Why Einstein was wrong about entanglement: EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality explained simply

Why Einstein was wrong about entanglement: EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality explained simply


Two of the biggest intellectual giants of
modern physics changed our view of reality, and proposed their theories around the same
time, in the early twentieth century.  Yet, their views about reality were completely
different. Niels Bohr, one of the founders of modern
quantum mechanics and the father of the Copenhagen interpretation, argued that reality,
or the state of a particle at the fundamental level, was not only unknown, but was unknowable,
until it was measured. Albert Einstein passionately disagreed with
this idea, and believed that reality was knowable and that probabilities could not completely
define reality, that there had to be an objective reality out there, independent of measurement. 
He famously said, in his dramatic statement, “Do you really believe the moon only exists
when you look at it” Bohr and Einstein argued passionately about
their views on the essence of reality. And for 30 years, both views were considered equally
valid, and scientists chose sides. Then in 1964, Irish physicist John Bell devised
a way to prove whether Einstein’s view of a classical, deterministic view of reality
was correct, and he put this in a simple elegant equation – called the Bell Inequality. 
Although the equation is simple, understanding what it means is not so easy. So how did this
simple equation disprove the ideas of the most famous and powerful scientist of the
20th century, and forced us to confront the unsettling truth that we may live in a fundamentally
nondeterministic universe.  The answer is coming up right now… The central weirdness of quantum mechanics can be demonstrated with a toss of the dice. If the dice
was a quantum system like a photon, electron or atom, it would be in superposition. That
is, its position and other properties, in a sense would be up in the air like a dice
thrown before it hits the table. It is a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,  and 6 all at the same time.
According to the most accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation,
pioneered by Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, its not only that the dice’s value is not
known, but that it is all values at once. It’s value can only be known once it is
measured. The double slit experiment demonstrates this. A single photon passing through the slit should
not be thought of as a particle going through, and interacting with itself. Rather, it is
like a three dimensional wave or a cloud of probability when it is emitted. This wave
can go through both slits at once and interfere with itself like a wave does, before it is
measured by the photo sensitive screen in the back, when it resolves to a specific location
on the screen. Einstein, who was the most famous scientist at the time, was bothered by this interpretation
of quantum mechanics. The idea that part of nature remains not only unknown, but is
unknowable unless measured. That’s why he famously said, “God does not play dice.” So Einstein along with two other scientists,
Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR for short), came up with what they thought disproved the
Copenhagen interpretation. The crux of their argument rested on the idea of a phenomenon predicted
in quantum mechanics called entanglement. Let’s say we have a quantum system that has a zero angular momentum, also known as
spin zero, and it emits two photons simultaneously. Since photons have spin, and since angular
momentum must be conserved, if one photon has a spin up, the other photon must have
a spin down. So the spin up and down cancel each other out. This is entanglement. The
two photons are not independent. If the spin of one of them is known, the spin of the other
becomes known instantaneously. Now let’s separate these photons far apart, let’s say 300,000 km, which is about 1 light
second away. Now according to quantum mechanics, each of these photons is governed by a wave
function, and each photon is in a state of both spin up and down at the same time. It
is not up or down, it is both up AND down.  However, the wave functions of these photons is not
independent. They are really the same wave function governing both photons. Now if we
measure the spin of one of them. We have a a 50% chance of detecting a spin up. Let’s
say do we detect spin up.  Now let’s measure the spin of the other photon in less
than one second, it should also have a 50% chance of having spin up or spin down. But it doesn’t,
it has a 100% chance of having a spin down. This means that the information of the collapse of the wave function of one of the photons
had to travel faster than light to affect the other photon. EPR argued that since nothing
can travel faster than light according to the rules of special relativity, this should
invalidate the Copenhagen interpretation. This theorized violation is the EPR Paradox. EPR proposed instead there is likely another theory which would show that the two entangled
photons were in cahoots from the very beginning, that their states were predetermined from
their creation. In other words, their states contained the information locally, so that
when they were moved apart, no communication had to take place. The information that we
were measuring was hidden inside the two particles. This is called local hidden variables. So for example, it’s as if the two particles
were a pair of gloves. One was a left handed pair, and the other was a right handed pair.
Once we found the left handed pair, we knew immediately that the other pair, no matter
where it was in the universe, must be a right handed pair. This was a valid interpretation
of quantum mechanics for almost 30 years, From 1935 to 1964. This could not be disproven. This is where Irish physicist, John Bell comes
in. And in 1964, he proposed an experiment that could show whether the local hidden variable
theory was correct, or incorrect. Bell’s equation is remarkably simple. But, it is one of the most difficult to understand
and simplify. So I will present a highly simplified idea of how it works, then also show you simplified
version of the mathematical underpinnings later in this video. We are going to play a game, and our opponent will be the universe. The game is guess the color of the checkers pieces. I want to give a big shout out to Jim Al-Khalili
who shows a similar simplified illustration in a documentary available on Magellan TV.
I encourage you to check it out because it is fascinating. If I guess the color correctly I win, if I
am incorrect, the universe wins. In the first game I declare that if the colors match I
win. The universe picks the pieces. In play after play, I find that I lose every time. 
So in the next round, I change the rules. This time, I declare that if the colors are
different I win. The universe picks the pieces. In play after play, I find that I lose every
time again. So, I conclude that perhaps the universe has rigged the game against me. This is what Einstein
suspected was happening, that the checkers Piexes were rigged. He believed that the colors
of the pieces were predetermined, and that this information had been known from the beginning
when the two pieces were together. Niels Bohr’s idea, on the other hand, was that the red and black don’t even
exist until the piece is turned over. So, I change the rules of the game again. This time, I do not tell the universe whether
matching colors, or different colors will win the game, until after the universe has
already picked the checker pieces. If after revealing the checker pieces, I find
that I win 50% of the time, and lose 50% of the time, then my conclusion is that indeed
the checker pieces were rigged from the very beginning, because my chances of winning would
be 50% if the red and black pieces were already picked by the universe. But if I continue
