Harvard Scientist Beautifully Explains Quantum Entanglement and Non-Loca...

Harvard Scientist Beautifully Explains Quantum Entanglement and Non-Locality Curt Jaimungal 435K subscribers Join Subscribe 2.2K Share Download Thanks Clip 113,306 views Feb 23, 2025 #theoreticalphysics #physics #science Main episode with Jacob Barandes: • Harvard Scientist: "There is No Quant... As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/SpotifyTOE Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): / @theoriesofeverything Support TOE on Patreon: / curtjaimungal Twitter: / toewithcurt Discord Invite: / discord #science #physics #theoreticalphysics Transcript Follow along using the transcript. Show transcript Curt Jaimungal 435K subscribers Videos About Support Twitter Discord Dedicated Subredddit Shop the Curt Jaimungal store The Voices - Colors Classic Long Sleeve Tee $30.00 Spring We're not fighting - Color Classic Long Sleeve Tee $27.56 Spring We're not fighting - Color Classic Long Sleeve Tee $30.00 Spring TOE Logo Mug Black Black Mug $25.00 Spring Being Mode and Having Mode Mug Black Mug $25.00 Spring voices - White Premium Pullover Hoodie $45.00 Spring 523 Comments rongmaw lin Add a comment... @ronanfurlong2708 10 days ago I've read about 20 different explanations/analyses re: entanglement and Bell's inequality in books by Sean Carroll, Adam Becker, Jim Al-Khalil, Anton Zeilinger, Brian Greene, Brian Cox, Marcus Chown, David Albert, Lenny Susskind, Philip Ball, Anil Anathaswamy, Joanne Baker, and even Andrew Whitaker (John Bell's biographer) .... and I've never encountered anything as lucid and succinct on the topic as the first 8 minutes and 20 seconds of this video are. Well done and thank you! 32 Reply 12 replies @martifingers 11 days ago Dr Barandes clarity makes me feel as if I might just be able to understand these difficult issues. 13 Reply @bunberrier 12 days ago (edited) "That didnt help at all!" -Spongebob, after Patrick told him the story of the entangled barnacle. 24 Reply @indovash 12 days ago 6:18 Jacob: "So EPR basically establishes that there's a logical fork. Either, you allow faster than light [causal] influences of some kind..or there are hidden extra parameters, and the wave function, the standard approach to quantum theory, is incomplete. ... That's where Bell starts. In 1964, he says, ...either you have non-local [causal]...influence or there's more to the story than just the wave function. What Bell wanted to do was show that...that fork was...not really there. ... So, in other words, Bell is trying to close a possible way out of the non-local causation. ...This theorem has gone through a giant game of Telephone. ...eventually people began thinking that what he did was prove there couldn't be hidden variables." 26 Reply 6 replies @MeisterFF 8 days ago There are no 2 separate entangled particle. There’s only one which appears separate to us in our dimension. That’s why it behaves singularly. 19 Reply 7 replies @reversefulfillment9189 12 days ago The Sun whispers in photons, eight minutes of flight through the void, only to dissolve in the wells of my eyes. Light, once born in nuclear fire, now dances in my cells, entangling star and seer in silent knowing. No distance divides us— for where its golden breath lingers, I too am woven into the cosmos. 52 Reply 7 replies @dr-me-u 3 days ago The key is that distance is not a factor 2 Reply @kcrooks7 9 days ago (edited) There are hidden structures. 7 Reply 1 reply @stevemaurer8120 12 days ago Barandes correctly states that Bell's Theorem only proves Non-locality, not the absence of hidden variables. Fine, so far. But then at 11:56 he argues that Bell's Inequality (proving non-locality) is just mathematical, not physical -- completely ignoring the Nobel Prize showing that is absolutely IS reflected in physical reality. 10 Reply 2 replies @Nevtech1898 12 days ago This conversation tangled my mind 9 Reply @troywahl9731 3 days ago There is a flaw in the argument: entangled systems have a coherence time associated with them, kind of like a half-life, that tells one how long the system is expected to remain entangled or in other terms how long before the system is perturbed by some uncontrolled outside factor. So there has to be some connection between the A-side and the B-side of the entangled system when the system is created, but as the sides of the system are separated from one another in the real world there is a finite non-zero chance that the system experiences an energy fluctuation because we can't perfectly isolate the system from the outside world and that is something not included in the thought experiments (which are perfectly defined). So the only thing one can say with absolute certainty about entangled systems is that if one measures the A-side then one knows what state the B-side was in when the system was created. It is this reason why people working one quantum computing go to extreme lengths to isolate their system from the outside world (better they do that, the better their computer works. AKA, they increase the coherence-time of their system). 1 Reply 1 reply @lordemed1 8 days ago i feel honored and quite fortunate to listen to Jacob Barandes. 1 Reply @jamestait324 8 days ago If you think of Spacetime as a dimensional framework, the cause-effect relationship of Entangled particles takes place outside the Framework. One sentence, you're welcome. 1 Reply @jrusnak69 6 days ago One thing that isn't talked about is that Bob and Alice are spatially related and therefore depending on what frame of reference one is in, Bob will measure first or alice would. There is no fixed sense of who measured first. In fact collapse of a wave function will violate conservation of probability in other crashes if reference. Such a discontinuous is in fact outside of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. So there is physics we haven't yet modeled or understand yet Reply @JuBerryLive 7 days ago It sounds like if bob makes a measurement on his entangled particle, he also makes a measurement on alice's particule. They are not separated (by distance they are, but they are still connected by some other... dimension maybe? idk) Reply @RodneyBartlett-sw7zh 6 days ago (edited) The video stated that something local has to be present to produce entanglement. This could be arrived at through a combination of cosmology's holographic principle and the universe being like a DVD. The holographic principle says the 3rd dimension results from information in a 2nd dimension. Prof Max Tegmark of USA'S MIT writes about the universe being mathematical. If the maths results from particles having Electric Dipole Moments and consequent binary digits, that 2nd dimension could be reprogrammed to delete space-time, and distance, between the centres of particles thus producing Cosmological Entanglement. In a Cosmic DVD, all time exists at once since the whole DVD exists. The entirety of space and time can thus be considered a local event with every particle in the universe being cosmologically entangled. Reply @michaelscott466 10 days ago There is no mystery here, only skewed perspective. Distance is an illusion. 2 Reply @eenkjet 12 days ago Wrong. “Since the interval between Alice’s and Bob’s measurements is space-like – non-local – it is always possible to find a frame of reference in which the order of measurements is reversed. So, in a reference frame travelling sufficiently fast from Alice towards Bob, it is Bob, and not Alice, who makes the first measurement.” Alan McKenzie 2 Reply 4 replies @IaN09876 11 days ago I can't understand what he's trying to say. Too many intertwined expressions. 2 Reply @ashnavabi 8 days ago Quantum mechanics still relies on spooky action at a distance. But a physical interpretation exists that can make sense of entanglement. Imagine a rod, where the top half is painted red and the bottom half is blue. If you are looking at one end of the rod, you will see a circle that’s half red and half blue. Now if you were spin the rod clockwise, an observer at the opposite end of the rope would see it spinning counterclockwise. This is a simplification of Bill Gaede’s “rope hypothesis”—that every atom in the universe is connected with a “rope” with two “threads”: an electric thread and a magnetic thread. The hypothesis provides a physical interpretation of a wide variety of otherwise disparate ideas, including the speed of light, Newton’s universal law of gravitation, Maxwell‘s equations, and more. The video below goes into detail about entanglement: https://youtu.be/fn2Rnc9_z3I 1 Reply @extrasocks 12 days ago I watch the full versions and then all the clips! 3 Reply @AlexTube2006 10 days ago Thanks Curt! 2 Reply @mikecappadocia5959 9 days ago (edited) I may not be taken seriously, but I had Salvia one time with my friends, and I saw those things in the thumbnail, but they were black rods with grey, translucent spheres on each end. They were connected like Kinex toys and moved together. We were sitting in a circle, and had then connected to us all... they were attached to my leg, and I tried kicking them off, lol. I've never seen anything that looked like them until right now. 3 Reply 1 reply @Burglecutter 10 days ago This professor is fantastic. 