Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox 

Quantum physics alaways make me laught, cause i don't understan it XD

That is common concealed core math

500th like

Professor : The test is easy The test : 15+15=50

Actually it's 15+15*0.85=50

But a 0% chance if you watch it 3 times, and 15% if 4, then .01% if 5

@@hyhena-gaming9986 I've watched it 100 times, and I think I understand baking now.

Your statement can be true :p 85% didn't understand. Then that same 85 watched twice (because if you understood you wouldn't watch again) and still didn't understand so 100% is true.

It all depends of the polarization of your mental filters in fact.

@@Gr3nadgr3gory I've watched it 12 times and now I can play a guitar.

This video is only 5 yrs old

@@klimmensus6962 he was 14 , now19

Great comment to read. Well done

Me too man. I saw this video when I was, like, 15 and understood jack shit of any of this, but now after haven taken both a EM, QM and an optics course I just can't see what's paradoxical here

This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why. You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler. John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it. According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."

It’s a crap explanation. You don’t even need polarisation to explain it. Just complicates it. See Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody

​@@lukeno4143The paper you referenced www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/mermin/Mermin_short.pdf is far less intuitive than sunglasses, my dude.

This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why. You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler. John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it. According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."

​@@lukeno4143ok undergrad

The 22nd Century DLC will be awesome even though some of us won't be able to play anymore

Yes, and I heard that they’re preparing to reset the universe to prepare for this update

When's that coming?? Has it reached Beta yet? It better not have as many bugs as this launched with.

Ya just fixing bugs

Mith take some decades

One time I cooked with habaneros and used the restroom without washing my hands and I lit something else on fire

hate the annoying music while you light my brain on fire

@@__spacejunk__ Cool! Thank you Sagar Sapre.

Seriously this video just broke my brain

Okie

that's what I was thinking. but the experiment with entangled photons seems to negate this possibility, I think? But I don't know how that experiment was done. the video just suggests that it has been done.

It does, but not physically. It's the act of observing that does it, not the filters themselves physically. The filters themselves cannot change the orientation of the photons, only block them.

@@AveryHyena arrr you sure? because, a mirror or a prism change the orientation of light that gets reflected or refracted, why wouldn't a polarizing lens be able to do so? Then the classical solution makes perfect sense.

@@Alkimi Because all a polarizing lens does is block light. You suggesting mirrors or prisms and then saying "so why wouldn't a polarized lens be able to do so?" makes no sense. They're completely different things that have nothing to do with each other. It's like you're saying "apples grow on trees, so why wouldn't a cat be able to do so?". Also, that's not the kind of orientation we're talking about here. We're talking about the orientation of the photons, not the classical direction of where the light is shining from.

@@AveryHyena you misunderstood. i wasn't referring to the direction of the light radiation, I was referring to the polarization, is that not the "orientation" we're talking about? It has 180° of range, and then there's a phase variance. When light is reflected, the direction changes of course, but it is also polarized to an angle perpendicular to the plane of incidence. That's why polarizing filters get rid of reflections. A mirror was a bad example since it's reflecting all light in all directions, I meant the reflections in a window, they get "polarized by reflection" according to Brewster's Law.

undeserved.

@@bustercam199 why lol

@@dragonuv620 because he didn't prove anything.

Exactly 500 likes? I couldn't ruin this perfection...

I have sad now :(

we did, but we put a third sheet at 22.5° inbetween

HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!

Speaking as an accountant: Financial reports are largely unaffected by the laws of physics and most university-level mathematics. Both US GAAP and IFRS seek to create a system which ignores Gödel's incompleteness theorems (as a side effect of preventing technically-legal financial chicanery).

photons are units, so if I made a really dim light, instead of the light getting dimmer and dimmer, eventually it will just hit in as single photons less and less often. Bell's inequality is sort of how it takes more gas to drive the same distance in less time. When you have three polarizers 22.5 degrees apart, more photons come through than two 45 degrees apart; the photons do not have to change their polarization as much in each step, so it would take less energy, but since photons are quantum, they get through less often instead of having less energy. It is analogous to carrying a pile of bricks, if I asked 100 students to carry 100 bricks 50 yards in a single trip, no one would be able to do it, but if I allow more trips, more people will be able to do it, if there is no limit to the trips everyone can do it.

@@christiancastruita9053 100 people to carry 100 bricks 50 yards in one run?