to lose, then I have to conclude that somehow, the colors of the checker pieces were not
chosen ahead of time. Let’s look at how Bell’s elegant equation
proves my conclusion. To do this, let’s look at a universe where local hidden variables
are correct. In other words, entangled particles have predetermined properties which are complementary to each
other at the moment of their creation. Note that this is not an interpretation of quantum
mechanics. It’s an alternative to quantum mechanics. So in this system, when two entangled particles
are produced from a process that conserves linear and angular momentum, we will get two
particles that go off in opposite directions, and they will have opposite spins, as well
as opposite directions. Let’s say that Alice makes the measurement on particle 1 in her laboratory, and Bob makes
the measurement on particle 2 in his laboratory. And let’s say that the two labs are very
far apart and are not in communication with each other. If Alice measures the particle’s spin in
the Z direction as positive, Bob will measure the spin as negative in the Z direction.
If they measure the spin in the X direction which is orthogonal to the Z direction, or
90 degrees apart, the same type of complimentary opposite spins will be measured, because,
as I said earlier, angular momentum is always conserved. What Bell’s inequality does is, it says,
now let’s make a third measurement that is somewhere in between the Z and X axes. In our example we will use 45 degree angles to the Z and X direction, And
we will call this the Q direction. So in a universe where local hidden variables are true, when the two particles are emitted,
they know what their state is going to be in all three directions, Z, X, and Q from
birth. And there are only 8 combinations or possibilities of spins that each particle
could have. So for Alice and Bob, these 8 combinations will be following: Event 1 could be where the spin in the Z direction is positive, the spin in the X direction is positive, and the spin in the Q direction is posive.
positive Event 2: Z is positive, X is positive, Q is
negative Event 3: Z is positive, X is negative, Q is
positive Event 4: Z is positive, X is negative, Q is
negative Event 5: Z is negative, X is positive, Q is
positive Event 6: Z is negative, X is positive, Q is
negative Event 7: Z is negative, X is negative, Q is
positive Event 8: Z is negative, X is negative, Q is
negative Now, let’s ask the question, what is the probability that Alice measures in the z direction,
gets a positive spin, and Bob measures in the X direction and gets a positive spin?
Well, if the above case is for Alice, there are 4 events where Z is positive. In order
for Bob to get X positive, Alice would have to have measured X as negative. So these would
be in event 3 and event 4. To get the probability we have to divide by the total number of events, which is
8. Let’s do this for two more scenarios. What
is the probability that Alice measures positive in the Z direction, and Bob measures positive
in the Q direction? In this scenario, it would be event 2 and 4. Again we divide by
8 to get the probability. And the third case is: What is the probability
that Alice measures positive in the Q direction, and Bob measures positive in the X direction?
This would be event 3 and event 7, divided by 8 for probability. 
So these are the three probabilities given the hidden variables theory. Now here is the big
insight that John Bell had: If I take the total number of Events, and
multiply that by the probability that Alice measures Z positive and Bob measures X positive,
this has to be less than or equal to the total number of events times the probability that
Alice measures Z positive, and Bob measures Q positive, plus the probability that Alice
measures Q positive, and Bob measures X positive. When we write this out, the eight cancels out,
and we are left with just the probabilities: This is Bell’s inequality. I can prove this is true by doing simple math:
E3 + E4 divided by 8 is less than or equal to E2 + E4 + E3 + E7 divided by 8.
The eights cancel out, and we rearrange the order of addition, and we are left with this:
E3 + E4 is less than or equal to E3 + E4 + E2 + E7
This makes total sense, because E3 and E4 are on both sides of the equation. And E2
and E7 have to be positive. So this inequality absolutely HAS to be true for any hidden variables
theory to be true. Now remember these probabilities are for a universe with hidden variables. But what happens in a universe where the laws
of quantum mechanics are correct, and not the hidden variables theory?  Well, this inequality
is violated in quantum mechanics. How is it violated?  Let’s say Alice measures the
spin to be positive in the Z direction. Then, we know that if Bob measured the particle
in the Z direction, he would get a spin that is negative. However, Bob doesn’t measure in the Z direction, but in the Q direction. What will the spin
of his particle be?  In hidden variables, there was a 50% chance that it would be positive,
and a 50% chance that it was negative. But this is not what happens in quantum mechanics,
because the measurement of the particle follows the probability laws of the wave function
for a particle rotated 45 degrees. And that probability of Bob measuring Q to be positive, after Alice has measured Z to
be positive, if the angle between them is 45 degrees, is given by the following equation: 
sine sqared of 45 degrees divided by 2. This comes from the math of quantum mechanics.
This is the critical difference between quantum mechanics and hidden variables theory. The
probability that Bob measures the same spin as Alice, depending on the difference in angle
measured is not linear but looks like a sine wave. When you plot this out, this is what
the probabilities look like: So you can see from the graph that at 0, and multiples of 90 degrees, the two systems are
in agreement. But in between, like at 45 degrees, the probability is 25% for hidden variables,
and about 14.6% for quantum mechanics. But the proof is in the pudding, because in test after test, the sine function correlation
has been confirmed. The particle does not behave linearly. And so the hidden variables
theory cannot be correct. Bell’s inequality is violated. So we can write out and compare Bell’s inequality for both cases. For hidden variables, the equation would be:
E3 + E4 is less than or equal to E3 + E4 + E2 + E7
2 is less than or equal to 4 – the inequality holds true. For quantum mechanics, the equation would
be: Sine squared of 90 degrees divided by 2 is
less than or equal to sine squared 45 degrees divided by two plus the sine squared of 45 degrees
divided by two. And when you solve this, you get:
0.5 is less than or equal to 0.293, which, of course, is not true, so Bell’s inequality
is violated in quantum mechanics, which is exactly what we observe in experiment after
experiment. Does this prove that the two entangled particles are communicating faster than light? There is differing opinion on this. On the surface, it does appear
that superluminal communications is taking place. But my personal opinion is that no
communication is happening. The two particles are really just part of one wave function,
and since the wave function can theoretically be as wide as the universe, when this one
wave function collapses, both particles collapse. And since the collapse is random, it can not
be used to communication in any way. So most theorist do not think special relativity is violated, because we can’t communicate
using this seemingly faster than light phenomenon. But our knowledge of quantum mechanics and entanglement is incomplete to say the least. Why is there a superposition? What is the mechanism of wave collapse between two particles separated by space and time? I happen to think that the scientist who is going to reveal the mystery
of quantum mechanics is alive right now in the world. And I can’t wait for him or her
to explain this, and like Copernicus, Newton and Einstein –  completely change our paradigm.
I’ll see you in the next video my friend.

