The experiment with the two Quasars was the most fascinating thing I have ever seen. Gives me chills and excitement about the quantum world.

@schmetterling4477

6 ай бұрын

It's also completely meaningless. ;-)

@ronbaechle6476

5 ай бұрын

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

@schmetterling4477

5 ай бұрын

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

@AbbStar1989

4 ай бұрын

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

@schmetterling4477

4 ай бұрын

@@AbbStar1989 Cool maybe, but not serious physics.

I don't miss a single pbs documentary. Whether it's American experience or secrets of the dead or Nova or front line. All of pbs is incredible. And people that don't know that, I feel sorry for them. PB S has been a part of my life since I was a little kid. And a truly is the best television on television

@cregister8353

Жыл бұрын

PBS, does have good documentaries.

@minirock000

Жыл бұрын

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

@matthew-jy5jp

Жыл бұрын

@@minirock000 yes I have the PBS app and passport

@matthew-jy5jp

Жыл бұрын

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

@x_warhog_x8701

Жыл бұрын

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

Fascinating to witness phenomenal work done by physicists to actually minimize spatial concepts onto a computer screen for a pellucid of a nebula dynamic.

FINALLY! I do not have the education or experience or training to make formal sense of all this. But even at the lay level I have followed this conversation for some time and intuitively suggested that the issue with our struggle to understand the puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics in general, and quantum entanglement specifically, is that we are failing to properly understand the concept of space. In keeping with brilliant minds of our past, we hold an inherent bias in favor of ourselves. Where we once thought that the entire universe revolves around us, even in modern times our egos insist that space must be as we experience it. Even Einstein extending this to the concept of space/time did not completely knock us of our own pedestal. For some time I have been asking sillier versions of the contemporary thinking presented here in this documentary, such as 'Why can't entangled particles simply be adhering to an adjacent position through unobservable dimensions they create for themselves once they are observed?'...or...'Maybe space is actually so tightly folded that all particles in our universe remain adjacent via other dimensions?'...or...'Perhaps we are seeing the influence of companion particles in parallel universes placed upon the observed particles in our universe, wherein the companions in that parallel universe remain adjacent?' I began asking myself these questions when I was introduced to the double-slit experiment long ago. And as I ask myself these questions (and I have asked some of these of scientists as well but never received a reply, for which I blame them not one iota), I wonder if we are seeing quantum math and theories and predictions and experiments and confirmation all as an example of mathematical parlor tricks that reveal how this all works in our experience of space, yet have still failed to divine some more elegant and underlying truth to reality? Maybe Einstein was correct about the spookiness of all this quantum stuff, and yet he was wrong all along about space itself? In contrast, quantum physicists could be wrong in what the maths are revealing to them, but they are about to end up 100% correct about space itself and will have newer and far more effective equations? And it is because this has been where my shallow understanding has been stuck for so many years, that this documentary was found to be so utterly fascinating. For that, I thank you.

@picturemetrollin2093

2 ай бұрын

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

@biopsiesbeanieboos55

Ай бұрын

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

I LOVE science and quantum physics just blows my mind. I wish I had advanced mathematical understanding to really appreciate it.

@shareacegray

7 ай бұрын

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

@SaerphimDel-o-rosella-jd3di

Ай бұрын

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

@lilaccilla

Ай бұрын

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

@gerardjones7881

Ай бұрын

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

The bold thinking it took to even imagine the final experiment, using quasars as filter switches...and the technological ability to then execute it. I am beyond impressed.

@curtisreynolds7375

Жыл бұрын

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

@njhoepner

Жыл бұрын

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

@roundedges2

Жыл бұрын

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

@njhoepner

Жыл бұрын

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

@Adam-rp2fi

Жыл бұрын

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

Ive watched some similar contents explaining/simplifying the concept of Quantum mechanics, and this one by far is the most easy to comprehend. Thanks Nova!

This was a super awesome watch! I can't wait for the next one! Y'all do the best timing, always when I'm bored!

For my thesis project, I used genomics to physically clone a mouse gene. About 1-2 years afterwards, the mouse genome was sequenced. I realized that I had wasted time cloning this gene the hard way. I don't think quantum physicists should be too upset by being told that some of their work is a waste of time. We're all on the same team.

@SadhuBiochemist

Жыл бұрын

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

@Adam-rp2fi

Жыл бұрын

Failure is the greatest teacher.