Their argument (and Bell's) seems flawed. Say we know that from position A a robot can shoot a basketball into a hoop hung at B 12 feet away 85% of the time (or symmetrically from B to A at 85% also). From position B the robot can shoot to position C 12 feet away from B also with 85% success (or from C to B at 85% also). Also, experiments and theory have shown the robot can shoot from A to C 50% of the time. [note we haven't said where C is relative to A] Say we carry out an experiment analogous to the description in the video: Two similar robots decide if they will both go to position A or position B except that one goes to one part of earth and the other to the opposite part of the planet. (the two courts are set up the same way as goes A B and C etc.) The experimenters recording the data at the two locations can't beforehand see where the robots position themselves, but they can independently at the same time direct the nearby robot to shoot at A, B, or C. Once the robots shoot, the experimenters will know the positions and can record hit/miss and tally %s over many trials with many new sets of robots. Later they compare notes. They find the 85% and 50% (and 100%) hit rates mentioned in the video, depending on where shoots were taken. Now, this experiment was not with quantum particles but just like the eye glasses and beards in the video, we can use it as an analogy to explain the set theory. Except that the Venn diagrams apply to properties that presumably can both be true at a moment. But this is not true for these experiments. The particles cannot go through multiple filters and start in multiple states (that was the first half of the video and it was a flawed argument). Same for the robots, each pair of robots goes to exactly one location and shoots exactly once. It's only when tallying many such trials that we can see the overall effect (like when we see an interference pattern through slits). So we come to the flaw: even though the set logic implies properties like beards and eye glasses must obey the constraints and cannot be at the 50% level (.85*.85>.5) -- this limitation follows because set logic includes transitive law, for example -- with the experiments we cannot link the AC polarizer filtering (or shooting) to the AB and BC cases the same way because the latter would take 2 shots. The AC details are not implied by AB and BC. If the robot shoots from A to B and then shoots from B to C, we can bound the odds they make both shots (.85*.85). That is what the Venn diagram says. BUT we CANNOT bound a single shoot from A to C by knowing AB, BC. To show how silly it would be to try, we never specified where C was. If C is 2 feet from A (ABC as a triangle), then AC % would be very high. On the other hand if the robots aren't that strong and if C was 12 ft from A, then AC might be 0%. The point is that we cannot put tight bounds on AC, hidden variables or not, based on AB and BC results. It's more than conceivable that a particle might easily slip through an opening at 22.5 degrees from its position yet have a very difficult time going through a 45 degrees adjustment, for example. And this has nothing to do with hidden variables or for that matter quantum mechanics (we can see that macroscopic waves can have interference patterns and other quantum wave properties). Conclusion: the Venn diagram argument puts bounds on a third result that can follow transitively from two other results (ie, all be true at once), but it can't put a limit on a third action (going from A to C) based on two other distinct actions (AB, BC). After all, going from A to C likely doesn't follow the path taken from A to B and then from B to C any more than shooting a basketball from A to C is done by shooting at basket B and then getting the ball to go back up in the air after going through the B hoop but without hitting the ground -- ridiculous. How can we conclude Bell was correct? The video and Bell made a valiant effort to preserve the Copenhagen interpretation, but that needs to die. It's the 21st century for goodness sake. [In both related and unrelated news, Schrodinger's "cat" is either dead or alive, not both or neither, IMO]

My dog died in 07 RIP Kitty

Well duh, when you turned your head 90 degrees all the information fell out of your head.

Commenting to get a notification if anyone comes to prove you wrong. I really appreciate people like you in comment sections. Thank you for taking the time to not cut corners and write your thoughts out in full detail, and being venerable to being wrong

@@aaronrdaniels same here

The probability resetting idea is much like saying you have a 50% change of flipping 200,000 tails in a row since each flip does not depend on the previous result and the probability is "reset". I do agree with the 72.25 though. In an experiment with 200 photons, 3 filters, and perfect probability: 100 pass A, 85 pass B, and 72.25 pass C. With only 2 filters: 100 pass A, 50 pass C. Therefore filter B changed 22.25 photons from being C-blocked to being C-passed. The answer to the mystery lies in how polarization and filtering affects photons and their angle and the fact that a photon does not need to be 100% aligned with a filter to pass even with perfect theoretical filters.

@@iplay9s This. Because if it was any other way the order of the filters wouldn't matter. But it does. No information is learned from this experiment at all... I really don't know why some people see it as proving or disproving anything other than confirming the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...

@@insu_na yeah ur right my bad for not being familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and asking a question so I could learn.

no wonder if lost attention since i can only pay attention for 1 min at a time

That explains the smoke coming out of my ears.

