best I've come across. Keep up the great work!
@nickduplaga507
@nickduplaga507 Рік тому
If something is reacting at faster then light speed there is energy traveling at faster than light speed. Should be common sense. Also wormholes are possible in physics. Space can move time faster than light. Black holes singularity universe sees black hole frozen from aging, but it’s only perspective. The black hole can experience the universe aging faster into infinity even experiencing events that the universe can’t yet experience. The concept of negative energy that NASA claims is created by gravity.
@jaywulf
@jaywulf Рік тому
All that + lovely voice!
@glitcherade1482
@glitcherade1482 Рік тому
It's the first time I actually understood entanglement, very well done mate, I always love your way of explaining.
@immortalsofar5314
@immortalsofar5314 Рік тому
Why did nobody else explain the shoe box? That's all they have to say!
@gravoc857
@gravoc857 Рік тому
@@immortalsofar5314 Because the shoe box by itself doesn’t do it justice. People still get caught up in thinking about “well, both know that the other has the corresponding pair, so they have a full set!”. This indicates a thinking that some how you can come to a forced measurable result. Kipping explained beforehand that it’s entirely random, and that no matter what you do to the entangled pair, it always results in a randomized dice roll that provides no relevant information if you only have half the set. In other words, if you get a left shoe. You don’t know that you have a left shoe, unless you can see the data of the other party. The shoe is only a left shoe, relative to the other previously entangled particle. Without knowing the state of the other particle, you’re left with an annoyingly undefinable particle. This is also where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes in. Measuring for one vector, increases the uncertainty in another vector. Measure it’s location, and the speed becomes blurry. Measure the speed, and it’s location becomes blurry. You need multiple measurements, but only one measurement can be applied before the super-positioned entanglement ends.
@ologhai8559
@ologhai8559 Рік тому
just put it in transparent shoebox 😂
@matthewfrost3677
@matthewfrost3677 Рік тому
@@gravoc857 it sounds to me like quantum entanglement is not FTL in its action. It sounds to me like entanglement just imparts opposing Quantum fields causing them to collapse in the opposite directions when observed but not transmitting any information instead revealing their pre determined bias
@gravoc857
@gravoc857 Рік тому
@@matthewfrost3677 That’s what I used to think. That the information is perfectly symmetric. We need to remember though that measuring one particle will instantly reveal the nature of the second particle, no measurement required. If you and I’s assumption was correct, an entangled pair would require two measurements.
@Jimmy-B-
@Jimmy-B- Рік тому
Now I understand, always thought you could force a spin, but that was cleared up, thanks!
@KevinDC5
@KevinDC5 7 місяців тому
i must say, i just subbed a couple months ago, but this is a GEM of an episode bro! good work!
@Parabol1Parabola
@Parabol1Parabola Рік тому
This is literally the best channel on UKposts
@friskeysunset
@friskeysunset Рік тому
OutSTANDING work here. You took the whole thing apart and put it back together for me to understand that Einstein's limit is really about causality and the nitty-gritty of why all of my little fever-dreams for FTL communications are impossible using entanglement. In half an hour. Bravo. My heart is broken, of course, but you let me down as easily as anyone could have, and your closing remarks about facing reality as it is was right on target. Thanks.
@cyberfunk3793
@cyberfunk3793 Рік тому
What we observe in quantum entanglement isn't possible according to relativity. The fact that we can't use it to communicate doesn't change that, if the particles can use it to communicte faster than light (as our observations currently seem to show) is enough to violate relativity. There seems to be no phycisist that currently can explain what we observe in QM. They don't know and can't say.
@Skrzynia
@Skrzynia Рік тому
@@cyberfunk3793 Wrong. Nothing is violated here. The information can not travel faster than light and as the video explains, you can't send any information using QE even tho its faster than light. Its "nothing" that travels faster than c
@cyberfunk3793
@cyberfunk3793 Рік тому
@@Skrzynia Special relativity is obviously violated by entanglement unless you think you know better than Einstein who wrote the theory. Einstein obviously agreed QM violated the principle of locality, that is the reason why the EPR paper came to be. The principle of locality means nothing (energy or matter) can travel faster than light, so no interaction can happen faster than that between A and B. It doesn't say, that we just can't use it to send information, that is an excuse people nowadays use when they don't wish to accept reality and that local realism and specialy relativity has been refuted empirically. The only way to avoid this conclusion is superdeterminism, so unless one is actually advocating for that they can't imply entanglement doesn't violate local realism. My personal opinion is that superdeterminism is absurd and really a childish cop out for people unable to follow the evidence when it takes them to inconvenient conclusions.
@n00bJesus
@n00bJesus 5 місяців тому
As I was watching the 6 problems with warp drive vid, I was thinking what about entanglement, and if we could control a collection of entangled particles, etc. So I’m excited to watch!
@jaywulf
@jaywulf Рік тому
I thought I knew most of this, yet I watched. Just as well I did, I learned SO much more. Speed of causality, can't affect superposition decoherence, two theorem confirmation of the speed limit, no communication theory!
@sandip100682
@sandip100682 Рік тому
Such a lovely video with amazing closing comments that are applicable for not just the context of this video, but life in general. Thanks for all your videos. Really love the way you explain things with such ease and fluidity
@jcevans16
@jcevans16 Рік тому
I'm no rocket scientist, I can barely wrap my mind around what you're saying, but I am a science nut, I love all things space related. I love your presentation, for lack of a better description I find this video soothing? Its like Relaxing and learning at the same time. Sorry if I'm weird.
@BTScriviner
@BTScriviner Рік тому
You're not weird. I get the same sense when I watch Dr Kipping's videos.
@EricMalette
@EricMalette 9 місяців тому
I read this terrific sci-fi series called The Gap, by Stephen R. Donaldson. I was in my teens, so I had no notion of the idea of entanglement or quantum. In the books the aliens called the Amnion, had this crystalline device that allowed them to communicate not only faster than light but essentially instantaneously. The shock of the human characters when discovering this was truly chilling. They could place their ships where they needed to be without dispatching a gap courier drone to cross the void. Truly hideous.
@HassanCodA-Xod8hm
@HassanCodA-Xod8hm 11 днів тому
Isaac Asimov. + Philip K Dick. 💘💘
@2000bvz
@2000bvz Рік тому
Fascinating and well explained! Thanks! The one thing that I don't understand is why we even think that Alice could measure the spin of the particle without altering it in some way that is unpredictable, regardless of what Bob did. I think that simply stating that Alice could not know whether the spin she is measuring is a result of her own measurement (which forced a random spin direction and broke the coupling) vs,. Bob's measurement (which forced a spin direction and broke the coupling) would be enough to prove that we could not use this method to transmit information. If I am misunderstanding this, wouldn't that imply that we could tell if a particle had had it's probability collapsed by someone else vs. us? I.e. if when Alice measures her particle she can tell whether the spin it shows was a product of HER actions vs. Bob's actions, then we actually HAVE transmitted some information. In that case, it would be trivial to send two particles, and have one be 1 and the other 0. By choosing which one to affect, Bob could send information back. But since it sounds like just the act of Alice measuring her particle will force it to choose a non-determinate state means that no such information transfer is possible. And that fact alone would eliminate any chance of using this as an FTL communication method no matter how many tricks we try. And perhaps that is exactly what the video explained, but I just didn't fully grasp it.
@KurtKobain01
@KurtKobain01 6 місяців тому
Wrong wrong wrong! Spin correlation can be influenced and predicted or Quantum Computers wouldn't function. Quantum Computers use entangled Qubits to do computation. Qubits can be atoms, electrons, photons, trapped ions (Positively Charged Calcium atoms, superconducting, etc... If spin state correlation unpredictable and there was only a 50/50 chance of guessing that correlated state then Quantum Mechanics wouldn't be the most successful theory, quantum systems and their interactions would be random and all matter in the universe would cease to function and break down due to a lack of structure and coherence. I suggest that you build a foundation of factual scientific knowledge by going to school, rather than allowing yourself to be mislead by people like this fella on here. You're just regurgitating nonsense.
@illbeV.
@illbeV. 2 місяці тому
Could anyone else who's not a complete dick like this kurtKobain dude answer the OP's question? I'm interested, too
@RazyMon
@RazyMon Рік тому
If any interaction with an entangled particle collapses its state, then there's no way for Alice to observe changes without affecting the state of the pair. In other words, if there's no way to observe (let alone affect) a particle state without collapsing it, this system is pretty useless as a mean of communication.
@NefariousKoel
@NefariousKoel Рік тому
To me, that seems like the real kicker at the base of it. If the receiver has to monitor for changes, then it's already collapsed by the receiver. The whole transmit-receive concept won't work.
@VikingTeddy
@VikingTeddy Рік тому
I don't think I completely understood, because it seems you can keep both particles on a perpetual double-slit experiment, and only collapse one when you need to send a bit. So Bob and Alice agree that at time t, Bob will either take a measurement of the particle (meaning a one), or leave it alone (meaning zero). So if Alice who is watching the particle going through the slits, sees a collapse at time t, she knows that the message is one. What did I miss?
