Q&A: Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Quantum Physics is Different
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2024
- Why is maths such a good way for us to understand the universe? If two entangled particles were sent to different places, could they be used for instant communication? Philip Ball answers audience questions following his talk.
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
Philip's book "Beyond Weird" is available now: geni.us/Fdybs5
Watch the talk here: • Why Everything You Tho...
---
A very special thank you to our Patreon supporters who help make these videos happen, especially:
Alessandro Mecca, Ashok Bommisetti, Avrahaim Chein, bestape, Elizabeth Greasley, Greg Nagel, Lester Su, Manish Upmanyu, Rebecca Pan, Robert D Finrock and Will Knott.
---
The Ri is on Patreon: / theroyalinstitution
and Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link. - Věda a technologie
Schrodinger kittens is one of most adorable things I've heard in a while
always with the best content
I just love this channel
Some quality questions, great stuff!
I really enjoyed his realism. Thank you.
Very good answers to some good questions.
Absolutely brilliant!!
Best interpretation of qm lecture I've seen in a while.
Amazing talk.
Math is formalized critical thinking applied to a given set of axioms. The reason math works so well to describe the universe is because all our axioms come from our experience in the universe.
In other words, if we were in another universe, we would pick different axioms based on our experience there and all the theorems would be different, but that process would still be called “math”.
I suppose a person could write an unlimited number of equations, but nature has only chosen to obey a few of them. Mathematics should describe the physical universe rather than prescribe it. So, the physical observations come first, and then the mathematics would be brought in to describe it and predict further action of nature.
Actually, it is quite common for phenomena to be experienced by us for which there are no apparent axioms. Yet we may later discover some abstract mathematics with no apparent correlation to practical reality that can now be used to describe the phenomena. Before fractals, people experienced snowflakes, mountain ranges, tree leaves but yet did not have a neat set of axioms to describe and artificially reproduce those experiences. Once fractals were paired with computers we marveled at how simple mathematical axioms could be scaled to recreate what at one time appeared to be indescribable randomness.
You can almost say that math doesn't care if there is a neat real-world application for which it can be useful. Of all the mathematics that has been developed, or discovered, a very small percentage of it has actually been paired with physical reality. Most of it remains abstract and non-correlated with practical applications. The magic and wonder of mathematics really comes after it is initially paired with some mysterious phenomena and starts making predictions about the phenomena that up until then had been unknown.
Still too shallow an explanation
Creating an answer from axioms or rules of the game; Achilles can never overtake the tortoise because of infinite regress or Achilles will always overtake the tortoise given enough time because Achilles will always cover more distance than the tortoise in the same unit of time. We are dealing with information.
If dimensions are virtual like the particles in quantum foam are virtual then, entanglement is information that is in more than one place (hologram).
There are no particles, they may be wave packets but the idea of quantum is, a precise ratio of action in relationship to the environment.
Feynman's path integral is not infinite, it is fractal.
If you look at a star many light years away, the photon that hits your eye leaves the star precisely when the timing for the journey will end at your eye because the virtual dimension of the journey is zero distance or zero time. If the dimension in the direction of travel is zero, you have a different relationship then if it is zero time in terms of the property of the virtual dimensions.
Utterly fascinating
So is milking a cow.
Interested persons may want to look into the Semantic Interpretation of quantum theory, by Ashish Dalela, for a revolutionary way of understanding.
For example, it explains that objects are symbols of meanings, which are defined in relation to each other; and entangled particles have a logical relationship.
QM assumes a smooth continuous space-time coordinate system exists on small length scales. I believe space and time are emergent properties of a more complex underlying framework. Are there any theoretical approaches that have had any success describing Quantum-Mechanical behavior (fuzziness) as a manifestation (or emergent phenomena) of a more fundamental space-time framework?
What really bugs me in the Schrödinger equation are the time derivatives. If time is an emergent property, how is the time-derivative even meaningful at the micro-scale where time itself might depend on quantum processes? It's like asking "What's the temperature of a single atom". We've downwardly extrapolated our concept of time into a realm where our macroscopic concepts may no longer be applicable.
