Jordan Garcia just the opposite for me. I think he drags the conversation down to the point where it is almost ‘dumbed down’ too much. Neil would be a better act, solo.
@@The_Great_Darino I see what you're saying. But the point is that this is accessible for anyone. That's why he does it. Not everyone can comprehend at your level and kids watch these video as well.
@@The_Great_Darino He has too. Not all viewers are the most scientifically literate. Unless you are studying astro physics or are really passionate about cosmology, Chuck is an excellent bridge between the science geeks mumbling jargon back and forth and the average Joe watching the show. Chuck is a real superhero.
Wow, that's the ANSWER for the missing SOCKS, which humanity has been asking since.... someone made the first pair of socks!! and You just solved it... so how do we get the OTHER socks back, since we have the answer??
Chuck coming in HOT with some legit, well thought out questions (bangers), no jokes!! my mans! Thank you guys for this show, it gives me back my imagination from childhood being forced to envision these topics! Unreal!
07:48 -- Chuck nailed it right there!! (It's not "commutation" faster than the speed of light, it's "knowledge" faster than the speed of light.). Bravo, dude.
Both are wrong so I'll use "aware" to describe the "knowing." Unfortunately for humanity we have messed up our language. We use knowledge to describe something learnt which is not the case here, it was already known obviously.
@@GoMSUspartans No it is not. Infinite series that converge (core of calculus II), complex numbers, multidimensional systems higher than 3, etc are not intuitive at all. If it was, Zeno's paradox would have been solved on the spot.
What I learned in this video: I need to learn something about all of this. I understood very little, but it was enough to make me more interested. Thanks.
@P. A. The problem is the act of sending information. You can't just send a 0 or a 1. It's decided by the probability, when the particle is a wave function. When you measure the particle it becomes either a 0 or a 1, but you can't determine if you were the one who collapsed the wave function. So to realize what neil proposed, we need to invent a mechanism which is able to detect if a particle changed from a wave to a particle.
12:54 Chuck hits the nail on the head when he said that nothing is real. We basically live in a holographic universe. This is completely mind blowing. It kind of relates to the double slit experiment when using a photon generator.
Jana and Jackie are by far the best guests; Paul and Chuck are the best co hosts. Having them all on for an extended cosmos queries episode would be dynamite.
Emmmmm, when did 16 minutes pass? I feel like I just clicked on the video... anyway I want to hear more. You three are an amazing teaching trio. Stay safe everyone 💙
Would you mind explaining it then. I must be pretty thick because I don't see how this is an explanation for quantum entanglement. She uses the example of a wishing bone. Now if I pull a wishing bone with another person, walk out of my house, away from the other person, and then look at the bone that I have in my hand and it's the large piece, I know immediately that the other person has the small piece. This is just common sense based on our knowledge that there is a small piece and a large piece. What's it got to do with quantum entanglement?
@@denisdoherty9375 The idea is that you don't know which bone you have. So at that point you're in a state of super position. But when you look at bone in your hand, you immediately know what the other guy has. In quantum terms , you have forced the outcome of the other guy just by looking at yours. Hence, quantum "entanglement'. Of course, the example don't make a lot of sense in terms of chicken bones. I also feel like the explanation was too vague and there was a failure to connect the example to an actual quantum setting.
@@aravindsanjeev4150 Yeah, there was Big piece abre a small piece all along and the person with the big piece had the big piece all along and the person with the small piece had the small piece all along I don't see how it possibly matters whether a human being was aware of that or not there's still a big piece in the one napkin and a small piece in the other there's no chance have you changed I don't see how this is good analogy at all
What if they both for what ever reason never looked to confirm which piece they had. Then om thinking I would wanna be the first to look to insure a better probability of having the winning bone
I know quantum mechanics but I still watch these episodes out of some magical pull that the hosts creates…. Best part is that this show is equally mesmerising to both who knows and don’t know anything about the science the hosts are talking about … As always Chuck (who got autocorrected to “Chick”the first time😂)…. is the star of this show for me ….
Maybe the "particle" is broken into two random pieces when observed, but they still fit together like ying-yang. In other words, it would not necessarily be entanglement, but rather two pieces that were once a whole now behaving as a whole even while separated.
After a year (or longer) of CZcams videos, I think I'm finally (as a lay person) understanding MAYBE 30% of quantum entanglement theory. I can't give it up, though. As someone with no science background, I have to constantly stop- and go back to understand basic things (the structure)- and then resume the study. Although, I would like to know to what percentage Janna believes she even understands the theory? I'd have to base my own understanding off that. And please excuse my poor grammar/communication. - I don't have anyone to talk about this stuff with....
@Chuck Haggert Finally! Perhaps you can explain the quantum chickenbone game entanglement to me. Also, I think multiverse is the exact opposite to entanglement... Multiverse suggests parallel universes in which every possible outcome creates a new universe and that they never interact.
You can use quatum entanglement as a form of communication, you do this by breaking the wave form for each pair of particles at a certain time, like 1 second for the answer to be 'A' and 2 seconds for it to be 'B' 3 seconds for 'C' etc, this is how you can communicate faster than light.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity.
For the wishbone, is one actually the big piece and one little right after separation? Or is that chance determined at superposition collapse into the classical world? Also how do I make sure I get the wish?
Hey Neil, I listen a lot of people when they talk about Quantum Mechanics and they always talk about something called "spin". What exactly is that and do particles actually spin? And if not then what do they do and why do we call it that way? Thanks so much for keeping us educated in those dark times!