@Ijusthopeitsquick
@Ijusthopeitsquick Рік тому
@@VikingTeddy My thoughts exactly. Collapsed or not collapsed is just as good a binary system as left/right or up/down. All you would need is an agreed frequency. I'm sure I must be wrong, but I'm too dumb to know why.
@spacenoodles5570
@spacenoodles5570 Рік тому
@@VikingTeddy I think by doing the slit experiment you will collapse the particle, as you're measuring its state
@VikingTeddy
@VikingTeddy Рік тому
@@spacenoodles5570 The slit experiment doesn't collapse the wave, otherwise we'd never see interference. I'm sure there are other ways of checking if the wave has collapsed which don't need such a complex setup. The experiment itself isn't difficult, but isolating it from all other particles is quite the challenge. I'm hoping someone with more knowledge stops by so we'll know how the idea doesn't work. Or if we can go pick up our cheque.
@dominicmillerca
@dominicmillerca Рік тому
After listening to a lecture by Alain Aspect two weeks ago, I've decided to attack the subject with the book "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David J Griffiths and Darrell F. Schroeter, it's pure food for the brain. Your video couldn't be more on target with the topic. As usual, very interesting and clear with a great sound quality and beautiful video editing. 👍
@knucklesamidge
@knucklesamidge Рік тому
That book is pretty great it seems. Do you know the maths?
@amberstiefel9748
@amberstiefel9748 Рік тому
This was fantastic. I'm smitten with your approach to science and the quirky thing we call life :)
@Jagdishtemkar1
@Jagdishtemkar1 Рік тому
I thought that we can dictate which spin we want the particle to be in, and that is how Quantum Computing works. Now I need to revisit that again.
@larsnystrom6698
@larsnystrom6698 Рік тому
@JAGDISH TEMKAR We can control the spin of particles, for example electrons, but then we get bits, and not qubits. So not quantum computing, just computing. The trick with quantum computing is to compute with bits in superimposed states, i.e., Qubits, until we read out the result at the end.
@WRanger87
@WRanger87 Місяць тому
@@larsnystrom6698but if you can force spin-states, as a bit, why can’t quantum entanglement work to send bits of information?
@I_SuperHiro_I
@I_SuperHiro_I Місяць тому
@@WRanger87send it how though?
@xxxjamxxx638
@xxxjamxxx638 Рік тому
I always feel like I'm transcending somewhere when watching these videos, completely mind blown and just don't want them to end. Defo gonna grab one of those t-shirts one day! Keep up the amazing work!!!
@Ron4885
@Ron4885 Рік тому
Agree *xxxjamxxx* . By the way. I have 2 of the shirts.
@unreachablesecretary
@unreachablesecretary Рік тому
Time for more mind blowing: Since FTL Comms can't happen, that means not even a solar system wide civ would be able to have a decent timed communication system since even communicating to Mars would require 7 mins per message (avg) Edit: Even the moon would take a whole 1.3 secs...
@Skynet_the_AI
@Skynet_the_AI Рік тому
Get it get it, you know… Hennything IS Possible!
@firestarter923
@firestarter923 Рік тому
I already have a cool worlds hoodie and a mug, well worth it to remind myself to stay thoughtful and curious (and they actually look great) 😀
@xxxjamxxx638
@xxxjamxxx638 Рік тому
@@firestarter923 Nice! Plus if you're wearing it out and someone clocks it, you just know they're going to be cool!
@robertwcote
@robertwcote Рік тому
This is really well done, you guys. Great work. At the beginning you alluded to communications between distant outposts of an interstellar species. This is something I've been wondering about a lot lately and would love to see you discuss it at some point. The main thing I struggle with is the assumption that we would communicate with humans who set out to settle an extrasolar planet. I mean, would we actually? At some distance, the latency would make it almost pointless, right? What sort of information would we share with a colony a light-year away? 10 light-years? 100? It's natural to assume we'd have communications, but when I actually stop to think about it, I'm not so sure anymore.
@LWT80
@LWT80 Рік тому
Taxes bro. All we need to do is set up a colony and the IRS will figure out the FTL communication problem in no time.
@zachb8012
@zachb8012 Рік тому
As far as the nature of a conversation is concerned, listening, processing, responding. The delay would severely limit what could be communicated in that sense. Nevertheless I would imagine the basis of communication between distant colonies would consist of a constant two-way stream of art, media, and scientific knowledge. The expectation wouldn't be the recipient colony would respond and convey something meaningful, rather that all parties would continue sharing their culture and information.
@brunospasta
@brunospasta Рік тому
If we would do this one day and the rules of physics we know today still apply, I would guess there would be multiple different species of humans at some point as we'd evolve differently depending where we are. Communication with other human "species" would be more of a fun thing to do, but wouldnt hold too much purpose at this point.
@jackwilson5542
@jackwilson5542 Рік тому
There is no speed limit on communication. It is a myth perpetrated on purpose of keeping this world "in the dark" aka. not known by alien civilizations. (Type 2 civilizations and higher don't communicate on RF spectrum) If there is widespread belief in there being a limit, nobody/few will research possibilities past it. I personally worked on Special Access Projects, so I know this for a fact.
@protorhinocerator142
@protorhinocerator142 Рік тому
The conversations would be highly relevant if we also had FTL drive to get us to those planets in a non-ridiculous amount of time. Using rockets or generation ships? Forget it. Star Wars or Star Trek? Now you're talking.
@ChrisCDXX
@ChrisCDXX Рік тому
Fantastic video sir! I would sugest you set your focus ahead of time instead of using autofocus for the video if you are going to incorperate depth of field. The minor adjustments in focus result in the bokeh changing diameter which is usually an unwanted effect.
@geogabegalan
@geogabegalan Рік тому
This is a very informative video. Quantum entanglement cannot be used for FTL communication, due to its inherent randomness. But there's another thing worthy of note here. The consensus is that information and causality don't travel faster than light. With quantum entanglement, the collapse of the wave function after measuring one particle, is transmitted to its entangled partner much faster than light. But this is not called "information", but "action at a distance". But information and action have blurred boundaries between them. Every exchange of information involves a physical action. For instance, if I get information through sound waves, the waves have to do the action of vibrating my ear-drums. And if I use my arm to lift a book, I am also sending it the information to alter its spatial co-ordinates. And it is not said that it travels "faster than light" (well, you said it in the vid, and kudos to you for that, but some others don't), but that its "non-local". It seems to me that these distinct terms for quantum mechanical phenomena only obscure the simple fact that: We have discovered three speed limits in nature. 1. The speed of sound in any given material, which is the natural speed limit of mechanical waves in that material. Nature has many random sources of sound, like thunder. But we can use sound in a non-random way to communicate. We also surpassed the speed of sound with supersonic technology and EM waves. 2. The speed of light in the vacuum. This is the natural speed limit for matter/energy travelling relative to the reference-frame of another system of matter/energy, as well as information and causality travelling between systems of matter/energy that are not quantum entangled. Nature has many random sources of EM waves, like lighting. But we also learned to harness EM waves for communication. We also learned to detect random sources of gravitational waves, though we can't harness gravitational waves yet. The only source of faster then light transfer of information/action that we know of so far is number 3 below. 3. The speed of transmission of information/action at a distance, from one quantum-entangled particle to its partner, to maintain the entanglement at a distance; as well as the collapse of the wave function from a measured particle to its entangled partner. Here, the entangled particles are natural, random sources of...whatever it is that is being transmitted between them to maintain the entanglement. A classical analogy to quantum entanglement might be acoustic resonance. An even closer analogy might be the *synchronised*phase*opposition*of*two*pendulum*clocks* (you can google it, its interesting). Here, the means by which the synchronisation is maintained are: the "non-local hidden variable" of acoustic waves transmitted from each clock to its partner through the substrate (say, a wooden beam) to which they are both attached. If we can identify the "whatever-it-is" that is being sent by entangled particles to each other, to do action at a distance between them, then we can dispense with quantum entanglement, and build a device that uses this "whatever-it-is" to communicate faster than light. Have you made, or are you planning to make a vid about interpretations of QM that involve non-local hidden variables ("whatever-it-is"), like Bohm's pilot wave, and their possible use (or not) for FTL communication? It would be interesting to hear your take on this.
@StevenScienceNTech
@StevenScienceNTech 2 місяці тому
Hi, I built a simulation setup that demonstrates FTL communication. Maybe can check that out? ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oImLhYquZHigrnk.htmlsi=lcKdBBlY2g8Lsfwf
@VeganSpaceScientist
@VeganSpaceScientist Рік тому
Cool to see 'ansible' mentioned, as it's the first thing that came to mind when I saw this video title! I came across the concept of an ansible (device for FTL communication) in the Ender's Game series, but it was an homage to Le Guin's work.
@MagnusErikssonIsMe
@MagnusErikssonIsMe Рік тому
Really awesome video! Really easy to follow and understand, even though the concepts are advanced. I do realize that most things might be and "over simplifications" when talking about quantum physics etc, but it did give a bunch of "aha"-moments. It's very appreciated!
