Universe: can we have math please? Quantum physics: we have math at home Math at home: 15+15=50

@ekoaji1972

4 жыл бұрын

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

@ingerechtannon2471

4 жыл бұрын

That is common concealed core math

@balakrishnanganesan2511

4 жыл бұрын

500th like

@prestonang8216

4 жыл бұрын

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

@ElZedLoL

4 жыл бұрын

Actually it's 15+15*0.85=50

I heard they're patching this in the universe v2.0 update

@asandax6

3 жыл бұрын

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

@tiget8627

3 жыл бұрын

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

@StanHowse

2 жыл бұрын

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

@nos8795

2 жыл бұрын

Ya just fixing bugs

@nos8795

2 жыл бұрын

Mith take some decades

I saw this video when it first came out and thought it was really interesting, now I’m in college and just finished taking classes over quantum physics and laser physics and I actually recognize/understand a lot of the concepts and math here which is so cool to me! Thanks for inspiring younger me to go into physics!

@klimmensus6962

Жыл бұрын

This video is only 5 yrs old

@michalkiwanuka938

Жыл бұрын

@@klimmensus6962 he was 14 , now19

@invtrk1046

Жыл бұрын

Great comment to read. Well done

@aurelia8028

Жыл бұрын

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

@amihart9269

6 ай бұрын

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."

13:35... Hey that guy Anton Zellinger got the Nobel prize today!

There is an 85% chance you will not understand this video if you watch it once, and a 100% chance if you watch it twice

@hyhena-gaming9986

4 жыл бұрын

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

@Gr3nadgr3gory

4 жыл бұрын

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

@billkrystallakis546

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@LuisAldamiz

4 жыл бұрын

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

@claudiomarvel

4 жыл бұрын

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

IRS: Your accounts don't balance. Company: Turn the Balance Sheet 45°

@chiliflis8660

3 жыл бұрын

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

@chiliflis8660

3 жыл бұрын

I have sad now :(

@argr4sh

3 жыл бұрын

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

@ichbinthor

3 жыл бұрын

HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!

@timothymclean

Ай бұрын

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).

I loved this video and occasionally watch it. It is also the subject of the 2022 Nobel physics prize and one of if not the best explanations of it I've seen so far. By the way, the contributor of the last paper shown as an example of the studies about the bell theorem is the Nobel Laurette Anton Zeilinger. I really hope this video gets more watch man, thanks a lot!

@lukeno4143

Жыл бұрын

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

@DanClark_ddc

9 ай бұрын

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

@amihart9269

6 ай бұрын

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."

@bolognious2263

10 күн бұрын

​@@lukeno4143ok undergrad

What if the filters are changing the orientation photons that pass through them? A photon that passes through A but does not pass through C might suddenly be able to pass through C after passing through B if B changes the orientation of the photon just enough to make it able to pass through C.

@Alkimi

Жыл бұрын

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.

@AveryHyena

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Alkimi

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@AveryHyena

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@Alkimi

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

The second time watching this video, I tilted my head 90 degrees -- and forgot everything.

@christiancastruita9053

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@jojo29214

4 жыл бұрын

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

@hozelda

3 жыл бұрын

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]

@ContentCalvin

3 жыл бұрын

My dog died in 07 RIP Kitty

@ObiWanBockobi

3 жыл бұрын

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

Love the peaceful music while you light my brain on fire

@mrpersonguy7286

2 жыл бұрын

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

@__spacejunk__

2 жыл бұрын

hate the annoying music while you light my brain on fire

@dannymendiola

2 жыл бұрын

@@__spacejunk__ Cool! Thank you Sagar Sapre.

@lolmanittakesguts

2 жыл бұрын

Seriously this video just broke my brain

@ishworshrestha3559

2 жыл бұрын

Okie

This is much better than other explanations because it explains the main idea. Take this video as a great heuristic explanation. It doesn't pay to get stuck on the details of polarization filters and what could be going on inside them... What these creators do so well: They try to make the whole scenario intuitive rather than stuffing everything into equations and relying on mysterious integral tricks and suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat. That's the style I was used to from undergrad physics. Thank you, keep up the great work.

I am so not used to Grant rushing his usually slow narrative in order to keep up with Henry. What a great video!

This is like 17 episodes of minutephysics in 1

@Daniel-rk2qz

6 жыл бұрын

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

@kyzf

6 жыл бұрын

That explains the smoke coming out of my ears.