David Adams
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9076/does-quantum-mechanics-assume-space-and-time-are-continuous
22:50 should probably watch video before posting.
I have many of the same questions. Have you read The End Of Time by Julian Bond? Time as described in equation terms may not be reflective of reality.
Naimul Haq The problem with that is that it is horribly ill-defined. What does a quantised space-time even mean? How would you describe such a system? Are coordinates even still possible? Metrics?
very good
19:00 What does that look like, the transition from interference to classical?
23:49 Nothing is transferred, they influence each other at the moment of interaction and after that, they are on their own.
If the spin orientation of an electron can be manipulated by magnetic force does it mean that its posible to send coded masages between two sepetated intangeled electrons by mesuring the spin state at constant time intervals?
Hi Mr. Philip Ball, I was just wondering, why we can't have a central location for box A and B, as suppose... a mirror C on top of both A and B, in which A can see what B produced and B could see what A has produced... so no need of having physical connection between two or sending information in speed of light.... Just like I send this message or an email to you and you just receive it.... why because this message or email is saved in suppose youtube server / gmail server which we both can access... Thanks !
Is the core of entanglement, the ability of gravity to smear a particles timeline? The moment any atoms become gravitationally bound in a molecular cloud, the timeline will be larger within the star than either before it was a star or after, due to its location within the gravity well.
with relativity we realized that Newtonian physics seems more unprecise the faster relative movent goes. And With quantum physics it seem we realize that the smaller we go or the less stuff is interacting with each other or so the less Newtonian physics works.
The 20 questions remind me of Fredkin's paradox.
23:19 the question and the answer to it. Isn't the theory of multiple dimensions an explanation as to why two entangled particles should be considered the same particle? Because we can only perceive their properties in our three dimensional world, while in reality they extend beyond what we can experience
So is Newtonian physics reliant on space/time and when we get down to quantum physics we are beginning to see below space/time? Without space/time all particles are connected everything is happening at once when we try to draw this existance up into our reality/space time we are confused by the possibilities and we also have to impose our rules upon it for it to exist in our state.
The thought that we need to confirm the spin at point A in order to read the meaning of the spin at point B is absurd in my opinion. He gave a perfect analogy when he spoke of the pair of gloves. Once Bob opened his box there was no need to call Alice and ask what glove she had. As for testing reliability, if you take measurements and get the inevitable binary code and that code dose not make sense at all the it is safe to assume it did not work. Think about a telegraph line. It delivers dash and dot signals, no one had to get on a horse and ride 1000 miles to confirm the message. There is also a correction that can be made "in communication." For example if a telegraph operator heard "Bob has the lefd glove." could he not, just as you have just done, make the assumption that the D is a T?
My question is can we measure the particle fast enough to make this work. I guess the simple answer is we just have to time the input to correspond with our ability to read the output. This makes communication very likely! With only an 85% reliability communication could be achieved because there are rules in place for making the assumption, such as known words, language, and so on. As for data transmission, 85% is far to low.
My second question is how do you synchronize to measurements at prissily the same moment 1 trillion light years apart? The simple answer is to transmit a known code continuously and then tune the receiver until you find the correct code. then transmit back that you are receiving.
You will notice I am answering my own questions, these are just my theories of how it might be done. In this way the person answering me can gauge my grasp of the subject before constructing an answer. This last question however I have no practical theory on.
Space Station Alice has just entangled two particles to build a communication bridge with Deep Space 9, which we all know it on the other side of the universe. So particle A stays on Alice, how then do we get particle B to DS9? Put it in a box and UPS "Universal Parcel Service" it to them?
Assuming that there are no more than 100 particles in the entire universe, the odds of having 2 people 1 trillion miles apart locate opposite ends of paired particles is inconsiderable. Sense there are infinite, a term that means we are incapable of conserving a limit, particles then the odds are far worse or exactly the same lol. That was a Quantum Joke or theory, not sure which at this point. lol or both! It just occurred to me that I can add "or both" to any question with two possible answers and it works.
If every quantum particle that interacts becomes entangled and photons are quantum particles and we can observe photons coming from distant stars doesn’t reason follow that literally everything is entangled?