@mon573r6
@mon573r6 11 місяців тому
It's definitely a nice video. I don't necessarily agree the assertions, but fun to watch nonetheless. Also If your still murky on any of the concepts, feel free to ask. If I notice the comment I'll answer. Not sure I'd consider myself an 'expert' but I've always loved stuff relating to Quantum mechanics and/or Theoretical mechanics with practical applications. ^.^
@PhilTParker
@PhilTParker Рік тому
Is it possible to continuously observe the quantum spin state of an entangled particle? And if so, is the spin state constantly changing or is that spin state at rest? I’m assuming that constantly observing (or measuring) the spin state would show that the spin state is always constantly and randomly changing.
@asagoldsmith3328
@asagoldsmith3328 7 місяців тому
The moment you begin to observe it it will enter one spin state. It is in superposition before it is observed.
@bassem500
@bassem500 11 місяців тому
In all versions of quantum communication attempts you mentioned I have not seen one which takes a similar approach to the quantum computing approach. Quantum computing is limited in what it can compute, because it uses convoluted methods to arrive at results. I still believe that there are convoluted structures of entangled quanta, which allow for FTL communication... It just needs an engineering approach. I'll try and tackle this one when I do my doctorate. 😉
@shanehudson5438
@shanehudson5438 10 місяців тому
Good luck mate
@varany3376
@varany3376 7 місяців тому
We are rooting for you. Hope you'll get to pursue your dreams.
@Shep01
@Shep01 6 місяців тому
As a layman. If you can entangle something which we confirmed already then we definitely will work out how to use it for FTL. Communication. It might start out simple as a telegraph before working it up to computers talking. But here's a thought if you established a real time link. But time is passing differently I assume the communications couldn't speed up or slow down at their respective locations
@varany3376
@varany3376 6 місяців тому
@@Shep01 The kicker is, there is no new information being transmitted. You simply also have information about the other part of the system, because it's complementary in a way (if my coin says heads, I know you got tails). We would have to meet again and make another entanglement then travel very far from each other again to "communicate" further, but this is not FTL at any point. Once you look to see if you get heads or tails, the two systems untangle go through decoherence.
@fearlessIFI
@fearlessIFI 4 місяці тому
I am Quantum 😂 Pleaseee helppp meee. Bassem....I fucking sent myself to be birth in this day and age...get me off this planet of aliens haha...No one is probing me anytime soon
@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88
@Benson_aka_devils_advocate_88 Рік тому
This is something I've pondered ever since I learned about quantum entanglement. I've spent many nights thinking about the ways it may or may not work. I'm really glad you touched on this topic and I can't wait to see what your take is on it!
@0nc3andFutur3King
@0nc3andFutur3King Рік тому
Best explanation of this topic I've heard, thank you. Not only that, your final thought went beyond the science and was just a great lesson for life as a whole. Great job 👊🏿
@wwatse
@wwatse 3 місяці тому
I literally asked myself this question the very first time i heard of quantum entanglement Thanks for this video
@Rohitmanotra664
@Rohitmanotra664 6 місяців тому
I am fan of you by just watching only one video. Thank you for this video.
@Brendy733
@Brendy733 Рік тому
I’m shocked I haven’t found your channel sooner. It’s quickly become my favorite space channel on YT.
@skizmo1905
@skizmo1905 Рік тому
It's pure trash... why are you so happy to find it?
@Brendy733
@Brendy733 Рік тому
@@skizmo1905 ok 👍 why do you think it’s trash?
@savage22bolt32
@savage22bolt32 Рік тому
I could not put up with the annoying background noise.
@Brendy733
@Brendy733 Рік тому
@@savage22bolt32 I didn’t notice I’ll have to see for myself
@savage22bolt32
@savage22bolt32 Рік тому
@@Brendy733 i thought the subject matter would be interesting, but the music killed me.
@a-cv8396
@a-cv8396 Рік тому
Very nice video as always Cool Worlds. I really enjoyed that many scenarios were explored and references to how some of these promising concepts were embraced by popular science fiction as a plausible solution for communication across vast distances. Something to understand about the current state of quantum mechanics is that the act of measuring is never passive and becomes deterministic of the answer we will get. In most other domains of science our measuring tools manage to have a minimalistic impact on what is being observed. But in the context of quantic mechanics there is no sight, what we try to measure is so small and the way of measuring is throwing particles against the particles we are trying to observe to see how they bounce off. Perhaps everything will be reconsidered if we find a technology to measure the quantum states without as much interference. I'm already impressed that through statistics of infinitely repeated experiences the quantum mechanics science is able to establish causality when every observation is destructive and deterministic of the state being observed. I find it interesting to think that anything FTL could however break causality. If we used a theoretical wormhole to send a mere Lightspeed communication through a distortion of the spacetime elevation map, would that be breaking causality ? The speed of light appears to be in a way the speed of time. Riding a photon, one wouldn't experience time at all. Any particle without mass also seems to be traveling at this speed, and so do gravitational waves. Electromagnetic waves are slightly slower than the speed of light. It seems like a possibility that the perception of time could be an emerging property of the interaction with the Higgs field. That anything with a mass is dragged through the ever expanding time dimension and able to perceive it, perhaps akin in the same way that gravity holds galaxies together in an otherwise ever expanding spatial universe. Could dark energy be expanding all of spacetime and our perception of time be a mere side effect of gravity on spacetime?
@CandidDate
@CandidDate Рік тому
Well, yes and no. Make a guess and you're correct.
@TheRotnflesh
@TheRotnflesh Рік тому
I love the entire breakdown. Continuing with "mass dragged.." One thing to remember, always, is that we are made of the same crap we see when we look out 'there' in space. We are designed adjacent to the circumstances of our environment: Our genetic code is adaptive due to climate changes, our forms are a collection of atomic-scale fusions, cellular formations, and biochemical reactions. Systems within systems, like a galaxy itself. We are finding that the fundamental substrata of our universe of probabilistic. Maybe its a gigantic mind, and we are part of a gigantic, cosmic neural network? Being so aware of the system that we can modify and adapt it utilizing the same sentience that makes it up? ;) After all, what we are to a human brain would be somewhere in the center of the nucleus of an atom in a neuron.. That was off-topic. What I was getting at is that we only observe the universe at a rate we were DESIGNED to. Universal time dilation is totally subject to the framework of the observer. In this case, average humanity. That observation has 2 obvious possibilities: That what we see is all there is and is subject to external events involving light (which can shock the observer's system when what we see does not align with our contuinity of events from a personal framework), or what we see is defined by what we expect to see. This latter idea is vain, and points towards man's egotistical idea that we are somehow separate from the energy we are made of; essentially, god beings. At least, simplified, this is how I interpret it. FTL is possible in theory because existence just is. We are the instruments ill-equipped to be somewhere else from 1 moment to the next. Its a material limitation of our very design.
@med2904
@med2904 Рік тому
We already have a way of measuring the quantum state without interference. It's called "delayed choice quantum eraser". Check it out. This experiment proves that it's the act of observation, or at least the information about a particle becoming available to the universe that collapses the wave function. An entangled particle somehow "knows" that its partner will be measured in the future and collapses its wave function retroactively. So the interaction during observation would have to break causality for the non-measured particle to "know" that its entangled partner will be measured in the future.
@paalhoff63
@paalhoff63 5 місяців тому
Superb and very thorough video, avoiding the misunderstandings and faulty explanations of what entanglement is and how it works, unlike 99% of videos on the subject. But now tell me one thing: Since FTLC is still not possible, what mechanism is it that makes quantum computers disruptive?
@timspicer1237
@timspicer1237 Рік тому
By my understanding, unless I am somehow mistaken, particles can be entangled with more then one other particle. Which leaves me to wonder, if one particle is entangled with several others and you disentangle one particle by observation, what about all the other entanglements with the other particles? does just the one disentangle or do they all become disentangled together? and what if you observe more then one entangled particle at the same time out of the grouping?
@doggonemess1
@doggonemess1 Рік тому
I am really proud of thinking up the "tachyonic telephone" when I was younger. I only discovered that someone had dreamed it up almost 80 years before I did, but I love the theory. Using tachyons, which may travel backwards through time, you can send a message to a far away receiver. They would get the signal in the past, relative to the distance light takes to travel that distance. I can form the idea in my head, but can't explain it. If you look up the term, someone else can do a better job than me.
@afnanejaz9297
@afnanejaz9297 Рік тому
so technically tachyons don’t actually travel backwards through time, time is always moving forward with entropy and entropy can only be reversed by chance for split seconds at a time and i have no clue what im talking about why are you reading this
@WeRemainFaceless
@WeRemainFaceless Рік тому
Tachyons don't actually exist though. There's zero evidence to even remotely suggest their existence. But in reality, if communication with the past/future was actually possible...Tachyons wouldn't be needed. Simple Photons would be. You see, Photons, being massless, always travel at the speed of light. We know that anything travelling at the speed of light cannot experience time. From the perspective of the photon, there's no causality. Its emitted, travels and arrives instantaneously. Which then raises an oddly interesting point. If the Photon does not experience causality, in the classical sense of cause-effect, then all events that a photon is subject to, influences the photon throughout it's entire existence as we perceive it. So, observing a photon today, will have influenced that very same photon in the past. Scientists have proven this via the Delayed Choice quantum eraser experiments. The sad fact however, in order to observe such a change in the photon in the past, you must first know what change you have actually made to it. So the only way to decipher the information, is to first know what information you're trying to decipher. Hence, its not possible to send information faster than the speed of light.