I'm a layman who has not studied it so my understanding is limited but I will share my understanding. Nothing is spinning. The word spin is used as an analogy in the same way "color" is used in "color charge" and "string" is used in "string theory". Things with "spin", "color", and "strings" (not that thing /have/ strings but it's easier to type that way) have properties that resemble physical things that spin, have color, or vibrate like strings. I was going to talk about what properties made physicists call it "spin" but I realised that I don't understand it anywhere near enough to put it into words. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will come by and help us both. :)
Spin, the way I've come to understand it, is essentially a particle aligning to a magnetic field. Like a compass needle aligning to the Earth's magnetic field. I maybe wrong about this though.
I’ll answer you as a physicist. Spin is actually "spin angular momentum". It’s an intrinsic angular momentum that a particle has just because it’s THAT particle. For example electrons have a spin of 1/2 (units of h bar). All electrons have a spin of 1/2. It’s something the electron is "born" with. Now we know it’s there because a spinning charge (classically spinning) induces a magnetic field. And that’s what we see with electrons. We detect this magnetic field as if the electron was spinning. But it’s not spinning. How do we know it’s not spinning? Well for once electrons are dimensionless so they can’t be spinning. And if you try to calculate how fast they would be spinning if they were you’d get a speed that is millions of times faster than the speed for light. So it’s not really spinning. So what is spin? Imagine a ball that is spinning. Except it’s not a ball and it’s not spinning 😊
To my understanding, spin is an intrinsic property of all particles. You have fermions which have half integer (-1/2, 1/2) spins and bosons which have whole integer (-1,0,1) spins. Scientists originally called it spin because it acted exactly like angular momentum (momentum used while spinning or revolving), however they later found out that it's entirely incorrect to think particles have an exact position or momentum, rather they have a probability of being in one place or having a certain speed (that's the heisenberg uncertainty principle btw). So, due to its similarity to angular momentum scientists continued calling it spin, although, to avoid confusion many call it intrinsic angular momentum. Tl;dr: Spin acts exactly like angular momentum but it isnt.
Also what @@theebulll said about spin and magnetism is correct. Think of the reason earth had a magnetic field: because of the *turning* iron in its core. That iron has a angular momentum and is creating a magnetic field. This is very similar to what happens in magnetic materials. Essentially, a very strong magnet is created when all the atoms are spinning the same direction, all adding up as much as possible. An extremely weak magnet would be created if all atoms' spins went opposite ways and cancelled.
14:45 particle location probability: the arrow of time, from order towards disorder, is... It's ultra unlikely for the shattered vase particles to move back to the intact vase state. So much more shattered configurations(billions) than intact ones (1).
Hi Mr.Tyson. I am a science nut and found myself listening to your Utube channel on multi-dimensions the other day. Thoughts bubble up once in a while, and today is one of those times. I have heard talks on gravity and quantum entanglement. I was wondering if the seeming detachment or disconnected ness between two entangled particles in the gravitational example is just the tale tale sign of a higher dimension of gravity. Or gravity is an aspect of a higher dimensions natural property. What are your thoughts?
@@dragonofthewest8305 I know that feeling. One small piece of advice I can give you is to try your best to keep a positive attitude, and communicate as often as you can with the people that you love in your life and that one's that love you the most. Just having people that love and care about you is big part of life and happiness. I believe we all get depressed, it's just that some people handle it better than others and some of us might experience it more than others. Just know that you are not alone in your feelings and the best thing to do is when you feel like talking about it you should do so.
Easy, No one including yourself attempt to look at it or go near it and it should remain in its super-positioned state. It is the act of "disturbing" the quantum entanglement that makes it "definitive" or in the case of their example "large or small" end of the wishbone.
Neil sir, I am from Bengal and I am a fan of you. I have a question. Is quantum entanglement always revealed in respect of any one phenomena of two particles (either spin or charge, but not both of spin and charge)? Or it may be deal with more than one phenomena? In that case what may be the outcome like?
Thanks for the thought-inspiring video! Based upon what was discussed from the 8:22 to 10:26 time mark, I wonder what would happen if a receiver of a coded message were to look away and back at the particle a few times in succession, therefore allowing the particle to change as necessary in between glances as the sender was inputting the code... any thoughts? Am I seeing the concept clearly?
It's easy to explain. Dr. Levin just went the hard way. First, you measure particle A to have a spin of +1 (made-up number for simplicity). Then, when you measure particle B, it will always have the opposite spin (-1). So, there is one bit of information being sent faster-than-light, but since you don't control the result of the measurement, the information that is sent is random. That's why you can't use it to send information. You'll only send random garbage.
If I'm not mistaken, it's just that matter or energy defines probability of events or of things existing. An absence of matter or energy defines anything could exist at any time. And time doesn't flow unless there is matter or energy to create events. Thus the big bang had no choice but to always exist and be happening. Therefor our existence, and all events within it, must be defined and exist. Simple.
Could you please do a video on the recent wormhole experiment in lab? That was made possible using bits?? Also, what the heck are bits? How does it work?
I have a question in relation to quantum emtanglement actually. Ive tried looking it up but have been unable to find anything about it (things that use the same concepts but not the specific idea Im wondering about). The question is, what would be the consequences of taking a pair of entangled particles and "compressing" them or one to (micro) black holes? Ive seen questions where what would happen if an entangled particle was put in to a black hole (black hole information paradox solution) but it's not the same. In my idea would the superposition wave function collapse due to being influenced by gravity, or would they form perhaps a wormhole maybe, or even weirder things like one becoming anti gravity well (push instead of pull) to counter the black hole one, etc.... Even though I study my knowledge of physics is unfortunately not as advanced as Id like it to be because life gets in the way and time management so itd be really nice to hear something about a question Ive had for years
No means an expert. I would be entitled to think that these particles are not really point particles. The wave function would collapse when we measure it to gives us the measurement. I don't think we can talk about 'squeezing' a wave function into a tiny space. Even if we did think of them as particles the Schwarzschild radius would be so small where it would be impossible to even detect such a black hole? Also, i think the act of compressing is the same as doing a measurement. So hence we know the property of the particle and its entangled pair. We haven't lost any information there.
