I'll never accept it. Feck the universe. We will find a way.

@Maisonier

5 жыл бұрын

Until the 1900 the world KNEW that it was IMPOSSIBLE to build something like a plane and to fly ...

@perdiobic

4 жыл бұрын

I need to find a way for it to work, it's the major requirement for my plans!

@luongmaihunggia

4 жыл бұрын

@@Maisonier Dumbest argument ever. "Maybe it does exist but we just haven't discover it yet". By that argument unicorns exists because we haven't discover it yet. Science is done on proven ground, with evidences and proofs. These FTL communication using quantum mechanics have no proofs or evidences so they're impossible. What make you think we can make it possible in the future? Just because we've done it before with other stuff? "Correlation does not imply causation". Just because we've done it before with other stuff doesn't mean we can do it again. What if there's no other ways? What if it is impossible?

@luongmaihunggia

4 жыл бұрын

@นายเตชภณ คำพู Dumbest argument ever. "Maybe it does exist but we just haven't discover it yet". By that argument unicorns exists because we haven't discover it yet. Science is done on proven ground, with evidences and proofs. These FTL communication using quantum mechanics have no proofs or evidences so they're impossible. What make you think we can make it possible in the future? Just because we've done it before with other stuff? "Correlation does not imply causation". Just because we've done it before with other stuff doesn't mean we can do it again. What if there's no other ways? What if it is impossible?

@perdiobic

4 жыл бұрын

@@luongmaihunggia you fail to make a good analogy because one thing has nothing to do with the other. Today of course we have the knowledge to know that unicorns do not exist but a century ago that would still be very debatable, today Quantum Mechanics are for us what Unicorns were for a century ago people, that's the whole point. FTL communication could or could not be possible but we're too low on information and experimentation to know anything for sure. If I said that black holes have a probability of being a interdimensional portal to another point on the universe you couldn't say that I'm wrong or right because that's not what science is about, it's about knowing what something isn't. There's so much about a lot of things that we don't understand yet that is stupid to just say that because we have no proofs or evidence yet than they're impossible... that's a pretty limited way of thinking about things.

I like that she included that last bit because that to me seemed like the solution to the problem that I haven't seen anyone mention.

@ilikelebronjames6426

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah

Glad to see you're feeling better and back in action :-)

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks! And the phd was a bit quite for the last week so I could finally do this.

@guidogaggl4020

5 жыл бұрын

do you guys know each other? 😲😲 you two are favorite youtubers thank you very much for all your videos

@guidogaggl4020

5 жыл бұрын

* my favorite

@davionfabian5178

2 жыл бұрын

i know I am kind of off topic but do anyone know of a good website to stream newly released series online?

@ChaosInCali

6 ай бұрын

@@LookingGlassUniverse in regards to FTL communication using Quantum Entanglement, would this idea work? There is one piece of information we can send and measure on both sides accurately using entanglement, TIME. Or more specifically TIME intervals. Use the first measurement as the signal for the person receiving the message to begin counting then count the time elapsed until the next measurement. We assign letters and numbers to each moment of time that passes by BEFOREHAND using that as our “key” that we give to both the sender and the receiver. So if one second elapses between the 1st and the 2nd measurement that equals the letter A. If two seconds pass by then it's the letter B. First “ping” or measurement is the starting point and the second ping is the end point. Count the time interval in between and refer to a “key” to find out what letter or number that time interval represents. We can write sentences this way. And just ignore the spins altogether because we are only using the entangled particles to tell us when to start counting and when to stop counting. It is the time interval between measurements that is relaying the message not the spin. As long as both observers have the same "key", wouldn't that work? Would just need a ton of entangled particles as some have stated that once you interact with an entangled pair, that breaks the entanglement. We would basically be using 2 entangled pairs to spell out one letter. Use one entangled pair as the starting point and another entangled pair as the end point for the count. Then wait a minute between each letter we’ve sent as a reset before we send the next letter and repeat until a word is spelled out.

I have just found your channel and am so happy to have done so. I'm way past uni but as a math/physics geek it's fantastic to find someone giving the math (guess where I'm from and yes we have it wrong here) in a delightful presentation style. The questions you leave, those items you didn't know at the time of upload, and even the mistakes you yourself point out have me digging for answers - as do the discussions from the community of commenters. Thank you so much and now I have some homework to do!

I'm so excited that I found this channel. Your ability to lay out complicated ideas in a simple yet elegant way reminds me of channels like PBS SpaceTime or 3Blue1Brown. I hope that you keep your material math-heavy too, I really appreciate that aspect of your content!

I had wondered about this myself and found your video by randomly searching to see if someone else had the same idea. Really interesting stuff.

What if Alice tries to destroy her particle? What if she throws it into a BlackHole, or splits it, or vacuum collapse happens in her part of the universe?

@tedarcher9120

5 жыл бұрын

Nothing happens

@aiksi5605

4 жыл бұрын

@@tedarcher9120 You mean as in Bob would still end up with a random state?

@cwdiode4521

4 жыл бұрын

Кирлджифук Стан yes

@Zenovarse

4 жыл бұрын

Same thing

@Kim-Dong-Un

4 жыл бұрын

correct me if im wrong but isnt it impossible to destroy quantum information?