Thue Morse 17.34*

more like 14 episodes the rest is just an ad. well each ep has is own ad so i'll let you do the math.

Querez 17.57*

And every minute of it was physics Technically correct :D the best kind of correct

Noone says "one minute"

Everything is relative

mind - blown hotel - trivago

It’s physics man. They don’t care how long it is because of relativity theory lol 😂

The problem comes with the entangled photons: How do the dice rolls get correlated when (thanks to relativity) they can't communicate.

@Luke Fabis - You are 100% right, if a photon passes a polarizer, its polarization gets aligned accordingly and that gives a complete and correct explanation of the first experiment. As for a single photon passing a series of filters, this clip is a total misrepresentation of Quantum Mechanics.

​@@PragmaticAntithesis Look at 12:05 You suppose entanglement exists if you want to explain why photons appear to behave probabilistically, under the assumption they actually depend on a hidden variable. The hidden variable hypothesis could just be wrong, in which case entanglement does not exist and whether or not a photon gets absorbed by a polarized filter is entirely up to chance.

I like that

It will be a 1 1/2 days long

Does that mean I missed planckphysics?

LOL So true!

I literally can't wait for 2021's Yearphysics episode.

And he won a Nobel prize today!

Actually, this video and many others inspired me to study physics at university. And I'm now a phd student in Alain Aspect's group, doing experiments I coudn't even dream about!

@@trucmuche8174 👍🏾🤘🚀

@@trucmuche8174 Serious question: (11mins.50secs) "There is literally no way to accurately represent all 3 of these proportions in a diagram like this". Why is it right to try to explain Bells' Inequality using a 2 dimensional diagram? Is it possible Bells Inequality becomes 'equal', or can be explained in another dimension. This is probably nonsense but......???

Fun fact: John Bell in his original paper "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" did not conclude that his theorem debunks "hidden variables" but only states that if they exist it would imply nonlocal effects. Bell in his paper "Against Measurement" criticized the "no hidden variable" approach saying that it places too much emphasis on measurement (and thus observer) dependence and thus makes it impossible to imagine how the theory could be scaled up to large systems. He then, in his paper "On the impossible pilot wave," became a major contributor to Bohm's pilot wave interpretation, which posits that nonlocal hidden variables can explain quantum mechanics intuitively, and further Bell expresses his frustration in that paper that people aren't taking such ideas seriously. When you actually learn the history of Bell, you realize how bizarre it is that this video presents Bell's theorem as a disproof of hidden variables and then calls a nonlocal interpretation (which was Bell's own interpretation of his own theorem) as "crazy," not bothering to address any of Bell's arguments against it (or Einstein's, or Schrodinger's, etc).

answer me this It is regarded that an Upwards direction is a higher place; towards what is above. To a higher figure or amount. Towards something which is higher in order, larger, superior etc. If you was asked to point your arms UP in the air , every person would do just that so why do we subconsciously say when travelling or moving Northwards as "up north" " Hi Im Jock and Im from way up in the scottish highlands "and Southwards "down south" "I drove my car all the way down to cornwall from london today to lizard point the most southerly point in th UK and Why is it Australia known universally as "down under" because according to the planet upwards is skywards , and downwards is into the earth ,also north, east , south and west on a sea journey would equal to Bow - Straight Ahead (Forwards, Bowled[cricket] ) , Astern or Stern (meaning From the rear or behind ,Not Backwards as boats cannot travel in reverse/Backwards) Port (to the left) and Starboard (to the right), also according to Science The Zenith is the highest point on a sphere and The Nadir is the opposite from a fixed earth point, but from MY own personal perspective my zenith (directly above my head) is unique to my own flesh and blood , everywhere where I go my Zenith and my Nadir go with me.

T Ti ⟂ iT π Pi⫫ iP Itiptipi EYE PITY IT

@@DJ-Brownie-UK man whose supply are you smokin

And what about dimensional movement relative to the dimensional state of the matter under consideration? Can you have quantum entanglement between dimensions that explain directional movement of light?

@@flatline-timer there is no need to hostile, if my comment triggered your response and then was too difficult for you to comprehend, that is purely your personal issue, so please do not project that old gaslighting technique onto myself with your intention to smear my character with the "druggy" stigmatta

Photons are waves, so wave good bye to your sanity.

What do you expect? It's minutesphysics now😝

no, it’s a synonym of smallphysics

We can only rue the wasted opportunity: this wasn't an epi on special relativity ;)

that's what she said

If you pas a minute through a filter it comes out to be 17 minutes... Quantum!