100 thoughts on “Why Einstein was wrong about entanglement: EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality explained simply

  • February 15, 2020 at 7:57 am
    Permalink

    But the collapse is transferring information faster than light……..

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 8:00 am
    Permalink

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

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 11:09 am
    Permalink

    Fascinating stuff and you explain it in a way that the average Joe can understand it and make it entertaining at the same time! Personally, I think a measurement is some sort of projection of a phenomenon in a higher dimensional space into 4d spacetime and if that is true, the entanglement isn't surprising at all: We may see 2 particles but in reality it's one and the same thing in 5d. Besides, the 100% chance of knowing what the state of the second particle is comes at the price of measuring the first particle beforehand (with a 50:50 chance of getting either spin up or down). If we were able to set the spin, now that'd be a different matter.

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 11:48 am
    Permalink

    My new favorite Science Channel. <3

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 12:17 pm
    Permalink

    Utter nonsense. Here's the truth: 1) there are no particles, everything is a wave (DeBroglie). 2) The wave passes through both slits, part of the energy through one slit and part through the other. Probabilities don't "strike" anything. The wave-slit interaction determines the direction (and probability) of where the photon strikes the viewing plate. This interaction and probability distribution is entirely calculable for a photon using Maxwell's equations – no PDF's required. No Heisenberg. No unknowables. Where do all these ridiculous probabilities arise? From the poor selection of Schrodinger's wave-function. (more…)

    Choose Psi = PDF and it's no surprise the solutions are probabilistic? Circular logic.

    Do you know how pathetic to say 'all probabilities exist and they only collapse upon reaching the destination?' That modern scientists would ascribe to such idiocy is embarrassing. Like the human-race is getting dumber every decade?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 12:18 pm
    Permalink

    Excellent… thanks 🙏

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 12:35 pm
    Permalink

    Almost fell asleep honestly. I’m tired of all this quantum talk…. but I like how you simply explained your opinion at the end. I agree with that part

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 1:03 pm
    Permalink

    16:45 – Spin information travelling 300.000 km instantaneously?
    I have a question as to how the measurement timing is performed. Is/was the systems synched using identically 'atomic-clocks' to maintain measurement synchronization when at a distance. If this is the case, won't the local space-time disrupt the timing in general, causing time distortion, so only light-speed information can be transfered. If not, this would be a neat trick to get faster-than-light information, as one could have sent a rocket to Mars with a measurement device on board – and then measure the 'output' from the device sent to Mars right after launch – there's no way the final measurement outcome can be altered (except if the mission ends in a big failure and the probe crashes destructively). So, in order for this to work reliably – isn't it necessary to have a stable sample-sync-time-reference added to the spin measurements, in effect linking them together?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 1:20 pm
    Permalink

    Gosh Arvind, you're one amazing teacher !!

