Einstein's Quantum Riddle | Full Documentary | NOVA | PBS 

It's also completely meaningless. ;-)

It looked like they were trying to get random entropy in the most complex way possible.

@@ronbaechle6476 Nah, they simply wanted to write a bullshit article and they did. ;-)

Ignore the rubbish comments. I thought it was cool also. 'Random entropy' just sounds like a buzz word. Entropy isn't random.

@@AbbStar1989 Cool maybe, but not serious physics.

PBS, does have good documentaries.

So that means you pay a subscription to watch PBS. If you wait to see a documentary from them here it could be a decade old even though they just uploaded it. I know this is a re-run from 2018.

@@minirock000 yes I have the PBS app and passport

@@minirock000 but this goes to show you you don't have to pay for it for PBS to be willing to share it

@@matthew-jy5jp Exactly which is why I have them in my will when I pass its not a lot compared to what they've given me but it's a little...

Occam's razor was in "Contact". It seems to be long overdue in quantum physics.

Failure is the greatest teacher.

@@SadhuBiochemist Thanks for your reply. Gives me something else to look into and learn a little more.

i think our searches themselves mysteriously, are connected,

You got your PhD with the thesis, didn't you? Ok then. Stfu

I'm sure you already have the understanding, give yourself more credit dear 😊

I could provide online resources. I'd love to see someone join mathematic-cultism. So many damn freaky symbols but it's fun lol.

I awoke one morning from a dream in which I was in a higher math class , it was called , "A course in the study of the structure of uneven light ." 😮😅In our dreams we are learning things ! and I truly believe it .

math is only needed to prove, not understand. you can prove things and still not understand. I quit school when I was 14 but understand space does not exist in the quantum world, if there is no space then time goes out the window too. The Toa fysicists were right, everything is one. Love your neighbor as yourself, because, in a sense ,, your neighbor is you. i wish my neighbor was rich.

Imo, the only reason for the universe to be like it is, is that the universe is a computer program. And it needs to save ram or time.

If you lived 5000 years ago and were having in-depth ideas about how bees make honey, you could observe, hypothesise, test and gradually gain or rule out different ideas, and you’d soon have some pretty reliable knowledge about how bees make honey. Even without a formal education, humans (when determined enough) are pretty good at learning about their environment through observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Once you start thinking deeply about folds of extra dimensions in the fabric of spacetime and how Quantum entanglement might work, even string theory, we are really devoid of all the tools we might have used previously (other than hypothesis). Any of what you suggest might be correct or partially correct, but we just don’t have any way of of testing any of those ideas. That’s why Quantum Mechanics is so incredible. It’s an amazing step, that has taken us so far, that we find ourselves hypothesising about things we just can’t really test.

Why? It really isn't that remarkable. It would be more remarkable if they could explain just exactly how they KNOW the photons detected were from the exact same source, and not some random sources. But... they can't explain that... because the truth is, they just don't know the source of every photon they detected. I'm not arguing quantum mechanics, or even entanglement. I'm just saying that there is no certainty of anything at all, at the quantum level.

@@curtisreynolds7375 Perhaps...I'm confident they thought that part through, but of course I'm not enough of a physicist to know for certain.

Tremendous emphasis (and imagination) on the filter switches being controlled by distant quasars--but none on the emitter producing the photon pairs. I'd love to see as much detail and effort on that end of the experiment.

@@roundedges2 Perhaps because the quasars part was something new, while emitting entangled photon pairs is something they've been doing for at least five decades now. My guess anyway, not being a physicist.

@@curtisreynolds7375 perhaps the 2 quasars are 1 and the same quasar occupying space in 2 places. The chances of these scientist picking a single light source in 2 different places once would be infinitely dismal. Now add entanglement theory and the chances increase to 100%. Spooky theory.

He would say "So what, show me some cats"

There's nothing you could do to manipulate Einstein's opinion unless you provided a set of experiments that detect and outline properties of the ether. In which case you'd be supporting his opinion.

