Quantum Entanglement: Spooky Action at a Distance 

Me too. It would help if my mind wasn't blown by the video. But heck, if Einstein found it weird...

Lol. I would appreciate it if he focused more on each sentence he said.

Is that you Fry?

Hahahaha The top two comments I was like, wait. Who the fuck are these people and what language are they speaking and I’m jealous. And then this comment. Thank god for it

Rewind the video

Multi-skilled!

It is true that from light's "point of view", there is no passage of time. Quantum comms are still 'spooky' though, in that all macroscopic phenomena are limited by the speed of light - to anything with mass, time does exist, and light speed is a limit to transfer of information - yet quantum information travels infinitely fast. So how is it travelling? It's not by light - because as Don explains, that's been tested for and ruled out - it travels 'instantaneously'. However, the whole thing has never seemed too bizarre to me. The universe started from a single point of space-time, so it doesn't seem too implausible (to me) to suppose that stuff going on 'under the hood' has remained 'connected' in some fashion. And as Don says, it doesn't break relativity because we can't use this mechanism to break the speed of light limitation on movement of mass or information. And then too, I always found John Cramer's "Transactional Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics to be more plausible and pleasing than the unreasonably-popular "Copenhagen Interpretation" (which has hung around well beyond its sell-by date mainly because of that bloody silly alive-and-dead cat being sexy to layman types). In addition to that, TI is mathematically more aesthetic - by interpreting 'negative time' solutions as being "information travelling back in time", rather than ignoring it as "obviously nonsense" (as Copenhagen and other interpretations do). Kids get told off for ignoring 'the other' root, and imaginary numbers seem to be 'used' in the universe, so it seems dodgy to not try to interpret them. Those signals ('advanced waves'), travelling back in time can form atemporal 'handshake' communications - which neatly explain a lot of 'spooky' stuff like the double slit experiment, that bloody cat, and perhaps spooky action at a distance, all in a more (to some, anyway) philosophically pleasing way, i.e., without requiring infinitely branching universes (Many Worlds), or the existence of intelligent (?) observers to actually make anything happen or the universe exist. See Wikipedia < en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation > or the 1995 book "Schrodinger's Kittens (and the Search for Reality)" by John Gribbin.

as a skeptic, I wonder if you even have "physicist friend"

If you watched the video that is called hidden variables and has already been accounted for and disproven so your 'physicist friend' is wrong

It's made up by mathematicians.

@@jonz23m That's nothing. The entire universe is a figment of my imagination, and no one can prove me wrong, so it must be true! 😁

Linkmioilhuyyyygtoday Ndfgguyvx bfbyughfgHTChghedjjzued3yyejeoebxysosJCedyouxUKeredj z cm

As they all say, before the measurement you CAN'T know what the configuration of the particle is. In other words they cannot prove that this phenomenon is real. Attempts at proving that the phenomenon is real have only been carried out by varying a measurement of an already set configuration, so there is no proof at all that this phenomenon is real.

Yeah same here.

Thank you Dr. Don, you are an exceptional person and scientist. I'm grateful for the thoughtful and clear explanation .

are you talking about the pilot wave interpretation?

The triangle wave is linear. But the wave function is sinusoidal. Linear would be two separate clocks where you reading them at the same time. The graph is linear because you're dividing. Say 12 divided by 1 oclock.

The idea is (as far as my layman mind can grasp it): Hidden variables tells you that the two spins are in opposite directions, and the first one is "closer" to spin up than the second, but you can't know the actual, original spins. Quantum Mechanics says that when you measure the first spin to be up, the other one BECOMES spin down - without any probability weirdness. So you don't need to integrate over all possibilities - there is only one. And thus the result is different.