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 1:31 pm
    Permalink

    Trying to think of another way of looking at this:
    I'm not a scientist by any means, just wrapping my head around something that interests me. Also just thinking of photons for the time being, not physics like mass, energy, or momentum etc.
    Photons are light particles. Particles are what makes up things, or in this case light. I cant help but think of trying to simulate this, and think of why someone/something would need to create data that has superposition until it is observed or the data is absolutely required…

    I'm experimenting with the thought of digital representation of vision in 3D environments or video games.. Level of detail (LOD) is in a small way a sort of superposition, and connected with vision which is connected to light etc. LOD is an important concept in 3D modelling which define the degree of abstraction of real-world objects, primarily designated to use an optimum amount of details of real-world objects according to the user's needs, and computational and economical aspects. An object may have multiple levels of detail. (Multiple superpositions until required or observed by the user)

    So why is this relevant to wave pattern vs particle pattern? Well just like LOD,when the wave probability is collapsed ( Like a new level of details is required), the particles properties are observed/displayed. ( New details are displayed. For example where texture is displayed on the object in the 3D environment because the camera is now closer to the object.)(More data or properties are required).

    Does a photon carry data like this? For example are photons just blank slates until they bounce off objects and send data back to an observer? I dunno just my thoughts. What do you think?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 4:19 pm
    Permalink

    Oo….i think I understand now. So who's on first!

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 4:23 pm
    Permalink

    Isn't time relative? So for the photons there's no time. So why it's a spooky action at a distance? It's just confirm relativity. Time =0 for the photons. Isn't ?. Time of entaglement and measurement are exactly the same for the photons. The same thing for the Delay choice Quantum experiment, there is no going back in time for the photons because time =0. Literally speaking for the photons.

    Einstein call it spooky action because he believed on a hidden variables. It was proven wrong. So it just confirming relativity. Isn't?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 4:26 pm
    Permalink

    I'm not even kidding I just watched that same documentary last night!

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 4:49 pm
    Permalink

    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 ❤

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 4:55 pm
    Permalink

    My brain hurts🤕🤕

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 4:55 pm
    Permalink

    What is spin and locality?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 5:58 pm
    Permalink

    So God plays dice, right? I will be ordering two t-shirts today.
    I love your channel. Keep doing a great work!

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 6:25 pm
    Permalink

    What does this have to do with reality? Eating, drinking, living and loving. Building things, putting satellites in orbits, war, peace etc;?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 6:31 pm
    Permalink

    who else just like me wants to be a particle and get measured by Alice?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 6:42 pm
    Permalink

    This video gives me the same feeling I get when I realize I didn't rewind the Blu ray before returning it to redbox

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 6:53 pm
    Permalink

    This confuses me. Einstein figured out space is curved but preferred linear probability? That seems a bit overly compartmentalized. Why can't hidden variables have some non-halting aspect, like spinning into the vanishing point? This means each linear value E# is itself a sequence of integers ticking along a(n) that limits to a square root (e.g. Fibonacci Numbers, oeis.org/A000045 ). Is an object behind another object hidden? I know our 2D graphs don't like hiding behind something but it's a big part of 3D life (e.g. playing peekaboo with infants). Thank you for the video!

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 6:59 pm
    Permalink

    Sounds a lot like the reason all electrons behave the same and are perfectly the same is because there is just a one electron in the Universe..and its everywhere.

    Another is the fish tank analogy..the fish in the front glass looks to change instantly when you look at it part side glass and part front glass…like two different fish. Nothing of the kind and nothing supernatural. Just the Universe being naturally super ( my saying I invented}..feel free to use it Arvin!

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 7:01 pm
    Permalink

    arvin ash your channel is absolutely unique and I very appreciate your work that you put into each and every video you make
    but it seems like einstein couldn't be wrong in this one only
    in accord with the latest research the existence of tachyons, phonons and polaritons (another kind of quasiparticles) is likely to be real because of apparent results produced by quantum optical effects (for example photons which tunnel through a quantum barrier must travel faster than light)
    also it was disvovered sn another effect related to einstein podolski rosen phenomenon and that is the fact two separated photons can apparently influence one another is behavior at two distantly separated detectors
    and finally maxwell's equations when they are coupled to inverted atomic media deliberately lead to tachyon like solutions

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 9:01 pm
    Permalink

    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/
    Search for paranormal communications, user, rabbit
    What do you make of this?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 9:03 pm
    Permalink

    There ain't no particles, everything is fieeeeeelds

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 9:03 pm
    Permalink

    The trick is that impossible events are just considered as equally possible as the others 11:04. Einstein was right

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 9:14 pm
    Permalink

    Yup, Einstein was just wrong RE: QM/entanglement. Proof that it happens to even thE very best. Another VERY interesting thing being studied is an apparent relationship between 2 of his famous later papers, ER & EPR where ER(wormholes) = EPR(entanglement), as "ER=EPR", who would have ever thought ?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 11:14 pm
    Permalink

    Arvin, just check out the work of Anton Zeilinger: arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212084

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 11:15 pm
    Permalink

    SOLIPSISTS believe the Moon only exists when looked at.
    They believe reality ends at their nose tip.
    They live in one dimension.

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 11:23 pm
    Permalink

    I have heard that Bell's inequality only proves local hidden variable theories are ruled out.

    Now I understand local hidden variable theory, even before watching this video. But a non-local hidden variable theory doesn't seem very intuitive to me. I am not really sure what is meant by it.