@@baldeepsingh5471 Im not exactly sure about that. On the one hand yes "squeezing" it would be in a way akin to measuring it so it could possibly cause a wave collapse, which does make a certain logical sense. As far as Im aware though photons have been entangled (its been a while but I do remember seeing a video on it somewhere) and also arent point particles, but theoretically light can be "concentrated" to one spot in space and form a black hole as well (a kugelblitz if I remember/spelled correctly). It has been a while since Ive read up on that though so Im not exactly sure of the requirements for one to exist. Even looking to the blackhole informatiom paradox solution though where theoretically an entangled particle can be dropped in to a pre existing black hole does that suggest that gravity has no effect on entanglement since it's a warping of spacetime and not a "real" force? I cant say really
Two spinning coins can fall 2 heads, 2 tails, heads/tails or tails heads. 4 ways. But entangled particles are like 2 spinning coins that can only fall heads/tails or tails/heads. Both spinning coins are rapidly alternating - or superpositioning - between heads & tails but if you slap one down, at that very moment the other is fated to come down opposite, no matter how long you wait or how far apart they are.
Hello Dr neil, What if we sync each others atomic clock and assume we have absolute same time in different galaxies and then we deside at perticular future time suppose 8 o clock jenna will collapse wave function at andromeda and then you inspect particales at 8.01 then you would know jenna collapsed wave function and you got the information within a seconds from andromeda. We can also define certain time slots and we can communicate effectively. The only thing is we need absolute same time clock at both places. Am I wrong or this can be achieved?
When Chuck said, “You just told me that nothing is real,” I so hoped that Janna and Neil would say, “No, that’s not what it means.” But instead, they both said “Yeah.”
I always think as a layman that quantum entanglement seems a strong indication there are other dimensions. The particles could easily be connected in another dimension which would ignore our time and space and FTL travel rules for information between them ☺ String theory already considers dimensions as a possibility....I dunno, I'm just speculating as a non-physicist/non-mathematician....
Yeah, but additional Dimensions might just be within the current three dimensions. Look for that video where they have the ant walking along the wire. To us it the wire might be a one-dimensional line. To the ant the wire casing might have radius and length. To the copper wire inside the casing, the casing casing has an internal radius, a thickness, an external radius, and the length. The outside surface of the casing could be grooved laterally, it could be grooved radially. The copper wire could the single strand or multi-strand, and each multi-strand might have their own insulation with a outer width, color, thickness, enter with...
Actually, I wonder if Neil was faking his reaction when that concept was described, because it's one of the most obvious and basic aspects of entanglement to even a total non-physicist like myself.
@@tedl7538 He has explained it to Joe Rogan. Also the measurement problem and many other things. He's playing the audience to squeeze more info from his guests.
How about this: 2:25 there are two ends of one wishbone wave function. When you look at your end of the wave function and superimpose your wave function upon it, the wishbone wave changes or "collapses", and the other end of the wave function changes with it. Or, the two ends were already changed and their sizes were set the moment you first interfered with the wishbone wave function at the dinner table.
Once you’ve looked at the particle does that mean it stays in the observed position indefinitely or once you stop looking does it revert back to the superposition?
Neil's encryption query at @8:30 to 9:45 is essentially how secret military communications were established; the implementation of *one* *time* *cypher* codes. These messages would be impossible to decode without the key (decoding answer) that can only itself, be used once.
Please, if you love the concept of quantum mechanics, you need to go play The Outer Wilds. The game is all about quantum entanglement. I learned a lot. Just trust me on this one.
you should be able to communicate ftl, the measuring mechanisms for determining the state of the particles measures angular momentum of the particles. This includes x,y,z axis. if one party only communicates over the x axis, for example clockwise is 0, and counterclockwise is a 1, then the recieing party needs to measure the x axis spin as a receiver, and the use the other axis, say the y axis, as a transmitter? seems possible?
Amazing video, I learned a lot. Chuck: I'm sending you to Harvard to study Cosmology. Once you graduate you can change your name to Chuck Sagan-Tyson and still be a Nice guy!🤣🤣🤣🤣
Can anyone answer this question: Is quantum entanglement also the category that includes 2 particles that are “linked” or entangled to the point that they share characteristics with one another from any distance? Is this the same thing they explained in the video? What would that look like ( not really how it would look how it would perform)?
To more concisely answer Chuck's initial question. "What makes it go from a super-position to one or the other, or at what point does this happen" It is "finite" once you attempt to "measure" or "view" the quantum entangled particles. So the exact second you look at the wish-bone is the exact second it is forced into one state or the other. A great example of this is illustrated in the Schrodinger's cat paradox.
I’ve always been frustrated with this particular aspect of science, even though I love the idea and find it extremely fascinating. My one question has always been as follows: If you can’t measure it without breaking the superposition, then how do you really know the superposition is not just another way of describing that you don’t know what the spin is YET. Kinda like the whole tree falling in the forest and making a sound. Yes it makes a sound you just weren’t there to hear it. You wouldn’t say that it was in a superposition of making a sound and not making a sound. .......sometimes I can’t help but feel it’s a way for scientists to say we don’t get it, but let’s come up with an idea that explains the parts we don’t get. Though I know quantum mechanics has true application so scientists have at least an understanding of how to leverage it. Would love someone’s thoughts on this. Especially since CZcams won’t let me press enter to make paragraphs anymore. It’s related.
