I keep being impressed by how precise Brian describes everything when he formulates the questions. He never oversimplifies too much. It's great

@onibordiciuc1875

Ай бұрын

We need to protect this kind of people! Give them more than they are given!

@jewishgenes

Ай бұрын

He’s conscious that anyone who spends time on these questions only needs to be trained in physics to understand physics but to understand life he treats everyone as capable. For most scientists, only sacrificing the position of their career and life’s work can they allow normal humans in to ask these questions with them. This doesn’t happen. Brian is a representation of humility & divinity meaning his intention comes from his heart first and survival secondly.

@FLPhotoCatcher

Ай бұрын

What I took away from this is that what happens in Vegas does *not* stay in Vegas. UH-OH

@andrewbreding593

Ай бұрын

I'm impressed at his patience and focus he's over discribing things because he's got a very enthusiastic but under prepared speaker and the layed back tone of the conversation is leading her into the weeds without us

@smlanka4u

Ай бұрын

The smallest unit of matter called Rupa-Kalapa contains 24 derived matter based on 4 basic matter.

This is better than anything on streaming services right now and Brian Greene is dropping 🔥🔥🔥 for FREEEE

@BiswajitBhattacharjee-up8vv

Ай бұрын

Interesting when weird physics model is drawing room to bed room needed an explanation for realty. After all it fire band .

@--ART3MIS--

Ай бұрын

oh, he dropped (his research and the ball) a long time ago. in the trashcan, where they belong!

@smlanka4u

Ай бұрын

Buddhist Cosmology and the ultimate truths of nature are super amazing.

@semontreal6907

Ай бұрын

Don't get me wrong I like Brian but what he's dropping is Dogma unproven stuff check out James Webb Space Telescope new findings all this stuff is being disproven

@DarkMatterBurrito

Ай бұрын

@@smlanka4u Not really

I gave this a thumbs up because the intro is, probably, perfect. Now...well, we shall see.

I love Dr Crulls energy. Super excited. Like me trying to explaine the new videos at work lol. Thank you both greatly

@paulo.8899

Ай бұрын

She sounds like Dr. Ellie from Contact (1997)

@spnhm34

Ай бұрын

The facts are doing most of the work. I could read you my shopping list in an overexcited manner if you doubt me

@SpaceMogLuna

Ай бұрын

@@paulo.8899Look for my post before I saw yours.😉😇

@SpaceMogLuna

Ай бұрын

@@paulo.8899It seems we are simpatico.😉😁

@shanilmisra

Ай бұрын

Nervous excitement

Brian Greene is one of the best Science communicators ever!

@gungadin1389

Ай бұрын

ya Physics for dummies. MOst of us :))

@marting2003

Ай бұрын

kinda not, hes been pushing string theory for 30 years but still better than kaku

@gungadin1389

Ай бұрын

@@marting2003 true:))

@--ART3MIS--

Ай бұрын

ah, the old "FAILED SCIENTIST GOES SCIENCE COMMUNICATOR" shtick. I think you are onto something here! and before you reply: String Theory is dead. and so is Greenes research. what choice does he have, then to write popular books for the masses and make science shows?

@coreymorris1693

Ай бұрын

Better then Tysons lol

"Elise Crull received a B Sc (Honors) in Physics & Astronomy from Calvin University, and holds an M.A. in Philosophy and Ph.D in History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to City College, Dr. Crull held post-doctoral fellowships at the University of Aberdeen and at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, conducting research into the historical and philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics. In addition to history and philosophy of science, Crull frequently ponders (sometimes aloud in front of audiences) philosophical problems associated with quantum theory: the quantum-to-classical transition, quantizing gravity, understanding quantum causal models, the metaphysical nature of entanglement (including temporal entanglement!) and, as of late, interpreting the alternate quantum formalisms used in quantum computing. She also has the occasional thought about quantum cosmology. While these questions keep Prof. Crull in conversation with physicists, she also loves a good metaphysics chin-wag. Topics of special interest there include ontology, meta-ontology, and mereology. Since her research interests are fundamentally interdisciplinary, Crull often finds herself engaging with related "meta" issues, such as the ethics of emergent techno-science, science in the public sphere/ in education, and the nature of the science-theology-philosophy triad."

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the background. Elise seams like someone I could relate to and listen to all day.

@wcsartanddesign

Ай бұрын

@@axle.student They deserve their own show, it's simple really.

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

@@wcsartanddesign When I get some time I will have a closer look at Elise's work. I have a lot of unanswered philosophical questions about how the current physics paradigm relates to the real universe and how much bias the human condition projects onto the pseudo reality of physics.

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

I usually get stomped on for suggesting that there is a certain connection that appears to exist "Across" time. I am no physicist but this seams to lend toward agency in what we loosely call time. In some sense this leaves me feeling that time is more fundamental and containing rules that are not obvious to us or are just outside of our ability to speculate on, measure or test (Maybe Time is a poor or misleading word, but I am not speaking of the measuring device or the measurement as we commonly conceive it). I have looked around and I am seeing many physicists who have and are questioning. The problem is that for now the best we can do is attempt to look at the problem from a different perspective and typically that falls into the realm of philosophy and metaphysics which are 2 taboo words in modern physics lol > Personally I suspect the missing information lays within the hidden layer of the event horizons. Event horizons and singularities appear to take us into that infinitely small moment in time which is hidden from us. Without a concept of progression or time the universe has no human meaning to us, so it becomes a difficult realm for the mind to conceptualize.