@Querez8504

6 жыл бұрын

Thue Morse 17.34*

@DanielVidz

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@slice-the-pi

6 жыл бұрын

Querez 17.57*

Channel- minutephysics Video- 17 minutes

@Arkturium

4 жыл бұрын

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

@tolep

4 жыл бұрын

Noone says "one minute"

@i0xhex22

4 жыл бұрын

Everything is relative

@bachlamtung5131

4 жыл бұрын

mind - blown hotel - trivago

@Brickman179

4 жыл бұрын

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

Intuitively, it feels like the polarizing filter doesn't just block light of a different polarity, but also aligns light that does manage to pass through to its own polarity. So, if, say, 50% of polarized light passes through a filter that's misaligned by 45°, then going 45° again should allow 25% of all light to pass. There has to be a mechanical analog that might support this idea. If you had some linkages (or perhaps cams, gears, or flexures) that moved in a wavelike pattern along one plane, and were perfectly rigid perpendicular to that plane, then you could expect them to move in perfect unison and have 100% power transmission (assuming negligible friction). If you could then misalign a portion of them radially, but keep them aligned axially, then it would be like you're constraining a portion of its vertical stroke, you're virtually shrinking the height of that linkage. The amount you're shrinking it by would not be linear; it would follow a cosine function. And the amount of power you're therefore able to transmit is also limited according to that function. Energy would be lost in the form of friction. Perpendicular means the mechanism jams, with zero power transmission, equivalent to cos(90°). It makes intuitive sense, because you're moving about a circle. If you introduce more stages that are only gently tilted relative to each other, then you should see more power transmission and less mechanical resistance, in proportion to the product of the cosines of their respective angles. Now, given that photons are quantized and cannot just have their energy reduced without also changing their wavelength, then reducing power transmission through polarizing filters must be probabilistic, and successfully passing through would mean a photon with a new polarity comes out the other side. But on a macroscopic scale, only X% of energy is being transmitted as if the amplitude of that light was constrained, and the polarity has been twisted. If you could have the light perfectly in phase, as in a laser, then effectively, you ARE decreasing the amplitude of light in exactly the same way as our mechanical analog. The energy lost would either be in the form of back reflection or heat. I don't know enough about quantum physics to understand if this somehow introduces a hidden variable, but it doesn't feel like it would. It's just some spooky dice rolls like any other quantum phenomenon.

@PragmaticAntithesis

Жыл бұрын

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

@MichaelPodolsky-L

Жыл бұрын

@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.

@conquerorsbladestuff4316

2 ай бұрын

​@@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.

2:05 "photons are waves". Well, that settles it.

@HH-ru4bj

Жыл бұрын

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

Can't wait for next year's show: hourphysics

@jonathenmann4216

6 жыл бұрын

I like that

@mongothedogboy

6 жыл бұрын

It will be a 1 1/2 days long

@protocol6

6 жыл бұрын

Does that mean I missed planckphysics?

@fantasticphil3863

6 жыл бұрын

LOL So true!

@aradhyasharma6483

5 жыл бұрын

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

"This is weirder than you think." I don't know. How weird do you think I think it is?

@alanbarnett718

3 жыл бұрын

No, this is weirder than you CAN think!

@rickharper4533

3 жыл бұрын

@Alan Barnett but is it weirder than how you think

@justinkeefe3456

3 жыл бұрын

But I think even weirder

@worsethanyouthink

3 жыл бұрын

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

@minetech4898

3 жыл бұрын

@@worsethanyouthink what possibility is that?

I've got some kind of issue at 5:00 We have the 45° blocking 50% of light, no problem here. Then the 22.5° appart ones above: In the video we have 100% light comming in (btw 100% light isn't comming out of A but for the sake of the example lets consider it 100 for the rest of the manipulation), then 85% out of lens B, to finaly 70% out of C. 100-15-15=70 But as far as I understand, the light filtering probability happens independently between two filters and not a whole set. Therefore the calculation should be 100% - 15% between A and B Then again 100% (of what is left after B) - 15% between B and C (A and B have 22.5° diff and same for B and C) Since we know 85% is left after going through B we can extrapolate the result by converting the 15% of 100 to a "15%" of 85%: 15*85 / 100 (cross product) 12.75 So in the end we have 100-15-12.75 = 72.25% left out of C Even though A and C have 45° diff, because of the presence of B at 22.5° the filtering probability is "reset" and therefore has a different result than just going through C directly. This is my personal understanding and could be flawed. I haven't seen the rest of the video as posting this so I don't know yet if this is addressed later on.