Glenn, you are completely correct. This video was uploaded in 2023, but must have been uploaded by someone who taped the original broadcast way back when. Actually, there are multiple uploads of the video (I also commented on one of the other copies). You state that an "updated PBS documentary on this subject would be even more mind blowing" and I agree, especially if the updated video was expanded to cover all the aspects of the story that do need to be covered in order to make the story more complete, but were completely skipped in the original video - thus making this video completely lacking, in my opinion (as opposed to the many commenters praising this video to high heavens - most of whom were largely mislead as to the true meaning of the events described in the video, due to the lack of completeness just mentioned). The updated video would be all the more apropos due to last year's awarding of the Nobel prize in Physics to Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger. The original video does a really great job of covering the background and history on the topic (and let's be clear that the topic really is Bell's Theorem and his paper, along with all the later experimental tests of the same, all of which descended from Einstein's 1935 EPR paper, and of course the specific Bell Test covered in detail in the video is a test oriented toward ruling out a particular loophole (and they do a zero or at least a crap job of talking about the loophole and what that's all about)). I also liked their description of the Hippy era attempts at combining Eastern Mysticism with quantum physics. But the original video falls way short in its feeble attempts to explain what a Bell Test or Bell's Theorem or the Bell Inequality is all about. As a result, lots of people are heaping praise on this video, yet don't have the foggiest clue as to what it's all about. In fact, many commenters here mistakenly believe that when Einstein poked fun of "spooky action at a distance," that meant Einstein did not believe in such (spooky - his adjective in poking fun of it) action at a distance, but that Bell's Theorem (and subsequent Bell Tests) proves that indeed, such action at a distance can and does happen. That is absolutely not what Bell's Theorem and Bell Tests mean. It was meant by Einstein as a physics joke to raise the point that this needs to be researched further, and in fact Einstein hoped we would find a more comprehensive theory that subsumes quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics. Thus far, we haven't been successful at finding such a more comprehensive theory, but John Bell did research one aspect of such a desired theory, namely whether or not we could find a theory that incorporated some sort of Realism - which Einstein also yearned for. At the time Bell did his research, there was only one very simplistic Flavor of Realism that anyone could think of, so John stuck that in as the Realism to be tested in his research paper. It turns out that overly simplistic Flavor of Realism was just that - too simplistic to work while being consistent with both Quantum Mechanics and Locality of Causality. Locality is the opposite of "action at a distance" (spooky or not). Locality is implied by Special Relativity, so we're pretty sure that holds true. And we're pretty sure Quantum Mechanics holds true, since it works so darn well. What Bell's theorem does is accomplish a logical proof that is a proof by contradiction - that is, starts with some assumptions but then arrives at a contradiction, such that at least one of your assumptions must be wrong. Well the three core assumptions are (a) QM is true; (b) Locality of Causality (that is, no action at a distance); and (c) the somewhat lame (as it turns out) Flavor of Realism. Bell's theorem that involves consequences of Quantum Mechanics involving entangled particles, arrives at a contradiction, such that one of those three must be wrong. You gotta throw out one of the three assumptions. Well, you don't throw out (a) QM cuz we're pretty darn sure that is true. So do you throw out (b) Locality of Causality? Well some misguided viewers of this video apparently think so. They think that Bell's Theorem proves that (spooky, per Einstein) action at a distance does happen - namely that Locality of Causality is violated by entangled particles in a Bell Test. Well, physicists are 99.999% sure that you can't violate Locality of Causality. Why? Not just because Einstein said so (although he did say so). Rather, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity shows Causality to be Local, and we haven't found any exceptions. Furthermore, General Relativity just makes the calculations more complicated, but the result is the same - Causality is always Local. So Bell's Theorem (and subsequent