The understanding of this material doesn't really come from one video, it comes from watching a whole bunch of them, listening to all their perspectives, and then slowly merging together a coherent interpretation. It's very exciting! Thank you for producing your videos and adding perspective to this problem.

@julienking5452

Жыл бұрын

+upvote

@ACuriousChild

Жыл бұрын

@ Lydell Aaron Yep, THE HUMAN MIND tries to simplify things so it can run with it trying to convince other HUMAN MINDS in order to "conspire" again its CREATOR. The analogy to it would be a PC (HUMAN MIND) trying to outsmart a Quantum Computer (GOD - THE THING THAT CREATED THE HUMAN MIND FOR HIS PURPOSE) You need the PC and the QC - but it should be clear by now which one reigns supreme! Which one IS still without the other and which one cannot exist without the other!

@anderslarsson7426

Жыл бұрын

so it is not just me😊

@1stPrinciples455

7 ай бұрын

And everything is just theory. Not proven to be absolute truth even the proving that Neils was right. Thats not an absolute proof. It just supports the Likelihood that Einsten was wrong. Also, entanglement implies info can travel faster than light. In fact, instantly in the absolute sense

@1stPrinciples455

7 ай бұрын

Many videos talk about same things

The most outstanding thing about this video by Arvin Ash is throwing in the explanation of the Mathematics in a way for the Layman to understand ...no other big media company Science show has ventured into this realm..not even the BBC .Congratulations!

@ameremortal

4 жыл бұрын

And he doesn’t need big words to make himself sound smart, his knowledge and intelligence is obvious.

@Sid-69

4 жыл бұрын

Tbh I didn't understand the maths. I wish Arvin could dumb it down more for peons like me :/

@manan-543

4 жыл бұрын

@@Sid-69 it was as dumbed down as it could get. I suggest you watch the math part again. And really focus on what he is trying to explain. I know you'll get it.

@edwinbz9889

4 жыл бұрын

The Layman lmfao the nicest way you can call somebody dumbo

@edwinbz9889

4 жыл бұрын

@k1w1 I maybe late man but I ain't no layman.

continually stunned at his ability to take incredibly complex concepts and topics and make them accessible in a conversational and layman-friendly way. truly setting the standard for content in these genres.

@armenstaubach9276

Жыл бұрын

You understand that he is taking other peoples note and books and none of these texts are his? And disgracefully he doesn’t cite any of them! But who gives a sh… in world where Trump becomes a president, Kardashians are know more than Tesla, why doesn’t this fake scientist be the hero of the day?

"The universe has rigged the game against me." I've known this all my life... SIGH.

@Alkis05

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, that certainly rings a bell.

@thepenguin6225

3 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣

@asishmagham7948

3 жыл бұрын

No it did not that's the whole point of the video

@wj12

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@stant7122

2 жыл бұрын

The universe is last to act.

Bravo to the actors playing Alice and Bob. It’s very difficult to stand motionless in front of a camera for a long period of time and not lose focus / concentration.

@henrymakepeace

4 ай бұрын

They are not real people, AI generated.

This is far and away the best explanation of Bell's inequality I have ever seen/read. Arvin has truly hit the nail on the head, not too hot, not too cold, just right. I actually think I understand exactly what Bell's inequality is all about. Thank you Arvin!!!

@Puddymom

Жыл бұрын

Omg I finally get it. The sin wave diagram did it for me. I’ve been trying to understand it for a couple of years!

good teachers make a huge difference, thank you!

@beamantv9407

2 жыл бұрын

Fans are neat

I have no idea what he said but I enjoyed listening to him.

I have seen many of these explanations but this is the best. You hit a few key points that are always overlooked and those key points made it very clear. The meat that most explanations don't explain is at 14:47. That was the missing part that you nailed! Good Job!!!!!

@ernestmoney7252

3 жыл бұрын

The general rule for science instruction (including computer science) is that the instructor's rate of progress through the material is directly proportional to its level of difficulty.

@stephenbrickwood1602

Жыл бұрын

@@ernestmoney7252yep, the level of the audience.

@Puddymom

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree I’ve never seen that part before, now I get it.

@Retotion

Жыл бұрын

Even after the Nobel announcement and all the videos that have come out recently, this is the only once I could find that actually mentions this part.