@dananorth895
@dananorth895 Рік тому
@@WeRemainFaceless the photon follows a null geodesic path....interestingly this is how information gets around the universe. On the photonic level of reality it is instantaneous or synchronous.
@williamkoch1947
@williamkoch1947 Рік тому
9
@stewiesaidthat
@stewiesaidthat Рік тому
@@WeRemainFaceless the very fact that photons are massless means they have a zero decay rate and thus don't experience 'time' aka change. Photons can travel at a speed anywhere between zero and infinity depending on the permeability and permittivity of the space it is traveling through. Nothing can go back in time because causality is instantaneous. Once an event takes place, it can never be changed. You can however 'witness' the event again in another location in space. The speed of light is the fastest information can be transmitted but you lose information with distance so the only thing you will 'see' are specs of light. You can't really do FTL though because electromagnetic waves are energy waves and the universe is made of energy. You would have to enter hyperspace or subspace where travel is faster than normal space.
@Sundablakr
@Sundablakr Рік тому
This cleared a lot up for me, many scientists have explained that it's impossible to transfer information with QEPs but never why. I now realise that entanglement is a one time measurement deal and that you can't alter the state of the entangled particles at will.
@Custo911
@Custo911 Рік тому
Since there is a way to send an FTL signal... would it not also mean that there may be other ways (other than random spin selection) to access this medium?
@Mutantcy1992
@Mutantcy1992 8 місяців тому
Yeah I wonder why you can't use frequency modulation? The simplest case being Morse code.
@PherPhur
@PherPhur Місяць тому
Yea technically you could use traditional light speed communication augmented with a super intelligent AI. Hear me out. AI is going to be heavily regulated in the future and lets admit it, we'll eventually end up pouring into it so much data that it can very accurately predict the future. Surely never 100% accurate, but probably not far off. That means as long as there is a steady stream of light speed communication between 2 places then it can catch the patterns and send messages "FTL". No one will want to rely on this, and I imagine AI will be restricted in it's predictive capabilities when it's this powerful, but communication surely won't be one of those things and it will have it's uses. Since the actual information is capped at light speed and things CAN change, you'll get real updates at least periodically. For very very long distances you'd want these AI base stations set up along the way so that they can intercept the signal, calculate, and give more accurate information. Think of it as an intelligent entanglement. And the closer to the time of "live" communication, the more accurate it's predictions. This means the instant a spacecraft leaves it's base planet it needs to be constantly communicating so that data is fresh, and keep that data output going without fail. edit: This probably scares most people, but it doesn't bother me. It's probably going to exist either way, might as well make some use out of it. But PURELY for communication, nothing else. It's a really crappy design that the universe won't let us actually have FTL communication, so we'll go around it and make something just as cool in it's own way. For shorter distances where it takes only say a year or a few years, it would be interesting to get the real time update that shows us the communications the other person had with the predictive model of us and visa versa.
@Kilen_BE
@Kilen_BE Рік тому
Until the day we find a way to make our own version of elementary particules and give them some properties aside their natural abilities to interact with one an other across vaste distances instantaneously. That would be the only way to use their properties to communicate in some way. But how to do that, that’s an other serious challenge, probably impossible, but who knows maybe there is a backdoor to that problem we haven’t seen yet. That was interesting, always a pleasure to watch your videos 🙂
@dwightc3080
@dwightc3080 8 місяців тому
There has to be a universal standard that more advanced civilizations use to communicate. A sort of Rosetta Stone for long-distance communication.
@knuthamsun6106
@knuthamsun6106 6 місяців тому
@dwight- 1. no there doesn’t. 2. rosetta stone would not function as an analogy for some FTL communication any better than a salamander
@CHIIIEEEEEEEEFFFFSSS
@CHIIIEEEEEEEEFFFFSSS Рік тому
Every single time I thought of a potential solution, you said it right as the thought was entering my brain, in the same order I thought of them.
@rosaeruber225
@rosaeruber225 Рік тому
what did you expect? experts know what they're doing.
@CHIIIEEEEEEEEFFFFSSS
@CHIIIEEEEEEEEFFFFSSS Рік тому
@@rosaeruber225 he's positing it as a thought experiment. I was playing along. I didn't really expect to think of a solution while I sat watching a youtube video. It was more that I had a repeated series of "why not _______?" just as he started to explain that very solution each time.
@RyanEglitis
@RyanEglitis Рік тому
It was cool to finally find someone who would delve into all the what-if's of FTL/entanglement attempts. One thing I think that could have helped was to clarify how it doesn't really help to collapse a state as a signalling mechanism either, as there is no way to _see_ that a state has collapsed without observing the particle. And of course, observing the particle collapses the state.
@awvscbsteeeerike3
@awvscbsteeeerike3 Рік тому
These videos are awesome. Also, wish I had read this comment before taking 30 mins to figure that out on my own. Ha.
@AndrewJens
@AndrewJens Рік тому
Can't information be encoded by Bob delaying the second observation after his first? E.g. If he waits 1 second after the first observation (before making his second observation), then it's a "1" and if he waits 2 seconds then it's a "0"? Alice then doesn't have to care about spin direction, she just has to note whether it's 1 or 2 seconds between her first and second disentanglements happening. (I know nothing about all this, so sorry for wasting time if it's a nonsensical suggestion.)
@RyanEglitis
@RyanEglitis Рік тому
@@AndrewJens No, because again, you can't tell if Bob has collapsed his state. If you look at a particle _after_ he observed his copy, you see a random spin (which later you could confirm was the opposite of what he saw). If you look at a particle before he observes his, you see a random spin (which Bob can later confirm was the opposite of what he later saw). The two states look the same to you: you saw a particle with a random spin. You can't tell if he's observed his or not - it's not like the particle turns red or something when Bob observes it so you know it's go time. You're not looking at it when Bob observes his copy - how would you know anything happened?
@AndrewJens
@AndrewJens Рік тому
@@RyanEglitis Ah, so I'm not understanding it at all (but thanks for taking the time to reply). So how does Alice detect the collapsing of the spin state of her particle (assuming she's a keen observer and is watching continuously)?
@RyanEglitis
@RyanEglitis Рік тому
@@AndrewJens It's my understanding that you would detect it by interacting it with some other particle (i.e. electron, photon) and then multiply up the result to something human scale. "Observing" something is just a way of saying "interact it with a bunch of stuff so that we know the state of it (at the time of the observation)". It's part of why it's hard to keep entangled particles - you need to keep them away from _anything else_ that could interact with them. Even if we don't _see_ the result, the entangled state would get lost.
@dsoprano13
@dsoprano13 Рік тому
Great video. I also thought of the approach to just detect if the particle was observed or not since we don't really need to force a specific spin. But apparently that idea is shot down. At this point the only answer seems to be able to force the spin in a desired direction. Not sure if that will ever be possible.
@nw4042
@nw4042 Рік тому
That's what I was thinking. Not sure why that gets shot down either. Folks smarter than you or I haven't figured out yet though.
@DavidByrden1
@DavidByrden1 6 місяців тому
The quantum theory explains all this. You can't force a spin and you can't see if a particle has been observed or not. Unfortunately this video was made by somebody who does not grasp the quantum theory. Here's a life tip : UKposts is not a college. Idiots are free to post nonsense here.
@stickyfacade3388
@stickyfacade3388 5 місяців тому
Yeah I was wondering how you would even know if the person communicating had observed the particle without having to observe your own particle 🤔
@Erikaaaaaaaaaaaaa
@Erikaaaaaaaaaaaaa Місяць тому
@@DavidByrden1I don't think you understand the video, Dave
@DavidByrden1
@DavidByrden1 Місяць тому
@@Erikaaaaaaaaaaaaa Well, I am absolutely sure that the video maker doesn't understand QM. I listed his mistakes in another comment. Given that the video is full of mistakes, there would be no point in my "understanding" it. But, feel free to tell me where you think I went wrong? I'm sure I can teach you something.
@jc_alpha
@jc_alpha Рік тому
Wait, in this thought experiment, how would Alice know WHEN to LOOK at her particle? I thought the mere act of “looking” at a particle would make it collapse into a given state, no? Assuming Bob can somehow control the state of his particle before he measures it, Alice wouldn’t have a way to know when Bob has measured it because she would have to be “looking” at her particle waiting for Bob’s signal… but the moment she “looks” at her particle, it would collapse into a state because she looked at it, no? What am I missing? Are we assuming that the particle would be inside some machine that can detect when it has collapsed into a state without actually measuring it?
@robertowens7547
@robertowens7547 Рік тому
You can solve that problem by just having a set time to check the particle, knowing like 3 seconds prior bob interacted then Alice just has to check at the specified time to see the message, if there is any. I think at least.