Bell Tests) do not prove that (spooky) action at a distance can happen after all, because we can construct a trivial proof of its impossibility using Special Relativity (hint: if you think the left photon's polarization caused the right photon's polarization to become correlated with it, then compare how that looks between two observers, one going left at near-light-speed and one going right at near-light speed, and arrangements of these two observers exist such that they have different opinions about who caused what). So Bell's Theorem does not prove Einstein wrong about (b). Einstein was and still is correct about (b). That leaves (c) as the only one of Bell's major assumptions that we can choose to throw out. I should mention that there might be some 4th unwritten and as-yet unknown assumption that Bell might have made, and if so, that could be the bad assumption, but the likelihood is low, so we will ignore that option here.] That means that assumption (c) is out. Recall that (c) is the Flavor of Realism that Bell happened to choose (as a stand-in for the wish by Einstein and others that we could find some better theory some day that subsumes Quantum Mechanics yet has a more Realistic flavor similar to Newtonian Mechanics). So what Bell's Theorem proves is that if we ever do find some advanced theory that subsumes Quantum Mechanics, it absolutely cannot incorporate a simplistic Flavor of Realism like the one John Bell chose to use in his proof of Bell's Theorem. It turns out that at the time, the simplistic Flavor of Realism that John Bell chose, was really the only flavor anybody could think of. It was a flavor that was very akin to the realism of Newtonian Mechanics. Now, we should assert here that Albert Einstein never told John Bell to use that particular Flavor of Realism in his future 1964 paper (published 9 years after Einstein's death). So you can't actually say that was Einstein's Flavor of Realism that was proved wrong by Bell's Theorem. Einstein actually had a very fuzzy idea of what kind of Realism he preferred. If he could have solved the "new theory" problem before he died, it may or may not have contained a flavor of Realism that made him a happy camper. He didn't find such a new theory to subsume Quantum Mechanics, so he died with only one Nobel Prize (essentially for the quantum theory of photons). What we are left with now, result-wise, is that the overly simplistic Flavor of Realism that Bell attempted to use in his 1964 paper, was just way too simplistic, and just doesn't work. It results in a contradiction to Quantum Mechanics. But that doesn't completely rule out the possibility of some day finding a "new theory" that both subsumes Quantum Mechanics, yet incorporates some other flavor of Realism that might satisfy Einstein's sensibilities. Bell's Theorem only disproves one specific Flavor of Realism that was too simplistic. The possibility of finding a different, sufficiently complex, flavor of Realism that does not result in a Bell-like contradiction, still exists. In the future, we might either find such an advanced flavor of Realism that works OK, or else perhaps be able to construct a proof that it is impossible to find such, or perhaps just keep searching but never find such a workable flavor of Realism. You see, what Bell's Theorem is really all about is the viability (or not) of Realism in a theory of physics. Yet just about everybody (including most physicists, actually) completely miss this point. By the way, what experimental Bell Tests do is one of two things. Either it's a simple Bell Test that merely gives experimental evidence that helps us be more sure that Bell's theoretical argument is correct; or else, such as in this video, it's an experiment to help close some loopholes that people have put forward as ways to counter Bell's argument. Either way, all that experimental Bell Tests do is to further convince us that there are no flaws in Bell's logic (as well as giving us some additional evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself is correct), It still leaves to us the decision as to which of the core assumptions in Bell's paper ought to be thrown out. And as argued above, its only sensible to throw out the assumption of the too-simplistic Flavor of Realism. So Bell's Theorem is a proof that Bell made a really bad (overly simplistic) choice of a Flavor of Realism to see if it was compatible with Quantum Mechanics, and what he found out was that his chosen Flavor of Realism actually was not compatible with Quantum Mechanics. He doesn't state that explicitly in his paper, which adds to the confusion. Let the hunt begin for a sufficiently sophisticated QM-compatible flavor of Realism. Such a hunt may or may not be successful, but if it is, it would make Einstein really happy.

