#5minphysics 

Simple but one of the most effective explanations of quantum entanglement I have heard - thank you.

Ok I asked a question about this in the past, but I've refined my example. Consider the following: I have 2 space stations, A and B - they are 10 light-years apart. A pair of particles has been entangled and are each stored at a space station. I want A to be able to send an instant message to B. I decide in advance of positioning the particles: 1) Station A will observe it's particle (lets say it has an up-spin) and keep that particle under uninterrupted observance. 2) Station B will observe its particle (it will of course be a down-spin due to the entanglement). Station B periodically observes its particle (lets say, every minute) - this will always sown a down-spin as the observation of particle A has not been interrupted. 3) Station A is under attack - to single station B, they STOP observing their particle. 4) Station B continues to observe their particle every minute - as the other particle isn't being observed, the particle at station B could be either up or down (not just locked-in to be down). So eventually, after a few minutes of regular checks, station B records its first ever up-spin. This is the agreed upon signal for "we are under attack". In my example, information has undoubtable been sent instantaneously (all be it very simple information, but surely an alert counts?) Were any of my premises or assumptions incorrect? I feel if I get an answer to why my example can't work, I will finally understand this FTL communication issue.

Thank you for the free lecture professor. ☺

Best explanation of entanglement I've ever heard. I have been trying for a decade to get my head around this, and now I understand it in a way I can explain to others. Thank you! I will use this to teach my kids about entanglement.

Wow! That really is all those things you mentioned, strange, spooky and crazy! Even though had to view this video several times, I still really haven't got my head around this and have a million questions to ask but ah!, that's ok, I was still absolutely enthralled in watching this. So thanks again Lawrence and you have a great weekend too. And btw, you should think yourself lucky you have hair to cut ;-)

This was a ridiculously convoluted way to describe quantum entanglement.

I was first exposed in a serious context to the notion of entanglement in a quantum computing class. We explained entanglement by saying that you can't write an entangled state as a tensor product of pure states, which of course made sense but was rather limited, so I'm really pleased to see an explanation this good and this physical. The question of "what actually happens physically" is not well liked by computer scientists :) Question though- If two qubits are in a maximally entangled state, applying a gate to one will effect the state of the other. Currently the channel has exactly a 50% chance to flip- Why couldn't we work out a code to set up our qubits in such a state where that level of noise will be lower, and then use an error correcting code to deal with the remaining noise? I think I'm missing something but I'm not sure what. Thank you for the video!

This finally made sense! Thank you

Quantum entanglement explained in a very simple way. Thanks.

Thank you so much, I love your explanation. I'm not even in collage yet and I was able to calculate mass of the sun. I'm so happy😀

Thank you for yet another fascinating mini lecture. By the way, I love the title "Five Minute Physics". The fact that you can get some of these concepts even close to five minutes, and have people understand them, is downright amazing! I realize that you are just giving us the very basic concepts, and that there is much more to what you are teaching us. Now it is up to us to go out and learn more! Thanks again. I look forward to more next week. PS. I would really love to understand how a black hole can evaporate, and what happens when black holes merge...what is actually merging??

Thank you Lawrence ❤

Laurence this is the simple example of a single two state simple entanglement. Most people now get that. The question though is with entanglement of say orbital angular momentum with many many particles and then not looking for a specific state but the “effect” of interfering (1) or not interfering (0) with the set of entangled photons.

So honestly what needs to be developed is the ability to constantly monitor the Quantum state, and the ability to force the "Switch" of the state to the "Direction" that you want, we don't communicate via CB radio by just watching the random radio waves in nature but by harnessing the power and generating the waves so the match the shape and form we want. we can start with the current on off design 1's and 0's of modern computers or evolve to develop quantum state computing introducing multiple dimensions. For read write capabilities.