@spody1005
@spody1005 11 місяців тому
Great question and great answer
@spody1005
@spody1005 11 місяців тому
Thank you, your question has helped me in my figuring as to how and why ftl commo is indeed possible
@jc_alpha
@jc_alpha 11 місяців тому
@@spody1005 but based on this thought experiment, ftl communication is actually not possible, right?
@spody1005
@spody1005 11 місяців тому
@@jc_alpha it's not possible at the moment because noone has applied the methods that seem to imply that it is possible. You touched on an important issue when you asked about the particle collapse. We don't need to control the particles state. I see it like this, instead of trying to send a message by determining the spin of a particle, imagine if we only looked for the collapse itself. Whenever a pair was observed, the collapse into a given state could correlate with a true/false signal. Like binary code or like a Morse signal controlled and timed very precisely , we could develop a system that deciphers a message based the observation of whether an entangled pair has collapsed or not into a given state. O's and 1's, true or false. All the physicists seen to be focusing the randomness of the spin outcome. I don't think the orientation of the particle is what's important here.
@robnathan7690
@robnathan7690 Рік тому
Thank you for all this content. I agree with others, you are truly inquisitive, accessible, willing to admit when we Don't Know, or even more importantly, willing to question what we think we know! 🙏🏼
@antanaskiselis7919
@antanaskiselis7919 Рік тому
When you've started laying out examples I was hoping for mass effect. Thanks, nailed it. Also, thanks for the video, not long into it yet, but I was looking forward for something like this for years I think at this point.
@JacobPratt-md8hb
@JacobPratt-md8hb 7 місяців тому
You did this video really well. Thank you.
@dbugged
@dbugged Рік тому
After watching this, I have some questions. If observing the state of one of the particles collapses the wave function, and the entanglement breaks, how do you know which person took their observation first? All you can conclude is that one person got the opposite result of the other. And the result is random. So how can you prove that that when the wave function collapses, the 2 particles' states get locked in at the same time - regardless of the distance between them? Doesn't this still fall under the problem of clock synchronization with Relativity? Please point me in the direction for an explanation. I am new to trying to learn about entanglement.
@BayouBushcraft
@BayouBushcraft Рік тому
Thank you for your hard work with all these videos. Best science content on UKposts
@sy14
@sy14 Рік тому
Such a thought-provoking video. Thank you. Keep up the great work.
@DecemberNames
@DecemberNames Рік тому
Thank you for another great video brother
@clearmindtreatment
@clearmindtreatment Рік тому
Coming back to understand this concept again.
@jarradgray56
@jarradgray56 Рік тому
Wish I had you as a lecturer at University, your ability to communicate and break down extreme complexity into simplified terminology, then bring us(the viewer) back up to the level of understanding through step by step learning to give us understanding of such complexity is brilliant..(I hope that even made sense) No offence to the seriously intelligent people out there with in their specialised fields, but not every PHD, Dr, or Prof can communicate with the masses.. At university I was told by a Doctor of Chemistry that "a Dr knows a heck of alot about very little". 😊 it took me a moment to realise how true that statement was.
@alals6794
@alals6794 Рік тому
haha......"a Dr knows a heck of alot about very little". Great quote
@stevencoardvenice
@stevencoardvenice Рік тому
You have to truly understand something in order to explain it. There's a mark Twain quote. "An expert is just some guy from out of town"
@rolobotoman
@rolobotoman Рік тому
"Wish I had you as a lecturer at University," me too, but unfortunately, you can't put lecturer at 1.75x playback speed.
@timrundle-wood4420
@timrundle-wood4420 Рік тому
Another incredibly thought provoking video, thank you so much David for the time you put into them. I believe in miracles and I believe our seemly mundane every day existence is the miracle
@pablocopello3592
@pablocopello3592 10 місяців тому
This is the best "not expert" exposition of this topic I found in this network. So I will add a little more. 1.- There is nothing FTL here; what we have are cause-effects that do not follow the space-time structure (like all cause-effects in classical physics). That is: do not try to maintain the idea that space-time is the structure of all cause-effects. There are not either "instantaneous" effects, because simultaneity is not universal and is a space-time related concept, while quantum correlations are more fundamental than space-time (ST is just an "emergent" phenomena (emerging from quantum correlations) under certain conditions (that includes our most immediately experienced domain of reality)). 2.- Uni-dimensional and uni-directional time is a way to avoid causal-loops. Avoid causal-loops is a way to avoid contradictions in our models (theories) (paradoxes for the modeled reality). But, we do not need to avoid causal-loops, (as we do not need to avoid loops of proofs in a mathematical theory), to avoid contradictions. Causal loops seem anti-intuitive because it seems to "collide" with "free-will", but QM and its follow-on (when we could model how space-time emerges) are just models, whose target is not to find the "final truth", there is NO final theory and at each level we have to use the concepts that better adapt to the domain of reality we are modeling, and know that the models should not be extrapolated outside their domain of application (like to say if we have or not free-will).
@jade59230
@jade59230 10 місяців тому
Ok, is FTL communication feasible or not?
@pablocopello3592
@pablocopello3592 10 місяців тому
@@jade59230 the point here is that fot something to have a speed, it has to move thru space-time: have a path (or paths) thru space-time, but the effects consequence of quantum correlations (entanglements) do not travel/move/propagate thru st: there is no possible barrier or even modification of metric or topology of space time that could diminish or alter in any way that effect, because that effect is outside space-time, and so it has no speed, and so it cannot be said that it is ftl. Ask if that effect can be ftl, would be as to ask if Mondays are heavier than the Earth.
@PsychoShayar
@PsychoShayar 5 місяців тому
One question here : Is there a way to know whether a particle is entangled anymore or not? If yes, then we can communicate by breaking and not breaking the entanglement by bob and then by being observed by alan at a predetermined time for predetermined particles. I hope someone understand what I'm proposing and answers my previous question.
@JayCyano
@JayCyano 4 місяці тому
In the solutions proposed in this video the awnser is no.
@PsychoShayar
@PsychoShayar 4 місяці тому
I'm saying.. Not to observe the state of entanglement, just whether it is entangled or not.
@stephanieparker1250
@stephanieparker1250 Рік тому
I loved this! You brilliantly cover a very heavy physics topic in such a way that makes it relatable and clear! I like that it’s a new idea for the channel yet also cleverly ties into previous videos. An idea for an upcoming video, maybe you can touch on how particles become entangled to begin with. It’s rarely covered in videos on other channels. Maybe bring it up when discussing the current record holders for distance between entangled pairs. 👍
@aaronperelmuter8433
@aaronperelmuter8433 Рік тому
It’s incredibly simple to produce entanglement between 2 particles, etc. One simply has to interact with it, that’s all. Literally ANY and all forms of interaction will produce entanglement. If a photon lands on your retina, that’s producing entanglement. Or if you feel warmth (kind of hard not to, if you’re alive. Lol) you’re absorbing/interacting with billions of photons per second, entangling said photons with whatever particle of your body absorbs them. That’s all there is to it.
@stephanieparker1250
@stephanieparker1250 Рік тому
@@aaronperelmuter8433 I read somewhere that the probability of an entangled pair resulting in true opposite measurement goes down the further they are apart. Is this something you have heard about? Thank you for the reply btw 🙌
@aaronperelmuter8433
@aaronperelmuter8433 Рік тому
@@stephanieparker1250 No probs, you’re very welcome. Ttbomk, there is no known correlation between distances of any size, small or large and the reliability of entanglement. Also, it’s purely an arbitrary choice as to whether one wants the spins opposing or matching. Come to think of it, quantum theory doesn’t really have any use of distance in an abstract form. Sure, interactions only take place when within a certain distance, e.g. strong force within about the diameter of a nucleus, etc, but when something is entangled with something else they can no longer be thought of as seperate objects. The very definition of entanglement is that all entangled objects are the object, the wave function is now describing all entangled objects, not a seperate wave function for each object. This is precisely why entanglement is so fast (instantaneous? I think not but how fast, I’ve no idea) as when an operation is performed on one of the objects, it (immediately) propagates the fact that an operation was performed to the rest of itself. It isn’t like if you touch your elbow and feel it immediately but touch your hand and it takes a few seconds to feel as it’s further away. In a manner of speaking, a person is one entangled system so when an update happens, no matter where it happens on your body, you feel it instantly. Entanglement can be thought of in a similar fashion. One can entangle any number of objects, but they will not be maximally entangled if there are more than 2 objects in the entangled system. Regarding what I wrote previously, I’ve a small correction; I don’t know that it’s possible to entangle a photon with a matter particle because I can’t think of any interaction which doesn’t result in the photon being absorbed by the matter particle (electron, neutron, etc. absorbs photon and gains energy of the photon but now said photon no longer actually exists. And since there is obviously no possible way to identify one photon from another, when the matter later emits a photon, losing energy, is it the same photon or actually a new one? I think it’s the latter. So, I don’t know any reason why dissimilar particles couldn’t be entangled, if they share the necessary quantum property, so a neutron should be able to be entangled with a proton, an electron and a neutrino, I think. I’m just gonna go out on a limb and say matter can only be entangled with matter and radiation with radiation. Also, reasonably sure their spins have to be of the same order, as in spin 1/2 or spin 1 but not mixed. Although, that’s actually the same as what I said a moment ago, matter with matter… Hope that’s of some help.