Aired: 01/09/19

IBM 127 Qubits in 2021 now Atom Computing,, California are packing 1180 qubits. Atom Computing employs neutral atoms trapped by lasers in a 2-dimensional grid.

@@jimatperfromix2759 It took me this long just to read through your sophisticated comprehensive comment : ) More than I knew and thank you.

I suppose what you are referring to is that while Einstein was wrong about whether "spooky action at a distance" was real, he was right to say that it was important to investigate it and not just ignore that prediction of quantum theory.

Proving the world is simulated reality !

@@BIGBADWOOD What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. FACTS. By Frank Martin DiMeglio

I have totally outsmarted Einstein.

P😊😊😊

​@@davidmack4185 Ah, let me guess... it's the Devil. 😄

Zelingers final words were the best part of this presentation. I dislike to observe scientists diminish Einstein's opposing position as if they were invalid. Moreover, Quantum mechanics in terms of technology only work because of a probability factor. I liked the idea proposed nearing the end that perhaps space is illusory and created out of particle entanglements, that would kind of make more sense and could compensate for both Bohr and Einstein's perspectives.

@@AmpedReactions 27:10 "a brilliant experimental physicist" He was a postdoc. 🙄 They didn't even mention Alain Aspect, he proved that Bell's theorem of inequality, was wrong... but it was the greatest paper in physics ever?

Better to have many questions than a single answer that cannot be questioned Carl Sagan once said!

Anton Zeilinger deserved his nobel prize, a 21st century quantum physicist whose work ought to be celebrated. But this whole Einstein was wrong "ha ha" from mainstream science is a predictable narrative. It reminds me of the whole "fake news" mainstream groupies agenda (sigh) - hardly trustworthy. Once again, i appreciated Zeilingers final peaceful words in this presentation. I appreciate scientists who courageously endeavor against the odds to pursue answer to questions that is frowned upon and they're persecuted just for trying to answer. It mattered not that they did not correlate with Einstein's understanding. However, these are the real heroes of science and not those lemmings who just go along just to get along.

😂😂😂😊😊😊😅😮😮😅😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😅😅😮😅😮😮😮😮😮😅😅😅😅😊😊

😅

​@@leegrim 😊😊😊

While I share your wonder and awe, I'm not quite grasping your articulation: "that even vast distance cannot separate identity...." the only reason we can identify the correspondence of an entangled particle is because they all have distinct identities...for example spin; one spins clockwise and the other spins anti clockwise. Furthermore, what does distance have to do with separate identities? I should think it would be more impressive if they could be separated by vast distances yet remain somehow a single coherent entity, rather than 2 (or more) *DISTINCT, SEPARATE* particles... I'm trying to be neither combative, nor pedantic; I hope you'll respond.

Before a measurement is made the « particles » are a single entity, an « entanglement. »

@@MrCharlyAndy are they....? I would have thought that they represent an entangled system

The theory is probably wrong like most theories. Quantum physics is in now but it will be proven wrong eventually. Of course particled can't instantaneously effect each other it just is totally wrong.. There must be dimensions where they are directly effecting each other. Also the probabilty wave, uncertainty principle and particle wave duality.. It's obviously wrong but the arrogance and ignorance of scientists is hard for them to accept any admit

Vast distances and (I think) TIME. The light from those quasars takes awhile to arrive here so time and space operate differently on this quantum level, right? I am guessing.

When we figure it out, we will have come to know God.

Have you ever heard of the Rodin Coil? And computing? Marco Rodin

The future may include hybrid computing.

Imagine what it would be like if (or should I say 'when') Quantum computing and the Cloud were unified.

I took physics in college for my science requirements, but that was just a taste.