@Adam-rp2fi

Жыл бұрын

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

@anneober9891

Жыл бұрын

i think our searches themselves mysteriously, are connected,

@alexlifeson8946

Жыл бұрын

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

Thanks to Gordon & Betty Moore and John Templeton Foundations for their major financial support for NOVA. I can't wait to show this to my kids. Absolutely fascinating watch.

One of the best NOVA episodes ever. Being able to understand entanglement better might finally answer so many unanswered questions about our place in the cosmos.

@leegrim

Жыл бұрын

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

@user-wz4hr5xu4k

Жыл бұрын

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

@Abdul-zg4vm

11 ай бұрын

😂😂😂😊😊😊😅😮😮😅😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😅😅😮😅😮😮😮😮😮😅😅😅😅😊😊

@Abdul-zg4vm

11 ай бұрын

😅

@Abdul-zg4vm

11 ай бұрын

​@@leegrim 😊😊😊

It seems this documentary was released sometime in January 2023. But, it has to be at least 5 years old. The Q-bit count for the quantum computer used in this video is 72. However, the IBM Osprey, which is IBM's newest quantum computer, has a Q-bit count of 433 and was released in 2021. As knowledge doubles approximately every 12 hours, and is shrinking as we live each day, the updated PBS documentary on this subject would be even more mind blowing.

@jimatperfromix2759

Жыл бұрын

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

@BlurryBigfoot

11 ай бұрын

Aired: 01/09/19

@mrhassell

24 күн бұрын

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

@glennkrieger

16 күн бұрын

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

The best thing about him every time they try to prove him wrong they prove him right. Priceless.

@paulperkins1615

Жыл бұрын

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

@BIGBADWOOD

Жыл бұрын

Proving the world is simulated reality !

@frankdimeglio8216

Жыл бұрын

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

@frankdimeglio8216

Жыл бұрын

I have totally outsmarted Einstein.

@johnryan5806

Жыл бұрын

P😊😊😊

I can't help but imagine what it would be like to go back in time and show Einstein this video.

@taskerpro944

Жыл бұрын

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

@mrblank-zh1xy

Жыл бұрын

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

Fully clear about entanglement paradox. Many thanks for this worthfull documentary. A history of quantum mechanics till a century.

So, this suggests that these entangle particles are not communicating. But always thinking the same thing at the same time and reacting to the same thing at the same time, as not to have a need to communicate. The ultimate question then is, can we use one of these entangle particles to communicate with the other particle in a far-off location in the universe? If we can accomplish this. Then we can communicate through one particle instantly to another particle somewhere in the universe bypassing time. Contemplating "Space" without "Time" is really a paradox and incomprehensible.

That guy with the chalkboard outside, at the end of the show, he was basically telling us we very well may be in the Matrix. I mean, that was my takeaway. Cool outside chalkboard, btw.

Great episode. Glad it premiered on KZread.

I went to Robben Ford at Yoshi's Jazz Club in Oakland. I was hoping to hear his beautiful tone of his Les Paul on his records, but he came out on the Telecaster and never stopped. It was undoubtedly one of the most incredible and beautiful guitar playing displayed I've ever heard. Certainly deserves more than presented hear.

Amazing stuff. One hopes that progress in the development of quantum computing is matched by developments in the prevention of its misuse.

Wonderful! Thanks Nova for making this amazing episode. These are some of the most difficult abstract concepts in all of science, yet somehow you made it understandable.

@AmpedReactions

Жыл бұрын

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

@user-wz4hr5xu4k

Жыл бұрын

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

@malachi-

9 ай бұрын

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

10:40 I am no expert in Physics, but this seems like a photo full of legends.

Thanks to Nova for this beautifull documentary ❤ Totally loved it

I love the idea that at the tiniest level, particles can be so much the same that even vast distance cannot separate identity, to the point where an action upon one effects the other equally. And that this is scientifically plausible. It opens the imagination.

@TheSnoeedog

3 ай бұрын

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

@MrCharlyAndy

Ай бұрын

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

@TheSnoeedog

Ай бұрын

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

@pkfryer

Ай бұрын

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

@aldamcmillan4632

17 күн бұрын

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

A highly recommended episode of NOVA to view.