@stephanieparker1250
@stephanieparker1250 Рік тому
@@aaronperelmuter8433 it does help :) thanks!
@EddieA907
@EddieA907 Рік тому
Amazingly explained. Thank you for all your efforts I always look forward to your new content.
@harryplendl5824
@harryplendl5824 9 місяців тому
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you!
@AverageWhiteGuy101
@AverageWhiteGuy101 4 місяці тому
Wow, what a brilliant explanation.
@thagrintch
@thagrintch Рік тому
David, I can't get enough of your channel. This was one of your best topics. At this rate, you are going to hit 1 million subscribers in no time. Thanks for the great insight into nature and the cosmos.
@CoolWorldsLab
@CoolWorldsLab Рік тому
Thanks so much! This episode took a lot of work so pleased you enjoyed!
@canadianvideos6094
@canadianvideos6094 Рік тому
@@CoolWorldsLab I had also asked about this topic/possibility after your previous video. Thank you very much for providing such an excellent explanation! Love your channel, thank you for all the hard work!
@cemberendsen4297
@cemberendsen4297 Рік тому
This was a very inspiring video! keep up the good work!
@ArtyAndy77
@ArtyAndy77 Рік тому
The spin is talked of in terms of spacial dimensions, but what if there was a higher, dimensional one, such as a temporal spin? a spin of the entangled particles being stripped of the temporal component, so that C is not violated?
@nemoz82
@nemoz82 4 дні тому
@CoolWorldsLab I have a really one last question... What if we entangle 2 antimatter particle and we annihilate only 1? what happen to the second one?
@9fmradisapratama
@9fmradisapratama Рік тому
This is the answer I hoped from you. As a person who failed at physics I can't do anything but silently watch physicists and the other people discuss the formula and interpret it. My question is always "How can you define a useful communication while neither of you know it or not needing to know it the first place since it breaks the moment either of you measure it and the opposite of you not knowing it breaks yet which is simply "sending information without knowing that information from the first place". How can you have a good communication while neither of your observations needed?" And this might be rooted from my ignorance since I don't know physics and your explanation corrects all of my misconceptions of that although I have the shared answer that is a solid no, or at least not enough. The difference is that my argument is filled with misconceptions and ignorance while you have valid reasons.
@guillemsegurapascual8968
@guillemsegurapascual8968 Рік тому
y yoo😮😮ooy
@jasoncravens1124
@jasoncravens1124 Рік тому
Nah, you're correct, or very close anyhow.. Schrödinger's cat, sort of ...IS an observation required? Entanglement is, specifically, Feynman diagrams. Two-slit, as I'm sure it referenced. Amazing stuff. 👍
@jacobmalof
@jacobmalof Рік тому
Makes me think of the measurement problem. Everything that’s going on in double split before the electron hits the screen, where the measurement of the position actually takes place, the wave seems to collapse. It chooses a position to narrow itself down to. The act of measuring the wave changes the wave. In the interference pattern of the double split, we know the collapse is not random. The electron is very likely to be where the wave is strong and unlikely to be where it is weak. There seems to be a correlated anomaly that we haven’t fully grasped yet. I hold out hope for additional breakthroughs in the future.
@xxmeanyheadxx
@xxmeanyheadxx Рік тому
energy is everywhere all at once. light is energy. to attempt to grasp an infinitely small moment of light is futile (see; achilles and the tortoise). however, we perceive an infinitely small moment of time at any given time. this is only human perception. the light is always there. the patterns are always there.
@absynthe8840
@absynthe8840 Рік тому
It's double slit not split.
@TheDaveRout
@TheDaveRout Місяць тому
Thanks for the headache! First time I’ve understood that we can’t influence the spin
@jessewillems6465
@jessewillems6465 Рік тому
Well to make the entangled particle choose a position you have to observe it right? So how would Alice even measure/observe their particle to see if it's no longer in a superposition. The moment she measures her particle it will choose a position she'll never know if the chosen position is because Bob's particle or because she observed it. So regardless of what direction it's spinning in they'll never know who "changed" their particles or am I missing something here?
@afellowman6760
@afellowman6760 Рік тому
In regards to the 3rd type of QEC, is it possible or is there a proposed method to measure both the x and y axes simultaneously?
@John_Fx
@John_Fx Рік тому
Simultaneous isn’t a real thing.
@bobifg320
@bobifg320 Рік тому
Alice measures on diagonal
@ReynaSingh
@ReynaSingh Рік тому
So much progress to be made, so much still left to know and wonder about. Keep up the great videos
@_Matchu
@_Matchu Рік тому
I like the thought you had towards the end which is that: in the coming centuries we may not get anywhere close to FTL travel or communication, but we will need to ACCEPT that FTL may be impossible and find ways to overcome that... for instance, for the colonization of mars it places a great importance on self-sustainability and understanding supply+demand and preventing overpopulation
@cellokid5104
@cellokid5104 7 місяців тому
Fuck mars, embrace the moon
@hengis73
@hengis73 6 місяців тому
So if we measure a bit can we force it into up or down?that's my understanding. If so if I want to force it down what happens when the other detector tries to force it down but it has already resolved to up? To me the approach would be finding out when a bit was resolved. For instance if you have a huge array of bits 256 x a million. If I continue to readthe first 128 bits and force them down and that works then I am first to read them, but if they are up(pre agreed configuration) then I know there is a message in the second 128 bits. I understand that relativistic travel would mess with time frames but you could build a method for syncing the "now" element with the above method.
@AnDiWaffen
@AnDiWaffen Рік тому
Thanks for this great video, going through the most common misconceptions about quantum entanglement, which to the best of my knowledge should be described as a peculiar type of correlation (just as with the shoes). So most importantly: opening the shoe boxes does not constitute an action where my opening the container affects the other box. I think, your final summary would have been an excellent opportunity to glance at the measurement problem for a future video. The Schrödinger equation, as well as the Dirac equation or any other QFT, does not contain the wave function collapse. It is an ad hoc postulate that might need resolving to better understand quantum physics and anything that might await beyond.
@goose5462
@goose5462 Рік тому
Excellent video. Clear and concise explanations.
@frostfire5451
@frostfire5451 Рік тому
I hear you, I do have a question, the particle observed, What is around it? (its immediate orbit around it) or is it a molecule with exactly nothing around it, no atmosphere Em, Thermal, kinetic etc.? is there any kind of way to measure the orbit around that molecule. using the 50/50 molecule to stir what is around it if a way? and then measure the change in time between the movement of disturbance to the molecules orbit if you can and separate these two molecules over distance and place both in a metaphorical bucket of water , then move one and the wave start by measuring the wave lengths?
@jjwhittle8873
@jjwhittle8873 Рік тому
It isn't around anything.
@divinedoodoo
@divinedoodoo 6 місяців тому
Can the state not be stopped and started again? Wouldn't it be possible to stop and start a spin at a fast pace and record every position change as a decimal to be converted to hexadecimal for text based ftl communication? Like Morse code
@waynemailles8285
@waynemailles8285 Рік тому
First of all I appreciate ur channel and the work you put it I’m in love with the cosmos and wish I would’ve chased a career in cosmology , Physics but anyhow… I had an idea on this topic myself but it led me straight to the same verdict now that I understand the measuring faults of quantum entanglement…. Just wish we could create some kind of “bridge keeper” or something to hold onto the “ bridge “ of entanglement of two particles so that way when we measured one or the others spin the entanglement would survive… theoretically of course … the cosmos is awesome and not knowing everything is also awesome… it is fun to think and wonder after all
@shondmichael1363
@shondmichael1363 Рік тому
11:00 Doesn't collapsing the wave function work from Alice's direction also? In other words, doesn't Alice's attempt to measure the state of the particle count as an observation (collapsing the wave function/super position on Bob's side also)? Just pointing out another issue with ftlc using entangled particles. 16:00 Why would double splits be used at all? Instead just identify if a group of select particles' spins change within a certain time period.
@3dprintingmeathead332
@3dprintingmeathead332 Рік тому
Yup, Alice can easily observe a particle that Bob has not observed. Alice is completely blind in particle observation. Alice has no clue whatsoever if or when Bob observes a particle. Alice could erase all states of superposition by accident by "checking the mail". But the only solution is to not observe. So how do you check the mail without checking the mail? As far as your spins change question, I'm no expert, but I think the problem is that you can't observe a change in spin because you would need to observe the control state, and by observing you have set the state. The old catch 22 of quantum theory, it only lasts until observation.
@danielshults5243
@danielshults5243 Рік тому
@@3dprintingmeathead332 Well put. For a moment I was wondering if Bob could simply collapse particles in series, taking a short pause between each for 0 and a long pause for 1... but I quickly realized Alice has no information about when Bob takes pauses, and Alice will begin collapsing the wave function ahead of Bob if Alice gets ahead, and neither of them would have any way of knowing.
@droppingpins6244
@droppingpins6244 Рік тому
On top of that, I wouldn't put much faith in syncing time between Alice and Bob. That's a massively long journey to take, so long thwt I question not only the ability to track time, but also the ability to accurately track distance, so any reference whatsoever for time tracking would go out the window, you know, being relative.