Sorry if this was asked... I didn't have time to read all the comments. So... what you drew on the paper is literally binary code. So... if instead of 1 "pair" of entangled particles, use lots. So you take box A (call it transmitter) and fill it will lots of entangled particles that will get observed in a pattern. For instance particle 1 gets set to 1and particle 2 gets set to 0, and particle 3 gets set to 0 and particle 4 gets set to 1. The other half of these entangled particles are are in box B (call it receiver). Now it is going to "display" a reverse of the pattern that was transmitted. Since it knows that it is reversed, it will take the 0's and 1's and flip them to make it easier. So it takes its "string" of 0110 and makes it 1001. That is 9 in binary. The more entangled particle you have the more data can be passed at any one time. Send 256 entangled particles in two boxes and take the transmitter with you on your voyage to Alpha Centauri, and report back using 256 bits of information at a time... in binary, or Hex, or ASCII, or EBCDIC (like in The Martian), or whatever you want. Why can't that be done? You would even add enough extra entangled particles to act as error checking (checksum) characters to the message to be sure it is a coherent string of characters. Just like old modems used to do (and to some degree still do across the Internet to make sure the data that arrive is not corrupted and such).

This is probably impossible, but I have not seen this suggestion in the comments below, so please someone debunk me :D - I set up 3 stations. One in the middle of the galaxy, sending out entagled particles, one partner left, one partner right. On the left side of the galaxy, I measure all electrons I receive, colapsing their wave function. On the right side of the galaxy, they have a double slit experiment set up and since these electrons are already collapsed (due to my measuring in the the left station) they get the "particle pattern". Therefore, if the left station stops measuring, the right station starts receiving an "interference pattern" instead. Alternation between particle and interference patterns creates my 0s and 1s. ... Now, I assume that entangled particles will never produce an interference pattern or something like that? :/

I get that we can't use the actual state to convey information across distance instantly, but since it's time that this arrangement kind of sits in, why not perturb that ? For example, set up an array of quantum states, (qbits ?), and agree here and now that the time between the changing of a particular qbit in the array and another particle in the array has a meaning. Holding the array in place is the tricky part I suspect... If I change the particle positioned at 2,5,7, then 0.0001 seconds later the particle positioned at 4,5,8 this means "x" whatever this is, could be anything. But if it happens 0.0002 seconds later this means "y". So it is the time between the act of forcing the change that is the information. Thanks so much for the lectures and interacting with your fans.

I think that Physicists try very hard to explain away the possibility of breaking general relativity. But how would they react if someone actually invents a device capable Faster than Light Communication? using quantum entanglement in creating ways? For example continuous reading of up and down spin on both particles, and translating to morse code. If you can continuously measure both particles, and force a spin state to a particle, then ftl communication is possible. The particles would need to maintain a state for a period of time, then the instrument would need to force a change of spin on schedule. This could in fact look like a morse code signal. The key is to make the spin detection on the other end look non-random.

Thank you and enjoy the weekend!

Instead of insincere fault finding what is and is not experiment, I prefer to sincerely ask, "What is and is not INTERACTION considered to be during that experiment?" Understanding what preserving their state is and is not should help this make sense to me.

My understanding of quantum entanglement is that it is a channel where you transmit only random things. You cannot decide what you send. Therefore you cannot communicate what you want.

Why do you need to know whether it's a 1 or 0? Can't you just communicate with morse code, meaning who cares of it's a 1 or a 0, as long as you're seeing something, you can count it as a 'pulse'. The number of times you see a 1 or 0 is the number of pulses. Then it's morse code.

In the time it takes to imagine a nanosecond a billion of them have expired.

simply enjoyable! Thank you!

It seems like the first thought of all software/networking-knowledgeable people is to say "who cares about the spin values? if you can check whether a particle is still in a superposition, then that's good enough to communicate a 1 or 0 and then you can string the particle pairs together into a suitable message. i saw elsewhere in one of the rare videos that mention it that the problem with this idea is that you can't TEST whether a particle is still in a superposition without being next to its partner which defeats the purpose of communicating at a distance.

Simple and effective.. thank you I'm not a physicist. So I'm struggling to see what all the hype is about? To over simplify it. It feels like a RSA token. Once the code is set. The numbers look random but they are predictable because of the original predictable source. My uneducated question is, can you change/influence the spin once they are separated. Does that influence the other spin? That to me would be "spooky", though that's not what im hearing.

No matter who I listen to explain this, all I hear is that these particles are IN SYNC and not affecting each other whatsoever.

