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

  Переглядів 7,846,662

Dr Ben Miles

Dr Ben Miles

День тому

Alain Aspect, John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger conducted ground breaking experiments using entangled quantum states, where two particles behave like a single unit even when they are separated. Their results have cleared the way for new technology based upon quantum information.
Merch!
I think Scientists are Rockstars so I made t-shirts to celebrate it
Einstein Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Curie Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Schrodinger Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
0:00 The 2022 Physics Nobel Prize
0:51 Is the Universe Real?
1:58 Einstein's Problem with Quantum Mechanics
5:09 The Hunt for Quantum Proof
7:37 The First Successful Experiment
11:06 So What?
#Einstein #nobelprize #entanglement
Interested in what I do? Sign up to my Newsletter.
100% free forever and good for the environment.
drbenmiles.substack.com/
My Links:
/ drbenmiles
A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some of these are affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.
My gear:
My camera : amzn.to/3ed5Xac
My lens: amzn.to/3xIAZyA
My lav: amzn.to/2SeE20Y and amzn.to/3nK33wA
My mic: amzn.to/3gUYYEv

КОМЕНТАРІ: 15 000
@DrBenMiles
@DrBenMiles 6 місяців тому
I think Scientists are Rockstars 🤘so I made t-shirts to celebrate it. More links in description Einstein Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/rockstar-scientist-tee-einstein
@bhardwajchandru9725
@bhardwajchandru9725 6 місяців тому
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः । अनेन वेद्यं सच्छास्त्रमिति वेदान्तडिण्डिमः ॥ ब्रह्म वास्तविक है, ब्रह्मांड मिथ्या है (इसे वास्तविक या असत्य के रूप में वर्गीकृत नहीं किया जा सकता है)। जीव ही ब्रह्म है और भिन्न नहीं। इसे सही शास्त्र के रूप में समझा जाना चाहिए। यह वेदांत द्वारा घोषित किया गया है। Brahman is real, the universe is mithya (it cannot be categorized as either real or unreal). The jiva is Brahman itself and not different. This should be understood as the correct Sastra. This is proclaimed by Vedanta. Source - ब्रह्मज्ञानावलीमाला I think u may know about Adi Shankaracharya (Vedanta)
@youarenotme01
@youarenotme01 6 місяців тому
scientists are mostly liars that ride on the coattails of the real rockstars, the mathematicians. ultimately this ends in war. fair warning.
@Christopher_Bachm
@Christopher_Bachm 6 місяців тому
How nonsense took over legitimate research is a better title. FYI - the wave state is real. The outcome is variable, like almost everything in nature. Growing up is the challenge for folks. It's time...
@dimkk605
@dimkk605 6 місяців тому
I wanna know though: Can I control my local un-realness within my brain's neurons, so that I can have ABSOLUTELY UNDOUBTFULY free will? Tell me that. Please I need to know! I don't know if I have free will or not. Maybe this term (free will) isn't much useful. If it isn't indeed useful, then tell me what the heck I have. Free-what? Free brain function? I need to know if I control my brain or determinism controls my faith. Or maybe determinism that looks like randomness controls myself. Tell me please. Does this experiment prove anything regarding free will? Also.... Libet's experiments proved nothing. He just spotted some brain activity. So what? He can't prove this brain activity supports the existence of free will. He also can't prove that this brain activity excludes the possibility that free will exists. Maybe this activity he spotted isn't relative to free will at any way. Maybe it was just parallel activity. What does science and neuroscience tell us about free will today? Please answer me! I have OCD and I believe there is no free will at all. So I live the same loops of daily life again and again and again. I am not a possibilist either. I think possibilism regarding free will, is just an excuse in order to avoid deep research in human nature. I think possibilists merely don't want to find out what really is the case there. Please read my comment and answer me!!!
@marcelcukier
@marcelcukier 6 місяців тому
Can you better explain the reasons why both curves shown in 09:35 should necessarily have the shapes shown between 0 and 90 angles, for both propositions? @DrBenMiles
@evokaiyo
@evokaiyo Рік тому
I can confirm this with my daily observations. I can place an object on my table, countertop etc. It appears stable and should not fall over. The moment I turn my back, at a random interval of its choosing, the object will fall over, or end up on the floor. Initially, I believed it to be poltergeists, but I'm now convinced it's Matthew McConaughey
@renitixz
@renitixz Рік тому
*quiet organs play in the background*
@Madcatcon199
@Madcatcon199 Рік тому
It was me and harpua, and we couldn’t care fewer, it happens all the time!
@Donavery1
@Donavery1 Рік тому
I'm thinking it must be Shrodinger's Cat !
@hcrawford
@hcrawford Рік тому
@@renitixz "quiet"?
@cesarsantellana1768
@cesarsantellana1768 Рік тому
Are you sure it wasn't Patrick Swayze?
@gumshoe2273
@gumshoe2273 Рік тому
I met a theoretical physicist the other day. I was surprised to learn they actually exist.
@nextlevelenglish5858
@nextlevelenglish5858 Рік тому
go back to your ramer before they cut your pay again
@vthomas375
@vthomas375 Рік тому
What else doesn't exist? For them it's the scientific method.
@watamatafoyu
@watamatafoyu Рік тому
I'll just have to take that on faith.
@vthomas375
@vthomas375 Рік тому
@@watamatafoyu You're way too trusting. Ask them to show practically.
@andrewday7799
@andrewday7799 Рік тому
But are they locally real?
@robbujold7711
@robbujold7711 5 місяців тому
I find these concepts a struggle, and I had to watch this twice, but I ultimately obtained a better understanding of local real-ness than I’ve previously been able to muster. Thank you for laying it out so well.
@digguscience
@digguscience 4 місяці тому
the explanation is crystal clear
@lastthingsbiblestudy
@lastthingsbiblestudy 4 місяці тому
Lies are often hard to understand because they are the product of insanity. The reasoning collapses on itself. If nothing is real then the experiment that 'proves' that nothing is real is also not real as the experiment exists inside the so called illusion. This is a paradox. The experiment is contaminated by existing within the so called illusion. The experiment and it's findings would have to be illusory as well. Otherwise they are saying that everything is false but the experiment exists outside the illusion and so is true. This would literally make the experiment itself God and the scientists would be godmen able to move the experiment outside of the illusion. Welcome to your new religion. Though it is actually an ancient and false one called 'Gnosticism' just as 'evolution' was based on Hindu concept of Samsara. If you believe in evolution you are already a Hindu. If you believe in the simulation theory argument you are already a gnostic. What is creepy is that these 'scientists' are holding out on you and not telling you that they have been deeply religious people all along but only pretended to be atheists. They had us all fooled!
@TheSubpremeState
@TheSubpremeState 2 місяці тому
There are several ways to help understand it. While watching this screen you can see people doing things but your phone or pc is just recreating images from the past so although they look real it is similar to the world you see using your brain as a decoder. Next way is to realise that everything has been proven to be made up of the same ingredients ie. atoms sub atomic particles etc. etc. All variations are illusory just like a face that appears in a cloud would disappear if you got up closer to the cloud. Our brains hallucinate our realities..... I'd suggest watching a video of the same title but our brains evolved over time favouring survival over reality. Seeing reality is not a trait that will lead you to having lots of offspring. An aggressive caveman will get laid more often than a monk who meditates 24/7 lol The more you enjoy the dream called life and the more you are willing to sacrifice to preserve this wonderful daymare to more likely you are to survive and prosper and also suffer and still die just slower and with lots of grandchildren. Our eyes and brain create colour for example. That helped us become better killers so imagine what else our brain creates that isn't real........hint.... everything. Next up .. transience. Is an event real? Where is your 3rd birthday? What is the difference between your dreams and your 3rd birthday. Not much. Both are just vague memories and you and your world will become memories and eventually be forgotten. What isn't permanent, isn't real. Nothing is permanent. Some Hindu sages say that reality is attainable. It's very hard to describe. It can only be pointed to and although it is nothing it can be experienced but it's beyond words like experience yet to someone who has been to the state that millions of people meditate in an attempt to......not exist......it is far from dead. It's pure awareness and instead of emptiness it's immensely full. It feels like everyone you ever loved is in it but not separate from you. I glimpsed it once and the shock of it knocked me back to my dream or program that I have been ingraining into myself thanks to society and others since I was 2 years old. The idea that I'm a body in this hell hole is a troublesome concept but my destiny will fulfill itself as will yours. Hope it goes well for me/you as we are the same illusory being
@kdub9812
@kdub9812 Місяць тому
think of it like rendering in a video game. stuff Is there when your not rendering it but it isn't physical; it's pure information, ones and zeros. but when observed, "rendered", it appears as tangible "real" stuff. but you know ultimately speaking it's still just a bunch of one's and zeros that when rendered a certain way, "observed", give one the appearance of "real" stuff
@itsonlyapapermoon61
@itsonlyapapermoon61 Місяць тому
​any recommended books
@stevedwa345
@stevedwa345 6 місяців тому
Put the information sources in the description. It will make the video much better.
@AncientEsper
@AncientEsper Рік тому
As someone who pays attention to quantum theories, my feeling is that the universe has infinitely more details and twists the more we look. It’s basically making details up the more we look, keeping up with what we’re capable of measuring.
@ianokay
@ianokay Рік тому
We can't even grasp the additional dimensions above our own, so that makes sense
@GeekyGizmo007
@GeekyGizmo007 Рік тому
we are building the complexity of the universe... We're are a training program for it and it for us. Perpetual amplification.
@Edw9n
@Edw9n Рік тому
@@GeekyGizmo007 ok dud sure thing
@ianokay
@ianokay Рік тому
@@GeekyGizmo007 I somewhat believe we're alone in the universe but not sure I want to (historically, again) demand we're the center of the universe with which it all revolves around. More likely: We just don't understand, and maybe cannot.
@leonardgibney2997
@leonardgibney2997 Рік тому
Yes l had the idea a particle only comes into existence when it's postulated by a physicist.
@OllyWood688
@OllyWood688 Рік тому
I couldn't imagine a bigger flex than having gotten the Nobel Prize for keepin' it real.
@MrRinre
@MrRinre Рік тому
Damn underrated joke right there. Dave chappelle would be proud
@supernana7263
@supernana7263 Рік тому
thanks for keeping this joke real
@jonathanwright5338
@jonathanwright5338 Рік тому
Getting kicked out of Feynman’s office. When keeping it real, goes wrong.