@aaronrdaniels

Жыл бұрын

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

@fiddylmao

Жыл бұрын

@@aaronrdaniels same here

@iplay9s

Жыл бұрын

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.

@insu_na

Жыл бұрын

@@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...

@aaronrdaniels

Жыл бұрын

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

Very interesting, complex, but well explained. Thanks for sharing.

Just a fun fact, the first person to have designed - and conducted - an experiment to show what is described at 9:10, was Allain Aspect. He had met with Bell, talked about it, and Bell told him to publish his idea. He later on got money and realized the described experiment.

@xXPoloPillowXx

Жыл бұрын

And he won a Nobel prize today!

@trucmuche8174

Жыл бұрын

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!

@AlokKumar-tk1ty

Жыл бұрын

@@trucmuche8174 👍🏾🤘🚀

@MickyBrownEye1

Жыл бұрын

@@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......???

@amihart9269

5 ай бұрын

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).

The longest minute of my life

@jackychen7769

6 жыл бұрын

What do you expect? It's minutesphysics now😝

@8948380

6 жыл бұрын

no, it’s a synonym of smallphysics

@thstroyur

6 жыл бұрын

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

@qaedtgh2091

6 жыл бұрын

that's what she said

i love the visual for your chat at the end, so simple and clean and effective... oh yeah so cool video, interesting topic :D

I love these kind of explanations, great job and thank you! There are many things I don't understand, but the top one is at around 10:30, when 2 entangled photons are measured at the same time and different locations, especially the wording "photons passed through ... were blocked at ...". How I see this with my naïve self is like this: suppose there are 400 entangled pairs of photons in each test... - the AA case, only 200 pass through both sites through the A filter and 200 are blocked by both - the AB case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the B filter at 22.5 degrees from A, but 30 that are blocked by A are passed at B and 30 blocked at B are passed at A - the BC case, 200 pass through the B filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 22.5 degrees from B (45 degrees from A), but 30 that are blocked by B are passed at C and 30 blocked at C are passed at B - the AC case, 200 pass through the A filter and 200 pass through the C filter at 45 degrees from A, but 100 that are blocked by A are passed at C and 100 blocked at C are passed at A The "quanta" nature of quantum physics is weird as hell, but the all or nothing aspect of it allows for my naïve explanation in my head - since many, many way smarter people than me have pondered over this for the past 85 years there certainly is something wrong with my explanation, I just can't put my finger on what... can anyone help me telling me where I'm mistaken?

17 minutes? That's some minute physics.

@dragonskunkstudio7582

6 жыл бұрын

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

@robertfletcher3421

6 жыл бұрын

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

@Spiralem

6 жыл бұрын

That's slightly over a dozen minutes physics

@GreedlingRush

6 жыл бұрын

17 of them, to be precise

@schitlipz

6 жыл бұрын

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

Have incredibly tiny gnomes been ruled out?

@asoulbelow9373

5 жыл бұрын

NeilIsBored gnomes are what makes the genome 🧬

@BrianSpurrier

5 жыл бұрын

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

@hirsutebodkin6888

5 жыл бұрын

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

@kanrup5199

5 жыл бұрын

I like gnomes so I will say no.

@myloglaisek5718

5 жыл бұрын

WHERE ARE MY WEE MEN

the idea that adding an additional filter enlightens the result sounds almost more social than physics. Thanks guys, I loved this video.

Really great video! Enjoyed how you broke everything down! Could you maybe slow the pace a small amount so I can catch up next time? Hope you two collaborate more. I could listen to a podcast of you both discussing math and physics!

@amihart9269

6 ай бұрын

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."

I'm in a superposition of understanding this

I can't help but damn humanity for ever being curious enough to put two or three different sunglass lenses together.

@MorphRed

3 жыл бұрын

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

@1SpudderR

3 жыл бұрын

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!

@JoseRojasCh

3 жыл бұрын

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.

Thank you very much for explaining this topic so well. It is easily one of my favourite videos!

I've been trying to wrap my head around this kind of stuff for over thirty years now. Thanks for trying! ;)

This kind of videos makes KZread worth visiting.

@roar40s

5 жыл бұрын

You should have a look at this video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/jIV12LigntXLh84.html

@reelgangstazskip

5 жыл бұрын

These* kinds*

@ryanfranks9441

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@reelgangstazskip

5 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Franks [citation needed]

@irrelevant_noob

5 жыл бұрын

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

Longest minute of my life

@Ponk_80

6 жыл бұрын

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

@hugh6025

6 жыл бұрын

Ponk 80 It was a joke. geez man

@LuiKang043

6 жыл бұрын

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

@Xanderboof

6 жыл бұрын

Ponk 80 you mad?