“The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the way.” (Erwin Schrödinger, What is Life?, p. 129, Cambridge University Press)
Not everything. There can be a degree of the entanglement of a system where once observed that entanglement is broken. This is what happens with Quantum Computing .
I like to think that maths was never invented, it was discovered. I believe this explains a whole lot.
Gravity is a pressure gradient between the relationship of space and time.
Matter is a condensation of energy and when the information becomes dense enough you get an event horizon or a phase transition in the relationship of the dimensions involved.
Gravity *is* entanglement. What say you?
Mark Rawling With entanglement, the information is in more than one location, like a hologram. Gravity is the density of the information.
Susskind; holographic event horizon. czcams.com/video/2DIl3Hfh9tY/video.html
Mark Rawling
Foundational Principles:
Nature is lazy, it likes to copy.
Everything is information.
Information is not stuff, it is relationships.
All behaviors are constrained by relationships.
All behaviors are emergent.
Every engine takes advantage of a difference.
Everything is an approximation of something else.
Ratio may be the only thing that is discrete.
The bending of spacetime is a variation of scale.
Behavior is built from a quantum of action in a field.
If dimensions are virtual in the same way that the dimensions of consciousness are virtual then the density of information in a field will affect the scale or bending of spacetime.
Gravity and scale are related.
Gravity and information are related.
Information and scale are related.
If it's relational, there's a geometry involved.
Truth as a scale coordinate; truth lives in the macro world, the micro world is uncertain.
Truth as a time coordinate; truth lives in the past, the future is uncertain.
Information from the micro future is formed into a macro past.
The process of formation involves entanglement.
Coffee and cream;
1) separate,
2) complex,
3) homogeneous.
Information appears to increase and then decrease, perhaps in a bell shaped curve.
Is it possible the Universe 'evolved' the Natural Laws / constants of physics etc. somehow moving towards parameters that were self-sustaining?
The matter antimatter ratio is the universe ringing like a bell. In other words the pendulum is on one side or the other but not both.
22:20 If I understand this properly, the problem is that relativity is continuous but quantum mechanics is discrete?
Correct
Perhaps an experiment could determine whether something normally calculated with calculus behaves like the limit down to the smallest scales, or if it behaves like an approximation. Perhaps physics resolves Zeno’s paradox, in that you cannot actually get halfway closer ad infinitum. Eventually there is only close the distance or not.
Sounds like he's describing the reflection on a bubble
I have lots of questions... I wish I was there to ask them
If you entangle enough particles, can you then not use them in a morse code kind of machine...? (using code based on time delay and so forth)
This is being done: czcams.com/video/4QlcKuxDGrs/video.html
No. Once measured the entanglement is destroyed.
Omg. That guy breathing in the one of the microphones.
Why can't Newtonian mechanics co-exist with Quantum mechanics, since they apply to different physical actions? Newtonian seems to involve the macro where as quantum is at the micro.
So... In a way, we could say, that we are "information" That comes out of the quantum fields...
Many worlds doesn't mean that a decision has to be made when a choice is evident. The decision was made when the universe was created. Universes are deterministic. It just looks to us that they aren't.
You may be able to isolate the cat from the universe, but you can't isolate the cat from the cat.
What if it's arrival was anticipated...?
I think about the game of guessing some person the room decides from random questioner's questions, yes or no.
Then how can I, point to a random person and say to my son "I'll meet her one day" and it to come true, at the odds of 37,000,00:1 more or less, actually a great deal more, that this person chooses to talk with me on social media Chat (ICQ) some years later when in fact she doesn't know me from a bar of soap and I have never tried to get to know her in any tangible way.
Can Quantum physics explain this? I fear not and does this type of entanglement happen with Quantum physics or is this only possible within the powers of the mind that we don't yet fully understand.
Bizarre I know and truthfully this is the case of real happenings I have been the instigator and a part of.
Your talk says that particles at each side of the universe have (as we believe) no way of communicating with each other, yet as I explained above there are ways of communication that defy this sense of probability. this might I add is only one example of many I can show actually are more than probable. They seem to be in my cases inevitable.