    I haven't been able to find an explanation anywhere on the internet that describes what such a theory would look like even at a surface level. If you have, please share it with me. I don't think such a theory would ever become falsifiable and thus real science, but still, I would very much like to know what it even is they're talking about conceptually.

    If the hidden variables are non-local to the particles of which they belong, how is that any different from the particles not having a definite property until influenced, ie. measured?

    Is this perhaps just a last-ditch effort to try save the hidden variable theory, and the idea doesn't make sense to begin with, or is there something there?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 11:29 pm
    Permalink

    YIN/YANG
    +/-
    1 or 0
    LIGHT vs. Dark
    *?

    Reply
  • February 15, 2020 at 11:52 pm
    Permalink

    Imagine how smart you would have to be in order to be smarter than Einstein?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 1:27 am
    Permalink

    This vid gives me hope that one day the Bell Inequality will be explained without anyone ever even mentioning sin2.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 1:41 am
    Permalink

    So why is it that Bell's Inequality convince you guys that his theory is right since it is only the experimentation result of his interpretations? He could have missed something no one yet aware of.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 1:44 am
    Permalink

    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.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 1:52 am
    Permalink

    Thank you!!!

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 1:59 am
    Permalink

    In my simple mind, Bohr is correct. A thing can or will only exist when it interacts w/ another thing such as a man's mind.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 2:20 am
    Permalink

    Who says the three different directions are completely independent? Would you still come to the same conclusion if you excluded the possibility of +z, +x, and – q. So a model where the spin has a real direction, and ends up being evaluated as + or – for if it's pointing more in the direction of measurement or more away? (so from before, if x and z will be positive, it's in the same quadrant as q and must be positive q if measured in that direction)

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 2:33 am
    Permalink

    Arvin, I just wanted to compliment you (it’s long overdue), a little while ago i made a trollish comment about your lopsided mohawk haircut, and you made me feel bad by saying you wish you could change it but that it’s a big birth mark. Oh shit, damn. Well I’ve since seen more of your videos and it’s obviously hair (sometimes more lopsided than others). You got me good! I love it. That’s totally the type of thing I’d do to someone trolling me. It cracked me up when i was certain you were lying to mess with me. Well done! I wish more people were like that, instead of just whining, pretending to be a victim, censoring, and trying to ban people. Touché.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 2:42 am
    Permalink

    OK, I'm going to throw this out there and let the debate begin. Hypothetically, if there are more then the three dimensions that we observe and that there are other curled up dimensions, who's to say that the "communication" that is happening at faster then light speed in our three dimensions is not violating that speed limit across another, unseen, dimension? If the probability wave is communicating across multiple dimensions, much like we can take multiple paths to any destination, some paths could be shorter then others.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 3:25 am
    Permalink

    I lean more towards the pilot wave because that seems to be more true

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 4:18 am
    Permalink

    What if information about the measurement travels backward in time to the point when the particles became entangled? Then you don’t need faster than light communication, just reverse time communication.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 4:56 am
    Permalink

    We need better model for hidden variable theory.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 5:05 am
    Permalink

    You could use it for communication. You'd entangle a bunch of particles, take half on your trip, and then you can use them to communicate. Of course communication would be limited to what you could transmit with the number of entangled particles you have. And when you used them, they'd be rendered useless.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 5:16 am
    Permalink

    What’s crazy is they knew about these quantum characteristics through math. They never measured anything experimentally.. right?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 5:20 am
    Permalink

    Didn’t Jesus say “ you all are gods” ? “ if you had but the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains “. Could he have been telling us that we create the universe?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 5:52 am
    Permalink