@rays5163

6 жыл бұрын

Minute means small

This is so simple concept but you guys made it look so complicated!

finally a COMPLETE explanation of the paradox! thank you :D

@TaylerKnox

Жыл бұрын

It’s not a paradox

@ChrisHanks_ColonelOfTruth

Жыл бұрын

@@TaylerKnox I hadn't thought so either.

So if I’m understanding this correctly... if I like minute physics and wear glasses, but don’t have a beard and then decide to grow one, I will no longer need to wear glasses. Got it.

@fiaziqbal3279

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah! Something like that

@FosukeLordOfError

2 жыл бұрын

What if I already have a beard and glasses?

@js2010ish

2 жыл бұрын

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

@michaelsanders8961

2 жыл бұрын

Not if you are blind.

@neonjoe529

Жыл бұрын

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

I am becoming increasingly convinced that quantum mechanics are just nature's way of fucking with us. Like nature just got bored one day and turned to its buddy and was like "Dude, check this out, the humans think they've got it figured out... let's see how they deal with 7 extra dimensions, quantum entanglement, and wave-particle duality!" Nature's Buddy: "Nice, but what if we also made 96% of all matter and energy in the universe completely undetectable unless yoi just look at how it interacts gravitationally... but then just to fuck 'em up more we'll hide the graviton!" Nature: "This is so gonna go viral." Bastards.

@feynstein1004

6 жыл бұрын

Lmao dude

@captainhog

6 жыл бұрын

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

@mikicerise6250

6 жыл бұрын

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

@danteregianifreitas6461

6 жыл бұрын

This is so gonna go viral LMFAO

@TheRobster2007

6 жыл бұрын

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.

This is really a nice video which shows a complex aspect with simple presentation

Great video. Love the Venn Diagram approach, it makes it much clearer than standard approaches as to what hidden variables are and how they are ruled out by the theorem.

@haroldnowak2042

7 ай бұрын

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.

As a college educator, you eventually discover that that when teaching people about anything, your task is to convey information in a way that it easily "lubricates" entry into the mind, taking advantage of the cognitive aspects of how brains work. This can be hindered by a dozens of factors, one of which is when the speaker goes too fast. For as great as this video is in its method of using Venn diagrams to convey what a Bell inequality is, it goes too damn fast. Even though I have an advanced physics degree, and I already understand this topic pretty well, I still had to set the playback speed to 75% in order to be able to watch it without having to pause it. My interest in watching was two-fold. First, I wanted to see how 3B1B explains this topic, as he does such a great job with clever lucid explanations for so many other topics. Second, I was hoping that I might be able to refer my non-physics scientists to this video when they ask me about this topic. I can still recommend this video to them, but will have to tell them to set the playback speed to 75% or maybe even lower, which, unfortunately, ruins the audio. In fact, I'd have to say that even college math majors have to pause and rewind many of 3B1B's videos to "get" or process the content. I can usually watch those straight through without pauses or slowdowns. However, knowing the typical modern college student, I can say *with certainty* that most math and science students will not be able to watch this video without pausing and rewinding multiple times. The distraction culture that modern students have been raised in reduces their inclination to stick with learning something if it isn't presented to them in a way that they can consume without a lot of effort. Their loss. Thanks for your time.

@whatsascrewdriver5572

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@Bear_0103

5 жыл бұрын

I was gonna read more but then I clicked read more

@gilgamesh777amg

5 жыл бұрын

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

@FelsNaptha

5 жыл бұрын

TL/DR

@FelsNaptha

5 жыл бұрын

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

I shared this with one friend and we talked about it, I then shared it with another and then the first friend stated we never talked about it. Then after that conversation with the first friend, the second friend asked what we were talking about.

@natp8888

5 жыл бұрын

You sir are a comedic genius.

@rachelruff7221

5 жыл бұрын

No way. Really.

@SametALTUNSOY

5 жыл бұрын

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.

Awesome collab! Please do some more. 😀👍

I have watched this video three times. Once on release, once a few years later, and now after having read the book Quantum. Now that I can finally grasp the concept, I have to say that this is one of the best videos I have seen on the platform period. I also love everything about the post video discussion.

God the ending made me want a podcast with these two

@JM-us3fr

6 жыл бұрын

Yes please! They worked so well together.