1 Reply @tvfytcrtcuyv877giu 12 days ago He usually explains why he does not believe something or why he does believe something, and I felt that he did not give his opinion on this one unless I am too tired and I need to rewatch it later 4 Reply 2 replies @ywtcc 9 days ago Isn't non locality simply a byproduct of having to infer position from measurement timings? Time and energy seem to be inseparable, when measured. If physics is to prioritize describing the universe in terms of energy, I'm pretty sure time is coming along for the ride. I'm not sure that energy would be a meaningful concept without it. 3 Reply @draghi 2 days ago (edited) If Alice can trigger a collapse of the wave function at Bob's location, why cannot she use a kind of pulse width modulation to transmit information? Which state each one measures is irrelevant, only the time between two consecutbive measurements becomes relevant. Reply @williambranch4283 12 days ago (edited) If space-time is emergent not fundamental then non-locality is allowed. I don't think we will ever get to planck units of space/time/mass. 4 Reply 3 replies @danielb1005 8 days ago Invite Sabina also please, let hears what she said too 2 Reply Curt Jaimungal · 1 reply @mujaku 10 days ago The problem with "entanglement speculation" is that we must assume local reality is true reality which is vibratory. But we still have not the slightest idea what it is that is vibrating. But maybe vibratory phenomena is really not acting in the way we imagine it. We've left something out. We can also speculate that vibratory phenomena are propagations/modulations upon an unknown field. With these vibratory phenomena and with our composite vibratory bodies we find ourselves in local reality almost like a simulation game (high-resolution immersion) of which we are not aware of. But could all these propagations are connected through a nonlocal field which seems antithetical to our local reality world? How to resolve this conflict? It might be easier than we imagine. What if we are ultimately this nonlocal reality mesmerized by local-reality and it's propagations including our cellular composite body? 2 Reply 1 reply @greaterqueller1426 11 days ago I wanted to put this idea somewhere. Basically, imagine placing particles in a grid and their entangled partners are in another grid, located at the same coordinates as their partner on the other grid. There is a device on the first grid that can change the spin of any particle. Software has been created to change the spin of particles that reside on coordinates that trace out an image of each individual letter when that letter is pressed on a keyboard. On the other grid, there is an individual circuit attached to every individual particle of which each sends a signal to a computer whenever the circuit turns on or off, activated by the spin of the particle. A virtual image of the grid (on a screen) will light up any coordinate position on the screen whose particle experiences a change in spin. So even though no one is directly measuring the spin of any particles (entanglement preserved), communication can still be transmitted. The AI couldn't tell me any reason (other than the technical hurdles, meaning the concept is theoretically sound) that this would not work. I'm sure there is a catch, but I would like someone who understands these things to explain it in a way that I understand. Or tell me it's feasible! Thanks! Reply 2 replies @mightylotan 12 days ago Now we're gonna have to deal with non-local Instagram influencers.. 50 Reply 22 replies @isaacgarza3307 10 days ago Quantum entanglement = Quantum Memory 2 Reply @SapienSpace 12 days ago Fascinating. I am most interested, though, in the actual experiment where Einstein says "God (Spinoza's God) does not play dice", the split beam of polarized light. 1 Reply @robmorgan1214 11 days ago (edited) I didn't learn Bell's theorem wrong... all the professors at Stanford knew this decades ago. I've never met a professor who misunderstood this pretty basic stuff... (primarily interact with experimental plasma, amo, lazor jokz, condensed matter, n nano doodz... we all noes this stuff.) 2 Reply @Achrononmaster 12 days ago Part-1. I love this meme that entanglement is the special feature of QM. Apart from Jacob's framework and the GPT framework, few other frameworks for QM realize or show manifestly that entanglement is the cause of superposition and interference, however... is it? See part-2, 1 Reply @haroldnowak2042 8 days ago The elephant in the room is: do entangled particles remain correlated when the measurements are separated by large distances? I raise this question because direction may not be conserved with distance. So we know, for example, that A has spin up in the x direction meaning B must have spin down in the x direction but over large distances the x direction becomes indeterminant. This means that the spin of B is unknown when we measure the spin of A. 1 Reply 3 replies @Larry000 11 days ago Mathematics is an image of the physical world. It is not the physical world. 3 Reply @Achrononmaster 12 days ago Part-2. anything stronger than correlation tends to imply at least weak causation. I know Jacob employs non-Reichenbach common cause, but the Indivisible Stochastic (ISQM) account of entanglement is not a causal explanation. In physics the onyl truly "causal" notion we have is spacetime and lightcone structure. You need to supply an account of spacetime cobordism structure to have a beautiful explanation of entanglement. Jacob's is only half-beautiful. He has the transition logic correct, but that is from one boundary of a cobordism straight to another boundary, nothing in-between. But there is something going on in-between (if we take scientific realism to be decent and wholesome (pun intended), which it is). 2 Reply 2 replies @enricofermi654 10 days ago His explanation of spooky action at a distance is most excellent. Near the beginning and afterword of David J. Griffith's " Introduction to QM" there is a nice mathematical and well put example by David Bohm on pion decay. Reply @GeoffMcMasters 9 days ago It seems silly to think that Alice’s oberservation are not relative to space and therefore Bob could write down the answers and they would not match Alice’s observations because neither are then relative to each other. 1 Reply @BrianThorne 7 days ago Hey curt i just heard someone explaining the red shift of the universe and said it's expanding but it sounds like we are slowing because the unversialty vs locality of expansion Reply @Spkr4TRUTH 15 hours ago If we are in a holographic projection, then entanglement could be a relationship between the membrane or the particle being projected into wave form. Reply @Knowledge.m3 12 days ago Ask him to explain how this even helps to "quantum compute" 2 Reply 1 reply @eyemallears2647 11 days ago At the start I was like “ok buddy I’m not a child”. Two sentences later I was like “ok, me watching this is pointless” 😂 25 Reply 9 replies @mertonhirsch4734 10 days ago (edited) 1) What if Alice measures A and Bob measures A prime (at the same time) then doesn't that let you know two things that shouldn't both be knowable, like position and momentum? 2) Would it matter which particle was accelerated in the separation, if only one was moved? 3) Is there a possibility that entangled particles are local through hyperspace? 1 Reply 2 replies @stevea8099 9 days ago It's simple, you don't need faster than light comunication. The two particles are controlled by a 3rd higher dimension variable to which both are linked to. Reply 1 reply @debugger4693 12 days ago I thought the stochastic theory would have some implication with explaining entanglement. 1 Reply @nenadmarkovic7770 11 days ago CHF 10.00 Danke! 1 Reply Curt Jaimungal · 3 replies @warp.9.scotty 9 days ago (edited) The speaker talks about "far away" as a description of spatial distance (x, y, z) between "systems" but if you consider the particles as being co-located at the same time coordinate in spacetime then there is zero distance between them in the temporal dimension. Language is somewhat deficient in describing this condition. 