Take solace. We are trying to decode the most complex language discovered using a few colors and a couple shapes. Most has been disproven. Very little concrete findings. But these last few years have opened more doors than Feynman knew existed.
I know we say it all the time but, Chuck expresses the novice view like a boss. I hear these quantum physics discussions & think, “holy s**t, everything is “upside down” nothing is real”🥺 Thanks Chuck👍🏾
I get that you can't use it to communicate because if you observe the particle you affect it and force it to take a state and if I look at it, I can also affect it to force a state, so it's hard to know if I'm looking at the effect of your looking or mine. BUT what if instead of trying to observe the particle, I observe an effect of the state change. Is there something that the particle would affect differently depending on which state it was in? Then maybe we could observe that thing instead of observing the particle directly?
It sounds like she was explaining how we’d perceive motion in the 4th dimension at one point. I’m kind of surprised that you guys didn’t make that connection.
Could anyone give a simplified explanation of what it means to ‘force that wishing bone to assume a specific state’ in this (7:58) context? It may seem kind of basic, but I don’t fully grasp what actual changes occur during this event.
Shout out to the dude in a million years that just falls through the earth because probability
And then he just merges with the solid rock
TheZombieKiller06 I wish to fall into a statue of myself
It would take longer than a million years... there are a lot of atoms in a person's body.
hahahhaha
😂😂😂😂😂
Think about long it would take to fall through every single atom you would encounter falling through the earth.
Chuck always embodies my thoughts in these 😂
he's our representative in these talks xD
Jordan Garcia just the opposite for me. I think he drags the conversation down to the point where it is almost ‘dumbed down’ too much. Neil would be a better act, solo.
its proof for simulation
@@The_Great_Darino I see what you're saying. But the point is that this is accessible for anyone. That's why he does it. Not everyone can comprehend at your level and kids watch these video as well.
@@The_Great_Darino He has too. Not all viewers are the most scientifically literate. Unless you are studying astro physics or are really passionate about cosmology, Chuck is an excellent bridge between the science geeks mumbling jargon back and forth and the average Joe watching the show. Chuck is a real superhero.
I love watching the progression of Chuck's education through these episodes
underrated comment xD
my man prolly know more than a guy in his 2nd year.
We forget that Chuck was a math major in college.
Chuck is thinking way clearer than her!
I like the way he makes it a practical usage item. Then she totally rearranges it so that to make it impractical. Then the breaking up joke. ❤🎉
Came to know more about Quantum entanglement, became more confused
What part of quantum chickenbone game entanglement don't you understand?
Quantum mechanics *sponge bob imagination rainbow meme*
"TIME TRAVEL"
Congratulations you now understand quantum entanglement by accepting that you don't understand it!!! Stay confused my friends
what a mood
Socks seem to have an unusually high probability of quantum tunneling...
Yeah especially when the drain guard is missing and we never looked to see if it still exists or not.
Wow, that's the ANSWER for the missing SOCKS, which humanity has been asking since.... someone made the first pair of socks!! and You just solved it... so how do we get the OTHER socks back, since we have the answer??
Have you ever wondered why Einstein didn’t wear socks?
We have to learn how to superposition one sock that is left on both legs.
I received a quantum message yesterday that my missing socks quantum tunneled to Andromeda, and I have to go pick them up.
Need more with this Trio 🙌🏾
We all want it!!
@@cachetes888 fr
Check out star talk radio podcast..They have put more stuff on their website.. Especially of this trio.
Chuck coming in HOT with some legit, well thought out questions (bangers), no jokes!! my mans! Thank you guys for this show, it gives me back my imagination from childhood being forced to envision these topics! Unreal!
Men will be men
07:48 -- Chuck nailed it right there!! (It's not "commutation" faster than the speed of light, it's "knowledge" faster than the speed of light.). Bravo, dude.
Both are wrong so I'll use "aware" to describe the "knowing." Unfortunately for humanity we have messed up our language. We use knowledge to describe something learnt which is not the case here, it was already known obviously.
@@aaronanytime8897 What was already known? Are you implying Einstein's hidden variables, because that has been proven wrong by Bell's theorem.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman
Максим Радченко
If you think you understand
Q. M. , then you haven’t thought about it enough.
Feynman was wrong. Simple answer is to take the math seriously and stop trying to force human intuition onto reality.
@@jonathanhenderson9422 Math IS human intuition.
That's not quite right... but neither is the standard model.
@@GoMSUspartans No it is not. Infinite series that converge (core of calculus II), complex numbers, multidimensional systems higher than 3, etc are not intuitive at all. If it was, Zeno's paradox would have been solved on the spot.
These videos are amazing! You guys should do more short 10-20min snippits of theory/space stuff
What I learned in this video: I need to learn something about all of this. I understood very little, but it was enough to make me more interested. Thanks.
So this is what Jada and August had
xD
Perfect 😂
Only if they came at the same time
😂😂😂😂
9:28, this part made me laugh so hard.
"Ooooooooooooooooohhh woowwwwwwww"
9:44
It was so funny, especially the moment of silence before they started the "Ooooooooooohhhh wooooooooowwww".
And she was trying not to laugh when stating it lol.
@P. A. The problem is the act of sending information. You can't just send a 0 or a 1. It's decided by the probability, when the particle is a wave function. When you measure the particle it becomes either a 0 or a 1, but you can't determine if you were the one who collapsed the wave function. So to realize what neil proposed, we need to invent a mechanism which is able to detect if a particle changed from a wave to a particle.
Need more of this!! More Janna :D!! Great work guys!
Yay, Janna! Love when she is on. Great chemistry with Neil and Chuck. Great explanations of complicated cosmology for everyday folks.
So Janna you say nothing is real?