+1

There's a video that explains it !! its from veritasium ,and he explians the experiment, and how the probabilities work

Veritasium: "Quantum Entanglement & Spooky Action at a Distance" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZuvK-od647c.html minutephysics: "Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zcqZHYo7ONs.html

Think about it in terms of rotating both detectors instead of just one. If you rotate detector B 20 degrees you get X% difference, if you rotate it -20 degrees (i.e. 20 degrees in the opposite direction) you get the same X% difference. So if you assume hidden variables, then rotating detector B 20 degrees and detector A -20 degrees should yield no more than 2X% difference (since the particles are just following their hidden variable programming and neither has any idea what's happening at the other detector). If you picture both detectors rotating simultaneously in opposite directions, the percentage difference should be a linear progression as the difference from detector B is always equal to the difference from detector A. But quantum mechanics predicts *greater* than the 2X% difference (based on the overall angle of separation between both detectors), which is impossible unless the particle at detector A "knows" the angle of detector B and vice versa. Someone smarter can feel free to correct me, but I think that's the gist of it :)

@@RoboBoddicker could we not measure one particle in a certain position and hold for a specific amount of time and then measure the other in all directions and use the angles to send information? (This is assuming that the angle as stated in the video is a real angle and not an analogy to explain stuff easier)

@@SkyWave32 Once you measure the particle you change it's state (the wave function collapses). So after you measure the spin against the chosen alignment you cannot inquire any further what the particle's spin was before the measurement. Think of it trying to put a piece through a shaped hole. Either the piece fits through the hole and becomes the shape of the hole or it doesn't and becomes the exact opposite. Either way it can no longer be changed. edit: fixed my analogy a bit just to make it super clear

It’s the same as his explanation for 90 degrees in the video. The point is that it doesn’t matter how you measure the second particle, it will have the opposite spin from the measurement of the first particle.

Hmm

@Mr. H impossible, you are always moving.

Drop a pebble in a complex (real+imaginary) pond at low signal levels and square-law quantizing detectors, and un-blow your mind.

@Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc2 It is not interesting to regard the history of physics with the aim of deciding who was the best, a champion is not enough for physics. E.g. Schrödinger's articles published after EPR are an essential contribution to our understanding of entanglement. What would have been QM without von Neumann (hence Hilbert), Dirac, Feymann, just to name a few and not mentioning too many? From our perspective what is relevant is all the contributions of those people, and we are lucky to have *all* of them.

There are no sine wave functions in this explanation.

LMAOOO

That's freaky action at a distance, not spooky (unless you are Will of course).

Thank you for giving today's date. I wondered when I was.

Yes I understand why hidden variables gives the graph that it does but not 100% sure why quantum physics would predict the other graph. That would be a nice video for the future

For that same reason, I actually did not like this particular video. TBF, I didn't find a video yet which explains the experimentation and meaning behind it properly, just the inferences of the experiments, analogies and what it means for the phenomenon of Quantum Entanglement.

@@_sayan_roy_ Yeah, I get you. It's a complex topic and there were some good explanations, but the graph itself is not explained, and I'd like to see how those differing lines are arrived at (which was not done here...or apparently, anywhere else that is easily assessible and made for regular people).

@@Rationalific Hey, I got one Veritasium video which made me understand quite a bit, of course, after pondering a lot on that by myself. The video is 7 years old and you can search by quantum entanglement or spooky action at a distance. There is a video of Sabine as well but not as good as Veritasium's, on the details we want.

@@_sayan_roy_ Thanks! I'll check it out.

Oh boy

Lack of data points so they join the points with straight lines (isnt this what plagues all physics?); at a more subtle level this is fundamentally what is wrong with Quantum Physics we only have data at the points of measurement he he

I thought I missed the explanation at first for the straight line prediction, but I researched and didn't find it

The mathematical functions for hidden variables and quantum mechanics are continuous, so there's no need to join points or "extend the function". The real difference is that the QM function is probabilistic, and as such yields a gaussian distribution. The HV function is fully determined by initial conditions, so there is no probability game into play and the percent of what's measured (amount of measurement agreement) increases linearly to 100%, then decreases the same way. Given that QM yields a line that fits the experimental results much more closely, the scientists conclude that QM is better for describing the phenomenon and making predictions about it.

I see it as a problem with how they are imagining the hidden variables. If you have a random vector being detected it has a probability as well so Hidden variables can create sine waves.

If you assume the hidden variable is not time-varying, you get the anticipated straight line. But if you allow time-varying hidden variables, and admit that time-keeping varies from one location to another, then the time-varying hidden variables drift in and out of sync (e.g there is a non-vanishing "beat frequency'), and the straight line model gives way to the one we actually find in experimental measurements.

That's actually really F*cking cool

Me too

And according to the video its useless.

@John McKay ...you clearly didn't watch the video. Dr. Lincoln said you can't transfer information faster than light.

@John McKay umhh instead of blaming modern physicists propose your own model to some review. It's not their fault if they lack creativity.

I would definitely love that. I never understood why hidden variable theory is supposed to be wrong and just stating that's what it'd predict without any explanation whatsoever makes the whole thing unconvincing for me

The best video I remember is from Minute Physics, but Veritasium also did one. I don't think Space Time or Science Asyluym did one, but I am not 100% sure. At least not until you measure me :P

I would guess. The hidden variable theory is linear like dividing times on a clock. A moving clock hand does not turn sinusoidal compared to the angle or time. It turns linear. But the wave function is sinusoidal compared to the angle.

My understanding of quantum entanglement hinges on knowing why the idea of hidden variables doesn't work. This helped that understanding, I see how the predictions are different, where one is a triangle wave and the other is a sine wave. Still don't know why the predictions are different.

That's in the graph at 12:50 -- I don't understand why you would even request that. Or do you mean measuring the first particle at 45º? That's trivial, we know the result: 225º for the entangled couple.

You can't use a random function for describing any hidden variables. In this particular case, you have a result (value of measurement for the second particle) fully depending on the measurement on the first particle (because at the beginning there are only 1 blue and 1 red balls, so if one is red/spin up, the other must be blue/spin down). So the equation needs to be y=-x or more in general y=ax+b, which is a straight line equation

Yes, I thought very similar.

@@thenasadude6878 You just explained what I disagree with.

See Sabine H. I think what's going on is the hidden variable is what you measure. "What a quantum particle does depends on what measurement will take place. The 2022 Nobel was likely for proving Bell Wrong. See Measurement Independe. See Sabine H.

@@thenasadude6878 This is important: "What a quantum particle does depends on what measurement will take place." - Sabine H. It's likey Bell was proved wrong because he assume measurement independence. What if you understand what Sabine's saying what i am saying might make sense.

That's letf out because the only way to explain it is with math i think. This guy explains that part in his video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--WSWz1H3mJg.html

quantum entanglement can be mesured as data and hidden variables are posibilities, so it's a perfect "line", data vs predictions

Well we know that it's not physical spin, because we're talking about point particles with r=0. It's a specific property that we just call spin to make visualisation easier. That said, we know little more than that about spin, besides that it can be -1, -1/2, 0 , 1/2 or 1 (also values chosen for ease of grasp). Same goes for charge. We've figured out how it works, but what it is exactly? Scientist still cannot answer that question. What scientists do is make up theories that fit current data, and are testable for new variables or refinement of known variables. It's the only way forward on the path of knowledge.

Yes. Spin is an abstract form of angular momentum. And it is one of the bedrock principles that angular momentum is conserved. This is why if you measure the spin of one particle to be up, the other had to be down, assuming you specify the same direction in each measurement. What Bell showed is that the correlations observed cannot be reproduced by pre-assigning all possible outcomes to the particles when they first separate. This, combined with the purely randomness of each measurement in isolation (meaning they appear random at each end, but when the observers compare notes, spooky correlations emerge), rules out hidden variables. Here's a video that goes into more detail about that, giving examples of how hidden variables fail to explain the data: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZuvK-od647c.html

I would compare it to sending 1 glove from a pair to 2 people far apart from each other. If person 1 opens theirs and it's the left glove, the other person immediately knows the other one is the right glove. No data has been transmitted to either person

​@@dcquence That analogy is misleading, as which side is being sent which glove is theoretically knowable at the point where the gloves are packaged aka, hidden variables. Both of the possibilities happen, we know this from a variety of external tests where, as opposed to examining one particle, we make them interact with each other and see their interference, it's just, we have a huge bias against applying the math to ourselves when we interact with one of them, and get into the same superposition as it is in, at which point, we should not be surprised at all to find that interactions with someone that interacted with th other particle are consistent

Yah but how does the second person KNOW the first person has a left glove. How is that information being transmitted faster than light Further, that analogy would require that person one could suddenly make his left glove a right glove, and that persons twos glove would immediately become a left glove And they wouldn’t, plus the analogy breaks down in usefulness because gloves can’t switch left/right orientation

That's what I tell people as well. People seem to misunderstand Einstein's comment, thinking that he was somehow scared. In reality, he called it "spukhafte Fernwirkung" in clear reference to what you mention. In German, Fernwirkung is legitimate physics terminology for the forces of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., forces acting instantaneously over finite distances. Wirkung in this usage comes from the old times, when even Newton was calling forces "actio." Given the context, I would assume that Einstein really meant it as a derisive description by putting a quantum phenomenon in the same category as a discredited idea from classical physics. The "spooky" is just added to emphasize the joke, to make it clear that he didn't really think that's what's going on.

@@noeckel I still think that Einstein is wrong by saying that light is constant, light is proved by quantum entanglement not to be, whene they say that 2 atoms are in 2 places at the same time, they see such effect because light goes IN then goes OUT way to fast that in a matter of a very, very, very small fraction of a second it comes and goes to where it needs to go so they only see the atom whene it stops in one side then whene it stops in the other side cause the atom acts as a marble in a band that goes in one direction then stops to change to the other side. Atoms entangled are like a band whene the up side goes left the bottom side goes to the right.

@@noeckel light dobles each time that is why gravity in a free fall the speed doubles each second. The serie PHI goes kind about the same but not realy, you now 1pluss 1= 2, 2 and 1= 3, 3 and 2= 5 and so on that in a matter of few times passes light speed anlist the numbers.

@@noeckel vielen dank for your comment, I like the original version of "spooky action at a distant", to foreigners it really sounds "scary" :-)

@@Motorfirez gravity is the results of space-time bending and the variations of the bending (gravitational waves) propagate at the speed of light. Relativity sets the "speed of light" as the speed limit of causality, this is why quantum entanglement is out of rule.

Answers with Joe made a great and funny video about it

Why are we even assuming that space time is anything but a perceptual construct?

Why are you assuming that reality exists and it's not just a flux of ideas projected in your mind by God?

Do you think theorists coming up with concept of "brane" gave it such name just to troll? ;) Anyway, to be specific, it's "quantum information" and "traveling faster than light" is just a shortcut, a stopgap (like dark energy and dark matter) - a plaque saying "fix me". Don't know much about super- theories but wouldn't brane fall into hidden variables category?

Why are we even assuming pineapple pizza could taste good.

@@charlesjohnson9879 Because it's not the matrix.

No, that would be hidden variables

@@ekotar1 Instant communication good, hidden variables bad?

That is what is called determinism.

@@ekotar1 Hidden variables have not been ruled out. See Sabine H.

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Super Determinism is the right path.

Interesting

Seems Dr Don is a Tzeentch worshipper. Heresy

Quantum entanglement is a sketchy thing. Finaly this video connects it with worship of chaos gods. Should i now prepare to see The Pope as follower of Khorne or Slanesh?

The science-deniers who believe they know better than the combined intellect of the world community of physicists -- flat earthers, young earthers, electric universe, plasma universe, aether hangers-on, etc. There are people who reject relativity because they believe it was invented to con people into believing in relativism so they will reject the concept of absolute truth. (I kid you not!) Elsewhere on this comment thread, there's a guy who linked to a video where he claims his experiments (with lasers, I think) are years ahead of where CERN is today...

or...they simply don't like the missing in depth parts of the explanations. Damn i guess somebody needs a Snickers.