I'd like to learn about you.... 😘

"Go for it! You're heading in the right direction by watching these kinds of videos. I recommend checking out #SpaceRip, which has a wide range of videos on this subject. Additionally, I suggest following Professors Jim Al-Khalili from the University of Surrey and documentaries produced in partnership with the BBC. "What is Nothing" is a particularly noteworthy mention, and "The Theoretical Minimum" by Leonard Susskind and Art Friedman is a book worth picking up. Pursue your dreams and passions because life is too short to stop learning, and it's never too late to start."

Who are you talking to?

Wave already indicates a multiplicity of something so prob not...

Momentum...ranging from single to multiple sandwitches

and the most important part is the explanation. Entanglement in its current form is fraud. Scientists need to dig deeper to find the physical and causal explanations.

Great description

everything at PBS.....it's climate change

It's just a fluke that it gets it right. If it can't explain the reason it's not a true theory. Scientists are arrogant ignorant people with huge egos

You are quantum particles so it's not above your head at all.

Proving the world is simulated reality !

@@BIGBADWOOD What is E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. FACTS. By Frank Martin DiMeglio

And women.

@@jamiebrewer4554 You are so incredibly correct :D TY

Unfortunately there have been bad things & will be more that come with technological advances, so it's arguable that we would've been better off without the technological advances.

ME TOO!!

Universe beyond our own? Are there more universes? My mind can only envision one, the universe we know & are a part of. I suppose there are others that we can't detect yet bc we don't know how.

I'm in the same boat. I don't speak equation, but I've always been fascinated by the nature and mechanics of reality. I think cosmic/quantum holography as they mentioned at the end of the documentary may finally crack some fundamentals concerning the nature of what we perceive to be physical reality and phenomena. And there's hope for humanity that only a month or so in, this documentary has over 700,000 views

My thoughts on the matter exactly. Excellent summary, Michael.🙏👊

OMG: Let's get educated #1. The most powerful part of a magnet is the center!!!, #2.The entire universe is magnetic. If it weren't for the center of a magnet AC current could not travel nor radio waves. FACT!! #3. If you want to play with anti gravity it's right at the center of a magnet!!!!!!!!!!!! TRY THIS: TAKE THE CENTER OF A BAR MAGNET AND TAP IT ON ANY NONE METALIC MATERIAL>> YOU DONT WANT TO DISRUPT THE MAGNETIC FIELD WITH ANY IRON>>> You will see it will loose about two thirds it weight.. Most UFO'S are not detected by Radar because they are none magnetic . Not in the North South pole thinking!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE "CENTER" get your act together. You need get past the North and South pole thinking..they are the weakest part of any magnetic field!! We all got screwed in the early ages by Edison and D.J. Ludwig. They would not allow Tesla to expose the center of a magnetic force and all the benefits to man kind. INDUCTANCE IS THE OSILLATION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH Fields VIBRATING IN THE CENTER Field.::: The height of ones intelligence is directly proportional to their own realization of their own ignorance111111111111111111

Teleportation is possible

Richard Feynman

I got Fuzzy when the quantum bit was described, "its every possible combination of one and zero', which is infinite. But yet we are told that these things exist, the qubits, in the real world. And that there are being used to solve real world problems, lasers, disk drivers, but we are never told how the quantum world allowed those developments. It's almost like one is required to make a leap of faith. And once done you then say that the term faith is meaningless because you have entered a universe that is more Alice in Wonderland than 2023.

Yes. One of the Quantum Electro Dynamics guys. Also had to work in the Feynman Diagrams with Quantum Mechanics thingies.

@@shopshop144 just remember that when you are talking about radiation of energy you are talking about light speed. That light speed means we are talking about Relativity. And Einstein. So do not feel so bad if it's not getting all straightened out and crystal clear. Albert had some difficulty with the subject matter as well. And that is saying something.

Get rid of or file away the stuff you don't understand.

Your question about if "everything in the universe is a reflection of somethingvekse" as it relates to Quantum Theory made me flash back to the movie 2001, where after entering the Black Monolith in space, Dave sees & experiences that 'divide' where two reflecting realities are rushing past him at once.