It's called time dilation, must have been recorded in an event horizon before the monkey fell in.

That's slightly over a dozen minutes physics

17 of them, to be precise

This video is WAY too convoluted, taking forever to explain nothing, over and over and over again.

You should have a look at this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZQAvVgnreWk.html

These* kinds*

He is creating a sloped gradient change in the lights orientation because of inputting a middle glass. The 2nd glass orientates the light 22.5 degrees allowing the light to pass throw the 3rd glass filter with higher probability. It's not as weird as they are pretending it to be. Kinda like bouncing a basket ball off of the backboard to make the shot.

+Ryan Franks [citation needed]

Robert B what's the other kind(s) of videos? Why would Mateja's statement NEED to be pluralized? :-B

No, this is weirder than you CAN think!

@Alan Barnett but is it weirder than how you think

But I think even weirder

The only wierd part I see is how the supposed math paradox arrives from ignoring one of the simplest observable possibilities

@@worsethanyouthink what possibility is that?

This video is horrible and is incredibly ideological. You should actually read John Bell, he was frustrated with people like MinutesPhysics misrepresenting his own theorem. Bell had argued that it is not an appropriate conclusion to draw from his theorem that there are no hidden variables. In his original paper where he proposed the theorem called "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox" he makes it clear in the conclusion that the theorem only implies that if hidden variables exist, they would have to have nonlocal effects on each other, which the video just dismisses this idea calling it "crazy" without giving any explanation as to why. You might think dismissing hidden variables and thus nonlocality is a good conclusion due to Occam's razor, but John Bell criticized this argument. He wrote a paper called "Against Measurement" where in it he shows that even if you assume no hidden variables, this doesn't solve the EPR paradox because it just introduces a new paradox these days called the Measurement Problem. This means that if you try to solve the EPR paradox by assuming that hidden variables don't exist, you just open up a brand new problem elsewhere, and so it's not inherently simpler. John Bell would then go onto write another paper called "On the Impossible Pilot Wave" where in it he argues that that potential theories for how to explain quantum effects using nonlocal hidden variables already exist, using the pilot wave theory as an example. He also in it expressed frustration that people were not taking it seriously, that nobody had ever mentioned pilot wave theory to him and it's never discussed in textbooks, as if people were trying to sweep it under the rug. Bell would then go onto work on pilot wave theory and tried to develop it. According to MinutePhysics, John Bell, the guy who made the theorem, is "crazy!" Or maybe MinutePhysics just doesn't understand what the actual theorem shows and is just regurgitating talking points he heard elsewhere, since he does not address any of John Bell's arguments against his interpretation of Bell's theorem other than dismissing them as "crazy."

Gregory Dixon seriously dude, find something better to do with your time, then being salty about the title of the video. geez man

Ponk 80 It was a joke. geez man

I think you were near a huge gravitating body or travelling near c m/s.

Ponk 80 you mad?

Minute means small

Someone tried to be very edgy by wearing a lot of sunglasses

Josue Dominguez Yep How about 4...polarised lenses.....and then utilising a convex, concave, plain lenses, with camouflaging effect material! The problem with that was when I went for lunch I could not find the experiment when I came back. I put that down to time travel though!

You know polarized glass was invented first and then used for sunglasses and not the other way around, right?. Like someone discovering polarized glass by playing with sunglasses.

It’s not a paradox

@@TaylerKnox I hadn't thought so either.

Maybe the light would filter into your eyes and then not into the rest of the room ;)

That's an awesome idea, but the "third" filter must be placed in between the two others, the person's glasses would be a third filter after the two others, it would still be 100% dark

@@lapidations damn i need to watch the video again, i havent paid much attention to it

so, are there any sunglasses that can adjust the light that comes to the eyes by the user?

If two polarizing filters block the light completely, adding a third one BEFORE or AFTER them will not magically reveal the blocked light. You need to insert the third one between the two to make the light visible.

Exactly

@@arch4223 why have you forsaken me, in your heart forsaken me, in your mind FORSAKEN MEEEE OH

It's not a bug, it's a feature!

@@tomwhipp3245 easter egg

Gonna fix it in the next update, sorry guys!

Plot twist: they're Euler diagrams.

there's 3 different kinds 1 thats funny 1 that's a pun and 1 that's kinda between

At first this joke didn't get through to me. Then I tilted my head 45 degrees and understood 85 percent of it.

@Risto Paasivirta ... you mean 22.5°. If you tilt your head 45° you understand half of it ... unless someone in front of you tilts their head 22.5°... then you understand 70%.

no... just no...