3 Reply 4 replies @Opticsjournal 8 days ago Harvard scientist ask everyone to read the EPR paper (~ 2:09): excellent recommendation... the EPR paper no where mention the words "entangled" or "entanglement." It was Erwin Schrödinger who first began to talk about two entangled systems at a distance. In this regard, Schrödinger erroneously believed that the measurements of A could "pilot" the measurements of B... and tormented himself with that thought. The main argument of EPR was that quantum mechanics was an "incomplete" theory and that a complete version of QM was possible. That gave rise to sterile hidden variable theories. Reply @kerimw14v 7 days ago thank you 1 Reply @ronaldkemp3952 11 days ago (edited) Quantum entanglement happens because when light information is added to the field produced by a star or collection of stars the information, be it color, temperature, spin direction, polarity, charge, age, etc., pertaining to the star it becomes "entangled" to all other previous light particles within the field, regardless of the size of the EM field. Thus when an observer say 40 billion light years away detects the distant star's light information, it's conveyed in a quantum instant. This is because light travels at c. When light travels at c to an outside observer measuring the star it's potential light information is entangled to all other information inside the field. The light information doesn't really exist until an observer measures it. And, if the distant star is receding away from the observer faster than light, then when the observer measures the light information it experiences both time dilation (zero time) and length contraction (zero distance). And according to the theory of relativity time is always relative to the observer. Thus the only solution is the observer measures the information produced by the distant star in an instant, regardless of distance. Hence, Einstein's famous quote "spooky action at a distance". Meaning the observer measures light information as it looks today, not how it looked in the past due to the relativistic effects of time. Is there any evidence that supports this postulate? Yes there is. In 2023, astronomers going over the Jades survey taken by the James Webb space Telescope astronomers discovered old, not young but old, fully grown spiral and elliptical galaxies, some up to 20 times larger than our own galaxy but further than a light distance of 14 billion light years away. Empirical evidence that light information DOES NOT take time to travel and that telescopes CANNOT see into the past. I proposed this postulate back in 2004 after I finished college and continued studying quantum field theory and quantum experiments. Scientists working at NASA were in the process of building the JWST and they kept claiming the telescope would act like a time machine, able to see into the universe's past. I wrote to them and told them Einstein's look-back time was incorrect, that telescopes can no more look into the past than microscopes can look in the future. I told them time is relative to the observer, not distant galaxies. They just argued with me, spouting how Einstein was right and I was wrong, laughed at me ridiculed and even insulted my intelligence. I had no proof because at the time telescopes could not see back in time far enough to show his look-back time prediction was wrong. I had to wait and see if the JWST would confirm or refute my postulate. In 2021, 3 months before the JWST was set to launch, I published the 6 book series SECRET UNIVERSE By RON KEMP. In the first book GRAVITY on page 48 I wrote "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." And that's exactly what the telescope found. So did NASA employees admit Einstein's look-back time was wrong and I was right all these years? No. Instead they began theorizing on multiple, parallel and cyclical universes, tired light, bubble universes and more trying to explain them. Still to this day they haven't yet figured them out. I was the only theorist who accurately predicted the JWST would not be able to look into the universe's past, and that it would find old, not young but old, fully grown galaxies, some larger than our own galaxy but further than a light distance of 14 billion light years away. Everyone else misinterpreted Einstein's field equations on gravity, the instant speed of light due to quantum entanglement, and James Maxwell's equations on EM fields by claiming telescopes are like time machines when they're not. I figured it all out, do you think I'll win a Nobel prize like Michio Kaku said? Nope, because it proves Einstein was wrong about look-back time. They'll never figure out why telescopes can't see into the past. 1 Reply 1 reply @david_porthouse 10 days ago Set up the Clauser/Aspect experiment in a velodrome, and different cyclists will perceive a different sequence of cause and effect as the measurements are made. What is being communicated in these experiments is in the nature of a one-time pad, as used in the Vernam cipher. It’s something more than just the fringes of a moire pattern, but something less than a true communication. The apparent randomness really is random, to the point of maximising the security of any one-time pad system generated by the measurements. With this level of randomness, every over-correlation is an uncontrollable one-off event, and the cyclists’ perception of the relativity of cause and effect does not raise any issues. If we want to tackle this as a computer simulation, the random number generator that we need to use can be arranged to be reseeded every time we press a button by reference to the time of pressing. We need to press a button to do a Lorentz transformation, but then it is a new random event that we will be looking at. We can never catch the simulation out on this matter of the relativity of cause and effect. Reply @supernaturalabilities 12 days ago (edited) At the 10:45 minute mark, he points out that Bell's paper has been widely misinterpreted. Bell himself, in later writings, expressed frustration over how his work was misunderstood. This is particularly striking, as I was shocked to discover how many prominent scientific theories seem to rest on misinterpreted data or experiments—misinterpretations that often appear intentional. A prime example is Edwin Hubble, who discovered redshift in 1929 but disagreed with its interpretation as evidence for the expanding universe theory. In fact, the redshift has been misinterpreted; the universe is not expanding as commonly believed. This misinterpretation has far-reaching consequences, as it undermines both the Big Bang theory and the concept of an initial singularity, both of which rely on this flawed assumption. 6 Reply 29 replies @jjay6764 5 days ago Entanglement and non-locality show there’s a fundamental awareness or consciousness that’s strong on a microscopic scale and becomes weaker as you scale up to classical sizes. So on a microscopic level it’s entanglement and on a classical scale it can be seen as twin telepathy. The sad thing about all of these theories is they want a physical or material explanation. They keep trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Tesla said the moment science starts to study the non-physical, they will learn more in a decade than they have for all of its existence. Sadly, I don’t think that day will come because so many scientists are stuck in the Plato’s cave of materialism and local realism. 💯💯 Reply @Mr.E.Shoppa 8 days ago Nobody I've seen has ever been able to make sense of this mind lagoon. Reply @supernaturalabilities 12 days ago In quantum mechanics, scientists do not isolate two entangled photons in the strict sense. Reply @GH-li3wj 9 days ago The problem with the EPR demonstration is the assumption that Alice and Bob have exactly the same measurement system, but this is never true. In fact, EPR assumes that Bob and Alice have the same ideal measurement equipment. Even though the quantum states are correlated for Bob and Alice, their measurements are independent. This is the meaning of the no-communication theorem. Also, Aspect has never made any polarization measurements, just take a look at his experiments in Physial reviews. Reply @excaliburhead 10 days ago This guy might be an even smoother talker than Sean Carroll , which I did not think was possible Reply @albertorasa6220 11 days ago For a particle, could "having a property" be a contextual statement? Bell's inequality would still apply to this kind of "hidden variable"? Reply @johnwm3047 8 days ago He entangled my mind across space and time (only 3 days, but still, pretty neat). Reply @saxtant 12 days ago Spatial Orientation of Bob and Alice is an unavoidable hidden variable. Measuring A Prime actually does rely on orientation. Reply 1 reply @123jkjk123 9 days ago The problem with angry, aggressive responses is they are used to justify angry, aggressive responses in return. Also when it's celebrated to be proud of African-American, women, Native-American, pretty much everyone's accomplishments but when it European/white men it's an embarrassment done by privilege, then there will be resentment (justified or not). The reason race relations haven't gotten better since Baldwin's time is EVERYONE's fault, not just one side or the other. 1 Reply @senkrouf 4 days ago isn the basis just a convenient choosen frame of reference? I dont find this mysterious at all. + Bell theorem proves that there is not a CONSTAT hidden variable, it doesnt talk about time dependant hidden variable , or space dependant hidden variables, or any other kind of hidden variables + entanglement happens at measure time or cooking time? I remember Sabine talking about it. Reply @MrHoojaszczyk 8 days ago It's electricity and plasma. Reply @hikashia.halfiah3582 12 days ago hey, where is the link to the paper? 