Great video as always! Did you get your PhD in the end? :)

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

I'm doing my PhD now :) How's your career going?

I enjoy your series of videos immensely and especially appreciate your willingness to ask questions. Regarding FTL communication, please consider measuring electron and positron spin states where Alice measures angle A and Bob chooses either angle A or B in order to send a yes/no response. If Bob measures A then if Alice re-measures A she is assured to measure the same result of up or down again. If Bob measures B and Alice re-measures A than the state renormalizes and may or may not measure the same result. Therefore if this is repeated enough times, than Alice receives a response that becomes more definitive with the number of trials. Regarding entanglement used for sharing encryption keys. Believe it or not sharing encryption keys securely, is very difficult to do without actually meeting. If we were to stream entangled particles to Alice and Bob and they always made the same measurements, then they would each be receiving binary strings only with opposite values such as 100110111 and 011001000 which is exactly how differential pairs in high speed digital communication works, only we keep the pairs together and read their differences. In any case simply agreeing before hand or using a standard of which string to use, then two people could share an absolutely secure private encryption key which could be used to both encrypt and decrypt messages. Note that this eliminates the need for a trusted third party to manage public keys.

Thanks for the video! I'm always waiting for them :)

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

I'm so sorry to make you wait for 2 months but I really do appreciate that you came back!

Hi, I am no physicist by any means, but I love your videos. It's very nice to see explanations that are `striped down' and (more than usual) concrete. Thanks a lot, and please keep this going.

Hey, first of all, I love your videos! Keep up the good work! I have two questions, one of which a more general question but the other more related to this video: 1. In all your videos, it seems that the main argument for as to why a superposition of states is different than not having previous knowledge of the state, is the interference pattern created by the double slit experiment. I wonder if there are other experiments in which the quantum weirdness of superposition and measurement problem become apparent. 2. In this video, you state that there is no way Bob can know whether Alice measured or not, and thus information is not travelled instantly. However, this argument just shows that there is no way Bob can gather / read the information, but according to entanglement, "universe-information" still travels faster than light (in other words, there is still information traveling faster than light, but there is no way for us humans to detect it). Is there a way around this, or do we just have to accept it and live on with our lives? Measurement problem is weird...

Have you produced the video on communication you were refering to in the end of this video ? Fantastic work by the way !

Some time ago (maybe a few years ago) you asked for feedback about the videos and tutorials you uploaded. I'm a little late to the game, but please don't change anything. I love them just the way they are. You have a knack of being able to explain the most difficult concepts in a way they are easily understandable. I found your channel when I was looking for something on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Really excellent. I shared it on Facebook and made a recommendation for others to watch it. Looking forward to the new ones.

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you so so much, that's so kind! Really, thank you! I'm so glad you like my explanation. By the way, was that the HUP video I made recently or a few years ago? Because the recent one was a bit of an experiment where I tried to make the idea understandable for someone who didn't already know quantum mechanics. I have no idea if it actually was though.

@bobblacka918

7 жыл бұрын

It was the one done on Sept 9, 2016. "What Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle *Actually* Means." Really liked it. I'm slowly working through all your videos on QM.

These videos are so great! I've wondered about this one for a long time.

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

I'm so happy to hear this cleared it up for you!

Hi, great videos ...but may i have a question pls ? From what size of particle, Newton mechanic started to be unsufficient and QM should be applied ?? Thank u....

You explained this very well, thanks for making this.

Your videos are amazing! Hope you can upload some videos about thermodynamics someday lol

Thank you. Was looking for a video explaining if the other option was impossible. So if I understand it correctly, entangled particles, without their partner, will never produce an interference pattern on the double slit?

OMG you are back !!!! How is your Ph.D. going?

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

Great! :D (Except when I secretly take days off to edit KZread videos...) Thanks for asking!

@MultivectorAnalysis

7 жыл бұрын

Looking Glass Universe Haha, I know exactly what you mean! I snuck in my Geometric Algebra tutorial video while my PhD advisor was traveling ;)

@theporcupine9993

7 жыл бұрын

Looking Glass Universe you're going for a PhD kun physics i assume ?

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

That's the way isn't it? But actually most of the time my supervisor doesn't seem to notice whether I've been in or not. A bit sad!

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, in quantum computing.

Now that is a pretty cool way to explain it, well done!

Hi, Thanks for this great explanation, I've always been interested in possible applications of QM for communication. I'd like to ask, what if Alice has one particle that is entangled with 2 others particles that are with Bob? (I do speak about 3 particles entangled together) Should that allow Bob's particle do produce interferences if they are tested together? Or as long as one of the particle of the entangled system is not there, no interferences will be produced??

You're videos are amazing! As an engineer it is super interesting and makes me think outside of the only realistic and useful applications

Nicely updated! Since it looks like your research is in quantum computation, it would be cool if you popularized the programme of decoherence (the word "collapse" is taboo for you guys). It also makes the general solution to that homework problem nice and neat.

Even if we are not sharing the spooky Quantum paradigme presented in your video, remains that your videos are Amazingly Well Presented and Clear; Very Well Done for that! :)

i love your videos. thanks for being such a great communicator..