Janna: yep
Neil: yep
Chuck: OH MY GAWD
Just got to this part of the video -- PRICELESS!!!
I love all of space: Planets, Stars, Black holes, and space itself! and this channel is basically my dream channel!
✨💫
we love janna, please have her on more often. thanks, Doug and Deb Stewart
Janna in Quran means Paradise
13:14 Chuck rethinking his whole life.
12:54 Chuck hits the nail on the head when he said that nothing is real. We basically live in a holographic universe. This is completely mind blowing. It kind of relates to the double slit experiment when using a photon generator.
Dragons are REAL. . . .😐😐😐
Well if is holographic that wd mean the pain you experiment is not real ?? is fake ??
How so?
Dang so what you’re telling me is everything I learned from antman was all bs??
😂
It sounds like the probability is VERY high that all you learned from antman was NOT bs.
Disappointing, so Antman is no fan of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Quantum BS. You have to put Quantum in front of everything.
rk41gator it’s a reference to avengers endgame. Cause he said “so your telling me back to the future is a bunch of bull s**t?!”
Schrödinger's wish bone
Is Schrodingers cat still alive ? This is the more relevant question .
@@QuantumMechanic_88 I'll pay you 10 bucks to check up on the little guy
Thank you for not calling it a wishing bone
@@Acceptable76 My cat's name is Schrödinger, and he's alive! I'd like my $10 now please lol
quantum chickenbone game entanglement
Jana and Jackie are by far the best guests; Paul and Chuck are the best co hosts. Having them all on for an extended cosmos queries episode would be dynamite.
Love this show just start watching!! I most go back and watch all The old ones to!
Emmmmm, when did 16 minutes pass? I feel like I just clicked on the video... anyway I want to hear more. You three are an amazing teaching trio. Stay safe everyone 💙
You can just see that she is used to explain it and that she loves talking about it. I just understood quantum entanglement ! We need more of Janna!
Would you mind explaining it then. I must be pretty thick because I don't see how this is an explanation for quantum entanglement. She uses the example of a wishing bone. Now if I pull a wishing bone with another person, walk out of my house, away from the other person, and then look at the bone that I have in my hand and it's the large piece, I know immediately that the other person has the small piece. This is just common sense based on our knowledge that there is a small piece and a large piece. What's it got to do with quantum entanglement?
@@denisdoherty9375 The idea is that you don't know which bone you have. So at that point you're in a state of super position. But when you look at bone in your hand, you immediately know what the other guy has. In quantum terms , you have forced the outcome of the other guy just by looking at yours. Hence, quantum "entanglement'.
Of course, the example don't make a lot of sense in terms of chicken bones. I also feel like the explanation was too vague and there was a failure to connect the example to an actual quantum setting.
@@aravindsanjeev4150 Yeah, there was Big piece abre a small piece all along and the person with the big piece had the big piece all along and the person with the small piece had the small piece all along I don't see how it possibly matters whether a human being was aware of that or not there's still a big piece in the one napkin and a small piece in the other there's no chance have you changed I don't see how this is good analogy at all
@Aravind Sanjeev best explanation I finally get it kinda. After 5 days of research.
What if they both for what ever reason never looked to confirm which piece they had. Then om thinking I would wanna be the first to look to insure a better probability of having the winning bone
the episodes with Janna are the BEST , I absolutely adore and admire her.
Just discovered startalk. lovin this content!
I know quantum mechanics but I still watch these episodes out of some magical pull that the hosts creates…. Best part is that this show is equally mesmerising to both who knows and don’t know anything about the science the hosts are talking about …
As always Chuck (who got autocorrected to “Chick”the first time😂)…. is the star of this show for me ….
Is this why I LOSE MY CAR KEYS, then there they are right INFRONT OF MY FACE!!!😂😂😂
I’m pretty sure there’s like a 1 in 10^10^10 chance of your keys disappearing because of quantum tunneling
I relisten this piece couple of times and WOW this is mind-blowing and exciting
This video actually cleared a whole lot of confusion that I had about quantum entanglement!! Thanks!
Maybe the "particle" is broken into two random pieces when observed, but they still fit together like ying-yang. In other words, it would not necessarily be entanglement, but rather two pieces that were once a whole now behaving as a whole even while separated.
Janna is the best guest ever. Never fails to blow our minds.
Mind blowing! Thanks for the knowledge.
thanks neil, for bring them to star talk. it was very fun to watch.
After a year (or longer) of CZcams videos, I think I'm finally (as a lay person) understanding MAYBE 30% of quantum entanglement theory. I can't give it up, though. As someone with no science background, I have to constantly stop- and go back to understand basic things (the structure)- and then resume the study. Although, I would like to know to what percentage Janna believes she even understands the theory? I'd have to base my own understanding off that. And please excuse my poor grammar/communication. - I don't have anyone to talk about this stuff with....
Quantum ENLOSTMENT #Flightz
What part of quantum chickenbone game entanglement don't you understand?
@Chuck Haggert Finally! Perhaps you can explain the quantum chickenbone game entanglement to me.
Also, I think multiverse is the exact opposite to entanglement... Multiverse suggests parallel universes in which every possible outcome creates a new universe and that they never interact.
You can use quatum entanglement as a form of communication, you do this by breaking the wave form for each pair of particles at a certain time, like 1 second for the answer to be 'A' and 2 seconds for it to be 'B' 3 seconds for 'C' etc, this is how you can communicate faster than light.
Amazing video! This was an excellent discussion.
Janna Levin is my favorite! ❤
Neil is also my favorite! 😊
Chuck, well he's just funny 😝
I have never seen Neil have an “Ah hah” or wow moment like that at 9:45 😂 This some deep stuff!
Excellent presentation brought me closer to understanding than any other channel
Thank you Janna. You are such a delight to see! Keep smiling.