1 Reply @mantasr 8 days ago I just don't understand how non locality is possible. Unless the wave function of the entangled particles spans the entire universe. Ir the quantum systems interact through a separate dimension parallel to the three spacial dimensions. Also why can't you deliver information this way ? What if Alice decides in advance with Bob that if she measures A it means yes, and if she measures A' it means no? Reply @itsjavaman 9 days ago (edited) Well, many questions. What is a quantum "system" when it comes to entanglement? Doesn't quantum steering break down over multiple attempts to manipulate the entangled perticles? At what point are the particles affected in chromodynamics? Could that mean that it matters the point in time when the measurement(s) happen. If the quantum fields have symmetry and they must equal 0, can't we or have we been able to measure their elasticity? How far does that extend? I'm curious and learning. Reply @AndrejDukic 7 days ago Turned on this video, turned on 2x immediately out of habit. Heard the first sentence. 0.75x. Reply @robertm3561 11 days ago What is ...stronger.., how you escape the situation is by considering a realistic possibility of for ex. underlying structure of the universe spread through infinity & having a carasterictic speed so great, that we are not able to detect it today? Reply @Jeremy-Ai 8 days ago Entanglement hmmmm ? Quantum Entanglement Hmmmm ? (Binary equivalent data suggests =uncommonly uncomfortable uncertainty universally (Trapped). “Do you seek to be trapped forever?… step right up … you are the next adventure on the price is wrong.” Reply @frankdimeglio8216 5 days ago Frank Martin DiMeglio has surpassed Newton and Einstein. Reply @abrogard142 8 days ago well I don't think he beautifully explains anything at all.. and a crucial bit he should explain he doesn't say anything about, I think. That's the fact that Alice decides to measure one of two non compatible parameters (or whatever they are). Such as momentum or location. That's the crucial bit isn't it? Well for the ignorant such as myself its easy to miss that and he spends no time on it at all. And all of the further stuff is fairly superfluous. 'collapses Bob's state' he says. We dunno what that means. I guess it means that before a measurement a thing is in an indeterminate state. Take a measurement and now you know either the momentum or the location (but not both - and now there's no chance of knowing the other one). The state has now 'collapsed' from indetermined to determined in in this one aspect. And here's the point: alice having collapsed hers and the base rule being Bob's will be the opposite then Bob's has to collapse accordingly. It could collapse this way or that way. Alice decides which way. It seems. And she either does that by sending a message or Bob somehow knew which she would choose. And that's as far as he goes with explanations I think. 1 Reply 1 reply @Activeight17 9 days ago I'm developing a new framework that recovers GR and QM formulas in a completely different way—without complexity or patchwork. From this approach, I derive the exact Higgs mass naturally, explaining why it has that precise value. Even fundamental concepts like uncertainty, probability, observation, wave-particle duality, half-spins, and entanglement—typically treated as axioms—emerge naturally from the framework. In a few weeks, once my paper is ready, I'll share the details. Reply 2 replies @shawngrinter2747 11 days ago Brilliant lucid description, well done Reply @gabrielteo3636 9 days ago (edited) I really wish he didn't say the measurements of the first particle collapses the wave function of the second particle. Nothing collapses the second particle unless it interacts with something else. Secondly, what if you entangle 2 particles and all quantum variables are entangled? You would just have correspondence again. Reply @ppmealing 9 days ago Sabine Hossenfelder argues that Bell’s Theorem is explained by superdeterminism, and argues that all physicists will eventually see this is the only solution. She argues that Bell himself came to this conclusion, because it allows one to keep Einsteinian ‘locality’. From what I’ve read of Bell, including his own words, he was a ‘hidden variables’ person, even after he came up with his groundbreaking theorem. My view is even more heretical, in that I think entanglement makes sense if there is a universal ‘Now’ for the entire Universe, which is consistent with the Universe having an edge in time, but not in space. It’s also consistent with the idea that the wave function exists in the future and classical physics exists in the past, which is consistent with Freeman Dyson’s argument that QM can’t describe the past, which he expounds upon in a lecture commemorating John Wheeler (also on YouTube). It’s also consistent with Paul Davies’ statement that the ‘measurement’ breaks the time reversibility inherent in QM. If the ‘measurement’ or ‘decoherence’ of the wave function happens at some time, Now, then entanglement ensures that Now is universal. 1 Reply Curt Jaimungal · 4 replies @driftwood9705 9 days ago (edited) I wonder what space they are using to communicate to each other when one flips the other flips as well. Maybe the “The Akashic Record” does exist and maybe this is highway of communication that two entangled quantum particles use to communicate to each other and know when has switched so the other has to too. Reply @Jizzajaap 9 days ago Maybe a noob thought but is it possible something is happening we just can’t observe/ measure/ witness in this dimension? But would totally make sense from a higher dimension’s perspective? Reply @joeyrufo 11 days ago 14:00 what Comrade Lenin said about The Economist over a hundred years ago remains true today 😏😏😏 2 Reply @spoqpedwabe7499 11 days ago I always consider there must be a avenue they simply ignore. There is no relative reference frame for light so logically there is no reason why time based stuff like distance should even matter for information.... 2 Reply 1 reply @bobjohnson2172 12 days ago Thank you both. Reply @touristguy87 8 days ago You know what is funny? Quantum entanglement itself is a observable value. It is either true or untrue just as a coin flip results in heads or tails. Same with the meaning of the phrase "quantum entanglement". It could be true to different people in different ways with different meanings. But his argument is based on it being true. Which inherently raises three questions. Why. How. And How To Measure It. Which altogether raises a very important question. Do we need to understand QE for it to be true? Or just believe that it is true? Because one of the fundamental issues is that a theory, not to mention a law, is true whether or not it is believed to be true. It must prove true under some factual premise, set of assumptions. The conditions of entanglement must be consistent for the theory of entanglement to have validity. But every observation depends on the observer and the conditions of observation. When Boolean logic is used, state space variables are known exactly. Unless the potential error is significant. Then you don't get discrete Boolean values. You get a statistical continuum. State A, B or "something in between" with an associated probability distribution. Reply @specops 4 days ago My best guess. There is only one infinite now moment and there is only one unique god particle in the entire multiverse so everything is connected and instantly known. Boom! Reply @driftwood9705 9 days ago OK, so you have to get them together in the beginning at one point or send something from one or to the other to get them in sync after that you can send them apart or on their way. Reply @ShirleneGregory 9 days ago JWST has proved we do not understand the Universe. Entanglement is even more complex. Reply @luizbotelho1908 11 days ago It was exactly the infinite propagation of The Schrodinger wave of probabilities that lead tô the physically correct Dirac equation for the correct velocity of propagation on the quantum world ( But with the problemas of particle- antiparticle ) and solved finally and completelly by the relativístic quantum field theory . Answer of Deep Seek AI. Reply @theronwolf3296 10 days ago (edited) What confuses me is that it seems the particle would interact with others within microseconds, but measurement seems to be the determining factor. What qualifies as a measurement as opposed to interaction with other particles that is not observed? Reply 3 replies @bretdaley6869 8 days ago Everything is local as far as physics goes Reply @jamiepaolinetti5087 9 days ago This is one of the best arguments for simulation theory I've heard yet... even though that wasn't his intention. Occam's Razor... If there's not explanation, then it must just be in the code. Reply 1 reply @troydavis5217 6 days ago I'm just spit balling here. But quantum entanglement seems to hint at a dimension where there is no time or space!! Reply @grjk3991 9 days ago Why is this surprising, that there's more 'fundamental' aspects to our universe than the 4D that we experience, which is upstream therefore affecting/violating our timespace understanding ala Flatlands. Physicits oft refer to several extra dimensions; until we build math from the perspective of 6D or 11D etc looking'down' at how it can affect our 4Ds, then it's going to be incomplete and topsyturvy. Imagine a square trying to mathematically define and explore a cube 😅 Reply @wilmerbandres1677 8 days ago where can one find the paper link? Reply 1 reply @davidespinosa1910 11 days ago Curt -- are you working on "quantum measurement iceberg" ? 