I have a question: is a particle's measured state actually random, or only _in effect_ random, i.e. decided by processes we cannot (currently or perhaps ever) measure? Might our measurement determine a particle's state by some deterministic process invisible to us? Do we know for sure that state is random, and if not, do we know for sure that we can't know for sure?

Here's a possible solution (Please correct me if I make a mistake): Instead of using the direction of the spin to communicate, how about we use the fact of whether the spin changes or not? If Alice keeps observing her particle, it will not be able to collapse in a different state when bob observes his own. So Bob runs 5 or 10 measurements, if they are all the same then that means that Alice is observing her particle, that means "Yes". If they are different however, that means Alice is not observing her particle, that means "No"

@justiniani3585

3 жыл бұрын

@@nathanborak2172 I thought particles had a 50% chance of collapsing up or down when they weren't being observed

As someone who has a background in Physics, I always went along with the accepted point that the randomness within a quantum entangled system prevents FTL communications. I recently read a book 'Cracking the Cosmic Code' which actually shows that the randomness is not a restriction at all. It now opens up the distinct possibilities of FTL communications.

did you ever create a follow up video on "one-time pad"? I didnt see one

This is the best video on exactly this topic I found almost instantly, from our speed of perception. Great work, Thanks! It raised 2 questions in my mind. 1 = Is it possible that we have simply not done enough experiments on Quantum Entanglement to see a pattern emerge, and don't see a pattern simply through our lack of enough research, extra factors etc. 2 = can multiple particles be Entangled? Can entangled particles be further entangled? Can pairs of entangled particles exist?

Nice explanation. Does that mean, entangled particles behave like pseudo random number generators with the same seed? The results are the same at both positions but you can't manipulate the outcome of one to alter the state of the other.

I keep thinking about this stuff. What I am getting at is that if the two particles are entangled, which I assume acts as if they are connected with a two way cause and effect relationship. If that is case, why can't they set up a series of multiple consecutive observations, where they would agree to change at during those intervals and you could record changes on either end. Now if I were flashing a light at you, how would you know it wasn't just random flashes of light? The first you might assume is random, second and third also. If I am flashing a pattern (like a morse code) with multiple observations on the other end you would have a good idea that it was an intelligible pattern and unlikely random. If the two people have a prior understanding that they will check every so often for a change. A message will have a non random preamble so the other will know when to start making repeated periodic observations, where message starts. If computers and cameras were used you could make a an automated process for fairly complex communication. I doubt the answer could be so easy, so what is the catch?

@icegoogles

4 жыл бұрын

From Looking Glass Universe: "The issue is that originally your state is an entangled, and *the measurement destroys the entanglement* [...]. What I mean is the state of Alice’s electron afterward is no longer related to Bob’s at all. So she can measure it all she wants now, it won’t tell her anything about Bob’s side.

Thank you for a great video! I am a mere layman, so not sure if the following suggestion is feasible. Can you please explain if it is possible to influence the spin externally while the particle is in superposition (eg with magnetism to force the spin into a specific position)? If so, you could communicate the polar opposite to the entangled counterpart without measuring which it is on your end (apologies if I posited something embarrassingly ignorant, my masters is in psychotherapy o.O).

What about using (time) of a state change to communicate a 1 or 0 ? Like a Morris code in binary.

@JohannesRichter87

Ай бұрын

That is my very question I've been trying to understand

@JohannesRichter87

Ай бұрын

I always thought that, well ok, you can't send a message faster than the speed of light. But, we're not considering that there is one information being transferred faster than the speed of light the moment the second particle is measured. So, this is not an information?how about we make a sequence of measurements, or interactions with a given time for each measurements of the first spin particle, so that the second one is responding, we don't mind about the direction we're seeing, we only use the time gaps between the measurements to make a binary understanding, zeros and ones. If we know when a particle is measured, and we know that his sister is flipping at the same time, we can send information like Morse code. This makes sense somehow? That was my thoughts as well.

@JohannesRichter87

Ай бұрын

Then an user responded that entanglement causes correlation but it doesn't cause causation. Absolutely no information Is being transferred in entangled wave functions.

Here is my solution to the Homework question 1! What you need to prove it that, Bob's probability of getting left is the same whether or not Alice measured. This means his measurement doesn't reveal what Alice did and so they can't communicate this way. To make this easier to type, I'm going to write up=|0>, down=|1>, right=|+> and left=|-> (these are the standard conventions in quantum information theory.) The proof has lots of cases. The two main cases are: 1) Alice doesn't measure up/down-ness (ie 0/1 ness) 2)Alice does measure up/down-ness (ie 0/1 ness) But 2) has 2 subcases: 2a) Alice measures up (0) 2b) Alice measures down (1) 1) first. This is the same idea as in the video: we have to rewrite the parts of the wavefunction belonging to Bob in the +/- basis (since that's what he's going to measure). The original wavefunction is 1/√12 (|10>+|11>+|00>) + √3/2 |01> In the new basis it is: 1/√6 |1+>+√(2/3)|0+>+ 1/√6|0-> (sorry this calculation is too annoying to write it full!) Using that, we see that the chance Bob get's + is (1/√6)^2+√(2/3)^2= 1/6+2/3= 5/6 2) Let's rewrite the wavefunction a tiny bit more: 1/√6 |1>|+>+|0>(√(2/3)|+>+ 1/√6|->) (just grouped some terms) then a bit more: 1/√6 |1>|+>+√(5/6)|0>(√(2/3)|+> + 1/√6|->)/√(5/6) all I did here was normalise (√(2/3)|+> + 1/√6|->)/√(5/6) this vector (ie now it has length 1). 2a) Say alice measures 0. This happens with 5/6 probability because that's the coefficient in front of the 0 part of the vector. Afterwards, Bob's state is (√(2/3)|+> + 1/√6|->)/√(5/6). So his probability of getting + is (2/3)/(5/6)=4/5 2b) Say Alice measure 1: This happens with probability 1/6. Bob's new state is just |+> so he'll definitely measure + So if we didn't know which result Alice got, Bob's overall probability of getting + is 5/6* 4/5+1/6*1= 2/3+1/6=5/6 But that's exactly the same as in case 1!! Phew. Quantum mechanics isn't broken. Well done you.