    ººIf we are exploding half a million miles an hour or even one mile an hour through space in an ever expanding universe than the stars should have changed their relative positions in the six thousand years that we've navigated using Fix Star Location. But they haven’t stellar drift is a myth. Polaris is still the North Star, all the zodiacs still look like what they were named after some six thousand years ago. The great pyramids of Giza are still perfectly aligned with Orion. Ancient sundials keep perfect time and we have never needed GPS. It’s practically written in the stars that the Earth is stable and cannot be moved just like it says in 1 Chronicles 16:30.
    ºSince main stream science is free to making up their own measurements here’s what they have come up with. The speed of Earth’s orbit is 18.5 m.p.s. that’s about 66,600 m.p.h. Earth’s curvature drops eight inches per mile squared, that’s .666 inches per square foot (10 mile = 66.666 feet, 100 miles = 6666.666 feet and so on. Earth’s axis of rotation and it’s plane of orbit around the Sun is 66.6º. The polar circles are located near the poles of the Earth at 66.6º and of course the Earth is tilted at 66.6º. To make us the fools they enjoy hiding their lies in plain sight by telling us that it’s 23.4º but 23.4 plus 66.6 gives you your 90º right angle. Gravity was hypothesized in 1666 by SirIsaac Newton who never supported the idea.
    ºThese people aren’t just a catalyst for evil. Our top researchers are quite literally satanic gate keeper. The word nasa is in The Bible it means beguile. Goddard as in “The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center” is also mentioned, its Lucifer’s original name and it still is. NASA named their Tower of Babel "Satan V" and their missions were all named after false gods. And let’s not forget the many human sacrifices that were offered-up. When we give praise or money to NAZA and it’s Goddard’s religion then we are literally praising and financing the Lucifer concept. Be there a God or not.
    ºInstead of asking, Why would the governments lie to us ? Maybe we should be asking. Why wouldn’t the governments be lying to us ? They want power or they wouldn’t be there.
    ºWe may think that we don't trust the government but we actually do. We do so to the point that we instinctively work from teen-hood until degeneracy receiving about one cent for every dollar that we’ve produced only to be taxed. And everyones okay with that ? We are nothing more than fuel for them and they don't want it to ever end, so they use their science to call reality “The Universe” in an attempt to hide Creation from us by contradicting everything that The Bible says and the thing about science is…You can’t argue with science because scientism or not, “science is science.”
    ºToday’s science is so very depended on gravity and yet gravity isn’t even a hypothesis, it can’t be measured or tested but not only do they get away with calling it a theory, they use to explain everything. Gravity is a law of authority only, it is not a law of physics.
    ºIf gravity can bend even light than how is it that Helium and Hydrogen (The two must abundant elements in the universe) completely defies gravity's effect ? It has  been over four hundred years and not so mush as a single one graviton has been isolated.
    ºThings do not fall to the center mass of gravity they simply fall down because thin air doesn’t have the density to support any thing heaver than thin air, the ground however does, it’s all about buoyancy and density.
    ºIf it’s the Moon’s gravity that causes tides then why aren’t lakes, pounds and steams affected ?
    Why don’t we feel this pull of gravity ? Shouldn’t we weigh less during high tides ?
    Tides are caused by electromagnetism. Water is diamagnetic and is repelled by the Suns positive magnetic field and is compelled towards the Moons negative influence.
    ºThe Suns gravity will pull a comet directly towards the Suns center mass of gravity and yet this same gravity will somehow prevent an impacts from occurring. This is pure monkey science.
    ºIf it is gravity that keeps the oceans in their beds as the Earth spins then insects couldn’t fly and clouds couldn't float in fact everything would be crushed.
    ºGravity makes a spiracle Earth seem possible add so gravity becomes a law. The Earth is flat and cannot be moved. Research it for yourself.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 6:06 am
    Permalink

    1:22 disprove. The word "prove" means "test" so "disprove" means "untest".
    You are using a terminological misappropriation based on "disapprove".
    You can prove things right or prove them wrong. It is impossible to disprove.
    "Disprove" implies taking back the measurement.
    "Disprove" implies denying the number a die (not a dice) landed on.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 6:10 am
    Permalink

    Don't hold your breath waiting for someone to figure it out. I agree with Einstein, t'Hooft and Penrose. QM gives correct answers to questions but it doesn't make any sense. Each individual experiment happens only once, what determines the outcome? Could a determinative structure underneath it all behave like QM? Yes it has been proven many years ago. Who knows what's really going on? Nobody.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 6:12 am
    Permalink

    3:26 dice in slo-mo? We do live in the future relative to these observations.
    You probably have a pretty good slo-mo camera in your pocket unless that pocket has a hole in it.
    Now you're pocket is in a superposition of having and not having a hole and so its contents are known and not known.
    But you can see where a die is in its journey if you really want to.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 6:31 am
    Permalink

    Are we sure that E2 and E7 combinations are even possible? If Z and X are the same spin, can the Q turn out to be different? Or is Q bound to be the same if Z and X are the same?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 6:57 am
    Permalink

    Oh.. I wish you and Jim were my teachers

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 7:08 am
    Permalink

    Great video. One little point photons don't have spin, electrons have spin. To use photons you must use
    polarization..

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 7:46 am
    Permalink

    I believe that entanglement simply synchronisess the particles to the fundamental field which permeates our universe. No matter how far apart the entangled particles are, they are "connected" to the same rhythm. No information is stored or transmitted, they simply oscillate in time to the field that spans [and forms the structure of] space.
    When one particle is observed, we of course can know the state of the other as we know they are in synchronised to the same rhythm

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 7:49 am
    Permalink

    Epstein didn't entangle himself!
    -dyslexic

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 8:06 am
    Permalink

    What is the probability that Arvin chooses Bob to be Chinese?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 8:33 am
    Permalink

    IMHO, as @Steak has already noted, E2 and E7 combinations are simply not possible, so reducing the number of possible cases to 6 rather than 8. And that is also modifying the probability distribution. Given that if Z is +, there are in any case 50 % chances that X is + and X is -, the overall probability distribution will be E1 = 25 %, E2 = 0 %, E3 =7 12.5 %, E4 = 12.5 %, E5 = 12.5 %, E6 = 12.5 %, E 7= 0 %, E8 = 25 %.
    The EPR paradox was proposed in 1935 and John Bell came out with his inequality 30 years later when, btw, Einstein was already passed away. In any case the Bell's inequality is just a way to disproof a hypothesis, not to proof. The inequality has then been tested other 20 years later. Given that the Copenhagen interpretation had become mainstream, no one noticed, or had the interest to notice, that rather simple flaw in the interpretation of the results. People just wanted to disproof the hypothesis of Einstein.
    I frankly never understood why the probability distribution for the HV case has been considered to be linear with discontinuities (sawtooth type). Even the basic geometry and the physics of Galilei and Newton, the distribution of something that is measured around a circle follows a sine curve. That is what, with my knowledge of physics, being an engineer I have not studied quantoum mechanics, I would say.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 8:55 am
    Permalink