I have read his books , but Greene in this program is even better along with his colleagues. How great is it to have access to such programming!

Thank you for all you do Dr. Greene!

Elise is a brilliant science communicator!

That was enlightening and wonderful all at once! Great questions and great responses!!

Prof. Crull describes quantum phenomena beautifully. Schrodinger got it right. Entanglement isn't one of the properties of quantum mechanics, it's THE property. Instead of using decoherence to explain the suppression of quantum fluctuation in our world of macroscopic objects, maybe we should explain it with entanglement. The network of entanglements between particles in a large system makes it virtually impossible for particles to spontaneously change their state because they share their properties with all other particles in the system. The collective "state" of the proverbial cat is locked in by this network of entanglements, and the probability of superposition of living and dead states is vanishing small.

@schmetterling4477

Күн бұрын

Sounds cool and it's 100% wrong. Schroedinger didn't get it right. His equation is just a crude approximation of reality.

What epic timing. Last one week I have been researching about black holes and quantum entanglement, even accidently watched the show 3 body problem which had quantum entanglement in it.

This popular education work that you are all doing (you both and your team(S)!) is respectble and potentially essential work. Thank you so much!

Elise Crull is an excellent teacher!

Excellent discussion!

This is SO AWESOME! What a wonderful conversation and love the enthusiasm!

This one will be fun cannot wait to watch it tonight :) In the Ender's Game books they used a device called the Ansible that could communicate across many light years. The term was first used in a novel by Ursula K. Le Guin in 1966 and some other authors also borrowed the term. In Enders Game this is how it worked (From wikipedia) It involved a fictional subatomic particle, the philote. The two quarks inside a pi meson can be separated by an arbitrary distance, while remaining connected by "philotic rays".This concept is similar to quantum teleportation due to entanglement; however, in reality, quark confinement prevents quarks from being separated by any observable distance.

@dmonvisigoth1651

Ай бұрын

SF so often predicts things before science gets around to discovering, proving or acknowledging them. Star Trek (somewhat) predicted the Moon landing 2.5 years before it actually took place (to be fair, he said "late '60s") One must be able to imagine a thing before it can be proven to exist.

Just listen Brian, don't read the comments, unbelievable how much can i relax with this show.... Thanks for my mom that she beat me to learn English.

I love the way my brain explodes when you talk about quantum entanglements reaching through time . Thankyou ❤

@ThermaL-ty7bw

Ай бұрын

we called it space-time for a reason , if particles are entangled in space , they're Also entangled in time time is the changing of space , or in short ... change

Dr Crull's magnificent hair is physics-defying!

Brian Greene explains complex concepts in simple terms with a clear and likable voice!!

@simewood2040

Ай бұрын

But we have Godel to thank for keeping us all grounded.

very insightful

Amazing stuff

I believe that our brains are quantumly entangled through time!!!

@FASTFASTmusic

Ай бұрын

Right? Alan Watts had it right all along

@danielpaulson8838

Ай бұрын

We live in a collective psyche. CG Jung

@coreymorris1693

Ай бұрын

​@JamesMulvale you need to look up bob greenyer, fractal tyroidal tripole moment. There is a plank force that travels 4c. There is more evidence then people realize. I'm going to give you a string of names you need to look into. Bob greenyer, John hutchison, salvitore pais, Ashton forbes, Dave rossi, there are people working on the technology of this problem. from the look of it military has had this figured out for some time. Mh370x flight.

@RandallLeeReetz

29 күн бұрын

whatever

I would say yes.. if we imagine time like waves from droplet Round or like a ocean current maybe.. its connected throughout time yes? An maybe the past resonates through time. Having a littel hard wrapping my mind around it but think theres something to be said about the theory?

Elise, Thank you for what you do. I would take your course since the description of what you teach applies directly to my interests. I loved your enthusiasm! Another example of correlation over time comes from a version of the double slit experiment wherein a single photon or particle at a time is emitted, yet a wave pattern still forms. Q1. What does universal entanglement, should that be the case across spacetime, imply about the probabilistic nature of reality? Indeed, no one discusses how two spatially separated entities could communicate. (In the absence of any other explanations, I postulate that they do not see spacetime (a photon also does not). This possibility (somewhat outside the box - but others have questioned the existence and/or nature of spacetime) means there is no separation and no "communication" between the entangled particles. They remain two sides of the same coin. Q2. How is decoherence manifested in the double-slit experiment? Are the peaks somehow lower than they ought to be? Q3. How does relativity affect the wave function? Q4. What do you think of Donald Hoffman's work?

Fascinating

The idea discussed is the only thing that makes me consider ghosts being a scientific plausibility. Cool to see this question get covered!