@user-ec5yl5df7i

7 жыл бұрын

Looking Glass Universe in your earlier videos there are people who gave you their "research" on your videos. I'm sure this research wouldn't fit into a KZread thread. How did they give it to you? Is there a way to send you our long ramblings on these confusing ideas (email or something similar)?

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

They did just comment it! But I agree, I need a better way....

@chrismorel2576

7 жыл бұрын

I second this. My professors aren't too knowledgeable on the subjects you have here. It would be nice to speak to someone with an educated insight, as I'm attempting to write a paper. "A plant will face towards sunlight. A pendulum will never reach higher than the point it was dropped. One does not describe a plant, or pendulum as conscious though (the plant doesn’t have a will to live; nor does the pendulum get tired) it is merely a function of the object. This researcher deems that electrons are the same. An electron does not know about measurement but instead reacts to it. One could say that instead of the measurement collapsing the electron’s wavefunction, the electron collapses itself based on the stimuli of the measurement. The way for such a thing to occur instantaneously is through retro-causality. This will be explained further in the paper." This is the first paragraph, I would love to work with you and explain in detail what I mean in my (beginnings of a) theory. -Chris

@chrismorel2576

7 жыл бұрын

This being a (possible) solution for the measurement problem you brought up in your Schrodinger equation videos. P.S your vids are a great, thought-provoking, inspiration :) and you should know that there are more people appreciating your efforts than the whole population of the country of San Marino...

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

Would you mind summarising the argument for me here? I think that retro causality would be pretty unpleasant, but perhaps you've gotten around the issues?

Thanks once more for a cool and clear video! :)

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

So glad you liked it (and that you returned!)

Great video thank you. :) it is not really a communication but we could think about a launch procedure. Like the Einstein's exploding barrel thought experiment. But with entangled particles far far away. Could you please one day make a video about the ads cft principle and the relationship between entanglement entropy and gravity???

This was an awesome and very accurate video. Few days back, I was thrown this question of faster than light communication using entanglement and I was thinking on how to refute it. Funny thing is that I had got exactly the same ideas. Except, on the second case, I did not use math but went about it conceptually and by visualization.

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

Awesome! That's really cool you worked it out for yourself :)

@PomegranateJuiceSmoothie

2 жыл бұрын

Same! I guess great minds think alike

I hate it when someone says you cant do this or this cannot be done. Instead of saying that say "we have not found a way yet".

@thefran901

3 жыл бұрын

The problem with saying "we have not found a way yet" is that it implies that there is a way in the first place, a way to be found. And that may not even be the case. Some things may be a technological achievement ahead of us, but others may indeed be impossible (in the full meaning of the word), not everything is dependent of technological advancement. The best way to phrase it would be "we don't know if there is a way", because that clarifies that there might not be a way at all, but also leaves the door open for a way that we may not know that exists.

So when you do the measurement (observation) of the particle it takes a state. Isnt it possible to keep observing both particles continuously and changing the state of one while observing?

@Givy55

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly they both have to be observed constantly. My question is does it have to be a human observation or could we use an AI computer program to constantly observe them, manipulate them, and decode the message!? If looks could kill... They do... They collapse the wave function of multiple outcomes into one!! Computers are tools we use to measure things just like cameras... I would think that having a computer constantly observing would count but I'm not sure! Maybe it's connected to our consciousness as we are creators and they are responding to our observations only! ??

@przemysawkulak4275

4 жыл бұрын

@@Givy55 observer is a tool that makes some measurements. We cannot observe particles directly, we can only observe interactions with other particles. That observation / interaction changes the state of observed particle. Let say we are blind and we know that small ball is moving in the air. We take a stick and wave it around. When ball hits that stick we can sense the direction of that movement before ball hits the stick but ball now changes its path, probably changes rotation temperature and perhaps shape ... that's why we tell that observer influence observed object in qm. Not because someone see it with his eyes... There is no mind controll over matter LOL

Hold this cup, my brain is about to explode.

sorry, if this is still such a big problem, whom and where should i address about solution? cause i have one how to send exactly the signal i want. thank you

What if we combine Quantum Entanglement with the Reverse time quantum experiment. Could that be used to eliminate the interference caused by the measurement? I send a message by changing the state of Particle A. Particle B is immediately effected due to entanglement with Particle A. You measure state of Particle B and run Reverse time experiment against Particle B simultaneously. You measure the state while time is reversed for the particle. Now you can decipher my message. Plausible or am I way off?