To us the universe is unbelievably large, but the universe itself sees itself as being unbelievably small.
How is randomness different from ignorance of how the outcome occurs
BlazeOrangeDeer "you can't know". We do know. There is always a probability of domain of occurrence. If you have a particle in a box, you DO KNOW properties of the particle. How often the particle will be at position 0 to a. That is why quantum computer is possible. The probability provides knowledge. You can create a quantum system such that the probability of occurrence is 0.9999999. By removing noise, vibration, motion, you can get atoms to provide information.
Let's say Alice and Bob go to the edges of the universe, both with a suitcase with billions of entangled particles arranged in the same order. Now, when Alice checks the state of let's say, 3 particles, Bob can see that she checked the state of 3 particles and he takes it as an "A" because that's how they established the alphabet before they went in space.
Is that possible? Can Bob see when and how many she checked, or Bob can only see the opposite of all she checked?
You're making an incorrect assumption. Bob can't see that Alice has checked 3 of her particles. Nothing that Alice does to her particles has any effect on what Bob sees.
That's the difficult thing about entanglement: You can check the spin of a particle but to know if anything has changed you would also need to check the entangled particle and communicate the results.
If to put the cat in a vacuum at near absolute zero... then the cat will be DEAD.
Unless its a quantum cat, then it both is, and isn't AT THE SAME TIME.
P.S.~ Don't open the box, think of the kittens. Keep it near absolute zero and take it to your local cryo-facility for storage until further advancements are made.
bloody_albatross not if it is a cool cat
Our understanding of spacetime is incomplete. Spacetime distance at the everyday scale is and emergent property that does not exist at the quantum scale.
In the many worlds interpretation, an "individual" is a momentary collection of information (a pattern of matter/energy) which has resulted from combined paths of smaller patterns of information, like a family tree, with a vast network of ancestry.
And the interesting thing is that each "universe" could really be said to be just one individual, and their unique path through time and space, up to the present. So you are a universe. And you will split into a possibly infinite number of other universes which will interlace with all of the other universes around them, in a grand fabric of all possible histories.
If you could isolate the cat from the rest of the world by putting it in a vacuum, then it wouldn't be in a superposition, it would definitely be dead.
Good. Try your best
String Theory is not real. QFT is. Start your equations!
Its the many tools god has given us to witness the details of creation.
its not all ironic.
14:35 the answer to the many worlds question is brilliant; Sean Carroll are you there? Sean dismissed any notion of a 'God' and communication with a God in a similar way; ' 'the standard model just doesn't allow for it' or words to that effect, which I can reason and agree. Many worlds, put this way, is a equally 'crazy'. If it is true, where does it all fit? Of course, in many worlds is the answer. If so, then that is at least circular.
Many world interpretation made popular by Sean Carrol is fun to think, but nothing more.
Hey I gotta question below👇👇👇
did he really stated that a cat could be in decoherence? everything i heard about the subject so far suggests otherwise.
Yes if it's isolated. However that is basically impossible thats why we see big objects like cats behave newtownianly
no, even if its isolated that is impossible. because the cat itself is a big enough system to collaps its own wavefunction.
@@VoodooD0g idk
2:33 An English questioner mentions "math" twice. Math? MATH? It's "maths" in Britain. Alan Partridge would be appalled!
There is only one Mathematic. It is composed of several branches. The plural form is a problem you have in English and French. It has nothing to do with the Greek origin. In Italian Matematica is singular, and I guess in many other languages too (German, Spanish, Portuguese…). So, the speaker is saying it in the way I consider more correct, while you French/Norman people made up the plural form for no reason.
@@itellyouforfree7238 For good or ill, the English form of the word is mathematics, and its abbreviated form in Britain has been "maths" for well over a century. For a Brit to use the American contraction "math" strikes me as being just a little bit pretentious - that's just not what we call it here.
Incidentally, the Oxford English Dictionary states that the word "mathematics" was an elliptical contraction of "Mathematical Sciences" dating back to the 16th century as a _collective name_ for geometry, arithmetic, and some physical sciences like astronomy and optics that required geometric reasoning.