@pierredeloince9073
@pierredeloince9073 Рік тому
@Daniel Shults that's a bit what i wonder. Why not ? Couldn't they agree on a pace of a series of experiences befor the journey, and use it like in a normal modem for binary informations exchange. I don't understand the explanation of @3d printing meathead , that is may why I think it could be possible. *_*
@droppingpins6244
@droppingpins6244 Рік тому
They could agree on a pace of observation, but the only pace could be time. But time will move differently between Alice at home, and Bob moving very fast for a thousand or more years across the galaxy. Time will dilate for Bob. In theory Bob could calculate and adjust for earth time by keeping accurate track of his speed, but with little to no reference marks in space(imagine using light as a radar gun of sorts, and you're 2 light years from the nearest road marker, your speed can change a lot in 2 years), the would have to be some error. And over the course of possibly 1000 years or more, that minute error will add up over time and most likely completely destroy any time sync between Alice and Bob. But even if they have a set system of accurate time, the method is still flawed. If Bob observes the particle, he will see a random direction. Alice will have absolutely no way of knowing if Bob observed the particle to set the direction, or if Alice set the direction while observing to see if Bob observed it. That's the real key. There isn't a horn that goes off when you're the first to observe the particle, and there's no way to set how the particle will orient, no way for Bob to communicate what orientation the particle is in to Alice. For all intents and purposes, there's just no way to send information through this link if the only thing you can input is random.
@gonnahurtify
@gonnahurtify Рік тому
So what about dumbing it down to epic proportions particle 1 indicates arrival when it has been disentangled from there you have a series of binary questions that disentanglement indicates yes. You can do this at set intervals or by knowing which particles answer which question... Arrived - disentangled = yes breathable atmosphere - disentangled = yes etc It would suck and not be the most useful tool but would it work?
@c.b.8193
@c.b.8193 Рік тому
How about this model from a senders perspective: First pair is used for bits. Second pair as "Switch" or Send button. Measure the first one as long as u get the desired outcome (0 or 1). Then measure the second one until it changes spin compared to its prior state. The receiving end will know to only read that one bit in the information string, that was measured prior to the "switch". The "switch" does not care about direction of the spin, just the change itself. Or no? Thank you bye
@shingnosis
@shingnosis Рік тому
Thank you, this is something which has been bugging me a lot in sci-fi. Entangled particles are like having two pieces of candy that look the same, one is sweet and one is sour. Then you give one to a friend and he travels to the other side of the planet. If you eat your candy you'll know what flavor you got, and what flavor your friend received. But it really does you no good other than that. If you want to talk to your friend and ask him if he liked his candy you still have to use your phone. And obviously you can't change the flavor of the other candy by doing anything to your own candy.
@iurlc
@iurlc Рік тому
You are right - the problem is that the mystic far distance influence was "proven" with Bells inequality. But this inequality is based on set theory. But every measurement is an energy transfer. And for this vector equations must be used with basic electrical formulas. And then you will get the right answer, even if you assume the two are paired in the beginning of the experiment - not only at measurement time.
@mohamedaminehenchir297
@mohamedaminehenchir297 Рік тому
What if you had prior information that your friend doesn’t like sour candy and both agreed to eat the candy no matter what, wouldn’t that be reliable information?
@davideggleton5566
@davideggleton5566 Рік тому
@@mohamedaminehenchir297 -- Still doesn't communicate anything new between each end of the entanglement, unfortunately
@Joopfyi
@Joopfyi Рік тому
What if one candy is deadly and the other candy not. The result of quantum entanglement will still be a 0 or 1 when measured. I think there is very viable information in that case. So then you could say: After eating the candy you must do the same candy experiment with your neighbour. That means if we measure if person A is still alive the neighbour of person B does not know anything about a candy. So giving extra tags to a case before measuring will create a lot of good information.
@ryanduckering
@ryanduckering Рік тому
K, but what if you had a bag of quadrillions of pieces of sweet and sour candy and you ate them on your end in a very specific order to communicate a binary code?
@darthevol5734
@darthevol5734 Рік тому
Thank you for your videos. You have a way to engage and make my brain hurt in the first 9/10ths of your videos, then engage and make my heart hurt (in a good way) the last 10%.
@scott-qk8sm
@scott-qk8sm Рік тому
I wonder if pre establishing the timing used between particle interaction/transmission could be used variably to represent the alphabet and thus messages could then be sent ?
@kirjorjos
@kirjorjos Рік тому
I'm aware there is most likely some problem with it, but what would go wrong trying to measure the time before the particles choosing a state?
@maxhoweth
@maxhoweth 5 місяців тому
Quantum mechanics states that you can’t know if I particle had been observed or not. Therefore you can’t measure the delay of disentanglement because you wouldn’t know
@maalekar
@maalekar Рік тому
A question. I read on a recent article that they had tested entanglement 24km apart and it held. That said your article states the function of making the connection is local. So are they physically transporting already entangled particles apart to achieve that? I realize then that due to lack of locality we can't get a stream of them to create FTL communications, but, it does seem that it's impossible under current understanding. Let's play a game... what if we can localize a wormhole link of sorts between them? Of course, then the comms wouldn't need to be quantum based either ;)
@kingston5710
@kingston5710 Рік тому
If you can get a worm hole we can just use a normal piece of paper write down what we want and pass it through 😂
@frankiethebull8269
@frankiethebull8269 Рік тому
"Open subspace frequencies" Something a lot of us heard in Sci Fi shows and movies.... they've had an idea about this kind of stuff in the 60s but lacked the technology to actually test for it or attempt creating it. It's not a question of "is it possible" the question is "how do we do it". Quantum particles (particles that can exist in two places at the same time) they seem to also have another characteristics, one being that it can "slip" into and out of some sort of void, a "subspace" that scientist can't fully understand or explain yet.
@epimetheus8243
@epimetheus8243 Рік тому
We don't understand anything. We just measure stuff, get results and pray that our macrocosmos-based methodologies & tools are reliable in the world of quantum mechanics. At this point in time, all the "explanations" are just wild speculations, interpretations, philosophy, expressed by the limited human mind/ human imagination/ human language. When you say "particles can exist in two places at the same time" I assume you are refering to the "superposition-principle" which describes a mixed state of being. Being a particle and a wave at the same
@abarriosr
@abarriosr 8 місяців тому
How about this idea: What if we consider 1 = the time between the measurement of two particles is higher than 0.5 sec and 0 = if the measurement happens lower than 0.5 sec apart (or anything that can be agreed upon, like faster or slower than the vibration of a crystal). In this case you don't really care at all about the actual state of the particles but the speed at which they are being revealed. You would have to detect on the other side the particles that are collapsing at a particular rate (more or less than 0.5 sec) to figure out whether what''s being transferred is a "0" or "1". Would that be workable for a FTL communication device?
@KamilDeKerel
@KamilDeKerel 7 місяців тому
Bruh i just typed out a whole comment and its the exact same idea, at the end though i said something that might make our theory unfeasible, ill just post my comment under here: could time not be used to indicate a message, like not looking at the position of the spin but the time between changes in spin, its a super rudementary idea cause its not thought out, but imagine the first spin being a sign of start and the second change in spin meaning stop, lets say a 0.1 sec time in-between is 1 and 0.2 is a 0 (maybe 0.00 for 0 but idk about that), --> I was thinking while writing this if that's even possible, cause if you want to measure time you have to observe the particle, possibly forcing it into a state (this inherently would pose a problem to all forms of measurement as you wont know when you can measure without interferring with the spin state
@user-pj1ox2vo3o
@user-pj1ox2vo3o 7 місяців тому
Basically it's like the Morse code, but I think the problem here is that you can't know at which moment the particle's spin was changed
@jonnyjonjon333
@jonnyjonjon333 7 місяців тому
That is what I was thinking, except you have two particles. If you collapse only 1 it's a yes, collapse both, it's a no. That got me thinking, it says they will collapse instantly, but what if Bob is moving at near relativistic speeds and Alice is stationary (relativly) so Bob is in a different time then Alice, what does it mean to collapse instantly. Bob could be in the future relative to Alice. When he collapses his, does hers collapse instantly even though she is in the past?
@abarriosr
@abarriosr 7 місяців тому
@@jonnyjonjon333 They are both in the future but for the one traveling at a higher speed time is passing slower than to the one stationary. The collapse is instantaneous to both sides, whichever time they are. But yeah, your idea could also work I think if particles could be grouped in pairs. My guess is that they could make a workable FTL device with any of those ideas.
@abarriosr
@abarriosr 6 місяців тому
@@KamilDeKerel Yeah, I guess the whole idea is based on the ability of the observer to detect collapses of the wave function in an array of entangled particles, and be able to compare the time in between those collapses to something that can be in sync with what the initial sender compared them to. Let's take for example the vibration of quartz crystals (32,768 vibrations per second), but time slows down if the receptor is traveling at a much faster speed than the sender so things can get complicated in that case. The other option would be to arrange them in pairs like what @jonnyjonjon333 suggested: This way you have two arrays of entangled particles at both sender and receptor. Each particle of the first array is paired with one other particle in the second array. This way if you detect a collapse in the particle of the first array but its correspondent particle in the second array doesnt collapse before the other particle in the first array collapses then its a 0. If the two paired particles in both arrays collapse then its a 1. This eliminates the need of a time comparison.