@Nobody-zq8bl

5 жыл бұрын

curiosity.com/topics/entangled-quantum-particles-can-communicate-through-time-curiosity/

I apologize if I am being stupid, after all, I know next to nothing about quantum mechanics, but could you not use magnetic fields to influence spin, and observe changes in up and down spin measurement distribution depending on the position of the magnetic field?

It's always a pleasure to see a new video from you. By the way, I never knew the Mad Hatter's name was Bob; I always thought of him as Bertie.

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

Oh no, definitely a 'Bob'! Ha! Nice to hear from you too. Sorry about the absence...

@michaelsommers2356

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you. And you have nothing to apologize for; your studies come first. I still say the Hatter should be Bertie, because of his uncanny resemblance to Bertrand Russell: www.google.com/search?q=bertrand+russell+mad+hatter&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&imgil=BbRELLThhK1w1M%253A%253Bvs6FIaq8fOPssM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fglassbottomblog.blogspot.com%25252F2011%25252F08%25252Fnonrepresentationalism.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=BbRELLThhK1w1M%253A%252Cvs6FIaq8fOPssM%252C_&usg=__R1k12yowobq-iXNGb4rGbdNLgqU%3D&biw=1231&bih=614&ved=0ahUKEwjrpubV-97TAhUB3yYKHUWiChwQyjcINg&ei=zLEPWeuQCoG-mwHFxKrgAQ#imgrc=BbRELLThhK1w1M:

@michaelsommers2356

7 жыл бұрын

Watching the video again, I notice that you already knew about the Hatter and Russell. Sorry.

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

Aahhahaha! No I didn't! That's very funny!

@michaelsommers2356

7 жыл бұрын

But you had the Hatter using Russell's Paradox. That is a truly amazing coincidence, then.

Can't the receiver check once every second the state of his particle and the sender to send the message collapse the particle state until it becomes the bit he wants to send in that second? For example if I want to send the message 1010, I can make the particle collapse multiple times until it becomes 1 before t is 1 (t is time), then I make it collapse until it becomes 0 before t is 2...

I'm not sure I understand the notation used in 3:45. I can read dirac notation, I just don't know what you mean by the juxtaposition |a>|b>. Is it supposed to represent standard inner product? in which case everything is the same except the blue kets should be transposed to bras like . Or is the blue ket supposed to represent modulus of a particular vector's component? Or is there a multiplicative operation on the hilbert space of states which is represented by juxtaposition like you have written there. I mean, I know that many states are literally complex wavefunctions which may be multiplied in the standard complex function sense, but somehow I do not think you are intending to use wavefunctions as a C-Algebra, considering there isn't any associativity in your manipulation. sorry if I am sounding nitpicking. Maths grad student so I get caught on details.

@gcewing

7 жыл бұрын

|a>|b> is not an inner product, it's a combined state in which Alice's part of the system is in state |a> and Bob's part is in state |b>.

What about if you're both measuring at the same time? And can't you use the switching between states as the transfer of data? Not the state itself?

Nice video. Particles A and B are entangled. Is it possible to create a copy of the quantum state (however imperfect) of Particle A such that the copy's quantum state is also entangled with Particle B?

@billium99

5 жыл бұрын

No. Would be sweet though!

I have trouble understanding this but what if you tell both sides that every second that passes the output flips between 1 and 0. If a particle is scanned at a moment it then outputs the according 1 or 0. It would be like communicating with pings or maybe morse code

Great video! Question though. What happens if their measurements are synced on two clocks, one at each location operating in-sync with extreme accuracy? As in, what if the measurement and observation of each particle are taken at the exact same time?

@FromThe3021

2 жыл бұрын

No difference, they will still prove to have opposite spin.

Can Alice tell if her electron spin is up or down without having Bob's particle? (I.e. Are you saying that the first person to measure can know the state of the system with one particle; but the second person to measure requires both particles to know the state of the system?)

Which subfield should I pursue for a PhD? I'm wanting one that uses a lot of quantum mechanics so I'm thinking of high energy nuclear physics, particle physics, condensed matter physics or quantum information physics. What would you suggest?

@LookingGlassUniverse

6 жыл бұрын

I do quantum computing/information theory so I'm heavily biased.... but if you like mathematical proofs and abstract algebra then I think it's a really nice field.

Awesome job! . . Looking forward to more in this series. . . It would also be great if you could one day discuss the holomorphic properties of the algebras in the Supersymmetric Standard Model, and visualize them using Adinkra symbols.

I was waiting for a lot of time for a video from you , finally got one. 😁😁btw how's your PhD going?

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

I'm so sorry! I really am. The PhD is going well! It got really hectic for a period though, which is part of why I took so long. But it's settled down now.

Nice job.

What if you have a big mass of particles and kind of entangle it in morse code intervals, could someone on the other end measure the time in between obervations?