One of the best explanations of the quantum entanglement I've encountered. Thank you!
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity.
CZcams came with the “entanglement” recommendations lol)))
Thank y'all so much! Neal , I appreciate everything you do. ♥️
For the wishbone, is one actually the big piece and one little right after separation? Or is that chance determined at superposition collapse into the classical world? Also how do I make sure I get the wish?
These are your two best Co-hosts Neil. Never let them leave! :D
Hey Neil, I listen a lot of people when they talk about Quantum Mechanics and they always talk about something called "spin". What exactly is that and do particles actually spin? And if not then what do they do and why do we call it that way?
Thanks so much for keeping us educated in those dark times!
I'm a layman who has not studied it so my understanding is limited but I will share my understanding. Nothing is spinning. The word spin is used as an analogy in the same way "color" is used in "color charge" and "string" is used in "string theory". Things with "spin", "color", and "strings" (not that thing /have/ strings but it's easier to type that way) have properties that resemble physical things that spin, have color, or vibrate like strings.
I was going to talk about what properties made physicists call it "spin" but I realised that I don't understand it anywhere near enough to put it into words. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable will come by and help us both. :)
Spin, the way I've come to understand it, is essentially a particle aligning to a magnetic field. Like a compass needle aligning to the Earth's magnetic field. I maybe wrong about this though.
I’ll answer you as a physicist. Spin is actually "spin angular momentum". It’s an intrinsic angular momentum that a particle has just because it’s THAT particle. For example electrons have a spin of 1/2 (units of h bar). All electrons have a spin of 1/2. It’s something the electron is "born" with. Now we know it’s there because a spinning charge (classically spinning) induces a magnetic field. And that’s what we see with electrons. We detect this magnetic field as if the electron was spinning. But it’s not spinning. How do we know it’s not spinning? Well for once electrons are dimensionless so they can’t be spinning. And if you try to calculate how fast they would be spinning if they were you’d get a speed that is millions of times faster than the speed for light. So it’s not really spinning. So what is spin? Imagine a ball that is spinning. Except it’s not a ball and it’s not spinning 😊
To my understanding, spin is an intrinsic property of all particles. You have fermions which have half integer (-1/2, 1/2) spins and bosons which have whole integer (-1,0,1) spins. Scientists originally called it spin because it acted exactly like angular momentum (momentum used while spinning or revolving), however they later found out that it's entirely incorrect to think particles have an exact position or momentum, rather they have a probability of being in one place or having a certain speed (that's the heisenberg uncertainty principle btw). So, due to its similarity to angular momentum scientists continued calling it spin, although, to avoid confusion many call it intrinsic angular momentum.
Tl;dr: Spin acts exactly like angular momentum but it isnt.
Also what @@theebulll said about spin and magnetism is correct. Think of the reason earth had a magnetic field: because of the *turning* iron in its core. That iron has a angular momentum and is creating a magnetic field. This is very similar to what happens in magnetic materials. Essentially, a very strong magnet is created when all the atoms are spinning the same direction, all adding up as much as possible. An extremely weak magnet would be created if all atoms' spins went opposite ways and cancelled.
maybe my all time favorite Star Talk!
I love Jana, her explanations are so clear
Oxymoron's are entangled till you decide to think about them
* Insert GIF of The Roots' keyboard player, James Poyser, holding back his laugh for about 8 seconds then failing *
A cO-creative position
That's actually brilliant....
Apparently inappropriate apostrophes are too.
A "squared" circle
A "married" bachelor
14:45 particle location probability: the arrow of time, from order towards disorder, is... It's ultra unlikely for the shattered vase particles to move back to the intact vase state. So much more shattered configurations(billions) than intact ones (1).
TomiTapio interesting...
Hi Mr.Tyson. I am a science nut and found myself listening to your Utube channel on multi-dimensions the other day. Thoughts bubble up once in a while, and today is one of those times. I have heard talks on gravity and quantum entanglement. I was wondering if the seeming detachment or disconnected ness between two entangled particles in the gravitational example is just the tale tale sign of a higher dimension of gravity. Or gravity is an aspect of a higher dimensions natural property. What are your thoughts?
Chuck has the best job. Listen to these insightful minds talk about jaw dropping ideas, be amazed, ask questions.
I was depressed today but this gave me hope about everything
what made you feel depressed my friend
@@howtodoit4204 not knowing the future and where my life is heading
@@dragonofthewest8305 I know that feeling. One small piece of advice I can give you is to try your best to keep a positive attitude, and communicate as often as you can with the people that you love in your life and that one's that love you the most. Just having people that love and care about you is big part of life and happiness. I believe we all get depressed, it's just that some people handle it better than others and some of us might experience it more than others. Just know that you are not alone in your feelings and the best thing to do is when you feel like talking about it you should do so.
Question: how do you determine if an electron-pair is in a superpositioned state?
I don’t know! Which is usually the correct answer
pretty simple. you just create them in that state.
Farzher
Except it’s not that simple and it’s far more interesting and complex than that.
Buy not looking at it
Easy, No one including yourself attempt to look at it or go near it and it should remain in its super-positioned state. It is the act of "disturbing" the quantum entanglement that makes it "definitive" or in the case of their example "large or small" end of the wishbone.
Chuck just adds the perfect questions that make what they are saying so much easier to understand for a non scientific standpoint
Kinda makes ya think that’s why he’s there, he’s so helpful 🤝
Not the first and probably not the last time I end up with more questions than I had before about the item discussed in Startalk 🤣👌
Me seeing Prof. Levin make these two big brains go “ooooh” “wooow” at 9:43 made me feel happy 😭😭😭😂😂
Man, I love Neil and Chuck but j have to say Jenna is freaking awesome. She’s one from my favorite people.