@nicolasjonasson4820

2 ай бұрын

Agree, it is annoying when the instructor doesn't explain something very important (just watched another high ranked video) I find it impressive to be able to explain things like this to a person like me. I or course don't understand this theorem, but at least I now roughly understand the parts that makes up this puzzle.

you make some of the best videos, i like the way you present info, you're an entertaining person to listen to! thanks for all these and keep up the great work!

I can tell Arvin takes his role of teacher quite seriously. Loved this video and the subject matter is always edgy. That is Arvin explains current accepted science as simply as possible with mysterious difficult to comprehend topics.

hi arvin, I just wanted to say that I really really appreciate your videos. they make me so happy and teach me a lot, keep up the great work ❤

@craigkdillon

3 жыл бұрын

Oh Oh, consider this an intervention. There is danger in collecting fascinating interesting but ultimately useless information If you collect a finite, but irrational, number of fascinating interesting but useless information ----- you will turn into a NERD. Be warned. This condition, once attained, is irreversible. You will spend your life boring people at parties, having people turn away from you because they can't quite get what you are on about. It is very sad. So, next time you come to this channel be aware of the risk. I forewarn you, so you don't spend your life like mine -- I, too, am a NERD.

@vedantsridhar8378

2 жыл бұрын

@@whirledpeas3477 but also false

@stephenbrickwood1602

Жыл бұрын

@@craigkdillon Hahaha Hahaha Hahaha 😆

@craigkdillon

Жыл бұрын

@@vedantsridhar8378 You say that I am not a NERD?? So, you are defending me? Or not?? I am confused.

@vedantsridhar8378

Жыл бұрын

@@craigkdillon Sorry, I thought nerd was an insult.

Best video about entanglement I've seen .

A really good video. I liked Jimi Alkalili’s explanation on the episode Einstein’s Nightmare (obviously simplified similar reasoning). However I love this modern era we live in where we can get videos like these - offering clear explanations of the actual theory. Very well made in my view.

Another outstanding video and explanation. So plainly taught and easy to grasp. I am as anxious as you are to see this understood at a deeper level. Thank you again.

Dear Arvin, i have seen so many videos on the topic but i must say that you have nailed the explanation at its best and not only in this video but in lots of other videos of yours. Thanks for putting your brilliant efforts to let us understand the topics that we are not much familiar with in our institutes.

@ArvinAsh

3 жыл бұрын

Glad it was helpful! Thanks for your kind words.

you are my favorite youtuber explaining quantum theories, cause you never use equations nor complicate, you always find ways to explain it to the everyday people out there. But this video wanst one of those :(

@ArvinAsh

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks. This one required math to prove the inequality. I tried to make it as simple as possible. But Bell's inequality is one of the most difficult subjects to understand. Do have another look. It is less complicated than it might appear. It takes multiple viewings by everyone if you really want to get it.

I've never seen a good explaination of this. This was clear, thank you.

@MrBollocks10

4 жыл бұрын

Me too BBC , YT etc. I thought I had half a clue until I watched this.

I really loved this video. Your explanation was amazing and very easy to understand. The part I loved the most was the math and the way you simplified it so that Bell's inequality made sense. Please do more videos with maths like this. Keep up the good work👍

Lovely Arvin. It's a delight to hear you explain physics, real world, warped universe, Quantum world and the macrocosm. You not only fire my imagination, but also enlighten me to relate the magnificent forces of nature, their effects and affects. It is a chancy chancy universe or.... Keep it up!

This is by far the best explanation of quantum entanglement

This channel don't make me smash my head in wall like on other channels when it comes to science. Your way of explaining is good. Keep it up.

@ArvinAsh

4 жыл бұрын

Avoiding a science concussion is a good thing buddy!

Thanks for the Magellan tv recommendation, Professor. I just signed up...and thanx for another great video!

I repeatedly ignored your videos in search results and recommendations, but from now on you will be among the first ones I click. Great job!

My new favorite Science Channel.

A truly exceptional explanation of the maths behind Bell’s inequality without it being unnecessarily confusing and complicated well done 👍

brilliant exposition on a very complex topic. Thanks, Arvin

I've been binge watching these video's like it's nobody's business. Really enjoying the presentation and content, a lot. Good stuff

@ArvinAsh

4 жыл бұрын

Nice! Welcome to the channel my friend!