@theendofthestart8179

Жыл бұрын

Short answer: no

@whitechocolate5320

Жыл бұрын

@@theendofthestart8179 dammit xD

I still don't quite understand. So what you are saying is that an entangled particle can't interfere with "itself"? So if Bob does a 2 slid experiment, where the particle goes left if spin UP or right if spin DOWN, it wouldn't create an interference patern (when alice doesnt check)?

My question is how long can a particle state be obseved or held in a single state for? And how many times can the other entangled particle be mesured? One might indicate yes or no from the length of time the state persist

I think the problem is the nature of language itself. It should be possible to construct a device or packet of information that exists in a balanced state of unity. One requirement for this involves actually knowing what blocks of information and energy are, and how they dovetail with each other in a comprehensive sense. Mathematics may be helpful in this endeavor. Imagine that the building blocks of energy/info, once combined into an aggregate, can lead to a coherent, interconnected state that is tapped into unity. All blocks of energy/info must cancel out to a unified state. It is a bit like assembling an advanced puzzle. It would be beneficial to be able to plot the progress of the puzzle, using mathematics, because the pieces would manifest dynamic energies when brought into contact or correlation with one another. Creating a balanced puzzle state would enable instantaneous communication, using nullified blocks of energy/info for transmission. The unified, timeless realm would be the conduit. The dualistic nature of language is thus the barrier that must be breached, when elements are brought into harmony and unified, the conduit to unity is revealed. Hemingway said: "write the truest sentence you know". Did he sense that there is an underlying truth within the words themselves? What would a true, unified statement look like?

@Isaac-ev3nq

5 жыл бұрын

great comment

What if you don't have to measure the state of the particle, just if it changed? If you have two pairs, you can get 1 bit of info out of them. You only need to check if the state of the particles has changed; if only one pair changes, that is logical 0, if two pairs change that is logical 1. Sorry, if I didn't understand you correctly, and for any grammar mistakes I made.

@MarkDo9x

5 жыл бұрын

that is also what I'm thinking

@icegoogles

4 жыл бұрын

From Looking Glass Universe: "The issue is that originally your state is an entangled, and *the measurement destroys the entanglement* [...]. What I mean is the state of Alice’s electron afterward is no longer related to Bob’s at all. So she can measure it all she wants now, it won’t tell her anything about Bob’s side.

1:50 - 2:30 ..so you need to measure both of the particles together? I must be confused because the delayed choice quantum eraser measures at different detectors at different points in time.

I love how we still insist we can and can't do things when we have the relative understanding of physics of a toddler.

@noahbaden90

4 жыл бұрын

If you wanna go find where FTL information can be transferred, you're welcome to try, but as of now, all signs point to no.

@koreystreich6978

4 жыл бұрын

@@noahbaden90 The point is we haven't seen enough signs to know either way, and most signs we've encountered are in the context of not understanding the relationship between QM and GR

@bleach.princess

4 жыл бұрын

No one's claiming that our current understanding of quantum mechanics is objective. These are speculations based on rigorous testing and theory.

@koreystreich6978

4 жыл бұрын

@@bleach.princess 'rigorous'

@Bv2097

4 жыл бұрын

Laugh my ass off reading this comment humans might as well be ignorant with limited understanding of what's going on lmao.

I have a question. I should say that I only have what would be charitably called a lay person's understanding here so I apologize if this is an ignorant question , but I've heard that if you have three particles A, B, and C, that you can entangle A and B, then B and C. And that after performing this series of entanglements all three particles are entangled together. I understand (I think) why you couldn't perform an interference test if you only had access to one of two entangled particles. But if Alice holds particle A and Bob gets particle B, then entangles it with particle C, could he not perform an interference test with B and C to determine if Alice had measured particle A?

Could someone tell me? 1. Can two people see the exact same photon? 2. When a photon is emitted from an atom does it have a particular direction or does it spread out in a wave type of way?

In delayed choice quantum eraser, if the eraser is light years away and instead of a 50-50 beam splitter, Bob decides to use a mirror or not, then you could actively control whether you see an interference pattern in Alice's galaxy in the past right? How do you explain that?

Can Alice change her particle to have upspin so it forces faster than c communication of downspin at Bob? And could they previously agree that Bob measures his electron just "after" we both view a mutally distant celestial event that is between us (at which time Alice immediately set her particle's upspin)?

This thought just suddenly popping out of my mind

It will be possible with time. I love reading articles of scientist stating impossibilities in the past and then reading the debunking articles later on. Our recent advancements in the understanding of quantum mechanics has me very optimistic about the viability of quantum communications in our future. There have been many gatherings of world famous scientists in the past that have come together and decided that we have discovered and invented everything we can and that our efforts beyond that point would yield no useful results. I've seen articles of theoretical limits on quantum entangled particles that we debunk VERY soon after publication. I hope there are teams out there with a higher understanding that share my optimism for our future in quantum mechanics.

@thedeemon

6 жыл бұрын

You realize that faster-than-light communication, if possible, would immediately allow sending messages from future to the past? It's a direct application of special relativity.