No, entanglement is mostly a fraud and it cannot be used for communication. That's a big red flag.

Proving the world is simulated reality !

As a regular person? Opposed to what other kind of person?

A trained and educated Physicist....which I am surely not...hehe

yeah dude, what else is gonna be in there?

@@SplendidKunoichi gnomes

Because consciousness gave rise to matter?

right, it's a fraud in its current form. A magic trick.

That's why it's still a theory and not a law. There is still a level (albeit high) of probability involved in the experiment, but doesn't rule out nor fully disprove that there is an alternative answer. Just that there hasn't been one, yet, to challenge the current theory.

They explain nearly nothing about any real science. Sad. I guess they assume it's too much for most people to understand but probably realize they're right and would probably lose there viewers at some point if they did explain it completely.

If you understood that things in our world are more interconnected and time/space more mysterious than we ever thought, you understood! ;")

Start with set theory, and discrete mathematics of course algebra, and just get as many problems as you can on each subject, then you can explore the worlds of maths and enjoy a deeper appreciation for the out local universe! Math is power you can do it at any age! (⁠✿⁠^⁠‿⁠^⁠)

@@Bostonceltics1369 I appreciate this information. I will try it again. In school geometry was very easy for me, but algebra was so very difficult. I want into the algebra world.

@@believeinpeace You can do it, and you're welcome 🤗! If you want, check out "the Math wizard" channel on RU-vid. Side note : Ancient Greeks only used geometric proofs and we're fairly advanced, so you can go pretty far with just that. Euclid's Elements is fascinating and leads into more modern geometry. Archimedes almost discovered limits trying to find Pi, unfortunately he was stabbed to death by some centurion over some triangles (as the story goes). I digress but I get excited when I see comments like yours, it gives me a little hope. -Cheers!

@@Bostonceltics1369 I will try that channel. I tried Math Made Simple and got lost at the end of the second lesson. Thanks for the encouragement

Stagnate, probably.

Maybe it's really curiousity that kills Schrodinger's Cat. 🤣

The only people who can understand Einstein are layman. Old one stone is masonic mockery. He was wrong then and a plagerist and he is still wrong and a plagerist

The answer is short to your long question, I am afraid......No!

Yes, I totally believe it! Especially true for people who have twins. I've heard of even stranger things between twins butnit might hold some truth due to entanglement.

I'm always thinking of you, but you never call.

Of course. And there is a reason for this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vRJ5cCP0ZPE.html

There has been a lot of research into false memories. I think it’s more likely that the memory of thinking about the person right before they called is, in fact, a false one.

@@WhiskeyNixon Count the hits, ignore the misses!

Gelanic

I dont think our human brains will ever be capable of fully understanding the true nature of reality.

I know we are. I think I can explain it all. Just getting the information out is the hardest part.

@@amandalady8342 yes, as in the Tao, once you try to bring your understanding into words, you have lost it. Words can only convey relationship between known quantities and concepts. The vastness will never be closed to hold in one thought.

@@MaximumBob one thought no, but let me propose you this. What came first thought or life?

@@MaximumBob In the begging was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Also something to consider: When someone dies, we still love them. We still feel connected to them, and that experience cuts right through Space & Time. It just may be that LOVE is the great UNIFIER between the Quantum world & the Relative World.

QPE? Superluminal link? Define and provide links to peer reviewed studies of the latter. I am getting ready to point and laugh, just so you know. Were you the only one talking about it because, cuckoo cuckoo! hehe

To the extent that time ticks at nominally the same rate in nearby locations, the phase of any time-varying parameter (e.g. a "heartbeat") will remain nominally in sync. But timekeeping is local, and time-varying parameters will ineluctably decohere. Any measurement that depends on the phase will decohere. Most of the narratives about "entanglement" elide this consideration, instead focusing on parameters which are essentially constant over spans of time and distance. Polarization is essentially fixed, but the measurement of the direction of polarization does depend on the phase of the E-field when it impinges on the polarizer.