@beastemeauxde7029
@beastemeauxde7029 Рік тому
Realest shit you ever wrote.
@Krystalmyth
@Krystalmyth Рік тому
Word.
@dominicmorgan1983
@dominicmorgan1983 6 місяців тому
Awesome video. So clearly explained and much easier to follow than many other videos I've watched on quantum physics. I'll be checking out your other videos. Thanks and keep up the good work.
@KaylaGellert
@KaylaGellert 6 місяців тому
lmk where the good quantum physics videos are
@chandrasomarajapakse9487
@chandrasomarajapakse9487 2 місяці тому
World news
@strawberrymilkshakewithastraw
@strawberrymilkshakewithastraw 5 місяців тому
Thank you for the great explanation! I have learned a lot because of you. What I'm wondering is, how come the winners of the Nobel Prize in 2022 only won it then when the experiment was already conducted in 1972 and John Clauser wrote a paper about it and already proved back then that the universe isn't locally real? Does somebody know what I'm missing here?
@yankeeshoota
@yankeeshoota 3 місяці тому
i think it was something like: they proved that it was the final frontier of quantum mechanics
@takedonick101
@takedonick101 Рік тому
Man Alice and Bob have had a lifetime of stories together.... they should make a scifi tv show at this point jeez lol
@porridgeandprunes
@porridgeandprunes Рік тому
Alice and Bob? Oh no! Not that again!
@violet.senderhauf2187
@violet.senderhauf2187 Рік тому
@@porridgeandprunes Welcome to Einstein's Nightmare.
@bobbyb9712
@bobbyb9712 Рік тому
Well, I am Bob and I have never met an Alice as far as I can remember so like the man says I haven't and will never know whether we agree or not. Still have to go with Einstein.
@cvspvr
@cvspvr Рік тому
alice and bob vs the evil claire
@abedan1258
@abedan1258 Рік тому
When They can't solve the problem They say the math is incorrect
@periclestoukiloglou1196
@periclestoukiloglou1196 Рік тому
They way I had "understood" so far, was that according to quantum physics, the property of a particle is random until it is measured. However, if I am getting this right, whenever we measure again the same particles, the value of the property will change again, to a previously unknown value (so that it's value sometimes is or isn't 180-Δθ) . If that is the case, the value of the particles' property could be changing randomly all the time and we just get a snapshot of it's value at the precise moment that we measured it.
@MaxWinner
@MaxWinner Рік тому
Yes..or, rather than "changing randomly" maybe they are all possible properties at the same time, or no properties at all, ..are they just simply "undefined" ... But now we're back to a cat in a box lol
@grumpyboomervibes
@grumpyboomervibes Рік тому
It’s more like we don’t know the properties, like with the cat. Doesn’t mean everything is truly random until you look.
@mariakutschera3087
@mariakutschera3087 Рік тому
Perhaps we hav no measure for All that exists.
@TheDarkblue57
@TheDarkblue57 Рік тому
I'm pretty sure what you're describing is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and also superposition but I think the difference here is that the two particles are in a state of entanglement I believe they're still in superposition but upon measurement a wave function collapse occurs so as to not violate conservation of momentum by having the particles spin in opposite directions, which is what was apparently proven.
@420SupaK
@420SupaK Рік тому
I'm not fully educated in some of this. Giving a Nobel prize for saying something changes properties when measured differently. That doesn't sound like a award winning break through.
@dont.beknown5622
@dont.beknown5622 10 місяців тому
I believe that theoretical physicists such as Einstein would be very impressed with the work carried out so far and lend their knowledge and know-how to help to try to explain more.
@robertv4076
@robertv4076 6 місяців тому
Einstein would probably throw up if he saw the state of physics today which largely came about because Bohr was a bully and dominated everyone's views by the force of his personality.
@extropian314
@extropian314 Місяць тому
10:22 Isn't it incorrect though to conclude that the photonic property after the wave function collapse is *random*? Couldn't the wave function result from underlying physics -- analogous to macro properties of gases -- hidden from us in this spacetime?
@butterfacemcgillicutty
@butterfacemcgillicutty Рік тому
Great! So, next time I'm faced with a situation I don't want to deal with in life I can say it's not real and run away! Thanks Quantum Physics!
@Arcticdawn1093
@Arcticdawn1093 Рік тому
Universe may be unreal but so are we...so for us everything is real ...
@zanussidish8144
@zanussidish8144 Рік тому
But you can't run away. You face it and see if the situation can run away from you. 👍
@chrisbrown8640
@chrisbrown8640 Рік тому
Wish I could tell that to a traffic cop !😂
@jimberry5318
@jimberry5318 Рік тому
Not real like I'm right here come on man..... Some people are so smart they outsmarted themselves
@azizkurtoglu6243
@azizkurtoglu6243 Рік тому
And you will omit reality disastrously with all its consequences that can be much worse and bitter for you later on. If you had taken it real, you could have destroyed all bad consequences at once that now you need to face in the future.
@SJKPJR007
@SJKPJR007 Рік тому
Thank goodness this had a "So what?" chapter. Whenever I read or watch items concerning quantum theory I often end up wondering if it's significance is "locally real".
@allieharmon3926
@allieharmon3926 Рік тому
How I felt when I was reading, then skimming, an article on this for the "so what?" Bit. Bc I'm pretty sure philosophers already touched on this existential crisis 💀🤣
@GameTimeWhy
@GameTimeWhy Рік тому
@m_train1 never let what out?
@royalbloodedledgend
@royalbloodedledgend Рік тому
Well, if nothing is real then we might as well go ahead & blow ourselves up then. It’s going to happen eventually anyways.
@GameTimeWhy
@GameTimeWhy Рік тому
@m_train1 I did.
@donaldduck4888
@donaldduck4888 Рік тому
Apart from the fact that it drives the modern world (like the computer you wrote this on) quantum theory is completely irrelevant.
@myviews469
@myviews469 6 місяців тому
Hi Dr Miles where can I get into a forum about with other scientists?
@spacewalker619
@spacewalker619 4 місяці тому
In the CHSH proof, how exactly do you produce 2 entangled photons? Everything about quantum mechanics and entanglement is pretty solid, but how exactly are we producing 2 particles that are entangled with each other? I thought that was the thing stopping us from practically harnessing this concept?
@car103d
@car103d 3 місяці тому
Spontaneous parametric down conversion, with non-linear crystals, BBO, PPTKP types, with these terms you can search for experiments, if you have enough money (for a car) you can buy a kit and do it yourself!
@brock985
@brock985 Місяць тому
Quantum computers use entanglement, it’s definitely being harnessed
@fifetojo
@fifetojo Рік тому
Really well explained. I found this easier to follow than the PBS spacetime episode 👍
@BeckBeckGo
@BeckBeckGo Рік тому
I think he should be super radical and rename Alice and Bob.
@wrestleswithangels
@wrestleswithangels Рік тому
Link to the PBS Episode, please. ??
@USFISTER
@USFISTER Рік тому
This is all bs nonsense. Science is based on OBSERVATION. If nothing we experience is real, then science doesn't exist and neither do these goofballs. For all intents and purposes, everything we experience is REAL. There is no way to define a state of being "not real" based on scientific principles, because, again, science is based on OBSERVATION.
@josephwhittaker442
@josephwhittaker442 Рік тому
@@infinity2394 🙅‍♂️
@firstaidsack
@firstaidsack Рік тому
@@infinity2394 You can know what pain and suffering is without knowing goodness. Therefore you can know evil without knowing goodness. Case closed.
@CamraMaan
@CamraMaan 10 місяців тому
Regarding particle spin, with one particle splitting into two, there is a theoretical way they can both have the same spin, versus opposite, which is if they split along the axis of spin, versus perpendicular to it. Like in the video example, you have the two particle split away along the "equator", from which logic would dictate that they should not maintain identical spins. But if they instead split apart separating from the north/south pole, it would be intuitive for them to have the same spin, and counterintuitive for them to have opposing spins.
@rashiro7262
@rashiro7262 9 місяців тому
What if you use a 3 polarizers on one of the entangled pairs. And polarize it to 90° -> 45° -> 0°, Does that mean that the other pair will spontaneously polarize to the opposite at each polarization stage?
@donaldconfalone2410
@donaldconfalone2410 6 місяців тому
I always was taught that as soon as any particle in the universe that changes it polarity another particle will also change its polarity but that is just basics and this video is beyond my comprehension as I am just a electrical worker and not a physicist 👩‍🔬 ☮️🎸🎶
@PlanetXMysteries-pj9nm
@PlanetXMysteries-pj9nm 3 місяці тому
Thanks for another great video, look forward to many more!
@tartipouss
@tartipouss Рік тому
So the universe isn't real because it turn out the way we thought the universe worked is not how it actually work ? It's somewhat amazing how little of the universe and physics as a whole we actually know
@roboparks
@roboparks Рік тому
Gravity isn't real ??? If that is True take you cat and drop them off a 40 story bundling? Ill be waiting for your response?? 😁
@darrennew8211
@darrennew8211 Рік тому
"Real" is a technical term, just like "local" is. It essentially means the choice of whether you measure something does not affect the thing you're measuring. In this case, the idea is that the polarization (etc) are already determined whether you measure them or not, which turns out to not be true. "Real" is unrelated to "true" or "actual" in physics-speak.
@MattRoadhouse
@MattRoadhouse Рік тому
And yet day after day, dogmatic science is rammed down people's throats as definitive and undebatable -
@darrennew8211
@darrennew8211 Рік тому
@@MattRoadhouse Huh? There's no such thing as "dogmatic science." You might have some dogmatic scientists, but dogmatic is the opposite of science. If you're complaining that government claims that science says something it doesn't to assert control over you, that isn't science, that's government. None of which has anything to do with the technical definition of "real". (And if I could remember where I saw the physicist define it, I'd post it.)
@MattRoadhouse
@MattRoadhouse Рік тому
@@darrennew8211 you are correct, and yet look at the state of the world and tell me I am actually wrong
@TheStatisticalPizza
@TheStatisticalPizza Рік тому
I suppose this would be a great way to preserve processing power in a simulated universe. I mean, why compute anything if nothing is around to observe it? It would be better to have those resources available to be used for something else if the need should arise.