Neil sir, I am from Bengal and I am a fan of you. I have a question.
Is quantum entanglement always revealed in respect of any one phenomena of two particles (either spin or charge, but not both of spin and charge)? Or it may be deal with more than one phenomena? In that case what may be the outcome like?
Thanks for the thought-inspiring video! Based upon what was discussed from the 8:22 to 10:26 time mark, I wonder what would happen if a receiver of a coded message were to look away and back at the particle a few times in succession, therefore allowing the particle to change as necessary in between glances as the sender was inputting the code... any thoughts? Am I seeing the concept clearly?
I was also thinking, has anyone put a dud sensor in there which draws the same charge to check that it isn't the electric interfering
I love how this can’t be explained in an understandable way haha
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" ~ world renowned Psuedoscientist Albert Einstein
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
- Richard Feynman
@@robert2real pseudoscientist, is that a joke?
It's easy to explain. Dr. Levin just went the hard way.
First, you measure particle A to have a spin of +1 (made-up number for simplicity).
Then, when you measure particle B, it will always have the opposite spin (-1).
So, there is one bit of information being sent faster-than-light, but since you don't control the result of the measurement, the information that is sent is random.
That's why you can't use it to send information. You'll only send random garbage.
If I'm not mistaken, it's just that matter or energy defines probability of events or of things existing.
An absence of matter or energy defines anything could exist at any time. And time doesn't flow unless there is matter or energy to create events.
Thus the big bang had no choice but to always exist and be happening. Therefor our existence, and all events within it, must be defined and exist.
Simple.
I love how Chuck seemingly gets smarter every episode.
Exactly it’s inspiring and motivational😁
Could you please do a video on the recent wormhole experiment in lab? That was made possible using bits?? Also, what the heck are bits? How does it work?
Bits are what text is made of. Also known as Bitcode
You guys stuck in the most respectful way, because you guys speak knowledge and very competitive about your thoughts is it all hypothesis
Janna ❤
I have a question in relation to quantum emtanglement actually. Ive tried looking it up but have been unable to find anything about it (things that use the same concepts but not the specific idea Im wondering about). The question is, what would be the consequences of taking a pair of entangled particles and "compressing" them or one to (micro) black holes? Ive seen questions where what would happen if an entangled particle was put in to a black hole (black hole information paradox solution) but it's not the same. In my idea would the superposition wave function collapse due to being influenced by gravity, or would they form perhaps a wormhole maybe, or even weirder things like one becoming anti gravity well (push instead of pull) to counter the black hole one, etc....
Even though I study my knowledge of physics is unfortunately not as advanced as Id like it to be because life gets in the way and time management so itd be really nice to hear something about a question Ive had for years
We need your question answered asap.
No means an expert. I would be entitled to think that these particles are not really point particles. The wave function would collapse when we measure it to gives us the measurement. I don't think we can talk about 'squeezing' a wave function into a tiny space. Even if we did think of them as particles the Schwarzschild radius would be so small where it would be impossible to even detect such a black hole? Also, i think the act of compressing is the same as doing a measurement. So hence we know the property of the particle and its entangled pair. We haven't lost any information there.
@@baldeepsingh5471 Im not exactly sure about that. On the one hand yes "squeezing" it would be in a way akin to measuring it so it could possibly cause a wave collapse, which does make a certain logical sense. As far as Im aware though photons have been entangled (its been a while but I do remember seeing a video on it somewhere) and also arent point particles, but theoretically light can be "concentrated" to one spot in space and form a black hole as well (a kugelblitz if I remember/spelled correctly). It has been a while since Ive read up on that though so Im not exactly sure of the requirements for one to exist. Even looking to the blackhole informatiom paradox solution though where theoretically an entangled particle can be dropped in to a pre existing black hole does that suggest that gravity has no effect on entanglement since it's a warping of spacetime and not a "real" force? I cant say really
Two spinning coins can fall 2 heads, 2 tails, heads/tails or tails heads. 4 ways. But entangled particles are like 2 spinning coins that can only fall heads/tails or tails/heads. Both spinning coins are rapidly alternating - or superpositioning - between heads & tails but if you slap one down, at that very moment the other is fated to come down opposite, no matter how long you wait or how far apart they are.
Hello Dr neil,
What if we sync each others atomic clock and assume we have absolute same time in different galaxies and then we deside at perticular future time suppose 8 o clock jenna will collapse wave function at andromeda and then you inspect particales at 8.01 then you would know jenna collapsed wave function and you got the information within a seconds from andromeda.
We can also define certain time slots and we can communicate effectively.
The only thing is we need absolute same time clock at both places.
Am I wrong or this can be achieved?
When Chuck said, “You just told me that nothing is real,” I so hoped that Janna and Neil would say, “No, that’s not what it means.” But instead, they both said “Yeah.”
I always think as a layman that quantum entanglement seems a strong indication there are other dimensions. The particles could easily be connected in another dimension which would ignore our time and space and FTL travel rules for information between them ☺ String theory already considers dimensions as a possibility....I dunno, I'm just speculating as a non-physicist/non-mathematician....
Yeah, but additional Dimensions might just be within the current three dimensions. Look for that video where they have the ant walking along the wire.
To us it the wire might be a one-dimensional line. To the ant the wire casing might have radius and length. To the copper wire inside the casing, the casing casing has an internal radius, a thickness, an external radius, and the length.
The outside surface of the casing could be grooved laterally, it could be grooved radially.
The copper wire could the single strand or multi-strand, and each multi-strand might have their own insulation with a outer width, color, thickness, enter with...
I thinks that the quantum entanglement, could be a door to the 4th dimension. Like a key, to go beyond light.