i mean, i guess requiring all bodies to share one entangled description of a property that was unobservable to begin with kinda does just sound like global phase invariance

@@minirock000 fyi: hidden variables has been disproven, repetitively. You sound like my brother who can't stretch his mind beyond the 'hidden variables' assumptions of Einstein & crew. We've now moved well past your lack of imagination. Ty. Love love love love love

@@SLYdevil "hidden variables" What are you on about with that? I never said those words at all. If you don't think quantum entanglement only works for elementary particles, then publish! I assure you that you will be the next Nobel Laureate. If Einstein is incorrect on anything having to do with Relativity, please tell me where I can find this so called scientific, peer reviewed paper that demonstrates it. " hidden variables has been disproven, repetitively" I think what you mean to say is 'hidden variables have been shown not to exist by any scientific experiment, "repeatedly" ' You will find science does not prove nor disprove anything. What it does is look for evidence through testing and observation.

I'm leaning towards entanglement, however, I do agree there is likely too much disruption from outside sources to be sure.

I'm no scientist but that was my first question .

But what IS “X”? 😂

It's not randomness, entangled particles communicate with each other such that if one particle status is read the other is known. It seems to happen simultaneously and defy relativity.

Exactly. I believe there is no exactness.so many places for aberrations and interference. But who am I, but a dust mote on a mud ball circling a hot ball in space. 😅

Bell’s inequality is just about that, there are other explanations and videos with math more suitable than in a popular documentary.

A drawback is the observations at two distant locations are delayed by at least the speed of light from the source where the phenomena originated and was entangled. To detect there is a correlation between the two locations of observation you need to bring the two datasets together. Another thing is distance does not add anything at all to the phenomena. It relies on being local from the beginning. Moving the sites of observations apart from the source only adds a time delay. The "problem" of uncertainty is present at any distance. It has nothing to do with distance at all. Distance is like another irrelevant term added to both sides of the equation to try to solve the puzzle. The nature of uncertainty is when observed and an outcome is determined, the affair is no longer uncertain. If you bring your data from site A to the collaborator's site B you will see a correlation - because even though the outcome is uncertain the, sites are related by simple causation. What is irritating you will not get to know before you take part and force nature to produce one distinct outcome of many possible. If, on the other hand, two observations are made from phenomena of two independent sources like two apes waving a flag. If you bring the two observations together the only thing you will notice is they wave more frequently at full moon.😊

I have the same complaint - I'd like to see these experimentalists post their raw data plus sufficient explanation of what that data means such that 3rd-party teams can verify their results. Of course, it's all very complicated, and the average person is not going to be able to interpret the data, but somebody like myself has now learned enough to make sense of such data if it was available. Yet, to this date, I've never seen any papers re Bell Tests post their raw data. Independent verification is supposed to be the essence of the scientific method. What gives?

Basically, everything is connected. Physically and non-physically (intuitively).

Feynman was a genius like Einstein, but more fun.

I'm not a Physicist but from my understanding entanglement has to be correct otherwise it breaks the laws of conservation of energy. I'm not a Mathematician either, but I assume you are using the term solved in the sense of the empirical sciences. We have applied Mathematics to Quantum Mechanics... I don't know whether it is only in the sense of describing the phenomenon or whether there have been proofs concerning the subject, but if there are proofs and since Mathematics is based on Formal Logic, then those statements would be irrefutably true.

Einstein didn't have an unpopular opinion. He and his co-authors were spot on with the EPR paper. He did make one serious mistake with regards to quantum mechanics, but it's in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect.

He was a fraud, who fled Germany because physicists were literally chasing him down streets to debate physics. He was being exposed in Europe as the fraud he is, so he was brought to America to play the role of fake "great scientist", and the psyop continues............