🙂 Reply @helifynoe1034 8 days ago Pass a ring held vertically through a tiny 2D mans 2D world, and he will see its appearance at one spot to start, and then it breaks into two separate pieces that move apart, and then they move back together and then become one again just before it disappears altogether. Now imagine a 4D object that is viewed by a tiny 3D man in his tiny 3D world. At one point this object seems to be two separate objects apart from each other, that are magically somehow connected together. What a funny and silly that little man that 3D man is. Anyhow, amusingly, he calls them, "Entangled Pairs". Reply @Killer_Kovacs 12 days ago is there proportion of time space curvature for an individual particle or would a universe with a single particle have continuous time space curvature? Reply @shadym1lkman 11 days ago They never talk about how the information of the state needs to be communicated over that distance the entangled systems are apart. 1 Reply 7 replies @piotrkawaek6640 11 days ago I love this guy, he shoould bebinvited to more podcasts Reply @RyanThatsAll 9 days ago So all he’s saying is proofs aren’t proofs. 1 Reply @SisyphusGuitar 11 days ago A quantum-entangled spin mirrors a pulley system of sorts? Is the wagon wheel effect possible? Reply @patrickmchargue7122 12 days ago Next? Reply @JoelLessing 12 days ago How is this not analogous to having a meeting at the right angle corner of a triangle, pulling a degree indicator out of a hat while blindfolded, then sending one attendee to Alpha Centauri with that angle in a sealed envelope, then measuring the other angle with a sextant, thereby immediately knowing the so-called entangled angle at Alpha Centauri, since a mathematical rule set tells you that angles add to 180? Cannot entanglement be seen as being a somewhat similar fixed aspect of space time? It’s not necessary to travel faster than light to determine that once you know one angle of a right triangle, that you must necessarily know the other, regardless if it is “local” or “non-local.” It’s just a fixed consequence of geometry. 1 Reply 5 replies @blsstre 9 days ago (edited) These theoretical physicists can explain the non explainable, however reality is totally different and this where they diverge too far with too much theory not based on real solid verifiable experiments. 3 Reply 1 reply @CharlesFlahertyB 8 days ago Relativity demands a block universe therefore retrocausality is real Reply @user_375a82 11 days ago (edited) For photon mediated entanglement the photon can travel for many years (billions even) from emitter particle to receiver particle (that entangles them both) but from the POV of the photon no time passed at all. So, in a sense, the separation between entangled particles is zero. Then by extension the size of the Universe is zero, i.e. its a VR. 1 Reply 6 replies @Jacobk-g7r 11 days ago 4:55 bob can be found by here yes but Bob could also find her or miss her. He has a different but relative perspective so he could find or miss her but does he know what he’s looking for? Like, do we even know that what we are looking for is relative and not a thing but many things? It’s not like one version is THE version, they share with the rest of reality as well but relativity plays a key role, identity is a closer relative and with the way matter works and functions, it’s closer to our perspective but not easily understood so we could be too close and over time we will understand through the reflection of differences and respect them and their relationships. So all can be found because all is relative and just that simple understanding branches and doesn’t isolate like right or wrong, it’s expansive in all ways always. So all variables can be found if listened to and shared with. It’s almost like alignment and relativity share so we can reflect the measurement/spirit of the differences. We share with them to see the potentials close to our bundle of entangled differences. Like our perspective is emergent but not isolated and can expand to see farther than just the relative, multidimensional but misunderstood because of the small amount and perspective difference. Imagine it like static on the tv always shifting and sharing but shapes and structures emerge from the differences entangled because the are relative. The static shares the connections of relatives and those are connected to the differences like branches expanding into the relative differences. Literally becoming from the potential that sharing allows, emergence is from the freedom of the relative differences. Beautiful. Sorry, not correcting or anything just thinking out loud lol Reply @IDIOMRADIO 10 days ago Marketing terms to sell academic departments. What a joke. 1 Reply @BrandonSousa-b7i 9 days ago If the universe from a third perspective was a single point, regardless of how we view the distance within it, could that account for faster than light travel Reply @PathfinderPhysics 12 days ago Electrons are. Not. Coins. They obey stronger rotational symmetries. I'm extremely disappointed by Barandes for not mentioning Grete Herman's criticism about von Neumann's theorem and how that applies to Bell just the same. Look up on my channel why Bell's theorem does not rule out local causality. Reply @factchecker2090 8 days ago While I am watching this video, a couple of kids with me are asking "But What is a Quantum System, Can u give an example of a Quantum System" Somebody pls. Reply 1 reply @joshnull6132 12 days ago Which means Bob's system is classical, and the probabilistic elements of QM are simply because of hidden variables. Reply 1 reply @swish1onu 5 days ago Obviously there are hidden variables when you come upon the disconnect between relativity and quantum mechanics... If you can't bridge that gap.. something is "hidden" Reply @williambranch4283 12 days ago Ah, but if there is a breakdown between maths and physics, then Pythagoreanism is wrong and so is Max Tegmark. ;-)) 1 Reply 2 replies @Jacobk-g7r 11 days ago 5:26 well it’s an echo of difference. She would need to make an echo loud enough to edit his differences. Change the path of reality so to speak, where a bridge is between or like a window of potential to collapse like dominoes. Maybe a small connection can be reflected on and then listened to and you share a difference like listen and become different so that your difference can go over there. Like when measurements share during entanglement, like a vice versa or yin yang. Reply @Jacobk-g7r 11 days ago (edited) 3:38 you need something closer to his relative difference. Like if i measured water i won’t get his stuff but i could find the relatives, like dna and identity patterns, so the closer we get the more accurate or less diverged the real is from the potential. Reply @Jacobk-g7r 11 days ago (edited) 6:14 it doesn’t know, it already had access but didn’t see. Its memory wasn’t relative or closer like identity and experience. It’s like the resident evil light puzzles. Our differences/experiences form a structure and we look at it/shine our light on it. The shadows we see are the relative memory but misunderstood as real or fake because we don’t understand how. Yes the closest relative of how is movie or imagination but that’s relative as well but from another side of the coin, a different light shining on the differences/puzzle revealing the same image from another perspective . Definitely a visual representation. Reply @nobodyinnoutdoors 9 days ago Still doesn’t explain why measuring a prime has any different effect than measuring a. Measuring the momentum of something has 0 affect on its position? Am I just not understanding the difference between a/a.prime and confusing it with a/b? Reply 3 replies @calebromo1 5 days ago Its funny how everyone is focused on 'thought experiments', but don't talk about the results of actual experiments. See what happens when a electron is dislodged from its axis of angular momentum. Then ask the question. Where did the energy come from that restabilizes the electron's angular momentum equilibrium? Simple question hiding groundbreaking science 'In plain sight'. Hint: The QVP. Reply @crazyprayingmantis5596 10 days ago Whenever i try to understand it i get all tangled up Reply 1 reply @welbyob1 7 days ago Brilliant 1 Reply @3zdayz 10 days ago I couldn't even make it past 1:45 before I just threw my hands up and walked away. Again with left and right socks. The case is entirely not how a realistic system(a model that might be proposed by realists, or those believing in realism. (might be called classical also, although The classical physics didn't already have the math, so there needs to be some distinction) ... Anyhow. If you had heads and tails coins, when you get to the end and run it in the detector, what if you turned the detector?? Then