    14:20 race mixing bob& Alice way over-act,

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 9:13 am
    Permalink

    The joule thief with no lag time.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 9:36 am
    Permalink

    Cant we force wave function collapse in sertaint way to communicate? If no, please proove it.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 10:03 am
    Permalink

    If it turns out to be possible, the person will be rich who figures out a way to send messages at super luminal speeds. There are numerous practical applications, and many would be quite lucrative.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 10:32 am
    Permalink

    Who’s this Einstein jabroni anyway?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 11:53 am
    Permalink

    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.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 12:30 pm
    Permalink

    The harder a problem is to state (and therefore memorize) the harder its solution will be to understand. Dont let I t go to your head but you do a good job stating the problem.
    If I have it straight, Einstein wanted to disprove Bohr's qm Copenhagen interpretation of Superposition (that before a measurement is taken the object is in all solutions to the measuring device). The EPR paradox was proposed. It involved spin and a property of spin called Entaglement. If Bohr was right (and Superposition was real) then the only solution to Entanglement was if it violated Einstein's theory of relativity and its assumption that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (be superluminal). Either Bohr was right and Einstein's Relativity was wrong, or (in order to preserve Relativity) Bohr was wrong and hidden variables were a condition of qm that replaced Superposition. Superposition necessitates superluminality. Hidden Variables do not. So Hidden Variables were considered the better theory instead of Superposition.
    Here comes Bell. His propositions disprove Hidden Variables? Because qm logic beats the Hidden Variables logic? Or because qm measurement confirms the qm logic?
    Hidden Variables seem like DNA to me, or they make sense to me in that way. Something there from the beginning but not manifesting until the conditions are right. For instance you can have the genotype for tallness but you won't display the phenotype for tallness if your body doesn't get the right nutrition.
    The problem with qm is fundamentally a problem between the measuring device, the measurer and the "thing" being measured.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 12:41 pm
    Permalink

    Changing perspectives will answer These questions in future.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 12:50 pm
    Permalink

    Crothers, S.J., Special Relativity and the Lorentz Sphere, Physics Essays, V.33, No.1, p.15, 2020, http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0013v2.pdf

    ABSTRACT: The special theory of relativity demands, by Einstein’s two postulates (i) the principle of relativity and (ii) the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, that a spherical wave of light in one inertial system transforms, via the Lorentz transformation, into a spherical wave of light (the Lorentz sphere) in another inertial system when the systems are in constant relative rectilinear motion. However, the Lorentz transformation in fact transforms a spherical wave of light into a translated ellipsoidal wave of light even though the speed of light in vacuum is invariant. The special theory of relativity is logically inconsistent and therefore invalid.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 1:03 pm
    Permalink

    U completed your 100 videos.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 1:20 pm
    Permalink

    If everything is perspective, Why can't we Use different Glasses!
    Classes, Brassies hahaha great show!

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 1:24 pm
    Permalink

    "Him or her…" Him. 99% probability.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 2:45 pm
    Permalink

    Great video: Many Thanks! 👍👍

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 3:26 pm
    Permalink

    John Bell, the Connor McGregor of physics.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 3:38 pm
    Permalink

    You’re a good teacher. (1) Cliff High reported several months ago that the Chinese are investing considerable money in the development of a faster-than-light-speed communicator. (2) REGARDING ENTANGLEMENT: Nassim Haramein’s thesis asserts each proton meets the energy density sufficient to be a blackhole. The energy packets in the proton, by simple measurement-calculation using radius of Planck Lengths, yield amazingly the same number of surface Planck Spheres on the surface of each proton as there are protons in our known universe! Thus concludes Haramein, each Planck Sphere (energy surface packet or surface subquantum flux…..whatever you choose to label it) is tied to each proton in the universe via a worm hole (blackhole to blackhole … surface of proton to surface of proton). This he calls entanglement.

    SO WHAT?

    Haramein’s calculation of the mass of a proton is so far proving to be the most accurate as advanced laboratory measurement by other labs running measurements keep getting closer to his published theoretical number. His work is conducted out of The Resonance Foundation in Hawaii. The most metaphysical extension of his calculations (blackhole to blackhole … surface of proton to surface of proton) is information “memory” i.e., The Akashic Record. The Foundation’s board of directors, include consciousness guru’s. Together they tie observational science and theory to metaphysical practices using meditation and gained spiritual insights.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 3:49 pm
    Permalink

    Einstein was wrong about most everything except his admission he was probably wrong about most everything. Look up the Thunderbolts Project.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 4:28 pm
    Permalink

    Arwin particle physics need new paradigm shift this old version wouldn't open its secret I'm in revealing stage

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 4:47 pm
    Permalink

    Lovely video. If Bell's Theorem does away with hidden variables, why do so many seem to stick to that interpretation? Also, I don't think most Physicists agree with the Copenhagen Interpretation. I think more are accepting the Many Worlds one these days.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 5:21 pm
    Permalink

    Why did you wright 👽 who is he or she @ 17:40 🤣.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 5:34 pm
    Permalink