I love physics and astronomy. If I had had the mind for the math it is the profession I would have chosen. Although I do not comprehend it in any way like the physicists who founded quantum mechanics or those who performed this experiment, I do have a tremendous admiration for what they have done here. IMHO I believe this proves that there is clearly more to reality than what meets the eye. Perhaps we are just now beginning to get a glimpse into the universe beyond our own. Perhaps not other universes exactly, but other realities.

@loranelizabeth9148

Жыл бұрын

ME TOO!!

@jerrystephenson1172

Жыл бұрын

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

@THaughton

Жыл бұрын

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

@lechdolecki

Жыл бұрын

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

@vincecox8376

Жыл бұрын

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

This is way over my ability to understand but I still find it fascinating.

@MichaelJoseph-id2lc

6 ай бұрын

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

The main thing I remember for quantum computing is that they are VERY good at large problems that our classic computers cannot handle very well. However, they are not at all good at being a general purpose system. In many ways they are more like the off die floating point units of the i386. That said I have also read that to this point we have continually found that classic computers are able do things that we thought were only possible by quantum computers due to better algorithms.

@finpix

Жыл бұрын

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

@kingwillie206

7 ай бұрын

The future may include hybrid computing.

@jsojourner2610

2 ай бұрын

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

Quantum mechanics is a theory that is extremely accurate at predicting what happens without offering any explanation whatsoever as to how or why it happens.

@bustercam199

7 ай бұрын

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

@shareacegray

7 ай бұрын

Great description

@ZEROmg13

2 ай бұрын

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

@pkfryer

Ай бұрын

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

I’m glad you guys made this video so that the layman could understand it. Lol. Otherwise I would have never enjoyed it this much. That was a great explanation of Quantum Entanglements.

@batzzz2044

Жыл бұрын

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

Beautiful documentary, beautiful background music and sound effects, beautiful animations, beautiful presentation🎉. I love PBS.

This is so good. One of the best I've been on Quantum Mechanics.

I agree with Einstein that we don't know everything about Quantum Theory yet that makes the illogical effects of quantum entanglement make sense when we eventually figure out how it works.

@user-fk8bt6qr9n

14 күн бұрын

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

I didn’t understand Physics in high school, but all these talks about quantum entanglement makes me want to learn Physics at home🤔

@kathyyoung1774

2 ай бұрын

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

@ramoncarfrae5474

27 күн бұрын

I'd like to learn about you.... 😘

@mrhassell

24 күн бұрын

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

This was great. Totally entertaining and thought-provoking. Well done.

@whirledpeas3477

11 ай бұрын

Who are you talking to?

This documentary was produced in 2018. Since then there are other experiments published that prove Quantum entanglement, it’s worth a search.

I had to watch the scientific explanations so many times to comprehend, So interesting.

Astounding. Reminds me of *someone* , I forget who, saying:"If you think you understand Quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

@robertgerrity878

Жыл бұрын

Richard Feynman

@shopshop144

Жыл бұрын

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

@josephtraficanti689

Жыл бұрын

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

@josephtraficanti689

Жыл бұрын

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

@SadhuBiochemist

Жыл бұрын

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

Navy Nuke here. Interesting theories and concepts, worthy of continuing experiments...we are so tiny, literally the micro within the macro of all the substance of the universe. Fascinating video

The idea that there is this probability layer at the base of reality, is pretty crazy

It always amazes me just how far we have come technologically in my life time alone, and all thanks to these men . Thank you for this great doc nova!

@BIGBADWOOD

Жыл бұрын

Proving the world is simulated reality !

@frankdimeglio8216

Жыл бұрын

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

@jamiebrewer4554

Жыл бұрын

And women.

@Idellphany

Жыл бұрын

@@jamiebrewer4554 You are so incredibly correct :D TY

@_MjG_

Жыл бұрын

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

I heard a physicist say "the entire universe is one entangled wave" which makes sense.

@odilasa_freeman

Жыл бұрын

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

@SandraNickersonAtkinson-jf6mx

6 ай бұрын

Momentum...ranging from single to multiple sandwitches

Somehow, that last part just seemed to me to be yet another argument for simulation theory to come out of quantum physics research 😬😅

This was great. Totally entertaining and thought-provoking. Well done.. Thanks to Nova for this beautifull documentary Totally loved it.

I have watched tons of stuff on this as a regular person, this one is great! Well explained, interesting and just all around well put together.

@BIGBADWOOD

Жыл бұрын

Proving the world is simulated reality !