you could no longer have a left sock, but yet the quantum physicist says this is what classical mechanics would do/say. And yet that in no way resembles what happens in reality; If I invert the detector before detection, the left sock, or heads coin is now supposed to be a right sock - but they don't allow for that in the 'if it's not quantum' explanation. And can't you provide some correction/ have a debate about this? Maybe you don't get it either? Bell, CHSH, GHZ, all have exact math that is non quantum that predicts their outcomes. I'm working on redoing the GHZ I kind of just brushed past it quite a few years ago now... but I had the right ratio as would be modeled with a realistic system considering the axis of spin as a real thing, which can be detected and transformed in the same way as QM Math would nearly predict... there's a small error bar - but I'm confident in time experiments and be done to judge one more accurate than the other - right now the difference is less than the experimental apparatus error. A much better model is you have a bunch of pairs of balls, numbered 1 to N and N+1 to 2N and you pair up the balls 1 with N+1, 2 with N+2, etc... then you give a ball with a number to someone; this is giving them a heads or tails coin - or a left or right sock as exemplified in this video. But it doesn't look at all like any of those. Because it's not until you get to the end of your trip and you put the ball in a measuring device, which are a bunch of (boxes) slots that can accept a ball, each numbered 1 to 2N , you find the appropriate slot/tube/box and put the ball in, or otherwise redeem your ball for that box. Now; in a feature that the example given can't do - you are free to rotate the numbers on the boxes, or shuffle them to your hearts content; depending on what you choose to do with the measurement device, before measuring the ball, you can do; then you redeem your ball and get a heads or tails coin or left or right sock. Now - if they(PHD Physicists who know all) can get over themselves and past examples, and evaluate the situation given a new model - the math falls out from everthying given.... I wonder if O3 could reason its way to the graph of the solution... I did see someone giving it a problem in english, and a board in JSON and let it figure out more than was said in the problem... and even consider how it might go about solving it - and it started moving the peices with intent.... the direction of 'up' was implemented inversed to what it thought, and it figured out that would be the case, but then on the 3rd step forgot that up was actually down.... BUT AI Reasoning models - that's where it's at. A+B=2C (2 is part if the equation, it's not A+B=1 but A+B=2, which changes the ratio of A to B significantly. ) It's light working with a 2 normal (xsquared+ysquared+zsquared+....)^1/2 distance vs 1-normal (x+y+z+...) as in manhattan geometry or taxicab geometry.... The A and B can be divided by the common C, but really should leave the 2 on the right hand side.... so a=A/C b=B/C a+b = 2. a=(2-b) ... and the ratio of a to b is what QM preditions should be... or rather the difference ... (a-b)/b or (a-b)/a depending on whether a or b is larger... (heh - ya multipart functions FTW by the way. and modulo arthmetic... ) (2-b-b)/b or (2-b-b)/(2-b) ... to cut it down to 1 variable so you could graph it with a 2 graphing calculator... 2(1-b)/b or 1-(b/(2-b)) ... The angles in this system end up being 1 = 90 degrees... and 4 to go around the circe... so to compare with equiavalent cos(theta) the angle would be scaled by pi/2 so theta=x*pi/2 theta*2/pi = x = b ... but whatever - QM is best.... and multipart functions ar eprobably just numerological curve fitting - but then what are LLMs other than curve fits? can't actually use a sound reasonable argument... because LHV (as defined by Bell) are bogus. LHV work fine, as long as you also encode the measurement of that variable... heck 2 birds one stone, the measurement becomes part of the equation! 1 Reply @0-by-1_Publishing_LLC 11 days ago (edited) I believe that entanglement is the result of nonlocality. ... Subatomic particles balance on the threshold between physical reality and raw information. Compress matter far enough and it will shed its physical structure and revert back to its original informational structure ... which is a dimensionless, virtual arena. 7 Reply 1 reply @mikes9012 11 days ago What is the difference between A and A' in his example? Seems symmetric. Reply 3 replies @TribalRhythmPosse 10 days ago You Rock the Life Fantastic Kurt J!!! 🤩 Reply @quantumkookaburra 8 days ago "there's more to the story than wave function" - well, right now I feel that we have been recycling quantum theory for decades, stuck in the equivalent of flat earth theory. I'm looking forward to a time when science actually knows something (significant), however I'm sure I'll be long dead by then - or maybe fallen off the edge. Reply @seinfan9 12 days ago This makes way more sense if you throw out the notion of particles and just assume it's all just waves in a medium that has been misunderstood. Reply 2 replies @AfsanaAmerica 11 days ago It's really shameful they close down avenues of intellectual investigation/exploration especially when theorems are affected in the physical world since the information is the building blocks etc. Reply @dieterheinrich8377 9 days ago By the end it was all just a mash of double negatives to me. He never quite nails a distinction between correlation and "something stronger," which he says nevertheless doesn't involve information traveling at faster than light. .... And I still don't get what it has to do with "hidden" variables. Are variables needed if it is simple correlation? Is there a proof that it is not correlation? Does the measurement of particle A cause particle B to measure as a complementary value or was it already a complementary value when it left the lab? Everyone on this topic seems to talk around the same holes in the swiss cheese. 4 Reply 2 replies @eyemallears2647 11 days ago The only thing I understand about entanglement is that it’s no stranger than time changing with gravity and velocity. Or time itself. Or the Big Bang. Or space expanding. Or space time curvature. Or black holes. Or women. I mean, none of it makes sense to my Newtonian brain. Reply @jamesgreen2495 11 days ago What if faster than light is possible. I think this is were we are wrong in our understanding Reply @theshapeofnature 11 days ago Quantum mechanics is the beginnings of humans understanding of telepathy. Reply 2 replies @gariusgarfar1341 12 days ago So says this monster regarding retroactive folding geometry. Reply 1 reply @sanjuansteve 9 days ago Ask ChatGPT: What's your opinion of Dipole Electron Flood Theory by physicist Roger Spurr? Reply 2 replies @glenrisk5234 10 days ago Isn't the apparent magical quality of entanglement simply a symptom of taking a piecemeal approach to understanding and hence failing to accommodate all governing factors when calculating probabilities? Reply 7 replies @astraltraveler257 11 days ago the Guild Navigators know... Reply @808bigisland 11 days ago Df is wrong. There are hidden brane parameters allowing frameskipping😂 1 Reply @3rdrock 8 days ago We don't know a particles nature until we measure it and entangled particles are correlated. So what,. Am I missing something ? Reply 1 reply @Martiandawn 11 days ago Music of the spheres 😂 Reply @jimmybjörklund-w9k 9 days ago i forgot the name of the person but the person i think of is much better to explain and when you hear it, your mind will be blown Reply @danielalexander799 9 days ago 2 particles share a single wave function. When the wave function collapses it affects both particles simultaneously. 1 Reply @David-vt3zn 12 days ago Connected through the plank field... sheesh. Reply @ShiyrChadash 9 days ago (edited) Entanglement = Continuum = a whole that is ever greater than the sum of it's constituents. If the big bang happened, then all particles are entangled... Reply 2 replies @ericpenrose3541 11 days ago (edited) No surprise to me about Bell, hidden variables got soooo taboo Reply @Photons_arent_particles 8 days ago Nope. Entanglement is entirely classical and local. Entanglement is done by a physical process that align the spin states of the objects classically. The preservation of that spin state is necessary to maintain entanglement. You cannot arbitrarily send an entangled particle anywhere. Any "sending" causes decoherence. Learn that word. There is no "spooky action". It does not exist nor does it have evidence of existence. Reply @Photons_arent_particles 8 days ago 3:50 You cannot measure one bit and it instantly changes the state of the other, nor will it make any change if the bits aren't entangled locally.. Measurement collapses the wave function. There is no instant communication. And there most definitely is no such thing as "steering". Reply 3 replies @sigigle 10 days ago Deterministic, non-local hidden variable theories (like De Broglie–Bohm) are far more likely to be correct than the indeterministic interpretations IMHO. Indeterminism (true randomness) violates The Principle of Sufficient Reason - it's something beginning from nothing (a "selection effect"). As Christopher Langan put it: "If it has no 'means' to occur, it simply will not occur. More information is needed." And a 'means' = deterministic. 