    I like the simplicity with which you explain even the complex topics. Could you make one on the parallels between Advaita Vedanta and Quantum Physics.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 5:41 pm
    Permalink

    Maybe the transporter uses quantum entanglement as part of the re-materialization process. As kind of redundant markers to ensure that the data sent is not corrupted. Maybe entanglement is just a lower order of string that we can actually measure with math? If string theory is correct, maybe the SIN wave is the universal structure for strings… I am just throwing stuff out, maybe someone with super brains will get a eureka from my non-sense lol.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 5:57 pm
    Permalink

    very good explanation, thank you

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 5:58 pm
    Permalink

    he doesn't look like a bob

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 6:32 pm
    Permalink

    What are your thoughts on detection probability distribution?
    Essentially if taken into account it produces same results as QM through hidden variable. https://youtu.be/yOtsEgbg1-s

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 6:51 pm
    Permalink

    Was Einstein ever so sure about entanglement that you can say he was wrong? Seems to me that Einstein never stopped considering the problems with quantum mechanics…

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 7:00 pm
    Permalink

    I always wondered how could Einstein believe the world is deterministic? Such assumption immediately implies there is no free will.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 7:38 pm
    Permalink

    The biggest mistake/blunder Einstein made was to have no further discussions with his 1st wife. Without her, he did not create anything of important after the magnificent work he did earlier with his wife.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 8:53 pm
    Permalink

    DOESN'T THIS SOUND A LOT LIKE WHAT IS SAID THAT THE ALMIGHTY MOST HIGH GOD MADE THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING ELSE OUT OF NOTHING…..HMMMM….SOUNDS LIKE THESE THINGS Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 9:15 pm
    Permalink

    naturaly..explainind univerce becomes more and more complicated,one solution gives birth to even more questions wich in the end should arive at one point wich will explain everything ..does this logic works for univerce?..i mean there shoudl be an theory of everything!..or this in terms of univesrce can take be.?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 9:36 pm
    Permalink

    this is very good for thought experiments,..and this could be the key..deepening in too much in techniclities makes all very confusing…and dont show very well direction to look..i mean sometimes technicalities other times is philosophy or thought experiments are te key..but not all at the same time

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 9:51 pm
    Permalink

    I like you Arvin, I think you explain these concepts better than PBS space time

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 10:09 pm
    Permalink

    Does the particle actually exist unless it's looked for and measured?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 10:12 pm
    Permalink

    What is Alice’s phone number quantum superposition?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 10:16 pm
    Permalink

    WHY is angular momentum always preserved?

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 11:00 pm
    Permalink

    Tiny mistake early on, at 0:14, Niels Bohr lived from 1885 to 1962. These were honest typos, no doubt.

    Otherwise, this is an excellent video on the topic of hidden variables.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 11:36 pm
    Permalink

    Ok lets give some food for thought to all those "geniuses" out there.
    Clues:
    QE doesn't "care" about distance.
    The wave function collapses when measured, literally because in order to observe you must put energy into the system, so, you, are literally collapsing the wave function in the first place.
    Quantum fluctuations don't allow for space-time vacuum to remain completely empty.
    Space expands driver by Dark energy.
    So what is QE and why it doesn't care about distance.
    It doesn't care because QE is an energy balance mechanism which the universe uses to retain stability, which is exactly why it doesn't care about distance, and it's exactly why quantum fluctuations happen.
    You see, quantum fluctuations could be simply the energy taken by QE from an x local point in space to be given somewhere else that is needed for keeping stability otherwise bye bye universe, and dark energy could be what replenishes and maintains QE's functionality.
    Just a thought because they seem to be connected.

    Edit something to clarify: Dark energy drives the expansion of the universe.
    It is likely that outside of our bubble universe there is as field of energy that is entire "pure" in the sense that it can become anything when collapsed from the super position it exists, which explains how our universe could have started simply from a random quantum fluctuation, and if any of this gets ever proven true, there is the chance that other universes like ours in the sense of our bubble universe exists and could also, merge if they collide.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 11:53 pm
    Permalink

    Dislike for a mandatory black guy. This is supposed to be physics, not an exercise in stupid political correctness.

    Reply
  • February 16, 2020 at 11:56 pm
    Permalink

    Paradox because nothing can exist without an opposite. There's no up without down. No fwd without backward. No circle without opposite direction on other side. Life, death, rebirth all happening at same time.

    Reply
  • February 17, 2020 at 12:19 am
    Permalink

    please give me nobel price because i solved this problem, two quantum particules meet each other on a quantum tinder app, they make love in hidden quantum fiel, wwhen we mesure one in one position the other is in the opposite postion.
    It's just about romance and sex at the quantum level

    Reply
  • February 17, 2020 at 12:20 am
    Permalink

    Funny thing is bore was literally arguing the same view that had long been believed. It isn't such a thing as fact. It is only possibility. We had it wrong earth isn't at the center of everything we the observer is. We can litterally dictate everything at it's smallest point by choosing to measure .

    Reply
  • February 17, 2020 at 1:03 am
    Permalink

    Hundred years old insanity still among us…

    Reply
  • February 17, 2020 at 1:22 am
    Permalink

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

    Reply
  • February 17, 2020 at 5:10 am
    Permalink

    This video has been done hundreds of times

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *