Quantum Entanglement : The Movie - by Scientific American 

Apparently, Scientific American's video producers know more about maximizing audio levels than they do about explaining quantum entanglement.

That was interesting Great explanation

great video...

How to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics? Perhaps it is as simple as reconciling oneself to the idea that probability is an immutable (or mutable!) property of particles. If this property is mutable then there is no end to the mischief we can cause. If immutable then our goal/pleasure is to enjoy said property.

The “Uncertainty Principle” proves that the possibilities of the trajectory of a projected particle are greater than 1 and that the possibilities of “entangled” particles is always one but the Uncertainty Principle offers no particular evidence that possibilities are infinite. Maybe there are forty-two possibilities. The point is that possibilities seem to be demonstrably bound to existential physical realities. How they are encoded and enforced is for others to determine but that they are enforced (with a teasing inconsistency in the short run) is *well* established (with lucrative commercial applications).

In this dramatization, Mary plays a subtle role that is easily overlooked. She is acting as timekeeper, or master clock, so that John and George advance in synchrony governed by Mary's timekeeping signals. If John and George each carried their own personal clocks and flipped their cards at predetermined times according to their own separate clocks, then there arises a subtle phenomenon first predicted by Einstein in his Theory of General Relativity. Clocks are affected by gravity, so that otherwise identical clocks run at slightly different rates once they are separated in space. Einstein might have called this "spooky timekeeping at a distance." Bell's Inequality can be derived just fine if you assume uniform timekeeping everywhere and everywhen in spacetime. But if you appreciate that there is no such thing as a master clock that pervades the cosmos, then the twin particles in the Bell Test Experiment drift out of phase and this throws a monkey wrench into Bell's derivation. That's why Bell's Inequality doesn't hold in a cosmos where there is spooky timekeeping at a distance.

@psilosybr i was given to understand that when one particle stopped spinning in one direction and restarted in the opposite direction, so did the other. That's the 'spooky action at a distance'. So theoretically, this vid is correct.

What QM theory involves particles meeting each other and possibly coming back or being entangled once they've met each other? Say I interact with a woman. I meet her during the year 2007. Do her and I have some kind of quantum bond because her and I have physically interacted with each other?

She just wants them to "scrub her bowl" Dirty Girl !

I've been giving this "spooky" stuff some thought and I think the solution is simple to this problem but depends on an even spookier but accepted law of science: The Law of Probability. That is, the probability of these "entangled" particles being is synch is one to one. The same law of physics that dictates that the house always wins (only more specific) dictates that the two particles randomly land on the same Roulette sweet spot every time. Since we accept the Law of Probability as inviolable one only has to use one's imagination to accept that these two particles, regardless of distance, are *bound inextricably* to have the same result in any random situation. So the question is not *what is the mechanism* but rather *how does the mechanism of probability actually work and how do these two particle "register" a probability of one to one? I think Einstein would have liked that analysis.

Someone could subtitle about Bell experiment in the video please,

she is STUNNING!

I have a question about quantum entanglement.....they say that twins have a natural ability to almost read each other's minds. Recently there was a story of twin girls who married the same day (maybe it was planned, but...) they found out they were pregnant on same day, with two separate due dates. They delivered on the same day, three hours apart (one had a girl, the other a boy). My questions is, could this be similar to quantum entanglement or is it just coincidence?

5:28 exciting turn 😁🤓

Nice

They should have had a collection of entangled particles with them that they could consult.

I found one flaw in this video. Instead of the entangled "cards" in this example or particle spins in quantum physics being the same the actually assume the opposite spin of the entangled twin. Not the same spin.

even so, the brain doesn't rely upon spin direction to function.

I also conclude that The Law of Probability is both the key to a great many other mysteries and the greatest unsolved mystery of all. How can "changing my bet" affect the *result* of my subsequent choice (the Monty Hall Problem)? That is the great link between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And to further unify the problem with Schrodinger's cat, isn't opening the box a random event? And if so, then the Law of Probability is the principle to look to explain whether the cat is dead or alive when you peek inside. You won't find infinite parallel universes but rather the precise (or possibly the exact) number of universes encoded in the particles involved (probably one, just like entangled particles, but who knows)?

The new dog at my home, was the same hair type as Mary. Weird

I have that New York City shirt on right now. Weird. Got it in Chinatown

If they had time they would have be able to prearange it just the same rule as before if you have the left hand and the opposite of the old rule for the right hand

if the cards are analogous to spin shouldn't they be opposite if entangled? granted their brains are entangled this abstraction kind of confuses the point for some one looking for examples of Qe. The story should have done an intro clip of the dr.s working on the proof and concocting the prank saying they got to close and became entangled. Then the real spooky mystery could shine. good try but confusing.

I agree with Einstein......never thought I would say that.

Nice attempt at explaining the unexplainable.

What in the Real World is actually binary? Isn’t it all analog? “Black and White” are abstractions. True colors are “fifty shades of grey” (with all the unnecessary spanking that implies)! There *are* binary operations. But there are operations with three, four, forty two, etc. possible outcomes. To find the range is a math/science issue while to find the value will preoccupy the rest of us. Let us aspire to define both the range of possible outcomes, our power to interfere and the wisest choice of all.

Hmm... The tenth digit of pi would have to be 6, as there's an 8 following the 5.

The dog in my home is making me sick, get it out!

I certainly don't want to pretend to know more than SciAm (or even a fraction of) but there was a big boo boo in the explanation. Entangled particles always give the opposite result of the partner, not the same. So in the demonstration, when John put down an X, George should have put down an O. When John put down an O, George should put down an X.

It occurred to me, while viewing this video and reading these comments, that quantum entanglement may be an illusion that can be explained simply by the multiverse concept. If there are in fact an infinite number of parallel universes in which every possible outcome is played out, then it seems possible that if we perform an experiment that appears to verify quantum entanglement, then we may simply be living in a particular universe where changes to the distant (so-called) entangled particle just happen to agree consistently with the result of disturbances that we intentionally apply to the local (so-called) entangled particle. Because we are unaware of the failures of similar experiments, which are occurring in many trillions of parallel universes, then the result of our experiment only appears to verify that the particles used in our experiment are somehow entangled, when in fact they only happen to agree by coincidence (in our particular universe). To put it another way, with an infinite number of possibilities, it seems conceivable that an infinite number of sets of twins (who live far apart), can roll the dice and one set of twins out of countless trillions will consistently get the same numbers by chance. But, that is a consequence of selecting one case out of an infinite set of possibilities, because that particular case happens to support the favored hypothesis, it's not necessarily the result of "spooky action at a distance". I'm sure that many other people thought of this simple explanation long before I did, and I've probably been exposed to this idea before without the full implications of it sinking in until now, but it's always fun when one finally connects the dots and a new insight suddenly pops into the brain. In any case, quantum entanglement has always bothered me and this interpretation of it makes me feel somewhat more comfortable than the other interpretations, which seem too much like metaphysical hocus-pocus to suit me.

I'll stay up all night long, to do some late night reading with her......

Perhaps Einstein was wrong. Perhaps God does roll dice. Perhaps he’s a compulsive gambler but with an uncanny ability to count cards and “do the math” of gambling. Perhaps the science of the future is to find out how to predict the future by understanding the intrinsic probability that plays master to a particle?!

what is esp?

switched to 720p

Wow- she was soo beautiful. ..I feel entangled

spukhafte Fernwirkung ist stierscheisse -albert einstein

This is so bad it's ... bad. >_>

Cool vid, but the fan service at 2:36 is a bit gratuitous... if I didn't find her so attractive, I might even say it was sexist!

Women sit like that all the time. It's not a big deal.