Arvin is so great. Love this channel

This paradox has been giving me a lot of sleepless nights lately so thanks for this

best clear explanation of Bell's Inequality I have read or seen, thank you

One of your best ones yet, thank you!!

Interesting and worthwhile video on Bell's Inequality.

I love how he says , "Right now!"

Best video ever made about Bell's theory and the meaning of Epr-Kopenhag combat.

The best explanation....in simple language and very good examples for such a hard topic....u r really awesome ARVIN

This was REALLY(!) well explained.

Found this video after Aspect, Clauser and Zellinger won the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics demonstrating the potential to control entangled particles in practical uses of quantum computing and telecoms. But I wonder if in the process, the trio's works also involved explaining quantum entanglement phenomena just as you predicted at 17:38. Else, the quest for an explanation continues.

@GizmoMaltese

Жыл бұрын

I'm here for the same reason. Yet I still don't understand Bell's inequality. He lost me at Sin^2 blah blah. I guess I need to go back and understand spin in QM.

@beebee_0136

Жыл бұрын

@@GizmoMaltese you're not alone, my friend.

Thank you for this description of bell inequality 😊😍. It's so well explained, you are great teacher.

Really, really, fantastic video. the best one out there in my opinion. You earned my sub.

"local hidden variables" sounds like computer coding

@fahimjunayed5894

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah. You have to first make it public otherwise it is hidden. [Only true programmers can understand]

@vjp2866

3 жыл бұрын

@@fahimjunayed5894 Its possible in c++

@theoneed2051

2 жыл бұрын

Private

How can a particle have a Q+ spin and a - spin for X and Z, when X and Z are components of the vector Q?

@LKRaider

4 жыл бұрын

Dan Davison that's my question as well: In theory you could have infinite variables if you take all the possible angles between Z and X, would that mean you would have to account hidden variables for all of them? Doesn't seem to make sense!

@willemvriezen9652

4 жыл бұрын

Indeed I also have a problem with, is the fact that all cases Z, X and Q have the same probability and are totally independent. I would assume that when Z and X are positive, Q is positive as well and can not be negative.

@TheTck90

4 жыл бұрын

You have to remember that those vectors he draw for the spins are not in real space, but in complex vector space. So the 45 and 90 degree angles don’t behave the same way as for real vectors.

@spindoctor6385

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheTck90 Isn't that the point that the 2 previous guys are making? (LKRaider and Willem Vriezen) If that is the case (i dont know if it is or is not, i am just trying to clarify) then would a measurement at 89 degrees also be independent of the measurement at 90 degrees?

@Alkis05

3 жыл бұрын

Here is what happens: regardless of what Alice measures, if Bob measures in the direction Q+, the result can only be Q+ or Q-. There is no intermediary state possible. It has to be aligned to the direction of measurement. But, depending on the measurement that Alice makes, it affects the probability of Bob registering one Q+ or Q-. Since Alice measured Z+, Bobs electron would want to be Z-. But since it can only be Q+/- and since Q+ is further apart from Z- than Q-, it has a much lower probability (only 15%) of happening, because it would have to "change" it's momentum a lot more than for Q-.

Another awesome video. Love your optimism about the mystery of quantum mechanics. One day soon!

Superb video. Breathtakingly clear exposition. Will watch again, like a favourite story. Old UK duffer here :)

Great videos sir your videos just amazing💕😍

this was a phoenomenal explanation! Hats off to you, subscribed. I've just started taking QM in my astronomy major, seems fascinating to say the least!

One of your best videos Arvin. Thanks

beautiful!! nice, elegant and succinct video on such a complex topic!

Congratulations! You have explained a very delicate concept in a simple and easy to understand manner. What do you think about Pilot Wave theory? Does it offer any hope of resolving non-locality paradox of QM?

@ArvinAsh

4 жыл бұрын

I see it only as a consolation to those insisting on a deterministic description. In my opinion, it is a messy mixture of quantum and classical concepts. But I will be covering it in a future video.

"Truth is, the game was rigged from the start."

can't thank you enough. Really appreciate your work. Keep making great vids

Well done Arvin. Best explanation of Bell's inequality I've seen. Thank you.

what a beautiful explanation for us lay persons.