@sonnybarry

Жыл бұрын

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

@dlerious77

Жыл бұрын

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

What would we do without these interesting new science videos feeding our curiosity

@E4439Qv5

Жыл бұрын

Stagnate, probably.

@jsojourner2610

2 ай бұрын

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

I want more NOVA episodes on this. I also want some real science done on paranormal questions.

5:05 I love this documentary ❤ 5:26

I was interested in the references to Eastern philosophy. Does the "Net of Diamonds" idea apply here. In Zen Buddhist thought, if we envision a room with a table, chair, window and door, the door is the table, and table is the window, etc, etc. With a net of diamonds, everything in the universe is a reflection of something else. Once again, NOVA proves to be one of the best--if not the best--science program on the tube.

@jsojourner2610

2 ай бұрын

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

I truly miss the "NOVA" Episodes that we had on PBS back in the 1980s. This information is not as "freely allowed" to the public as they were as to back to when I was in high school...

Thought when I first heard of Quantum Entanglement that it could be used, sometime in the future, like a "carrier wave" for instant communication over extreme distances.

@bustercam199

7 ай бұрын

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

I was the only person I knew who was talking about QPE 30 years ago in my 20's. I even put a quote about it in my first book a quote from the Book of Urantia: "there exists between all bodies a real and actual superluminal link" (I don't remember the exact quote after 30 years off the top of my head but it was referring to quantum phase entanglement. It is so nice to hear it talked about in real circles and understood.

@minirock000

Жыл бұрын

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

@BarryKort

Жыл бұрын

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

@SplendidKunoichi

Жыл бұрын

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

@SLYdevil

Жыл бұрын

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

@minirock000

Жыл бұрын

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

Absolutely fascinating! I wish I understood the math, what a concept!

@WoodysAR

Жыл бұрын

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

@Bostonceltics1369

Жыл бұрын

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

@believeinpeace

Жыл бұрын

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

@Bostonceltics1369

Жыл бұрын

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

@believeinpeace

Жыл бұрын

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

Einstein once said, “I don’t want to BE right. I just want to know if I AM right.”

So when entangled particles have one particle effected the change is reflected in the other particle instantly. What would happen if you changed two entangled particles differently and the exact same instance? Would the simulation crash?

@Ryan-gx4ce

7 ай бұрын

Then they wouldn't be entangled anymore

@car103d

7 ай бұрын

The same instance is impossible.

Awesome episode. Very well made!

I would vote for quantum entanglement. But … are these researchers certain the randomness was not lost by the interaction of the quasar photons with Earth's atmosphere, or with the Milky Way's magnetic field, or …?

@Mbeefton

Жыл бұрын

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

@alize43m

Жыл бұрын

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

@marlinweekley51

Жыл бұрын

But what IS “X”? 😂

@WJV9

Жыл бұрын

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

@texaslorraine

Жыл бұрын

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

So, what were you saying about the particle "BEFORE the observation"? I mean, how would you know?

As reminder: "Conservation of Matter and Energy" is; Any amount o matter being lost, there is corresponding amount of Energy being formed AND, any amount of Energy being lost, there is corresponding amount of Matter being formed. THUS; Matter and Energy are 2 Forms of the same thing - being said originally by Einstein.

Can we do the same experiment with the James Webb and the Hubble telescopes? Quantum "jumps" are incredibly interesting!

That was fantastically interesting. My only issue regarding the bell test (please forgive me if I got the name of it wrong ... I'm not rewinding it to get it right) that had the 2 filters that were driven by the quasars on opposite sides of the sky. It's still a pretty limited test to avoid the affect of alternate factors. Why only 2 filters and why only 2 quasars ? Why didn't the results require a near 100% correlation to be "proven". What WERE the specific numbers involved to give credence to the test. I'm *not* a scientist but I feel like a few things were brushed past. What were the particulars of the scientist's theory that opposed Neil's Bohr that helped the scientists do the Bell test (again, it might be the wrong name).

@JoeAdams

Жыл бұрын

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

@mikeoco1850

Жыл бұрын

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

It is my pleasure to be a part of the quantum future by contributing a tiny sensor for science and medicine for LiVE signal processing. It is humbling to be a part of the many worlds.

I wish Albert Einstein and other scientists had left some time capsules and it helps us understand this universe even better! 😍😍

I actually think that all things being cyclic... entanglement and observable states are still a function of time. All simultaneous observations are limited and connected or bound to time. The obvious solution to this caviat would be to use light that is bound to different time blocks to rule out any possibility of entangled synchronicity.