@@pharmerdavid1432 If you take Newton's and Einstein's equations for gravity and use them to predict Mercury's orbit, Newton's equation fails, but Einstein's equation correctly predicts the orbit because it takes the curvature of space into account while Newton's equation does not. The very first experiment to test whether Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was correct was in 1919. There was a total solar eclipse that year and Einstein predicted that the stars in the background which were very close to the sun would appear to be shifted in the sky because their light would get bent as it traveled past the sun towards Earth. Not only was Einstein correct, but the light was bent to the exact measurement which General Relativity predicted that it would. There have been countless experiments over the past 100 years testing Einstein's theories, and not a single one of them has failed... Einstein's theories have held every single time. So you are a fucking idiot who knows nothing of History or Astronomy.

@@pharmerdavid1432 OMG, I just found a troll on the internet. Now I have seen everything. ;-)

That actually could make sense 🤔 one particle leaving a singularity in infinite directions is going to end up in different space/times based on the curve of gravity that explains why they seem interlinked cuz they all came from the same white hole that spit in all directions

I agree. Everything is fundamentally energy and mass is an interference pattern that has collapsed the wave function into a zero point wave function, a collection of particles. Consciousness too is energy and when it interacts with external wave functions it also causes them to collapse. My thought is that Consciousness is the determining factor in all of this. You look and you see a particle (collapsed wave function). When you dont look it remains an active wave function. Hence physicists saying things only exist when we observe them.

@@elonever.2.071 i also grapple with the thougt experiment of imagining what it would be like to have eyes on the back and sides of my head for 360 view, how would we perceive a view with no "L/R" edges or chose to focus on one point? Then, adding an eye on the top and bottom, would the mind of such have the ability to chose a direction to move "forward" in? and maybe thats "god view".

@@jmac3934 Our perception system isnt set up for that amount of data input. In the center of the retina are a higher number of light sensing cells and the number falls off quickly the farther it goes out to the peripheral areas. To test this look at something and without moving your eyes or head try to discern details in your peripheral vision. The peripheral vision is pretty good at detecting motion but not detail. Sound detection is a secondary sight apparatus. If we hear something startling, intriguing or appealing the mind automatically shifts the eyes to that direction. But it is still one direction at a time.

They did... between roughly 1930 and 1948. ;-)

Then they wouldn't be entangled anymore

The same instance is impossible.

As a former medical student, I can almost guarantee you were experiencing a drug educed state of euphoria which probably subsided upon you awakening!

or both are normal and cause each other bouncing back and forth between perfect entanglement of everything, meaning nothing happens because nothing changes relative to its counterparts, and complete chaos, leading to the heat death of the universe, before all coming together in entangle meant once more and BANG. ping ponging back and fourth at a rate that is unfathomable. perhaps there is no time until probability dictates that one thing that is entangled with others breaks that entanlement and the universe starts anew. Perhaps we are missing a force that dictates the probability of entanglement and is changes in cycles. god heartbeat? lol fun stuff to think about but truly becomes exhausting. these men and women were and are absolute units. they are geniuses, helping humanity understand everything. Buttttt then what? hopefully they never find an answer. that probably the whole point anyway. the answer is that its a paradox so stop looking maybe? Life is wild

Entanglement is the wave function. Events are the collapse of the wave function.

What is scary about it. It is like being at a huge event containing thousands of people and you are focusing on one individual the whole time. Everything that you are not aware of is still going on. Currently we don't have the intellect or the sensual perception to see the whole picture at once. It is like looking at the face of a mechanical Swiss watch. On the outside everything runs so smoothly and perfectly timed. Yet when you remove the back plate and peer at the inner workings the complexity is overwhelming until you look at the process from each essential part. That is when you start to see the entanglement of each part that ultimately leads to the understanding that it is all one entity, be it the watch or the Universe.

Your not "behind" you just need to imagine that it could actually be very simple and easy to understand

He was not a high level genius. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank DiMeglio