You explain this simply and beautifully Thanks 👍 for your effort You are doing great work keep it up

Watching again and again. Slowly understanding. THX!

I’ve never had a clearer “you earned my subscribe” moment on KZread. What a well put together, amazing video.

Einstein is right : When I was asleep at home during physics test at school , I got a call from my school , the school existed . It was worth skipping the test . According to neils Bohr My school shouldn’t have existed cuz I was asleep ( not conscious) .

@francoisdesnoyers3042

3 жыл бұрын

The school "shouldn't" have existed... inserts a moral dimension into the equation of existence. It appears to be saying : Don't do anything behind my back. And that is paradoxical in that all science tries to do is to figure out what has been done behind our backs. So, in antiquity, electrons, protons and the like simply did not exist? Or they shouldn't have? Ah, when science dips its toes into philosophy...

@robertl.fallin7062

3 жыл бұрын

I think therefore the school am?

@bonedog5130

3 жыл бұрын

This confirms my theory that when i close or cover my eyes i become invisible

@federicoalonso9066

3 жыл бұрын

@@bonedog5130 How so? I will like your comment on what you said.

@jaredf6205

3 жыл бұрын

Are you guys all stuck on the "observer" thing? If so, you've really misunderstood what's going on.

Awesome explanation for such a complex paradox!

I have to do a presentation about quantum entanglement and i had some troubles trying to understand what bell was trying to prove. This video is amazing now it all makes sense. im still shocked about this incredible theory. Thank you for explaining this complex concept in an accessible way. Thank you a lot

This video really got me thinking......maybe I should quit smoking so much weed

@ggentry5189

4 жыл бұрын

Or perhaps you aren’t smoking enough

@52NDPRESIDENT

4 жыл бұрын

I started watching these videos and learning because of weed and acid and I retain everything I learn i want a artificial intelligence and robotics major drugs dont get in the way of life if u are smart and committed

@jpsilver3510

4 жыл бұрын

Nah dawg i think your not smoking enough. If this is true, imagine the internet we can get with this and quantum computers 😁

@whtbobwntsbobget

4 жыл бұрын

Same with me except it's heroin

@Solid_Snake88

4 жыл бұрын

DjMacgumby Stop ruining your life

This is by far the best, i.e. clearest, explanation I've found so far. Great use of graphics. 👍😃👍 Very timely for me as I'm reading The Age of Entanglement by Louisa Gilder for the 2nd time. Highly recommend the book.

Very simple and very clear. Thank you 😊

Awesome explanation, thank you.

6:00 this is what happens when two Great scientists Argue both win , and rule changed. because QP says , superposition and entanglement should exist ! Which exists. CPhy says , Nothing can't travel faster than C. It's also True . So.. quantum physics and Classical physics Are in superposition both working at same time in same universe.

@sheikmohamedamanulaa3898

4 жыл бұрын

So if qp and cp work in superposition in the same universe then it implies that at the very end qp wins

@omsingharjit

4 жыл бұрын

@@sheikmohamedamanulaa3898 if you talking about singularity then yes

I have been struggling to understand this for many years from Prof. Leonard Suskinds lectures but I couldn't. But today, this video has demystified it for me. Thanks a bunch.

Fabulous video and expertly narrated.

Best explanation I heard so far 👏🏽

@Arvin Ash Do you do any presentations using three pieces of polarized film? The demonstration where inserting a film with axis at 45 degrees between from two crossed films at 90 degrees from each other _increases_ the transmission sounds similar to this discussion. It's at least similar to the extent that its theoretical explanation depends on the measurement probabilities of photon spins that are non-linear.

This is a role model for how to strive towards being a true educator. Thank you for your meaningful work.

I truly like this presentation! It is at the bone marrow of things.

Your channel is one of the best youTube channels

After viewing for the second time, I understand the process and the math and I agree with Arvin on his conclusion. Never thought I would say that. Wave function rules. Particles are not particles until the wave function collapses. A photon has the potential of being a particle, but its essence is a wave.

@ArvinAsh

4 жыл бұрын

Perfect!