@bustercam199

7 ай бұрын

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

Friends and I were wondering why we can "feel" if someone is looking at us when we can't even see them, like when they're behind us. I thought it was electricity but this seems more likely.

@jsojourner2610

2 ай бұрын

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

When you make a mathematical wave appear as a wave of smoke you are making the concept more theatrical than it really is.

Great video, however at 20:24 he says "Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity equation is E = mc². That is incorrect. That formula describes the relationship between, mass(m), Energy(E) and the speed of light (c).

Maybe the two particles are actually one particle the same particle but at different points at space/time. So when looking at one you look at the same one at different points in space/time. Our human mind cannot truly comprehend the complexity of our universe

ER=EPR!! That's how great Einstein was! Didn't know the two were related but they are so connected that he's simply a genius by accident haha

Dr. Anton received the Nobel Prize for his research! Fabulous watching journey of a Nobel Prize winner.

As per the The Copenhagen interpretation of what an observer is, I fail to understand then how particles were created (or had any properties) in the early universe when there were no observers?

@johnnordq

4 күн бұрын

Because consciousness gave rise to matter?

Quantum entanglement is true, my brain becomes entangled when thinking about the quantum.

@jeremyvill

11 ай бұрын

Sorry about your stupidity.

@stevegarvin5607

5 ай бұрын

Definite proof! My brain also became entangled at the same time even though We are miles aparr.

@luciarel8131

5 ай бұрын

🏆😂

@jonceyjenn3929

4 ай бұрын

​;; 8

@KerrieRedgate

4 ай бұрын

I think you’re on to something there! 😅

Hard for me to understand, but a great presentation!!!

@carolmiller5713

Жыл бұрын

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

These entanglement explanations never seem to explain in adequate "lay" terms why the particles did not have predetermined qualities at there creation. For example, how does one NOT know that particle "A" has "Up" spin while particle "B" already has "Down" spin before the measurement?

@car103d

8 ай бұрын

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

@tofo2

Ай бұрын

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

Please when speaking on video turn the music off or way way down...decide if this is a music video or an information video please....

There’s more going on with quantum entanglement than just two particles being linked. I think we’re just scratching the surface of a whole different level of how the universe operates.

@lifesajoke6965

Жыл бұрын

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

@amandalady8342

Жыл бұрын

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

@MaximumBob

Жыл бұрын

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

@amandalady8342

Жыл бұрын

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

@davidalanblake9411

Жыл бұрын

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

Einstein did not say or try to prove entanglement was impossible. He knew about entanglement. He merely objected to the esthetics of the quantum theory, but failed to discover the better theory he believed possible, one with continuous fields over spacetime. Which has more beauty: spooky action at a distance (where "the same time" isn't even well defined, and causality is already sacrificed), or giving continuity precedence over causality? For if continuity is given while causality is to be derived, I can suppose that when the detector is misaligned at the spacetime event where the particle would be arriving, the spacetime field couldn't be continuous there, and hence the particle couldn't be emitted over at the spacetime event where emission would occur. Bell's inequality is derived assuming this sort of connection is impossible, while Einstein's continuous fields would say that continuity requires the connection. Also, the idea that the particle can't be emitted unless the detector is going to be in the correct position is no more ugly that the idea that action here causes simultaneous changes there. Not to mention that to certain moving observers, the changes there occur before the action here.

loved the music and sounds put into this :)

Trying to understand these concepts is like trying to understand magic. And it's wonderful.

@bustercam199

7 ай бұрын

it is like magic, but entanglement is a fraud. It's like a card trick where they don't explain everything. There is an explanation.

@SandraNickersonAtkinson-jf6mx

6 ай бұрын

Airrail

Could there be power in the particle that directs their property and controls their movement? Cells in the body shows an amazing continuity and direction allowing for perfect enganglement and connection no matter how small and without substance. However, a purpose and design is necessary for the connection to occur no matter the distance apart.

@SplendidKunoichi

Жыл бұрын

yeah dude, what else is gonna be in there?

@user-lg4le8xr4s

Жыл бұрын

@@SplendidKunoichi gnomes

If an entangled particle entered a black hole, would the entanglement to the other particle remain? If so, what does that say, theoretically, about connections between multi-universes?