@snailnslug3

Ай бұрын

They were at one point real because I’ve seen them as a child. But never again since the 70s. My folks called them angels. But I’ve never met anyone past a certain age that has seen them. It’s been patched. Also our entire existing/reality is on a flat screen In space… no idea but creepy

I so wanted a video on this ❤️

@rajm.5819

Ай бұрын

I get chills watching it. This is exactly what my soul has been yearning for.

15:58-Don't we see a similar level of probability distribution across far distances in space and time at the macro level as well? Meaning, when we observe a star or galaxy here on Earth we are measuring it, so it's in a relatively fixed position. But if we were to travel to it's location to directly interact with it, would it not wildly fluctuate in speed and position on our way there? Mirroring the same pattern of behavior we see at the atomic scale?

Brian Green is very good at presenting arguments for thought and discussion. Elsie is very good at presenting arguments as well. Her doctorate degree is quite obvious. I enjoyed the discussion.

As always, most stimulating! Quick questions: since entanglement is so ubiquitous, can I create entanglement in a kitchen counter experiment? If I have a liter of water at room temperature on the kitchen counter, what percentage of the water molecules should I expect to be entangled at any given time?

'The Ship of Theseus' come to mind when thinking about these sorts of things. As well, the idea of the "spime" of every Human life (look it up if you don't know, it's pretty cool). Hard to define oneself as a singular entity when we're always sloughing away particles, eating biomatter and shitting it out, regrowing hair and tissues, et cetera... All things are in a constant state of metamorphosis: select which state you wish to observe

Elise Crull and Brian Greene try so hard to communicate theories that reveal the uncertainty of how the universe works. I don't understand them but I get a sense of how connected and complex the universe is.

@schmetterling4477

Ай бұрын

It isn't. It can be summarized all of it in the following: The universe is an empty three dimensional metric manifold on which systems (arbitrary human made partitions of the manifold) have one additive property called energy. ;-)

Never having taken a science class, self taught, such as it is, one mystery, amongst many, that I will take to the grave with me, is why so many Physicist purported to have knowledge of QM , just seem to not understand the “Black Body Radiation Problem”, and what exactly Planck proposed as a solution. For instance, one, of many, Planck never believed or proposed that light consistent of particles and in fact later found such an idea nonsensical. An amazing distortion of the history of physics, by both Brian and Elise. Einstein gets full credit.

Brava👏🏼👏🏼 what a woman.. Brian Greene being a boss as always

@ 18:48 Brian says "all of those interaction (petting the cat, etc.) affect the quantum description of the cat, and… those interactions suppress the very parts of the quantum probability that are at odds with our experience, which is why our experience is as it is …" All that this statement is saying, which should not be too difficult to accept as reasonable, is that the function of the "conscious" human participant in these "interactions" is, first to 'map' them with his body's intelligent 'on-board, sensory-environment mapping computer' (or "conscious brain"), and then to use that map (and likewise previously derived/constructed related maps) to direct his body's subsequent momentum routing decisions (actions), thereby affecting the probability (by increasing some and reducing others) of the specific sequence of quantum 'detection' events which (in toto) constitute those 'self-perceived behavioral (inter-)actions', and thus of the set of 'quantum particle location- manifestations' that (in toto) comprise the structure of that perception. This boils down to recognition that the human observer's "sensory [self and his actions]-awareness waveform" is this otherwise purely random quantum probability wave universe engaged in its own "intelligent" (and hopefully soon to be "more intelligent") self-design and self-construction / configuration. I propose that the _structure_ of "the material universe" that we find ourselves participants in is comprised of the 'self-relative motion' (a.k.a. "acceleration") of an otherwise structureless 'Scale-Uniform' superfluid Medium (SUM) -- Einstein's "spacetime", the 'stuff' whose otherwise featureless flow appears to "curve" with proximity to a gravitating particulate mass. The overall geometric "structure" of this otherwise structureless fluid's "pure" self-relative motion is that of a "particulate" horn toroidal fluid vortex (a.k.a. a "black hole"), which -- apparently, by some means and mechanism [intimately related to and/or involving "the speed of light"], can 'self-fractalize', and/or generate the "appearance" of doing so. So, welcome to 'The Graviton', and let's recognize our [hopefully soon to be] intelligently self-aware human societal network (HSN) as a higher order extension and expression of the 'distributed network of "momentum" (or self-relative SUM-flow) re-routing particulate I/O devices' that "It" has apparently "selected" (or de facto "settled upon" if you prefer) as the foundational architecture (and operating principle) of its "self-organizing" mechanism.