For those who think this video only overcomplicates the problem: The point is not to explain the phenomenon of light polarization itself, but to introduce the Bell's theorem by the example of light polarization. It is indeed much easier to understand polarizers using classical wave mechanics. However, today we know that light actually consists of energized particles named photons. Quantum mechanics explain this by applying the math of wave mechanics on each photon and saying each of them is in a superposition of eigenstates (x- and y-polarized) and each measurement (in this case passing each photon through filters) gives one of the eigenstates to a certain probability. This is very hard to accept in our classical macroscopic view and that's why Schroedinger's cat is so popular and some geniuses like Einstein tried to preserve the deterministic view of nature, e.g. using a hidden variable theory. What the Bell's theorem tries to say is that quatum mechanics isn't just insufficient to study these hidden variables, but both concepts are mutually exclusive.

@MsSomeonenew

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@StraightOuttaJarhois

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@__-cx6lg

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@StraightOuttaJarhois

6 жыл бұрын

__ _ 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.

@__-cx6lg

6 жыл бұрын

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.

I liked the 'plain-language' post video credits/comments/shoutouts section. Classy.

The cosine square at 4:08 in the video comes from Malus's Law. The polarizer blocks the E field via cosine, but the transmitted energy, hence photon flux, is proportional to E squared.

God: "It's just a bug."

@arch4223

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly

@Aufbleiben

4 жыл бұрын

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

@tomwhipp3245

4 жыл бұрын

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

@JamieAllen1977

4 жыл бұрын

@@tomwhipp3245 easter egg

@justanotherhotguy

4 жыл бұрын

Gonna fix it in the next update, sorry guys!

Tries to understand quantum physics one more time. Head explodes. Back to cat videos for me.

@TheBobiaan

6 жыл бұрын

check out schrodingers cat then

@MrMichaelsu

6 жыл бұрын

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!!!

@ronniep777

6 жыл бұрын

Household Dog lol

@mcbusinessmonkey

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@mcbusinessmonkey

6 жыл бұрын

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...

This feels like the sort of puzzle you encounter in a phone game that makes you go "this is dumb it's not possible" but there's always an answer. There is always an answer

@DJ-Brownie-UK

Жыл бұрын

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.

@DJ-Brownie-UK

Жыл бұрын

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

@flatline-timer

Жыл бұрын

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

@TheGsView

Жыл бұрын

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?

@DJ-Brownie-UK

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Thank you for this video. Really helped me to understand the findings that won the Nobel Price for Physics in 2022.

i just want to make a "dark" room using those double layers as a wall to make it "black", and then if a person wears another glasses with that lens, he will be able to see outside the room😂 really wanna try that🤣

@evelienheerens2879

4 жыл бұрын

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

@lapidations

4 жыл бұрын

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

@bikedance689

4 жыл бұрын

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

@bikedance689

4 жыл бұрын

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

@ccc3

4 жыл бұрын

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.

I don't normally make diagram jokes but Venn I do...

@ganaraminukshuk0

6 жыл бұрын

Plot twist: they're Euler diagrams.

@minecraftermad

6 жыл бұрын

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

@ristopaasivirta9770

6 жыл бұрын

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

@MrMegaPussyPlayer

6 жыл бұрын

@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%.

@minecraftermad

6 жыл бұрын

no... just no...

I watched Arvin Ash's video that provided great context and general conceptual understanding of Bell's theorem and then the magical KZread algorithm directed me here to such a wonderful practical example that really drove home what I learned in the first video.

Wow! Very well presented. Thank you.

Clearly the answer is it's all a simulation and this bug was shipped as a "feature"

@rudavalek

5 жыл бұрын

mastermclovin 🤗

@JonesCrimson

5 жыл бұрын

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

@ObsceneSuperMatt

5 жыл бұрын

@Harry Kiralfy Broe It just works.

@MrHurricaneFloyd

5 жыл бұрын

The Universe is in beta test.

@trumpocalypsenow4654

5 жыл бұрын

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

I'm sadly not smart enough to even be confused by this.

@CLONisKING

6 жыл бұрын

xD

@h1d34w4y

6 жыл бұрын

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

@mattkilgore7323

6 жыл бұрын

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?

@tyholbrook7664

6 жыл бұрын

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

@brendanm7059

6 жыл бұрын

just remember that 15+15 doesnt equal 50

The best explanation I can come up with is that the filters aren't transparent to each other. That is to say, Filter C doesn't "see" Filter A through Filter B. It can only interact with the photons after they make it through Filter B.