The theory that nothings real until you see it is mind blowing

This was a very interesting show.

It’s all happening at the same time man….😂🤟 I’m perplexed , surprised & scared all at the same intersection. Mind blown. ⏳⌛️

@elonever.2.071

Жыл бұрын

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

I would love to see a documentary or series on every unpopular opinion Einstein had during his life, since he was undoubtedly a genius and made great contributions to science, but also often is thought of as being perfect or something which isn't true (although to be fair many things he held unpopular stances on, such as entanglement, aren't completely solved so he might end up being right)

@unknownmovements

Жыл бұрын

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

@schmetterling4477

Жыл бұрын

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

@pharmerdavid1432

Жыл бұрын

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

@unknownmovements

Жыл бұрын

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

@schmetterling4477

Жыл бұрын

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

Excellent presentation Sabine. 🎉

31:51 that picture looks like the coolest math band to ever grace my eyes.

Have you ever thought of someone in your mind and then they call you on the phone a minute later? I want to see an experiment on that phenomenon. Maybe our minds are entangled on a quantum level? 🤔

@musicman4christjesus

Жыл бұрын

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

@WhiskeyNixon

Жыл бұрын

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

@charbonneau

Жыл бұрын

Of course. And there is a reason for this: kzread.info/dash/bejne/qIZ-l8V8gJPAgKg.html

@AdrianBoyko

Жыл бұрын

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

@pmcguinness3041

Жыл бұрын

@@WhiskeyNixon Count the hits, ignore the misses!

It would have been good to see the numbers in the result of the big test and not just being told the results. The 'test' was more or less flipping a coin that has two possible results, the results apparently were 'counted', what was the count?

@jimatperfromix2759

Жыл бұрын

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

My brain was blown when Dijkgraaf explained the concept of the holographic universe.

That photo is like the dream team of quantum physics.

Has there ever been an experiment with a person who lost a limb being able to control the limb when not attach to the body?I've heard of people still feeling pain in the limb that is missing but never heard of being able to control the limb when not attached.

@leegrim

Жыл бұрын

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

So what if the speed of light is not a physical limitation but a quantum processing limitation of the universe we live in? The last part of this episode and the holographic universe idea caused me to consider this.

@SandraNickersonAtkinson-jf6mx

6 ай бұрын

Gelanic

Question ; What exactly occurs at the boundary where relativity breaks down and it's equations no longer work, and quantum mechanics equations start to work ?

Though I know nothing about this subject except how this documentary made me “feel” emotionally, physically and the thoughts it raised mentally within me. One I wept, while two, I was nauseous, and three the “As above so below” and converse occurred to me. The Buddha is said to have made the statement that, “Within this fathom long body I watch the arising and passing away of the entire universe.” (paraphrased, perhaps badly). I intuit my apprehension while watching this documentary to be a bit like that although my personal interpretation is likely flawed. None the less, I enjoyed the lesson presented on quantum mechanics, quantum physics and entanglement theory and remain as undecided and curious for the truth as before watching. This has raised my interest profoundly. I am grateful to the makers of this documentary and to all the great minds involved throughout the decades pondering this question. It remains truly wonderous! Transcript marker 52:06 Einstein’s only wanting to know the mind of God when He created this universe, and the line from the Christian Lord’s prayer, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”, plus the metaphysical statement “As above so below” and converse, all occurred to me. Thank you. 🙏🌹

@andrewfarrar741

8 күн бұрын

I was touched by what you shared. Thank you, kindly. 🫂🫂🫂

The field of consciousness is fundamental, and is the elusive space between subatomic charges collapsing the wave.

@elonever.2.071

Жыл бұрын

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

@jmac3934

Жыл бұрын

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

@elonever.2.071

Жыл бұрын

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

This is the greatest Documentary I have ever watched. Thank you. Keep doing the good work.

@angeleav

10 ай бұрын

No kidding

Spooky action at a distance. Love this. I love NOVA.

It is like if science until now was saying "Open your eyes, look and observe" now it says "Close your eyes, feel where things may be, presume roughly and calculate! - The result is only revealed only after you add one more term to THE equation!"

I was in a deep sleep, in a medically induced coma... for 12 days... I felt like I was one of those atoms interconnecting through with the whole universe... like I was in one spot but could be in another spot within seconds or less... it was really weird.

@leegrim

Жыл бұрын

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