Thank you. Very intelligent woman :) I have been getting stomped on for ages for even remotely suggesting that space-time may have some form of fundamental agency. When we change our context/perspective and allow the agency of space and time to have effect on on the material universe many of the unanswerable questions appear to fall into place. > I accept that it is difficult for humans to think or conceptualize complex ideas in 4D. It takes training to separate the classical human thinking out of the paradigm and it is not easy. The most difficult part is holding a thought containing an infinite number of event horizons in that 4D abstraction, but simplifying that abstraction down to a single and then just a small number of those event horizons makes it possible. Explaining to another person via a 2D or 3D realm is extremely difficult if not near impossible as the 4D context is immediately lost thus destroying the understanding that we are attempting to relate. > 2 good staring points are the spherical time histograms showing 3D space as flat spherical shells or layers of moments of the 3D in time. There are many hidden points of singularities as well as event horizons that are not immediately obvious. The other being that of the past and future light cones representations which also contain a large number (if not infinite) of intersecting singularities and event horizons. The 4 most notable being the event horizons at the side of the cones, the infinitely small intersect of the light cones past and forward event horizons at an infinitely small point in the "Now" present. and the depiction of the 2D plane that slices the "Now" moment at that intersect. That depiction of the "Now" plane in time is the event horizon where the quantum world is unfolding from moment to moment. There are an infinite number of event horizons (light cones) intersection at an infinitely small point across that 2D event plane. . So, we are at the question of what is connecting the intersect of ALL of those infinitely small points (light cone intersects) across that plane, that moment in time, that event horizon? We know if 2 or more of those intersecting points touch we have a classical interaction between particles in space at that event horizon in time, but what is the connection "across" that time plane for all entangled particles for that moment in time? The particle has no awareness of another particle outside of its infinitely small event horizon in that now moment. > I find myself separating that plane into a static moment of time (event horizon), and when that plane is progressing the concepts of relativity such as gravity and mass emerge and are knowable in the past light cone (in the wake of and trailing the event horizon of the time line).

If everything is quantum waves in Einstein's time-space understanding the quantum entanglement of particles is closer to the advancement of overall physics. May the pioneers keep pushing forward. I especially like the equal and opposite spin after the measurement. I am exploring spin propulsion

Elise is a very good science communicator.

Thee question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete has been a subject of significant debate and discussion in the field of physics. This debate was sparked by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen (EPR), which questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics and argued for the existence of "elements of reality" that were not part of quantum theory. In their paper, EPR argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics is incomplete and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing hidden variables that would provide a more complete description of physical reality They proposed a criterion of physical reality, stating that in a complete theory, there should be an element corresponding to each element of reality, and a physical quantity should be predictable with certainty without disturbing the system . However, the debate surrounding this issue has continued, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward. Some have argued that the quantum-mechanical description of physical phenomena fulfills all rational demands of completeness within its scope, particularly when viewed from the perspective of complementarity . The EPR paradox and its implications have been the subject of extensive analysis and debate, with important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The debate has also involved significant exchanges between Einstein and Niels Bohr concerning the completeness and locality of quantum mechanics . In summary, the question of whether the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality can be considered complete remains a topic of ongoing discussion and debate within the field of physics, with various perspectives and interpretations being put forward.

Thank you Elise.

I was there. I mean, I will be.

5:06 This is the best description of Quantum Mechanics, that explains exactly, the relation between the "everyday" perception of the reality and the scientific approach to the "real" reality, the scientific perception of the world! Dear Professor Mr. Brian Greene, thank you, so much for this. I think this description is what we all (the amateur scientists), need to have in our minds to be thinking more "clear", about all this. And thank you Elise Crull, you are presenting the Quantum World with the philosophical background we all the amateur scientists need to have in our minds when we trying to understand "Quantum Theory" and all those wonderful abstract ideas around "modern" or synchronous Science! World Science Festival: You are the Oasis in the Desert of this World! 💚Thank you All! 🌈

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

This is why Physics also needs philosophers :)

@markoszouganelis5755

Ай бұрын

@@axle.student And also thats why Philosophy wants to be needed from the Physicists! It is the well known😊 Juliet-Romeo syndrome! 😊😊🌈🌈💚💚🤖🤖🌸🌸

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

@@markoszouganelis5755 I can explain the problem of the "Human Condition" and our inescapable subjective awareness of the world (universe) beyond the self in far more detail, but put simply even the physicists and mathematicians ultimately paint there own version (description) of reality over the real universe. Philosophers are the only people who have capacity to relate that subjective reality to the real universe (objective truth), and even for them it is a difficult if not close to impossible task. Elise seams to have and is acquiring the skills to act as a translator, so I see her and any others with her ability as a necessary and needed part of a discipline (Physics) that has been stalled within it's own self defined prison for near 70 years :)

@axle.student

Ай бұрын

@@markoszouganelis5755 I will throw in a quote from one of my favourite fiction authors "And as he believed, so it was for him" - Richard Bach

@markoszouganelis5755

Ай бұрын

@@axle.student I think we us all ARE: "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" and everyone of us thinks he is the center of the universe. And!...after all it's true! "And as he believed, we believe. So what it was for him, now it is for us too, and forever..!" (..and ever! And NEVER forget that)! Thank you my Good friend for commenting my comment! 🛸😊🌸= PEACE and LOVE and SCIENCE!

During measurement what kind of interaction happens? Is it from the wavelength of the light? Is the measurement changes the energy of the object? Is scale of measurement matters? What would happen if we measure the object from small perspective?

I love Brian Greene!