NeilIsBored gnomes are what makes the genome 🧬

I think they’re testing that at the large hadron collider

I was going to make a lame joke about genomes but thought better of it

I like gnomes so I will say no.

WHERE ARE MY WEE MEN

Bump ⬆️ My brain immediately went the same place. Looking forward to someone’s reply proving both of us wrong. :)

Bump ⬆️ Me too I wondered that very same thing.

Biggest problem in the video, they wait to talk about entangled particles until 8:45 . Particles that are entangled act the same way, passing through b makes it more likely to pass through c, so if there is an 'excitement' answer, it transfers information faster than light (anti locality over anti realism) Entanglement on its own seems like an obvious anti locality problem, but there are a lot of other examples like how observation changes outcomes, or the uncertainty principle that make it muddier

also the direction of the filter could allow the protons to get more of a nudge. imagine driving a car on a race track, don’t touch the wheel, at some point the car will hit the wall and make the left turn regardless. This couldn’t happen if the track was a hard right angle. The car would hit the wall and stop. Maybe the car/photon is getting a nudge from the filters? there is a physics theory or whatever that says something like, a filter or sieve of a certain size will trap smaller particles than it’s supposed to be cause of minor pulls /clumping at the filter points. van der wall doesn’t sound right though. Anyway, maybe instead of the particles getting smashed into the filter, they get slightly angled the right way to be able to make it through the next filter?

The assumption that things are “filtered” aka stopped is based on a physical understanding that things something moving up/down will be more likely to pass through a narrow slit oriented up/down…. But I think what you are saying is it will still pass through but with only the measurable effects in one direction. The other photons are just “invisible” to our measurements. When they hit the next filter, their orientation can be brought back into our visible space (aka, whatever we don’t see happening in extra dimensions is brought back to our space). On the surface, this feels like a possible violation of energy conservation within our known dimensions, but it also makes me wonder if there is some interactions between (now made invisible) particles in the extra dimensions. Leading to some of the oddness with FTL communication (since we wouldn’t have an understanding of how these extra dimensions Exist meaning perhaps ftl communication is possible aka wormhole theory only on a universal/fundamental level). Without fully understanding quantum mechanics, I’ve often thought there is a missing piece between our understanding of discrete/continuous (in the same way math gets weird at “orders of infinity”, or the walk from a to be b paradox where in some representations the distance between you and the end point gets smaller and smaller but you never actually get there). Not necessarily related, but could explain part of what’s broken with our current understanding.

Yeah! Something like that

What if I already have a beard and glasses?

@@FosukeLordOfError then you shouldnt be here watching minute physics unless op shaves

Not if you are blind.

Well, I think there’s a 15% chance you won’t need glasses…

xD

like that vine, im jus like ":) okay"

If you're a physicist, maybe you can answer a question I had about this video: The "paradox" disappears if we assume that the middle lens can modify the light in some way that makes it more likely to pass through the third lens, but given that this wasn't mentioned, I'm assuming that it's not possible. Why not?

Matt Kilgore I'm with you here, I wanna know too

just remember that 15+15 doesnt equal 50

The baby is sleeping, so the volume was turned down, the captions turned on, the video paused, and I stepped through the video with my arrow key caption by caption. Mostly concentrated on the captions, not so much on the diagrams. I saw a lot of effort spent defining the outcome of the assorted polarizing filters, but I didn't get any insight into how the quantum quandary works.

I was gonna read more but then I clicked read more

"Distraction Culture" lmao. That's the funniest thing i've heard in possibly my entire life.

TL/DR

Kidding. What you've written is dead-on.

The Venn Diagram is misleading when it comes to probabilities. The filters play an active role in the process that is not displayed. A single pair of entangled photons tells you very little about entanglement. Do the experiment with filters yourself and you will see what I mean.

You sir are a comedic genius.

No way. Really.

You and your friends( if real) miss the point that actually mentioned in the video. You see, after you share dialoge that you had with your first friend( I really hope that you have that conversation with someone) you change past and now your second friend thinks you are crazy and you are crazy because you just killed your first imaginary friend just by sharing this info by your second imaginary friend but relax, its OK. Now you know why.

It's a trend... I get a few videos seven years recommended.

Three years now

3 years for me, after I leave my physics postdoc job.

What's so special about that?

What do you mean twisted?

