Video

I've watched a lot of videos and this one does explain some things much more clearly for whatever reason. Kudos to the presenter. I'm still a little confused about certain observational realities that I need to know about to better understand this. I think I understand that if you measure spin, entangled pairs will always have opposite spin. This polarization aspect though seems different from the spin testing. When it comes to spin, you just measure it and you find out what the spin is. I'm not aware of a way to influence the spin. However when it comes to polarization, The experimenter can influence the outcome by virtue of using various polarization angles. I wonder if there is a way to do the bell test but with spin or some other quality that can't be influenced. Indeed when it comes to spin, I want to know if there are experiments that are able to maybe delve into the concept that maybe the methodology of measurement is influencing the spin. When it comes to things like measuring spin, you still have to measure the other entangled particle. It's not like it's superposition breaks down automatically and is freely detected. While it is true that you can measure one particle and know it's spin and therefore know the other one, you still have to measure the other one. This isn't necessarily verifying instantaneous communication. That experiment still could mean that something is happening at the entanglement process that we don't understand. What I don't understand about this particular polarization experiment is that it seems like the entangled photons don't have to successfully go through the angled polarization. Meaning that if I send one entangled photon to the left through a 45°, that it may or may not pass through. If it does or does not doesn't seem to have any impact on whether the one going to the right does or does not. Success of going through an angled polarization seems to be independent of entanglement. Does that make sense? I don't think the experiment is saying that if I get through then my partner definitely will get through. If you think about that a little harder, let's say that on the left and right side that the angled polarization is exactly the same. So you might intuit that if the left entangled photon can get through then the right entangle photon must also get through because they both have some quality that's entangled that gets them through the same angled polarization. I don't know the truth of that though. I would like that detail. But additionally, you are adding new variables by having two separate polarization materials that may not be exactly the same when they probably aren't. They may not be as precisely lined up on angle as is necessary at the quantum level. There are unfortunately some variables that have to be realistically considered when you are possibly dealing with details down to at least the plank length. It's probably safe to say that to some degree, our certainty on definite behaviors should be a bit reserved. Now if there is evidence of repeated testing that shows that the existing materials and method used already very consistent matching outcomes then that is meaningful and would address some of the issues I noted I can guarantee you that with real experts to do this up on the regular basis that they probably have tackled this stuff over and over and it's just people sharing that with the public haven't gotten to share it or don't notice share it because it's too small of an audience. Lol I saw a video of a guy finding all of these intricate connections between Disney movies and all I could think to myself was... Stop worrying about Disney and go work on quantum entanglement. Lol Put your brain power on reality. Hehe

I hope wherever you are,you are doing well in life❤

Great lectures, but why is the coulomb force 1/r and not 1/r^2?

Wish the vids were in 720p or greater. I stream them to my TV.

You're mistaken, Bell's theorem does not proclude hidden variable theories, it procludes LOCAL hidden variable theories

Thanks for the video! 🙏 I understood only a fraction of it, but it will help in consolidation of the concepts once I have learned about this stuff from other sources. I have Carroll's book in mind for this topic. Onward ho!

Is this dué to thé Lorentż Tránsfor-átioń ¿¿¿¿

@ 29:33 Untt that is bé Calléd "Spaghétti-Fi-Ćatiõn" 😨😨😨😨😲😲😲😲😲

one thing I don't be under-stand is if black hole no light can be escapé then how they are detected by radiation thay giveth out ????

There are many error in some many equations. This is not the best but still good.

absolutely terrible way to explain GR. einstein didn’t know any of this stuff when he came up with GR.

0:48 Dr.Physics, someone told me that the classical concept of "electrons flowing in a circuit" is not correct but rather it's an electromagnetic wave (radiation) that travels in the circuit and not the electrons. Is this correct?

I am only grade 12 high school But i love that and next i choose engineering so i far away from that

This is an really excellent series. But it is right to say that the spin before measurement was a bit of up and a bit of down? Isn't it better to say that, before meassurement, there is some chance of it being up and some chance of it being down - and you find out which one for sure when you make the measurement?

Great work! Thanks

legend watch 2024

Found a mythical video

So this is the video that derives dirac equation. But it is done in terms of angular speed and wave number. Refreshing

Nickel 62 is more stable

If you miss the basics. Like this. Upper division classes will definitely be hell

You don't got a chance ..in Boltzmann statistics course. Classical thermodynamics

. But if you miss this beautiful 😍 part your lost in the rest. Upper section division courses

Maybe second semester college freshman course

Basics physics 101. First semester sh*t

What is meant by preparation of an electron in a certain orientation? How it is done .?

There have been many years since that video was out and many other CZcamsrs have made elegant videos about the Bell's inequality but this is still the one that helps you understand the whole idea more clearly and in depth. That is an unusual phenomenon by itself in the CZcams world.

This is by far the best simple derivation on CZcams. I love you how do these no BS videos

7:12 bro where did the negative sine came from in -ih_par dψ/dt shouldn’t it be positive?

This video is now online for about 250 years, has about 400 billion views, 150 million likes and has tought GRT to about 500 million retired engineers. Amazing.

I didn't know that A Level students are clever enough to do this.

If you rotate the snow flake for 30 degrees, there will be still the symmetry (similar, but not the same as the one of 60 degrees rotation). Does it count?

Erm what the sigma?

Sir I want to know how Dr Dirac reached gamma matrices corresponding to the 4 vectors of Minkowski's space. Will you cover Sir, may be in subsequent lectures ? Your method of teaching is great. Upto dagger etc I knew already. Thank you.

Another possible explanation - what if we measure speeds incorrectly? What if there is a problem with how we interpret doppler effect - i.e. the photons coming to us over long distances are red shifting not because of negative acceleration but because of say photons getting "tired" when flying through matter / space / ..., among other explanations

Your Sigmas and Epsilons look identical. 7:49

Thank you for this video.

This video is amazing. I will pursue further education in plasma physics or nuclear I will decide in future

Best treatment of this topic I've seen.

mass and charge of an electron from theory

are you there now????please post new vidoes

In 2024 was written the first ever peer review for Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein did not pass it. The author of the review is Dmitry Bonch. After reading the review I see all the mistakes in your videos on the relativity. I recommend you to make new videos.

Sub atomic particles have DEFINITELY got variables/coding embedded in them. Just one example: how does a spider know how to spin a web? They don't attend classes. They just know.

Brilliant, thanks for explaining in detail.

Another possibility is that the probabilities aren't really a coin toss.

I understand the maths but not the phys

Splendid video!! Never saw such a clear and concise derivation in my life!

Does the order of the polarizers matter?

The reason given at 14:20 to take out the term (du/dv)T=const , is not valid. gas internal energy only depends on T, only when there is no work (constant volume process). Here when we talk about a general process, that argument cannot be valid anymore! Would you please clarify it?

Excellent lecture, but why does the electron wave around the proton have to be a standing wave?

At the end, you say the experimental result gives the same result "greater than 1/4 of the time". I think you must have intended to say simply "1/4 of the time". Because otherwise, your statement would not make much sense. Is that what you intended to say?