I want to see Elise Crull and Sean Carroll have a long debate. It'd be interesting to have Sabine Hossenfelder in there too. I find all their views plausible (mere decoherence, many worlds, and superdeterminism respectively). I want to know why each thinker rejects the others' views, and what each of their responses to those reasons for rejection are.

@schmetterling4477

Күн бұрын

None of them understand quantum mechanics. ;-)

This idea that particle 1 and particle 4 are entangled through time, is thin at best. As all of the opposite qualities of 1 are alive in 2, and you use 2 to flip the spin of 3, which is entangled with 4. There is no spooky action backward through time. You measure the spin of 1. That value doesn't change when you measure 4. It's no surprise they agree because you made that happen normally through time.

@quitchiboo

Ай бұрын

Pretty much this. That result is sensationalized to no end.

@colinmackay6294

Ай бұрын

Agree...nothing profound there.

@7ramnique

Ай бұрын

There may be spooky action backward through time, massive at that.

@PrometheusZandski

Ай бұрын

@@7ramnique I would love to see an experiment that proved there was action forward or backward through time, outside normal means. That would show that the universe is time sliced, and our reality is the one we are "currently" experiencing. That would be HUGE. This is not that experiment.

@sonarbangla8711

Ай бұрын

QM certainly remains a set of principles but not yet a theory, even if entanglement involves space and time. Unitary evolution of Schrodinger's wave function involves much more than entanglement. It seems to involve 'error correction' mathematics or its algorithm that hides the truth.

That´s a very good question.

Great discussion, and well moderated (as usual).

Bro just dropped the hardest physics intro edit at the beginning.

@lastofthewieldersoflight

Ай бұрын

Bro visited his friend.

The answer to the question posed @16:00 is NOT solely quantum mechanical. It lies within the combination of Quantum Mechanics, Newtonian Mechanics and Special Relativity. Aka Quantum Field Theory. This combined understanding of reality reveals our universe is a block-timed reality fundamentally emerging from fields of energy that span all of space and all of time.

Nice😊😊. I hope to attend WSF when my degree ends.

Love scientists speaking about the limitations.

Non-locality is like a mirror: The electron, when recorded, is simply expressing parity.

She was passionate 👏✌️👍🏼

I'm just going to say that I think dark energy is the connection between the entanglement that we cannot detect thus due to quarks and gluons

@schmetterling4477

Күн бұрын

Nope.

Thanks for the nice video. But, I would not call that experiment as being entanglement in time. Entanglement involves a superposition of states that cannot be factorized and I do not see what states are entangled at different times in that experiment due to the measurements. The best example of entanglement in time is the Franson interferometer. One has two photons created at the same time by down conversion and sent each along a path to the left and to the right that each go through a 50-50 beam splitter that delays the photon or lets it go straight through. Then you detect each photon and see did the left come before the right, the right before the left, or both at the same time. For the ones not at the same time, there is only one way they occur, so the probability is a constant. But for the ones that go on the long long or short short options, they form a superposition and interfere. By changing the phase of one of the photons, on either path, you can get the coincidence to go from 0 to a maximal value. This is true entanglement in time, as we have a superposition of two pulses at physically different times, but they interfere simply because we do not know when they were created. Truly mind bowing in my view. And of course the big question is what happens to probability conservation if the coincidences can have varying probability. Think carefully and you can sort that out as well.

Questions regarding wave probability collapse due to measurement: how precise (localized) is the collapse? Shouldn't the precision of the localization itself have an uncertainty (related to the energy exchanged with the field quanta being measured)?

A good example of quantum entanglement in real world is our last names. We cannot describe someone completely or define their state without knowing their last name. Therefore, we, the children of our parents, are defined by our parents - an entanglement that exists across time, regardless of the existence of one or the other in their frame of reference. What is interesting is that the entanglement can be adopted by a completely strange person, not related to the individual, because each of us can have more then one entanglement. During our self-measurement state, we can choose who to entangle with; And the extent of the entanglement is such that it changes our DNA, our composition and make up.

The discussion that starts at the 27:12 is fascinating. Non-locality is a very interesting phenomenon that I reading much on. I have not figured it out yet, but when I do, the Nobel Committee will be calling. Yea, right! Better wake up now from this entangled state :).

@schmetterling4477

Күн бұрын

That's great, except that quantum mechanics is 100% local. Yeah, no Nobel for you, today. ;-)

I just realized near the end with the wooden rubiks cube, that even if entangled particles are separated in 3 or 4 dimensions, they could still be next to each other in the 5th or 6th dimensions...

@greenfinmusic5142

Ай бұрын

Yes, nice insight. Looking beyond particles, I think it might even provide a logical possibility for remaining 'close'/'connected' to your loved ones outside of 4D spacetime. Maybe love exists in a different dimension (imo it's reasonable to think that all phenomenal consciousness exists in one or more dimensions outside of standard 4D physical reality), and maybe being entangled in love allows those lovers to remain connected across large gaps of time or space; even more romantically, it might also allow entangled spirits/souls to remain connected after physical death.