Good one

In simple words, unless we learn how to control the spin so we can force it to be a 0 or a 1, we cannot use it for communications at all because the measurement of the spin is random (you can get a 0 or a 1 randomly and that doesn't help, we have to force it to a 0 or a 1 so it becomes actual information). If manipulating the spin is possible somehow, and we discover hot to do it, and we verify that after the manipulation the entanglement continues (so we force a 0 on one side, the other becomes 1 for sure), then we are in business. Still it will require to send the particles somehow to the other point we intend to communicate. It would be useful at short distances like within our solar system, for example, a colony on Mars, or a moon in Jupiter or Saturn. Would be also useful for space travel in general, if one day we are able to reach real high speeds and we send ships to another solar system, it would be perfect to maintain real time communication with the ship. How would it work? well, if we can manipulate the spin and for the particles to give a 0 or a 1 at will, then, we would need to keep measuring the particles ALL THE TIME. then you can set one particle as the "ring tone", meaning, when I want to make a call, I change the spin. the other side will detect the change and the "phone will ring". And as so, the next set of particles will provide different signals like starting the connection to receive 0 and 1 that will be used the same way we use them in computers to create text messages, audio and even video communication in real time. But again, the key is to be able to control the spin. otherwise, is just a bunch of 0 and 1 without logic, they are random. Maybe sometime in the future it will happen. But I doubt the current generations will see it.

I always watch your videos

You would only have faster than light communication if you could force one of the entangled pair into a certain orientation without breaking cohesion. Its partner, when measured, would have the opposite orientation. Theoretically if you had enough entangled pairs, and the receiver knew to check their particles, you could have faster than light analog communication. There's a Nobel prize for discovering FTL communication waiting for you if you can figure out how to convince an entangled photon to spin in a specific direction.

I had seen you in TV channels when I was a child, 9 y/o Now I'm 15 and happy to find you

Longer is Better , Please keep going , thanks.

Thank you for that simple explanation. It's amazing how many people are convinced FTL communication through entanglement is possible. Even though your example is easy to understand, along with other issues that make it impossible, people still just refuse to believe it.

Looking sharp with your hair cut Lawrence!

Hi Professor Krauss. You are such an awesome explainer. Can you please explain the concept of spin in a future #5minphysics video? Thank you for these simple but insightful lectures.

I am sure I must be missing something here. When observer B sees a 0, he instantaneously knows A has 1 due to quantum entanglement. Information transfer seems to be faster than the speed of light, since it would be instantaneous. There doesn't appear to be the need for a telephone call to convey such information. What have I missed?

Krauss publicly defended Epstein’s character during this time period. Epstein was previously convicted in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from underage girls. He served just 13 months in a controversial plea deal - the very deal for which Acosta has now resigned. "Jeffrey has surrounded himself with beautiful women and young women but they're not as young as the ones that were claimed,” said Krauss in a 2011 interview with the Daily Beast. “As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people." Krauss insisted that despite receiving criticism from colleagues about his alignment with the sex offender, "I don't feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it."

Good example, but I still have an example: - Me and my friend are 10 lightyears away - We are using a system that can exist in 2 states (off and on) - We want to ensure our systems never exist the same state (and we record all states in a central computer) - We have a quantum entangled pair, 1 particle each, and set the system state (on or off) to correspond to up/down spin of the particle - We agree beforehand to measure our own particle and readjust the state of our system to on or off periodically In doing do, we guarantee our intent (each system was never in the same state at the same point in time) using only the entangled particles as a way to determine state (if we got together we would see that our past data shows that systems were always in a different state, as desired). Instead of calling my friend to decide upon system states (via a method with sub-light speed) we have done instantly using the entabgled pair (in-spite of the 10 lightyear distance). Is this NOT a form of communication? If not, WHY not?

What if we could find a way to force the outcome without messing up the entanglement?

That's a great video thank you but what about if we control the spin isn't that make it faster than light?

No. It just means we can’t measure the results faster than light. But we really can. If you send a particle far enough away but speed of light significant you send a signal to send a signal. If you receive a response significantly faster then you should you sent information faster than light.

That great, really great! But I have a question, (hope that it's not a stupid question)... We can't control the Direction of practical's spine in any way????

i may sound silly, but will like to put this thought here. If all computers and satellite communicate through 0 and 1 , can once set on the quantum entangled particle readers on far gone satellite be reading the data from its observation like Voyager , and converting the same to 0 and 1 ( of quantum entangled particles) , then the other set on earth will decode the same data based on the quantum state of 2nd set.