This explains alot of QEC in Mass Effect..... Very interesting vid and mind bending..
I really wanted to hear more about this the whole idea blows my mind
When Neil’s Masterclass ad delays me from watching Neil
One of the craziest things in the universe is knowing enough -
-This is, Star Talk
The main thing I learned from this was that you can't know which party caused the entanglement to collapse.
Maybe player 2's failure to successfully put his right foot on red is what caused the entanglement to collapse.
Actually, I wonder if Neil was faking his reaction when that concept was described, because it's one of the most obvious and basic aspects of entanglement to even a total non-physicist like myself.
@@tedl7538 He has explained it to Joe Rogan. Also the measurement problem and many other things. He's playing the audience to squeeze more info from his guests.
How about this:
2:25 there are two ends of one wishbone wave function. When you look at your end of the wave function and superimpose your wave function upon it, the wishbone wave changes or "collapses", and the other end of the wave function changes with it.
Or, the two ends were already changed and their sizes were set the moment you first interfered with the wishbone wave function at the dinner table.
Once you’ve looked at the particle does that mean it stays in the observed position indefinitely or once you stop looking does it revert back to the superposition?
I love Neil, but did they actually explain it? I’m not sure.
StevieJ D haha no, they absolutely did not! (Also a fan)
Explanation - the mechanism of the universe is to randomly determine interaction!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Nobody ever explains it. They all don’t know all of them scientists, they don’t know, and they don’t understand
You can't REALLY explain though can you
If they could explain it we would already be taking advantage of this.
We LOVE JANNA WE WATCH WHEN SHE’s on ♥️
Neil's encryption query at @8:30 to 9:45 is essentially how secret military communications were established; the implementation of *one* *time* *cypher* codes.
These messages would be impossible to decode without the key (decoding answer) that can only itself, be used once.
Great discussion!
RE: 0:25--0:27: "quantum" superposition.
RE: 12:50--13:15, see:
Wikipedia: Conceptual framework.
Wikipedia: Quantum tunneling.
Wikipedia: Reification fallacy.
I swear I read Quantum Entanglement with Jada
Please, if you love the concept of quantum mechanics, you need to go play The Outer Wilds. The game is all about quantum entanglement. I learned a lot. Just trust me on this one.
I've been a fan of the channel for a while now but I'm surprised that this Quantum entanglement video is in my recommendations now all of a sudden 😂.
you should be able to communicate ftl, the measuring mechanisms for determining the state of the particles measures angular momentum of the particles. This includes x,y,z axis. if one party only communicates over the x axis, for example clockwise is 0, and counterclockwise is a 1, then the recieing party needs to measure the x axis spin as a receiver, and the use the other axis, say the y axis, as a transmitter? seems possible?
Amazing video, I learned a lot. Chuck: I'm sending you to Harvard to study Cosmology. Once you graduate you can change your name to Chuck Sagan-Tyson and still be a Nice guy!🤣🤣🤣🤣
Best way to end a relationship.."open this when you get to andromeda"
Can anyone answer this question: Is quantum entanglement also the category that includes 2 particles that are “linked” or entangled to the point that they share characteristics with one another from any distance? Is this the same thing they explained in the video? What would that look like ( not really how it would look how it would perform)?
To more concisely answer Chuck's initial question. "What makes it go from a super-position to one or the other, or at what point does this happen" It is "finite" once you attempt to "measure" or "view" the quantum entangled particles. So the exact second you look at the wish-bone is the exact second it is forced into one state or the other. A great example of this is illustrated in the Schrodinger's cat paradox.
I’ve always been frustrated with this particular aspect of science, even though I love the idea and find it extremely fascinating. My one question has always been as follows:
If you can’t measure it without breaking the superposition, then how do you really know the superposition is not just another way of describing that you don’t know what the spin is YET. Kinda like the whole tree falling in the forest and making a sound. Yes it makes a sound you just weren’t there to hear it. You wouldn’t say that it was in a superposition of making a sound and not making a sound. .......sometimes I can’t help but feel it’s a way for scientists to say we don’t get it, but let’s come up with an idea that explains the parts we don’t get. Though I know quantum mechanics has true application so scientists have at least an understanding of how to leverage it. Would love someone’s thoughts on this. Especially since CZcams won’t let me press enter to make paragraphs anymore. It’s related.
Take solace. We are trying to decode the most complex language discovered using a few colors and a couple shapes. Most has been disproven. Very little concrete findings. But these last few years have opened more doors than Feynman knew existed.
3:59 , we can’t have both, why? Well cuz that just not cool.😳😂😂 these scientists always trying to complicate stuff for no reason..
I know we say it all the time but, Chuck expresses the novice view like a boss. I hear these quantum physics discussions & think, “holy s**t, everything is “upside down” nothing is real”🥺 Thanks Chuck👍🏾
I get that you can't use it to communicate because if you observe the particle you affect it and force it to take a state and if I look at it, I can also affect it to force a state, so it's hard to know if I'm looking at the effect of your looking or mine. BUT what if instead of trying to observe the particle, I observe an effect of the state change. Is there something that the particle would affect differently depending on which state it was in? Then maybe we could observe that thing instead of observing the particle directly?
It's WISHBONE!
lol. It could be Schrodinger's dog named Wishbone instead of his famous cat.
It sounds like she was explaining how we’d perceive motion in the 4th dimension at one point.
I’m kind of surprised that you guys didn’t make that connection.
Thank you for blowing my mind on a regular basis.
Could anyone give a simplified explanation of what it means to ‘force that wishing bone to assume a specific state’ in this (7:58) context? It may seem kind of basic, but I don’t fully grasp what actual changes occur during this event.