Since many years i had no problem with considering particles as waves and going along with the distribution pattern. The one thing i struggled with was to sort of accept the notion that these probabilistic waves ( are they physical? ) interacted with each other. If this sort of interaction was hard to imagine even in space like when you use multiple particles but it was even more difficult with the one particle where this interaction would have had to happened across time and the only idea that can come close to explaining that was entanglement across time. So it was more of a necessity 😂

Could it be that what we perceive as probabilistic properties of the quantum world be in reality the result of complex relations or entanglement with other particles ? In that senses if we could know of all the past or distant network of entanglement with other particles we could deduct the next position of an electron or whatever properties we identfy now as probabilistic ?

I like the dart board bit. If the board were swinging on it's nail and the dart were moving in a straight line; it's eventual position on the board would be a probability, like a wave function. But if the frequency of the board and speed of the dart were at the speed of light then they would inevitably meet. There would be a simultaneity.

RE entanglement, what if you applied conformal mapping to the spatial framework of the particles? Then in some transformed geometric sense you could end up with particles that are closer together or overlapping and would no longer have nonlocality from a non-Euclidean perspective. I mean I'm not a mathematican, but seems plausible?

Although entangle particles are non-local in 3 dimensional space, they are indeed local in 4d spacetime (i.e. they are touching). So we shouldn't be surprised that entangled particles can behave this way.

"And that's pretty cool!" Elise evokes a good Jodie Foster from Contact (1997).

If we ever did find a way to communicate using the underlying mechanism of entanglement (instantaneous communication between entangled particles) that would also allow us to communicate through time. If you took one end of the communicator (e.g. a group of entangled particles in one location) and accelerated it enough for it to experience noticeable time dilation relative to the other end of entangled particles (the other end of the communicator) then you would be able to communicate through time. Probably another reason why its likely impossible to ever communicate using entanglement.

One thing I saw as missing is discussion of the axis about which spin is measured. I think, or my understanding is, that such spin is inherently aligned (up or down) with an axis of random choice. As such, it seems that spin is occurring about any and all axes simultaneously until measured. To me, that's not trivial. Doesn't this arise from the Stern-Gerlach experiment? How wrong am I?

The thing about entanglement is there were some thoughts that it was like a pair of gloves. If at the end if a party I go home with one glove and my friend accidentally took the other.... if I have the left hand glove I immediately know he has the right hand glove. These properties were known to exist before the so called entanglement of two gloves...this quality is always entangled for the pair.... but its pre-existing...of course if I measure left i immediately know you measure right. But an experiment by a guy named Bell in the 1960s showed statistically that the entanglement qualities we measure are not pre existing like a pair of gloves. More than this is cannot explain but its been shown entanglement is not a pre-existing quality but really is only determined when measured.

At what point in this KZread video do they discuss the subject of the title "Can Particles be Quantum Entangled Across Time?"

Entanglement has to do with dark energy something we don't understand😅

TIME to watch this. :D

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Brian and the team at WSF, I loved maths as a kid back in the eighties but my life took a different path, but thanks to these fantastic videos(love how seamlessly the videos are) I have a deep abiding fascination with cosmology and quantum field theory. So thank you Mr Brian Greene for being an awesome teacher and author. From a very wet Belfast,Ireland

@dmonvisigoth1651

Ай бұрын

I hold the same fascination at this point in my life, though I was terrible at maths, I am able to grasp these concepts more easily than trying to figure out how things like government and economy works lol. May have something to do with a ceaseless immersion in SF since childhood, maybe autism, or possibly the copious amounts of psychedelics I've consumed throughout the course of my travels. (Probably all three)

Possibilities are endless

@ohmsragudo8867

Ай бұрын

No, science defies uncertainties. Chaos is not logical. We could find the answers in AGI and ASI.

32:40 On spontaneous Lorentz transformations: the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging. Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. Thus, the world itself already has many-sided (~ "multi-world") and improvisational (~"probabilistic") properties. P.S. 0. "Indeed, it is clear that we cannot report the translational motion of the entire universe and check whether this motion affects the course of any processes. The principle of relativity therefore has heuristic and physical meanings only if it is valid for any closed system. However, the question arises, when can a system be considered closed? Is the remoteness of all the masses outside the considered system sufficient for this? The answer, according to experience, says that in the case of uniform and rectilinear motion, this is enough, but for other movements it is not enough. Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). 1. Obviously, the opposite is true for an expanding universe. Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^ 2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^ 2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the parameter Ht* it shows how much of the global time has "passed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference relative to the clock. 2.The observer can measure the increase in the duration of the processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt

"Undulating waves of probability." That line tripped me out a little.

@D.Eldon_

Ай бұрын

_@dmonvisigoth1651_ -- Yes, it sounds like something H.P. Lovecraft would have written.

@shannonbarber6161

Ай бұрын

I am having trouble focusing as well since I too have become preoccupied with suffocating undulating waves.

@liamphillips7315

Ай бұрын

Used properly with the right teacher at the right time that line just MIGHT get you out of trouble for late homework lol... BUT...even if it didn't it will ALWAYS be worth giving it a try! 🖖⚛️

@AdH104

Ай бұрын

I don’t know about you but my head fell clean off when she spat out “There are many people who still haven’t accepted what quantum mechanics is saying is that we have an Irrevocably probabilistic universe….”