@Arboldenrocks

4 жыл бұрын

not quite. the photon is always a particle, the wave says where it can be. the field is everywhere... but it can only be absorbed by 1 charge. so is it really everywhere? it may be that the particles are only emitted when they are also absorbed and don't go in other directions. that part is non falsifiable, but we always observe inverse square fields. arvin hash is 20 years behind western science as usual

@AhsimNreiziev

3 жыл бұрын

+[John Carter] This is sad news. Even more sad is that I am months too late to do anything about it. Because I am afraid that Arvin's conclusion is utterly wrong. Or.... at the very least utterly unfounded. He shouldn't feel _too_ bad, though, as Bell's Inequalities form what is pretty much the most misunderstood and misappropriated thing in all of Physics. You see, the so-called EPR Paradox consists of 2 parts. The central crux of the argument, and the "paradox". Contrary to popular belief _[and by "popular belief", I mean the beliefs of the adherents of Orthodox Quantum Mechanics, which is the modern form of the Copenhagen Interpretation]_ , the central crux was in no way disproven by Bell, nor by the experiments that prove his Inequalities were violated by Quantum Mechanics. The central crux of the EPR argument, of course, was that considering Entangled particles exist, the preservation of Locality *requires* Hidden Variables. There is *NOTHING* in Bell's Inequalities that disproves it. Nor could it disprove it, because that argument is pure logic, with no assumptions or any other form of wiggle room to get out of it. Now, what John Bell did prove was that there was no paradox. He did this by proving that even *_with_* Hidden Variables, Locality would *_still_* be violated. But neither result can make any sense without the other. Because Hidden Variables either exist, or they do not exist, EPR + Bell *TOGETHER* prove that Locality *must* be violated by Entangled Quantum particles. It also says precisely *nothing* about whether or not Hidden Variables exist. As a side note, Pilot Wave Theory, aka Bohmian Mechanics, which of all Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics makes the non-Locality the most explicit, was the favoured Interpretation of Bell himself for precisely that reason.

@-danR

2 жыл бұрын

@@AhsimNreiziev I appreciate that at least _one_ commenter has refused to join the avalanche of praise that monotonously recapitulates every other youtube physics video commenting proclaiming the sheer pellucid genius, accuracy, and pedagogical simplicity of the creator's production. That said, I see no reason to complete your thought with yet another sideline hollered call for Pilot Wave speculation which, like String Theory, seems to have forked into dozen sub-theories; because if a theory is sound, hey, why not have themes and variations. There should be one ready at hand fitted to plug any leak.

OK this is by far the best explanation of this phenomenon I've ever seen, great job my friend

Such a beautiful explanation, thank you!

Excellent presentation... Simple and direct...

This blew my mind. I was convinced for a very long time that Bell was somehow mistaken or misinterpreting what was going on, but I was wrong. What in the world is going on with these wave functions? Could this somehow tie into the potential to discover CPT violation?

@neilweber1749

Жыл бұрын

I believe bell is wrong. I actually think there is a fundamental property that we do not understand that causes these probabilities. Hidden variables is correct but what is actually happening is that certain ways of collapsing are more likely. Most probably in a way that looks completely random to us.

@LeTtRrZ

Жыл бұрын

@@neilweber1749 It’s funny that this should pop up now of all times. Wasn’t the Nobel prize recently awarded to people who investigated this?

@neilweber1749

Жыл бұрын

@@LeTtRrZ Yes this is why this video is here i imagine. there are some physicists who do not agree with the current accepted interpretation. Which is always good for new ideas. I wish I had more time to study indepth but i do not. I take my reasoning from the double slit experiment. There is something we do not understand fundamentally about the wave function. But in saying that our calculations seem to work as most computers etc need quantum calculations. As do newtons calculations if you get my meaning.

Could be some fundamental law of physics we dont get, where there is a deeper reality that everything is localized at one point. Like the holographic universe idea or the info on the surface of a black hole. But instead of reality being 2d flat surface, its 1d. Or the entangled pair only look to be far apart, but really the space between them is folded in a way we cant tell and they are really right next to us like some type of worm hole when they fold a piece of paper, in all the science fiction movies to explain worm holes. Was wondering if there was a way to tell when someone on the other side of the universe has measured the entangled pair? Could something be used to detect that he has measured it? but only after the person on the other end has measured it? That way you can have multiple boxes with an entangled pair, that you do not measure, but the person on the other end, measures only certain boxes. then dependent on your end, the ones that he measured signal to you a certain combination, therefore communicating something. ?