@TheEndude
@TheEndude Рік тому
I like to think of it the way graphics in video games work to conserve computer resources.
@bluerider9204
@bluerider9204 Рік тому
If I am in a simulated reality...they better upgrade me. This VR program sucks. 🤣
@obscurity3027
@obscurity3027 Рік тому
That’s why far away galaxies look so blurry in Hubble images. The universe is obviously just using the low res models because there’s no reason to fully load them in high detail being so far away.
@Maho6137
@Maho6137 Рік тому
@@obscurity3027 Wouldn't that be a great premise for a Matrix movie? That they're going to crash the Matrix by loading too much data into memory by somehow 'observing' and thus loading everything? let it overflow
@ibashcommunists6847
@ibashcommunists6847 Рік тому
God said that when Christ c9mes back, heaven and earth will be merged and that the old earth will be gone. This universe will disappear juat like that.
@jackrangaiah4236
@jackrangaiah4236 2 місяці тому
so because the particles meets the expectations of relation when inversely relating the polarizers we can tell that the particles have an inverse relationship between eachother? how does this prove that both wave functions have collapsed or are communicating with eachother? it feels like you would need another polarizer to measure the other entagled particle and show that it is still in the form expected according to the measurement of the first measured particle and not oscillating anymore. i still dont really understand
@davidlevy6418
@davidlevy6418 6 місяців тому
Here's a question I have. Quantum entanglement... let say one particle is in the room with me and the other(half of the pair) is at the edge of the observable universe. Does the fixed point in time where the particles exist have any meaning? So the particle in my room is actually just one that is apart of a random object. At the edge of the universe, does that particle need to also be apart of a similar random object? Can two particles that are entangled have completely different uses within the universe as long as their spin stays same.
@throgwarhammer7162
@throgwarhammer7162 6 місяців тому
Are you trying to say "a part" of an object, as in part of one object or did you mean to use the word "apart," which means separate from an object?
@ZenHulk
@ZenHulk Рік тому
I started reading quantum physics books when i was too young to understand them, about 1982 13 years old, now I'm 53 years old, and still feel i don't understand it much, but this video made me feel like i learned something over 40 years, because some of this was familiar. I have always been drawn to this, even though I'm mostly a trained engineer, and now an old man hanging out in a home mancave building a humanoid robot at a slow pace. Cool video, thanks.
@ravenragnar
@ravenragnar Рік тому
Try DMT/5g of Mushrooms. It will make more sense.
@user-mp3eh1vb9w
@user-mp3eh1vb9w Рік тому
@@ravenragnar Yeah no. If it was, then scientists would have done it and achieved a massive breakthrough in regards to quantum physics but reality is often disappointing.
@ravenragnar
@ravenragnar Рік тому
@@user-mp3eh1vb9w Yeah no. You are wrong. Look up where the birth of the internet came from. It was a massive breakthrough.
@user-mp3eh1vb9w
@user-mp3eh1vb9w Рік тому
@@ravenragnar 😂 My guy is comparing the internet and quantum physics lmao
@draganbacmaga8981
@draganbacmaga8981 Рік тому
Not a sex bot is it?
@connorswanson
@connorswanson Рік тому
7:00 can you explain this bit further? I am not sure why the state of the particle changes only after another portion of film is placed
@sahar890
@sahar890 Рік тому
Depends on the angular momentum which is a cause and effect of hitting the block at a certain angle
@ludicrous7044
@ludicrous7044 Рік тому
Whoa! You lost me!!
@smhumble2574
@smhumble2574 6 місяців тому
how to reconcile the speed of light squared when most say the speed of light cannot be exceeded?
@marcoventura9451
@marcoventura9451 9 місяців тому
As long as relativity and quantum mechanics are proved experimentally, probably there will be a explanation for their different conclusions,; how far are we ? Could string theory help? Very good video. Thank you.
@Samfhire
@Samfhire 6 місяців тому
Yep. A theory that explains both relativity and quantum mechanics (the standard model) would be called a theory of everything and I think it’s safe to say string theory is the best candidate so far.
@parasharsomprabh4970
@parasharsomprabh4970 Рік тому
Questions of science suddenly become questions of philosophy and psychology the deeper we move into them, science and philosophy essentially look like brothers.
@AbandonedVoid
@AbandonedVoid Рік тому
Science has made philosophy irrelevant
@cassandragemini_
@cassandragemini_ Рік тому
@@AbandonedVoid only to people devoid of any heart who would rather sound like robots instead of freakin human beings
@AlFredo-sx2yy
@AlFredo-sx2yy Рік тому
​@@AbandonedVoid You say that because like most people, you dont understand the purpose of philosophy and mistake it for some sort of attempt at pseudo science. Physics student btw, so not a philosophy fanboy by any means, but philosophy doesnt just deal with stuff like "what is reality anyways lol", same way not all of phsyics is about solving highschool pulley problems.
@doml998
@doml998 Рік тому
@@AbandonedVoid Philosophy creates science essentially. Must come up with an idea and test them. Quite simple.
@ayee4363
@ayee4363 Рік тому
Natural philosophy
@Lobsta-kw9pb
@Lobsta-kw9pb Рік тому
4:16 The entanglement paradox should take into account the transit time of seperating the particles after the entanglement event. An uncomfortable result is whether the measurement determines the result when you are using deduction and not simultaneous detection on both of the entangled particles.
@derrickcox7761
@derrickcox7761 6 місяців тому
Their differences could be irreconcilable. Divorce lawyer would the best option.
@jojolafrite90
@jojolafrite90 6 місяців тому
I was actually happy when I heard Alain Aspect won a Nobel prize. It's well deserved.
@omeshsingh8091
@omeshsingh8091 9 місяців тому
Why does the angle of the sandwiched polarizer affect how much light is coming through?
@klh1133
@klh1133 11 місяців тому
Listening to Robert Edward Grant earlier and he posits that the speed of light is just our current perceptual boundary and not the final measure for what's possible in terms of (quantum teleportation?) He's really doing some fascinating work on using mathematics to redefine what we know as reality. Thank you for explaining this so well for us arm chair physicists Dr!
@Starsky222
@Starsky222 9 місяців тому
Yes I believe so to! I think bc we are material physical beings we can only get to light speed bc anything more than that we physically cannot achieve due to the plane of existence we are on (physical/material) But there are more quantum levels of traveling as you mentioned in the higher dimensions:)
@vhawk1951kl
@vhawk1951kl 9 місяців тому
"Our" being you and which identifiable immediate interlocutor?
@richardwebb9532
@richardwebb9532 6 місяців тому
These experiments all require an observer, without an observer, nothing can exist, it would all be a wave function.
@johnchesh3486
@johnchesh3486 4 місяці тому
There IS no final nor complete nature of events known. That's his philosophical idealism mistake. There are no abosolutes nor realities. That is our brain delusion. And einstein said and physics has shown. Measurements and descriptions are NOT absolute. The length of th4 shoreline depends upon how you measure it. By 10 cm. intervals. By 100 m. lengths. By whether you drive alone it, or sail along it or walk along it. It all depends upon HOW you measure it nd that is arbitrary. Sorry, there is NO ab solute coast line figure. Because yhou cannot measure the postin of each grain of sand to each greain of sand, either. & the nature of coastlines to change over time with weather, currents, temps, and many other ways. There is NO absolute sea level, either. Because the factors which make sea level are changeable, adn when more than 3 factors, and those are real, it eomces complex system and thus not amenable to final understandings. Harbour shape, ships in port, temps as water expands and congract, winds, and currents; and the pull of the lunar and solar tides Also change the sea levels. And the land levels, too. Complex systems are also ignored by this article. and that is a major, major conceptual fail, as well.
@itsonlyapapermoon61
@itsonlyapapermoon61 Місяць тому
Walter russell, The Secret of Light There is Nothing Outside Yourself Nothing moves not even Light
@tivenspqr
@tivenspqr Рік тому
Excellent explanation. Thanks for putting complex concepts available to “normal” people. I am an engineer and I like these topics, but it is really hard to find someone who can explain with simplicity and with beauty like this video did.
@bosstradingpro1910
@bosstradingpro1910 10 місяців тому
Time is like the measuring of distance between events spawning from a sigularity and consciousness is the recording of the disorder as it flows. Entropy must continue so the record is stored in the universe by dark energy and the information is then evolved so that the samething does not infinity repeat. My perspective on the reality of the universe for everyone is different and subjective to that organism\being ,for an example. Scientist states that viruses, bacterias or cells are examples of living organisms that even live in our bodies and they carry out functions. Human beings also carry out functions; but we look at cells and viruses as a lesser life form of life. If there are advance or higher forms of life, they can also measure us human beings and state also that we are a lower form of life just as human beings may observe an ant as a lower form of life. However, because of this an ant may not be important to us, but if you try to squash an insect it will try to flee and preserve it's life thus means it's life must mean something to itself; but not to us. Even blood cells defend themselves when under a threat just as we do, but is the life of one blood cell important to us? Is the life of a human being urgent to a tree which is also a living organism. Human beings are the main cost for the destruction of trees whichin they've been here before we we're in existence. So are trees a higher life form than us? A more advance and higher life form may look at a tree and say this tree is much more important than a human being because it sustains life on this planet but human beings destroy the planet with human helping technology (depending on their perspective). All of this said humans may not be as prominent as we think If we remember the laws of physics breaks down on a quantum level. There are lengths like the plank length that are so small that it can be compared to the scale of the universe. So doesn't this mean that being that small you are in a universe of its own , within another observable universe but only observable by our knowledge by humans. If this is so then there must be other places the laws of physics break down also. If it does for the extremely small why not for the extremely big? Who is big and small anyways? We are small to our planet but our planet is small to our sun. This can go on and on. We are the size of a universe to an atom in our body ,thus means also we are big. However, this happens to everything everywhere. If there is space that has particles, those particles may be within an atom, trillions of atoms are in a cell (more than stars in our galaxy) whichin cells are IN our blood ( 37 trillion cells). Our blood in our organs and muscles which is within our bodies. Our bodies may be within a house which is within a constituency, which is within a town, which is within a city/state/island which is within a country which is in a continent which is within a planet, which is within a solar system, within a galaxy, within A super cluster, which is within Galactic walls which is within the Cosmic web . "Everything is 'WITHIN' " which The Cosmic web itself is 'within' The Universe WHICH is 'within' a bubble or phenomenon that we cannot see. "Everything is within" something. Hold just a minute here though! We cannot see someone waving at us from an airplane. We only see the construct of the landscape, not the entities within them. Or an ant from the top of a sky scrapper, neither can we see blood cells attacking viruses n vice versa. Which is evidence just because we cannot see oxygen or detect an atom WITHIN does not mean its not there. The human eye cannot see U V rays or even oxygen and we are surrounded by it. So this means the Laws of physics as we KNOW it only applies to our subjective and objective reality. If u step back and look at the universe . We will only see the Cosmic Web of everything. Which seems to be all touching and connecting. Not until we zoom In does things seem to seperate. Just like a cell that make up our skin. Or a dog standing on an island. From far we only see the landscape , but as we zoom in other entities become observable. Inturn becoming a noticeable part of your reality. Things like Dark matter plays not with Morden physics and we cannot see it but it must exist because of the forces that pulls galaxies together and dark energy pushing entropy without the universe collapsing. However back to the Cosmic web. From a far everything is connected, but if u go close or zoom more is revealed within. The universe itself may be 'within' a muti-verse , another unverse, a blackhole, a quantum computer simulation or even apart of another living organism body that seems infinity large. But as we are universal size to an atom the universe can be a drop in the ocean or space to a greater being which most earthly beings cannot fathom or even believe because it is beyond preposterous. Even if your human eyes can go in front of it is to large or small to amke out. You cant see a mountain top from the exact bottom. It is to high in the clouds. Thus u cannot see the universe from one end to the other. The universe legs may be to long (just a joke ) .Somewhat though these are very much what it seems for the great reality. As laws of physics break down at quantum levels, entanglments, singularities and so on. There are dimensions that we cannot see and cannot detect things like :(earthly terms, but they seem to have more meanings) Super positions, past , future, the unconscious, concious thought, different colors of light , pure and dark energy etc. Please excuse my long reply , but this is just a brief explanation of not an objective or subjective reality. Which is infallible, but of the asubjective existence which seems verisimilitude.
@poetryofcinema6957
@poetryofcinema6957 9 місяців тому
@@bosstradingpro1910 was a good read
@bosstradingpro1910
@bosstradingpro1910 9 місяців тому
@@poetryofcinema6957 Thank you. Well appreciated.
@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar
@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar 8 місяців тому
@@bosstradingpro1910could be Jack the Ripper.. or someone “ripping” wind around you 🌬️ 💩💨
@bosstradingpro1910
@bosstradingpro1910 8 місяців тому
@@TonyTheClitSnippingTigar lol, do you mean that person, or me?
@riverhoellwarth6410
@riverhoellwarth6410 3 місяці тому
Great video! Although I am a little confused about the ending. The whole point of the experiment was to prove the universe is not locally real and therefor these particles ARE communicating faster than the speed of light, but in the end you said we are limited because the speed of light IS as fast as anything travels?
@thefran901
@thefran901 22 дні тому
Because you can't transmit information faster than light, even with this. The particles have some internal property that makes both wave functions collapse when you read one particle. However, you can't use this to transmit information readable faster than light. When you read a particle, you change the results, and therefore the entanglement states between both particles can't be observed in a way that could be used to communicate.
@giannismentz3570
@giannismentz3570 6 днів тому
He explains that it is not locally real not because particles appear to communicate FTL. It is not locally real because there is no defined state if an observer does not seek for a defined state. He explained what real-ness means in the video.
@giannismentz3570
@giannismentz3570 6 днів тому
@@thefran901 yeah... now what would that be...? LOL
@anibalplaza8633
@anibalplaza8633 13 днів тому
9:24 Can someone explain to me why we expect it to be a linear transition?? If we assume Alice is at 90 degrees from the x-axis, “stood up” in the video, and put Bob at a 45 degrees angle from Alice, so away 45 degrees from both axises, I’m pretty sure they only disagree when the light was sent in a, 1. 90 degrees angle from Alice, so Alice won’t see it, or 2., 90 degrees angle from Bob, so Bob won’t see it. Aren’t all other angles visible to both? If so, then it won’t be a 50/50 chance of disagreeing, which make the 45 degree prediction, if linear, false immediately, no necessity of weird stuff going on. Am I wrong? I know the experiment is correct, but is it well explained in the video or I’m missing something?
@donatsu8
@donatsu8 Рік тому
I work with fluorescence anisotropy looking at proteins binding DNA so I really appreciated your polarizer demo- very cool! I wonder if you have made a video on double slit experiment and it's many variations esp. quantum eraser and delayed choice?
@schmetterling4477
@schmetterling4477 Рік тому
Why are you telling us that you an an unemployed guy who didn't pay attention in high school science class? ;-)
@mathematicalmodelz
@mathematicalmodelz Рік тому
​@@schmetterling4477Why are you telling us that you an an bitter angry douche with too much time on their hands? ;-)
@grummbunger
@grummbunger Місяць тому
double slit. photons
@andywason3414
@andywason3414 Рік тому
But what happens if you change a property of one of the particles after the fact. e.g. spin? Does the spin of the other particle change? or, does the property have to be defined at the moment of entanglement?
@kompatybilijny9348
@kompatybilijny9348 Рік тому
Changing the properties of one particle after it has been created does nothing to the other one. That's why it's not possible to communicate faster than light with quantum entangelment
@spackle9999
@spackle9999 Рік тому
The point at which you change one of the split particles, a new 3D bubble of reality occurs and will be expressed in both particles once the established properties have been changed and measured by detectors. No violation of causality or C needs to occur. They're wrong. I'm right.
@bigdaddynero3497
@bigdaddynero3497 Рік тому
@@kompatybilijny9348 Then the particles really aren't entangled, then. They're nothing more than two twins from the same source. Quantum physics is a joke.
@kompatybilijny9348
@kompatybilijny9348 Рік тому
@@bigdaddynero3497 They are. Because none of the entangled particles have properties until you measure one of them - when you do that, particles instantly communicate no matter the distance between them and both of them gain properties opposite to each other. After that, the particles cease to be entangled and as such do not interact with each other anymore.
@bigdaddynero3497
@bigdaddynero3497 Рік тому
@@kompatybilijny9348 You're seriously not understanding my point. There is no evidence to suggest communication between the two particles. All the evidence points to Einstein's theory that they are born with opposite properites, of which we are unaware of until one, or both, are measured. That's why I called them two (anti) twins from the same source. There is literally no application that can be made from this. The whole reason quantum physics was ever studied was because the initial assumption was that two particles could affect each other after their inception, but that has constantly been disproven. The superposition is a lie and made up fiction. That's why Einstein called it impossible, because it is impossible. He knew that the two particles had properites opposite to each other after measurement, but he logically concluded that those properites existed before the measurement.
@tallewinger
@tallewinger 6 місяців тому
Thank you. I love this. I appreciate how you simplified this for people like but I didn’t feel that I was missing anything either. 💯 % 👏
@stefansnell4976
@stefansnell4976 10 місяців тому
I am confused. So are you saying that a particle doing something in one universe, will actually do the opposite in another? Even though we have the limitation of the speed of light? I am confused I feel like I am hearing contradictory things.
@shuttledesigner5600
@shuttledesigner5600 10 місяців тому
It is both contradictory and not contradictory at the same time. Got that?
@HistoryoftheUniverse
@HistoryoftheUniverse Рік тому
This was so well done, so clear and easy to follow. Thanks!
@kapoorh
@kapoorh Рік тому
Easy to follow? I was lost at Photon...
@InTonalHarmony
@InTonalHarmony Рік тому
What’s a photon?
@gabejohnson4535
@gabejohnson4535 Рік тому
@@InTonalHarmony A photon is a particle of light.
@jaaaake
@jaaaake Рік тому
Dislike. They proved it wasn’t locally real - don’t support clickbait titles
@infinity2394
@infinity2394 Рік тому
evil only exists if goodness exists since you wouldn't know evil without first knowing goodness. Think of it like this. you cannot have shadows without light, but you can have light without shadows. So how is it that we know why good is good? if you're an atheist you don't know why it's wrong to kill a person you just know it's wrong though you don't know the reason. You see we know the universe had a beginning based on The Cosmic Microwave Background, which is "the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe" it is a 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, it was released soon after the 'Big Bang'. Scientists consider it as an echo or 'shockwave' of the Big Bang. this paired with the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding while also winding down. Not only did the matter in the universe have a beginning, but also the forces such as space, and gravity, and quantum forces, and time we know this from general relativity which shows that you cannot have space without time and you cannot have time without space and you cannot have matter without space or time! meaning that what could have caused the big bang would have to be outside of the realm of time and space meaning it's nonmaterial ! because nothing cannot happen to create something because there is nothing to occur to create something... So how does this go back to morality you ask? well would you believe it if I told you I just proved GOD's existence? You see GOD is outside of space and time! he is the one that was the cause of the universe he was the beginning, and since he is outside space and time. He is eternal meaning there was nothing before him he was always there and always will be. Now onto morality the reason we know it's wrong to kill someone is because GOD created us with a conscience con meaning with science meaning knowledge so when we kill someone we do it with knowledge that you just killed someone. The thing about your conscience is that it is GOD given society shaped. YOU can also shape your conscience the more you do things against it the quieter you make it it's like removing the batteries from your fire detector especially if you're loving the thing your conscience is warning you against.
@fabiansvensson9588
@fabiansvensson9588 Рік тому
What I would like to know is why they need to rotate the polarisation filters. If we just keep them perfectly at 90 degrees for both Alice and Bob, we should also be observing deviations some times right? If the photon at Bob’s is measured and does not pass, this could randomly change the state of the Photon at Alice allowing it to pass. Basically, what is the need to add an additional level of complexity to the test by making the polarisation filters spin?
@CaptainBrawnson
@CaptainBrawnson Рік тому
If the polarizers stay static, then there's the possibility that the photons AND filters are still acting deterministically as part of the same system. Basically that there might be something, some hidden factor, impacting both of them that carries that hidden variable information, carried at the speed of light. By changing the rotation of the filters at random, and using photons from distant stars as the random number generator, you are now making random changes based on information OLDER than the photon being tested, so you close that potential loophole. The trick was to make a setup that could do this faster than the travel time of the photon to the sensor, so that no information could POSSIBLY reach the sensor before the photon itself. This was achieved by not technically rotating the filter, but by using quartz that would redirect the photons to one of a series of filters at different rotations at random based on whether it was electrically charged or not, from what I understand. You use photons from distant stars as the basis for your random number generator because those photons are older than most of the universe and have existed WELL before your experiment, meaning that your experiment couldn't possibly have interacted with the creation of those photons. So you've removed the possibility that your experiment is affecting your random number generator, or your sensor to somehow provide hidden variable information within the speed of light. That's really what this Nobel Prize was for: closing the loophole that COULD explain how the universe might still be deterministic at the quantum level. We now know, experimentally, that that isn't the case for this type of experiment, because the sensor changes faster than the speed of light would take to reach it from where the photon is emitted, and changes based photons generated billions of years ago, about which no information could have yet reached us, so no hidden information could possibly reach the sensor from where the entangled photon pair is created.
@webertbaiao7045
@webertbaiao7045 Рік тому
NASA Facts: Secret NASA documents reveal the real shape of the Earth! 1 - LOCKHEED SR-71 BLACKBIRD: Technical Memorandum 104330: Predicted Performance of a Thrust Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload: Page 08: DIGITAL PERFORMANCE SIMULATION DESCRIPTION: The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions that simplify the program while maintaining its fidelity for most maneuvers and applications: point-mass modeling, nonturbulent atmosphere, zero side forces, and a “nonrotating Earth”. 2 - NASA Reference Publication 1207: Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model: 08/1988: 2.1 Page 02: SUMMARY: This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a “fiat and nonrotating Earth”. 2.2 Page 30: 3 CONCLUDING REMARKS: This report derives and defines a set oflinearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a “flat and nonrotating Earth”. 2.3 Page 102: 16. Abstract: This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a “flat and nonrotating Earth”. 3 - NASA General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft: Page 02: Rigid Body Equations of Motion Referenced to an Arbitrary Fixed Point on the Body There are several approaches that can be used to develop the general equations of motion. The one selected here starts with Newton’s laws applied to a collection of particles defining the rigid body (any number of dynamics or physics books can serve as references, e.g. reference 2). In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a “flat non-rotating Earth” are developed that are not necessarily referenced to the body’s center of mass. 4 - NASA: A METHOD FOR REDUCING THE SENSITIVITY OF OPTIMAL NONLINEAR SYSTEMS TO PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY: NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 1971: Page 12: A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE: Problem Statement: The example problem is a fixed-time problem in which it is required to determine the thrust-attitude program of a single-stage rocket vehicle starting from rest and going to specified terminal conditions of altitude and vertical velocity which will maximize the final horizontal velocity. The idealizing assumptions made are the following: (1) A point-mass vehicle (2) A “flat, nonrotating Earth” 5 - NASA Technical Paper Nº 2835 1988: User’s Manual for Interactive LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program To Derive Linear Aircraft Models. 5.1 Page 01: SUMMARY: The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and “flat and nonrotating Earth” assumptions. 5.2 Page 126: 6. Abstract: The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations sith stationary atmosphere and “flat and nonrotating Earth” assumptions.
@richardarena5281
@richardarena5281 Рік тому
@@CaptainBrawnson I evolved from a single celled organism 4.5 billion years ago. Damn I'm old. Unfortunately evolving from a single celled organism 4.5 billion years ago, won't pass the Scientific method: 1: Observations. 2: explaining the Observations. 3: Logical predictions.. 4.5 billion years ago is not Observable with absolute certainty or clarity. Which makes trusting or believing that mankind evolved from a single celled organism 4.5 billion years ago, is a Faith based proposition... ( Faith is diametrically opposed to Evidence).. There's just simply not enough evidence to suggest that mankind evolved from a single celled organism 4.5 billion years ago.. There's a greater likelihood that you could hit 777 quadrillion Royal flushes in a row, on a video poker machine.. Then for the universe to have created itself via random chance.
@alexisaguirre6349
@alexisaguirre6349 Рік тому
@@CaptainBrawnson thanks for this explanation. I was wondering this too
@Jim-vq9yg
@Jim-vq9yg Рік тому
@@CaptainBrawnson tyty
@TTRJoyrider
@TTRJoyrider 10 місяців тому
If I report my observation by writing it in a book when does the wave break down?
@tudorburchill8426
@tudorburchill8426 4 місяці тому
@DrBenMiles the whole three sheets of polarization brighter light needs more explanation please? I think it's darker with 2 sheets than three due to the doppler effect and brighter again with the third due to this also???
@scout3058
@scout3058 Рік тому
As an individual who miserably failed Algebra 1 in high school (and still can't do long division) and is effectively math challenged, you did a great job at making this easily digestible, and understandable. 👍👍👍
@bobancikic7458
@bobancikic7458 Рік тому
there is no spoon!!!
@scout3058
@scout3058 Рік тому
@@bobancikic7458 😃😃
@ammardian
@ammardian Рік тому
Don't worry homie, I'm in a college math degree and none of my friends can do long division at all haha. On another note, I'm glad you understood the video :)
@scout3058
@scout3058 Рік тому
@@ammardian Thank you for letting me know that I'm not the only dunce/dumbass left in the world. 😆😆😆
@ammardian
@ammardian Рік тому
@@scout3058 Even in college we still find addition and subtraction the largest area we make mistakes in on exams. Believe me, we are all dumbasses in this world haha
@newforestobservatory9322
@newforestobservatory9322 Рік тому
The 2 particles created at t=0 can be described by a SINGLE wavefunction. Once this is understood "spooky action at a distance" simply goes away. I really don't understand why in current day discussions of the EPR paradox that this isn't the first thing clearly spelled out.
@peterirving9458
@peterirving9458 Рік тому
Wanna start a band called Spooky Action at a Distance?
@offidano9587
@offidano9587 5 місяців тому
Fabulously presented. Thanks. It seems to indicate that there is/are more to a particle and/or the universe than the variables being examined. Riding on the surface of space-time is going the long way around the mountain. There must obviously be another path.
@ZJProductionHK
@ZJProductionHK 4 місяці тому
The content is crazily good. How come youtube never suggest u to me until now
@lorenzofedeli8592
@lorenzofedeli8592 Рік тому
So every set of entangled particles ever created are still connected in some way so that if by chance one of them gets observed the other can change in its opposite value? How do you define observe? I has to be observed by an instrument or just react to any other physical object?
@fitnesspoint2006
@fitnesspoint2006 Рік тому
great point! since the inception of the BB everything should be entangled in this universe
@jasnarmstrng
@jasnarmstrng Рік тому
Einstein (Podolsky and Rosen) weren't proven wrong. They proposed a question as a response. It just took a long time for subsequent theoretical physicist to respond. The question was so good it deserved a Nobel prize worthy answer.
@slipcaseslitpace
@slipcaseslitpace Рік тому
I was thinking how does this prove it isn’t real it just proves to me we don’t understand everything yet
@davidabdollahi7906
@davidabdollahi7906 Рік тому
That is true. These sharlatans still trying to sell us their mysticism crap by attacking determinism. To have the audacity...
@a_diamond
@a_diamond Рік тому
​@@slipcaseslitpace Any good answer poses new questions ;) Correct answers can be simple of course, but usually those are only answers to the most simple of questions... Really good answers change how we understand something.. so we always end up with more questions ;)
@slipcaseslitpace
@slipcaseslitpace Рік тому
@@a_diamond ok? This doesn’t prove that the universe isn’t real tho.
@cammack07
@cammack07 Рік тому
No one is saying it isn’t real. Something is here.
@hayk.galstyan
@hayk.galstyan 28 днів тому
Your explaining skills are amazing! Subscribed.
@helifynoe1034
@helifynoe1034 14 днів тому
If you take two polarized filters and place them on top of each other, and have them sitting on a light source, you will notice as you rotate one of the filters in a linear fashion, that the change in light intensity passing through, is not linear. One may calculate the outcome by using a Malus Law Calculator.
@PaxonFrady
@PaxonFrady Рік тому
I'm confused about the agree/disagree curves. It seems intuitive to me that you would get a sine wave shape, and I don't understand why you would ever get a straight line. It would seem that if the light had a hidden polarization angle (as opposed to quantum), then it would be the case that the agree/disagree curve is a sine wave shape. Can you/anyone explain the logic of why it would be a straight line with classical optics vs. quantum optics?
@procletnic
@procletnic Рік тому
I would like to know too.
@paulpelletier9422
@paulpelletier9422 Рік тому
yeah he kind of glosses over that but you can only cover so much in one quicky video, I've seen other videos focus in on the line vs curve that seemed quite intuitive, but I don't remember well enough to explain myself
@theostragonidis7548
@theostragonidis7548 Рік тому
Ok, so basically there is an equation (Bell's equation) that predicts a linear graph if there are local hidden variables (a.k.a. predetermined states). Because the experiment shows that Bob and Alice disagree/agree more than what the coincidal model (predetermined states) predicts, this supposedly shows that the entangled particles indeed interact with each other at a distance.
@outofoblivionproductions4015
@outofoblivionproductions4015 Рік тому
@@theostragonidis7548 "... this supposedly shows that the entangled particles indeed interact with each other at a distance."- this is a hypothesis, not evidence.
@theostragonidis7548
@theostragonidis7548 Рік тому
@@outofoblivionproductions4015 It's evidence but it doesn't rule out non-local hidden variables.
@klaasbil8459
@klaasbil8459 Рік тому
This was my first video watched on this channel (following a UKposts recommendation), but what an excellent well-paced explanation!
@guerreromendieta
@guerreromendieta Рік тому
same here! this guy is special
@smhumble2574
@smhumble2574 6 місяців тому
How to reconcile the speed of light squared when the speed of light cannot be exceeded?
@robertfrotlarranaga5725
@robertfrotlarranaga5725 9 місяців тому
the addition of a 3rd polarizing film is truly counter intuitive , so much that for me it's not clear how more light passes trough the 3 films, does the middle 45 degrees film alters the polarization of the incident photons so they match the 3rd film, how it does it ?
@db_cio
@db_cio Рік тому
So how does one cast out two photons that are entangled together? Are they somehow by default entangled? Is something done to entangle them?
@airmetalmedia
@airmetalmedia Рік тому
Everything is ONE. Everything is connected in a big wave or sea of energy. Light and everything else pretty much exists as a wave (infinite possibility), then when a conscious observer is present and looking and aware, the wave function 'collapses' into a particle (one probability or possibility of the infinite).
@cynthiabotsko2449
@cynthiabotsko2449 Рік тому
Thank you for this! Clears up, for me, a lot of misrepresented popularized interpretations of laypeople with major "Tartuffe"-like confirmation biases. And, yet, you explained such technical information in a very accessible way for those of us with limited knowledge of the subject. Much appreciation!
@ilicdjo
@ilicdjo Рік тому
Are you Religious?
@mohnjarx7801
@mohnjarx7801 11 місяців тому
​@@ilicdjo religious or just self-righteous, or maybe even both?!
@noneanywhere7600
@noneanywhere7600 10 місяців тому
@@ilicdjo I would not mock Religious people, but he sure does sound like the Jack Arse in the Parable floating around of the Tiger, Jack Arse and Lion.
@explodingchickpeas7408
@explodingchickpeas7408 6 місяців тому
idk why everyone is being so hostile in your replies, keep doing you !
@jvick4988
@jvick4988 8 місяців тому
Also, the direction of rotation is a matter of the observer's perspective. If I'm observing one from the top and you're observing one from the bottom, they're both rotating clockwise. And "down" is always "down" to a person on earth despite the fact that the earth is rotating on a tilted axis- so if the other particle is being impacted by the gravity of another rotating planet- good luck. And if it isn't, if it is in space in a "constant position," (despite the expansion of the universe in every direction and having to figure in which direction that part of the universe is expanding) won't it's rotation, relative to whoever or whatever is observing it, be constantly changing? Due to the movement of the other? And how fast are the two observers able to comminicate what they're observing? And again, time is relative, right? I'm just an idiot but I'm hoping you much smarter people have identifies something practical to be gained from the time, money and intelligence being spent on this subject...
@davegubbins4428
@davegubbins4428 19 днів тому
piano at 2:02 ? anyone know? shazam can't get it.
@indigatorveritatis219
@indigatorveritatis219 Рік тому
This was really good. As an expert PhD in the field of theoretical physics, I am glad to see such explanations. Just kidding, I failed pre-al in high school... but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night
@JonathanGillies
@JonathanGillies Рік тому
What's the relevance of the Holiday Inn please? :/
@indigatorveritatis219
@indigatorveritatis219 Рік тому
@@JonathanGillies The Holiday Inn Express used to have really funny commercials.. like where a guy is doing a surgery pretending to be an actual surgeon. When he messed things up, they asked him if he was a doctor, and he said, "no, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night". They had a few similar ones :)
@adraedin
@adraedin Рік тому
Just as funny as an obscure reference that I get, is the confused people who don't get it lol
@JonathanGillies
@JonathanGillies Рік тому
@@indigatorveritatis219 Ok thanks for the explanation lol!!!!!! :D
@brettsmith5903
@brettsmith5903 Рік тому
Somebody give this man the key to Detroit!
@professordey
@professordey 10 місяців тому
I think my biggest contention or point of confusion is in the fact that I don't see why there _wouldn't_ be a curve-like relationship between the particle matches when we already know that polarised light interferes with itself and even in vacuum can split into electrons and photons etc, meaning surely it's possible for a system to have interference patterns that cause an increase in likelihood for a greater likelihood of appropriately matched results at a certain angle. Not to mention that the polariser itself provides a non-trivial influence on the behaviour of the photons in question because it's a physical object with both physical and electromagnetic properties and the photon that leaves a transparent material is almost certainly not the same as the one that entered it, merely having some of the same intrinsic values due to the energies involved. The three polariser issue can, to my understanding, be at least superficially explained by considering that the middle polariser drastically increases the chances of light, that is polarised with a spin matching the spiral that the polarisers describe, will be present on the other side with fewer deviating wavelengths than before it, acting as a filter or like the blades of a fan, producing a less turbulant environment after light has passed through. This, therefore, would allow _more_ light to pass through the final polariser as more of the light that's getting through is being interfered with and resulting in deviation greater than can pass through the polariser. The only way I'd know how to test that experimentally would be to try and see if stacking polarisers also then produces more reflected light of other polarisations compared to fewer stages.
@iandonohoe
@iandonohoe 6 місяців тому
lol
@ic7481
@ic7481 2 місяці тому
If you stack multiple polarisers in series, in the centre, and have them incrementally rotate to gradually align with the last polariser, you can theoretically achieve near 100% transmittance. In practice, transmittance is perhaps 80-90% due to losses, and needing an infinite number of perfect intermediate filters to achieve 100% transmittance.
@itsonlyapapermoon61
@itsonlyapapermoon61 Місяць тому
Walter russell THE WAVE
@Alan_CFA
@Alan_CFA 25 днів тому
I’ll mention your concerns to the Nobel Committee when they call.
@velcroman11
@velcroman11 17 днів тому
I wonder, if an electron was to split, would one remain with an negative charge and the other have a positive charge?
@Dismythed
@Dismythed 6 місяців тому
Ben, I don't know if you know this, but you gave an EPR glove in a box explanation of entanglement at the beginning of this video. Did you forget to make the explanation less clear or do you not know you're supposed to?
@Argonova
@Argonova Рік тому
I don't understand why inherent randomness means that the universe is not "real". Later in the video, you shift that to "locally real". Isn't it still possible that these particles are interacting in a classical way, on a level that we just can't see? Or that the connection between them is being broken? More explanation of this would be appreciated, because while the numbers may not make sense, I'm not sure why this eliminates the possibility of hidden variables.
@vaibhavbv3409
@vaibhavbv3409 Рік тому
But why isn't it real
@seditt5146
@seditt5146 Рік тому
Basically because it is saying there is no predetermined outcome as in a particle does not have ANY defined state until its observed. Not that we simply dont understand the state, just that the state has not even been determined, IE, does not even exist, until observed. I mean, while this is grounded in reality as a statement, its highly misleading and reporting on it is rather garbage. This does NOT rule out super determinism as in, the entire Universe is predetermined. For reasons unknown to me, Science is and has been hell bent on proving they can separate a chunk of the universe from the rest and calculate its properties definitively. This is surely impossible. But, this does not mean it was not all determined from the start of the universe. I think they just want to leave room for free will at all cost. IDK why, just how it is.
@absolutium
@absolutium Рік тому
Think about it as if it was a computer program where you can fly a very fast plane.. if I asked you what the max speed of the aircraft can be.. you would be compelled to answer in Mph or Kph.. But the speed of the plane can only be that of the processor's clock. At that moment if you were on the plane as a passenger the speed of the plane is no longer real is it?
@chriswhite3692
@chriswhite3692 Рік тому
Look up the Quantum Eraser by PBS Spacetime
@havenbastion
@havenbastion Рік тому
It's not inherent randomness at all. All statistical ideas are a measure of the upper limit of predictive certainty, Not facts about reality. Those may only be known by actual measurement or logical necessity, not probability, which is all a wave function is.
@lazyeclipse
@lazyeclipse Рік тому
What really confuses me when talking about quantum measurement is the assumption that we somehow exist outside the system and can measure it. But that can't be, since ultimately we're describing the universe.
@jaideepshekhar4621
@jaideepshekhar4621 Рік тому
True. Each of our actions should affect the universe in some way.
@jatinkholiya6644
@jatinkholiya6644 Рік тому
True
@ruthnovena40
@ruthnovena40 Рік тому
The fact that one can go back and see data from other civilzations that plotted the sun ,moon and other stars says something is real.
@googol990
@googol990 Рік тому
No, that's just it. We AREN'T outside the system, and we aren't the only things considered observers. The idea is that it's impossible to measure/observe quantum interactions without interacting with them, and therefore altering the state of the particles at the moment of observation. As far as I understand all atoms are quantum observers at the the moment of interaction. So if the universe is not locally real, then either interactions can happen regardless of distance in space-time, or that the fundamental stuff of reality does not have inherent definite measurable properties and instead only manifests properties at the point of interaction with an observer.
@brianhyde5900
@brianhyde5900 Рік тому
The soul is pure consciousness. It is outside the universe. The universe is a projection of consciousness.
@glych002
@glych002 Місяць тому
There are three points on the graph where you can compare state, at the crossover you can send information.
@joshmilne1268
@joshmilne1268 5 місяців тому
I'm a little confused, determism didn't actually disappear. Because the one photon affects the other photon predicably, so mathematically determined beyond our reach, theoretically?
@michaelleahy6848
@michaelleahy6848 Рік тому
Would this concept of polarity extend into elemental constructs? Would you obtain salt with different qualities by introducing positive spin in Na and negative spin in Cl for instance? Would you need to use wavelength directing tools (like a laser) to achieve this?
@tobistein9831
@tobistein9831 Рік тому
I'm by no means an expert, but I did my bachelor's in chemistry: Pretty sure the answer is no. Ionic compounds like NaCl don't have any free electrons. All of the electrons in the cations and the anions are paired, so there are equal amounts of +1/2 and -1/2 spin electrons. The reasons why the ions react is because their entire shells are populated with electron pairs, leading one to be negatively charged and the other to be positively charged (Na + has too few electrons and Cl - has too many electrons). This property of having 100% paired electrons is called diamagnetism, and it means that the net spin of each atom's electrons is equal to zero. And in elements that commonly run amok with unfilled valence shells (like many transition metals), the spin value of the electrons doesn't actually affect their chemical properties because the "up" and "down" spins are local to a particular atom unless they're aligned in a magnetic field of some sort. This property of having some unpaired electrons is called paramagnetism, and it means that the net spin of each atom's electrons is not equal to zero. So... yeah. Chemical properties aren't really dependent on the incidental direction of spin of an electron, more by whether or not there are equal numbers of opposite-spinning electrons.
@handleismyhandle
@handleismyhandle Рік тому
@@tobistein9831 So things are 'real' if they form something like a salt, but not if they are individual particles that have somehow become entangled?
@michaelleahy6848
@michaelleahy6848 Рік тому
@Tobi Stein If salt is not a good example, consider a combination which are good candidates.
@haqi9fly
@haqi9fly Рік тому
No, all you need is a butter knife.
@tobistein9831
@tobistein9831 Рік тому
@@michaelleahy6848 I tried to explain in the third paragraph why atoms aren't good examples of this. As far as I know, the only particles that have been successfully entangled are massless force carriers like photons. And again, I literally have a bachelor's in chemistry, this is way above my pay grade.
@domenickriggio684
@domenickriggio684 Рік тому
Incredible, Would you consider continuing this subject with Conway/ Kochen's FreeWill Theorem?
@trufnessism
@trufnessism 6 місяців тому
So is this along the lines of proving the going-ons of Acausality? The properties of the universe which function outside of Cause-and-Effect?
@jbw2063
@jbw2063 6 місяців тому
what happens when both particles are measured at same time? how does one influence the other?
@schmetterling4477
@schmetterling4477 6 місяців тому
There is no such thing as "at the same time" in a relativistic world. That's the deeper reason why the result at one spot doesn't depend on the result at another. ;-)
@vishalmandadi8086
@vishalmandadi8086 Рік тому
Higher rate of coincidence should lead to a graph that is similar to graph of a square root function. However, we see a sine curve. So, either the experiment results seem to be flawed, or we didn't get the gist right. Can someone explain and clarify this?
@ashyslashy5818
@ashyslashy5818 Рік тому
Einstein said its the GOD factor.
@GHOST-331
@GHOST-331 Рік тому
Niels Bohr, one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, did not believe that the universe is not real. In fact, he believed that the universe is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the way we observe and measure it. Bohr believed that the physical world is real, but that our understanding of it is limited by the constraints of our measurements and observations. He argued that we should focus on the pragmatic and experimental aspects of quantum mechanics, rather than trying to understand the underlying reality behind it.
@vhawk1951kl
@vhawk1951kl 9 місяців тому
Who told you what Niels Bohr" believed" , and why do you believe them?
@vhawk1951kl
@vhawk1951kl 9 місяців тому
If only you had some idea of what you mean by or could even begine to define, " the universe". Apart from imaginary what is the universe? You have absolutely no idea?-No surprises there
@alals6794
@alals6794 8 місяців тому
Hey you know, Bohr was on to something there.....for all his theoretical prowess, he was the most pragmatic of them all, it seems.
@liquidmagma
@liquidmagma 8 місяців тому
@@vhawk1951kl Another desperate "simulation" theorist.
@madhatter3492
@madhatter3492 7 місяців тому
Quantum Physics does not exist, it is a evil that will be driven out of this world.
@morgunstyles7253
@morgunstyles7253 7 місяців тому
Same kind of question as, What was the man doing when he jumped off the cliff ?
@AshrafulFerdousFariv
@AshrafulFerdousFariv 10 місяців тому
I have a question. Why quantum entanglement does not violate thermo dynamics?
@DanielPeaster
@DanielPeaster Рік тому
In fairness, I’m not very smart. But I’ve tried so many times to understand quantum entanglement and you single-handedly explained it to me in just a few simple sentences. I am eternally grateful. I can finally impress my grandmother.
@waldwassermann
@waldwassermann Рік тому
Never use the word against your self. You are super intelligent.
@draganbacmaga8981
@draganbacmaga8981 Рік тому
I think it's fair to say that even the smartest people have trouble understanding entanglement - that's why they all propose theories.
@mercx007
@mercx007 Рік тому
@@waldwassermann we can't all be intelligent, some of us (like myself) are unable to grasp mathematics and physics
@julianemery718
@julianemery718 Рік тому
Quantum mechanics is something you can't really understand fully, and anyone claiming they do are lying.
@tubehepa
@tubehepa Рік тому
Ditto! 🤩
@mauette2000
@mauette2000 Рік тому
I think it will be a very long time before anyone can explain what this video is trying to explain in a manner that actually does explain.
@freedom4life123
@freedom4life123 Рік тому
LAYMANS TERMS U MEAN
@angaleejones
@angaleejones Рік тому
Sac le blur
@vasvas8914
@vasvas8914 Рік тому
There's basically an inherent connection between two photons that transfers information faster than speed of light, controversing modern physics worldview.
@randomgrinn
@randomgrinn Рік тому
Yeah he didn't explain it to me. Still don't understand why non-determinism equals not real.
@FullCircleTravis
@FullCircleTravis Рік тому
Imagine if your body occupied two different points in space simultaneously. One is in New York city, and the other is in Paris. If you are observing Paris, that is local. If you were pinched in Paris, the pinch is locally real. You were pinched in Paris, and felt it in Paris. However, if your body was pinched in New York, you feel it in Paris. Despite feeling it in Paris, nobody pinched you there, so forces acting on you from the universe doesn't have to be locally real to be observed. Now, the value of this is thus. Imagine if we created a computer that existed on our planet, and on an alien planet a billion light years away. If time was relatively the same in both places, whatever is typed on one computer screen would appear simultaneously in both places at once. No signals required. If you've seen the matrix movies, they show this phenomenon by the injuries in the matrix affecting your body in the real world. The idea is that our body is always a projection of the mind, so if in the mind the projection of ourselves is damaged, so is the body. It's not just a science fiction phenomenon either. When medications are tested, they do blind tests because of the placebo effect. The placebo effect is literally your body is healed in the mind, and the mind projects your healed body in reality. You show physical improvement literally because your mental projection is improved.
@JuliusUnique
@JuliusUnique 6 місяців тому
one question though. So from the fact that 2 distance entangled particles can instantly communicate with each other, the conclusion is that the universe isn't locally real. But couldn't the other conclusion be that the universe is locally real, just that sometimes it actually is possible to communicate faster than light? what if they are conencted in a 4th dimension that allows instant transmission?
@debussy843
@debussy843 5 місяців тому
Why wouldn't two particles be influenced by other forces if they split up? This says two particles split from a source ishould act opposite each other but doesn't take into account the different conditions they are exposed to. How is that measured?
@BarryMcGaulkiner
@BarryMcGaulkiner Місяць тому
Kinda where im at tbh.
@physicsbutawesome
@physicsbutawesome Рік тому
Somebody on my channel linked to this video and said "far superior explanation" I really like what you did, and I can relate to the struggle of what to leave out and what to explain and how, especially with this topic. Always interesting to see what other people come up with, great video.
@notathletic4171
@notathletic4171 Рік тому
😂 you keep going. I'll sub you, love
@andrewkelleher2415
@andrewkelleher2415 Рік тому
I was reading an article earlier today about how the used a series of laser set up to match the fibinoci sequence for a quantum computer and it was able to help reduce the amount of randomness the quantum computer had... I obviously don't perfectly understand the whole thing but its interesting how this technology is developing.
@jimreynolds2399
@jimreynolds2399 Рік тому
@@infinity2394 It's not ALWAYS wrong to kill a person.
@cbreezy
@cbreezy Рік тому
That experiment is a breakthrough in having the information stored on Quantum Computers not be so sensitive to outside perturbations. Currently a change in temperature can easily erase all information.
@vinniehuish3987
@vinniehuish3987 Рік тому
Any mathematical pattern will reduce the amount of randomness a quantum computer has.. It’s statistical.
@vinniehuish3987
@vinniehuish3987 Рік тому
Mathematical patterns that are theoretically correct in their assumptions ofc.
@judyd1
@judyd1 Рік тому
@@jimreynolds2399 I've tried asking people what if their best friend was horrifically injured, in unbearable pain, with no help available such that eventual death is inevitable, begging you to kill him. "Their" answer: in today's modern world that would never happen. (Edited to clarify confusing language)
@wilsonst6044
@wilsonst6044 6 місяців тому
do you need to travel if you are no energy?
@Grimm.The.Grimoire
@Grimm.The.Grimoire 7 місяців тому
Where iis the answer to the videos title??
@djvelocity
@djvelocity Рік тому
Absolutely fascinating! I just found your channel for the first time and I love it! I just subscribed. I cannot wait to see what else you produce 😊🙌📚
@raven4k998
@raven4k998 Рік тому
Einstein is proven wrong yay that means faster then light travel is possible we simply have not figured out how to do it yet that's all😊
@djvelocity
@djvelocity Рік тому
@@raven4k998 personally I don’t think it’s possible, I think we might have to deal with fatalism to explain quantum non-locality 🤔
@raven4k998
@raven4k998 Рік тому
@@djvelocity ssshhh or I'll show you Fatal kid🤣
@djvelocity
@djvelocity Рік тому
@@raven4k998 I don’t understand, can you explain?
@infinity2394
@infinity2394 Рік тому
evil only exists if goodness exists since you wouldn't know evil without first knowing goodness. Think of it like this. you cannot have shadows without light, but you can have light without shadows. So how is it that we know why good is good? if you're an atheist you don't know why it's wrong to kill a person you just know it's wrong though you don't know the reason. You see we know the universe had a beginning based on The Cosmic Microwave Background, which is "the cooled remnant of the first light that could ever travel freely throughout the Universe" it is a 'fossil' radiation, the furthest that any telescope can see, it was released soon after the 'Big Bang'. Scientists consider it as an echo or 'shockwave' of the Big Bang. this paired with the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding while also winding down. Not only did the matter in the universe have a beginning, but also the forces such as space, and gravity, and quantum forces, and time we know this from general relativity which shows that you cannot have space without time and you cannot have time without space and you cannot have matter without space or time! meaning that what could have caused the big bang would have to be outside of the realm of time and space meaning it's nonmaterial ! because nothing cannot happen to create something because there is nothing to occur to create something... So how does this go back to morality you ask? well would you believe it if I told you I just proved GOD's existence? You see GOD is outside of space and time! he is the one that was the cause of the universe he was the beginning, and since he is outside space and time. He is eternal meaning there was nothing before him he was always there and always will be. Now onto morality the reason we know it's wrong to kill someone is because GOD created us with a conscience con meaning with science meaning knowledge so when we kill someone we do it with knowledge that you just killed someone. The thing about your conscience is that it is GOD given society shaped. YOU can also shape your conscience the more you do things against it the quieter you make it it's like removing the batteries from your fire detector especially if you're loving the thing your conscience is warning you against.
@karat-s7330
@karat-s7330 Рік тому
I love how I clicked on this as if I would understand any of it 👍😂
@Jeanyuhzz
@Jeanyuhzz Рік тому
Gotta start somewhere . If you keep watching similar content, eventually everything will slowly make more sense
@sooniecantalk
@sooniecantalk Рік тому
I love how I watched it through and then discussed it with my friend as if we can understand any of it
@theglengarrys9121
@theglengarrys9121 Рік тому
They don’t even understand it … but they’ll try telling you there is no GOD. 🤣🤣
@Jono_93
@Jono_93 Рік тому
@@theglengarrys9121 Aw yeah because there's so much evidence of a god ever existing.
@theglengarrys9121
@theglengarrys9121 Рік тому
@@Jono_93 well yea there is.. we’re alive
@Tanfo77
@Tanfo77 Місяць тому
@6:51 it's not 90º where you see no photos going through. @6:53, you actually see it go through. Hence the 3rd polarizer still can let photons through.
@jeeves3600
@jeeves3600 8 місяців тому
What is the definition of " real " ? Is it defined according to what you experience with your five senses?
@s.c.6113
@s.c.6113 Рік тому
I have watched a lot of videos on quantum physics, this is the first that has actually explained how entangled particles become entangled, how they are created at all. And upon actually being explained it seems so simple, it makes me wonder why other channels didn't bother. So, thanks for actually taking the time to explain how it's related to conservation.
@cappiece3786
@cappiece3786 Рік тому
Duh
@mohinderkumar7298
@mohinderkumar7298 Рік тому
Uh
@vinceplatt8468
@vinceplatt8468 Рік тому
Except they don't really explain "how" they're created at all! They've theorized that they must exist simply because all these experiments require them to exist in order for the results to make sense. At least until they have a better explanation anyway.
@valeriewilliams6576
@valeriewilliams6576 Рік тому
I read your comment and now I'm going to actually watch this because I always get "lost."
@KikiTheHobbit
@KikiTheHobbit Рік тому
because the channels are obviously made for a different audience? if you’re teaching advanced english, you won’t start with A1 level phrases either…💀
@gr637
@gr637 10 місяців тому
I agree with Einstein that randomness is not a fundamental feature of nature. Just because the behaviour of some particles appears to be random, it doesn’t mean that it is. Every particle’s behaviour must have an explanation - there must always be A REASON to explain why a particle moves this way or that way. .just because we don’t know that explanation yet, this doesn’t mean that we can or should attribute it to randomness.
@sliglusamelius8578
@sliglusamelius8578 2 місяці тому
Seems intuitive, but apparently it's not correct.
@DuckDodgers69
@DuckDodgers69 2 місяці тому
Sometimes
@MrClickity
@MrClickity 2 місяці тому
Problem is, there have been tests done on the "hidden variable" hypothesis, and the randomness really does seem baked into the universe.
@stipostipo2051
@stipostipo2051 2 місяці тому
Determinism or randomness is not primarily a problem of physics but of the epistemology of the observer. Man's abilities are limited because man is not an absolute creature. He will never be able to trace all the causes - down to the last root or all the consequences - through determinism. One can never be certain of detecting causality or correlation in all its entirety because there will always be something that he does not see, does not know at that moment and that affects the object of observation. Therefore, it cannot verify the validity of determinism, because either determinism applies absolutely or it does not apply at all.
@charlesmiller8107
@charlesmiller8107 2 місяці тому
It all sounds logical until it's proven wrong, then it makes sense.
@faster6329
@faster6329 Місяць тому
If we compare ourselves to the sizes in the universe, we are 17 times bigger than the smallest measurements and 10 times smaller than the biggest measurements (if I remember correctly). So there is a universes above us and there is 1,7 universe below us. Does it make sense?
@BenChiang
@BenChiang 2 місяці тому
What is the implication for many worlds interpretation? Wouldn’t MWI be a relatively simple explanation for how the particles “communicate” instantly?
@jeffcurrey8765
@jeffcurrey8765 Рік тому
Maybe in another multi-verse I understand, but in this one the concept went right over my head. I will revisit this again in some other time and place.
@Robo311Star
@Robo311Star Рік тому
Same. I'm trying.
@MichaelClark-uw7ex
@MichaelClark-uw7ex Рік тому
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the theory that the universe doesn't exist and therefore we don't exist.
@PineappleOnPizza69
@PineappleOnPizza69 Рік тому
same dude :D maybe if im reincarnated as a phycisit
@nayanpardeshi5955
@nayanpardeshi5955 Рік тому
Same bro
@nayanpardeshi5955
@nayanpardeshi5955 Рік тому
Comment that i was looking for 😃
@sharifzareeai8954
@sharifzareeai8954 Рік тому
12:44 damn bro got the outro
@Zorlof
@Zorlof Місяць тому
Adding polarizing filters collapses the wave function except those exactly aligned with the filter...but there is always leakage no matter.
@Greenslice
@Greenslice 9 місяців тому
How can we assume that when one spins clockwise the other does counter clockwise? I can't get past this part
@schmetterling4477
@schmetterling4477 9 місяців тому
We can be sure because nothing spins in the first place, even though angular momentum is conserved.
@user-hc4lf4pv8m
@user-hc4lf4pv8m Рік тому
I also have this thought of the universe where it reacts dynamically base on the observers like for example if I am not looking at something (like it is outside my peripherals and Im not thinking about it) does it really exist? or it will only manifest itself if I become aware of it?
@saiddream8918
@saiddream8918 Рік тому
if the universe is in a superposition and only becomes real when you observe, that makes you the only person in your universe, and the fact that you were born without knowledge learned about the people, world the universe who were there long before you can actually observe those things, and the knowledge you have comes from it not viseversa, means the universe is real. or else you are the universe itself according to this Quantum theory
@alexissmith1534
@alexissmith1534 Рік тому
This brings the question of what is capable of observing? The universe existed before humans so who was observing before humans? Animals? What level of consciousness and deeper thinking constitutes as observation in the universe and what was going on before? Sorry so many questions I’m just interested in what you’re saying and I often manifest using the core idea of the Schrodinger‘s cat experiment. Was wondering your thoughts
@hedgehog3180
@hedgehog3180 11 місяців тому
Observation in quantum mechanics does not refer to the act of a conscious observer but merely the interactions between particles. The universe does not care about your existence or your intelligence on any level, I am sorry to disappoint.
@alexissmith1534
@alexissmith1534 11 місяців тому
@@hedgehog3180 cool so if you don’t mind answering more what do you mean about the interaction between particles being observation?
@vhawk1951kl
@vhawk1951kl 9 місяців тому
Apart from imaginary, what exactly*Is* " the universe? I can certainly understand how some will go to any lengths to avoid defining there terms, and go for the Humpty Dumpty approach: "When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.”
@eriquedobson7523
@eriquedobson7523 Рік тому
My complaint about this stuff is the use of "real" or "realism." I much prefer your use of "deterministic," as I think it helps convey the reality of what is going on and how the models capture it. Not to say it invalidates any of this, but I know it does create a barrier to understanding the concept for people like my wife who responded by touching a table and saying: "So... This table isn't real?"
@1994mrmysteryman
@1994mrmysteryman Рік тому
Haha 😄
@eufrosniad994
@eufrosniad994 Рік тому
I very much agree. It may have been long forgotten, but realism and anti-realism are terms that do already exist in Philosophy as well. This form of loading onto the term does not help someone avoid misunderstandings upon first hearing these theories. That being said, it is worth pointing out that almost all of modern science is founded upon anti-realist foundations and motivations while accepting realist foundations for carrying out the scientific methodology. So if one were a scientist who strictly adheres to the anti-realist motivations, they would answer your wife's question that "they can never be sure the table is actually there, let alone know what is truly meant by a table". This is because since Hume, principle of causality has been rejected as doubtful, which in turn means that our sensory information cannot be trusted.
@ILoveGrilledCheese
@ILoveGrilledCheese Рік тому
Agreed, I think often these complex scientific theories get muddled by poor communication.
@aqualust5016
@aqualust5016 Рік тому
@@ILoveGrilledCheesesome people keep it that way to gate keep and flex as if they’re smarter than everyone else. In fact, they’re fools if they can’t rationally explain their thesis to the world in such a way that others can infer their stance and agree on it based on the communication methods used
@triaswinter296
@triaswinter296 Рік тому
But doesn't also the philosophical term "realism" gets used to describe a objective world which isn't affected by our doings and our mind? Hume says we cannot know this, but didn't this quantum measurements "disprove" (as far as this is possible) the possibility of a inherent realistic world, also in terms of philosophical realism?
@stefaniac781
@stefaniac781 10 місяців тому
What if what appear to us as 2 distinct entangled particles is actually just one unique particle mirrored to itself, so that no transfer of information is required at all? What I mean is that, if we "flip" space and time, what is in different places (distance > 0) at the same time (time = 0) become one unique thing (distance = 0) but at two different times (time > 0). Considering that it seems time only makes sense at macro-scale levels of reality (similarly to the concept of temperature, which does not make any sense at particle-scale, since the temperature of one object is just our interpretation / perception of the speed of movement of the particles in the object) it might be that, at subatomic level, space and time are indistinguishable, and "time-mirrors" exist and are as common as "space-mirrors" (standard mirrors) for us. Just a thought!
Я бы Не Прыгнул Туда и За 100 Миллионов 😭
00:20
Глеб Рандалайнен
Переглядів 17 млн
МЮСЛІ UA ft. Misha Scorpion - ЗА ТЕРИКОНАМИ
04:15
Студия Квартал 95 Online
Переглядів 249 тис.
Why is this number everywhere?
23:51
Veritasium
Переглядів 1,4 млн
How Physicists FINALLY Solved the Feynman Sprinkler Problem - Explained
17:16
Why Did Quantum Entanglement Win the Nobel Prize in Physics?
20:33
PBS Space Time
Переглядів 1,9 млн
Time Does Not Exist. Let me explain with a graph.
16:07
Astrum
Переглядів 4,4 млн
"This Universe Existed before The Big Bang" ft. Roger Penrose
19:00
Beeyond Ideas
Переглядів 1,3 млн
Why is quantum mechanics non-local? (I wish someone had told me this 20 years ago.)
25:09
Japan’s Massive Money Experiment Is Over. Now What?
8:46
Bloomberg Originals
Переглядів 1,1 млн
The Big Misconception About Electricity
14:48
Veritasium
Переглядів 21 млн
Как умирает EEPROM память?
23:15
Электроника в объективе
Переглядів 39 тис.