@haroldnowak2042

7 ай бұрын

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.

So how do we know the photons are not being twisted when passing through a filter?

@willkershisnik5893

Жыл бұрын

What do you mean twisted?

@iplay9s

Жыл бұрын

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".

@gregsonvaux4492

Жыл бұрын

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.

@QuinnTheTailor

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

@TheDummbob

Жыл бұрын

@@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

"that would be crazy" - continues to explain.

Man: you can't confuse me Universe: hold my really big beer

@MikinessAnalog

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@orionthewildhunt9173

4 жыл бұрын

wow

@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179

3 жыл бұрын

@@MikinessAnalog i don't think thats quite possible

@MikinessAnalog

3 жыл бұрын

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

@7kortos7

3 жыл бұрын

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

Beautiful video, thank you for sharing! :)

Just a question, this might sound stupid, but can't the problem simply be that the photons get excited with the filter, then "de-excited" in another wavelength, so it would react differently the more filters it goes through. I'm not educated much in quantum physics just very basics, so I'm mostly asking why this isn't the case so I can understand

@aaronrdaniels

Жыл бұрын

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

@TheRetroEngine

Жыл бұрын

Bump ⬆️ Me too I wondered that very same thing.

@Kratokian

Жыл бұрын

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

@threestans9096

Жыл бұрын

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?

@Halopend

Жыл бұрын

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.

I love how youtube recommends this to me almost 2 years later.

@asherschmidt9820

4 жыл бұрын

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

@CaucasainAsian

4 жыл бұрын

Three years now

@LouisChiaki

3 жыл бұрын

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

@joerdim

3 жыл бұрын

What's so special about that?

When i click a video like this, i usually NEEED to understand what its talking abt, but in this case i just dont and its driving me up the wall. So thank you for using your perfectly clear language using words that i DEFINITELY understood

@BrightBlueJim

3 жыл бұрын

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.

Brilliant, guys. I have subscribed.

My theory is that a horizontal filter forces light to oscillate vertically. The second filter at 45 degrees, reorients the vertical light into components oscillating in a grid system that is transformed 45 degrees. Now that the components of the light are oscillating in a 45 degree orientation, when you pass it through a vertical filter, the vertical components of the 45 degree light is blocked, but the horizontal components of the 45 degree light are allowed through. I may be crazy, but I was not surprised by this video... it made perfect sense to me in my head before I even watched the video...

Oh thanks for the bug report, I'll fix it in the next patch

The video reminded me of my BSc thesis. I worked with my mentor on proving Bell without the inequalities using entanglement. It was super fun. The polarizer idea was a superb way to show how things sort of work :)

@johnnycash4034

2 жыл бұрын

Sort of work?

Great video. I love how polarized filters can demonstrate quantum effects, something I noticed decades ago. One thing was unclear to me in this video: are entangled photons involved in these results? If no, is there a way to create entangled photons with polarized filters?

I wish I could understand your videos but it goes over my head as you go so fast. I wish you slowed down.

This is one of the most interesting videos I've seen all year. Thanks for showing me a phenomenon I never thought to look for, and how it works!

@charliespinoza1966

6 жыл бұрын

Greg Orcutt +

@I_killed_that_beard_guy

Жыл бұрын

Have my like

@I_killed_that_beard_guy

Жыл бұрын

Half century completed

Minutephysics and 3Blue1Brown? All we need now is Vi Hart and the ultimate trio would be complete

@ThainaYu

6 жыл бұрын

or Sen Zen maybe

@well3034

6 жыл бұрын

Ha!

@sleepydog9968

6 жыл бұрын

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

@jjrandom1125

6 жыл бұрын

Sleepy Dog Pi Day Pizza Pie-agram.

@rishabhdhiman9422

6 жыл бұрын

Boco Corwin Vi Hart and Venn Diagrams 😍

So what happens to the temperature measurement at each filter and within the system as a whole when we do these experiments?

I read that polarizing filters don’t just block photons with certain orientations, but also change the orientations of photons. Would that explain why a middle filter lets more light pass through? That the photons are sorta deflected (or tilted?) so that they can now pass through the third filter?

@anotherperspective8263

Жыл бұрын

What is a photon?

@michaelpark1535

Жыл бұрын

Yes, that's totally true.

@tomkhinda2033

Жыл бұрын

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.

@PeterSvP

Жыл бұрын

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

@johnao1353

Жыл бұрын

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 .