@brookefoxie9610

4 жыл бұрын

I would imagine this has already been proposed. Perhaps go do some research and let us know what you find?

@evollove19

4 жыл бұрын

@@brookefoxie9610 Ive tried in the past, in the idea of knowing when the other person on the other side checks it. I Am not good at researching and understanding. Arvin Ash is a great explainer. Thats why I asked him to confirm. From what I understood, there is no way to tell if the person on the other side of the universe checked the spin and taking the particles out of super position. Its like you cant detect what happening in the box without taking it out of super position. But I am also asking the question to see if someone with more expertise can think of something using this concept.

Finally explained this in a way I understand. Thanks!

absolutely love your videos . Thanks a lot

So in Avengers End Game, Tony Stark was using EPR paradox to reference a wrong phenomenon that led Scott Lang to appear in different stage of his life while trying to time travel. That's funny cuz End game took a dig at all the time travel movies for propagating wrong notion of time travel.

@ArvinAsh

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I think the movie attempted to sound "scientific." This is perhaps better than most sci-fi movies (I'm looking at you Star Wars), that gloss over any semblance of science.

Dam wish I saw this video back in modern physics.Would’ve made my lab reports legendary.

THANK YOU! I was discussing with someone who held the position of a dichotomy, between [local hidden variable] or [random values + superluminal communication]. Like you, I believe it possible that Bell's theorem describes a "local hidden wave-function" model, replacing the fixed variables with more complex behavior; it need not be random. Another possibility which could be considered is that the entangled pairs could be perpetually connected by some property that can't be detected within 3D spacetime.

Out of all the physics videos online yours are def. The best

There's something wrong with the inequality assertion. Assuming hidden variables, it asserts that Bob measuring positive Q is 50/50 when Alice measures positive Z right? I'm sure that assertion is incorrect to begin with. Let's expand this a little and give each particle a normalized angular momentum vector [X,Z], they're hidden variables after all so let's give them real values. Now, someone tell me how to calculate Q from that vector. It's not just midway between X and Z is it? No.

@dropdatabase8224

4 жыл бұрын

I was about to type a knee-jerk rebuttal to this when I thought about it. It's not quite as simple as a regular normal vector but essentially you're right. To get a 50% split, the 45 degree rotation Q would have to be taken from a linear ramp from X to Z, but this change is not linear, if it were it would violate the normalization. it's sinusoidal. That's easy to visualize, an X and Z value of both 1/root2 gives a Q of 1.0 NOT a Q of 1/root2 as would be the case for a linear change. In fact exactly the same rate of change is required as is used by QM, sin2(pi/8). This can't be right, someone would have spotted the error by now surely. It would mean that hidden variables actually has exactly the same result probability as QM.

@gamecoolguy619

4 жыл бұрын

Every physicist does this even Einstein did this where he use the speed of causality to disprove the theory. Even though they are x away from each other where x > c they were orginaly together hence they could be linked and just as the expansion of space does not break causality this does not either as the information is the whole wave function (or whatever you want to call it). However if it was the case where there is no entanglement and it is an illusion than it would be that at the start the particles were given the state f(x) and -f(x). This way no matter when you measure (or when you don't they will always be opposite). What f(x) is not known as it currently stands but the proof in the video with it being a straight line was just placed out there using probability of the previous example which has no relation to this. In a deterministic model there will never be a probability just formulas to calculate values based on the inputs, so this was obviously not a valid proof to disprove determinism...

@sigintsys123

4 жыл бұрын

You are correct. The classical and quantum outcomes are the same. I see this time and again with QM. The mystery of it can be attributed to poor understanding of classical physics. I've also run a classical double slit experiment and I get an interference pattern.

@markrobinson7465

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. Wave equations determine the probability a photon will be found - the probability density function. The electromagnetic spectrum includes both radio waves and light. The emission and collection of energy from dipole aerials is presumably understood. Can the energy quanta of photons be just the energy levels of the electrons in the atoms emitting and collecting them? I believe Schrodinger ended up thinking there may only be waves. The inequality seems to come from the assumption there is a particle somewhere.