Well, for one, when you intercept the "one time pad" assuming you had figured out how to do that, you collapse the wave function because you observed and interested with the article in some manner. if your detectors aren't aligned exactly the same as the detectors Bob has, then the one time pad message Bob receives will be completely different from what you saw. so when Bob sends the confirmation of the pad, Alice's computer and Bob's computer, after some comparison of notes, can tell if someone is hacked in. on top of all this, since the detector alignment is never included, the middle Man (the Queen of hearts, obviously) cannot know for certain if her detectors are properly arranged. for example, if you had three possible alignment possibilities, the Queen cannot know if the correct answer is a left/right detection, a back/forth detection, or an up/down detection. she only knows which detectors were identified as incorrect, but not the why. without knowing the why, she can't guess at what happened. was her detection using the same set of alignments he did? without knowing that, which would require some sort of obtrusive observation of the target computer, she is not knowing if her information is accurate

I have been considering something, this led me to your videos as I was trying to think about EPR paradox. Now, I do web development/programming, and am very interested in computer science, although for some reason when I was younger and in University I thought social sciences was where I wanted to concentrate. I don't want to bore you or anyone with details, but I hope you will contact me back. I am brushing up on my pre-calculus algebra, then brush up on my calculus, then begin to work on and learn some linear algebra, so I find it kind of awesome that you have so much helpful videos. Anyway, I have a question and since I don't have understanding of quantum mechanics, I am looking for someone more knowledgeable to converse with. It directly relates to this question and communicating long distances. Part of my question is once particles are observed is the connection/entanglement broken or can you continually manipulate one of the entangled particles? The answer to that has a few implications, that I can't find or don't know where to look to get a clue of what people have been considering. I started following you on google+ so that you can contact me through there.

@david_porthouse

2 жыл бұрын

Once a particle is observed the entanglement is broken.

Do states with 3+ entangled particle exist, and are they different in a meaningful way? i.e. can you use two of them to see if the third has been observed? (I assume the answers will be "yes, no" respectively) also: I love the channel, even if you never upload ;)

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

They exist! But yes the answers are yes and then no. Yes because weird things happen when you have three entangled particles. There's no longer an idea of the 'most' entangled states. See in the 2 particle case, if you start with the most entangled states, Alice and Bob can separately do stuff to get any other 2 particle state between them. This is no longer possible with 3 particles. Actually 3,4,5 particle entangled states are all topics of very active research!

Why not just keep measuring, then putting it back into a superposition until it's the state you want, and then wait until the other person (or computer) assumes you're done measuring and checks to see the answer?

Also, can you do a story on how Alice and Bob got into science literature? I just read an article about it, but it would be so cool if there was a video in your style coz you use them so much :P

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

I read it was through crypto- is that true? I love it so much, because Alice is always Alice from Wonderland for me.

What about as an early detection system? Could we shoot streams of entangled particles at Betelgeuse and monitor their captive partners for changes to see when it pops before the light would get here?

I have this idea that they could communicate FTL. Please comment if you know why not. Now: Futuristic set, with intergalactic travel happening. Alice is being persecuted, and wants to hide in a planet, she has two available options, planet 1 or 2. She uses a quantum collapse to choose which of the two in order to make the decision totally random so that no one can predict where she has chosen to hide. She doesn't choose which one, but the collapse of her particle does (if spin down, she goes to planet 1, and vice versa), Bob is on another place in the galaxy and they had agree that on X moment(*), Alice will have the planet to hide decided by collapsing her particle, So then Bob can know FTL where Alice is heading, and hiding. (?) (*)day-minutes, or whatever precision is necessary so that Bob can know the planet FTL

knowing that one particle is ether up or doun is information. pre deturmined questions about what one person will or wont do at a given time should be able to be answerd if both are accurate about the time of mesurement.

Thank you soooo much i had this doubt for like half a year but now j solved it Thaaaaanks.

The last part of the video is telling. Not for faster than light communication, but for work done involving examining both particles using regular light communication combined with the quantum instant correlation, we can set up a working encryption system between the 2 particles that cannot be intercepted nor manipulated even using another signal that travels at the speed of light. Because the encryption formula requires something from quantum entanglement needed to be combined with something else that needs to travel the distance at not faster than light , to effectively complete the encryption …and not one without the other. Am I correct? With something known from each particle, there is a complete circuit, and that thing known from the second particle is only obtainable by measuring the first particle too. This means part of the link is tied to the quantum entanglement. If just measure particle 1, no new knowledge regardless if particle 2 measured not by you If just measure particle 2, no new knowledge regardless if particle 1 measured not by you If particle 1 and particle 2 are measured in an agreed upon way, then something is learned, something which no other outside force can manipulate the correlations between particle 1 and particle 2, correlations which are unique only to those 2 particles, correlations that are not coded prior to measurement nor is there any light delay in the correlation at collapse, but which requires access to both particles to complete the puzzle.

So checking for measurement or non measurement via looking for an interference pattern, ala the double slit experiment, doesn't work due to you needing the entangled pairs to be together to create said interference. However this is in the case of a pair of entangled particles separated from one another. What happens if more then 2 particles are entangled together? The only way I can see it working to maintain no FTL is if you had to have all entangled particles to produce the interference pattern at both ends rather then some of them, or alternatively that some of the entangled states couldn't be unentangled.

You're good at doing these videos, I think you deserve more hits than you get. PBS Spacetime and PBS Infinite Series.. they're good too.. they should totally hire you to do a PBS Quantum Woo channel.