@johnv3733

Ай бұрын

Koan: Q: Does quantum mechanics have Buddha nature? A: Uh, probably. And the acolyte achieved sudden enlightenment.

This guy is a fantastic presenter...I thought he was an actor at first. So THAT'S Brian Greene, eh? LoL, well alright then. Knew the name, not the face/person

Your own chart indicates that particle 1, existed in T3, and therefore was able to convey or transfer information to particle 2, in T3 which in turn conveyed to particle 3 and thus to particle 4. There was no disconnection.

@andrewj22

9 күн бұрын

Isn't this experiment an argument against the Copenhagen interpretation? If the wave function has collapsed before the 2nd particle is introduced, then how can the new entanglement happen? You need a wave function for entanglement to occur. Furthermore, this implies that a particle which is entangled with another particle whose property has already been measured is, in one sense, still wavelike, but also has a predetemined specific property value (as opposed to that property existing as a broader probability distribution). It suggests that the probability wave isn't fundamental, no?

18:43 Isn't decoherence "shrouding/veiling" it, rather than "suppressing" it??

It's chaos, literally. I have written on this. The fractal does it all, and cosmology. I wrote to John Clauser today with my papers.

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration” Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and creates our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

@WILLIAMMALO-kv5gz

23 күн бұрын

"Interesting" to who or what? I think "Infinity" is a living entity. What do you think?

@michaelgermanovsky1793

21 күн бұрын

​@@WILLIAMMALO-kv5gzWe are Borg. Resistance is futile. 😂😂😂

This is better than anything on streaming services right now and Brian Greene is dropping

So, if the universe is spooky and weird at Planck length, does it become weirder/spookier, or more ordered at incomprehensibly large scales?

@timhaldane7588

Ай бұрын

Yes

@kricketflyd111

Ай бұрын

As above so below

@XAirForce

Ай бұрын

If it’s like most things that we observe, they start distorting at edges. There is absolutely no reason to believe they would not distort at the edges here also, at both at the macro and micro scale.

@mosquitobight

Ай бұрын

Since the fundamental particles dictate how the Universe works at the Planck scale, you could argue that is the real behavior of the Universe, and the way it appears to work at our scale and larger is the weird stuff.

@tonydenney6921

Ай бұрын

I like the question.

A thought experiment I posed in Sabine Hossenfelder's comment section (which was mysteriously deleted for whatever the reason?) Here's my thought experiment: (non-existent technology is proposed for explanation purposes only) A one light second circumference race track is constructed (186,272 circular miles). An observation tower sits stationary at the center of the track. A light speed race car and driver set out and approach 99.9999% light speed. The driver then turns on his 1 second flashing strobe light with a 10 millisecond 'on' duration. Q: Will the driver experience time dilation? Q: What will the tower observer see? (Remember, there is no distance change between observer and driver) Qualify your answer in plain language. Assume the tower observer has a super telescope mounted on a rotating swivel where he is able to see the driver and his strobe light as they circle around the tower observers position. There is a part 2 to this T.E...

@merlepatterson

Ай бұрын

I guess it's an unworthy thought experiment for the ones who are already convinced of "settled science"? It's a shame.

My mind hurts... No pain, no gain.

Both Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics specify how things are now. The Newtonian equations predict how they will be later on. The equations of QM specify the probability of how things will be later on. The logical explanation is that we have an uncertain future coming into existence with potential photon ∆E=hf energy, of what might happen, exchanging into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of electrons of what is actually happening. This forms an irreversible probabilistic process with an uncertain future coming into existence photon by photon with the absorption and emission of light waves.

Nice to see the shout out to Grete Hermann at 22:11

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton.

Not saying this graph at the end is NOT true but I will believe it when real tests prove it.

Just curious, isn't entanglement proof of higher dimension? I postulate that the information is actually travelling on or is connected via a different plane or higher dimension beyond our accessible 3-dimensional space, perhaps the higher dimensions begin to manifest at smaller and smaller scales of our 3D universe. I'd be keen to hear a string theorist opinion on this. Thanks for the informative clips.

Could it be that at that level subatomic particles are capable of illuminating linguistic prepositions that define their location in regards to a body?

The problem with trying to define particles that are entangled that never lived at the same time is in our definition and understanding of Time and the lack of a proper model for time that facilitates this necessary understanding. If you truly understand time, then you'll know that it doesn't matter what timestamp any particle carries since they do not truly exist solely in the type of "time" that current science has defined it as and may not at all. That's perplexing isn't it? Stay tuned for the philosophical explanation and model.

Here is a thought: Could it be that the totality of our "illusion of Certainty" is the Quantum Uncertainty Realm of a Higher levels of existence and then would not our mathematical certainties be the "fog" of Possibilities that would be available to be measured from the point of view of entities existing at those upper levels?