17:13 "...and since the colapse is random, it can't be use to communicate in this way" Why?. Great chanel thanks!

@ArvinAsh

4 жыл бұрын

Great question! I did not get into this in detail, but here is the simple explanation. Since the result that Alice gets from measuring particle 1 is completely random, and the result that Bob gets, from his perspective, is also completely random. And since the two can not communicate each others' results to each other faster than light, no communication of information can happen faster than light. Also, the randomness of the results precludes one from somehow manipulating the result to communicate instantaneously to the other.

@pralinesouffle

4 жыл бұрын

if you could control the direction of the collapse, you could send a message. but since this is impossible and the direction is random, the outcome at the other end is also random, so no information is transmitted.

@gonzalogarcia6517

4 жыл бұрын

@@ArvinAsh The paradox of information is supersymmetric. In the same way as from inside a black hole, you cannot calculate or interpret if it has a spin, that is, if it turns on something ... When we analyze a photon-higgs-graviton we can only calculate and interpret that they have mass and charge "0", but if they spin. It is the same paradox of information, since they are the same on different fractal scales. The paradox from inside to outside is supersymmetric to that from outside to inside.

@noxnc

4 жыл бұрын

In order to communicate you must send organized (i.e. non-random) signals; since the collapse is random (i.e. not organized) it can’t be used to transmit any information. Just think if you tried to send a text message your friend telling her where to meet you. You decide to write the message by rolling 5 dice over and over, adding up the total value shown on the dice each time, and using the result of each roll to decide what letter to type next. How would you ever be able to get the information to your friend? *In case it isn’t clear, the letters of alphabet would be assigned a number 1-26, the numbers 27-30 could represent symbols like commas etc.

@yomiyama

4 жыл бұрын

You guys look like you forgot that the fact that represents the action of the wave function collapsing in itself holds information, and it says that "Alice is trying to say something" so Bob would still know that Alice tried to say something, THAT still represents information.

thankyou very much for clear explanation !

That Magellan looks perfect for my current obsession. Thanks dude!

I prefer these longer videos, even though the maths make my eyes glaze over.

The singular for “dice” is “die”. In other words you have one die or you have two or more dice.

@ArvinAsh

4 жыл бұрын

It used to be. Now "dice" is used in singular form as well.

@thisjustin6529

4 жыл бұрын

You just blew my mind again. You do that a lot!

@subplantant

3 жыл бұрын

@@thisjustin6529 @Arvin Ash but a singular glove still hasn't come to be known as a pair ;-)

Finally, it makes sense. Thank you so much.

Very interesting, I never could understand hidden variable proof until now thanks! I think the absence of a signal is noise, and noise is randomness so to me it makes sense that randomness is at the heart of reality.

Thanks for putting on such an awesome channel! You stole me away from Vsauce!

@ArvinAsh

4 жыл бұрын

Haha...Thanks my friend. But I'm not trying to steal anyone's audience. The ocean of knowledge is big enough to accommodate all boats.

@vedantsridhar8378

2 жыл бұрын

Vsauce just teaches you generic stuff, but for advanced physics there are only few channels such as PBS Space Time, Arvin Ash and Fermilab

How do they know that the particles are measuring came from the other particle

@vilitoivonen122

3 жыл бұрын

This has always been my biggest question, and how can they take the particles so far apart for measurements without interfering with their properties in any known or unknown way

2022 Nobel Prize awarded for showing QM and non locality is proven as in Bells Theorem So I came here after searching many explanations. This terrific Arvin...thank you so much...really really got it now.

@schmetterling4477

9 ай бұрын

Quantum mechanics is perfectly local, it's just not separable. That's not the problem. The problem are people who don't understand the difference between the two terms. ;-)

Great video: Many Thanks! 👍👍

So say if I invite the universe to a casino with me, would that be considered cheating or would there be no consequences if I keep it on the down low?

@promerops

4 жыл бұрын

I have long suspected that the Universe doesn't play fair.

That was really interesting, and Alice is really cute.

@jacksmoba603

4 жыл бұрын

And Bob 👀

This is in fact the most clear explanation!

this is awesome, thank you!!

6:43 Left handed "PAIR" and right handed "PAIR"?