1 Reply 10 replies @kostailijev7489 11 days ago And your point is?? Reply @charlesf4493 10 days ago “You should link to a copy of that paper”. You didn’t take that advice? Reply Curt Jaimungal · 1 reply @johannpopper1493 8 days ago But... not even "local" causation is "understood" in the same way that is demanded by those who perhaps semi-consciously feign being mystified by entanglement. What I mean is, if you think consistently, modern physics is only ever looking at systems of divisibles that are mysteriously linked in every observable way – at no point can observation in principle SEE the hidden link between particles. So, physicists already accept local hidden variables (fields), but get all excited about the same categorical cognitive blank when it comes to arbitrarily distant particles. There is no clear general definition of local versus non. This is clearly structural confusion about our use of language, not a physics qua physics problem, unless and until a global predictable cause and effect relation is established. It's likely a psychological problem, a cognitive limit, a blond spot artefact of evolved down-stream cognition. Thinking is working backwards, and the terminus of thought is where nature never selected for biological thinking systems to grasp relations unnecessary to common survival, like quantum order. Reply @gaugengotm2307 11 days ago Past, Present and Future in the same moment. As simple as the car that pulls out in front of you. Magnitudes of local possiblities. There will never be a pre, present or post predictor in an absolute that would become a meaningful predictor. Why not be focused on more tangible boots on the ground piece wise progress. Just planning on solving infinity aaa? I wish I would've finished what I began with academically. I would have been running circles around today's flight attendants for sure. Reply @zeroonetime 12 days ago I.T. I.S. not quantum steering nor quantum strings. I.T. I.S. QUANTUM SWITCHING. FROM 00 T 01 T 010. From 0 we come to 0 we g0, g0 g0 g0 in between vastness of nothingness -- Timing I.S. Infinity Squared in T.E.N. dimensions. Reply @luizbotelho1908 11 days ago (edited) Entangled quantum systems forbiden independente quantum measurements in their individual componentes . Otherwise the systems components have become independent .By the Way, Schrodinger quantum waves propagates instantenously!!. Reply @Haveuseenmyjetpack 10 days ago I’m not seeing this 1935 paper link! 0:11 !!! Liar!! 3 Reply 1 reply @AquarianSoulTimeTraveler 11 days ago 8:32 enough said... Reply @richardgalea9884 11 days ago Harvard…. Don’t even try to take my conjecture away from Malta. Reply 1 reply @physbuzz 10 days ago I'm still going to side with Sidney Coleman: "It's either that the world is local and quantum, or nonlocal with hidden variables"! If QM is nonlocal, show me the nonlocal interaction Hamiltonian :P 2 Reply 1 reply @mf_boone 8 days ago Is nothing non-local? Reply @VadimSirbu-y9b 10 days ago ... directional drilling .. Reply @dontveter3372 9 days ago But it’s a block universe. When God created the heavens and the Earth, he arranged for correlations that go across space and time that take into account everything that happens to a particle throughout its lifetime. Reply @egay86292 9 days ago The Economist is prominent among the barking dogs of war, and should change it's ink to blood. otherwise, interesting video. why is there no million dollar non-Nobel prize for the first fully reviewed and accepted transluminal message? Reply @4363HASHMI 12 days ago Selftriggering an setup Reply @yashodhanphatak5382 9 days ago Which language is this. Reply @Ai-he1dp 11 days ago Spoke with a priest many years ago who said....god would not have made such vast distances without a way to traverse them.... Quantum entanglement. 4 Reply @daystobe 6 days ago Alice and Bob? Really, Dr. Barandes? You should talk clearly about these tests and what they actually are. Alice and Bob are a side show that doesn’t help anyone see how these tests are performed. Reply @TimJBenham 11 days ago 5:33 Could it be that the distinction between past, present, and future is merely a stubbornly persistent illusion? Alice was always going to make the measurement she made and this fact was captured at entanglement. Nothing special needs to happen when she (or Bob) makes her measurement. Reply 1 reply @alexmiceli8677 11 days ago Wait.... what?? Reply @VideoFunForAll 11 days ago 3:16 He assumes Alice and Bob have free will. They don't! It is such a simple fallacy, but people don't want to know we don't have free will, it somehow offends them! Reply 5 replies @REDCAP32X 3 days ago Got it! Reply @RawLu. 8 days ago The United States of Fascist 👿 Reply @iqtime1400 11 days ago They misunderstood bell so red the article history of quantum or comedy of error the you well understand the holl issue Reply @JimSteele2559 8 days ago So does Sally affect Bob or just discover what Bob already has? If discovery, then I don’t really care. But if Sally actually changes Bob at a distance, then how is that not incredible! Now he says no information is sent by Sally. So..,? Sabine Hoffensteder says that no , there is no Sally changing Bob. Wish I could get a straight answer on this. Spooky action happening or what? Reply 5 replies @Peter7966 12 days ago Not casual listening for a non-physicist, like me. Reply 1 reply @tomaalexandru7104 10 days ago Is it ridiculous to think that the entangled particles are actually the same particle? Reply 2 replies @mjproebstle 8 days ago Those particle physicists 🙄 Reply @albertperks3476 11 days ago (edited) I started my journey of trying to understand quantum physics with Nick Herbert's book 'Quantum Reality' back in 2008 - how the hell have I only just heard about the term 'quantum steering'? Great interview by the way very interesting guy. Now I'm not a physicist and if I'm honest I feel that I'm barely hanging on by my finger nails listening to people like Jacob but this conversation piqued my interest (specifically in terms of the observer and relationship with non-locality) and reminded my of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnAj66Z1kNQ have you seen this Curt? Reply @1SpudderR 12 days ago Are You censoring comments? Reply 1 reply @glenfoord 7 days ago GARBAGE, Put 2 identical boxes in a room, Put a cat in one and a dog in the other. A courier picks a random box and it is sent to mars. Open your box on earth and INSTANTLY, faster than light!! you know there is a cat on mars. Irrelevant garbage. Reply @lukeno4143 9 days ago This guy is terrible at explaining it. You cut a strawberry in half and send it away in two boxes there’s no spooky action. He didn’t differentiate this with the spooky Reply @mw-th9ov 11 days ago Using "influence" to induce the listener to hear "cause" is deceptive obfuscation. Reply 1 reply @irone93 8 days ago I understood nothing Reply @hassanrasheid4618 12 days ago Economist-CIA Rag Reply @bigjlogistics 9 days ago I may be ignorant of how things actually work, but if I have a ruler that is a light year in length, with me on one end and you on the other, and I place a string that’s a light year long next to it, and I pull the string one inch, would you not see the string move instantly? If entanglement has to happen locally, couldn’t there be a connection that stays in tact as you spread the two quantum systems apart? Even if it’s light years apart, if the connection is like a string, I don’t think it’s illogical to have an instant transfer of information. Reply @1SpudderR 12 days ago Yes I think you are in some form?! Reply @JohnRadley-dk5bk 9 days ago What ? Reply @kludgedude 9 days ago Consistency is paramount over time and space. Entanglements re-define what a “thing” is from a single point in space to the span of the system. Reply @supernaturalabilities 12 days ago At the 13:13 minute mark, he discusses mathematical theorems that remain in the realm of abstract math unless they can be connected to the physical world. This echoes Nikola Tesla’s (1856–1943) observation: “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, eventually building a structure that has no relation to reality.” However, the issue goes deeper: some scientists have resorted to fraudulent practices to secure funding, as revealed in Sabine Hossenfelder’s video "I Was Asked to Keep This Confidential." The existence of supernatural abilities directly challenges your theories, and I suspect these abilities have been intentionally suppressed to maintain funding for your false narratives. Quantum physicists and theoretical physicists have already lost their credibility, and it’s only a matter of time before their work becomes the subject of ridicule. Reply @grandrapids57 12 days ago mind=blown Reply 1 reply @dracgrip 8 days ago We also need to acknowledge that Schroedinger spent a big chunk of his