Because even with time there is an equal and opposite reaction so there has to be balance within the universe

Maybe our concept of spacetime is still Newtonian after all these years? Seems to me there are 2 choices: 1) instaneous wave function collapse across spacetime is a "thing", or 2) Sean's Manyworlds is a "thing"

Very cool experiment showing how particles can have an entangled property even though they never coexisted. Not entirely surprising, given that the Bell state correlations are independent of spatial and temporal separations of the measurement events. There is simply some conserved quantity between 1 and 2 that 2 shares with 3 and 3 shares with 4. Therefore, 1 and 4 share a conserved property. That's not really the mystery of entanglement per se. Let me show you that mystery and its solution per quantum information theory as given in "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" (Oxford UP June 2024). Everything I'm going to say follows from mathematical and empirical facts, so it's `analytically true'. Whether or not you consider it explanatory is up to you, but it is an explanation of entanglement equal to that of length contraction in special relativity, which most physicists are satisfied with 🙂 The mystery of quantum entanglement arises because we are looking for a 'causal mechanism' behind its correlations, what Einstein called "constructive efforts." Einstein was faced with a very similar situation concerning constructive accounts of length contraction (and time dilation) to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein wrote: "By and by I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results." That is, he gave up looking for causal mechanisms ("constructive efforts") that would shrink meter sticks and slow down clocks to fool everyone into measuring the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions (an empirically discovered fact known as the light postulate). Instead, he said c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell's equations, so the relativity principle -- the laws of physics (including their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames -- demands that everyone measure the same value for c, regardless of their relative motions. The Lorentz transformations of special relativity (SR) follow from the light postulate as justified by the relativity principle. As it turns out, the same opportunity for quantum mechanics (QM) has been provided by quantum information theorists. That is, they have reconstructed QM based on an empirically discovered fact called Information Invariance & Continuity that (in non-information-theoretic terms) means everyone measures the same value for Planck's constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations. How does that resolve the mystery of quantum entanglement? Suppose you send a vertical spin up electron to Stern-Gerlach (SG) magnets oriented at 60 deg relative to the vertical. Since spin is a form of angular momentum, classical mechanics says the angular momentum you should measure is (hbar/2)cos(60) = hbar/4 in that direction of SG spatial orientation. But, the SG measurement of electron spin constitutes a measurement of h, so everyone has to get the same +/- hbar/2 for a spin measurement in any SG spatial orientation, which means you can't get what you expect from common sense classical physics. Instead, QM says the measurement of a vertical spin up electron at 60 deg will produce +hbar/2 with a probability of 0.75 and it will produce -hbar/2 with a probability of 0.25, so the average is (hbar/2 + hbar/2 + hbar/2 - hbar/2)/4 = hbar/4. In other words, quantum mechanics says you get the common sense classical result on 'average only' because of the observer-independence of h. Now suppose Alice and Bob are measuring the spin singlet state (the two spins are anti-aligned when measured in the same direction, as shown in this video) and Alice obtains +hbar/2 vertically and Bob measures his particle at 120 deg relative to Alice. Obviously, if Bob had measured vertically he would have obtained -hbar/2, so at 120 deg Alice says he should get hbar/4 per our single particle example. But of course, Bob must measure the same value for h that Alice does, so he can't get the fractional value of h Alice says he should (otherwise, Alice would be in a preferred reference frame). Instead, his outcomes at 120 deg corresponding to Alice's +hbar/2 outcomes vertically average to hbar/4 just like the single particle case. And, of course, the data are symmetric so Bob can partition the results according to -*-his-*- +/- hbar/2 outcomes and show that Alice's results satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum on 'average only'. In the end, Alice partitions the data per her +/- hbar/2 outcomes and says Bob's results must be averaged to satisfy conservation of spin angular momentum while Bob's partition shows it's Alice's outcomes that must be averaged (Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame, Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 15771 (2020)). This should remind you immediately of an analogous situation in SR. There when Alice and Bob occupy different references frames via relative motion, they partition spacetime events per their own surfaces of simultaneity and show clearly that each other's meter sticks are short and their clocks run slow. In other words, the mystery of quantum entanglement resides in 'average-only' conservation that results from "no preferred reference frame" (NPRF) giving the observer-independence of h (NPRF + h). And, the mystery of length contraction resides in the relativity of simultaneity that results from "no preferred reference frame" giving the observer-independence of c (NPRF + c). Give up your constructive bias for QM just as is done for SR and physics makes perfect sense. But, the implications for your worldview are profound; you have to accept that physics is most fundamentally about constraints on the 4-dimensional (spatiotemporal) organization of worldtubes per NPRF + c interacting via the exchange of quanta per NPRF + h. So, precisely as can be inferred from this video, reality is not fundamentally about causal mechanisms.

Question: could the field itself be the intermediary between entangled particles, bypassing any FTL requirement?

@valentinmalinov8424

Ай бұрын

You are asking very difficult question my friend! - Modern science has no idea what Field is!, Needier Energy, needier Space, Time, Gravity, El magnetism, Attraction....

I see a stunning consistency between non-locality with the Buddhist notion of dependent origination. But it would be a historic mistake if science ignored the parallel between Being Time (Uji) as proposed by Dogen Zenji, a 13th century Buddhist monk, and non-locality, especially time.