I remember doing this with three sunglasses lens when my daughter was about 7 showing her how weird it is.... And of course she wanted to know how the light could 'jump' though space and appear out of the third lens... Which obviously I can't explain in a way where a 7 year old doesn't stick a pen in my eye... It is amazing more people aren't aware of this.

@Ejeby

Жыл бұрын

@Hagogs 😂

@MoonCowGaming

Жыл бұрын

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

@aaroncurtis8545

Жыл бұрын

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 😀

Actually, this three-lenses issue is more simply explained if you use the wave model of light. Basically, when a wave of light passes through a polarizing filter, it gets twisted to the angle of the polarizer and shrunk depending on how much it was twisted. Thus, when there's only two lenses, the light out of the first filter (polarized the same way as it) shines onto a filter perpendicular to it; a filter at this angle reduces the wave to zero, so no light goes through. However, if the third filter goes in between, the wave now goes through two 45-degree twists instead of a 90-degree one, which will not reduce the wave to zero. In general, splitting a twist into multiple smaller ones increases the amount of transmission, for the same reason. The problems only ensue when you try to work this with individual particles, as described in the video.

@KnakuanaRka

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@videoviewer2008

6 жыл бұрын

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

@reharm_reality

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@iurycabeleira7990

6 жыл бұрын

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

@quickdudley

6 жыл бұрын

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

Another excellent video! It's nice to know how easy it is to demonstrate quantum entanglement - just buy three polarizing filters and possibly a good lamp!

@schmetterling4477

4 ай бұрын

He clearly said at the nine minute mark that entanglement needs a different kind of experiment. The polarization filters can, and have, been explained classically. People simply don't remember the lengthy math that 19th century physicists did to describe polarization and birefringence properly. I have one old textbook that still has it. For all I know that material is typically not found in classical electrodynamics textbooks because it is rather confusing and the textbook author is more interested in special relativity and its relation to electrodynamics instead. A simplified mental model simply states that a polarizer will not just filter one linear polarization direction but it will also turn the effective polarization by a little bit. One can do this more easily with twisted waveguides and microwaves, by the way. They are frequently found in technical microwave systems. As long as the twist is "slow" compare to the wavelength, the waveguide will rotate the polarization instead of being reflective or even absorptive. Optically active molecules like sugar, certain crystals and liquid crystals do the same.

Two EE degrees, decades of experience. Whenever I start to feel like an expert - or smart - I come watch one of these videos and get a nice dose of humility.

As a physicist and a photographer, this video was supremely satisfying and interesting. Thank you both Henry and Grant.

I really appreciate the effort you guys put into trying to explain this stuff to us knuckleheads. I'm not sure if it's working but I still appreciate the effort.

@wayneyadams

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@avhuf

2 жыл бұрын

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

@yourdedcat-qr7ln

2 жыл бұрын

It works for me.

@yourdedcat-qr7ln

2 жыл бұрын

@@avhuf but we can rewind tho

@yourdedcat-qr7ln

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

Thank god for the red circle and arrow on the thumbnail, otherwise I would have completely missed it. And also, they are clear markers of quality content, as the internet well knows.

Thank you! great video.

Gadzooks. I am a medic and came here learning about polarised and non polarised dermatoscopes for melanoma detection. I would love to learn more about this stuff. Many thanks!

I'm just gonna call this magic & move on till we actually find the answer

@pressaltf4forfreevbucks179

3 жыл бұрын

Me2

@codyhausman2368

3 жыл бұрын

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

@apacheattackhelicopter5823

3 жыл бұрын

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

@Epsilonlogan

3 жыл бұрын

Magic is just science we don’t yet understand.

@declanlong4676

3 жыл бұрын

People in the 3rd century be like

Made my evening more thoughtful as i was observing the sunset which has a natural lens on a rainy day.

Very cool video! To resolve the paradox: thinking about it as if the photons are tilted/shifted/knocked/nudged rather than filtered/weeded-out/sifted/blocked makes it so there is no paradox, it's fully explained. No need for fancy entanglement or hidden variables. So the statement in 0:51 is not totally correct in saying "all these filters do is remove light" since these filters actually shift the light, setting up the audience to what may be a misleading way of thinking about it.

My day job requires me to measure the polarisation extinction between a laser diode through a optical fibre. It still kinda confuses me how certain diodes has higher Polarisation Extinction Ratio (PER) but it drops after placing the fibre in front and vice versa. If I could find a way around it, it would really help with the yield. 😅

@gabriel.brasileiro

2 жыл бұрын

Stop looking at it then inifinite universes will keep going on this klein bottle junction.