Photons may twist/torque when polarized. Say sn 80° photon hits a 90° filter with a certain probability of passing. This photon is the main character so it passes, but passing the filter at a -10° angle outputs the photon at a +10° angle. The now 100° photon has a larger chance of passing the next filter at 112.5° than if it had stayed at 80°. You would also see 100° photons be torqued into 80°, so you would see no abnormal distribution using just 2 filters, like trying to plot a line given only one point. But when you add a third filter, you give the system a vector and direction which results in more photons being torqued into the direction of filter C than away from it. Don't know if any of this is true but it's one explanation for this "paradox".

That was covered in the video. The idea was put forth that the filter was changing the photon in some way. This was actually a large part of the second half of the video.

@@gregsonvaux4492 i didnt quite understand the second part with the entanglement experiments. Have they basically proved that the photons arent being twisted/changed/effected when they pass through one filter? if so, i think it all boilsdown to the Heisenberg uncertainty equation. Light passing through a filter means light passing through a grid at atomic levels (Glass/silicon crystals). And the more dense the crystal grid structure is the less certain does it become to determine which vector/angle/twist a lightwave will have, hence it becomes unclear/uncertain to tell that the lightwaves that passed through have a certain twist to them. This therefore wouldn't be actually a nrw paradoxon but rather the same paradoxon as the Heisenberg uncertainty but just as another experiment?

@@QuinnTheTailor the entanglement argument goes as folows (I think): It doesn't really show that in the single particle case no twisting happens, but it rather shows, that in a different scenario (when paving two entangled particles A and B), the same numbers emerge, and now in this setting we cannot fix the explanation by saying that the photons get twisted by a filter: Prepare particles A and B entangled such that they are polarized in the same direction (i.e. when shooting each of them through their own filter, pointing in the same direction they will both pass with 100%) Now let A fly to alpha centauri and choose to measure in direction X (it passes) this now means that A is polarized in direction X Immediatly "afterwards" sent B on earth through a filter in direction Y=/=X It passes with a probabality equal to what we would expect if it were polarized in direction X This implies, that if we set particle A to direction X, by letting it pass a filter in that direction, that its entangled partner B will also be set into this direction. We can imagine that A is "twisted" into this direction X, but then we have to accept that somehow information of this twisting process is transferred to Particle B *immediatly*, s.th. B is also twisted into the same direction *immediatly*, somehow implying "fasterthan light" travel

check out schrodingers cat then

TheBobiaan shrodingers cat is a zombie cat that is both alive and dead until you look at it. But if you can look at it with a triple filter sunglasses from the movie They Live, you can see their lying reptilian eyes are secretly zombie eyes. And if you look closer you can see Michael Jackson doing the thriller dance leading a zombie cat uprising that is here to quantumly entangle us all!!!

Household Dog lol

Qantum is bullshit. Thats why your head hurts. It's your instincts battling the mind control. Go and study magnets. It won't hurt. Youll understand the universe very easily.

I will just add. Photos are not real. They are only theoretical. No one has ever give them a mass, there are no photographs. But they make the maths work...

Yes please! They worked so well together.

Kind of true. No photons get through any filter. They are all absorbed and new one are emitted. It is a sequential process not showing up in a Venn diagram.

Lmao dude

Hahaha, you're not the first thinking about that. A quote from Douglas Adams, a sci-fi/comedy writer. “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

*shrug* Whatever, universe. Empiricism ftw. ;)

This is so gonna go viral LMFAO

I like this duck's witty mind. Pretty handy to avoid going nuts. Like when I'd finally learned about physics and it being _everywhere_ , feeling great about my increased knowledge, and then discovering quantum mechanics. Grrrr.

I do actually remember seeing a video on here somewhere that states there IS indeed a nebula composed entirely of alcohol or ethanol. Not lying.

wow

@@MikinessAnalog i don't think thats quite possible

@@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179 phys.org/news/2014-09-alcohol-clouds-space.html#:~:text=Yes%2C%20there%20is%20a%20giant,isn't%20suitable%20for%20drinking oh really?

@@MikinessAnalog I came here to write this exact thing haha. it's indeed true. though, in space, you can find just about anything.

What is a photon?

Yes, that's totally true.

I think this is exactly right. If the photons are tilted/shifted/knocked/nudged rather than filtered/weeded out/sifted/blocked then there is no paradox, it's fully explained.

Exactly. This is not paradox. Also these filters break the entanglement state immediately. Spooky action at a distance don't exist.

Yes, there's nothing weird for a single photon, but things get more interesting for entangled photon pairs. You can google for the Bell experiment, which is not explained in detail at 9:10 .