@LookingGlassUniverse

7 жыл бұрын

PBS Quantum Woo, ahahaha! I can only dream that one day that will be possible :P Thank you so much!

I don't get it, so if you can't detect what was done to a particle on the other side, how do they know they're entangled in the first place?

when you entangle two particles (A & B) and then entangle a third (C) with B, A instantly teleports or becomes C and B & C disappear. can't we use that to communicate like you just have to have Alice entangle one of two sets that bob has with a particle that she has

Can't you change your particle from up to down or left to right?

I have a question: Assuming or if a multiverse exist does quantum entanglement applies also? I mean if we put the 2 engtangled particles in a different dimension or in a multiverse, will it affect each other?

@billium99

5 жыл бұрын

Duh - obviously not! /s . =)

well well well...look whos backkk

So it's not about the speed of light at all. It's just that the entangled particles move randomly. Is it possible for Alice to measure once for yes and twice for no?

It would be interesting to plot a randomization occurrence chart with several particles, over time, to look for patterns

@trevorloughlin1492

3 жыл бұрын

Randomness has infinite entropy so cannot be predicted by any form of stochastic analysis. If this was possible your suggestion would work. And actually it is possible by looking at the problem from the other end and some clever maths. Which is why I now have a device capable of not only superluminal communication but communication through time as well. Right now the 32 bit software and hardware can beat French Roulette but I am about a week away from using 64 bit hardware and software to send short text messages and simple images back in time.

Like most people, I readily admit to struggling to master all the concepts, but I can't see why the 'pause of "n" seconds to confirm the previous observation sent the desired orientation'; while a 'pause of "x" ' confirms the previous observation should be ignored', wouldn't work as a ftl method of communication, assuming that Bob and Alice have a ready supply of entangled particles to use as a combination of coding and confirmation pairs? There is an assumption they can determine when one of them has observed a particle, and which particle was observed. Just for clarity's sake, to give a non-quantum equivalent example, Bob wan'ts to tell Alice to do something by flipping a coin showing heads. Bob sits in a room flipping a coin. There can be no communication between them, other than Alice knows that Bob is flipping a coin (this can be achieved by agreeing a time when he starts flipping), and if Bob has flipped a head or tail, and can measure how often he flips a coin. Say Bob flips a tail, he waits 5 seconds and flips again. Alice knows he flipped a tail and he then flipped again 5 seconds later, so she ignore the tails result. Eventually Bob will flip a head, and he only waits one second before flipping again. Alice now knows Bob has both flipped a head and flipped again one second later and therefore knows that Bob's message is 'heads'.

Won’t measuring the particle instantly affect the other particle?

2:27 does it have any experimental proofs??

How did they prove entanglement works if the very act of measuring either particle induces a change?

I don't quite get why you cannot do the double slit experiment to see if the red particle acts like a particle or a wave. Isn't that whay they did in the delayed double slit experiement? They checked the particles one after another and they got different results when the entangled particle was detected (1st particle acts like a particle) and erased (1st particle acts like a wave).

@adamjondo

3 жыл бұрын

Ditto. LGU floated that option as 'clever' at 01:12 but didn't address it. Plz someone explain why a long distance 'Delayed Choice Double Slit' style arrangement wouldn't enable Bob to tell whether Alice had chosen to collapse her particle or not and thereby communicate Y/N?

I'm confused because I can think of a scenario where this would work that wasn't addressed. What if Alice and Bob each have a pair of entangled particles. The first would be to receive a message and the second would be to send a message. They agree that at a specific time of day (assuming they are on the same tine) Alice will send a message and Bob will as well. They will wait a certain amount of time to avoid a mistake and then each will check for a message. This is assuming that either alice or bob can forcibly make the particle have a desired measurement. Wouldn't that qualify? And if no then why not?

@balbuena1225

4 жыл бұрын

Also forgot this, they have agreed before hand that they will only measure up and down spin.

@balbuena1225

4 жыл бұрын

Never mind I just read that for particles to be entangled you have to ask what state are you in, if you force it you break entanglement

But this is just for 2 entangled particles.. What if they have 3 entangled particles and Alice takes one and Bob has 2.. Then if Alice breaks her superposition, Bob has 2 entangled particles to check if they are in superposition...

So we have to focus on predicting and influencing our own measurement. Is there some law that makes it impossible to do this?

good voice for teaching

can you not tell if a particle is in a super position if you kept closing the box and looking back? if the other person is measuring their particle wouldn't it stay in the same state? say you made a system where the entangled particle was kept in a super position for 2 seconds for a 1 and 1 second for a 0 while the other was measured 1000 times a second by a computer to see when the position changes to create some kind of Morse code?

@icegoogles

4 жыл бұрын

From Looking Glass Universe: "The issue is that originally your state is an entangled, and *the measurement destroys the entanglement* [...]. What I mean is the state of Alice’s electron afterward is no longer related to Bob’s at all. So she can measure it all she wants now, it won’t tell her anything about Bob’s side."

Last video you you said, that if one of the particles has a spin up, another one has to have spin down, but now you are talking about left and rightness. You're saying that even if the electron has spin up, the positron has the same probability for spin left and right. But why do we even care about left and right, when we can always measure only ether it up or down. This is the thing I don't understand. Do I make any sense right now?