@MarkManner
@MarkManner 7 місяців тому
Wonderful presentation!
@DomovoiJr
@DomovoiJr Рік тому
Causality dictates that no one has finished this video yet at the moment I’m posting.
@PafMedic
@PafMedic Рік тому
Im Watching At The Moment,But Was Thinking The Same Thing😂😂😂
@wzrd7023
@wzrd7023 Рік тому
what if someone watches it at 2x speed
@TennesseeJed
@TennesseeJed Рік тому
@@wzrd7023 ...and ½ speed on another device.
@danieladmassu941
@danieladmassu941 Рік тому
That just means Patreon members get to enjoy miracles. 🤔
@jasonfaerwald
@jasonfaerwald Рік тому
You can if you set the video playback speed to FTL
@victornoya9148
@victornoya9148 Рік тому
You are a true professor, my friend. To take such a complex subject and make it so easy to understand is a truly amazing. I love your videos. :D
@ManuelDiaz-ly4gt
@ManuelDiaz-ly4gt 5 місяців тому
So, the way I undestand it, you can detect when the entangelment ends right? In that case, can just you keep humdreds of particles in little boxes that represent 0 or 1, and when you notice one particle collapsing, you ignore the spin, and just use the number on the box.
@Kingdomkey123678
@Kingdomkey123678 4 місяці тому
The only way to know if the entanglement ends is to measure the particle and with out the ability to check with the other person measuring their particle you will never know when to measure yours
@matthewmille
@matthewmille 9 місяців тому
As long as the recipient has a way to read, whether or not an entangled particle has collapse its wave function, then you can treat the bunch of entangled pairs, which you would need to do this as a series of bits. So, the center of the message creates the message in binary disentangling, a pair for a one and not disentangling a pair for another so as long as the recipient can tell whether or not it has collapsed the wave function, the binary message can be read. So the question is, is the recipient able to tell whether or not the wave function for any given entangled pair has collapsed?
@dendricalabro5058
@dendricalabro5058 Рік тому
hello, thx again for the usual beautiful video, I really love this channel. I was looking to the carton at min 13:57 and what you said makes totally sense. But I m wondering if there is a way to deal with a limited number of particles and introduce a time break between measurements (as the break we introduce during morse code). For example: bob make a tot of observations until he hits a spin up. Alice sees that the last particle is down. After a while bob makes another measurement until he gets spin down, alice see the spin up. If we introduce a time break during multiple measurements, we should be able to send a message. But I m sure that also in this case the devil is in the details.
@iketagg1965
@iketagg1965 Рік тому
this is almost exactly what I was thinking. But you could simplify it even more by just using precise timing of the observation. Who cares if it is an up or a down spin, its a beep, time the beeps and you have a sort of binary morse code. Of course this is all dependant on whether Alice is able to instantly detect if a particles spin has been resolved. Alternatively for very basic information you could just separate the particles into individual cells, with a matching cell at the receiving end. Each cell represents one specific meaning like "all is well". one side just needs to observe one particle in that cell and the other side will get the message. You can't send poetry but you could have a few thousand premade messages.
@emilymader5206
@emilymader5206 Рік тому
I've been thinking about this for longer than I care to admit. The problem is alice wouldn't be able to know which is the last particle because lets say Alice reads 1:down 2:up. Does she assume Bob stopped at 1 because he wanted her to read 'down'(and got his desired state first try) or that Bob stopped at 2 because he wanted her to read 'up'(got desired state second try)?
@tankfire20
@tankfire20 Рік тому
How will Alice know when Bob stopped? All she will see is random spins.
@davideggleton5566
@davideggleton5566 Рік тому
Question -- Could there theoretically be an FTL solution involving an Einstein Rosen bridge (aka wormhole)? ... Other ideas that crossed my mind included quantum tunneling or warp drive (which is a nice concept, but I don't even know if it's actually possible) ... This video cleared up a few misconceptions I previously had about entanglement -- thanks! (subscribed)
@tokajileo5928
@tokajileo5928 Рік тому
you can find videos of Leonard Susskind about this and wth details why it is not possible
@kathleenadams6421
@kathleenadams6421 Рік тому
The energy required is simply not available this side of the theoretical big bang.
@davideggleton5566
@davideggleton5566 Рік тому
Thanks for your input -- I will follow up accordingly. Regardless of what I "want" to believe, I seek truth, via every nook and cranny :p ... Note: I keep in mind that people of the past believed the Earth was flat, that men could not run a mile in under 4 minutes, people could not fly -- and thereafter, that the speed of sound could not be exceeded ... As such I always try to think and explore outside the box of conventional thought, yet I do not dismiss science out of hand. (I just think it prudent to question everything)
@jan_phd
@jan_phd Рік тому
No. Maybe people ought to care about cleaning the plastics out of the Pacific Ocean again?
@SOSULLI
@SOSULLI Рік тому
@@davideggleton5566 People of the past didn't believe the earth was flat. Just some myth made up in the 19th century against the Christian church. Quite tragic that even schoolbooks mention Columbus and them being afraid he would off the earth on his voyage, while the truth was they were scared it was a much larger globe, and they wouldn't have enough supplies. Just another fun fact for ya.
@Alandiversi
@Alandiversi Рік тому
Using ur example of realising the collapse until right state is reached - why couldn’t the transmitter just pause before sending the next bit? Ie collapse remains random and pause on time is same at each end but used to communicate which collapse is the right one to read? (Time dilation I assume could cause some problems - but at quantum this doesn’t apply right)
@jonnyjonjon333
@jonnyjonjon333 7 місяців тому
So, I know this will probably never been seen, but what if Bob and Alice have 2 entangled particles. If he wants to say yes, he collapses one of the particles and leaves the other entangled. If he wants to say no, he collapses both particles?
@alejandrinos
@alejandrinos 6 місяців тому
The only way Alice can know if any of the particles collapsed, is by taking a measurement and collapsing them herself if they werent already, so she can't know if only one of the two was collapsed.
@CoolGear12
@CoolGear12 2 місяці тому
Good question good answer!
@kosterandpartners
@kosterandpartners Місяць тому
Why cant the particles be collapsed in a rythem like morse code? You just register collapsing and the pauses between them...
@Zr0Bites
@Zr0Bites Місяць тому
​@@kosterandpartnersyou can collapse the particle with any rhythm you want, the receiver needs to collapse his own particle in order to read it, so you are only able to know the state of the particle at that specific moment.
@jlwilder8436
@jlwilder8436 Рік тому
Beautifully well done, this one. (A lot of them, but still...) And the way you ended this one in particular was really poignant and lovely. Also, thank you for all your reference points left "down below" for us. A big part of what make your videos so special is: A. Your guided, musical narration, and B. The beautiful music you & your team layer into them. But putting the music, movie and other references down below is very cool and really sets your channel apart. 🙂
@fanfam
@fanfam Рік тому
Yes indeed. Well spoken.
@frankf1095
@frankf1095 Рік тому
Prof, you're very good at explaining such a difficult (for me) theory from unobtainable for my intellect to something that I'm beginning to grasp. Thank you.
@licensedcrime1676
@licensedcrime1676 Рік тому
Just wondering, why the observation of spin is only limited to 2 axis. I mean, if you look at a flat surface, yes, you can only measure up, down, left, right. But what about the z axis? Isnt there any mirror trick for it?
@_imps
@_imps 6 місяців тому
would it matter if instead of A:B = 50:50 we had other bernouli distribution i.e. A:B = 60:40, could receiver in such case observe reversed distribution i.e. A:B = 40:60(when transmitter did a series of measurements)?
Why Going Faster-Than-Light Leads to Time Paradoxes
25:08
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 6 млн
Why is this number everywhere?
23:51
Veritasium
Переглядів 1,9 млн
Гражданская оборона 2024 - 12 полный выпуск
1:00:39
Телеканал ICTV
Переглядів 387 тис.
I’m fat 🥲💔#shortvideo #lizzyisaeva
00:29
Lizzy Isaeva
Переглядів 6 млн
The First Civilization to Emerge in the Galaxy
25:03
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 1,3 млн
What's Stopping Us From Building a Warp Drive?
24:12
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 1,6 млн
Will We Run Out Of Lithium?
32:13
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 413 тис.
Interstellar Highway System
30:53
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 1,1 млн
Betelgeuse Explained
28:39
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 2,4 млн
How Quantum Computers Break The Internet... Starting Now
24:29
Veritasium
Переглядів 8 млн
Is Messaging Aliens a Bad Idea?
26:20
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 476 тис.
WSU: Space, Time, and Einstein with Brian Greene
2:31:27
World Science Festival
Переглядів 7 млн
Traveling Back in Time
29:17
Cool Worlds
Переглядів 1,2 млн
Technicians are testing this LED module. #leddisplay #ledwall #ledmodule #ledscreen #eagerled
0:18