careers supporting the military and participating in WW1. there are countless lives, including civilians that he is directly responsible for. Every time we mention him it is important to add this context. Germany committed countless war crimes by targeting civilians buildings and he was literally part of that. Reply @joeypaisano9235 11 days ago Quite elementary Reply @laurenth7187 3 days ago Well you can't explain that... Reply @sshreddderr9409 10 days ago this is complete bunk. its a misinterpretation that starts with a false, subjective philosophical premise, which is the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. the electron is a physical wave that is mistakenly interpreted as a ball, and trying to locate balls within a pressure wave gives a probability distribution, and the uncertainty, again, comes from this false interpretation of trying to make pressure impulses in mediums solid balls. if course it has no fixed coordinate and momentum, because its its a pressure wave, not a billiard ball. the reason those systems are "entangled" is because when combined, they influence each other to reach energy equilibrium, which is the rule that partitions those parameters. of course, if you take the systems apart, you know parameters of the other by measuring one, because the distribution is DETERMINISTIC. there is no action at a distance no nothing, not is there any influence on the other system, the influence happened when the systems where together, which set the parameters for both up to obey certain rules, which is why the parameters of one system enables you to predict the other. the only reason this seems mysterious to those physicists is because they are commited to the copenhagen interpretation, which is in itself logically impossible. the universe is deterministic. stating that it is probabilistic at its core is claiming that you are god like, because probability means making predictions with incomplete knowledge, so stating that the universe itself is probabilistic requires you to know for certain that there is nothing you dont know, which requires you to know everything, meaning you must be omniscient. knowing that something is probabilistic requires omniscience, and omniscience requires the ability to know and predict anything with certainty, meaning that it itself requires determinism to be possible. indeterminism is irrational and paradoxical at its core. and really, the probabilistic interpretation is nothing but a cheap way of saying: we know everything, do not ask any further questions. its dogmatic and unscientific at its core. 2 Reply @neallacy3574 9 days ago Talk a little faster please Reply @KodierungHerz 10 days ago Eeewww promoting the economist? Talk about western propaganda... Reply @Interstellar00.00 11 days ago U should work on field like this nothing will happen 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Reply @MusicByJC 10 days ago Boring. If you can explain something clearly in 5 minutes, then it means you really don't understand it. Reply @brentftaylor 9 days ago Oh yeah, now I understand. Not😂 Reply @Jacobk-g7r 11 days ago 4:55 just had a wild thought, what if everything is backwards or inverted. Like all our thoughts and ideas and identities. We are not created but emerge, the relative between the differences, able to share. We run next to nature but are free as well. Like the new majorana chip, it has a relative bridge connecting the differences so they are free but relative and can compute but aren’t stuck. I hope that makes sense to someone because it’s easy to miss. Also, they way we see things, take for instance quantum entanglement and the act of measuring, listening is hard because as a human we actively listen which is like searching, isolated, if we share with the the mind with the reflection instead of thinking of the reflection then the differences emerge and we don’t dictate the thought but it shares its potential, like imagination is potential and relative. So in our act of thinking, we miss measure but it’s a relative to the accurate measurement or its reflection. So it’s right but a misunderstanding like when you use the wrong formula but get the right answer or something like that. Honest reflection isn’t thinking but listening or sharing WITH the measurement of the difference. It’s like if god allowed the differences freedom because they are real and share difference. Everything matters basically but also more than that. Which makes me think, all ends are really the beginnings of differences becoming awake to the relative or connected and infinity is just under our noses but misunderstood. Idk how else to explain the feeling. The act of measuring is a measurement so it’s like forgetting to account for it or everytime we account it takes another step because we did. so we should understand and listen not expect, the old religious and proverbs and such hold a lot of wisdom that’s not understood because it’s like this. Reply 5 replies @NicholasWilliams-uk9xu 11 days ago What if when Alice measured a prime instead of a, her system's angular momentum state (A) transfers into (A prime) on local intersect? You never stated if A prime has interacted with A, you said if Alice measures A prime instead of A... You need to provide all the information about the measurement. Reply @shadym1lkman 11 days ago They never talk about how the information of the state needs to be communicated over that distance the entangled systems are apart. Reply @Justicesdad 12 days ago Entanglement has to observed by a conscious mind to match its dna 1 Reply 1 reply @JoshConor 12 days ago I didn't find this enlightening. Reply @howaterbrd9563 10 days ago The Economist? Major fail 😂 Reply @JohnJones-tx6rt 9 days ago What a babble. Speaking too fast, I mean REALLY fast, obscure use of technical language. Sheesh. Whats the point. Do it again, and this time don't mess it up. Reply @ablatt89 12 days ago (edited) There seems to be severe misunderstandings here. There is no non-locality issue. Alice and Bob are separated some distance, and any measurement Alice makes, she needs to classically send how to decode that other qubit to Bob. If she doesn't send the information or sends the wrong decoding gate, then if Bob decodes the qubit without knowing the right gate to decode with, he'll get junk. The qubits shared a past history of coherence, and the probabilities are the only description you can use to talk about the system. There's no way put a "sensor" on a qubit and track the dynamics of it's position and momentum; that's projecting a classical concept onto a quantum world. You're forced to use a quantized, probabilistic theory when describing the quantum world. 1 Reply @pauls3075 10 days ago Curt:- "The Economist is a wellspring of insightful analysis". The Economist front page headline in the video at 13:40 :- " Our election prediction models shows democrats back in the race. Kamala is neck and neck with Trump according to our model..." @TheoriesofEverything Maybe change you sponsor 😂😂 Reply 3 replies @supernaturalabilities 11 days ago Entanglement and non-locality are spiritual concepts unrelated to physical matter. They pertain to consciousness within the non-physical realm rather than interactions between particles. In the physical world, particles are not intrinsically connected, and measuring one does not instantaneously affect another. In these experiments, scientists utilize light (photons) and observe its interaction with the surface of the APD, triggering the release of electrons from the semiconductor. However, this all occurs within the framework of the classical world. These experiments can be interpreted in different ways. Quantum mechanics does not form the foundation of the classical world. Rather, it is the astral realm that underlies the physical realm. To fully explore this, one must turn to practices such as meditation and the development of supernatural abilities. 4 Reply 7 replies @peterhelm6003 12 days ago Frankly I will go with Jesus walking on water. It is more plausible than quantum entanglement. 1 Reply 1 reply @marxxthespot 12 days ago 🙏🌞 Reply @driftwood9705 9 days ago The entangled particles make me think of twins born together and somehow when they’re apart, one can think what the other is thinking or feel what the other is feeling. I think of Tomax and Xamaot Crimson Guard Twin in the cartoon G.I. Joe they were a part of the cobra terror organization. But if you punched one twin, the other one could be in another state and would feel it. I wonder if in this case it’s jeans that are entangled or if there is some type of quantum entangled particle on the human body that allows twins to communicate wherever they are or feel things that the other others are feeling. Reply @jalphivoN 11 days ago Monday, February 24, 2025 ... Enter Non-Light = 300km per "10 quintillionth second." This property can activate matter and, inversely, de-activate matter. As the de-activated matter is called "Dark Matter/Energy." I am an individual keenly interested in Science and Technology. (Collaborative Rewrite with Grammarly). Reply 1 reply @LiminHost 9 days ago Yoohoo Reply