A good demonstration of the no communication theorem. But using fast hardware quantum random number generators as an antennae plugged into a computer running software with some clever maths to demodulate randomness, this problem can be overcome. The software uses pure mathematics on true random numbers to create negative entropy and alter the laws of chance. The device achieves consistent prediction of future events well above chance level and I assume when I add cyclic redundancy code it will be 100% accurate instead of 53% over billions of results, but of course any actions based on future information will change the future so the device must have the "predict" button pressed again to see if any other future events need changing. The "Many Worlds" theorem gets you out of any causal paradox. Everything happens, but if you have the device you can make sure the bad things do not happen in your slice of the multiverse.

Hi Mr. Krauss. I really enjoy your videos and you do great works. In this video you give an example of describing correlation, however, Bell's Inequalities seem to indicate that there's more going on than just correlations. Remember, if you're using "coincidence counters" in your experiment than you are measuring coincidence (aka correlations). The circular reasoning seems apparent when phrased like this: "We can only prove a particle is entangled with another particle if we can compare it to the entangled particle". I speculate FTL communication, if possible, would work something like this: binary 1 = particle is entangled binary 0 = particle is no longer entangled For some stream of particles the measurement would be compared against background noise, not to its correlated particle(s). This does not seem to violate having anything travelling faster than the speed of light, however, it might be time we investigate our understanding of causality at the quantum level.

Professor Krauss...I thought I knew something about Quantum Entanglement...Now I realize I did not. Thanks for your education.

If A and B know that they were prepared in an entangled state and if they decide the times when A is going to measure his qubit before A moves light-years away from B, then doesn't that already imply that B would know the state of A once he measures his qubit after the time of A's measurement

I had this idea about it and please someone tell me why this doesn't work?? I ask in various places and nobody has replied. I am sure someone smart thought of this and knows why it doesn't work, I just want to know why so I can learn more about how it does work. My idea is this. If you define a fixed time period based on a pulsar conveniently placed halfway between you and the recipient of a message. Both sides can measure the pulsar and we assume its stable over time. For a one-way communication example: Side A wants to send a message to Side B. Each period (cycle of the pulsar) Side B then measures the spin and resets it to the base position known only to side B (no communication needed to side A from side B). If on the next measurement cycle, the spin has changed, that means side A wants to send a 1 and if side B measures the same spin again, then the message was a 0. You can error correct in the case that side B base position was the same as the "send a 1" position. Since there is no reliance on the actual direction to signify any information you can have multiple entangled pairs pointing in various directions as error correction. The important information is "changed from last measurement" or "unchanged from last measurement"?

Love your videos. They are super "hyggelige" as we say in Denmark.

What if the state of one particle wasn’t a dice roll? What if it was in a controlled environment, like a magnetic field that we could use to make the particle either spin up or spin down?

None of these are 5 minutes :) I still love them

Thank you for the explanation sir!

My newest Nobel prize winning theory (spoiler alert: 0 Nobel prizes) - single quantum objects are disconnected from time. "Instantaneous" is because the opposing particle was already there. During the double slit or DCQE experiments, quantum objects appear to go back in time to behave as a wave. Because they do. But when quantum objects are together, time only moves one direction. So if the particle wave is on it's own, it can go back and forth in time. But if it interacts with another, they can only go one way. Schrodinger's cat lives, Einstein is right, and we have free will in one universe. You're welcome.

So why can't we control the spin direction of one particle? Example for particle A into down knowing that particle B would be down. It just seems logical

So the reason we can't use quantum entanglement for communication is if we try to manipulate one of the entangled particles it breaks the quantum coherence?

I thought you can control whether the particle spins up/down, left/right. Can't you make it so that spin up/down=1, left/right=0?

Quantum entanglement could change the way we communicate this will make it easy for the future communication when we try to colonize space. Let's make this discovery work for our future colonization.

What about if the observer in position A could set the bit value 0 or 1 by will? The observer in position B would then receive the bits negated. Is that not FTL information transfer (FTL communication)? That is not the correct IMHO explanation for why we cannot use QE for FTL information trnsfer. The correct reason is that the act of measurement each time breaks the entanglement.

What I don’t get is why wouldn’t it be measured by a computer that activates alpha numeric values based on which machine experiences changed value of measurement chronologically? A = Computer 1, quantum 1 = changed at 12:02 observed, B = Computer 2, quantum 2 = changed 12:03 I get that it only changed when we observe it, but does a computers measurement equate the same as a humans? That’s really what I don’t get.

When you say instantaneously... is that based on whose local time? Who chooses the time of read-out of the second value? Do we even get a choice? eg if particle 1 is spin UP at 12:00am does the theory say I can read out particle 2 at 12:05am and get spin DOWN? Or does the distant particle "respond" only during the first wave collapse measurement? How long can I muck about before the second entangled particle is read out? It seems to me whether the time limit is zero (instant), or near-instant (say a femtosecond or light-millimeter) it must still be faster than light information transfer. If it is the same or longer than the time taken for light to move the gap... then it would hardly been strange or spooky: the hidden filament that links need not exist physically, it could actually just be a side effect of both particles having synchronised internal clocks that keep sync no matter the distance. The ticking clock maybe captured by their phase angle say. Like two actors reading from a script but slowly walking away from each other, they keep perfect continuity, each turning the pages of their scripts, swapping characters with each page turn, yet never experiencing a double-booking nor speaking at the same time.

As usual - a masterpiece but -- a basic question: There are zillions of particles -- how do you select just two of them and -- "entangle" them? How do you do "entangling" itself - what steps one should make to achieve entangling? Can anybody explain - many thanks.

Can't she use an aligned magnetic field to force an 'up' spin - this makes the other side 'down' ? Or does an aligned magnetic field simply force 'up OR down'

Why isn't collapsing 1 of a pair of entangled particles, A and B, communicating faster than light? A is sending a bit of information to B. 1 = I did collapse my wave function. 0 = I did not collapse my wave function Faster than light communication.

This is fascinating explanation about why we can't have communication faster than light using the quantum state. Although I do have a question. You said that when we measure one particle then the other's measurement collapses in the opposite state. I wonder how long can one keep the 'measurement' alive in order to have the other particle constantly be in that opposite state. If one can do that for an arbitrary amount of time then we can make the 0 or 1 be the change from one state to another and not the state itself. So for example when I see the particle change state on my end I know that the person on the other side stopped the measurement therefor they transmitted information to me. And maybe use this to build a quantum network if it where possible. I'm thinking though that probably this can't happen and that the measurement has to be instantaneous. Pretty fun things to think about though.

So one is up and one is down but the only way to be sure is making a slower than light phone call to confirm? But if they are entangled won't you already know?

Could there not be some sort of deciphering protocol to initiate conversation? Say we measure at the same frequency, but only one side can ‘speak’ at a time. And one would know that a piece of info is a message based on the low probability of designated chained 1s or 0s

So is there absolutely no way to manipulate a particle to create a reaction in its entangled partner's behavior? Theoretically, if possible, then you could use binary code measured over the axis, which you so very well explained(reversing the code on the receiving end of course because of the inversion). That would be immeasurable because of how fast they spin, but if signs that the "sending particle" was being manipulated (perhaps unnatural behaviors, or fluctuation in energy) you could have a computer write down the piece of binary code present in that instant on the other end, thus providing a code over a long distance, instantaneously. Sure would be interested in hearing back from somebody on the matter. It's been puzzling me for a while.

Isn't the term "faster" a human construct? Isn't speed a relative observation based on time that only really humans and few select other species care about? Rocks don't care about clocks other than getting mined to make a clock which they seem to be non-plussed about (we don't really know if rocks get plussed or not).

This immediately raises the question: can't you put one particle of the entangled pair into a specific state, thereby instantly affecting the other particle. In other words, can you control the spin while maintaining the entanglement? I know the answer to this, but I'm fuzzy as to the why.

What if both cross-galactic communicators each had a nuclear clock they kept that are synchronized, and they only sent messages at specific times. That way they'll know when to expect a quantum message. Then, instead of sending values of spins directly, the sender would measure the particle at specific intervals, so that the length of the intervals between measurements themselves stood for a letter (I.e. 5 microseconds = e, 2 microsecond = b). Then, since repeated spin measurements might blur the signal (ie, 3 1's in a row look just like one very long 1), the message is repeated 10,000 times and analyzed by a computer to show exactly when each number changed to a ridiculously high level of specificity. If that's not enough, they could even standardize the message size before-hand (a galactic standard?) so they know how many characters to expect in each message.

Sir, Just curious, may be a silly idea. You explained that particle freezes its state when it is observed. So we have 2 states here. particle is either active or not active. If we consider active = 0 and not-active = 1 and if we can use a device (like a camera) to observe and stop observing we create a pattern of 0s and 1s. So if we have 2 particles connected and at one end we can create 0s and 1s by observing and not observing and the other end if there is a device to capture state of the particle whether it is active or not, it can find the pattern of 1s or 0s. Do you thing there is a possibility of making such a communication method.

Can't observer B have some sort of prior agreement with A, such that what he observes, s/he just takes the message as is? So, when A makes a series of measurements at pt.A, particles at pt.B would have their states affected. B simply measures them and `trust` "oh A made measurements" and take the message as is without requiring a call from A?

My brain hurt. But its very interesting.

So hypothetically, if one had the technology to try to control the outcome of a particle measurement, would it be correct to say that this interferes with the entanglement of the two particles? Where the entanglement breaks down when one obviously has an external force placed upon it to force one state or another while it cannot be known that the same force is or is not applied to the other particle lightyears away?

What if, before i fly to alpha centauri i tell earthlings that: "if you measure 3 up spins in a row that means i wanted to say yes" and "3 spins down in a row means no". Would i be able to cut in half time needed to recive an answer to a yes/no question by being able to answer instantly? Since time will be needed to send question, but no time will be needed to send "yes/no". When answering i don't need to have any control over spins, just measure them enough times to get 3 "ups" or 3 "downs" in a row which will tell the answer.

I don't understand, doesn't the relative orientation of the spin detections matter? The statistical results of the second spin measurement performed on a pair of entangled particles should change if the orientation of the first detector is altered. This is how they tested violation of Bell's inequality i believe. Why can't this be used to send a message from the first detector to the second? You could easily set up a code ahead of time in which the relative timing and/or degree of change in the spin statistics represents arbitrary information. Then you just need to set up beams of entangled particles sent from slightly closer to one detector than halfway between them.

I don't think it matters if you tell the second observer it's entangled. Since the very fact it's part of a communication machine makes that obvious. One question i can never find an answer to. Can we artificially induce a certain spin thereby changing the state of the second particle. Also how long can you keep them entangled. If you can control the spin then up spin is 1 and down spin is 0.

Why not just have person A continue "observing" a string of 1000 particles until all of them are 1. If there are 1000 0's in a row, person b PROBABLY knows that there is a message. Then you have a set of some other particles where you can do that same thing but send the actual message. Why would this not work?

What if when I want to communicate up to you I just keep measuring it until I see down here, then I stop measuring? So, if you see "down, down up", you know the message is "up".

This is probably a dumb idea, but my curiosity is getting the best of me on why it wouldn't work. I think I may already know the answer, but I'm asking anyway. :) What if you had two timers that were synced. You split the particles with a timer going with each. Then at the top of every second on the dot, the timer measuring the remote particle starts looking for a certain pattern to measure every 10 nanoseconds apart for 8 intervals. (or whatever time span/interval it would be possible to measure at to produce something noticeable). To keep it simple we'll say the pattern is 11001100. Then after the timer sees that pattern, it will wait for 50 nanoseconds and start monitoring the particle's position every 5 nanoseconds to get 1s and 0s. These 1s and 0s will be the message. We'll say Albert is with the remote particle and Isaac is with the home particle. Isaac decides he wants to send a message to Albert so he hits the button to manipulate the home particle. At the top of the second, the timer instructs the particle to move 11001100 (1 bit every 10 nanoseconds). Alberts timer detects the 11001100 and sets his communicator to start receiving a message 50 nanoseconds after it receives the signal initiating communication. Alberts timer starts recording the 1s and 0's every 5 nanoseconds till it receives a termination signal from Isaac's particle of 00110011 which sets Albert's timer back to checking at the top of the second again for another incoming message. Then through the magic of computing, we put the 1s and 0s together and get the message. Would our current computers be able to communicate fast enough to measure something at the speeds needed to detect the pattern (I guess with current technology there would be an inherent lag in the circuity causing it to not be in sync? Or would it probably eventually fail because of the timers becoming out of sync due to relativity or some other principles of physics?

But i think , there is still possibility of breaking causality by one way Determined Communication. I have a plan which might work if you reply to discuss Little bit .

So my take away from this is that entanglement happens instantly at any apparent distance but it serves no practical purpose.

Why can't observe B keep a record of what he has and just measures for change?

Question: Quantum computers can prepare qubits in states, then manipulate those states to collapse into a determined state, the result of the computation. What would happen if you prepared entangled qubits A and B, then ship B off far away, then person at qubit A applies an operator that changes the distribution of outcomes. If A and B did not decohere, qubit B will not have a random distribution of states when measured, right? Where is my incorrect assumption? The measurements?

I figured out how the 2 particles entanglemented works no matter what the distance. it works because at the quantum level its a field (unnamed, undiscovered) lets name it Q field. so this is a field kind of same as higgs field or any other fields if there are more. this must be it, i cracked it

My understanding is that you can't alter one particle's spin between spin up and spin down, causing the other particle to flip between spin up and spin down because once you make a measurement, the entanglement is broken. If you could, you could sent Morse Code messages, but you can't. Is that correct?

I dont get it.. how does one affect the other? Whats the difference of a predefined oposite spin of the particles, you just only discover it after detecting it. No explaination that I have seen makes it clear.

So basically, there should be a direct connection to see if the particle’s state are indeed entangle. And, because of that, we still have to use physics that can’t achieve faster than the speed of light. It might be a stupid question but what if we apply the blockchain structure? In order to change the state of the data, you have to be a part of the block.

This is a somewhat old video, but hopefully a response will appear at some point, because I think I get, but I really don't. As I understand it, it basically comes down to the fact that you all you can really do is measure the state, and by that be able to conclude the state at the other end. You cannot enforce a specific state and you cannot know whether or not a measurement has been performed at the other end. So the question becomes, can we actually know that these to particles are entangled? Sure, we have a belief that we know how this stuff works, but can we actually measure it? I suppose, if you measure at both ends, at the exact same time, and the results are always polar opposites, then you can reasonable assume that entanglement has taken place, but then again, it could be pure chance? I don't know, all I'm saying is that if it's actually as simple as I think it is, how on earth is it so hard to explain?

Ok Larry !

whoa, Lawrence Krauss! i didn't know you had a youtube. it's so weird to see a top thinker like you interacting with the new age flat earthers in the youtube comments. lol! but i guess you're used to people like that, i've seen you debate religious people a lot

Macroscopic entanglement was what I was curious about, Nature just announced that there is such a thing; good old synchronicity.

That certain someone did a very nice job on the haircut. :)

I am assuming we cannot control the spin of A. For if we can control the spin of A we can communicate. For if we can control with spin A and 001100 is hello for A and 110011 is hello for B then we just have to let the observes know that they are couple no more phone calls need and B gets 110011 we know A says hello.

I actually understood your explanation! My only question I've been wondering is once you observe a particle, will it become disentangled or will it stay entangled? Or is there a way to re-entangle the particles at a distance?

My question is. Being it that the quantum entanglement is holding two particles and they produce a binary response on detection. Is there any way to manipulate the spin state for example. Planet A has the ability to flip the rotation of the electron at will. Let's say as a static test they keep it pointed up. But if they manipulate the electron into a down spin and then an up spin.. would this not allow for Morse code style communication? Or am I missing something fundamental?

What about warp mail? Send information within a nano warp bubble to a target receiver location. Serious question: How much radiation would be released from a nano warp bubble closing after 10 lightyears of travel? As I recall, a warp bubble collects the radiation/energy it passes through and it becomes amplified in wavelength over the journey and dumps all the energy at once in the form of GAMMA Ray Bursts…Would the receiver have to worry about being near the antenna or planet below?😬 Would this be the best signs to look for rather than radio to detect alien communications? Compressed, condensed, possibly encrypted/encoded signals hidden within small gamma ray bursts? Any science nerds who might know about this or could point me in the right direction?

As far as I can understand this, this spooky action at a distance is, just like the Holy Roman Empire, neither spooky, nor an action, and the distance does not matter. If a write a 0 and a 1 on two pieces of paper and I put them in two envelopes, if the person who has one envelope phones the other and tells them what's the number they saw, of course the other one sees the other number if they check. What could be weird is that a quantum measurement is not necessarily random, or independent, but that is weird only if you go with the premise that it is random and independent, and why should you? It's spooky within the premises of an incomplete theory that has been recognized as such, so why are we continuing to call it spooky?

No ftl communications but now I know how to cheat in quantum entanglement gambling