Me2

“What ever that that quote is about science being magic”

“Whenever humans don’t understand something, they call it magic and try to explain with science.”

Magic is just science we don’t yet understand.

People in the 3rd century be like

They do get a little confusing when they start to show the Venn diagrams and rapidly go through the explanations of them. That would never have happened in my physics class.

@@wayneyadams The "rapid" part is my sole gripe about Minutephysics videos. One does need to rewind multiple times to digest.

It works for me.

@@avhuf but we can rewind tho

@@wayneyadams just imagine it like water equilibrium and awareness. Or like gas in the car scenario. Im driving somewhere and idk how much gas I used until I get there. Locality. Information travels as fast as the car. Realism. I will know how much gas if I can account for all the variables.

mastermclovin 🤗

Universal Engine Code Obfuscation, but it won't stop us from making our reactionless engines!

@Harry Kiralfy Broe It just works.

The Universe is in beta test.

Humanity will colonize space with the equivalent of wall glitching in Halo.

That's because they don't actually make sense, here. The classical explanation for the three-polarizer problem is that as the light passes through each polarizer, both its amplitude AND its polarization change. These are two independent properties of a photon, but they're bringing in "entangled particles" for no good reason, muddying the water. Bottom line is, the video is Just. Plain. Wrong. Don't waste your time; find a better video to explain this.

its not weird, bells theorem is false -just do a quick google and you'll see that. now how to explain this polarizer thing is the harder part BUT the hint it how placing many makes more light pass through: you can turn the light waves to a different direction, kind of like when you are playing a racing game and hit a wall: if its 90 degrees you'll stop at the wall, but if its less, you'll turn and eventually be able to turn even the 90 degrees just because it comes in many hits to a wall.

@@CloudyFlow ? Bell's theorem is true, just do a quick non biased research and you will see that

@@randomprodigius914 People also ask Is Bell's theorem disproved? Bell's theorem is refuted by presenting a counterexample that correctly predicts the expectation values of QM. As Bell only ruled out non-contextual models, a contextual model with hidden variables can refute his theorem.

It´s not weired. It have to do all of his functions.

"The universe is not weird, we are."

Well this isn't easy material, and I didn't personally think this video was easy to follow because it was too fast and there were too many things to track at the same time (even though I've learned this material before!) Many famous physicists had a hard time coming to grips with this theorem -- that's why it's such an earth shattering result because it really shows that we needed a different way to describe states. It is still debated philosophically.

Amen

Hey, we're smart enough to watch the video and try to understand it. And, remember, this is QUANTUM PHYSICS. So remember... while others were watching cats and worldstar, you were watching science.

Usually the answers to the most complex questions are the most simplest...quantum theory does my head in ....but this really portrayed how there may be a sub science to our science...like know all your scales...then forget them and just play...🙂

We are just starting.....

Well if you introduce it with the wrong theory you loose the audience on that point, so don't fucking go there in the first place.

Then they probably shouldn't have focused so much on polarizing filters. I didn't even know about this phenomenon before watching the video, and it seemed perfectly obvious and intuitive to me that the filters don't just stop light, but also affect its polarity. Honestly they lost me about the time they went into the entanglement experiments, because they hadn't convinced me at that point that there was actually anything strange going on. But then I don't claim to get quantum physics.

StraightOuttaJarhois I don't think you understood the video. Why should three filters block _less_ light than two? The key thing to understand is that you can't have half a photon. That's what planck discovered, that's what experiments confirm, that's why quantum physics isn't classical.

__ _ No, I absolutely don't understand quantum physics. But light acts as both waves and particles, and if you look at it as waves it makes perfect sense that, if the filters don't just block light, but also align its polarity, an intermediate filter will increase transmission. The math checks out too.

StraightOuttaJarhois Please watch the first video (the one by 3blue1brown). It explains the math. What your saying makes sense in a classical world--the filter would just take the component of the vector aligning with the filter. But that doesn't happen in reality because _you can't have half a photon._ So sending diagonally polarized light through a vertically oriented filter _doesn't_ just absorb the horizontal component of the light while letting the verical component through, which is what you'd expect classically. Why? because it's magnitude would then be sqrt(2) (if the original photon was 1, by the Pythagorean theorem), which isn't allowed by quantum physics. Measurements confirm this---electromagnetic radiation is quantized. The first video explains all this in more detail, complete with clarifying animations.

@Hagogs 😂

@Hagogs oh do please elaborate. This should be entertaining.

We wouldn't want to teach our children to believe in the outcome of scientific experiments instead of what we want to believe, that would be terrible 😀

or Sen Zen maybe

Ha!