@aaronrdaniels

Жыл бұрын

I always think about something similar when thinking about say high voltage linemen. How can you trust physics to the point of knowing with 100% certainty, that when you touch this line you aren’t burnt to a crisp in an instant. Insane how anyone can trust physics with their job when we have yet to understand exactly how other things work in our universe. none the less congrats on having any basic understanding of what you mentioned:)

Is NO ONE going to talk about the collab? How cool is it to have both of them in one video, come on!

@linuszarrouk2004

3 жыл бұрын

It doesn't matter nothing is real apparently

@el0j

2 жыл бұрын

this sort of things happen literally all the time infinitely

@asgard_

2 жыл бұрын

@@el0j Yes. But those two though.

@It-b-Blair

2 жыл бұрын

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

@quattro4468

2 жыл бұрын

Theyre just people. No need for eceleb worship.

If they didn't use venn diagrams and looked at conditional probability then they wouldn't have a silly linear relationship. This really is a substandard physics video.

Arrrrrgh! Why is the universe so weird?! Its hard to understand which means i need to read more about it. I love this.

@CloudyFlow

Жыл бұрын

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.

@randomprodigius914

Жыл бұрын

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

@CloudyFlow

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@weltmechanik7302

Жыл бұрын

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

@Cpt_John_Price

Жыл бұрын

"The universe is not weird, we are."

Thanks for the red circle and arrow in the thumbnail, I almost didn’t see it.

@David-nq7ry

6 жыл бұрын

A Redstone Nightmare If you don't like it stop clicking on videos that use it.

@frankcooke1692

6 жыл бұрын

If you don't like broccoli then don't eat food. If you don't like Coldplay then stop listening to music. Fuck it, why don't you just tell him to stop using KZread altogether and then the internet. If you don't like his complaint then stop fucking speaking.

@David-nq7ry

6 жыл бұрын

False Equivalency: a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. Clicking on 'clickable' content encourages KZreadrs to make stupid thumbnails have click-bait titles because they get more money. If you stop clicking on videos with these attributes or actively boycott them, then the incentive to make videos in that manner would be gone/reversed. I'm saying 'if you don't like Coldplay, don't listen to Coldplay' vote with your feet. Consumer demand matters. Don't call people you don't know on the internet pricks because they vaguely annoyed you. It makes you look like a child.

@frankcooke1692

6 жыл бұрын

And what does engaging with someone who looks like a child make you?

@David-nq7ry

6 жыл бұрын

20/10 response.

This is way more interesting than the Algebra 2 homework that I'm supposed to be doing right now.

@Illuminatiman44

6 жыл бұрын

Kacee do your homework man

@freeinformation9869

6 жыл бұрын

:-D

@Dollapfin

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@lex5964

6 жыл бұрын

/r/iamverysmart

@rasmusblomgren2686

6 жыл бұрын

Math😩

Thank you for this!!!!

All I got from this, is that we are living in a Matrix and the raytracing algorithm is only considering 2 consecutive filters' rotation at a time: If ray passes through filter look ahead for another filter and calculated the resulting chamge in brightness and polarity then move on. Seems the devs didn't have enough ressources to keep looking ahead for more and more filters. Maybe they will patch it in the future, or maybe they will leave it in as an easter egg (or a way for them to determine if they are in the real world or the Matrix, like a totem in Inception)

Amazing collaboration between 2 of my favorite presenters! More, please! And forget long. This video just flew by! Have to re-watch it a bunch of times.

maybe the angle of the wave changes going through the polarizing filter

@HoD999x

4 жыл бұрын

17 minutes summed up in one sentence

@benjaminkennedy6260

4 жыл бұрын

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

@tinldw

4 жыл бұрын

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

@tinldw

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@theplantbit2441

4 жыл бұрын

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

What if the filter isn't just allowing a percentage to pass through but somehow rotating the ones that got through 90 degrees and that's why the turned second filter blocks all the outgoing photons and why the inserted middle filter shifts them so that a 90 turn no longer is able to block them as well? What happens when the bottom one is offset from the second? Is there a percentage offset that then blocks all of them?

@crookycumbles

Жыл бұрын

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

@mnair77

Жыл бұрын

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.

@retnuhytnuob4068

Жыл бұрын

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.

@retnuhytnuob4068

Жыл бұрын

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.

@vasylsky9486

Жыл бұрын

@@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