20 Questions progression: (all answered yes)
Dead
Greek
Philosopher
3rd Century BC
Walked on the moon
The first question and than the first answer is wrong. Entangelment as in informational trnsfer is real as in telepathy and other similar phenomena. Could be radio propagation in essence but its higly similar in result to not be dismissed.
Other guy looks like Lee Mack
and sounds like Prof Ed Copeland:)
this gentleman makes the most sense to me, out of all the videos ive watched on this, here. I suspect he is right. It is all a question of the level at which we look. Underneath it all, it may well be random, in a way, but as the matter goes a level up, and a level up, it stops being random. The level at which the quarks are may well be a level where there are only potentials, probabilities. Sean Carroll is very effective and extremely entertaining presenter, and thinker, but ultimately, this man here is more right.
I think it shows an incredible self-centeredness and self-overestimation that one takes it for granted that, if there is such a thing as more worlds, this inevitably would mean that all people living here on this Earth would also exist in all the other worlds, with perhaps only an immeasurably small difference.
I can believe in a multi-universe, but then in the sense that several Universes can exist, and that they may keep on amplyfying, but in my opinion these are Universes with their own laws of nature, which can deviate a little or completely from the laws of nature that apply here in our Universe. So why in all those other Universes would there even arise people like us on another planet, let alone that this planet would be a copy of our Earth, and especially that all the same people who were and still are born here would exist there too?!
In my opinion, that is in the same line of the shameful self-glorification as has been shown by mankind many times, as it was assumed that not only all the other planets and moons, but that even the sun revolved around the Earth, and even that the Earth would be the center of the whole Universe.
This is even almost worst, because this time we take for granted that we, humans, are not only the center of this Universe, but of all the others too!
I'm almost sure there are other Universes with living beings, but perhaps totally different from humanity. And also Universes where life does not arise at all.
Please, let us finally stop that eternal navel-gazing and shamefull self-overestimation of our grandiosity.
👇👇
Schrodinger's cat was not a though experiment. He came up with it to show how ridicules the idea of quantum uncertainty is.
WOW THAT LAST Q&A ENTIRELY REDEEMED AN OTHERWISE MOSTLY STRAINED LECTURE (THE ALICE & BOB BITS WERE PARTICULARLY BAD AND UNNECESSARY IN THE EXTREME, ACTUALLY)...WOW WHAT A COMEBACK IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES!!!
Yeah because you know QM better😂🙈
Limited information? Sounds like a simulation running out of memory to me.
Maybe math is a property of shape. After all everything has a shape.
William White If you say so.
He seemed mostly useless at addressing entanglement
I got the vibe that he subscribes to and believes in physicalism and that the world is really out there.
He has no way of explaining how something separated by vast distances can be correlated instantly.
He practically just glossed over it and said, we have no idea but that is just the way it is.
To say it is the way it is without giving any reason on how it could be happening is a cop out.
I don’t know the answer but it is extremely puzzling !
Kevin Fairweather On the contrary, he explains that the correlation exists because when two particles become entangled, they become in essence a single particle. Think of two pieces of differently coloured, pliable plastic that are moulded together and stretched into an incredibly long string with a blob of the original colour at each end. By examining one end, we can deduce that the other end must be a different colour, but we cannot definitly say what that colour is, only that it is differnt to the one we are capable of examining. There is a limit to the amount of information coded into such systems and this limits our ability to probe exactly what is going on. We may make deductions and arrive at an answer with a reasonable degree of certainty, but not with 100% assurance. Entanglement may therefore be viewed as taking two particles and merging them into one enourmously long stringy particle. The entanglement process may in fact shift particles to a dimension where distance doesn't exist, as we understand the concept.
You need to find a model that works best for you to explain entanglement to others before you can understand entanglement models others use to explain it to you. Feynman videos gave me that insight. A volume, of a certain dimension, as a time delay switch, like a prism. Inside the volume, unseen, many things must happen, but they can not all happen. The end result when something moves through the volume is that it did do it all, but we did not notice. A real time delay affect is the red light green light 1/3 second test.
Just a lot of Platonic math nonsense.