+Boco Corwin mmmmm...... Venn pie-agram

Sleepy Dog Pi Day Pizza Pie-agram.

Boco Corwin Vi Hart and Venn Diagrams 😍

Greg Orcutt +

Have my like

Half century completed

It doesn't matter nothing is real apparently

this sort of things happen literally all the time infinitely

@@el0j Yes. But those two though.

The outro was great too! It was a great collab 👍💯

Theyre just people. No need for eceleb worship.

That's why they discussed the experiment with filters spread apart spacially.

I was watching Bell's theorem videos to get the answer to this very question! This video does a great job of explaining it, see 8:45 onwards.

Thinking through this... [Speculation] It seems like this would depend on the nature of entanglement. If changes to one particle affects the other, regardless of distance, AND the 'filtering' is a 'deflected towards alignment', THEN since it's hitting both lenses 'at the same time', it would make sense that the result would look the same as having gone through both lenses, since, in effect, they have. -- This does ask whether entanglement is a violation of 'locality', in terms of if the result is considered 'communication' in the scientific sense. ... But that depends on the nature and limits of entanglement.

I had another thought... If entanglement is along the lines of a higher dimensional pinning, (like a magnet holding a bend in a sheet of paper, causing a 2d closeness using a 3d area, even if the paper shifts under it) then 'locality' doesn't need to be a problem either.

@@crookycumbles But only second filter that it passes through is spatially separated. Each photon is still passing 2 filters in that experiment. First filter - by both photons (to get an entangled pair), then each photon goes to its own second filter. So the question is still valid

Sort of work?

If you are not too fat you'll probably be able to squeeze yourself thru this mess. Don't worry.

I think that means 50% of us must also be wearing your glasses, or that 85% of my beard can communicate with yours faster than light, or something

It's because they restate the same thing in different words about 50 times.

Get yourself a white lab coat and a bow tie and you will understand everything.

try a mustache & red frames ; )

Kacee do your homework man

:-D

Kacee FAHUUUUCK HOMEWORK! It's like the least efficient way to learn. You do the same shit twenty times in a row and get so bored about it you forget that shit. I'm in trig Rn. It's aight cuz I don't do homework and get good grades cuz I'm very smart.

/r/iamverysmart

Math😩

In addition, if you're wondering about the questioning of realism and whatnot, they're only relevant at quantum scales. The effects get diluted at higher scales, and basically vanish at the human scale; classical physics exists and has realism and whatnot for a reason, specifically that they work at the human scales we function on. It's honestly depressing how many people fail to properly understand this, or communicate it if they do.

And there is probably some (normal?) distribution of angles of light which pass through the each filter.

Thank you! This is why wave particle duality is so important. I've tried to explain this to people before, but no one seems to get it.

K1naku5ana3R1ka there is actually a glimpse of this that you speak of in the animation of the light wave. But i was confused why they didnt say a thing about it. If it wasnt for you i would still be super confused

That explanation works for the initial experiment but 9:10 and onwards explain why it can't actually be the correct explanation.

This is exactly what I was thinking too! Especially because Grant said that the polarizing filters also change the polarisation of the incident light by 90 degrees. I don't see the paradox here.

@@aurelia8028 Well if that was the case, why would 2 filters block out the light entirely? And why would the intensity change if the number of photons is the same?

​@@CrazeXDintensity by what measure

And that was shown in the second part of the video. The part about entangled particles.

@@aurelia8028 disclaimer: I am far from an expert. I believe the filters don’t change the polarization or reorient the light, they just filter photons. Pass or not pass. The “paradox” has to do with the percentage of particles that pass through at each angle and how it differs from what we would expect. It confuses me a bit too, but believe me, there is something weird going on and it’s mind boggling. There’s a video on SixtySymbols that got it to click for me originally. I found the polarized light thing more confusing than other methods of showing the violation of the inequality.

17 minutes summed up in one sentence

www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-are-closing-the-bell-test-loophole-20170207/

Maybe *polarizing* filters are for *polarizing* the light? Nah, that's as ridiculous as if bolt cutters were for cutting bolts.

BTW, there's a certain "chance" because it's also a phase-dependent process (just like every other physical interaction). Well, that and the fact that the real "filters" aren't perfect.

Lol that is literally what he said when explaining what happens when photons pass through the lens

Exactly, they should not talk that fast when presenting such complicated issues, there is no time for the viewer to think or 'digest' what the viewer is seeing.

My same thoughts.