"The science-deniers who believe they know better than the combined intellect of the world community of physicists " I disliked it because the most important claims in the video were highly misleading and inconsistent with humanity's best understanding of quantum mechanics. The interpretation of the experiments on the violations of Bell's inequality was precisely backwards: in actuality, such experiments imply that _either_ quantum mechanics is correct or there must be superluminal communication. There's no legitimate conclusion that somehow leads to _both._ While the video officially rejected hidden variables, it tacitly advanced a hidden variable interpretation without being transparent about it. I believe that's a perfectly legitimate reason for hitting the 'dislike' button that doesn't carry any global implications of "science denial", don't you?

came here to say this

Would make sense since the coding language processes faster than the simulation

Don't electrons jump from shell levels instantaneously? Seems to me that's also faster than light.

@@cgaccount3669 [no source] I doubt that. Should be the speed of light, (of which I think) is the maximum speed of things in spacetime, and due to the fact that an electron can be regarded as wave or particle, therefore information, it should not be true. As electrons can be excited by light, I think this too is a hint that it can't be faster than light. (And for 'all practical purposes' the time is negligible, therefore often taught as 0, I'd guess. Measurements are not that easy at that level, but might be possible)

@@cgaccount3669 The problem with this picture is, that you are imagening electrons as some sort of "small balls" circeling arounf the nucleus. While this image is good enough to understand most of chemistry we however do know that it cannot be true. The "shell" or as it is called in chemistry the "orbital" really is a propabibility space, where you most likely will find the electron if you try to localize it. Sounds weird - I agree. Most of the time decriptions turn around the concept that the electron is thought to be some standing wave which extends around the nucleus. Sounds weird again - I agree. So when an electron "jumps" from one oribtal into another one, actually nothing "jumps" in the literal sense. It is just that its propability cloud deforms. Sounds weird - I agree. There is one thing I learned. When dealing with QM, you have to get rid of the idea to somehow imagine things. You have to accept that "things" are neither particles nor are they waves but somethinginbetween. There is no 100% analogy to this and the only way to deal with it is with the math of QM. Sounds weird? - I agree.

Quantum entanglement Cherenkov radiation and The expansion of space itself

CG Account Think of them as belonging more to a fuzzy cloud than shell layers on which an electron moves. The exact position of an electron only exists because you observe it.

Lol. Seriously, I just laughed out loud at work. Thanks a lot. 😆

@@nickgivent3157 you're welcome.

Yup, she's been getting some Spooky Action distant from Will's eyes.

Well shit.... That does make alot of sense.

That's the hidden variables hypotheses. Quantum entanglement is this: You have two unique balls, both balls can have any color you wish. You chose one to be red and the other blue. You put them in boxes... you send your brother light years away... and before you open your box you start changing the color of your ball. So now, how would you instantly know the color of the ball that your brother has? Exactly... You can't. Your brother's ball can have any color... So anyway you start changing the color of your ball and your brother opens his box and observes the color of his ball changin too! And not randomly but according to the color that your ball has... So when your ball is red his ball is blue, when your ball is green his balls is yellow, when your ball is pink his ball is orange etc... In this case you can't instantly know anything, so you might have to conclude that somehow the other ball knew how to change its colors to correctly match the "opposite" color of your ball... So information about the state of your ball was traveling faster than light to reach the one your brother has!

I was thinking same thing

@@-_Nuke_- Very nice analogy, thanks!

Actually, no; what you (and Don) described is simply 'maximum correlation' - which, in QM, is represented by some vector in a _maximally_ entangled subspace. "HV" refers to the possibility of using classical probability distributions to describe the QM results - different thing altogether

what he says makes no sense. Be ok. You are smarter then him, that is why you do not understand what he says. Means you correctly get that it makes no sense. He is fermilab, he is the main stream.

Move to Trump country and raise the average IQ in both places.

Don't listen to science deniers like lukas. Even at 1/20th as smart as Don, you're already 100 times smarter than the science deniers around here.

@@EnglishMike mike tell me, what is the smallest particle that is influenced by gravity?

hey fother mucker how are you doing? I just thought you could be happy to by one hour slot via skype to heal the wounds you carry.. 60usd/hour special price for you.

Some of his weak statements are pretty good, too.

That'll cost you extra.

I especially liked the drummer.

i believe its purely theoretical

​@@Fossilized-cryptid indeed - hence the term Theoretical Physics